Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Since 2009, the world has been stuck

    譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者:

  • on a single narrative around a coming global food crisis

    從 2009 年開始,全世界流傳著一種

  • and what we need to do to avoid it.

    全球糧食短缺危機即將發生的說法,

  • How do we feed nine billion people by 2050?

    以及我們應該如何做來避免它。

  • Every conference, podcast and dialogue around global food security

    到 2050 年時,我們要 如何養活九十億人口?

  • starts with this question

    關於全球糧食保障的每一場會議、 播客(podcast)、和對話,

  • and goes on to answer it

    都會以這個問題開場,

  • by saying we need to produce 70 percent more food.

    並接著回答說,

  • The 2050 narrative started to evolve

    我們需要將現有的 糧食產量提高 70%。

  • shortly after global food prices hit all-time highs in 2008.

    2050 年這個說法始於

  • People were suffering and struggling,

    2008 年糧食價格 創下歷史新高之後沒多久。

  • governments and world leaders

    人們在苦難及掙扎,

  • needed to show us that they were paying attention

    政府以及全球領導人

  • and were working to solve it.

    得要讓我們看到他們有在留意、

  • The thing is, 2050 is so far into the future

    且在努力解決這個問題。

  • that we can't even relate to it,

    重點是,2050 年還很遙遠,

  • and more importantly,

    以致於我們不覺得切身,

  • if we keep doing what we're doing,

    且,更重要的是,

  • it's going to hit us a lot sooner than that.

    如果我們繼續現行的做法,

  • I believe we need to ask a different question.

    危機來臨的時間會更早。

  • The answer to that question

    我認為我們需要問一個不同的問題。

  • needs to be framed differently.

    那個問題的答案

  • If we can reframe the old narrative

    需要用不同的方式來表達。

  • and replace it with new numbers

    如果我們能把舊說法重新表達,

  • that tell us a more complete pictures,

    並換上新的數字,

  • numbers that everyone can understand

    來提供更全面的資訊,

  • and relate to,

    且這些數字必須要是人人能理解、

  • we can avoid the crisis altogether.

    並感到切身的,

  • I was a commodities trader in my past life

    那麼我們就可以完全避免這場危機。

  • and one of the things that I learned trading

    我過去在做商品交易,

  • is that every market has a tipping point,

    我從交易中學到的其中一件事,

  • the point at which change occurs so rapidly

    就是每個市場都有一個臨界點,

  • that it impacts the world

    在臨界點,改變會發生得十分快速,

  • and things change forever.

    以至於對世界造成衝擊,

  • Think of the last financial crisis,

    一切就此改變。

  • or the dot-com crash.

    想想最近一次的金融危機,

  • So here's my concern.

    或是網際網路泡沫化。

  • We could have a tipping point

    我的擔憂是,

  • in global food and agriculture

    全球糧食和農業 可能也有一個臨界點,

  • if surging demand

    如果需求劇增,

  • surpasses the agricultural system's structural capacity to produce food.

    超過了農業系統的構造產能, 這事就有可能發生。

  • This means at this point supply can no longer keep up with demand

    意思就是,在這個時點, 供應趕不上需求,

  • despite exploding prices,

    就算價格飆高也是一樣,

  • unless we can commit to some type of structural change.

    除非我們能致力於 某種結構性的改變。

  • This time around,

    這一回,

  • it won't be about stock markets and money.

    重點不會是股市及金錢。

  • It's about people.

    重點會是人。

  • People could starve and governments may fall.

    人們可能會餓死,政府可能會垮台。

  • This question of at what point does supply struggle

    這個問題,在哪個時點

  • to keep up with surging demand

    供應會開始很難趕上需求的問題,

  • is one that started off as an interest for me while I was trading

    正是當我在做交易時 引發我興趣的問題,

  • and became an absolute obsession.

    後來完全就變成了一種著迷。

  • It went from interest to obsession

    這個問題會從興趣變成著迷,

  • when I realized through my research how broken the system was

    是因為我從研究了解到 這系統有多麼破碎、

  • and how very little data was being used to make such critical decisions.

    以及在做相關關鍵決策時 用的資料有多麼少。

  • That's the point I decided to walk away from a career on Wall Street

    在這個時點,我決定 離開華爾街的工作,

  • and start an entrepreneurial journey

    開始走上創業之路,

  • to start Gro Intelligence.

