It's a bit funny, because I did write that humans will become digital,

哈囉，大家好。

but I didn't think it will happen so fast

這有點好笑，因為我的確寫過 人類將來會變成數位的，

and that it will happen to me.

但我當時沒料到會這麼快發生，

But here I am, as a digital avatar,

且發生在我身上。

and here you are, so let's start.

但我現在就以 數位人像的身份站在這裡，

And let's start with a question.

你們也都就座了，所以開始吧。

How many fascists are there in the audience today?

咱們從一個問題開始。

(Laughter)

今天觀眾席中， 有多少人是法西斯主義者？

Well, it's a bit difficult to say,

（笑聲）

because we've forgotten what fascism is.

嗯，這有點難說，

People now use the term "fascist"

因為我們已忘了法西斯主義是什麼。

as a kind of general-purpose abuse.

現代人使用「法西斯主義的」一詞

Or they confuse fascism with nationalism.

通常是指某種一般性目的的傷害。

So let's take a few minutes to clarify what fascism actually is,

或是他們把法西斯主義 和國家主義搞混了。

and how it is different from nationalism.

所以，咱們先花幾分鐘時間， 澄清一下法西斯主義到底是什麼，

The milder forms of nationalism have been among the most benevolent

以及它和國家主義有什麼不同。

of human creations.

國家主義的溫和形式

Nations are communities of millions of strangers

一直都是人類最仁慈的產物之一。

who don't really know each other.

國家就是數百萬名陌生人 所組成的共同體，

For example, I don't know the eight million people

這些人並不認識彼此。

who share my Israeli citizenship.

比如，我並不認識另外八百萬名

But thanks to nationalism,

擁有以色列公民身份的人。

we can all care about one another and cooperate effectively.

但多虧了國家主義，

This is very good.

我們都在乎彼此，並能有效地合作。

Some people, like John Lennon, imagine that without nationalism,

這是非常好的。

the world will be a peaceful paradise.

像約翰藍儂（John Lennon）， 有些人臆測若沒有國家主義，

But far more likely,

世界會是個和平的天堂。

without nationalism, we would have been living in tribal chaos.

但更有可能的是，

If you look today at the most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world,

若沒有國家主義， 我們會生活在部落的混亂中。

countries like Sweden and Switzerland and Japan,

如果你們想想看現今世界上 最繁榮、和平的國家，

you will see that they have a very strong sense of nationalism.

比如瑞典、瑞士和日本，

In contrast, countries that lack a strong sense of nationalism,

就會發現它們都有 很強的國家主義感。

like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan,

相對地，缺乏強烈 國家主義感的國家，

tend to be violent and poor.

比如剛果、索馬利亞，及阿富汗，

So what is fascism, and how is it different from nationalism?

都傾向較暴力和貧窮。

Well, nationalism tells me that my nation is unique,

所以，法西斯主義是什麼？ 它和國家主義有什麼不同？

and that I have special obligations towards my nation.

嗯，國家主義告訴我， 我的國家是獨一無二的，

Fascism, in contrast, tells me that my nation is supreme,

且我對於我的國家負有特殊的義務。

and that I have exclusive obligations towards it.

相對地，法西斯主義告訴我， 我的國家是優越的，

I don't need to care about anybody or anything other than my nation.

且我對於我國家的義務是唯一的。

Usually, of course, people have many identities

我只需要在乎我的國家， 其他人事物都不重要。

and loyalties to different groups.

當然，通常人對於不同的群體會有

For example, I can be a good patriot, loyal to my country,

許多不同的身份和忠誠度。

and at the same time, be loyal to my family,

比如，我可能是個愛國者， 對我的國家很忠誠，

my neighborhood, my profession,

同時，我也忠於我的家庭、

humankind as a whole,

我的鄰里、我的職業、

truth and beauty.

全體人類、

Of course, when I have different identities and loyalties,

真相以及美好。

it sometimes creates conflicts and complications.

當然，當我有 不同的身份和忠誠度時，

But, well, who ever told you that life was easy?

有時就會產生出衝突和複雜。

Life is complicated.

但，誰說人生是容易的呢？

Deal with it.

人生是複雜的。

Fascism is what happens when people try to ignore the complications

想辦法處理它。

and to make life too easy for themselves.

法西斯主義之所以會發生， 就是因為人們試圖忽略複雜，

Fascism denies all identities except the national identity

把他們自己的人生變得太輕鬆簡單。

and insists that I have obligations only towards my nation.

法西斯主義否認 國家身份以外的所有身份，

If my nation demands that I sacrifice my family,

並堅持我只對我的國家有義務。

then I will sacrifice my family.

