Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • If those folks out on the street that Adriana interviewed are representative

    如果阿德瑞娜在街上採訪的那些人具有代表性的話

  • many people blame Obama or even past-president George Bush

    那麼許多人會責怪歐巴馬或甚至前總統喬治·布希

  • for the country's current problems and though we have seen

    要為目前美國的問題負責 而且雖然我們已看到

  • a slew of bad news out for Obama, just to give you a handful:

    歐巴馬有許多負面新聞 以下就舉例給各位看:

  • his approval ratings are 43%. They used to be 69%.

    他目前支持率是43% 過去是69%

  • A NY Senate seat historically held by a Democrat

    而且紐約一席參議員歷史上是由民主黨掌握

  • went to a Republican for the first time since 1923.

    但現在自從1923年之後首次轉移給共和黨

  • Solyndra, the solar panel making plant who got stimulus money

    Solyndra是一家太陽能板工廠 得到紓困金額

  • is facing bankruptcy and is now a scandal for the administration

    但正面臨破產而且現在有管理醜聞

  • and poverty has hit record highs.

    而且我們發現貧窮率達到歷史新高

  • But my next guest argues this is not about Obama.

    但我的下一位來賓主張說問題不在於歐巴馬

  • It's not even about politics.

    甚至與政治無關

  • It is about needing a total overhaul of society.

    而是關於需要社會的完全檢修

  • And Peter Joseph, filmmaker and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement

    而彼德·約瑟夫為製片者和時代精神運動的創建人

  • coming off of his inaugural Zeitgeist Media Festival

    舉行了時代精神運動媒體節的開幕後

  • is here to talk about his solutions.

    現在到這裡來談論他的解決方案

  • Thank you for being here. It's nice to see you.

    謝謝你來 很高興見到你

  • So to start out...- Thank you for having me. - Absolutely!

    主播:那麼就開始... PJ:謝謝你們的邀請 主播:當然!

  • You argue the solutions to social problems are not politics.

    你主張說社會問題的解決方式不是政治

  • What exactly are the solutions called for by the Zeitgeist Movement?

    時代精神運動訴求的解決方案到底是什麼?

  • To understand the solutions you really have to understand

    為了認識到解決方案 你真的必須瞭解到

  • what the problems are.

    問題是什麼

  • In the broad view what we're faced with right now is basically the end

    廣泛而言 我們現在正面臨的

  • of a paradigm with respect to our social system.

    是我們社會體系模式的一種終結

  • It's not ending because of some bad policy

    還沒有終結是因為一些爛政策

  • or some political malfeasance or any kind of economic issue.

    或一些政治瀆職或任何種類的經濟問題

  • It's ending because it can no longer sustain itself

    但它也正在終結 因為它不再能維持自身

  • by the natural evolution of human society and technology

    也因為人類社會的自然演變和科技發展

  • and the inherent mechanisms that define this system

    以及定義此體系的內在機制

  • which are slowly growing out of control like a cancer.

    正緩慢地逐漸像癌症般失去控制

  • We have a debt-based currency system.

    例如我們有一個以債務為基礎的貨幣體系

  • Interest is charged on the money that's loaned

    利息加在貸款金額上

  • that doesn't exist outright in the money supply.

    而利息本身完全未存在於金錢供應中

  • That, at its very core seed

    這一點 真的就是

  • is really why you see these sovereign debt defaults

    為何你會看到這些主權債務違約的核心

  • corporate debt defaults, personal debt defaults across the world.

    另外還有世界各地的企業債務違約 個人債務違約

  • We have $60 trillion of private and public debt in America alone.

    光是在美國我們就有60兆美元的私人和公共債務

  • You can do the math on how much that is per person.

    你可以用數學算一下每個人要負擔多少

  • It's only going to grow as well and this is just the nature of this system.

    債務也只會持續增加 因為這就是這個體系的本質

  • We have an unemployment crisis, which is really driven by technology.

    我們有失業危機 但這點其實是因為科技發展所導致

  • Technological unemployment has been the major attribute

    科技性失業一直都是失業的主要原因

  • that has moved people from sector to sector.

    使人們從一個部門轉移到另一個部門

  • The illusion of most economists is that they say

    大部份經濟學家的幻想是 他們說

  • "Technology is actually creating jobs."

    "科技實際上會創造工作"

  • That's actually a convoluted logic.

