【TED】尤瓦爾-諾亞-哈拉里：民族主義與全球主義：新的政治分歧（民族主義與全球主義：新的政治分歧|尤瓦爾-諾亞-哈拉里）。 (【TED】Yuval Noah Harari: Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide (Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide

字幕列表影片播放

Chris Anderson: Hello. Welcome to this TED Dialogues.

譯者: David Hsu 審譯者: Regina Chu
It's the first of a series that's going to be done

克里斯安德森：大家好，歡迎參與 TED Dialogues。
in response to the current political upheaval.

這是我們將播放一系列之首集，
I don't know about you;

來回應現今的政治風暴。
I've become quite concerned about the growing divisiveness in this country

我不知你如何想；
and in the world.

但我是十分關注在本國
No one's listening to each other. Right?

和在世界各地日益分裂之社會。
They aren't.

大家都不能溝通，是不是？
I mean, it feels like we need a different kind of conversation,

絕對是。
one that's based on -- I don't know, on reason, listening, on understanding,

我想當今局勢確需一種另類交談，
on a broader context.

一種建立在──怎麼說呢，在理性、聆聽、和諧意識上的，
That's at least what we're going to try in these TED Dialogues,

在一種更廣闊的視野上的。
starting today.

最起碼，這是我們在這 TED Dialogues 希望嘗試的，
And we couldn't have anyone with us

從今天首集開始。
who I'd be more excited to kick this off.

我們不可能邀請到
This is a mind right here that thinks pretty much like no one else

更能使我興奮的啟航嘉賓。
on the planet, I would hasten to say.

這嘉賓的思路見解是獨一無二的，
I'm serious.

我指的是──以全球人類來說啊。
(Yuval Noah Harari laughs)

我是認真的。
I'm serious.

（尤瓦爾笑笑）
He synthesizes history with underlying ideas

我真是認真的。
in a way that kind of takes your breath away.

他貫融歷史所用的概念，
So, some of you will know this book, "Sapiens."

其體大思精能使你目瞪口呆。
Has anyone here read "Sapiens"?

我猜你們知道這本書：《人類大歷史》。
(Applause)

有誰看過這本書？
I mean, I could not put it down.

（鼓掌聲）
The way that he tells the story of mankind

真的，我一讀就放不下。
through big ideas that really make you think differently --

他所用的那些大概念來解說人類的故事，
it's kind of amazing.

真的能讓你有脫胎換骨的想法──
And here's the follow-up,

實在震撼。
which I think is being published in the US next week.

這本書還有續集，
YNH: Yeah, next week.

就我所知，下星期就會在美國發行。
CA: "Homo Deus."

尤：對，下星期。
Now, this is the history of the next hundred years.

克：《人類大命運》。
I've had a chance to read it.

這書預卜人類未來百年，
It's extremely dramatic,

我有機會讀過它，
and I daresay, for some people, quite alarming.

真的是非常精湛。
It's a must-read.

我敢說，對某些人，或有出乎意料的顫慄，
And honestly, we couldn't have someone better to help

這是本必讀的書。
make sense of what on Earth is happening in the world right now.

說真的，我們不可得更理想的人
So a warm welcome, please, to Yuval Noah Harari.

來幫我們理解當今地球發生的事態。
(Applause)

請熱烈的歡迎：尤瓦爾 · 諾亞 · 哈拉瑞先生
It's great to be joined by our friends on Facebook and around the Web.

（鼓掌聲）
Hello, Facebook.

我們很開心有臉書和網路上的朋友參與。
And all of you, as I start asking questions of Yuval,

臉書，你們好。
come up with your own questions,

在我發問尤瓦爾時，
and not necessarily about the political scandal du jour,

大家也想想自己的問題，
but about the broader understanding of: Where are we heading?

不一定是關於今日熱門的政治醜聞，
You ready? OK, we're going to go.

而是些宏觀的主題：我們人類的前景？
So here we are, Yuval:

大家準備好了嗎？我們開始。
New York City, 2017, there's a new president in power,

尤瓦爾，時下今日：
and shock waves rippling around the world.

紐約市，2017 年，美國新總統上任，
What on Earth is happening?

其震驚捲席全球，
YNH: I think the basic thing that happened

到底發生了什麼事？
is that we have lost our story.

尤：我想基本上發生的
Humans think in stories,

是我們已失去了故事；
and we try to make sense of the world by telling stories.

人類以故事來思考，
And for the last few decades,

通過故事，我們試圖去理解這世界。
we had a very simple and very attractive story

在過去數十年中，
about what's happening in the world.

我們有個極簡單和極動聽的故事，
And the story said that, oh, what's happening is

解釋世界發生的一切。
that the economy is being globalized,

這故事在說：看啊！正在發生的
politics is being liberalized,

是經濟邁向全球化，
and the combination of the two will create paradise on Earth,

而政治也同步開放化，
and we just need to keep on globalizing the economy

這兩者將使地球變為世外桃源。
and liberalizing the political system,

只要我們不斷強化全球經濟，
and everything will be wonderful.

同時把政治更自由化，
And 2016 is the moment

一切就自然美妙了。
when a very large segment, even of the Western world,

但在 2016 年那一刻，
stopped believing in this story.

有非常大比例的人民，包括西方國家的，
For good or bad reasons -- it doesn't matter.

不再相信這故事了。
People stopped believing in the story,

不管理由是好或是壞── 這不是關鍵，
and when you don't have a story, you don't understand what's happening.

大家不再相信這故事了。
CA: Part of you believes that that story was actually a very effective story.

但當你失去了一個故事，你就不能理解一切發生的事情。
It worked.

克：我們心底一部分是確信這故事是有效的。
YNH: To some extent, yes.

它是成功的。
According to some measurements,

尤：就某種程度而言，是的。
we are now in the best time ever

依某些指標來看，
for humankind.

今天的人類確是活在
Today, for the first time in history,

最輝煌的時刻：
more people die from eating too much than from eating too little,

今天，首次在歷史中，
which is an amazing achievement.

人類死於飲食過量多於飲食缺乏，
(Laughter)

這可是個驚人的成就。
Also for the first time in history,

（笑聲）
more people die from old age than from infectious diseases,

還有也是首次在歷史中，
and violence is also down.

人類死於衰老的多於疾病感染。
For the first time in history,

至於暴力，這也降低了。
more people commit suicide than are killed by crime and terrorism

首次在歷史中，
and war put together.

人類因自殺死亡的，多於死於罪行或恐怖暴力
Statistically, you are your own worst enemy.

和戰爭之總和。
At least, of all the people in the world,

依據統計上來說，你是你最大的敵人；
you are most likely to be killed by yourself --

起碼，把全球人算起來，
(Laughter)

你是最有可能被自己殺害的。
which is, again, very good news, compared --

（笑聲）
(Laughter)

這亦可算是很好的消息──
compared to the level of violence that we saw in previous eras.

（笑聲）
CA: But this process of connecting the world

比起我們以往所看到的暴力程度。
ended up with a large group of people kind of feeling left out,

克：但依這個方法聯繫世界，
and they've reacted.

結果很大的一群人感覺被遺棄了，
And so we have this bombshell

而作出反應，
that's sort of ripping through the whole system.

所以我們遇上這炸彈，
I mean, what do you make of what's happened?

其威力好像把整個系統撕裂了。
It feels like the old way that people thought of politics,

我想知道，您是怎樣看這一切呢？
the left-right divide, has been blown up and replaced.

感覺以往人民的舊有習慣，把政黨分析
How should we think of this?

為左右派已被炸毀及撤換了。
YNH: Yeah, the old 20th-century political model of left versus right

我們該從何了解這事？
is now largely irrelevant,

尤：沒錯，過往二十世紀的左右派系之政黨模式，
and the real divide today is between global and national,

到現在是毫無意義了。
global or local.

而今天實質之分界是在全球主義和國家主義，
And you see it again all over the world

全球性或地緣性。
that this is now the main struggle.

而你能觀察到這是在全球，
We probably need completely new political models

正在進行中的掙扎。
and completely new ways of thinking about politics.

我猜我們是需要嶄新的政治模式，
In essence, what you can say is that we now have global ecology,

和全新的政治思維。
we have a global economy but we have national politics,

精簡的說，你可說現在我們是有個全球生態環境，
and this doesn't work together.

我們是有個全球經濟系統，但卻只有國家性的政體，
This makes the political system ineffective,

這不能互通。
because it has no control over the forces that shape our life.

亦使現有的政治系統不足了，
And you have basically two solutions to this imbalance:

因為它已無法駕馭我們生活的支配因素了。
either de-globalize the economy and turn it back into a national economy,

而對這不平衡，你只有兩個選擇：
or globalize the political system.

一者是把這個經濟系統反全球化，退回到國家經濟；
CA: So some, I guess many liberals out there

二者是把政治系統全球化。
view Trump and his government as kind of irredeemably bad,

克：我猜很多自由主義者
just awful in every way.

會覺得川普和他的政府是無藥可救的，
Do you see any underlying narrative or political philosophy in there

在各方面都很糟糕。
that is at least worth understanding?

你能在它當中看到任何內涵或政治觀念，
How would you articulate that philosophy?

是值得我們去揣摩了解的嗎？
Is it just the philosophy of nationalism?

你如何去闡明這觀念？
YNH: I think the underlying feeling or idea

是否全然只是一種國家主義嗎？
is that the political system -- something is broken there.

尤：我想它的基本感覺或概念，
It doesn't empower the ordinary person anymore.

是這個政治體制當中，某些部分是壞掉了。
It doesn't care so much about the ordinary person anymore,

它已不再賦權給平民百姓了，
and I think this diagnosis of the political disease is correct.

它已漠視平民百姓了。
With regard to the answers, I am far less certain.

我想這政治疾病之診斷是正確的，
I think what we are seeing is the immediate human reaction:

但對它救治的答案，我就不敢肯定了。
if something doesn't work, let's go back.

我想我們看見的是人之自然反射行為：
And you see it all over the world,

如果有東西行不通了，就掉頭吧，
that people, almost nobody in the political system today,

你可看到全球都這樣。
has any future-oriented vision of where humankind is going.

全部人，幾乎沒有一位當今執政者
Almost everywhere, you see retrograde vision:

持有對人類未來走向的遠見。
"Let's make America great again,"

差不多在所有地方，你只看到懷舊思想：
like it was great -- I don't know -- in the '50s, in the '80s, sometime,

「讓美國重振雄風！」
let's go back there.

像以前一樣偉大──我不知道── 像 50 年代，或 80年代，或其它。
And you go to Russia a hundred years after Lenin,

咱們回到過去罷！
Putin's vision for the future

看看蘇聯，已是列寧時代百年後了，
is basically, ah, let's go back to the Tsarist empire.

而普丁的未來夢想，
And in Israel, where I come from,

基本上是，啊，咱們回到沙皇帝國時代吧！
the hottest political vision of the present is:

再說以色列，我的母國，
"Let's build the temple again."