如果我的國家需要我犧牲我的家人，

If the nation demands that I kill millions of people,

我就會犧牲我的家人。

then I will kill millions of people.

如果國家需要我殺掉數百萬個人，

And if my nation demands that I betray truth and beauty,

我就會殺掉數百萬個人。

then I should betray truth and beauty.

如果我的國家需要我 背叛真相和美好，

For example, how does a fascist evaluate art?

我就該背叛真相和美好。

How does a fascist decide whether a movie is a good movie or a bad movie?

比如，法西斯主義者 要如何評鑑藝術？

Well, it's very, very, very simple.

法西斯主義者要如何 決定一部電影的優劣？

There is really just one yardstick:

答案非常、非常、非常簡單。

if the movie serves the interests of the nation,

衡量標準只有一種：

it's a good movie;

如果電影是為國家的利益著想，

if the movie doesn't serve the interests of the nation,

它就是部好電影；

it's a bad movie.

如果電影沒有為國家的利益著想，

That's it.

它就是部爛電影。

Similarly, how does a fascist decide what to teach kids in school?

就這樣。

Again, it's very simple.

同樣地，法西斯主義者要如何 決定在學校要教孩子什麼內容？

There is just one yardstick:

答案也非常簡單。

you teach the kids whatever serves the interests of the nation.

衡量標準只有一種：

The truth doesn't matter at all.

不論你教孩子什麼， 只要對國家有利就對了。

Now, the horrors of the Second World War and of the Holocaust remind us

真相完全不重要。

of the terrible consequences of this way of thinking.

二次大戰和大屠殺的恐怖， 讓我們想起

But usually, when we talk about the ills of fascism,

這種思維方式的可怖後果。

we do so in an ineffective way,

但通常，當我們談到 法西斯主義的不好之處時，

because we tend to depict fascism as a hideous monster,

我們會用無效的方式來談，

without really explaining what was so seductive about it.

因為我們傾向會把法西斯主義 描繪成一隻可怕的怪獸，

It's a bit like these Hollywood movies that depict the bad guys --

而不會真正去解釋 它有什麼誘人之處。

Voldemort or Sauron or Darth Vader --

這就有點像好萊塢電影 描繪這些反派的方式——

as ugly and mean and cruel.

佛地魔、索倫，或達斯維德——

They're cruel even to their own supporters.

醜陋、卑鄙，且殘酷。

When I see these movies, I never understand --

他們甚至對自己的支持者也很殘酷。

why would anybody be tempted to follow a disgusting creep like Voldemort?

當我看這些電影時， 我始終無法理解，

The problem with evil is that in real life,

為什麼會有人被誘惑去追隨 佛地魔這種讓人討厭的卑鄙小人？

evil doesn't necessarily look ugly.

邪惡的問題在於，在真實生活中，

It can look very beautiful.

邪惡的外表不見得是醜陋的。

This is something that Christianity knew very well,

它可能看起來十分美好。

which is why in Christian art, as [opposed to] Hollywood,

基督教就非常清楚知道這一點，

Satan is usually depicted as a gorgeous hunk.

這就是為什麼基督教藝術 和好萊塢相反，

This is why it's so difficult to resist the temptations of Satan,

撒旦通常被描繪成 英俊且性感的男人。

and why it is also difficult to resist the temptations of fascism.

那就是為什麼要拒絕 撒旦的誘惑是很困難的，

Fascism makes people see themselves

也是為什麼要拒絕 法西斯主義的誘惑也很困難。

as belonging to the most beautiful and most important thing in the world --

法西斯主義讓人們 能夠感受到他們自己

the nation.

隸屬於世界上最美好、 最重要的東西——

And then people think,

國家。

"Well, they taught us that fascism is ugly.

接著，人們會想：

But when I look in the mirror, I see something very beautiful,

「嗯，他們教我們 法西斯主義是醜陋的。

so I can't be a fascist, right?"

但當我看向鏡子， 我看到的卻是美好的東西，

Wrong.

所以我不可能是法西斯主義者吧？」

That's the problem with fascism.

錯。

When you look in the fascist mirror,

那就是法西斯主義的問題。

you see yourself as far more beautiful than you really are.

當你看向法西斯主義的鏡子，

In the 1930s, when Germans looked in the fascist mirror,

你看見的自己， 比實際上的還要美麗許多。

they saw Germany as the most beautiful thing in the world.

在 30 年代，當德國人 看向法西斯主義的鏡子時，

If today, Russians look in the fascist mirror,

他們看到的是： 德國是世界上最美好的東西。

they will see Russia as the most beautiful thing in the world.