    創辦了「Gro Intelligence」 (全球農業資料分析)。

  • At Gro, we focus on bringing this data

    在 Gro,我們著重在使用資料,

  • and doing the work to make it actionable,

    並設法將資料轉變成可執行的行動,

  • to empower decision-makers at every level.

    來協助各層級的決策者。

  • But doing this work,

    但在做這些工作時,

  • we also realized that the world,

    我們也發現到,這個世界,

  • not just world leaders,

    不僅僅是世界領導人,

  • but businesses and citizens like every single person in this room,

    還有企業和公民, 就像現場在座的每個人,

  • lacked an actionable guide

    都缺少一份行動指南,

  • on how we can avoid a coming global food security crisis.

    來指導我們要如何避免 即將發生的糧食保障危機。

  • And so we built a model,

    所以,我們建立了一個模型,

  • leveraging the petabytes of data we sit on,

    讓我們手中數千兆位元組的資料 能發揮重要功能,

  • and we solved for the tipping point.

    而我們解出了臨界點。

  • Now, no one knows we've been working on this problem

    沒有人知道我們一直 在處理這個問題,

  • and this is the first time that I'm sharing what we discovered.

    這是我第一次分享我們的發現。

  • We discovered that the tipping point is actually a decade from now.

    我們發現,臨界點其實就在十年後。

  • We discovered that the world

    我們發現,世界將會短缺

  • will be short 214 trillion calories

    214 兆卡路里的糧食,

  • by 2027.

    2027 年就會發生。

  • The world is not in a position to fill this gap.

    世界沒有辦法補足這個落差。

  • Now, you'll notice

    你應該有注意到,

  • that the way I'm framing this is different from how I started,

    我現在表達的方式和一開始不同,

  • and that's intentional, because until now

    這是刻意的,因為目前為止,

  • this problem has been quantified using mass:

    這個問題一直都是用質量來量化:

  • think kilograms, tons, hectograms,

    比如公斤、噸、百公克,

  • whatever your unit of choice is in mass.

    任何你可以選擇的質量單位。

  • Why do we talk about food in terms of weight?

    我們為什麼用重量來談食物?

  • Because it's easy.

    因為那樣很簡單。

  • We can look at a photograph and determine tonnage on a ship

    只要有台簡單的口袋計算機, 我們就可以憑照片,

  • by using a simple pocket calculator.

    判斷出一艘船所載的總噸數。

  • We can weigh trucks, airplanes and oxcarts.

    我們可以測出卡車、 飛機、牛車有多重。

  • But what we care about in food is nutritional value.

    但對於食物, 我們在乎的是營養價值。

  • Not all foods are created equal,

    並非所有食物都生來平等,

  • even if they weigh the same.

    即使它們重量相同。

  • This I learned firsthand

    我從衣索比亞搬到美國來讀大學時,

  • when I moved from Ethiopia to the US for university.

    親身學到了這一點。

  • Upon my return back home,

    當我返家時,

  • my father, who was so excited to see me,

    我的父親很高興看到我,

  • greeted me by asking why I was fat.

    他迎接我的方式是 問我為什麼變胖了。

  • Now, turns out that eating

    結果發現,

  • approximately the same amount of food as I did in Ethiopia, but in America,

    我在美國吃的食物份量 和在衣索比亞時差不多,

  • had actually lent a certain fullness to my figure.

    但在美國我卻變得比較圓胖了。

  • This is why we should care about calories,

    這就是為什麼我們應該考量卡路里,

  • not about mass.

    而不是質量。

  • It is calories which sustain us.

    是卡路里維繫著我們的生命。

  • So 214 trillion calories is a very large number,

    所以,214 兆卡路里 是一個龐大的數字,

  • and not even the most dedicated of us

    即使是我們當中最投入的人,

  • think in the hundreds of trillions of calories.

    也不會用數百兆卡路里來思考。

  • So let me break this down differently.

    所以,讓我換種方式來分解。

  • An alternative way to think about this

    另一種思考這個量的方式,

  • is to think about it in Big Macs.

    是用麥當勞大麥克來計算。

  • 214 trillion calories.