當下最熱門的政治夢想是：
So let's go back 2,000 years backwards.

「我們重建猶太聖殿！」
So people are thinking sometime in the past we've lost it,

好像我們不如回到兩千年前。
and sometimes in the past, it's like you've lost your way in the city,

所以大家的思維是：過去某時刻，我們迷失了。
and you say OK, let's go back to the point where I felt secure

過去某時刻，把它當是你在都市迷了路，
and start again.

你說：「好罷，我們回到之前安全熟識的地方，
I don't think this can work,

再重新來過。」
but a lot of people, this is their gut instinct.

我不相信這是可行的。
CA: But why couldn't it work?

但很多人，這是他們之自然反應。
"America First" is a very appealing slogan in many ways.

克：但為什麼不可行呢？
Patriotism is, in many ways, a very noble thing.

「美國第一」在多方面是個很吸引的口號。
It's played a role in promoting cooperation

愛國主義，在多方面是個崇高理想；
among large numbers of people.

它曾經被用來
Why couldn't you have a world organized in countries,

團結很龐大數目的人。
all of which put themselves first?

為什麼你不可把世界分成多國，
YNH: For many centuries, even thousands of years,

而各國都以自利為先？
patriotism worked quite well.

尤：很多世紀來，甚至幾千年來，
Of course, it led to wars an so forth,

愛國主義是蠻成功的。
but we shouldn't focus too much on the bad.

當然，它也引發戰爭等等，
There are also many, many positive things about patriotism,

但我們不該太注視那些不好的，
and the ability to have a large number of people

愛國主義的確有很多很多正面好處，
care about each other,

也能帶動很大群的人
sympathize with one another,

去關懷照顧對方，
and come together for collective action.

去體恤包容對方，
If you go back to the first nations,

也團結合夥去聯合行動。
so, thousands of years ago,

如果你看最初的國家，
the people who lived along the Yellow River in China --

就是數千年前，
it was many, many different tribes

住在中國黃河岸邊的居民──
and they all depended on the river for survival and for prosperity,

有很多很多不同的部落，
but all of them also suffered from periodical floods

他們都依靠著黃河生存和造福，
and periodical droughts.

但他們也遭受周期性水災，
And no tribe could really do anything about it,

和周期性旱災。
because each of them controlled just a tiny section of the river.

但沒有任何部落能做些什麼，
And then in a long and complicated process,

因為各部落只控制很小一段的河岸。
the tribes coalesced together to form the Chinese nation,

但經過一個長而複雜的過程，
which controlled the entire Yellow River

部落合組成為中國這國家，
and had the ability to bring hundreds of thousands of people together

有效控制了整條黃河，
to build dams and canals and regulate the river

同時也有能力啟動數十萬居民，
and prevent the worst floods and droughts

一起來建水壩和運河，來疏導這河流，
and raise the level of prosperity for everybody.

預防了最惡劣的洪水和大旱，
And this worked in many places around the world.

提升了全人民的富裕水平：
But in the 21st century,

而這模式在世界多地都成功實施了。
technology is changing all that in a fundamental way.

但是在二十一世紀，
We are now living -- all people in the world --

科技在根本上改變了一切。
are living alongside the same cyber river,

我們現在──地球上所有的人──
and no single nation can regulate this river by itself.

都生活在同一條「網路大河」旁邊，
We are all living together on a single planet,

而沒有一個國家能單獨調控這大河。
which is threatened by our own actions.

我們全都一起活在一個地球上，
And if you don't have some kind of global cooperation,

但它受到我們行為的威脅，
nationalism is just not on the right level to tackle the problems,

所以如果你不能建立某些全球合作，
whether it's climate change or whether it's technological disruption.

國家主義不能解決這些問題，
CA: So it was a beautiful idea

不管對氣候變化，或對科技的衝擊。
in a world where most of the action, most of the issues,

克：所以國家主義曾是個美麗的概念，
took place on national scale,

因為多數的事務，多數的議題
but your argument is that the issues that matter most today

都局限在國域之內。
no longer take place on a national scale but on a global scale.

但你的論點是，當今最重要的議題，
YNH: Exactly. All the major problems of the world today

已不發生在國家範疇內，而是全球性的。
are global in essence,

尤：正是這樣。所有今天世界重大的問題
and they cannot be solved

都是環球性質的，
unless through some kind of global cooperation.

而這些都不可能被解決，
It's not just climate change,

除非在全球合作之某些前提下。
which is, like, the most obvious example people give.

而這不僅是說氣候變化，
I think more in terms of technological disruption.

這是人人最常舉的明顯例子，
If you think about, for example, artificial intelligence,

我倒是更關注科技衝突：
over the next 20, 30 years

比如說，你試想人工智慧
pushing hundreds of millions of people out of the job market --

在未來二十、三十年後，
this is a problem on a global level.

會驅使數百千萬工人失業──
It will disrupt the economy of all the countries.

這是一個全球性問題，
And similarly, if you think about, say, bioengineering

這將會影響全球國家的經濟。
and people being afraid of conducting,

同樣的，如果你想想，比如生物工程，
I don't know, genetic engineering research in humans,

有人會顧忌做這方面的實驗，
it won't help if just a single country, let's say the US,

我不知道，基因工程之人體實驗；
outlaws all genetic experiments in humans,

如果只有一個國家，比如說美國，
but China or North Korea continues to do it.

立法禁止一切基因工程之人體實驗，
So the US cannot solve it by itself,

但中國或北韓堅持繼續實驗，
and very quickly, the pressure on the US to do the same will be immense

那這情況並非美國單獨能決定的，
because we are talking about high-risk, high-gain technologies.

美國也很快會遭受無比的壓力要求進行同類的實驗，
If somebody else is doing it, I can't allow myself to remain behind.

因為這牽涉高風險、高利潤的科技。
The only way to have regulations, effective regulations,

如果他人在做，我絕不能讓自己落後。
on things like genetic engineering,

如果要建立這方面的法令，有效之法令，
is to have global regulations.

涉及如基因工程之類的，
If you just have national regulations, nobody would like to stay behind.

就只能是全球性的法令。
CA: So this is really interesting.

如果你只有國家條令，沒人會喜歡落後的。
It seems to me that this may be one key

克：這個觀點很有意思。
to provoking at least a constructive conversation

因為我覺得這就是一個契機，
between the different sides here,

來至少推動一個有建設性的交談，
because I think everyone can agree that the start point

讓多方都在一起。
of a lot of the anger that's propelled us to where we are

因為我相信大家都會同意，
is because of the legitimate concerns about job loss.

這麼多的怒氣演繹至今天的局勢，
Work is gone, a traditional way of life has gone,

都是起源於工人對失業之合理訴求。
and it's no wonder that people are furious about that.

工作沒了，傳統生活方式也沒了，
And in general, they have blamed globalism, global elites,

不言而知工人必然是憤怒的；
for doing this to them without asking their permission,

而普遍來說，工人都怪責全球主義和全球菁英等，
and that seems like a legitimate complaint.

沒有先徵求工人的同意，就要他們扛下來，
But what I hear you saying is that -- so a key question is:

這投訴也算合情合理的。
What is the real cause of job loss, both now and going forward?

從我理解你所說的── 一個關鍵問題是：
To the extent that it's about globalism,

失業真正的原因是什麼呢，在今天與未來？
then the right response, yes, is to shut down borders

起碼在涉及到全球主義之部分，
and keep people out and change trade agreements and so forth.

那正當的回應，沒錯，就是把國家邊境封鎖，
But you're saying, I think,

把外人拒絕，把貿易協議修改等等。
that actually the bigger cause of job loss is not going to be that at all.

但依我理解你說的，
It's going to originate in technological questions,

真正造成失業的更大原因不是這些，
and we have no chance of solving that

而是源於科技有關的問題。
unless we operate as a connected world.

所以對此，我們根本不可能解決它，
YNH: Yeah, I think that,

除非我們能全球牽手合作。
I don't know about the present, but looking to the future,

尤：對，我想是的。
it's not the Mexicans or Chinese who will take the jobs

現在暫且不會，但我推測未來，
from the people in Pennsylvania,

並不是墨西哥人或中國人
it's the robots and algorithms.

會奪取賓夕法尼亞州人的工作，
So unless you plan to build a big wall on the border of California --

而是機器人和電腦演算法，
(Laughter)

除非你計劃在加州州界豎立個大圍牆──
the wall on the border with Mexico is going to be very ineffective.

（笑聲）
And I was struck when I watched the debates before the election,

在墨西哥國界的圍牆是毫無用處的。
I was struck that certainly Trump did not even attempt to frighten people

當我聽美國選舉前的辯論，我很驚訝：
by saying the robots will take your jobs.

我驚訝為什麼川普沒有嘗試恐嚇工人說：
Now even if it's not true, it doesn't matter.

「機械人會奪去工作」呢？
It could have been an extremely effective way of frightening people --

其實就算這不是真的，但也不重要。
(Laughter)

這可以是恐嚇人民的極有效方法──
and galvanizing people:

（笑聲）
"The robots will take your jobs!"

和刺激人民的：
And nobody used that line.

「機械人會奪去你的工作！」
And it made me afraid,

但沒有競選人用這口號，
because it meant that no matter what happens

這倒是使我害怕，
in universities and laboratories,

因為這顯示出不管
and there, there is already an intense debate about it,

在大學和實驗室，
but in the mainstream political system and among the general public,

在那裡，這潛在危機已經常被討論了，
people are just unaware

但在政界主流系統和大眾媒體中，
that there could be an immense technological disruption --

人民好像是毫不知情的，
not in 200 years, but in 10, 20, 30 years --

一個極為龐大的科技衝擊將要來臨，
and we have to do something about it now,

不是 200 年後而是在 10、20、30 年──
partly because most of what we teach children today in school or in college

所以我們現在必須要做準備，
is going to be completely irrelevant to the job market of 2040, 2050.

部份原因是，因為學校或大學現在教的
So it's not something we'll need to think about in 2040.

會完全與 2040、2050 年代的就業環境全無關連。
We need to think today what to teach the young people.

所以這些不能等到 2040 年才考慮，
CA: Yeah, no, absolutely.

我們今天就得考慮該教年輕人什麼了。
You've often written about moments in history

克：是的，絕對需要。
where humankind has ... entered a new era, unintentionally.

你常寫到，在某歷史時刻中，
Decisions have been made, technologies have been developed,

人類不知然的，進入了一個新紀元。
and suddenly the world has changed,

某些政策被採納，某些科技被發明了，
possibly in a way that's worse for everyone.

一瞬間世界就已經變了，
So one of the examples you give in "Sapiens"

但可能是對大家都不利的。
is just the whole agricultural revolution,

其中一個例子你在《人類大歷史》中提過，
which, for an actual person tilling the fields,

就是總體的農業革命：
they just picked up a 12-hour backbreaking workday

它對一個耕種農地的人來講，
instead of six hours in the jungle and a much more interesting lifestyle.