    但實際上的邏輯是相反的

  • What happens is (and you can see this if you track

    目前發生的是(而且如果你追蹤

  • the industrial revolution to the modern point you see this very clearly)

    工業革命到現代的軌跡的話 就會非常清楚看到)

  • but what happens is we start off with a certain sector: everyone's employed.

    但發生的是我們從某個部門開始:每個人都被僱用

  • Technology comes in, displaces human labor and slowly other sectors emerge

    接著科技進來了 取代人類勞動 然後慢慢地浮現其它的部門

  • usually on the basis of other technologies. It's a natural consequence

    這些部門又通常基於其它科技而發展 這是自然的後果

  • but it actually isn't a resolution and actually isn't creating anything.

    但實際上這不是解決方案 而且實際上並沒有創造出任何工作

  • What we're going to end up with is the necessity to have everyone either a lawyer

    我們將會看到的結果是 每個人要不都會變成律師

  • or working in the entertainment industry because there's no way

    要不就是演藝人員(等無生產力的行業) 因為沒有其它方式

  • you're going to have a manufacturing sector with people actually employed.

    去創造"製造業" 而且還能讓人們實際上受雇

  • There's no way you're going to have a service sector with people actually employed

    你不會有其它方式去讓服務業裡的人們充份就業

  • because the cost efficiency that's enabled by technology

    因為科技所帶來的成本效益

  • overrides the need for human labor.

    超越了對於人類勞動的需求

  • What happened to Bank of America recently? They just laid off 40,000 people.

    最近美國銀行發生了什麼事? 他們剛剛解雇了四萬名員工

  • Do they understand what they're doing? They're actually laying off...

    他們瞭解他們在做什麼嗎? 他們實際上正在解雇...

  • I just want to get in here to continue the conversation

    我想在這裡插一下話以繼續進行對話

  • because how do you separate out... I hear what you're saying about technology

    因為你如何分離... 我聽到你在談論科技

  • and about the entertainment industry. I've lived in LA

    和娛樂產業 我已住在洛杉磯

  • but I do want to know how you can separate out

    但我想知道你如何能分開

  • all of the jobs that we've seen go overseas to countries like China

    我們所看到已轉移到海外中國的所有工作

  • and all of the people we've seen move into

    以及我們所看到的國內這些人

  • a financial system that people say is overbanked in this country.

    他們移動至銀行過度氾濫的金融體系?

  • There have been a transition in industry and jobs.

    在產業和工作之間已經有轉變

  • There absolutely have been, but the question is

    絕對有 但問題是

  • when you have 96% of the human population mostly in the West

    你在西方主要有96%的人

  • which has the majority of the labor working in the service sector

    在服務業中 而且是主要的勞動力

  • which is now being replaced by automated kiosks

    但現在正被自動服務機器

  • and many other advanced technological mediums, where is the next sector?

    以及許多其它先進的科技媒介所取代 那下一個部門是哪裡?

  • I want to point out that I look at this on a global scale.

    我想要指出 我是以全球的規模來看待

  • I'm not interested in American unemployment or in any country's specifics

    我對美國或任何特定國家的失業不感興趣

  • because it's one society. It's one world, one economy.

    因為這是一整個社會 這是一整個世界和經濟

  • The question to be asked is:

    該要問的問題是:

  • Why will the majority of people eventually be unemployed on the planet?

    為什麼地球上大部份的人最終會失業?

  • That's because of technology. You can forget about outsourcing and all of that.

    就是因為科技 你可以忘掉外包這些所有東西

  • The only thing to learn from that is that industry and its prime motivation

    唯一從這點可以學到的事情是 產業和它對於

  • to corporation shareholders, is to make sure they maintain a profit.

    企業股東的主要動機 就是要確保維持利潤

  • Displacing human labor because of the cost-efficiency

    為了成本效益而取代人類勞動

  • enabled by technological automation

    科技自動化能做到這點

  • is the contradiction and collapse of capitalism

    這也是過去的一百多年以來

  • that many economic theorists have talked about for the past 100 years

    許多經濟理論家談論的資本主義的矛盾與崩潰

  • including John Maynard Keynes. - Right

    包括約翰·梅納德·凱因斯 -對

  • This is an inevitable evolution and it's not going to stop.

    這是無可避免的演變 而且不會停下來

  • You're saying the problem is capitalism.

    你在說問題是資本主義

  • What are you saying is the solution?

