The title of this presentation is 'The Big Question:

這份簡報的標題叫作"大哉問:

Environmental Misalignment and the Value War'.

環境失調和價值觀戰爭"

Human society today has two diametrically opposed systems of economy.

今日的人類社會 有兩種截然對立的經濟體系

One is our traditionally imposed mode of monetary-market economics.

一種是我們傳統上被灌輸的金融貨幣-市場經濟

The other is a physical-rule structure emerging

另一種是物理上的實體結構規則

from our growing scientific recognition of reality

正從我們對於日益增長的科學現實認知中而浮現

both environmentally and sociologically.

同時包含環境和社會方面的觀點

The consequence is an ever-increasing level of social destabilization

其造成的後果是越來越嚴重的社會不穩定

and an ongoing decline in public health.

以及公眾健康持續惡化衰敗

I've divided this into two brief sections. The first part is called

我將簡報劃分成簡潔的兩部份 第一部份叫作

'System Clash: Market Efficiency vs. Technical Efficiency'

"體系衝突:市場效率VS科技效率"

Part two: 'Values Wars: Societal Potential, Collapse and Transition'

第二部份:"價值觀戰爭:社會中的潛力 崩潰和轉型"

(what we're capable of doing, what's in store for us if we don't

(即我們能做到什麼 如果我們不改善的話會有什麼等著我們

how we can get out of this system, etc).

我們如何超越目前的體系等等)

Before I begin part one, what is economy?

在我開始第一部份前 先談談"經濟"是什麼

It's defined in Greek as the management of a household

在希臘文中 這一詞被定義為管理家務事

a definition that's often lost.

一種經常被人們遺忘的定義

To economize, what does that mean? It means to increase efficiency.

即去"節約 節儉" 這表示什麼? 這意味著增加效率

Keep that in mind: reducing waste.

記住以下這點:減少浪費

That's what economy is supposed to be.

這就是經濟應該做的事

Defining my terms, we'll use two terms throughout this presentation.

接著定義我用的詞匯 我將使用兩個詞匯貫穿整個簡報

The first is a theoretical notion of the 'Earth Economy' which I'll define as

第一個是理論上的"地球經濟" 我將定義為

"Decisions made directly based upon scientific understandings

"直接根據科學上的理解認知所作出的決策

as they relate to optimized habitat management and human health."

因為這些決策與優化人類的事務管理和人類健康有關"

Production and Distribution is regulated by the most technically efficient

生產和分配 是由已知最具科技效率

and sustainable approaches known

和最永續的方式來規範

compared to our currently existing 'market economy' defined [as]

相對於我們現存的"市場經濟" 其被定義為

"Decisions are based on independent human actions

"根據毫無約束的人類行動而作出的決策

through the vehicle of monetary exchange

透過金融貨幣交換這個載體

regulated by the pressures of Supply and Demand.

由供給和需求的壓力所管制

Production and Distribution is enabled by the buying and selling

生產和分配經由勞動和物質供給

of labor and material provisions, with the motivations of a person or group

從而實行銷售 伴隨著一個人或群體

(the self- interest) as the defining attribute of unfolding.

自利的動機 作為昭然若揭的特徵"

This is a chart of seven economic attributes.

這是一張七種經濟屬性的圖表

[There are] many more but this is what I wanted to focus on here.

有更多的屬性 但這是我在此想要聚焦的

Basically they are intrinsic to each economy, in comparison.

基本上這種比對的結果內存於個別的經濟中

I'm focusing on the market economy and its relationship to a natural system

我將專注於市場經濟和它對於自然體系的關係

what we're calling the 'earth economy.'

自然體系即我所稱的"地球經濟"

The only caveat here with these asterisks

這些星號此處唯一的警示意義是

are elements of our sociological development

關於我們社會發展的元素

based on scientific integrity and ingenuity:

是根據科學的完整和精妙的程度

the evolution of science and our knowledge of ourselves and the environment.

即我們對於自身和環境知識的科學進化

That will be talked about as we touch upon each one of these.

這將會被談論到 當我們觸及每一個這些論點時

1) Consumption

1)消費

In a market economy the entire thing is based on consumption.

市場經濟中 整個核心基礎在於消費

The only reason that you're wearing clothes, that you're eating

你穿衣服 吃東西 擁有房屋的唯一理由

or that you have a home is because someone somewhere is

是因為某處的某人

buying or giving a service, exchanging money in some form and consuming.

正在購買或提供服務 以某種形式和消費在交換金錢

That's what this system is.

這就是目前體系的本質

What does the natural world have to say about that?