他們剛接納了一天 12 小時的要命工作，
(Laughter)

來取替以往在森林更有樂趣的 6 小時生活。
So are we at another possible phase change here,

（笑聲）
where we kind of sleepwalk into a future that none of us actually wants?

所以是否我們又可能面臨革命了，
YNH: Yes, very much so.

我們就像夢遊人踏進一個根本不想要的未來？
During the agricultural revolution,

尤：是的，就是這樣。
what happened is that immense technological and economic revolution

在農業革命時代，
empowered the human collective,

那巨大的科技和經濟改變
but when you look at actual individual lives,

賦予整體人類很大的力量。
the life of a tiny elite became much better,

但當你觀察人民的實質生活時，
and the lives of the majority of people became considerably worse.

你發現只是小部分菁英之生活有大提升，
And this can happen again in the 21st century.

剩餘大部份人的生活是糟糕很多。
No doubt the new technologies will empower the human collective.

這可能會在 21 世紀重演。
But we may end up again

不可置疑，新的科技會加強人類的集體力量，
with a tiny elite reaping all the benefits, taking all the fruits,

但結果有可能再度還是
and the masses of the population finding themselves worse

只有極少之菁英獲得所有的利益，獨享勝果，
than they were before,

而大部分的人民會
certainly much worse than this tiny elite.

發現自己比以前還差多了，
CA: And those elites might not even be human elites.

生活肯定是大大低於這些少數菁英。
They might be cyborgs or --

克：這些菁英可能不是人類菁英，
YNH: Yeah, they could be enhanced super humans.

有可能是改造人或──
They could be cyborgs.

尤：對，他們也可能是增強超級人類，
They could be completely nonorganic elites.

也可能是改造人，
They could even be non-conscious algorithms.

也可能是非生物菁英，
What we see now in the world is authority shifting away

也甚至是非意識的演算法。
from humans to algorithms.

我們可觀察到，現今世界已經漸把權柄
More and more decisions -- about personal lives,

從人類轉移到演算法了。
about economic matters, about political matters --

越來越多的決策── 關於個人生活，
are actually being taken by algorithms.

關於經濟事項，關於政治事務──
If you ask the bank for a loan,

已實質被演算法奪取了。
chances are your fate is decided by an algorithm, not by a human being.

如果你去銀行申請貸款，
And the general impression is that maybe Homo sapiens just lost it.

很大機會你的命運是由演算法來決定，而非經人手了。
The world is so complicated, there is so much data,

現在的一般看法是覺得人類是不是已經打輸了？
things are changing so fast,

世界是那麼的複雜，那麼多的數據，
that this thing that evolved on the African savanna

事物也瞬息萬變，
tens of thousands of years ago --

所以在非洲大草原進化出來的這套，
to cope with a particular environment,

從數十萬年前──
a particular volume of information and data --

來駕馭某特定大環境，
it just can't handle the realities of the 21st century,

來處理某特定數量的資訊和數據──
and the only thing that may be able to handle it

這套是絕對不能應付 21 世紀的現實要求了，
is big-data algorithms.

而唯一有可能滿足這要求的，
So no wonder more and more authority is shifting from us to the algorithms.

就只有是大數據分析了。
CA: So we're in New York City for the first of a series of TED Dialogues

所以不難理解，越來越多的決策，已從我們轉移到演算法分析了。
with Yuval Harari,

克：我們在紐約現場舉行首場的 TED Dialogues 系列，
and there's a Facebook Live audience out there.

講員為尤瓦爾 · 哈拉瑞。
We're excited to have you with us.

我們也有臉書直播的聽眾，
We'll start coming to some of your questions

我們很高興你們的參與，
and questions of people in the room

我們一會兒就開始回答你們的一些問題，
in just a few minutes,

和現場觀眾的問題。
so have those coming.

幾分鐘即開始，
Yuval, if you're going to make the argument

請準備好問題。
that we need to get past nationalism because of the coming technological ...

尤瓦爾，如果您要辯論，
danger, in a way,

我們有必要超越國家主義，由於即將來臨的科技──
presented by so much of what's happening

危險，可以說，
we've got to have a global conversation about this.

以當今多方面發生之事情顯示，
Trouble is, it's hard to get people really believing that, I don't know,

對此我們必需要有全球性的討論。
AI really is an imminent threat, and so forth.

但難題是不容易使人真去相信，我不知道，
The things that people, some people at least,

人工智慧真的是燃眉之急等等，
care about much more immediately, perhaps,

人人已注意到的，至少某些人，
is climate change,

可能此刻會比較重視的
perhaps other issues like refugees, nuclear weapons, and so forth.

就是氣候變遷，
Would you argue that where we are right now

或其它像難民潮的議題，核武器等等。
that somehow those issues need to be dialed up?

依我們目前的情況，
You've talked about climate change,

你會爭辯說這些該趕快處理嗎？
but Trump has said he doesn't believe in that.

你剛已談到氣候變遷，
So in a way, your most powerful argument,

但川普曾公開表示他不相信是真的；
you can't actually use to make this case.

因此可以說，你最有說服力的理據，
YNH: Yeah, I think with climate change,

現在你卻不能實際拿出來用了。
at first sight, it's quite surprising

尤：對，關於氣候變遷，
that there is a very close correlation

初步看，這是意料不到的，
between nationalism and climate change.

確是有個很密切的關係
I mean, almost always, the people who deny climate change are nationalists.

連繫著國家主義和氣候變遷，
And at first sight, you think: Why?

你看，幾乎總是這樣，
What's the connection?

那些否定氣候變遷的人都是國家主義者，
Why don't you have socialists denying climate change?

你第一反應會問：為什麼？
But then, when you think about it, it's obvious --

是有什麼關連原因？
because nationalism has no solution to climate change.

為什麼沒有社會主義者否定氣候變遷呢？
If you want to be a nationalist in the 21st century,

但只要你靜下來想想就知道──
you have to deny the problem.

因為國家主義對氣候變遷提不出解方。
If you accept the reality of the problem, then you must accept that, yes,

如果你想在 21 世紀做個國家主義者，
there is still room in the world for patriotism,

你就必要否定這個問題了。
there is still room in the world for having special loyalties

但如果你認同這問題的真相，你也就必須接受這點，
and obligations towards your own people, towards your own country.

就是在這世界中，還是有愛國主義的空間；
I don't think anybody is really thinking of abolishing that.

在這世界中，還是有空間表達特殊忠誠關係，
But in order to confront climate change,

和民族情操的發輝，和國家情懷的表達。
we need additional loyalties and commitments

我想沒有人是真想毀掉這些的。
to a level beyond the nation.

但若要有效處理氣候變遷，
And that should not be impossible,

我們需要更多的合作和決心，
because people can have several layers of loyalty.

站在超國界的基礎上。
You can be loyal to your family

這其實不是不可能的，
and to your community

因為人本來就擁有多重的忠心：
and to your nation,

你可以忠於你的家庭，
so why can't you also be loyal to humankind as a whole?

同時也忠於你的社區，
Of course, there are occasions when it becomes difficult,

亦忠於你的國家，
what to put first,

那為什麼你不可以也忠於人類共同體呢？
but, you know, life is difficult.

當然，是會遇上難以取捨的衝突，
Handle it.

該以什麼為先，
(Laughter)

但你也清楚，人生是艱難的，
CA: OK, so I would love to get some questions from the audience here.

做個好決擇吧！
We've got a microphone here.

（笑聲）
Speak into it, and Facebook, get them coming, too.

克：好的，我很樂意聽聽現場聽眾的問題。
Howard Morgan: One of the things that has clearly made a huge difference

我們這裡有麥克風，
in this country and other countries

對著說就行，臉書聽眾也請準備。
is the income distribution inequality,

摩根：有一件很明顯的關鍵事情，
the dramatic change in income distribution in the US

就是在這國家和其它國家
from what it was 50 years ago,

人均收入之不平衡情況。
and around the world.

在美國之人均收入分佈，
Is there anything we can do to affect that?

比起 50 年前，產生了巨變，
Because that gets at a lot of the underlying causes.

全世界也這樣。
YNH: So far I haven't heard a very good idea about what to do about it,

我們能做些什麼去影響它嗎？
again, partly because most ideas remain on the national level,

因為這是很多其它問題的根源。
and the problem is global.

尤：到目前，我還沒聽到任何很好的解決方案，
I mean, one idea that we hear quite a lot about now

這也正是因為有很多想法都還困在國家性層面上，
is universal basic income.

但問題是跨國的。
But this is a problem.

我想，有一個概念近來常聽到的
I mean, I think it's a good start,

是全民基本收入。
but it's a problematic idea because it's not clear what "universal" is

但概念本身就含有問題：
and it's not clear what "basic" is.

我意思是，這是個好起點，
Most people when they speak about universal basic income,

但這概念是有問題的，因為不清楚「全民」是什麼意思？
they actually mean national basic income.

也不知道什麼是「基本」？
But the problem is global.

很多提出這個全民基本收入的人，
Let's say that you have AI and 3D printers taking away millions of jobs

還是想著「國家基本收入」，
in Bangladesh,

但這問題是跨國的。
from all the people who make my shirts and my shoes.

比如說，現在人工智慧和 3D 列印
So what's going to happen?

奪取了孟加拉數百萬人的工作，
The US government will levy taxes on Google and Apple in California,

他們是這些製造我穿在身上的襯衫和皮鞋的工人，
and use that to pay basic income to unemployed Bangladeshis?

那這該怎樣辦呢？
If you believe that, you can just as well believe

是否美國政府要向加州的 Google 和 Apple 徵稅，
that Santa Claus will come and solve the problem.

來支付基本收入給孟加拉國的失業者？
So unless we have really universal and not national basic income,

如果你相信這個，你不如也相信
the deep problems are not going to go away.

聖誕老人會來解決這問題了。
And also it's not clear what basic is,

除非我們真的有全民基本收入，而不是國家基本收入，
because what are basic human needs?

這深層問題是不會消失的。
A thousand years ago, just food and shelter was enough.

另外，還有「基本」是什麼呢？
But today, people will say education is a basic human need,

因為什麼是人類基本需求呢？
it should be part of the package.

一千年前，溫飽已是足夠了；
But how much? Six years? Twelve years? PhD?

但今天大家會說教育也是人類基本需求，
Similarly, with health care,

教育也該含在其中，
let's say that in 20, 30, 40 years,

但至於程度呢？六年？十二年？博士學位？
you'll have expensive treatments that can extend human life

同樣的，在醫療方面，
to 120, I don't know.

假設在 20、30、40 年後，
Will this be part of the basket of basic income or not?

你會接受昂貴的治療來延長壽命
It's a very difficult problem,

到 120 歲？我可不確定。
because in a world where people lose their ability to be employed,

那這也要包含在基本收入嗎？
the only thing they are going to get is this basic income.

