On July 21st, 1969,

1969年7月21號

Buzz Aldrin climbed out of Apollo 11's lunar module

巴茲‧奧爾德林從阿波羅11號的登月艙爬出

and descended onto the Sea of Tranquility.

降落到月球的寧靜海區域（阿波羅11號登陸的著陸區）

Armstrong and Aldrin were alone,

阿姆斯壯和奧爾德林隻身來到月球，

but their presence on the moon's gray surface

但是他們在月球的灰色表面上現身

was the culmination of a convulsive, collective effort.

是出於眾多嘔心瀝血努力得來的顛峰之作

The Apollo program was the greatest

整個阿波羅計劃是

peacetime mobilization

非戰爭時期最偉大的動員

in the history of the United States.

在美國歷史裡

To get to the moon, NASA spent

為了登陸月球，NASA 花了

around 180 billion dollars in today's money,

以現今的貨幣來計算大約是一億八千萬美金

or four percent of the federal budget.

或是4%的聯邦總預算

Apollo employed around 400,000 people

阿波羅計畫大約雇用了40萬人

and demanded the collaboration of 20,000

並且要總數兩萬個公司，

companies, universities and government agencies.

大學以及政府單位相互合作

People died, including the crew of Apollo 1.

許多人因此送命，包含在阿波羅一號所罹難的工作人員

But before the Apollo program ended,

但是在整個阿波羅計畫終止以前

24 men flew to the moon.

有24位人員被送上了月球

Twelve walked on its surface, of whom Aldrin,

當中12位在月球表面漫步，其中的奧爾德林

following the death of Armstrong last year,

從去年阿姆斯壯逝世之後

is now the most senior.

是現今最老的一位。

So why did they go?

回過頭來，他們為什麼要登陸月球?

They didn't bring much back:

他們沒帶多少東西回來

841 pounds of old rocks,

841磅的舊石頭

and something all 24 later emphasized --

以及24位太空人在之後強調的

a new sense of the smallness

一種新的自我渺小認知

and the fragility of our common home.

和我們共同的家園-地球，是多麼脆弱

Why did they go? The cynical answer is they went

那為什麼要送他們上月球? 一種憤世嫉俗的回答是

because President Kennedy wanted to show

這是因為甘乃迪總統要展現

the Soviets that his nation had the better rockets.

他的國家擁有比蘇聯更好的火箭

But Kennedy's own words at Rice University in 1962

但甘乃迪在1962年於萊斯大學所做的演講

provide a better clue.

提供了更好的線索。

(Video) John F. Kennedy: But why, some say, the moon?

甘乃迪：有人問，為什麼是月球?

Why choose this as our goal?

為什麼要選這個當作我們的目標？

And they may well ask,

這個問題問得好

why climb the highest mountain?

為什麼要攀登最高的山峰？

Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?

為什麼35年前要飛越大西洋？

Why does Rice play Texas?

為什麼萊斯大學在德州？

We choose to go to the moon.

我們選擇要登陸月球

We choose to go to the moon.

是我們選擇要登陸月球

(Applause)

(掌聲)

We choose to go to the moon in this decade,

我們選擇在十年內登陸月球

and do the other things,

並且做其他的事情

not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

不是因為它們容易，而是因為它們困難。

Jason Pontin: To contemporaries,

演講者:在當時

Apollo wasn't only a victory of West over East

阿波羅計畫不只是西方戰勝東方

in the Cold War.

在冷戰時期的勝利。

At the time, the strongest emotion

在當下，最強烈的情感是

was of wonder

驚訝於

at the transcendent powers of technology.

科技的卓越力量

They went because it was a big thing to do.

他們去是因為要完成這件大事

Landing on the moon occurred in the context

登陸月球引發了

of a long series of technological triumphs.

一連串在科技上的大勝利

The first half of the 20th century produced

在20世紀的前半製造出了

the assembly line and the airplane,

組裝線以及飛機

penicillin and a vaccine for tuberculosis.

盤尼西林以及結核病疫苗

In the middle years of the century,

在20世紀的中期

polio was eradicated and smallpox eliminated.

小兒麻痺徹底根絕、天花絕跡

Technology itself seemed to possess

科技本身似乎擁有

what Alvin Toffler in 1970

Alvin Toffler在1970說的

called "accelerative thrust."

"加速度推力"

For most of human history,

實現在整個人類歷史上

we could go no faster than a horse

我們不能移動的比馬快

or a boat with a sail,

或者是比帆船快

but in 1969, the crew of Apollo 10

但是1969年，阿波羅10號的機員

flew at 25,000 miles an hour.