    214 兆卡路里。

  • A single Big Mac has 563 calories.

    一個大麥克的熱量是 563 卡路里。

  • That means the world will be short 379 billion Big Macs in 2027.

    換言之,2027年,世界糧食 短缺量會達 3790 億個大麥克。

  • That is more Big Macs than McDonald's has ever produced.

    這比麥當勞歷史上所有 製作出的大麥克總數還要多。

  • So how did we get to these numbers in the first place?

    所以,我們最初是如何 得到這些數字的?

  • They're not made up.

    它們不是捏造的。

  • This map shows you where the world was 40 years ago.

    這張圖呈現的是四十年前的世界。

  • It shows you net calorie gaps in every country in the world.

    它呈現的是世界各國的 淨卡路里差值。

  • Now, simply put,

    簡單來說,

  • this is just calories consumed in that country

    這個差值就是該國家消耗的卡路里

  • minus calories produced in that same country.

    減去該國生產的卡路里。

  • This is not a statement on malnutrition or anything else.

    這不是一份營養失調的 聲明或其他東西。

  • It's simply saying how many calories are consumed in a single year

    它很單純就是一年內消耗的卡路里

  • minus how many are produced.

    減去生產的卡路里。

  • Blue countries are net calorie exporters,

    藍色國家是淨卡路里出口國,

  • or self-sufficient.

    或自給自足國。

  • They have some in storage for a rainy day.

    他們有些存糧,以備不時之需。

  • Red countries are net calorie importers.

    紅色國家是淨卡路里進口國。

  • The deeper, the brighter the red,

    紅色越深越亮,

  • the more you're importing.

    表示進口量越大。

  • 40 years ago, such few countries were net exporters of calories,

    四十年前,只有少數國家 是淨卡路里出口國,

  • I could count them with one hand.

    用一隻手就可以數出來。

  • Most of the African continent,

    非洲大陸大部分地區、

  • Europe, most of Asia,

    歐洲、亞洲大部分地區、

  • South America excluding Argentina,

    南美在阿根廷以外的地區,

  • were all net importers of calories.

    都是淨卡路裡進口國。

  • And what's surprising is that China used to actually be food self-sufficient.

    令人吃驚的是,中國以前 是個自給自足的國家。

  • India was a big net importer of calories.

    印度曾是一個淨卡路里進口大國。

  • 40 years later, this is today.

    這張圖是四十年後的現在。

  • You can see the drastic transformation that's occurred in the world.

    你們可以看到世界上發生的劇變。

  • Brazil has emerged as an agricultural powerhouse.

    巴西以農業強勢國之姿興起。

  • Europe is dominant in global agriculture.

    歐洲支配了全球農業。

  • India has actually flipped from red to blue.

    印度則由紅色翻盤變為藍色。

  • It's become food self-sufficient.

    它變成能夠自給自足。

  • And China went from that light blue

    而中國,則由淺藍色

  • to the brightest red that you see on this map.

    變成這張圖上最亮的紅色。

  • How did we get here? What happened?

    我們怎麼走到這一步的? 發生了什麼事?

  • So this chart shows you India and Africa.

    這張圖呈現出的是印度和非洲。

  • Blue line is India, red line is Africa.

    藍線代表印度,紅線代表非洲。

  • How is it that two regions that started off so similarly

    為什麼這兩個區域的軌跡

  • in such similar trajectories

    一開始如此相近,

  • take such different paths?

    後來卻各走各路?

  • India had a green revolution.

    印度有綠色革命。

  • Not a single African country had a green revolution.

    但是非洲沒有一個國家 有過綠色革命。

  • The net outcome?

    結果呢?

  • India is food self-sufficient

    印度的食物能自給自足,

  • and in the past decade has actually been exporting calories.

    且過去十年間都在對外出口卡路里。

  • The African continent now imports over 300 trillion calories a year.

    非洲大陸每年要進口 超過 300 兆的卡路里。

  • Then we add China, the green line.

    接著我們加上了中國,用綠線表示。

  • Remember the switch from the blue to the bright red?

    還記得中國由藍色變成亮紅色嗎?

  • What happened and when did it happen?

    發生了什麼事?何時發生的?