這是非常困難的問題，
So what's part of it is a very, very difficult ethical question.

因為當世界的人民失去了謀生技能時，
CA: There's a bunch of questions on how the world affords it as well,

人民只能靠這基本收入維生，
who pays.

所以這基本收入該含什麼，是個極度困難的倫理問題。
There's a question here from Facebook from Lisa Larson:

克：還有很多問題是，這世界靠什麼來支付這筆費用？
"How does nationalism in the US now

誰來付錢？
compare to that between World War I and World War II

這是臉書來的問題，麗莎拉爾森：
in the last century?"

「現今在美國的國家主義，
YNH: Well the good news, with regard to the dangers of nationalism,

和上世紀第一次和第二次大戰之間比較，
we are in a much better position than a century ago.

怎樣比？」
A century ago, 1917,

尤：在好的方面，關於國家主義帶來的危險，
Europeans were killing each other by the millions.

我們今天比一世紀前好多了。
In 2016, with Brexit, as far as I remember,

一世紀前，在 1917 年當時，
a single person lost their life, an MP who was murdered by some extremist.

歐洲人民數以百萬計的互相殘殺，
Just a single person.

而在 2016 年，為英國脫歐之事，
I mean, if Brexit was about British independence,

依我能記得的，
this is the most peaceful war of independence in human history.

只有一個人為此喪命，一位英國國會議員被極端分子謀殺。
And let's say that Scotland will now choose to leave the UK

只一個人而已。
after Brexit.

你看，如果視英國脫歐為英國爭取自由，
So in the 18th century,

這可算是人類歷史中，最和平的獨立戰爭。
if Scotland wanted -- and the Scots wanted several times --

同時，如果蘇格蘭未來選擇脫離英國，
to break out of the control of London,

在英國脫離歐盟之後，
the reaction of the government in London was to send an army up north

相對在 18 世紀時，
to burn down Edinburgh and massacre the highland tribes.

如蘇格蘭想── 事實上蘇格蘭也有好幾次──
My guess is that if, in 2018, the Scots vote for independence,

擺脫倫敦的控制時，
the London government will not send an army up north

倫敦政府之回應，是派軍隊北伐，
to burn down Edinburgh.

把愛丁堡燒掉和屠殺高地部落族人；
Very few people are now willing to kill or be killed

我猜如果在 2018 年，蘇格蘭投票要獨立的話，
for Scottish or for British independence.

倫敦政府不可能派軍隊北上
So for all the talk of the rise of nationalism

去把愛丁堡燒平。
and going back to the 1930s,

今天絕少人數會願意去殺或被殺，
to the 19th century, in the West at least,

只為了蘇格蘭或英國之獨立。
the power of national sentiments today is far, far smaller

所以說，不管常聽到國家主義正崛起，
than it was a century ago.

但是比 1930 年代，
CA: Although some people now, you hear publicly worrying

或再推前至 19 世紀，起碼在西方世界，
about whether that might be shifting,

國家主義今天帶來的激情，
that there could actually be outbreaks of violence in the US

比上個世紀是少多了。
depending on how things turn out.

克：雖然現在有些人── 你聽到他們公然的擔憂，
Should we be worried about that,

不知道這是否也正在改變，
or do you really think things have shifted?

就是可能在美國本土會有暴亂發生，
YNH: No, we should be worried.

取決於事態之未來發展。
We should be aware of two things.

我們真該為這擔憂嗎？
First of all, don't be hysterical.

或是你相信大局已改變了？
We are not back in the First World War yet.

尤：沒改變，但我們是該擔心。
But on the other hand, don't be complacent.

我們須警惕兩件事：
We reached from 1917 to 2017,

首先，大家不要變得歇斯底里。
not by some divine miracle,

我們還沒回到第一次世界大戰，
but simply by human decisions,

但另一方面，亦不可躊躇滿志。
and if we now start making the wrong decisions,

人類能從 1917 年跨到 2017年，
we could be back in an analogous situation to 1917

並不是因為神蹟，
in a few years.

而是因為人的正確選擇。
One of the things I know as a historian

所以如果我們現在開始做錯誤的抉擇，
is that you should never underestimate human stupidity.

我們是可能倒退至類似 1917 年的情況，
(Laughter)

就在未來數年間。
It's one of the most powerful forces in history,

一件事我身為歷史學家清楚得很，
human stupidity and human violence.

就是你永遠不應低估人類的愚蠢。
Humans do such crazy things for no obvious reason,

（笑聲）
but again, at the same time,

它是歷史中最龐大力量之一：
another very powerful force in human history is human wisdom.

人類的愚蠢和人類的殘暴。
We have both.

人類能毫無原因地做些極瘋狂的事情；
CA: We have with us here moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt,

但卻同時，在人類歷史中
who I think has a question.

有另一個非常龐大的力量就是人類的智慧。
Jonathan Haidt: Thanks, Yuval.

兩者共存在人類中。
So you seem to be a fan of global governance,

克：道德心理學家強納生海特在這裡，
but when you look at the map of the world from Transparency International,

他有一個問題。
which rates the level of corruption of political institutions,

海特 : 多謝，尤瓦爾。
it's a vast sea of red with little bits of yellow here and there

看來您是位全球行政制之支持者，
for those with good institutions.

但是如果你看到國際透明組織的世界地圖，
So if we were to have some kind of global governance,

它展示出政治機構的貪污程度，
what makes you think it would end up being more like Denmark

它幾乎是片紅色大海，偶爾這裡那裡有些小黃點
rather than more like Russia or Honduras,

來標識好的政權。
and aren't there alternatives,

所以如果我們真的有某種全球政府，
such as we did with CFCs?

你怎麼知道它會像丹麥，
There are ways to solve global problems with national governments.

而不像蘇聯或宏都拉斯？
What would world government actually look like,

而且可否有其它的選擇，
and why do you think it would work?

像我們監控氟氯碳化物一樣？
YNH: Well, I don't know what it would look like.

其實是有方法通過國家機構來解決環球問題的。
Nobody still has a model for that.

世界政府會像怎樣的呢？
The main reason we need it

同時為什麼您認為它會成功呢？
is because many of these issues are lose-lose situations.

尤：哦，我不知道它會像什麼，
When you have a win-win situation like trade,

尚且沒有人能提出一個模式。
both sides can benefit from a trade agreement,

但我們需要它之主要原因，
then this is something you can work out.

就是因為很多的問題會是雙輸的局面。
Without some kind of global government,

當你有個雙贏的情況時，如貿易，
national governments each have an interest in doing it.

雙方都能從貿易合作中取得利益，
But when you have a lose-lose situation like with climate change,

這情況下雙方是可以找出方法的，
it's much more difficult

就算是沒有某種世界政府，
without some overarching authority, real authority.

各國政府都受激勵去協調；
Now, how to get there and what would it look like,

但是當有雙輸的局面時，比如氣候變遷，
I don't know.

這就變困難多了，
And certainly there is no obvious reason

如果缺乏一個有執行實權的真正政府。
to think that it would look like Denmark,

至於如何能建立它和它會是怎樣的，
or that it would be a democracy.

我不知道。
Most likely it wouldn't.

但是可以說的確沒有明顯理由
We don't have workable democratic models

去預想它會像丹麥一樣，
for a global government.

或一定是民主的，
So maybe it would look more like ancient China

很可能它不會是。
than like modern Denmark.

我們還沒有一個能實施的民主制體
But still, given the dangers that we are facing,

套用在世界政府。
I think the imperative of having some kind of real ability

所以它可能會像古中國
to force through difficult decisions on the global level

多於像現代丹麥。
is more important than almost anything else.

但是，考量到我們當前的危機，
CA: There's a question from Facebook here,

我想這個迫切性，去協調某些實質能力，
and then we'll get the mic to Andrew.

去強性通過一些全球層面的艱難決策，
So, Kat Hebron on Facebook,

幾乎比任何一切都更重要。
calling in from Vail:

克：臉書觀眾有一個問題，
"How would developed nations manage the millions of climate migrants?"

然後我們會遞麥克風給安德魯。
YNH: I don't know.

這是臉書的凱特，
CA: That's your answer, Kat. (Laughter)

從科羅拉多州韋爾打來的：
YNH: And I don't think that they know either.

「這些已發展國家，如何能妥善安排數以百萬的氣候移民？」
They'll just deny the problem, maybe.

尤：我不知道。
CA: But immigration, generally, is another example of a problem

克：這是你的答案，凱特。（笑聲）。
that's very hard to solve on a nation-by-nation basis.

尤：同時我相信他們也不曉得。
One nation can shut its doors,

他們可能只會逃避這問題。
but maybe that stores up problems for the future.

克：其實移民，一般來說，也是一個很好的難題例子，
YNH: Yes, I mean -- it's another very good case,

若想在國與國的層面上解決，它是很難處理的。
especially because it's so much easier

一個國家可以把門關上，
to migrate today

但這只是把問題留到未來。
than it was in the Middle Ages or in ancient times.

尤：是的，我同意── 這是一個很好的例子，
CA: Yuval, there's a belief among many technologists, certainly,

尤其今天是那麼容易去移民，
that political concerns are kind of overblown,

比起在中世紀，或是在上古時候。
that actually, political leaders don't have that much influence

克：尤瓦爾，現在有個信念，尤其在技術專家中，
in the world,

說那些政治問題，是誇大其詞而已，
that the real determination of humanity at this point is by science,

其實政治領袖在這世界中
by invention, by companies,

沒有那麼大的影響力，
by many things other than political leaders,

在這個時代，真正能導航人類未來的是科學，
and it's actually very hard for leaders to do much,

科技發明，或企業，
so we're actually worrying about nothing here.

或是很多其它的東西，但決不是政治領袖，
YNH: Well, first, it should be emphasized

其實政府領袖是很難做些什麼的：
that it's true that political leaders' ability to do good is very limited,

我們只是杞人憂天。
but their ability to do harm is unlimited.

尤：要明白，第一，我們需強調：
There is a basic imbalance here.

政治領袖做好事之能力，確實是很有限的，
You can still press the button and blow everybody up.

但他們破壞之能力，是無限的。
You have that kind of ability.

這裡有個根本不平衡的地方：
But if you want, for example, to reduce inequality,

你還是可以按一按扭，去毀滅全人類。
that's very, very difficult.

你真的有這種能力。
But to start a war,

但如果你想，比如說，減低社會不平等，
you can still do so very easily.

這是非常，非常艱難的，
So there is a built-in imbalance in the political system today

但要開戰的話，
which is very frustrating,

這你很容易就可做到。
where you cannot do a lot of good but you can still do a lot of harm.

所以，這是個當今政治之結構性不平衡，
And this makes the political system still a very big concern.