但這跟自然世界有何相關?

What does an 'earth economy' have to say?

"地球經濟"能有任何發言權嗎?

The Earth is a finite closed system.

地球是一個資源有限的封閉體系

Preservation, not consumption, should be the ethos.

"保存"而非"消費"才應該要蔚為風氣

If you lived on an island with a small group of people

如果在一座島上住著一小群人

and you had a finite amount of resources with a natural generation of growth

而且你資源的數量有限 人口自然增長

a very simplified society, would you decide to make an economic system

而且你資源的數量有限 人口自然增長

that tried to use that up as fast as possible?

試圖儘快搾乾這些資源的經濟體系嗎?

No, and I'm afraid the Earth is an isolated island

不會的 而且我認為地球在廣大的宇宙之海中

in a vast cosmic sea, and is a lot smaller than we think.

是一塊孤立的大地 而且遠比我們所認為的還要渺小

2) Obsolescence: The market system is driven explicitly by obsolescence.

2)報廢:市場體系明顯地是由物品的報廢所驅動

Two [types]: Intrinsic Obsolescence

有兩種報廢類型:"內在報廢"

being the use of cost-efficiency

因為利用了"成本效益"這個概念

meaning that every good produced has to be inferior

即每個生產出來的產品 在其被製造出來的那一刻

the moment it's made because the corporate institutions must save money

註定要是次等品質 因為企業公司在生產過程的一開頭

at the very beginning of production to remain competitive

就一定要節省成本 以保持競爭優勢

against everyone else competing

與其它人競爭

[and] Planned Obsolescence, which is much more insidious

第二種為"計畫報廢" 這種更為陰險狡詐

a form of fraud (even though it's completely codified

是詐欺的一種形式(即使它被完全重新包裝

and formalized as a marketing tactic) basically designs goods

並塑造為一種銷售策略) 基本上就是設計會損壞的物品

to break down under the assumption of repeat purchases.

在重複購買和循環消費的這種假設下

It's truly amazing that this exists at all.

這種事存在於世上確實令人吃驚

What does Nature have to say about this? Building upon what we just stated:

"自然"能夠說什麼嗎? 根據我們剛剛所陳述的:

It's environmentally irresponsible to design goods to fail

設計會故障的物品或使其無端地失靈

or allow them to fail unnecessarily.

等同於無視環境責任

That is basically offensive. We need optimum design

這基本上是惹人厭的 我們需要將設計最佳化

to have things last, survive.

好讓物品能耐久存續

3) Property

3)財產

The ownership metaphysic is a core premise

"所有權"這個形上概念是關鍵的假設

allowing controlled restriction of resources and goods.

能允許控制並限制資源和物品

I say metaphysic because property isn't real.

我說它是"形上的" 這是因為"財產"不是真實的

There's not such thing as ownership in the broad scheme

嚴格來說並無所謂的"所有權"

not either intellectual or physical goods.

對智慧財產或實體物品而言皆如此

It's all transient.

這些都是短暫虛幻的

The idea of everyone owning one of everything for example.

例如以下概念:"所有人都擁用一份所有東西"

Does that make a lot of sense when we think about our natural economy?

當我們思考"自然的"經濟時 這種概念合理嗎?

What about the use of goods? What about access?

物品的使用如何呢? 取得使用權又如何?

The natural environment demands access. Universal property is inefficient.

自然的環境要求"取得使用" 而普遍的"財產"概念是無效率的

Strategic access is more environmentally responsible

此種"策略性取得"的模式 對於環境更為負責

as a model and more socially efficient.

且更具社會效率

If you have a car that you drive maybe 40% of the time

如果你有一部只花可能40%的時間駕駛的車輛

why not let the other 60% be used by somebody else?

那為何不讓剩下60%的時間給其它人使用?

You create a system of access and use. That's environmentally responsible.

這樣就創造了"取得"和"使用"的體系 這才是對環境負責

4) Growth, building on consumption once again

4)根據消費而建構的成長 再說一次

The market economy requires near constant growth to maintain employment.

市場體系需要近乎永久的增長 以維持就業

This ties in a little bit with the growth of population as well.

這與人口的增長也有點相關

You always hear about this in the government:

你總是聽政府說:

"We have growth. We need more growth, GDP. We're lacking growth."

"我們經濟成長了 我們需要更多的GDP成長 我們缺乏成長"

It's basically just absurd!

這基本上就是瘋狂荒謬!

We need a 'steady state' economy. The Earth is a finite system.