    那你說解決方案是什麼呢?

  • The solution is a completely different reordering

    解決方案是一個完全不同的重新建構

  • of how we actually engage materials, how we create production

    關於我們實際上如何運用物資的秩序 我們如何創造生產

  • and how people actually contribute to society. If you recognize this reality

    以及人們如何實際貢獻社會 如果你認知到以下現實

  • that the market system as we know it which is the bedrock

    即我們所知的市場體系

  • of the capitalist free enterprise system, whatever you want to call it...

    是資本主義或自由企業體系的根基 不論你想稱呼它是什麼...

  • If we recognize this phenomenon as phasing out and mark my words

    如果我們認知到這種淘汰人力的現象 並注意我的話

  • the jobs are not coming back across the board. They can't!

    工作是不會回來了 因為無法回來!

  • The system will not enable it by its inherent logic.

    這個體系由於內在的邏輯將不會允許這點

  • When you realize this, you start to open up your mind.

    當你理解這點 你就會開始打開你的心

  • You think to yourself "If technology can provide

    你就會自己想 "如果科技能提供

  • all of these tools to enhance production..."

    所有這些能增強生產的工具..."

  • By the way, technological unemployment

    順帶一提 科技性失業

  • is inverse to productivity across the world

    在全世界範圍內與生產力成反比

  • which means the less people we have working in industry

    也就是越少人在產業中工作

  • the more we apply technology, the more production capabilities

    我們就越會利用科技 更增加生產能力

  • we actually have which is amazing.

    我們實際上擁有的能力是驚人的

  • What this means is that we can use technology. We can free ourselves

    這意味著我們可以利用科技 我們可以解放自己

  • create an entirely different social system

    創造一個完全不同的社會體系

  • based on maximizing our efficiency hence our sustainability

    基於最佳化我們的效率和我們的永續性

  • through advanced methods of production and eventually providing

    透過先進的生產方法 並最終

  • for literally the entire human species if we put our mind to it

    真正提供富足給整個人類 如果我們下定決心去做

  • and overcome all the traditionalized barriers that are stopping us

    並克服阻礙我們的傳統障礙

  • because of this traditionalized notion we think is empirical in society.

    因為這種傳統觀念 讓我們認為社會經驗就是如此

  • - You're calling for something really untraditional, but what is it?

    你正在訴求的東西是非傳統的 它是什麼呢?

  • It kind of sounds like getting rid of capitalism and putting in what?

    聽起來有點像除掉資本主義然後放入新的什麼?

  • You can give it names. It's about appreciating a train of thought

    你可以給它一個名稱 但它實際上是關於體會到一連串的思考

  • about what we're doing and how it can actually benefit human society

    關於我們正在做什麼 以及如何能真正利益人類社會

  • and create the best public health and safety

    並創造最佳的公共醫療和安全

  • providing for as many people on the planet as possible.

    盡可能提供給地球上的所有人

  • If you want to give it a name, you can call it a Resource-Based Economy

    如果你想給它一個名稱 可以叫作資源導向型經濟

  • or a resource-based economic model because really

    或資源導向型經濟模型 因為說實在話

  • what is the foundation of human society? It's resources.

    人類社會的基礎到底是什麼? 是資源

  • It's resources, not only of the physical gold

    資源不只是實體的黃金

  • food and all of those attributes, it's also the mental resource.

    食物和所有這些屬性 也包括心理上的資源

  • We have people wasting their lives as secretaries

    有人浪費生命在當秘書

  • and in industries that don't produce anything

    以及在未生產任何事物的產業中工作

  • such as Wall Street and advertising.

    像華爾街和廣告

  • Can you tell me what they're producing that actually helps anybody directly?

    你可以告訴我 他們有生產什麼直接幫到任何人的東西嗎?

  • There really isn't anything. These are filler concepts

    真的沒有任何東西 這些都是灌輸的概念

  • that actually don't contribute. If you take the approach

    確實沒有貢獻 如果你採用的方法

  • that we live off of resources and you organize those resources

    認知到我們靠資源過活並且組織這些資源

  • you make the most efficient production system you can

    利用最有效率的生產體系

  • based on what technical knowledge allows us to do: scientific understanding.

    根據科學科技的理解知識允許我們能做到的程度

  • You reorient society to let people actually engage in occupations

    那麼你就能重新定位社會 讓人們能真正地從事於

  • that actually do something, instead of spending all of our high...