也讓人非常沮喪。
CA: So as you look at what's happening today,

因你雖不能做很多好事，但卻能作出極大傷害。
and putting your historian's hat on,

這就是為什麼政治系統，必然還是一個很大的議題。
do you look back in history at moments when things were going just fine

克：依您觀察現在世界事態，
and an individual leader really took the world or their country backwards?

從歷史學家的角度評斷，
YNH: There are quite a few examples,

在過去歷史中，曾否有過雖是太平盛世，
but I should emphasize, it's never an individual leader.

但亦有因一個領袖而陷全世界或國家後退嗎？
I mean, somebody put him there,

尤：有好幾個案例。
and somebody allowed him to continue to be there.

但我必須強調，從不會因為一個領袖而已；
So it's never really just the fault of a single individual.

我的意思是，當事人也是某些人推選他的，
There are a lot of people behind every such individual.

而某些人也容許當事人繼續留著；
CA: Can we have the microphone here, please, to Andrew?

所以客觀說，這從來不是一個人的錯，
Andrew Solomon: You've talked a lot about the global versus the national,

這人背後都是有很多人支持著的。
but increasingly, it seems to me,

克：請把麥克風遞給安德魯。
the world situation is in the hands of identity groups.

安德魯索羅門：您談了很多全球主義和國家主義的比較，
We look at people within the United States

但依我來看，日漸明顯的是，
who have been recruited by ISIS.

世界局勢已經落在某些擁有共同理想之團體組織中了。
We look at these other groups which have formed

我們看到在美國境內的居民，
which go outside of national bounds

竟然被伊斯蘭國恐怖組織招攬入會；
but still represent significant authorities.

我們同時也看看其它的團體，
How are they to be integrated into the system,

它們不局限於某些國界，
and how is a diverse set of identities to be made coherent

但也表現出相當程度的勢力。
under either national or global leadership?

該如何把這些團體融入傳統政治框架，
YNH: Well, the problem of such diverse identities

這類團體又如何能順利調合，
is a problem from nationalism as well.

受制於國家或全球行政管理中？
Nationalism believes in a single, monolithic identity,

尤：其實這些不同主義的組織，
and exclusive or at least more extreme versions of nationalism

其實也是從國家主義衍生出來的。
believe in an exclusive loyalty to a single identity.

國家主義相信單一、統一的概念，
And therefore, nationalism has had a lot of problems

它是獨尊的，或是說那些比較偏激的國家主義份子，
with people wanting to divide their identities

只會獨忠於一個團體。
between various groups.

所以說，國家主義歷來都遇上很多困難，
So it's not just a problem, say, for a global vision.

去處理那些想自我分割
And I think, again, history shows

為忠於多個不同主義的團體。
that you shouldn't necessarily think in such exclusive terms.

所以這問題不僅是全球主義者要面對的。
If you think that there is just a single identity for a person,

但我想歷史再一次教導，
"I am just X, that's it, I can't be several things, I can be just that,"

我們不該堅守著這種排外的視野；
that's the start of the problem.

如果你的思路是一個人只能擁有一個身份，
You have religions, you have nations

「我就是某某，就這樣！
that sometimes demand exclusive loyalty,

我不能有多重身份，我只有一個身份」，
but it's not the only option.

這就正是問題的開端了。
There are many religions and many nations

某些宗教，某些國家，
that enable you to have diverse identities at the same time.

有時候是要求你獨忠不二的，
CA: But is one explanation of what's happened in the last year

但這些不是唯一的選擇。
that a group of people have got fed up with, if you like,

世界上有很多宗教和很多國家，
the liberal elites, for want of a better term,

容許你同時有多重身份的。
obsessing over many, many different identities and them feeling,

克：如要試圖解釋去年發生的事情，
"But what about my identity? I am being completely ignored here.

某一階層的民眾受夠了這些所謂自由派精英，
And by the way, I thought I was the majority"?

希望有更好的說法，
And that that's actually sparked a lot of the anger.

著迷於很多很多不同的身份認同；但這階層的人想，
YNH: Yeah. Identity is always problematic,

「那我的身份又怎樣？我已經被完全忽略掉了。
because identity is always based on fictional stories

可不要忘記，我還以為我們是主流呢？」
that sooner or later collide with reality.

這想法正是構成很大的民憤之原因。
Almost all identities,

尤：對，身份認知總是大問題，
I mean, beyond the level of the basic community

因為這認知是建立在虛構的故事上，
of a few dozen people,

而故事遲早會與現實相撞。
are based on a fictional story.

幾乎所有的身份認知，
They are not the truth.

我指的是，任何超越那些基本生活圈子內的，
They are not the reality.

大概人數也不過是數十人，
It's just a story that people invent and tell one another

都建立在一個虛構的故事上。
and start believing.

這故事不是真理，
And therefore all identities are extremely unstable.

更不是實際的狀況：
They are not a biological reality.

故事只是某些人虛構出來，
Sometimes nationalists, for example,

而大家互傳，之後大家就相信了。
think that the nation is a biological entity.

因為這樣，所有的身份都非常脆弱，
It's made of the combination of soil and blood,

這些身份都沒有生物上的事實支撐著：
creates the nation.

有些國家主義者，舉例說，
But this is just a fictional story.

會想國家是個生物單元，
CA: Soil and blood kind of makes a gooey mess.

是大地泥土和血的混成物，
(Laughter)

再團聚為一個國家，
YNH: It does, and also it messes with your mind

但這純粹是一個虛構故事。
when you think too much that I am a combination of soil and blood.

克：泥土和血是一團糟啊。
If you look from a biological perspective,

（笑聲）
obviously none of the nations that exist today

尤：是的，它也能混亂你的思想，
existed 5,000 years ago.

如果你常想自己是土和血的混成物。
Homo sapiens is a social animal, that's for sure.

如果你是從生物角度的立場來想，
But for millions of years,

那明顯的是，沒有一個現今的國家，
Homo sapiens and our hominid ancestors lived in small communities

5000 年之前是存在的。
of a few dozen individuals.

人類是一個社會動物，這是肯定的，
Everybody knew everybody else.

但是幾百萬年來，
Whereas modern nations are imagined communities,

人類和原始人類祖先都住在小社團，
in the sense that I don't even know all these people.

才不過幾十人，
I come from a relatively small nation, Israel,

每人都認識每個人。
and of eight million Israelis,

但是現代的國家只是個構思出來的團體，
I never met most of them.

因為我根本不認識全國的人。
I will never meet most of them.

我來自以色列，一個小國家，
They basically exist here.

約八百萬以色列人民；
CA: But in terms of this identity,

絕大部分人我從來沒接觸過，
this group who feel left out and perhaps have work taken away,

我也永遠都不會認識他們，
I mean, in "Homo Deus,"

他們只是存在著。
you actually speak of this group in one sense expanding,

克：依這種身分認同角度來看，
that so many people may have their jobs taken away

感覺被遺棄、很可能連工作也被奪去的這個階層，
by technology in some way that we could end up with

我是指，在《人類大命運》書中，
a really large -- I think you call it a "useless class" --

你有指出這群人正在擴大，
a class where traditionally,

因為有很多人的工作將被奪走，
as viewed by the economy, these people have no use.

被科技取代；最後我們可能會剩下
YNH: Yes.

非常龐大的──記得你稱它為「無用的階層」──
CA: How likely a possibility is that?

這階層傳統以來，
Is that something we should be terrified about?

是以經濟生產而建立的，現在就都沒用了。
And can we address it in any way?

尤：對。
YNH: We should think about it very carefully.

克：這有多大的可能性呢？
I mean, nobody really knows what the job market will look like

我們應該對此驚恐嗎？
in 2040, 2050.

還有我們能有方法應對它嗎？
There is a chance many new jobs will appear,

尤：我們要非常謹慎思考這問題。
but it's not certain.

我是說，沒有人真的知道
And even if new jobs do appear,

我們在 2040、2050 年的就業情況，
it won't necessarily be easy

是有可能會有很多新的就業機會，
for a 50-year old unemployed truck driver

但這不可肯定。
made unemployed by self-driving vehicles,

就算是有新的行業出來，
it won't be easy for an unemployed truck driver

它不一定是一個 50 歲的
to reinvent himself or herself as a designer of virtual worlds.

失業卡車司機容易勝任的，
Previously, if you look at the trajectory of the industrial revolution,

失業之原因是被無人駕車取代了；
when machines replaced humans in one type of work,

一個失業卡車司機是不容易
the solution usually came from low-skill work

去重塑自己為虛擬世界的設計師。
in new lines of business.

依過去來看，如果你觀察工業革命的走勢，
So you didn't need any more agricultural workers,

當機器在某行業取代了人類，
so people moved to working in low-skill industrial jobs,

解緩方法就是
and when this was taken away by more and more machines,

在新的行業裡找到低技能的工作：
people moved to low-skill service jobs.

比如你不需要農業勞工，
Now, when people say there will be new jobs in the future,

這些人就去低技術的工業生產線就業；
that humans can do better than AI,

而當這些又被更多的機器取替後，
that humans can do better than robots,

這些人就遷到低技術的服務性行業。
they usually think about high-skill jobs,

但現在，有人說未來會有新的工作，
like software engineers designing virtual worlds.

而且人類會比人工智慧做得更好，
Now, I don't see how an unemployed cashier from Wal-Mart

人類會比機械人做得更好，
reinvents herself or himself at 50 as a designer of virtual worlds,

他們想的都是高技術的工作，
and certainly I don't see

像軟體工程師設計虛擬世界。
how the millions of unemployed Bangladeshi textile workers

可是，我無法想像，一位失業的沃爾瑪大賣場出納員，
will be able to do that.

能在 50 歲時轉行為虛擬世界設計師；
I mean, if they are going to do it,

我更不能想像，
we need to start teaching the Bangladeshis today

這數百萬孟加拉國籍的失業紡織工人，
how to be software designers,

如何能夠做得到。
and we are not doing it.

我是說，如果我們真要做到，
So what will they do in 20 years?

我們今天就要教導這些孟加拉國籍工人，
CA: So it feels like you're really highlighting a question

如何成為軟體設計師。
that's really been bugging me the last few months more and more.

但是我們現在沒這樣做，
It's almost a hard question to ask in public,

20 年後這群人能做什麼？
but if any mind has some wisdom to offer in it, maybe it's yours,

克：我感到你真的突顯了一個問題，
so I'm going to ask you:

也真的是這數月來，越來越困擾我的，
What are humans for?

這幾乎是一個在大眾前忌諱的問題，
YNH: As far as we know, for nothing.

但是如果有人能作出有智慧的回應，這人可能是你，
(Laughter)

所以我現在請問你：
I mean, there is no great cosmic drama, some great cosmic plan,

「人類有什麼意義？」
that we have a role to play in.

尤：據我們所知的，毫無意義。
And we just need to discover what our role is

（笑聲）
and then play it to the best of our ability.

我是指，沒有偉大的神曲，偉大的神的計劃，
This has been the story of all religions and ideologies and so forth,

等待著我們去參與。
but as a scientist, the best I can say is this is not true.