換到現今，若俄國人 看向法西斯主義的鏡子，

And if Israelis look in the fascist mirror,

他們會看到： 俄國是世界上最美好的東西。

they will see Israel as the most beautiful thing in the world.

如果以色列人看向 法西斯主義的鏡子，

This does not mean that we are now facing a rerun of the 1930s.

他們會看到： 以色列是世界上最美好的東西。

Fascism and dictatorships might come back,

這並不表示我們現在 面臨到 30 年代的重演。

but they will come back in a new form,

法西斯主義和獨裁專政 有可能會回來，

a form which is much more relevant

但它們會以新的形式回來，

to the new technological realities of the 21st century.

這個新的形式會和 21 世紀的

In ancient times,

新技術現實有更多更高的相關性。

land was the most important asset in the world.

在古代的時候，

Politics, therefore, was the struggle to control land.

土地是世界上最重要的資產。

And dictatorship meant that all the land was owned by a single ruler

因此，政治都是 在努力試圖控制土地。

or by a small oligarch.

獨裁專政就表示所有的土地 都屬於單一統治者

And in the modern age, machines became more important than land.

或一個寡頭政治集團。

Politics became the struggle to control the machines.

在近代，機器變得比土地更重要。

And dictatorship meant

政治就變成是在努力控制機器。

that too many of the machines became concentrated

而獨裁專政意味著

in the hands of the government or of a small elite.

太多機器都被集中

Now data is replacing both land and machines

在政府或少數菁英團體的手中。

as the most important asset.

現在，資料數據取代了土地和機器，

Politics becomes the struggle to control the flows of data.

成為最重要的資產。

And dictatorship now means

政治變成在努力控制資料流。

that too much data is being concentrated in the hands of the government

而現在的獨裁專政意味著

or of a small elite.

太多數據資料集中在政府或少數

The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy

菁英團體的手中，

is that the revolution in information technology

現在，自由民主要面對的最大危險

will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.

就是資訊科技的革命

In the 20th century,

將會讓獨裁政權變得比民主更有效。

democracy and capitalism defeated fascism and communism

在 20 世紀，

because democracy was better at processing data and making decisions.

民主和資本主義打敗了 法西斯主義和共產主義，

Given 20th-century technology,

因為民主比較擅長 處理數據和做決策。

it was simply inefficient to try and concentrate too much data

以 20 世紀的科技，

and too much power in one place.

如果要把太多數據資料 和太多權力集中在一個地方，

But it is not a law of nature

實在是太沒效益了。

that centralized data processing is always less efficient

但，自然的法則並沒有說

than distributed data processing.

集中化的數據資料處理 就一定比分散式

With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning,

更沒效益。

it might become feasible to process enormous amounts of information

隨著人工智慧與機器學習的興起，

very efficiently in one place,

或許會可以在單一個地方

to take all the decisions in one place,

有效率地處理大量的資訊，

and then centralized data processing will be more efficient

在單一個地方做所有的決策，

than distributed data processing.

那麼，集中式的資料處理

And then the main handicap of authoritarian regimes

就會比分散式的更有效益。

in the 20th century --

那麼，在 20 世紀，

their attempt to concentrate all the information in one place --

權力主義政體的主要不利條件——

it will become their greatest advantage.

這些政體試圖將所有資訊 集中在一個地方——

Another technological danger that threatens the future of democracy

就會變成它們最大的優勢。

is the merger of information technology with biotechnology,

還有另一項科技危險， 會威脅到民主的未來，

which might result in the creation of algorithms

那就是資訊科技和生物科技的合併，

that know me better than I know myself.

這可能會創造出一種演算法，

And once you have such algorithms,

能比我自己更了解我。

an external system, like the government,

一旦有這種演算法，

cannot just predict my decisions,

一個外部系統，比如政府，

it can also manipulate my feelings, my emotions.

就不只是能預測我的決策，

A dictator may not be able to provide me with good health care,

它也能操控我的感受和情緒。

but he will be able to make me love him

獨裁者也許無法提供我 好的健康照護，

and to make me hate the opposition.

但他能使我愛他，

Democracy will find it difficult to survive such a development

而且痛恨反對派。

because, in the end,

在這樣的發展下，民主很難生存，

democracy is not based on human rationality;

因為，到頭來，

it's based on human feelings.

民主的基礎並不是人類的理性；

During elections and referendums,

而是人類的感受。

you're not being asked, "What do you think?"