  • China seemed to be on a very similar path to India

    中國的路線似乎和印度很類似,

  • until the start of the 21st century,

    直到 21 世紀初,

  • where it suddenly flipped.

    它突然翻盤。

  • A young and growing population

    中國的人口既年輕又在成長,

  • combined with significant economic growth

    結合了顯著的經濟成長,

  • made its mark with a big bang

    讓它非常響亮地一炮而紅,

  • and no one in the markets saw it coming.

    市場中的所有人都沒有預料到。

  • This flip was everything to global agricultural markets.

    對全球農業市場來說, 這個翻盤極重要。

  • Luckily now, South America

    幸運的是,在中國興起的同時,

  • was starting to boom at the same time as China's rise,

    南美洲也開始快速發展,

  • and so therefore, supply and demand were still somewhat balanced.

    因此,供給與需求依舊 以某種方式保持著平衡。

  • So the question becomes,

    所以,問題就變成了:

  • where do we go from here?

    接下來我們要往何處去?

  • Oddly enough,

    奇怪的是,

  • it's not a new story,

    這不是個新故事,

  • except this time it's not just a story of China.

    只不過這一次, 這並不只是中國的故事。

  • It's a continuation of China,

    它是中國的延續、

  • an amplification of Africa

    對非洲的放大觀察、

  • and a paradigm shift in India.

    以及印度的典範轉移。

  • By 2023,

    到 2023 年,

  • Africa's population is forecasted to overtake that of India's and China's.

    預計非洲人口將會超過印度和中國。

  • By 2023, these three regions combined

    到 2023 年, 這三個區域的總人口數

  • will make up over half the world's population.

    將會超過世界人口數的一半。

  • This crossover point starts to present really interesting challenges

    在這個交匯點會開始出現

  • for global food security.

    全球糧食保障方面 很引人關注的挑戰。

  • And a few years later, we're hit hard with that reality.

    幾年之後,我們將會 受到現實的當頭棒喝。

  • What does the world look like in 10 years?

    十年後的世界會是什麼樣子?

  • So far, as I mentioned, India has been food self-sufficient.

    目前,如我剛才提到的, 印度能夠自給自足。

  • Most forecasters predict that this will continue.

    大部份的預測者推測, 這個現象會持續。

  • We disagree.

    我們不同意。

  • India will soon become a net importer of calories.

    印度很快就會變成淨卡路里進口國。

  • This will be driven both by the fact

    造成的原因包括

  • that demand is growing from a population growth standpoint

    從人口成長加上 經濟成長的角度來看,

  • plus economic growth.

    需求在成長。

  • It will be driven by both.

    兩者將都是原因。

  • And even if you have optimistic assumptions

    即使你對於生產成長

  • around production growth,

    有樂觀的假設,

  • it will make that slight flip.

    它會造成輕微的翻盤。

  • That slight flip can have huge implications.

    而那輕微的翻盤 可能會有重大的意涵。

  • Next, Africa will continue to be a net importer of calories,

    再來,非洲會持續是 淨卡路里進口國,

  • again driven by population growth and economic growth.

    也是因為人口成長和 經濟成長兩個原因。

  • This is again assuming optimistic production growth assumptions.

    同樣的,這也是在對生產成長 做了樂觀假設的結果。

  • Then China,

    接著,中國,

  • where population is flattening out,

    人口成長趨於平緩了,

  • calorie consumption will explode

    消耗的卡路里會暴增,

  • because the types of calories consumed

    因為所消耗的卡路里類型

  • are also starting to be higher-calorie-content foods.

    會開始變成是 卡路里含量更高的食物。

  • And so therefore,

    因此,

  • these three regions combined

    這三個區域加在一起,

  • start to present a really interesting challenge for the world.

    開始會給世界帶來 十分引人關注的挑戰。

  • Until now, countries with calorie deficits

    目前為止,有卡路里赤字的國家

  • have been able to meet these deficits

    都有辦法從生產過盛的區域

  • by importing from surplus regions.

    進口卡路里來補足赤字。

  • By surplus regions, I'm talking about

    我指的生產過盛區域是

  • North America, South America and Europe.

    北美、南美、歐洲。

  • This line chart over here shows you

    從這張折線圖可以看出

  • the growth and the projected growth over the next decade of production

    在接下來十年,

  • from North America, South America and Europe.

