Placeholder Image

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?