飛行速度是每小時25000英里

Since 1970, no human beings

自從1970年開始，就沒有人類

have been back to the moon.

再回到月球

No one has traveled faster than the crew

沒有人可以移動的快過於

of Apollo 10,

阿波羅10當中的機組人員

and blithe optimism about technology's powers

此時，對科技力量的樂觀無憂

has evaporated

已經消失殆盡

as big problems we had imagined technology would solve,

那些我們期待科技力量可以解決的大問題

such as going to Mars,

例如登陸火星

creating clean energy, curing cancer,

創造乾淨能源，治癒癌症

or feeding the world have come to seem

或是解決糧食問題都變成了

intractably hard.

棘手的困難

I remember watching the liftoff of Apollo 17.

我記得當時看到阿波羅17號升空

I was five years old,

我當時五歲，

and my mother told me not to stare

我母親告訴我，不要直視

at the fiery exhaust of a Saturn V rocket.

土星五號火箭的燃燒推進器

I vaguely knew this was to be the last

我隱約地知道這將是最後一次

of the moon missions,

月球計劃

but I was absolutely certain there would be

但我相信將來絕對會有

Mars colonies in my lifetime.

火星殖民計劃出現在我的有生之年。

So "Something happened

所以，

to our capacity to solve big problems with technology"

"我們對使用科技來解決大問題無能為力"

has become a commonplace.

這一論點變得稀鬆平常。

You hear it all the time.

你常常聽到這些

We've heard it over the last two days here at TED.

我們已經在過去兩天內從 TED 大會中聽到這些

It feels as if technologists have diverted us

那感覺像是科學家使我們歡愉

and enriched themselves with trivial toys,

並且將一些無足輕重的玩具來豐富他們自己，

with things like iPhones and apps and social media,

就像是智慧型手機、應用程式以及社交媒體

or algorithms that speed automated trading.

或是加速自動化交易的演算法

There's nothing wrong with most of these things.

大多數這些事情並沒有什麼錯

They've expanded and enriched our lives.

它們拓展並且豐富了我們的生活

But they don't solve humanity's big problems.

但是它們並沒有解決人類的大問題。

What happened?

發生了什麽事?

So there is a parochial explanation in Silicon Valley,

在矽谷，有一個狹隘的解釋

which admits that it has been funding less ambitious companies

他們承認，跟過去比起來，野心勃勃的公司較難募得基金

than it did in the years when it financed

在他們準備上市的時候

Intel, Microsoft, Apple and Genentech.

英特爾、微軟、蘋果以及基因泰克

Silicon Valley says the markets are to blame,

矽谷的人說，市場是罪魁禍首

in particular the incentives that venture capitalists

特別是鼓勵那些風險資本家提供資金給

offer to entrepreneurs.

創業者

Silicon Valley says that venture investing

矽谷的人說，那些風險資本家的投資

shifted away from funding transformational ideas

從可以改變本質的想法移到了

and towards funding incremental problems

可以增加附加價值的問題上

or even fake problems.

或者是假的問題。

But I don't think that explanation is good enough.

但我不覺得這解釋夠好。

It mostly explains what's wrong with Silicon Valley.

這頂多解釋了矽谷出了什麼錯。

Even when venture capitalists were at their most

即使當風險資本家面對他們最大

risk-happy, they preferred small investments,

可容忍風險，他們也只願意提供很少的投資

tiny investments that offered an exit within 10 years.

這十年內的微量投資讓人們不斷地退出

V.C.s have always struggled

風險資本家老是很掙扎

to invest profitably in technologies such as energy

對於投資在科技上的獲利像是能源

whose capital requirements are huge

這種需要大量資本

and whose development is long and lengthy,

長時間的開發週期

and V.C.s have never, never funded the development

而風險投資家從來，從來不投資

of technologies meant to solve big problems

可以解決大問題的科技研究

that possess no immediate commercial value.

這些研究往往無法有短期的經濟效益。

No, the reasons we can't solve big problems

不，我們無法解決大問題的原因

are more complicated and more profound.

比這更複雜和深奧

Sometimes we choose not to solve big problems.

有些時候我們選擇不去解決大問題

We could go to Mars if we want.

我們可以去火星，只要我們想做到

NASA even has the outline of a plan.

NASA對這計畫已經有了大綱

But going to Mars would follow a political decision

但是去火星需要的是政治決定

with popular appeal, and that will never happen.

由社會普遍呼籲，但這事情從沒發生過。

We won't go to Mars, because everyone thinks

我們無法去火星是因為每個人都這樣想

there are more important things

在地球上，有著更重要的事情

to do here on Earth.