    有貢獻的職業 而不是花費大量的...

  • taking all of our scientists and putting them on military operations right now.

    像是現在召集所有的科學家們進行軍事活動

  • They could be using that same engineering resource and mental capacity

    科學家們能利用這些同樣的工程資源和腦力

  • to benefit all the world's people and create a material abundance.

    來造福世界上的所有人們 並創造物質上的富足

  • No one could ever be starving on this planet.

    地球上可以沒有人受餓

  • This is statistically proven, even with the current inefficiencies we have now.

    在統計上已證明 即使我們現在有不足之處仍能達成

  • To summarize, we have resource-based economic model.

    簡言之 我們提倡資源導向型經濟模型

  • It's a ground-up approach to resource management

    這是一種從基礎開始管理資源的方式

  • and we make everything as efficient

    我們會讓所有東西盡量有效率

  • and productive as possible, technically. No monetary evaluation

    和在技術上有生產力 沒有金融貨幣的評斷

  • no monetary association because all that does is interfere

    與金融貨幣無關 因為這些只會干擾我們

  • and cause more problems and limit our possibility.

    並造成更多的問題 限制我們的可能性

  • - I want to keep this conversation going because I do want to hit on

    我想要繼續對話 因為我在這裡想要

  • a number of things here: What about government?

    切入一些重點:政府怎麼辦?

  • What does that look like?

    看起來會怎樣?

  • What about individual freedom?

    個人的自由如何?

  • - Ask yourself a question: What is individual freedom?

    問你自己一個問題:個人自由是什麼?

  • Is it walking into a job that you probably had no control over

    是進入一個你可能無法掌控的工作嗎?

  • in the sense of your necessity for income

    而這份薪水對你的生活也是必要的

  • more or less a private dictatorship that people go into from 9 to 5?

    但其實或多或少都是朝九晚五的私人獨裁

  • Is that freedom? Is freedom what you get money for to go and buy?

    這是自由嗎? 自由是你拿金錢去買東西嗎?

  • Is it your freedom to go into a store and pick between 28 different

    你的自由是走進一家商店

  • varieties of cereal that you can choose from. What is freedom?

    並且在28種不同麥片中挑選嗎? 自由是什麼?

  • Maybe not. - The system that we talk about...- Go ahead.

    或許不是這樣 -我們談論的體系... -請繼續

  • The system that we speak of actually will enable

    我們談論的(資源導向型經濟)體系實際上將能夠

  • a level of freedom for human society never before seen.

    提升人類社會的自由至史無前例的高度

  • To answer your question: what is government?

    回答你的問題:政府是什麼?

  • Government is really a failure of the economic system.

    政府實際上是經濟體系的失敗

  • What does a government do? They create laws

    政府做什麼? 制訂法律

  • to regulate economic functions, not to mention all the aberrations

    管制經濟功能 更別提我們所擁有的

  • that come from the lack of economic efficiency that we have

    異常偏差行為 來自於缺乏經濟效率

  • meaning violence, property crimes which is the majority of it.

    即暴力 貧窮 犯罪等主要問題

  • They also engage in military operations against other sovereign nations

    政府也從事軍事活動 對抗其它主權國家

  • so they can better themselves and protect themselves over time.

    這樣他們才能隨著時間推移而鞏固並保護自身

  • These are basically the only two things that government actually does

    這些基本上是政府實際上只會做的兩件事

  • if you really sit down and look at it. Politicians have no technical orientation.

    如果你真的坐下並檢視它的話 會發現政客對技術並不熟悉

  • They mirror value systems. They manipulate people's values

    他們反映價值體系 他們操縱人們的價值觀

  • so people will identify with them and say "Oh, I like them!" It doesn't matter

    所以人們將會認同他們並且說:"喔 我喜歡他們!"

  • if they have a plan. None of these politicians running for the US presidency

    他們是否有計劃並不重要 這些競選美國總統的政客們

  • have any plan whatsoever as far as what the unemployment issue

    沒有一位對於失業或債務問題真正需要什麼

  • and the debt issue really require

    有任何計劃之類的

  • what the energy issue really requires, which are firmly technical.

    或能源問題真正需要什麼 這些都是技術性的

  • Government in the future will literally be

    在未來的政府將如同字面上一樣

  • the management of the planet, producing exactly what we can produce

    管理地球 生產我們真正所需的物資

  • with the highest efficiency to benefit the world's people.