    北美、南美、歐洲的 生產成長和預測成長。

  • What it doesn't show you

    從圖上無法看出的是,

  • is that most of this growth is actually going to come from South America.

    大部份成長其實都是來自南美。

  • And most of this growth

    而大部份的成長,

  • is going to come at the huge cost of deforestation.

    背後的代價會是砍伐森林的高成本。

  • And so when you look at the combined demand increase

    所以,你們看到印度、 中國、非洲大陸

  • coming from India, China and the African continent,

    合併的總需求增加,

  • and look at it versus the combined increase in production

    也對照看到印度、中國、

  • coming from India, China, the African continent,

    非洲大陸、北美、南美、

  • North America, South America and Europe,

    歐洲的合併總生產增加,

  • you are left with a 214-trillion-calorie deficit,

    最後你還是剩下了 214 兆卡路里的赤字,

  • one we can't produce.

    我們無法生產出來這個量。

  • And this, by the way, is actually assuming we take all the extra calories

    順道一提,這裡的假設是,我們把

  • produced in North America, South America and Europe

    北美、南美、歐洲所有多出的卡路里

  • and export them solely to India, China and Africa.

    都只出口到印度、中國、非洲。

  • What I just presented to you is a vision of an impossible world.

    我剛剛給各位看的, 是一個不可能的世界的遠景。

  • We can do something to change that.

    我們可以改變這一點。

  • We can change consumption patterns,

    我們可以改變卡路里消耗模式,

  • we can reduce food waste,

    我們可以減少食物浪費,

  • or we can make a bold commitment

    或是我們可以做出大膽的承諾,

  • to increasing yields exponentially.

    讓產量成指數增加。

  • Now, I'm not going to go into discussing

    我不打算要討論

  • changing consumption patterns or reducing food waste,

    改變卡路里消耗模式 或是減少食物浪費,

  • because those conversations have been going on for some time now.

    因為這類談話已經都在進行中了。

  • Nothing has happened.

    沒有改變發生。

  • Nothing has happened because those arguments

    沒有改變發生是因為那些論點

  • ask the surplus regions to change their behavior

    要求生產過盛的區域 為了赤字區域的利益

  • on behalf of deficit regions.

    而改變行為。

  • Waiting for others to change their behavior

    等待別人為了你的利益、 為了你的生存

  • on your behalf, for your survival,

    而改變他們的行為,

  • is a terrible idea.

    是個很糟的點子。

  • It's unproductive.

    是徒勞的。

  • So I'd like to suggest an alternative that comes from the red regions.

    所以,我想提出一個 紅色區域的替代方案。

  • China, India, Africa.

    中國、印度、非洲。

  • China is constrained in terms of how much more land it actually has

    中國受到的限制, 是能夠用在農業上的

  • available for agriculture,

    土地面積還有多少,

  • and it has massive water resource availability issues.

    中國還有嚴重的水資源可得性議題。

  • So the answer really lies in India and in Africa.

    所以答案落在印度和非洲。

  • India has some upside in terms of potential yield increases.

    在潛在產量增加方面, 印度是比較有利的。

  • Now this is the gap between its current yield

    潛在產量增加,是目前產量

  • and the theoretical maximum yield it can achieve.

    和可達到之理論最大產量間的差距。

  • It has some unfarmed arable land remaining, but not much,

    印度還有一些尚未 耕作的耕地,但不多,

  • India is quite land-constrained.

    印度的土地還蠻受限的。

  • Now, the African continent, on the other hand,

    另一方面,非洲大陸

  • has vast amounts of arable land remaining

    就仍然有大量的耕地,

  • and significant upside potential in yields.

    且潛在產量方面也很明顯是有利的。

  • Somewhat simplified picture here,

    這是簡化描述的情況,

  • but if you look at sub-Saharan African yields in corn today,

    但如果你們想想現今 撒哈拉以南非洲的玉米產量,

  • they are where North American yields were in 1940.

    和北美在 1940 年時的 產量是一樣的。

  • We don't have 70-plus years to figure this out,

    但我們沒有七十幾年的 時間來想出對策,

  • so it means we need to try something new

    這意味著,我們得要嘗試新的方法,

  • and we need to try something different.