正等著我們去做。

Sometimes, we can't solve big problems

有時候，我們無法解決大問題

because our political systems fail.

是因為我們的政治制度失敗

Today, less than two percent

現今，少於2%的

of the world's energy consumption

全世界能源消耗

derives from advanced, renewable sources

是取得於先進技術，可重複性使用資源

such as solar, wind and biofuels,

像是太陽能，風力以及生化燃油

less than two percent,

少於2%

and the reason is purely economic.

而原因是純粹經濟上

Coal and natural gas are cheaper

煤炭和天然氣是比

than solar and wind,

太陽能及風力發電還來的便宜，

and petroleum is cheaper than biofuels.

而石油又比生物燃料便宜。

We want alternative energy sources

我們尋求替代能源可以

that can compete on price. None exist.

在價格上有競爭力，但是找不到。

Now, technologists, business leaders

現今，科技人員，企業領袖

and economists all basically agree

和經濟學家都基本上同意

on what national policies and international treaties

國家政策以及國際條約

would spur the development of alternative energy:

將刺激這些替代能源的開發：

mostly, a significant increase in energy

大多數是對於能源的研究與開發

research and development,

將會顯著地增加，

and some kind of price on carbon.

並且對碳排放開始定價。

But there's no hope in the present political climate

但是對於現今的政治氛圍，這是沒有希望的

that we will see U.S. energy policy

這是我們在美國能源政策

or international treaties that reflect that consensus.

或是國際條約上看到的

Sometimes, big problems that had seemed technological

有時候，大問題通常都是科技上的

turn out not to be so.

但並非如此。

Famines were long understood to be caused

飢荒已經長期被公認為

by failures in food supply.

是食物供給出現問題。

But 30 years of research have taught us

但是三十年來的研究告訴我們

that famines are political crisis

飢荒是由於政治危機

that catastrophically affect food distribution.

災難般地影響著食物配給

Technology can improve things like crop yields

科技可以改善的事情像是作物產量

or systems for storing and transporting food,

或是儲存以及運送食物的系統

but there will be famines so long as there are bad governments.

但是如今還有飢荒是因為有糟糕的政府

Finally, big problems sometimes elude solution

最後，有時逃避解決大問題

because we don't really understand the problem.

是因為我們不瞭解問題。

President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971,

尼克森總統在1971年向癌症宣戰

but we soon discovered

但不久我們發現

there are many kinds of cancer,

有太多種類的癌症，

most of them fiendishly resistant to therapy,

大多數是如惡魔似地難以治療，

and it is only in the last 10 years

而僅僅在過去的十年

that effective, viable therapies

有效且可實行的治療方法

have come to seem real.

才真正的出現。

Hard problems are hard.

困難問題就是難以解決

It's not true that we can't solve big problems through technology.

但這不代表我們無法透過科技來解決大問題

We can, we must, but these four elements

我們可以，我們必須，但需要有四個要素

must all be present:

都必須符合：

Political leaders and the public

政治領袖和群眾

must care to solve a problem;

必須關心來解決問題；

institutions must support its solution;

機構必須支持其解決方案；

It must really be a technological problem;

它必須真的是個科技問題；

and we must understand it.

而我們必須要了解它。

The Apollo mission,

阿波羅任務

which has become a kind of metaphor

已經成為一種象徵

for technology's capacity to solve big problems,

代表科技的能力足以解決大問題，

met these criteria.

它也達到這些準則。

But it is an irreproducible model for the future.

展望未來，這是一個不可複製的典範。

It is not 1961.

現在不是1961。

There is no galvanizing contest like the Cold War,

已經沒有像冷戰時代的軍備競賽，

no politician like John Kennedy

沒有像甘乃迪的政治家

who can heroize the difficult and the dangerous,

可以英雄式的挑戰困難與危險，

and no popular science fictional mythology

並且沒有普遍的科幻小說

such as exploring the solar system.

像是探索太陽系。

Most of all, going to the moon

絕大多數，登陸月球

turned out to be easy.

已經變得平凡無奇

It was just three days away.

僅僅只是三天光景。

And arguably it wasn't even solving

雄辯地說詞對解決問題

much of a problem.

無法帶來多大的幫助。

We are left alone with our day,

我們繼續過我們的日子，

and the solutions of the future will be harder won.

而在未來是更難以獲得解決方案。

God knows, we don't lack for the challenges.

上帝知道，我們不乏挑戰。

Thank you very much.

謝謝

(Applause)

(掌聲)