我們只需要發掘自我的角色，
There is no universal drama with a role in it for Homo sapiens.

然後演繹得盡善盡美就是了。
So --

這是所有宗教和思想體系的共同故事。
CA: I'm going to push back on you just for a minute,

但身為一個科學家，我只能說，這不是事實；
just from your own book,

沒有什麼偉大的神曲，盼望我們人類參與。
because in "Homo Deus,"

所以──
you give really one of the most coherent and understandable accounts

克：我要追問你。
about sentience, about consciousness,

在你的書中，
and that unique sort of human skill.

因為在《人類大命運》中，
You point out that it's different from intelligence,

你作了一個最緊密和能理解的訴說，
the intelligence that we're building in machines,

關於感知性，關於自覺性，
and that there's actually a lot of mystery around it.

和那人類獨一無二的技能。
How can you be sure there's no purpose

你也說這智慧，
when we don't even understand what this sentience thing is?

和我們設計在機器中的智慧是不同的。
I mean, in your own thinking, isn't there a chance

其實關於這一點，還是有很多的奧秘：
that what humans are for is to be the universe's sentient things,

你怎樣確定是沒有意義的呢？
to be the centers of joy and love and happiness and hope?

當我們還不全明白這感知性是什麼？
And maybe we can build machines that actually help amplify that,

我是想，在你的思路範疇中，會不會有一個可能性，
even if they're not going to become sentient themselves?

人類的意義就是要成就宇宙的感知性代表物，
Is that crazy?

成為宇宙中的喜悅和愛和快樂和希望？
I kind of found myself hoping that, reading your book.

我們同時也許可以設計一些擴大這方面的機器，
YNH: Well, I certainly think that the most interesting question today in science

就算這些機器本身不會真的有感知性的？
is the question of consciousness and the mind.

這是狂想嗎？
We are getting better and better in understanding the brain

當我在閱讀你的書時，我心底有著這寄望。
and intelligence,

尤：是的，我想當今科學中最有趣的問題，
but we are not getting much better

就是關於自覺性和人的思想。
in understanding the mind and consciousness.

我們對頭腦機能越來越了解，
People often confuse intelligence and consciousness,

還有智力，
especially in places like Silicon Valley,

但我們沒有多大的進步，
which is understandable, because in humans, they go together.

對思想和自覺性之了解。
I mean, intelligence basically is the ability to solve problems.

一般人容易混淆智力和自覺性，
Consciousness is the ability to feel things,

尤其是在矽谷這類地方，
to feel joy and sadness and boredom and pain and so forth.

這也是可以理解的，因為在人類，這兩者是共存的。
In Homo sapiens and all other mammals as well -- it's not unique to humans --

我的意思是，智力基本上是解決問題的能力；
in all mammals and birds and some other animals,

自覺性是能感知事物，
intelligence and consciousness go together.

能感知喜悅和悲哀，無聊和痛楚等等；
We often solve problems by feeling things.

這些是人類和所有哺乳動物都能的──不是人類獨能的──
So we tend to confuse them.

所有哺乳動物和鳥類和其它一些動物，
But they are different things.

智力和自覺性是並行的。
What's happening today in places like Silicon Valley

我們常依賴我們的感覺去解決問題，
is that we are creating artificial intelligence

所以我們常把它們混同了，
but not artificial consciousness.

但其實它們是不同的事物。
There has been an amazing development in computer intelligence

目前在矽谷這類地方進行的，
over the last 50 years,

是研發人工智慧，
and exactly zero development in computer consciousness,

但不是人工自覺性。
and there is no indication that computers are going to become conscious

可以說在電腦智能方面，
anytime soon.

過往 50 年來真是有驚人的進步，
So first of all, if there is some cosmic role for consciousness,

但是在電腦自覺性只有零進步。
it's not unique to Homo sapiens.

同時也沒有跡象顯示電腦有一天會有自覺性，
Cows are conscious, pigs are conscious,

起碼不在可想像的未來當中。
chimpanzees are conscious, chickens are conscious,

所以說，首先，如果自覺性在宇宙中有特殊角色，
so if we go that way, first of all, we need to broaden our horizons

這不是人類獨有的。
and remember very clearly we are not the only sentient beings on Earth,

牛也自覺，豬也自覺，
and when it comes to sentience --

黑猩猩也自覺，雞也自覺，
when it comes to intelligence, there is good reason to think

所以如果要向這方探索，首先我們必要開闊我們的視野；
we are the most intelligent of the whole bunch.

而且要非常清楚記得，我們不是地球上唯一有感知性的生物。
But when it comes to sentience,

依感知性來說──
to say that humans are more sentient than whales,

依智力來說，我們確是有很好理由去相信
or more sentient than baboons or more sentient than cats,

我們是這群最聰明的；
I see no evidence for that.

但是依感知性來說，
So first step is, you go in that direction, expand.

如果我們說人類的感知勝於鯨魚，
And then the second question of what is it for,

或感知勝於狒狒，或感知勝於貓，
I would reverse it

我是沒看到證據的。
and I would say that I don't think sentience is for anything.

所以第一步，如你想走這方向，首先擴大範圍。
I think we don't need to find our role in the universe.

跟著的第二問題是：「為了什麼目的？」
The really important thing is to liberate ourselves from suffering.

我會反問，
What characterizes sentient beings

我會說：「我不知道感知性有任何目的。」
in contrast to robots, to stones,

我想我們不需要找我們在宇宙的角色，
to whatever,

真正重要的事情，是要使我們脫離痛苦。
is that sentient beings suffer, can suffer,

感知生物的特徵，
and what they should focus on

相對於機械人，或石頭，
is not finding their place in some mysterious cosmic drama.

或任何其它的，
They should focus on understanding what suffering is,

就是感知生物感覺到苦，會受苦。
what causes it and how to be liberated from it.

所以他們需要注意的是，
CA: I know this is a big issue for you, and that was very eloquent.

並不是在神秘的神曲中找個位子，
We're going to have a blizzard of questions from the audience here,

而是該致力去了解痛苦是什麼，
and maybe from Facebook as well,

它怎樣產生的，和如何能解脫遠離痛苦。
and maybe some comments as well.

克：我知道這對你是一個重要的問題，而您的回答也是極精闢。
So let's go quick.

我們現場聽眾有非常多的問題，
There's one right here.

臉書的聽眾也有，
Keep your hands held up at the back if you want the mic,

同時也可能有些評語。
and we'll get it back to you.

好！
Question: In your work, you talk a lot about the fictional stories

這邊有一位，
that we accept as truth,

坐後面的，如果要麥克風請把手舉高，
and we live our lives by it.

我們會有安排。
As an individual, knowing that,

問題：你的著作中，多處談及到虛構的故事，
how does it impact the stories that you choose to live your life,

我們卻認作為事實，
and do you confuse them with the truth, like all of us?

而且更依它為生活指引。
YNH: I try not to.

對您個人來說，明白到這一點後，
I mean, for me, maybe the most important question,

這對你已選擇的虛構故事有怎樣影響嗎？
both as a scientist and as a person,

你會像很多人，將故事與真實混淆嗎？
is how to tell the difference between fiction and reality,

尤：我試著防備。
because reality is there.

對我來說，最重要的問題，
I'm not saying that everything is fiction.

不論是以科學家身份或是個人身份，
It's just very difficult for human beings to tell the difference

是能夠清楚分辨虛構和現實，
between fiction and reality,

因為現實是存在的。
and it has become more and more difficult as history progressed,

我不是說所有一切都是虛構的，
because the fictions that we have created --

只是對人類來說，是很難去分辨
nations and gods and money and corporations --

虛構和現實。
they now control the world.

而且隨著歷史的累積，也變得越來越扭曲，
So just to even think,

因為我們創造出來的這些故事──
"Oh, this is just all fictional entities that we've created,"

國家和神明，金錢和企業──
is very difficult.

它們已支配著這世界。
But reality is there.

所以就算要去反思：
For me the best ...

「啊！這些都是我們創造的故事而已，」
There are several tests

就已經會感到吃力了。
to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

但現實是存在的。
The simplest one, the best one that I can say in short,

對我個人，最好的……
is the test of suffering.

有好幾個測試
If it can suffer, it's real.

可用來分辨故事和現實。
If it can't suffer, it's not real.

最簡單的，最易講解的，
A nation cannot suffer.

就是痛苦的測試。
That's very, very clear.

如果能感到痛苦的，是存在的。
Even if a nation loses a war,

如果不能感到痛苦的，便是不存在的。
we say, "Germany suffered a defeat in the First World War,"

一個國家是不能感到痛苦的，
it's a metaphor.

這應是非常，非常明顯的。
Germany cannot suffer. Germany has no mind.

就算是一個國家打敗戰時，
Germany has no consciousness.

我們說：「德國在第一次世界大戰受敗戰之苦，」
Germans can suffer, yes, but Germany cannot.

這只是個比喻，
Similarly, when a bank goes bust,

德國不可能感到痛苦，德國沒有思想，
the bank cannot suffer.

德國沒有自覺性。
When the dollar loses its value, the dollar doesn't suffer.

德國人民可受苦了，這沒錯，但德國是不可能的。
People can suffer. Animals can suffer.

同樣，當一個銀行倒閉時，
This is real.

銀行是不可能受苦的。
So I would start, if you really want to see reality,

當貨幣貶值，貨幣不可能受苦的。
I would go through the door of suffering.

人民會苦。動物會苦。
If you can really understand what suffering is,

這是真實存在的。
this will give you also the key

所以如果你想體悟存在，我建議初步嘗試，
to understand what reality is.

我會走進痛苦的大門，
CA: There's a Facebook question here that connects to this,

如果你真的能體悟什麼是痛苦，
from someone around the world in a language that I cannot read.

這也會讓你能夠
YNH: Oh, it's Hebrew. CA: Hebrew. There you go.

明白什麼是存在。
(Laughter)

克：這裡有個來自臉書的問題，也是關於同一點的。
Can you read the name?

這從哪國來我不知道，我不會讀這文字。
YNH: Or Lauterbach Goren.

尤：啊，是希伯來語。克：希伯來語。你的。
CA: Well, thank you for writing in.

（笑聲）
The question is: "Is the post-truth era really a brand-new era,

你能讀這名字嗎？
or just another climax or moment in a never-ending trend?

尤：Or Lauterbach Goren.
YNH: Personally, I don't connect with this idea of post-truth.

克：謝謝你的問題。
My basic reaction as a historian is:

問題是：「這個後真相政治時代真的是一個全新時代嗎？
If this is the era of post-truth, when the hell was the era of truth?

或只不過是一個高潮，或邁向永無止境之一刻而已？」
CA: Right.

尤：我個人而言，我對這個後真相政治概念毫無共鳴。
(Laughter)

我身為歷史學家的反應是：
YNH: Was it the 1980s, the 1950s, the Middle Ages?