    我們得要嘗試不同的方法。

  • The solution starts with reforms.

    解決方案始於改革。

  • We need to reform and commercialize

    我們得要將非洲的農業產業

  • the agricultural industries in Africa

    做改革並商業化,

  • and in India.

    印度也一樣。

  • Now, by commercialization --

    商業化的意思──

  • commercialization is not about commercial farming alone.

    商業化的重點不只是 商業性農場經營生產。

  • Commercialization is about leveraging data

    商業化的重點是發揮資料的效益,

  • to craft better policies,

    來訂出更好的政策,

  • to improve infrastructure,

    來改善基礎建設,

  • to lower the transportation costs

    來降低交通運輸成本,

  • and to completely reform banking and insurance industries.

    來完全改革銀行業和保險業。

  • Commercialization is about taking agriculture

    商業化的重點是把農業

  • from too risky an endeavor to one where fortunes can be made.

    從太冒險的努力嘗試, 帶到可以致富的努力嘗試。

  • Commercialization is not about just farmers.

    商業化不只和農夫有關。

  • Commercialization is about the entire agricultural system.

    商業化與整個農業系統有關。

  • But commercialization also means confronting the fact

    但,商業化的重點也意味著 要去正視一個事實:

  • that we can no longer place the burden of growth

    我們不再把成長的重擔僅僅放在

  • on small-scale farmers alone,

    小規模農夫的肩膀上,

  • and accepting that commercial farms and the introduction of commercial farms

    且接受商業化農田 以及推行商業化農田

  • could provide certain economies of scale

    可提供某種經濟規模,

  • that even small-scale farmers can leverage.

    是即使小規模農夫也可以發揮的。

  • It is not about small-scale farming or commercial agriculture,

    重點不是小規模農場經營 或是商業化農業,

  • or big agriculture.

    或大型農業。

  • We can create the first successful models of the coexistence and success

    我們能夠開先例,創造出 小規模農場經營與商業化農業

  • of small-scale farming alongside commercial agriculture.

    共存與成功的圓滿模型。

  • This is because, for the first time ever,

    這是因為,有史以來第一次,

  • the most critical tool for success in the industry --

    在業界要成功,最關鍵的工具──

  • data and knowledge --

    資料與知識──

  • is becoming cheaper by the day.

    隨日子變得越來越便宜。

  • And very soon, it won't matter how much money you have

    不用多久,你有多少錢 或是你有多大,

  • or how big you are

    就都不重要了,

  • to make optimal decisions and maximize probability of success

    不用這些也可以做出最理想的決策, 將成功的可能性最大化,

  • in reaching your intended goal.

    來達到你想要達到的目標。

  • Companies like Gro are working really hard to make this a reality.

    像 Gro 這樣的公司, 非常努力在實現這件事。

  • So if we can commit to this new, bold initiative,

    如果我們能夠承諾去做 這個新的、大膽的計畫,

  • to this new, bold change,

    這個新的、大膽的改變,

  • not only can we solve the 214-trillion gap that I talked about,

    我們不但能夠解決先前提到的 214 兆差額問題,

  • but we can actually set the world on a whole new path.

    還能夠把世界引領到 一條全新的路上。

  • India can remain food self-sufficient

    印度可以維持食物能夠自給自足,

  • and Africa can emerge as the world's next dark blue region.

    非洲可以以「世界下一個 深藍色區域」之姿興起。

  • The new question is,

    新的問題是:

  • how do we produce 214 trillion calories

    到 2027 年,我們要如何 生產出 214 兆卡路里,

  • to feed 8.3 billion people by 2027?

    來養活 83 億人?

  • We have the solution.

    我們有解決方案。

  • We just need to act on it.

    我們只需要採取行動。

  • Thank you.

    謝謝。

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

Since 2009, the world has been stuck

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者:

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 中文 美國腔 TED 印度 非洲 中國 農業 糧食

TED】Sara Menker:全球性的糧食危機可能還不到10年(全球糧食危機可能還不到10年|Sara Menker)。 (【TED】Sara Menker: A global food crisis may be less than a decade away (A global food crisis may be less than a decade away | Sara Menker))

  • 117 6
    Zenn 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字