Hello everyone. Hi, welcome. How are you doing today? Good?

哈囉 大家 歡迎 今天過得好嗎?

Yeah? It's a wonderful day, isn't it?

嗯? 今天很棒 不是嗎?

Well, let me fix that for you. I'll talk about jobs.

那我換一下好了 我將要談論工作

Can I have please a quick show of hands? Raise your hand

請問我能夠快速看看各位的舉手嗎? 請舉起你的手

if you either work or know somebody close to you

如果你在以下這些領域工作

who works in any of these areas:

或知道熟人也在這些領域工作的話:

How about driving: That's trucks, delivery, buses, taxis, anything.

關於開車的行業如何? 包括卡車 貨運 公車 計程車等等

Raise your hand. How about janitors?

請舉起你的手 那保全警衛又是如何?

Housecleaning, cashiers or...

清潔人員 收銀員或者是...

No one? No one knows anyone who works... Ok, good.

沒有人嗎? 沒有人知道任何人的工作是在... 很好

Secretaries, real estate, accounting, retail, manufacturing, journalism...

秘書 不動產 會計 零售 製造業 新聞業...

Ok, let's say it's about 70% of you. Good.

好的 我想大概是70%左右 很好

Robots will steal your job.

機器人將會偷走你的工作

Laughter, ridicule, contempt:

嘲笑 揶揄 輕蔑:

This is how I was greeted by the establishment of economists

這就是我如何被"主流"經濟學家招呼的方式

about four years ago, when I first started thinking about these issues.

當我四年前開始思考這些問題的時候

At that time, I helped start an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement,

在那時 我幫忙創建一個叫作"時代精神運動"的組織

and we were thinking of ways on how to build a better society.

而我們當時正思考著如何建立一個更好的社會

At that time, nobody took us seriously, but things have changed now.

那時候無人認真看待我們 但現在勢態已變

What changed? Well, very few people are laughing.

改變了什麼呢? 呃 幾乎沒有人覺得好笑了

[In] 2009, Martin Ford comes up with [book] 'The Lights in the Tunnel',

在2009年 Martin Ford寫了一本書叫作"隧道裡的光"

where he paints a picture of an increasingly automated economy:

其中他描繪了一個日益自動化的經濟體系:

Lots of jobs are being replaced by machines,

許多工作正被機械所取代

and very few new jobs are being created.

而且幾乎沒創造出什麼新工作

[In] 2011, two MIT economists have pretty much the same thesis.

在2011年 兩位麻省理工學院的經濟學家也有相當類似的論點

So, let's look at the evidence for this. Shall we?

那麼讓我們看看證據吧 好嗎?

Kodak, the once undisputed giant of the photography industry,

不用說 "柯達"曾經是攝影器材產業中的巨人

had a 90% market share in the US in 1976.

在1976年的美國有高達90%的市占率

By the year 1984, they were employing 145,000 people, and in 2012,

到了1984年 他們雇用了14.5萬名員工 而在2012年

they had a networth of negative $1 billion when they went bankrupt.

當他們破產時 擁用十億美元的"負"資產淨值

Why? Because they failed to predict

為什麼? 因為他們未能預測到

the importance of exponential trends when it comes to technology.

科技的指數型發展趨勢所帶來的威力

On the other hand, Instagram, a digital photography company,

另一方面 Instagram是一間數位攝影公司

[in] the same year (2012), had 13 employees;

在2012同年只有13名員工

and they were sold to Facebook for $1 billion.

但他們以10億美元的價值被賣給"臉書"

This is kind of ironic because Kodak pioneered digital photography.

這對"柯達"而言是諷刺的 因為它是數位攝影的開拓先鋒

They actually invented the first digital camera

它們實際上發明了第一台數位相機

when they came out in 1975 with a 0.01 Mpix digital camera,

當它們在1975年製造出一台0.01百萬像素的數位相機時

but they thought it was a toy and they didn't pay attention,

但他們認為這只是台玩具所以就不重視

so that's what happens with exponentials. We don't pay attention.