如果今天是後真相政治時代，請問曾幾何時是真相政治時代？
I mean, we have always lived in an era, in a way, of post-truth.

克：對。
CA: But I'd push back on that,

（笑聲）
because I think what people are talking about

尤：是在 1980 年代， 1950 年代，或中世紀？
is that there was a world where you had fewer journalistic outlets,

我認為，我們一路來都像是活在後真相時代。
where there were traditions, that things were fact-checked.

克：這一點我們緩下來。
It was incorporated into the charter of those organizations

因為我想大家在談論的，
that the truth mattered.

是以往在世界上，還沒有那麼多的媒體渠道，
So if you believe in a reality,

而那時候的傳統，資訊都是會經過考證查核的。
then what you write is information.

這自律精神也宣明在媒體組織的憲章中，
There was a belief that that information should connect to reality in a real way,

事實真相是重要的。
and if you wrote a headline, it was a serious, earnest attempt

所以如果你真的重視事實，
to reflect something that had actually happened.

那你所寫的就是資訊，
And people didn't always get it right.

而且有個信念是要求這資訊要與事實有關連；
But I think the concern now is you've got

所以當你寫報章頭條時，你的心態是慎重誠懇的，
a technological system that's incredibly powerful

來傳遞一些已發生的事物，
that, for a while at least, massively amplified anything

雖然不一定能百分百之正確。
with no attention paid to whether it connected to reality,

而我想現在人人關注的
only to whether it connected to clicks and attention,

是因為有了一個超強的科技系統，
and that that was arguably toxic.

它能夠，雖然只是片刻，極大量氾濫地傳遞資訊，
That's a reasonable concern, isn't it?

但毫不注重資訊是否與事實真的相關，
YNH: Yeah, it is. I mean, the technology changes,

卻只重視觀聽人數和熱門度。
and it's now easier to disseminate both truth and fiction and falsehood.

這種情況：確是有人視之為污染，
It goes both ways.

這是合理的顧慮，是不是？
It's also much easier, though, to spread the truth than it was ever before.

尤：是的，是合理，這是因為科技之改變，
But I don't think there is anything essentially new

現在是很容易傳播事實和虛構故事和謬誤。
about this disseminating fictions and errors.

但是這改變可以是雙向的。
There is nothing that -- I don't know -- Joseph Goebbels, didn't know

同樣，今時也是比往時更容易傳播事實真相。
about all this idea of fake news and post-truth.

但我不認為在根本上，有什麼嶄新的變化，
He famously said that if you repeat a lie often enough,

在傳播幻想和謊言方面。
people will think it's the truth,

我猜想沒有什麼是納粹宣傳長約瑟夫·戈培爾不知情的，
and the bigger the lie, the better,

關於這假新聞和後真相時代的問題。
because people won't even think that something so big can be a lie.

他說過一名句：「如果你不斷重複一個謊言，
I think that fake news has been with us for thousands of years.

人人就會信它是真的，
Just think of the Bible.

而越大的謊言，越是可信，
(Laughter)

因為人們絕對不敢相信，這麼大的事情竟然是個謊言。」
CA: But there is a concern

我相信假新聞，已陪伴著人類幾千年了。
that the fake news is associated with tyrannical regimes,

聖經就是一個。
and when you see an uprise in fake news

（笑聲）
that is a canary in the coal mine that there may be dark times coming.

克：但這裡有個疑慮，
YNH: Yeah. I mean, the intentional use of fake news is a disturbing sign.

就是當假新聞是從獨裁政府出來的，
But I'm not saying that it's not bad, I'm just saying that it's not new.

而當你也看到假新聞上升時，
CA: There's a lot of interest on Facebook on this question

大家都會知道黑暗可能會來臨了。
about global governance versus nationalism.

尤：對，我也知道，故意散佈假新聞是個令人不安的跡象。
Question here from Phil Dennis:

不過我不是說這是對的，我是說這不是現今才有的。
"How do we get people, governments, to relinquish power?

克：在臉書聽眾中有很多有興趣知道關於
Is that -- is that -- actually, the text is so big

環球管理和國家主義這議題。
I can't read the full question.

這是菲爾·丹尼思的問題：
But is that a necessity?

「我們怎能使人民，政權放棄權力呢？」
Is it going to take war to get there?

這——這那字體非常大啊。
Sorry Phil -- I mangled your question, but I blame the text right here.

我看不清整條問題。
YNH: One option that some people talk about

「這是否不可避免，
is that only a catastrophe can shake humankind

真的要以戰爭來達到目標嗎？」
and open the path to a real system of global governance,

對不起菲爾，我搞錯您的問題，不過我卸責於這文檔。
and they say that we can't do it before the catastrophe,

尤：有一些人在討論一個可能性，
but we need to start laying the foundations

就是只有浩劫能警醒人類，
so that when the disaster strikes,

才能開展一條全球治理系統之道路。
we can react quickly.

他們說我們絕不能在浩劫前做到，
But people will just not have the motivation to do such a thing

但我們要開始打下基礎，
before the disaster strikes.

以便浩劫來臨時，
Another thing that I would emphasize

我們能很快回應；
is that anybody who is really interested in global governance

可是人民不會有動力做這些，
should always make it very, very clear

在浩劫發生之前。
that it doesn't replace or abolish local identities and communities,

另外一件事我必要強調的，
that it should come both as --

就是任何真正對全球治理有興趣的人，
It should be part of a single package.

必要使人人都時時清楚知道，
CA: I want to hear more on this,

原有的本地身份和社區團體，是不會被取代或廢除的。
because the very words "global governance"

全球治理應該要融匯兩者，
are almost the epitome of evil in the mindset of a lot of people

要全部納為同一整體方案。
on the alt-right right now.

克：我想多聽些這方面的，
It just seems scary, remote, distant, and it has let them down,

因為「全球治理」這個字眼本身，
and so globalists, global governance -- no, go away!

在很多人腦海中，差不多是意味著邪惡的頂峰，
And many view the election as the ultimate poke in the eye

尤其在另類右派之眼中：
to anyone who believes in that.

它讓人覺得可怕、冷漠、遙遠；因為曾經讓他們失望過，
So how do we change the narrative

所以對全球治理主義者，或全球治理──不要，走開！
so that it doesn't seem so scary and remote?

同時很多人對這次選舉結果，
Build more on this idea of it being compatible

視之為對全球治理主義者終極之打擊。
with local identity, local communities.

但是，我們該如何改變我們的訴求，
YNH: Well, I think again we should start

使它不那麼可怕與冷漠呢？
really with the biological realities

可否在概念上更多的演繹，
of Homo sapiens.

全球治理主義為何能兼容本地身份和社區團體等。
And biology tells us two things about Homo sapiens

尤：我想，我們還是需要
which are very relevant to this issue:

確實的回到
first of all, that we are completely dependent

我們人類的生理實況。
on the ecological system around us,

生物學告訴我們關於人類的兩點，
and that today we are talking about a global system.

對這論點有很大關連的：
You cannot escape that.

第一點，人類完全依賴
And at the same time, biology tells us about Homo sapiens

我們身邊的生態環境系統，
that we are social animals,

依時下說來，我們談的是一個全球系統，
but that we are social on a very, very local level.

你不可逃避這一點。
It's just a simple fact of humanity

同時，生物學也告訴我們，
that we cannot have intimate familiarity

人類是一種社會動物。
with more than about 150 individuals.

但我們社交建立在一個非常、非常地方性的層面；
The size of the natural group,

這是一個易見的人類實況，
the natural community of Homo sapiens,

我們能建立親近關係之人數
is not more than 150 individuals,

也多不多 150 個人。
and everything beyond that is really based on all kinds of imaginary stories

這是一個自然的團體人數，
and large-scale institutions,

一個自然聚集之社區
and I think that we can find a way,

應不會超過150 人。
again, based on a biological understanding of our species,

任何大於這個數字的人際網絡，都是建立在各類虛構故事
to weave the two together

和大型組織裡。
and to understand that today in the 21st century,

我想我們是能夠找出一條路，
we need both the global level and the local community.

當然，這是要建立在對人類生理學上之了解，
And I would go even further than that

把這兩點融貫一起，
and say that it starts with the body itself.

和清楚了解在 21 世紀的今天，
The feelings that people today have of alienation and loneliness

我們同時需要全球性和社區性。
and not finding their place in the world,

還有，我會更深一層地詮釋，
I would think that the chief problem is not global capitalism.

說我們要從身體開始：
The chief problem is that over the last hundred years,

人類今天有疏離感和孤獨感，
people have been becoming disembodied,

和不能在世界找到自己的定位，
have been distancing themselves from their body.

據我的看法這主要原因不是在於全球資本主義。
As a hunter-gatherer or even as a peasant,

主要問題是在於近一百年來，
to survive, you need to be constantly in touch

人類日漸蒙受到心身隔離，
with your body and with your senses,

開始與自己的身體疏遠，
every moment.

一個狩獵採集者，或就算一位農民而言，
If you go to the forest to look for mushrooms

要能活下去，你必須經常與
and you don't pay attention to what you hear,

自己的身體和感官聯繫，
to what you smell, to what you taste,

每一個時刻都要。
you're dead.

如果你走進森林去尋找蕈類，
So you must be very connected.

但你不留心你所聽到的，
In the last hundred years, people are losing their ability

所嗅到的，嚐到的，
to be in touch with their body and their senses,

那你就沒命了。
to hear, to smell, to feel.

所以你必需身心合一。
More and more attention goes to screens,

但在近一百年來，人類已漸漸失去了這能力，
to what is happening elsewhere,

與自己身體和感官合一，
some other time.

去聽，去嗅，去觸覺；
This, I think, is the deep reason

越來越多的精神是費在看螢幕，
for the feelings of alienation and loneliness and so forth,

在其它地方發生的事物，
and therefore part of the solution

在其它的時代。
is not to bring back some mass nationalism,

我相信這個就是一個深層理由，
but also reconnect with our own bodies,

人類有疏離感和孤單感等等。
and if you are back in touch with your body,

所以解決問題一部份方法，
you will feel much more at home in the world also.

並不在復興國家主義，
CA: Well, depending on how things go, we may all be back in the forest soon.

而是要身心合一，
We're going to have one more question in the room

如果你能身心合一，
and one more on Facebook.

你自然會在世界中有自在安全感。
Ama Adi-Dako: Hello. I'm from Ghana, West Africa, and my question is:

克：是的，看世局如何走，我們亦可以很快的回到森林。
I'm wondering how do you present and justify the idea of global governance

我們將接受現場最後一個問題，
to countries that have been historically disenfranchised

和一個臉書的問題。
by the effects of globalization,

阿馬：你好，我來自西非加納，我的問題是：
and also, if we're talking about global governance,

我想知道你會怎樣推行和辯解全球治理，
it sounds to me like it will definitely come from a very Westernized idea

面對著那些歷來都是被剝奪權力的國家，
of what the "global" is supposed to look like.