我們需要一種"穩定狀態"的經濟 因為地球是有限的封閉系統

Earth demands a 'balanced load' economy respecting dynamic equilibrium

地球需要一種"平衡負載"的經濟 能重視"動態平衡"

where things come together in balance, not the necessity to exhaust

其中事物平衡運作 而不需要資源耗竭

just to maintain labor.

只為了維持勞動

5) Competition: This inches into our new sociological developments

5)競爭:這裡開始深入了新的社會發展

that aren't talked about enough. [A] Market Economy [is] based upon

此方面尚未充份論述 [A]市場經濟是根據

personal and corporate competition in the open market:

個人和企業財團的公開市場競爭:

selling your labor, competing for market share.

出賣你的勞力 以競爭市場份額

That's a completely metaphysical notion

這完全是一種形上的概念

based on an early tribalistic form of scarcity, this notion

只是根據早期部落時期匱乏的心理機制

that we can't possibly get along or can't be enough to go around

此概念認為我們不可能有足夠多的物資來分配

so we have to fight for everything and everyone is out for themselves.

所以我們必須為每件事抗爭奮鬥 自掃門前雪

What we've come to find is that human collaboration

我們已逐漸發現的是 人類合作

actually is at the core of all invention. It's called 'usufruct'.

實際上才是所有發明的核心 這稱作"用益物權"

Psychological studies now show long term distortion with the competitive view.

心理學的研究現在指出 "競爭"的觀點會造成長期的扭曲

The great amount of distortion, corruption, crime

大量的扭曲 腐敗 犯罪

all you hear in the headlines: white-collar, blue-collar

所有你在頭條中聽到的:白領 藍領

all comes from this primitive notion of a competitive environment

這些都來自於競爭性的環境這種原始概念

and nothing is held as sacred.

再也沒別的東西是神聖的

6) Labor for Income

6)勞動獲取薪資

Human survival is contingent upon one's ability to obtain employment

人類生存是取決於一個人獲得就業的能力

and enable sales. That's your right to life.

以及銷售的能力 這是掌握你生命的權力

If you can't get labor, you might as well die

如果你不能工作 你就非常可能死亡

because you don't serve a economically efficient role.

因為你在經濟上並不能發揮有效率的角色

What does this mean to our development in science and technology?

這對我們科學和科技的發展意味著什麼?

Mechanization is incredible!

這表示機械化是驚人的!

The advent of automation is making human employment

自動化的降臨至少正在使人類的就業職位

more scarce at a minimum and possibly obsolete entirely.

最低限度的更少 而且可能完全淘汰現存"工作"

Mechanization is also more productive and efficient than human labor

機械化也比人力更具生產力和效率

which means it's socially irresponsible for us not to mechanize

表示若我們不使用機械化 並享受其所創造的果實:

and enjoy the fruits of the abundance, ease and safety it can create.

富裕 自在和安全 那麼對社會而言就是不負責的

7) Scarcity and Imbalance: Contrary to what most think

7)匱乏和不平衡:與大多數人的認知相反

money and the movement of money that generates consumption economy

金錢和金錢的流動創造了消費型經濟

is explicitly based on imbalance and inefficiency.

但很明顯是奠基於不平衡和無效率之上

It's really an inefficiency economy, an anti-economy.

目前的經濟 確實是無效率的 甚至是"反經濟"

The poverty you see and the imbalance

你所看見的貧困和不平衡

is not just some by-product or result of some greed, institution, etc.

並不只是一些副產品 貪婪或各種機構危害的結果

that is inherent to the system. The system wouldn't work

這些缺陷先天就存在於此體系中 如果"經濟"有效率

if it was efficient and there was a balance in any element of human survival.

而且人類存活的要素都能保持平衡 那此體系就會崩潰

Why would we want that? Abundance, equality!

我們為何想要這些? 為了得到富裕和平等!

New sociological studies have found that equality is much more positive

新的社會研究已發現 "平等"對於公眾健康而言

to public health. If you compare the US

是更正面的 如果你比較美國

(a highly stratified society with deep imbalance) to Norway and Sweden

和挪威與瑞典(美國是高度的階級社會 充滿不平衡)

that have much less levels of stratification, the public health

這兩個國家有社會階級差距較低 那麼公眾健康

in those less stratified societies blow us out of the water.

在那些階級較不明顯的社會中 會勝過我們(美國)

Why not work to create an abundance through all these mechanisms

為何不透過所有這些高效率的機械化去創造富裕?

of efficiency that technology now enables to meet human needs

科技現在能滿足人類需求

reduce crime, all sorts of other obvious sociological phenomena.