因此這就是指數型科技進步的威力 人們並未注意到

Let's play a little game with you. Let's be a more interactive school: 30 Steps.

讓我們玩點小遊戲吧 更有點互動性的學習:30步

Imagine I take 30 steps lineary: That's one, two, three...

想像我直線前進了30步 也就是一步、兩步、三步...

where do I get if I get to 30?

前進了30步後我會到達哪裡?

About the end of the stage right there.

大概是在那邊的舞台尾端吧

How about if I take 30 steps exponentially? 2,4,8,16...

但如果我用指數的方式前進30步呢? 即2、4、8、16步...

Where do I get?

我會到哪裡?

Where? Outside?

哪裡? 外面嗎?

Actually, I get to the Moon.

實際上我會到達月球

By the way, this is not the scale. The Moon is much further away

順便一提 這不是真正的比例規模 月球當然遠在天邊

and back, and I still have enough steps to circle the Earth

但我仍然會有足夠的步數環繞地球

8 times over.

超過8圈

That's what exponential means. How do I know this?

這就是"指數型"的意思 我如何知道這點呢?

I just asked Wolphram Alpha.

因為我剛剛問了Wolphram Alpha(新的智慧搜尋引擎)

Foxconn [is] the world's largest manufacturer of electronic components.

富士康是世上最大的電子零件製造商

They make pretty much anything, so if you've got something on your lap

它們製造相當多的東西 所以如果有東西在你的膝部上

or in your pocket that makes noises and is blinky and bright,

或你的口袋中 並且發出噪音還閃閃發亮

and it's probably tweeting right now, they made it.

而且可能現在正發出吱吱聲 那就是它們製造的

Not just Apple, they make anything.

不只製造蘋果的產品 而是製造任何東西

It's a multinational corporation worth $100 billion,

不只製造蘋果的產品 而是製造任何東西

which employs 1.2 million people.

雇用了120萬名員工

What are they doing? They're automating, of course.

但它們正在做什麼? 當然是自動化了

In fact, they are about to deploy an army of 1 million robots

事實上 它們即將部署100萬名機器人大軍

to 'cut rising labour expenses and improve efficiency'.

以"減少上升的勞動成本並改善效率"

Canon is doing the same, going fully automated very soon.

"佳能"公司也正在做同樣的事 很快就會完全自動化生產

Lots of other companies are following. Now, what if Walmart follows?

許多其它公司都在跟進中 如果現在"沃爾瑪"跟進的話會怎樣?

[It's the] biggest multinational corporation in the world, employs 2.1 million people.

它是世上最大的跨國公司 雇用了210萬名員工

What if they automate?

如果它們自動化了怎麼辦?

Well, they can't, right? They don't have the technology to do that.

呃 它們不能 對吧? 它們沒有那種科技

They most certainly do. Amazon knows this very well.

但它們當然會有! 亞馬遜書店非常清楚知道這點

This is a graph made by fellow-author Andrew McAfee from MIT.

這是MIT的作家Andrew McAfee製作的圖表

We pretty much agree on the analysis.

我相當同意其分析

As you can see, profits and investments are all going up and up and up

如同你可以看到的 利潤和投資全都不斷在上升

for corporate investments and multinational corporations;

對於公司投資和跨國企業而言皆然

but the red line, which is the employment to population ratio

但是警戒線在於 就業人口佔總人口的比例

is going down and down and down;

正在逐漸下降

and we both agree that when it comes to automation,

而我們都同意 當談到自動化時

we ain't seen nothing yet.

我們還未看到最終的結果

This is the Google autonomous car.

這是Google的自動駕駛車

You know, the futuristic car that drives itself without a human driver.

你懂的 未來的車輛能自己駕駛而不需要人類

By the way, it's as cool as it sounds.