而其原因正是全球化引發的。
So how do we present and justify that idea of global

還有，當我們談到全球治理，
versus wholly nationalist

我看來這個概念必定是從一個
to people in countries like Ghana and Nigeria and Togo

極西方國家角度對「全球」來定義的，
and other countries like that?

所以我們如何說明和比較這個全球概念
YNH: I would start by saying that history is extremely unfair,

與國家主義，
and that we should realize that.

對加納，奈及利亞和多哥的人民，
Many of the countries that suffered most

以及類似的國家呢？
from the last 200 years of globalization

尤：首先我會說歷史非常不公平，
and imperialism and industrialization

那是我們需要了解的，
are exactly the countries which are also most likely to suffer most

很多受傷害最大的國家，
from the next wave.

在過往 200 年的全球化發展下，
And we should be very, very clear about that.

和大英帝國主義和工業革命下，
If we don't have a global governance,

將會再次受到最大的傷害，
and if we suffer from climate change,

在下一個浪頭來臨時。
from technological disruptions,

我們必須非常、非常明確的指出，
the worst suffering will not be in the US.

如果我們沒有建立全球治理，
The worst suffering will be in Ghana, will be in Sudan, will be in Syria,

當我們受到氣候變遷災害，
will be in Bangladesh, will be in those places.

或科技衝擊時，
So I think those countries have an even greater incentive

最苦的不會是在美國，
to do something about the next wave of disruption,

最苦的會發生在加納，在蘇丹，在敘利亞，
whether it's ecological or whether it's technological.

在孟加拉國，在這些地方。
Again, if you think about technological disruption,

所以，我相信這些國家應該更受激勵，
so if AI and 3D printers and robots will take the jobs

去做些準備來面對下一波的衝擊，
from billions of people,

不管是生態環境方面，或是在科學技術方面。
I worry far less about the Swedes

再重覆，如果你考慮到科技上的衝擊，
than about the people in Ghana or in Bangladesh.

如果說人工智慧，3D 列印和機械人，
And therefore, because history is so unfair

會奪去數以億計的工作，
and the results of a calamity

我比較不擔心瑞典人民，
will not be shared equally between everybody,

而比較擔心在加納，或在孟加拉國的人民。
as usual, the rich will be able to get away

因此，因為歷史曾是那麼不公平，
from the worst consequences of climate change

而浩劫的後果，
in a way that the poor will not be able to.

將不會平均分攤到每個人。
CA: And here's a great question from Cameron Taylor on Facebook:

而且照慣例，這些富裕的人能逃避
"At the end of 'Sapiens,'"

氣候變遷帶來的最嚴重災害，
you said we should be asking the question,

但相對貧窮的人就不能夠了。
'What do we want to want?'

克：臉書聽眾泰勒有個很好的問題：
Well, what do you think we should want to want?"

「在《人類大歷史》的結尾，
YNH: I think we should want to want to know the truth,

你說我們應該問：
to understand reality.

『我們想要要什麼呢？』
Mostly what we want is to change reality,

請問你認為我們應該想要要什麼呢？」
to fit it to our own desires, to our own wishes,

尤：我認為我們應該是想要想知道真相，
and I think we should first want to understand it.

想明白現實真相。
If you look at the long-term trajectory of history,

一般來說，我們想要的只是去改變現實，
what you see is that for thousands of years

來迎合我們自己的慾望，迎合我們的需求，
we humans have been gaining control of the world outside us

我想我們該先去了解這些。
and trying to shape it to fit our own desires.

如果你以長期角度來覽觀歷史，
And we've gained control of the other animals,

你看到幾千年來，
of the rivers, of the forests,

我們人類能不斷掌控我們外在的世界，
and reshaped them completely,

而且試圖改造它來滿足我們的欲望；
causing an ecological destruction

同時我們也控制了其它的動物，
without making ourselves satisfied.

控制河流，控制森林，
So the next step is we turn our gaze inwards,

而且更截然的把它們改頭換面，
and we say OK, getting control of the world outside us

引發出生態環境的破壞，
did not really make us satisfied.

但卻不能滿足我們。
Let's now try to gain control of the world inside us.

所以下一步，就是要把我們目光向內廻轉，
This is the really big project

而且告訴自己：好，控制了外面世界
of science and technology and industry in the 21st century --

不能真的滿足我們。
to try and gain control of the world inside us,

我們現在該嘗試降服內在的世界。
to learn how to engineer and produce bodies and brains and minds.

這是一個真正大的項目，
These are likely to be the main products of the 21st century economy.

一個在 21 世紀的科學和科技和工業的項目──
When people think about the future, very often they think in terms,

試圖把我們內心世界馴服，
"Oh, I want to gain control of my body and of my brain."

研究如何去建造和生產身體和大腦和思想。
And I think that's very dangerous.

這些很可能就是 21 世紀主要經濟產物。
If we've learned anything from our previous history,

當人想到未來，很多時候會這樣想：
it's that yes, we gain the power to manipulate,

「啊！我想要能夠控制我的身體和我的大腦。」
but because we didn't really understand the complexity

但我想這會是非常危險的。
of the ecological system,

如果我們有從過去歷史中學到一點教訓，
we are now facing an ecological meltdown.

就是，沒錯，我們是有了操控力，
And if we now try to reengineer the world inside us

但是因為我們並不確實了解
without really understanding it,

我們生態系統的複雜性，
especially without understanding the complexity of our mental system,

所以我們今天正要面對生態環境的崩潰。
we might cause a kind of internal ecological disaster,

同樣如果我們現在就想操控我們內心世界，
and we'll face a kind of mental meltdown inside us.

在沒有真的了解的情況下，
CA: Putting all the pieces together here --

尤其是沒能真正了解我們思想系統之複雜性之前，
the current politics, the coming technology,

我們有可能會造成類似內在的生態崩潰，
concerns like the one you've just outlined --

結果就是我們未來將要面對一種思想系統的崩潰。
I mean, it seems like you yourself are in quite a bleak place

克：我把所談的做個結論──
when you think about the future.

現今政治，未來的科技，
You're pretty worried about it.

你剛才提出需要關注的事項──
Is that right?

我的直覺，好像你本人不太樂觀。
And if there was one cause for hope, how would you state that?

當你想到未來的時候，
YNH: I focus on the most dangerous possibilities

你好像很擔心的，
partly because this is like my job or responsibility

是不是？
as a historian or social critic.

但是如果個中真有一線希望，
I mean, the industry focuses mainly on the positive sides,

你說是什麼？
so it's the job of historians and philosophers and sociologists

尤：我專注在最危險的可能性，
to highlight the more dangerous potential of all these new technologies.

一部分是因為這是我的工作或責任，
I don't think any of that is inevitable.

身為一個歷史學家或社會評論人。
Technology is never deterministic.

我是說，工業界只會談正面的，
You can use the same technology

所以歷史學家、哲學家和社會學家的責任，
to create very different kinds of societies.

是把這些新科技的潛在危險提出來。
If you look at the 20th century,

我所談的沒有一項是必定要發生的，
so, the technologies of the Industrial Revolution,

科技本身並無既定性，
the trains and electricity and all that

你可以用同一樣的科技，
could be used to create a communist dictatorship

來營造很不一樣的社會。
or a fascist regime or a liberal democracy.

如果你看 20 世紀，
The trains did not tell you what to do with them.

工業革命的科技發明，
Similarly, now, artificial intelligence and bioengineering and all of that --

火車、電力和其它一切，
they don't predetermine a single outcome.

可用來創造一個共產獨裁主義，
Humanity can rise up to the challenge,

或一個法西斯政權，或一個自由民主政黨。
and the best example we have

火車沒有叫你用它來做什麼。
of humanity rising up to the challenge of a new technology

同樣的，今天的人工智慧，生物工程和一切其它的──
is nuclear weapons.

它們不會預定任何一個結果。
In the late 1940s, '50s,

人類可以面對挑戰。
many people were convinced

而我們最好的例子，
that sooner or later the Cold War will end in a nuclear catastrophe,

人類能戰勝科技帶來的挑戰
destroying human civilization.

就是核武器。
And this did not happen.

在 1940 年代後期，1950 年代，
In fact, nuclear weapons prompted humans all over the world

很多人都相信
to change the way that they manage international politics

冷戰遲早會引發一場核武大災難，
to reduce violence.

毀滅全人類文明。
And many countries basically took out war

這沒有發生。
from their political toolkit.

反過來，核武驅使世界各地民族
They no longer tried to pursue their interests with warfare.

改變了手法去協調國際政治問題，
Not all countries have done so, but many countries have.

為了去減低暴力發生。
And this is maybe the most important reason

更有很多國家基本上已把戰爭
why international violence declined dramatically since 1945,

從他們的政治工具包中拿掉了。
and today, as I said, more people commit suicide

這些國家已選擇不用戰爭手段來追求它們的利益。
than are killed in war.

不是全部國家，但是很多已經是這樣了；
So this, I think, gives us a good example

這可能就是最主要原因，
that even the most frightening technology,

為什麼國際暴力從 1945 年來急劇降低了。
humans can rise up to the challenge

在今天，我早前也說過，自殺的人之數字
and actually some good can come out of it.

多於在戰爭死亡的。
The problem is, we have very little margin for error.

所以我想這是個好的例子，
If we don't get it right,

就算面對著使人最駭怕的科技，
we might not have a second option to try again.

人類也是能戰勝的，
CA: That's a very powerful note,

而且最終也能在其中挖出些寶。
on which I think we should draw this to a conclusion.

難題是，我們只有極微小的誤差餘地，
Before I wrap up, I just want to say one thing to people here

如果我們出了錯，
and to the global TED community watching online, anyone watching online:

我們可能再沒有第二次機會了。
help us with these dialogues.

克：這是很震撼的呼籲，
If you believe, like we do,

我想我們也在這裡結束。
that we need to find a different kind of conversation,

在結束前，我想對在場聽眾
now more than ever, help us do it.

和全球的 TED 社團，及網上的觀眾說：
Reach out to other people,

支持這系列的 TED Dialogues。
try and have conversations with people you disagree with,

如果你相信，像我們一樣的相信，
understand them,

我們需要尋找另類的交談，
pull the pieces together,

此時此刻比過往更迫切，請協助我們完成這事。
and help us figure out how to take these conversations forward

向其他人伸出手，
so we can make a real contribution

嘗試跟你意見不同的人對話，
to what's happening in the world right now.

了解他們，
I think everyone feels more alive,

綜合多方意見，
more concerned, more engaged

幫助我們找出最好的方法去推展這論壇，
with the politics of the moment.

使我們能對今天正在世界
The stakes do seem quite high,

發生的一切做出真實的貢獻。
so help us respond to it in a wise, wise way.

我相信每個人能活得更真實，
Yuval Harari, thank you.

更誠懇，更有參與感，
(Applause)

對當今這些政治議題。