減少犯罪和其它明顯的社會現象

'Spectrum of Social Disorder' and there it is!

這就是"社會失序的光譜"!

You have a macro-socioeconomic system, a macroeconomic element

你有宏觀的社會經濟體系和要素

that is basically funneling out this distortion from childhood

基本上從童年開始就灌輸這種扭曲概念

all the way through every level of sociological exhibition.

一路通到整個社會層面的範疇

Everything you see is coming

你看到的任何事

from this very sick distortion premise of 'economy.'

都是從這個扭曲至極的"經濟"假設而來

My interest, ultimately [is] the relationship of macroeconomics to sociology.

我最終的關注焦點 是宏觀經濟與社會的關係

Part Two (change!) 'Values Wars: Societal Potential, Collapse and Transition'

第二部份(改變!) 價值觀戰爭:社會潛能 崩潰和轉型

Over here are a series of social problems

在這裡有一系列的社會問題

that you would see in the newspapers:

你將會在報紙中看到:

poverty, unemployment, destabilization, debt collapse, pollution, waste

貧困 失業 不穩定 債務 崩潰 汙染 浪費

all of which are completely, technically obsolete.

所有這些都可用科技完全解決

None of them have to exist at all.

完全不必要存在

At a minimum they could be reduced to a very core degree

至少能被降低至一個非常有限的範圍

though a little more subjective.

雖然這樣講有點主觀

Removing the environmental and sociological inefficiency inherent to the 'market'

消除"市場"中固有的環境和社會無效率

and simply applying modern scientific understandings resolves

並純粹應用現代的科學理解 將能大量地

or greatly reduces all of these issues.

解決或減緩這些所有問題

That is our potential. Since we don't maximize that potential unfortunately

這是我們的潛力 但很不幸 因為我們並未完全發揮潛能

(because of this framework we're in) we are faced

(因為我們受制於目前的框架中)所以我們面對了

with a unique form of collapse that many are not talking about enough.

一種特殊形態的崩潰 而大多數的人們卻談論甚少

There's three nails in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.

我認為有三根致命的釘子能讓人類死在棺材裡

Unemployment: Based on the way things are going

失業:根據事態的現狀

you won't see % employment levels that you've ever seen in the past

你將不會看到過去所見的"百分之幾"的就業成長率了

for the human population. It's over.

對於人類而言 "就業"已經結束了

Energy costs: only going to rise, we live within a hydrocarbon economy.

能源花費:只會往上漲 因為我們生活在石油經濟中

There's absolutely no investment or true intention of the government

政府或企業財團 絕對沒有真正的投資或意圖

or corporate institutions to move forward with any type of renewables

去致力發展運用任何種類的可再生能源

that'd replace the current massive infrastructure we have created

因為這會取代我們已大量創造的基礎設施

and far too much more money will be made as the system fails

而且當此體系崩潰時 將會造出遠遠更多的金錢

because of the scarcity of this thing.

因為這件事會引起匱乏

Debt Failure: Am I the only one laughing

債務崩潰:我是唯一正在嘲笑

at the fact that there's this fictional notion of 'debt'

所謂"債務"這個虛幻概念的人嗎?

that's like dominoes knocking down countries one by one?

國家就像骨牌一樣 一個接著一個倒(破產)下去

Transition: Here is the value war.

轉型:這裡就是價值觀的戰爭

When I speak with people about these issues

當我與人們談論這些問題時

they tend to understand it but they have these value associations

他們傾向去理解 但他們對這些傳統價值觀

that hold on to old artifacts of the prior system.

仍心有所屬 固守著之前體系的老舊概念

It's a value war. How do we get from one to the other?

這是一場價值觀戰爭 我們如何從此岸到彼岸?

What can we do to inspire change and create social reform?

我們能做什麼以激發改變和創造社會改革?

And that is the big question: What will you do? What kind of form?

這就是大哉問:你將會做什麼?是哪一種的改革?

What kind of social awareness? What kind of role do you think you can play?

哪種社會意識和覺察? 你認為你可以扮演哪種角色?

Will you maximize your own self-interest? Or will you realize

你將把個人私益最大化? 或你將了解到

that your self-interest is only as good as the integrity of society as a whole

你的私益程度 只有當社會作為一個整體時才算數

where self-interest must become social interest in order for us to survive?

其中個人私益一定要轉變成社會利益 以讓我們共同存活下去?

That is the new equation and that is the big question.

這就是新的平衡和大哉問

Thank you very much.

非常感謝你的聆聽