順帶一提 它就跟聽起來一樣酷

I was inside, this is me at NASA a few months ago,

我當時人在車內 我幾個月前在NASA的時候

and it's a pretty neat piece of technology. They have all sorts of sensors,

它是相當不錯的科技結晶 擁有所有的感應器

lasers, GPS, and machine learning algorithms,

雷射 全球衛星定位系統和機械學習演算法

drives itself. It's safer, better than any human driver, doesn't get tired,

自動駕駛 這比任何人類駕駛員更安全且更好 機器不會累

follows every street rule, never crashes, never breaks any rule whatsoever.

遵守每個交通規則 不會衝撞 不會任何違規等等

Basically it just works, and it's better than humans.

基本上就是行得通 而且比人類更好

Problem is, 3.6 million people in the US alone

但問題在於 光是美國就有360萬人

work driving, meaning they drive for a living.

以開車為工作 即以駕駛維生

That's 2.6% of the population.

這是總人口的2.6%

[In] Austria and Europe, they have very similar numbers.

在奧地利和歐洲 也有類似的統計數字

I think these people might be affected by this kind of technology, don't you?

我認為這些人們可能會受到這種科技的影響 不是嗎?

Accounting, retail, manufacturing, translations;

會計 零售 製造業 翻譯

no one is safe.

沒有人是"安全的"

Journalism, as the Wall Street Journal puts it

關於新聞業 如同華爾街日報所言

"Software is eating the world."

"軟體正在吞食世界"

What do we do?

那我們怎麼辦?

Should we despair?

應該感到絕望嗎?

How about putting taxes on technology?

對於"科技"抽稅這招如何?

Impose more regulation?

實施更多的管制?

Maybe do some education reforms?

或者改革一下教育?

Basically, find any clever ways to get everyone a damn job!

基本上就是要找到任何巧妙的方式 讓所有人都得到一份他媽的工作就對了!

That's what these guys are proposing.

這就是大部份人的建議

That's what their presidential campaign is all about,

這就是總統選舉在該該叫的東西

and it sounds reasonable enough.

而且聽起來夠合理

After all, famously said by Voltaire is the sentence:

畢竟 伏爾泰曾說過以下名句:

"Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need."

"工作使我們免於三種重大罪行:無聊 罪惡與欲求"

He said that in 1759.

這是他在1759年說的

Is that really the case, today, in this society?

但在今日的社會中 真的是這樣嗎?

I think we might be missing a big opportunity.

我認為我們可能錯過了大好機會

It was Confucius who said:

子曰:

"Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life."

"知之者不如好知者 好知者不如樂之者"

Brilliant, I agree.

讚 我同意

Problem:

問題:

Getting a job you love, one that is fulfilling,

得到一個你喜愛的工作 且能夠帶來滿足感

and that allows you to follow your moral code today,

也能讓你按照今日的道德標準來行事

I don't know about you, but it's pretty damn hard.

我是不知道你啦 但這件事是他媽的相當困難

In fact, according to Deloitte Shifting that says

事實上 根據Delloite Shift Index的數據顯示

"As much as 80% of the people hate their job."

"多達80%的人厭惡他們的工作"

80%, that's 4 out of 5, spending most of their useful lifetime

80% 也就是五分之四的人 花費大部份的生命精華

doing something they don't particularly enjoy.

從事他們不會特別享受的事物

Now in 2012, with this kind of technology at our fingertips,

在2012年的現在 在我們的手指頭邊就有了這種科技

guys, doesn't that make you little

各位阿 這不會讓你覺得

mad?

有點不爽嗎?

A little bit?

只有一點不爽?

We are in kind of a work paradox.

我們處於一種"工作矛盾"中

Because we work long and hard hours on jobs we hate

因為我們長時間辛苦工作在我們賭爛的職業上

to buy things we don't need

去買我們不需要的東西

to impress people we don't like.

讓我們不喜歡的人印象深刻

Genius! [weak applause]

我們真是天才!

We have to adjust what the economy allows us to perform,

我們必須調整經濟能允許我們去表現的程度

and the sad reality is that most jobs, unfortunately, are neither fulfilling,

但很不幸 悲慘的現實是大部份的工作既不令人有成就感

nor do they create any value for society;

也不會對社會創造任何價值

and I don't think I have to name which jobs. I think you know which ones.