    利用最高的效率來造福全世界的人們

  • This is what a true economic model would be. What is economics?

    這才是真正的經濟模型要有的樣子 什麼是經濟?

  • It's defined in Greek as the management of a household.

    希臘字源中它被定義為家庭的經營管理

  • The planet is our household. A true economic model is proper

    地球是我們的家庭 一個真正的經濟模型

  • efficient management of this household

    要適當且有效率地來管理這個家庭

  • not the use of money as a commodity

    而不是把金錢當成商品來使用

  • and all the distortion that has emerged from that process.

    以及所有從這個過程中浮現出來的扭曲

  • - But Peter, it sounds a little bit like this is a utopic vision of society.

    但彼德 這聽起來有點像烏托邦願景的社會

  • What is one example you have seen

    你看過的一個例子是什麼

  • that you believe that this will work because you've seen it happen?

    會讓你相信這能成真 因為你看過它發生過?

  • - First of all, utopia assumes a finality. There's no such thing as a finality.

    首先 烏托邦有一種"終結"的假設涵意 但世事無常沒有"終結"

  • We're just trying to update society to present-day knowledge.

    我們只是試圖將社會更新至目前知識的水平

  • Remember our notions of economics and politics are based on traditional ideas

    記住 我們對於經濟和政治的概念是根據傳統的想法

  • that go back hundreds if not thousands of years.

    如果不是數千年前 至少也可以回溯至數百年前

  • These are completely outdated social structures that do not

    這些是完全過時的社會結構

  • resemble any of our scientific ingenuity at this point in time

    並未呼應當時歷史上的科學巧思

  • and our ability to actually to care for the human population

    以及我們實際上能關照人類人口的能力

  • which is what a society is supposed to do, right?

    這才是一個社會該做的事 對吧?

  • The best example you can have are first nations' people

    最好的例證是第一世界的人民

  • that actually understood what it meant to live off the land.

    實際上瞭解靠土地過活是什麼意思

  • They understood the carrying capacity of their region

    他們瞭解該區域的承載能力

  • and that you don't pollute the stream that they drink from

    而且你不會污染溪河中的飲用水

  • which is something industry does every single day right now

    但現在產業每天都在污染溪河

  • for its necessity to maintain cost-efficiency. The very simplistic notion...

    因為需要維持成本效益 最根本的概念...

  • - Let me ask you this then. I don't want to go back and work the land.

    那麼讓我問你這點 我不想退回到農耕時代

  • I love what I do. I'm a journalist. I enjoy it a lot.

    我喜愛我所做的事 我是個記者 我很享受這份工作

  • I'm not just going to give that up.

    我就是不打算放棄

  • How do you actually make what you're talking about, happen?

    你如何讓你所談論的實際上成真?

  • The bio-social pressures that will emerge and inhibit your life

    隨著時間推移 這個體系會完全惡化

  • and that of your family and everyone else on this planet

    並且出現生理-社會壓力 妨礙你和家人

  • through time as this system completely deteriorates will make you question

    與地球上其它每個人的生活 而這一點會讓你質疑

  • what you value with respect to what you like to do.

    你重視的和喜歡做的到底是什麼

  • It's not an issue of what any of us like. It's an issue of what is right

    這不是我們喜歡什麼的問題 而是什麼是正確的問題

  • and what's sustainable for the human species

    人類種族需要什麼而永續生存

  • what will actually work for us a society

    什麼東西會有用 讓我們的社會

  • without causing conflict and all the deprivation and problems

    不再引起衝突 所有剝削和問題

  • that continue to deteriorate our standard of living

    這些問題都持續地惡化我們的生活水準

  • and create much less safety through society.

    並經由社會造成越來越低落的安全感

  • If you ask the question "I like to do this"

    如果你問這個問題:"我喜歡做這個"

  • you'd have to ask yourself why.

    那你必須問自己為什麼

  • Is there anything in your history maybe that you liked to do other than that?

    在你的人生中 有沒有任何東西 或許是你更喜歡做的?

  • Is there anything in your childhood that you aspired to

    在你的童年中 有沒有任何東西是你渴望去做的?

  • that maybe you couldn't do because you had to find a wedge

    但或許你做不到 因為你必須找到一個切入點

  • into this system to make sure you got paid for your occupation

    進入這個體系中 並確保你的職業帶來收入

  • which is what all of us have to do. It's kind of an open question.