在選舉和公民投票中，

You're actually being asked, "How do you feel?"

你不會被問到：「你認為如何？」

And if somebody can manipulate your emotions effectively,

你會被問到：「你感覺如何？」

democracy will become an emotional puppet show.

若有人能夠有效地操控你的情緒，

So what can we do to prevent the return of fascism

民主就會變成一場情緒傀儡劇。

and the rise of new dictatorships?

所以，我們能做什麼， 來預防法西斯主義的再現，

The number one question that we face is: Who controls the data?

以及新獨裁主義的興起？

If you are an engineer,

我們最先面臨的問題 是誰控制著數據資料？

then find ways to prevent too much data

如果你是工程師，

from being concentrated in too few hands.

那麼就想辦法來預防太多數據

And find ways to make sure

被集中在太少數人手中。

the distributed data processing is at least as efficient

並想辦法確保

as centralized data processing.

分散式資料處理

This will be the best safeguard for democracy.

至少要和集中式一樣有效益。

As for the rest of us who are not engineers,

這會是民主的最佳防衛。

the number one question facing us

至於不是工程師的其他人，

is how not to allow ourselves to be manipulated

我們面臨的第一個問題

by those who control the data.

就是如何不要讓我們自己被那些

The enemies of liberal democracy, they have a method.

控制數據資料的人給操控。

They hack our feelings.

自由民主的敵人有一種方法，

Not our emails, not our bank accounts --

他們能「駭入」我們的感受中。

they hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity,

不是駭入我們的 電子郵件或銀行帳戶，

and then use these feelings

而是駭入我們的感受， 如恐懼、仇恨，和虛榮，

to polarize and destroy democracy from within.

接著用這些感受

This is actually a method

從內部將民主給兩極化並摧毀。

that Silicon Valley pioneered in order to sell us products.

其實，這種方式的先驅者

But now, the enemies of democracy are using this very method

就是矽谷，他們用這種方式 把產品銷售給我們。

to sell us fear and hate and vanity.

但現在，民主的敵人 就是用同樣這種方式

They cannot create these feelings out of nothing.

把恐懼、仇恨和虛榮銷售給我們。

So they get to know our own preexisting weaknesses.

他們無法無中生有創造出這些感受。

And then use them against us.

所以他們開始了解 我們自己本來就有的弱點。

And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us

接著用這些弱點來對付我們。

to get to know our weaknesses

因此，我們所有人都有責任

and make sure that they do not become a weapon

要去了解我們的弱點，

in the hands of the enemies of democracy.

並確保這些弱點

Getting to know our own weaknesses

不會被民主的敵人拿來當作武器。

will also help us to avoid the trap of the fascist mirror.

去了解我們自己的弱點，

As we explained earlier, fascism exploits our vanity.

也能協助我們避開 法西斯主義鏡子的陷阱。

It makes us see ourselves as far more beautiful than we really are.

如我們先前解釋過的， 法西斯主義會利用我們的虛榮。

This is the seduction.

它會讓我們認為自己 比真正的狀況還要美麗非常多。

But if you really know yourself,

這就是誘惑。

you will not fall for this kind of flattery.

但如果你真的了解你自己，

If somebody puts a mirror in front of your eyes

你就不會落入這種諂媚奉承。

that hides all your ugly bits and makes you see yourself

如果有人把一面鏡子擺在你眼前，

as far more beautiful and far more important

它把你所有醜陋的部分 隱藏起來，讓你覺得

than you really are,

鏡中的自己比真實的自己更漂亮、

just break that mirror.

更重要許多，

Thank you.

那就把鏡子打破。

(Applause)

謝謝。

Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you.

（掌聲）

Goodness me.

克里斯安德森：哈拉瑞，謝謝你。

It's so nice to see you again.

天哪。

So, if I understand you right,

真高興再次見到你。

you're alerting us to two big dangers here.

如果我沒誤解你的意思，

One is the possible resurgence of a seductive form of fascism,

你是在警告我們兩項危機。

but close to that, dictatorships that may not exactly be fascistic,

其一是法西斯主義的 誘惑形式有可能會再現，

but control all the data.

還有和那很相近的獨裁專政， 不見得完全是法西斯主義，

I wonder if there's a third concern

但能控制所有的數據資料。

that some people here have already expressed,

我在納悶是否有第三項議題要關心，

which is where, not governments, but big corporations control all our data.

這裡的一些人已經提出了這個議題，

What do you call that,

就是，有些大企業，而非政府， 控制了所有我們的資料。

and how worried should we be about that?

你會怎麼看它？

Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end, there isn't such a big difference