而我不認為我需要講出這些工作是哪些 我想你們知道的

By the way, they are going to be automated very soon,

順帶一提 它們很快也會被自動化取代

and I suspect within our lifetime.

我懷疑在我們這輩子就能看到

So, we are screwed.

所以我們被困住了

That's the end of my talk, bye.

我講完了 掰掰啦

No, I think there's light in the tunnel, because

不 我認為黑暗的隧道中仍有一絲光明

I spent a year researching this problem,

因為我花了一年研究這個問題

and I think I might have cracked it.

並且認為我可能已經破解它了

I might have discovered what the purpose of life is.

我可能已經發現了生命的目標為何物

Now I'm going to give it to you.

現在我要跟各位分享

Right now, TEDex Vienna.

此時此刻 在TEDx維也納

Would you like to know?

各位想知道嗎?

Ok, here it goes:

好的 就是這樣:

The purpose of life is

生命的目標在於

to have robots steal your job.

讓機器人偷走你的工作

All right, let's be serious. I suppose I don't know my purpose,

好吧 認真一點講好了 假設我不知道生命的目標為何物

let alone your purpose, or that of anyone else;

更別提你的目標或其它人的目標了

but I'm pretty sure what the purpose of life is not,

但我相當確定生命的目標"不是"

and the purpose of life cannot be to work, produce

而且也"不可能是"一直去工作 生產

and consume more and more and more.

並不斷持續消費

So, here is a radical idea.

所以這裡是一個激進的想法

The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play.

未來的目標是"完全的失業" 這樣我們就能放鬆休閒

That's why we have to destroy the present political economic system.

這就是為何我們必須摧毀目前的政治經濟體系

This is no light statement, considering that it comes from legendary author

這不是輕浮的玩笑 因為此概念來自傳奇性的作家

and futurist Arthur C. Clarke.

以及未來學家:亞瑟·查理斯·克拉克("2001太空漫遊"作者)

I think we must do away with the absolutely specious notion

我認為我們一定要去除掉以下絕對似是而非的概念:

that everybody has to earn a living.

即每個人必須工作以維生

It is fact today that 1 in 10,000 can create the technological breakthrough

實際上 今日一萬名人類中的一位就可以創造科技突破

capable of supporting all the rest;

也能養活所有剩下的人口

and so, the youth of today are absolutely right

因此 今日的年輕人是完全正確的

in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.

他們已認知到"賺錢維生"這種豪洨胡扯

We keep inventing new jobs because of this false idea

我們一直"發明"新的工作 只因為這種虛假的想法:

that everyone has to be employed in some kind of drudgery or another,

即每個人一定要以某種方式從事無聊的工作或就業

because according to Darwinian-Malthusian theory,

因為根據達爾文-馬爾薩斯的理論

they must justify their right to exist.

這些東西一定要合理化自身權利的存在

And so, we have inspectors of inspectors,

因此我們有了一群又一群的督察員

and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.

人們為督察員製造工具 再據此去監控菜鳥督察員

The true business of people should be to go back to school,

人們真正要緊的事 應該是回去學校學習

and think about whatever they were thinking about

並去思考他們正在考慮的任何東西

before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

在某位仁兄過來告訴他們必須"賺錢維生"之前

I know what you're thinking.

我知道你們正在想什麼

These are naive words.

這些都是天真的話

Words of a young mind, oblivious to intricate and complex fabric of society

一位年輕人的幻想 忘記了社會和經濟體系的

and the economic system. That might be true.

複雜性 這點可能是正確的

Good thing they are not my words, though, but those of genius

然而好消息是這些想法不是我講的 而是那些天才們

futurist Buckminster Fuller interviewed in 1970 by New York Magazine.

像是未來學家巴克敏斯特·富勒在1970年接受紐約雜誌的訪問

Now, ok, this is all very nice; but look, we have to face reality, ok?

好吧 這些看起來都非常棒 但記住我們必須面對現實 好嗎?

Tomorrow, [we've] got to go to work.