    這是我們所有人必須要做的 有點像開放式的問題

  • I think when people begin to evaluate

    我認為當人們開始去評估

  • what's happening now they will change their values.

    現在所發生的事物時 他們將會改變價值觀

  • They'll begin to see "Maybe I should contribute to society?"

    他們會開始看到"也許我應該貢獻社會?"這一點

  • You're speaking to a person who worked on Wall Street and in advertising

    你是對著在華爾街及廣告業工作的人講這點

  • two of the most meaningless occupations on the planet.

    這是地球上最沒有意義的兩個職業

  • I know very much about values because I used to identify

    我對於這種價值觀非常清楚 因為我過去曾經

  • with those types of things. I asked myself "What am I doing?"

    認同過這些職業 但我問我自己:"我在做什麼?"

  • What am I actually doing to contribute to society?

    我到底對社會作出了什麼貢獻?

  • This waste of my brain... If everyone actually was on the plane

    浪費我的腦力... 如果每個擁有相同知識水準的人

  • where they could contribute to society, to invent

    都可以貢獻社會去發明

  • to engage in a democratic process, to create the world around us technically

    並參與民主過程 用科技來創造我們四周的世界

  • that would be a beautiful state. We would have many Einsteins

    那將會是種美好的狀態 我們會有許多愛因斯坦

  • many Da Vincis, many powerful minds emerge

    許多達文西 許多有力的思想出現

  • that are not oppressed by this necessity

    而不是因為

  • to come into a monetary system that restricts their possibility.

    需要進入金融貨幣體系而被壓抑 它限制了人們的可能性

  • What incentivizes them if they don't have the ability to gain anything

    如果他們不需要費力就能獲得任何東西

  • other than the good of the people?

    那除了人們的善意外 如何激勵他們呢?

  • They're gaining much more than they'd ever gain in this system.

    他們會比在目前體系中得到更多的東西

  • They're gaining a peace of mind, an understanding.

    他們會得到平和的心靈與理解

  • They're gaining the resources they need and a community.

    他們會得到個人或社群所需的資源

  • They're gaining not a competitive, oscillating

    他們不會擁有一種競爭的 多變的

  • defensive posture where you're always out for yourself

    防禦性的姿態 其中你總是在今日落後的

  • in this primitive capitalist system that we have today

    資本主義體系內為自己著想

  • which is actually a pseudo social system

    這實際上是一個虛假的社會體系

  • because it's assumed by 'the invisible hand' that everyone fighting

    因為其假設是"看不見的手" 導致每個人

  • among themselves will somehow manifest for the greater good

    彼此鬥爭 這樣竟然不知如何就會表現出更大的共善

  • which is provably not the case.

    但實際上證明根本不是這樣

  • What we have here is a different value orientation

    我們這裡擁有的是一種不同的價值觀定位

  • where when you contribute to society, it comes back to you.

    當你貢獻於社會時 你自身也會得到好處

  • If I have an amazing invention, I invent it not because I want monetary gain;

    如果我有一個神奇的發明 我不會因為要賺錢而發明它

  • I know when I invent it, it comes back to me just as it goes to everyone else

    我知道當我發明它時 它帶來的好處也會回到我

  • and when everyone else invents something or comes up with a new idea

    以及其它每個人身上 當每個其它人都發明出某種東西或想出新主意時

  • it comes to them and everyone else .

    這些東西都會回到他們自身和其它所有人

  • The social interest must become, excuse me...

    社會利益一定要變成... 抱歉

  • Self-interest must become social interest

    自我利益一定要變成社會利益

  • if we expect to survive as a species. Otherwise you're going to see...

    如果我們期望身為一個物種能存活下去的話 否則你將會看到...

  • - Peter, it doesn't seem like we would be able to convince

    彼德 看起來我們無法去說服

  • a large number of people to do this without conflict

    更大多數的人這樣做而不引發衝突

  • and some would argue that the Bolshevik revolution

    而且一些人會爭論說布爾什維克的革命

  • showed rulers of the world at that time

    對當時的世界統治者展示了

  • what happens if you don't listen to the have-nots

    如果不聆聽窮人心聲的話會發生什麼事

  • which are who suffer in the capitalist system that you're critical of.