明天我們仍然要去工作

Well, tomorrow is Sunday, but on Monday we've got to go to work,

呃 明天是星期日 但在禮拜一我們必須去工作

buy food, pay the rent, pay the bills. Look, we can't just leave everything.

買食物 付房租 付帳單 看吧 我們就是不能擺爛撇清這些東西

So, how do you solve this problem now?

所以 你現在如何解決這個問題?

As I said, I spent years researching this problem.

如我所述 我花費了數年的時間研究這個問題

Here is the short answer:

這裡就是簡潔有力的答案:

There is no short answer.

其實沒有簡潔有力的答案

That's why I wrote a book to explain this.

這就是我為何寫了一本書來解釋這一點

I spent the last years traveling some 20 countries.

我過去花費了數年時間旅行了大約20幾個國家

I went to NASA, I studied at Singularity University,

我去了NASA 我在Singularity University學習

and I spoke with some of the greatest minds on this planet

而且我跟地球上一些最偉大的心靈交流溝通

to tackle this problem.

以處理這個問題

As it turns out, you need a plan and not just any plan.

結果是你需要一個計畫 而不只是任何隨便的計畫

You need a multi-year plan that involves lots of people,

結果是你需要一個計畫 而不只是任何隨便的計畫

and everyone has a different plan.

但每個人都有各自不同的計畫

It's pretty complicated. I'm short in time,

所以問題相當複雜 我的時間有限

and the TED guys told me to keep it simple;

而TED的工作人員叫我簡扼說明即可

so I made a picture of two possible futures.

所以我製作了一張圖片 顯示兩種可能的未來

To the left, we've got

在左邊 我們有

exponential technologies and limited resources.

指數型發展的科技和有限的資源

I think that's a fair assumption to make.

我認為這是種合理的假設

We add the need for growth and labor for income,

我們增加對於成長的需求並勞動獲得收入

That's the basis of every society today.

這就是當今每一個社會的基礎

To me in a few years that equals to:

對我而言 幾年之後這會表示:

mass unemployment, runaway climate change, resource depletion,

龐大的失業 失控的氣候變遷 資源耗竭

starvation, worldwide violence and civil unrest.

飢餓 全球暴動和公民騷動

Not too nice.

不是太樂觀

To the right we still have exponential technologies and limited resources.

在右邊我們仍然有指數型發展的科技和有限的資源

We can't really change that unless we obliterate the human race,

我們確實不能改變這點 除非我們消滅人類這個物種

or break the laws of physics,

或打破物理上的定律

but what we can change is our attitude, our goals and our purpose.

但我們可以改變態度 目的和目標

Open source, DIY innovators, self-sustaining communities,

開源 DIY的創新者 自給自足的社群

I think this will redefine the idea of work.

我認為這將重新定義"工作"的概念

By letting go the idea of infinite growth and labor for income,

藉由拋棄"無限成長"和"勞動獲得收入"這些概念

we can use our ingenuity.

我們可以利用我們的天才

Instead of finding clever ways to get everyone a new job (maybe useless),

而不是找到巧妙的方式讓所有人都有新工作(況且可能還是無用的工作)

we can use the same ingenuity to work less, have more free time,

我們可以利用同樣的天才來減少工作 擁有更多自由時間

have more fulfilling lives,

享有更圓滿的生活

restore global resource balance and generally have a more resilient system.

恢復全球資源的平衡 並大致來說有一個更堅韌的體系

Ah ha! You, Sir, are a techno-utopian!

阿哈! 先生 你是科技烏托邦主義者!

You believe technology solves everything! That's what everyone tells me.

你相信科技能解決任何問題! 這是每個人告訴我的事

To the contrary!

但正好相反!

I believe technology is merely a facilitator of your intention.

我相信科技僅僅是一項推動個人意圖的工具

Look back to the picture. If you subscribe to the idea

看回圖片吧 如果你認同這個概念

that we have infinite needs that require an infinite amount of work

即我們有無限的需求並需要無限數量的工作

and infinite growth to be satisfied (which, by the way, is impossible)

還要滿足無限的成長(順帶一提 這是不可能的)