    這些窮人在你所批評的資本主義體系中受苦

  • Are we at that moment again, yet?

    我們到了那種時刻嗎?

  • I wouldn't conflate such issues.

    我不會把這種議題混為一談

  • First, you have to step back and look at the technical orientation.

    首先 你必須退一步看看技術的定位

  • You can't say "This will never happen because of where we are today."

    你不能說"因為我們今日在這種狀況中 所以將永遠不會實現"

  • That's the wrong train of thought. If everyone thought like that

    這是錯誤的想法 如果每個人都這樣想

  • we wouldn't be anywhere.

    我們就不會有任何進展

  • If you realize the technical orientation of what's possible

    如果你瞭解到科技的定位可能可以

  • to meet the needs of the human population, to eliminate war.

    滿足人類人口的需求 消除戰爭

  • If we simply worked together to share resources, to create almost

    如果我們能努力合作分享資源 並創造幾乎是

  • an infinite amount of energy, if we applied our technology correctly

    無限的能源 如果我們正確地利用科技

  • if we applied these things from the ground up, realizing the train of thought

    如果我們重新開始應用這些東西 瞭解這種思考方向

  • there's no argument to what we can do from here.

    那麼我們從此時此地可以做什麼 就不會有爭論了

  • It's simply a matter of getting it done. In my experience

    只是去完成的問題而已 我的經驗中

  • as I engage this movement and I begin to talk to people about this issue

    當參與這個運動且開始對人們談論這種議題時

  • I'm amazed at how fast they realize it. There might be some baggage there

    我對人們多快就能理解感到驚奇 可能會有一些包袱

  • but you're eventually going to hit an exponential increase of people

    但你最後會與成等比級數增加的人們 產生共鳴

  • who want a massive social change. Why?

    這些人都想要巨大的社會變革 為什麼?

  • Because they have to have it. Their survival depends on it.

    因為他們必須這樣做 他們的生存要靠這種理性邏輯

  • - But what is it going to be in the form of, some kind of revolution?

    但變革的形式會是怎樣? 像是某種革命嗎?

  • - It depends on how you define revolution.

    這取決於你如何定義革命

  • The real revolution is revolution of values

    真正的革命是價值觀的革命

  • not a violent revolution, not a revolution of overcoming the state.

    而不是暴力革命 不是顛覆國家的革命

  • The Zeitgeist Movement's work is here to bring in people

    時代精神運動的任務 是在全球性的社群中

  • with a common value set in a global community

    吸引有共同一套價值觀的人們

  • (which is why we're a global entity obviously)

    (這也是為何我們很明顯是一種全球性的實體)

  • and from that pressure, from this mere understanding

    而且從這些社會壓力中 只從這些理解上

  • change will be affected. Now I could go on other tangents

    將會影響變革的結果 現在我可以離題講其它的事

  • about how civil disobedience and different programs

    關於不合作主義和不同的規畫

  • could emerge within the movement, but that's irrelevant at this point.

    如何能從這個運動內浮現出來 但以此刻而言是不相關的

  • If people understand, as the human species as a whole

    如果人們理解到人類種族的整體

  • what's possible, what the real problem is and what the solution actually is

    可能性是什麼 真正的問題又是什麼 以及真正的解決方案是什麼

  • then it becomes a self-correcting system. The problem is educational.

    那麼就會變成自我修正的體系 而問題在於教育

  • I think even politicians, even the highest level

    我認為即使是政客們 即使是政府裡頭

  • people in government, will wake up to this

    最位高權重的人 也將會覺醒達到這個結論

  • and eventually the transition will emerge on its own accord.

    最終過渡的轉變 會以自身的步調浮現出來

  • - That's pretty optimistic considering how much

    考慮到政治菁英從權力中獲益

  • the political elite benefit from their power

    這種想法真是相當樂觀的

  • but I appreciate you being here to sort this all out with me

    但我感謝你在這裡和我討論這些事情

  • and tell us your theories and answer some of the questions

    並告訴我們你的理論並回答一些

  • that come out of them. That was Peter Joseph

    從中出現的問題 這位是彼德·約瑟夫

  • filmmaker and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement

    製片人和時代精神運動的創建者

  • fresh off the Zeitgeist Festival.

    剛結束時代精神運動媒體節

If those folks out on the street that Adriana interviewed are representative

如果阿德瑞娜在街上採訪的那些人具有代表性的話

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