Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide | Yuval Noah Harari

翻译人员: Conway Ye 校对人员: Qinyang Zeng

Chris Anderson: Hello. Welcome to this TED Dialogues.

克里斯·安德森： 你好，欢迎来到TED对话。

It's the first of a series that's going to be done

这是新开始的一个系列的第一集，

in response to the current political upheaval.

为了回应现在政治的变动。

I don't know about you;

我不了解你，

I've become quite concerned about the growing divisiveness in this country

我开始对这个国家和世界上

and in the world.

逐渐严重的分裂感到担心。

No one's listening to each other. Right?

没人倾听对方，对吗？

They aren't.

不。

I mean, it feels like we need a different kind of conversation,

感觉我们需要一个不同的对话方式，

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

一个基于逻辑、倾听和理解，

on a broader context.

基于一个更大的背景。

That's at least what we're going to try in these TED Dialogues,

这是我们在TED对话中要尝试的，

starting today.

从今天开始。

And we couldn't have anyone with us

我们找不到其他人开始

who I'd be more excited to kick this off.

能让我更为此激动。

This is a mind right here that thinks pretty much like no one else

这个头脑是这个星球上独一无二的，

on the planet, I would hasten to say.

我不得不说。

I'm serious.

我是认真的。

(Yuval Noah Harari laughs)

（尤瓦尔·赫拉利笑笑）

I'm serious.

我是认真的。

He synthesizes history with underlying ideas

他把历史和和潜在的意义结合在一起，

in a way that kind of takes your breath away.

让你大开眼界。

So, some of you will know this book, "Sapiens."

所以，你们可能会 知道这本书“人类简史”。

Has anyone here read "Sapiens"?

在场有人读过“人类简史”吗？

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

I mean, I could not put it down.

我无法合上这本书。

The way that he tells the story of mankind

他讲述人类故事的方式，

through big ideas that really make you think differently --

通过宏观意识形态让你换个角度思考，

it's kind of amazing.

真的令人赞叹。

And here's the follow-up,

这是接下来的一本，

which I think is being published in the US next week.

我记得是下周在美国出版。

YNH: Yeah, next week.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：对的，下周。

CA: "Homo Deus."

克里斯·安德森：《未来简史》

Now, this is the history of the next hundred years.

这是未来百年的历史。

I've had a chance to read it.

我有机会阅读了这本书，

It's extremely dramatic,

非常激动人心，

and I daresay, for some people, quite alarming.

而且我敢说，对一些人，这非常令人振奋。

It's a must-read.

这是一本必读书。

And honestly, we couldn't have someone better to help

诚实地说，我们找不到更好的能够帮助理解

make sense of what on Earth is happening in the world right now.

现在世界上正在发生什么的人。

So a warm welcome, please, to Yuval Noah Harari.

所以热烈欢迎，尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

It's great to be joined by our friends on Facebook and around the Web.

很高兴能有Facebook和 网络上的朋友们加入我们。

Hello, Facebook.

你好，Facebook。

And all of you, as I start asking questions of Yuval,

在我开始问尤瓦尔问题的时候，

come up with your own questions,

你们可以提出自己的问题，

and not necessarily about the political scandal du jour,

不一定要关于现代政治，

but about the broader understanding of: Where are we heading?

可以关于更广的对 “我们去向何方？”的理解。

You ready? OK, we're going to go.

准备好了吗？我们开始吧。

So here we are, Yuval:

现在，尤瓦尔，

New York City, 2017, there's a new president in power,

2017，纽约，新总统上台，

and shock waves rippling around the world.

惊讶席卷全球。

What on Earth is happening?

到底在发生什么？

YNH: I think the basic thing that happened

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：我认为基本发生的事情

is that we have lost our story.

就是我们失去了我们的故事。

Humans think in stories,

人类在故事中思考，

and we try to make sense of the world by telling stories.

我们通过讲故事来理解这个世界。

And for the last few decades,

过去的几十年，

we had a very simple and very attractive story

我们又一个非常简单和吸引人的故事，

about what's happening in the world.

关于世界上发生的事情。

And the story said that, oh, what's happening is

故事说的是

that the economy is being globalized,

经济正在被全球化，

politics is being liberalized,

政治在被自由化，

and the combination of the two will create paradise on Earth,

然而两者的结合会在地球上产生矛盾，

and we just need to keep on globalizing the economy

我们只需要继续全球化经济，

and liberalizing the political system,

自由化政治系统，

and everything will be wonderful.

一切都会变的很好。

And 2016 is the moment

2016年，

when a very large segment, even of the Western world,

很大一部分的人，甚至是西方世界，

stopped believing in this story.

不再相信这个故事。

For good or bad reasons -- it doesn't matter.

不管理由的好坏。

People stopped believing in the story,

人们不再相信这个故事，

and when you don't have a story, you don't understand what's happening.

然而当你没有一个故事， 你就不会理解正在发生什么。

CA: Part of you believes that that story was actually a very effective story.

克里斯·安德森： 你部分相信那是一个非常有效的故事。

It worked.

它起作用了。

YNH: To some extent, yes.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：某种角度说，是的。

According to some measurements,

根据一些预测，

we are now in the best time ever

我们正处在人类的巅峰时期。

for humankind.

Today, for the first time in history,

今天，历史上第一次，

more people die from eating too much than from eating too little,

死于吃太多的人比死于吃太少的人要多，

which is an amazing achievement.

这是很棒的成就。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Also for the first time in history,

而且也是历史上第一次，

more people die from old age than from infectious diseases,

死于年老的人比死于传染病的人多，

and violence is also down.

而且暴力也减少了。

For the first time in history,

历史上第一次，

more people commit suicide than are killed by crime and terrorism

死于自杀的人比死于犯罪、恐怖袭击

and war put together.

和战争加在一起的人都要多。

Statistically, you are your own worst enemy.

数据上来看，你是你最大的敌人。

At least, of all the people in the world,

世界上的所有人，

you are most likely to be killed by yourself --

你最可能被你自己杀死。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

which is, again, very good news, compared --

这是非常好的消息，相比较……

(Laughter)

（笑声）

compared to the level of violence that we saw in previous eras.

相比较我们在前几个时代所看到的暴力。

CA: But this process of connecting the world

克里斯·安德森： 但是这个连接世界的过程，

ended up with a large group of people kind of feeling left out,

结果排斥了一大群的人，

and they've reacted.

而且他们也做出了反应。

And so we have this bombshell

所以这个令人震惊的事情

that's sort of ripping through the whole system.

似乎摧毁了整个系统。

I mean, what do you make of what's happened?

你觉得正在发生什么？

It feels like the old way that people thought of politics,

感觉像人们看待政治的旧观念，

the left-right divide, has been blown up and replaced.

左右翼分明，被打消并取代。

How should we think of this?

我们该如何看待这个？

YNH: Yeah, the old 20th-century political model of left versus right

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：是的， 旧的20世纪政治模型，

is now largely irrelevant,

左翼右翼对抗已经无关紧要，

and the real divide today is between global and national,

真正的隔阂是全球和国家之间的，

global or local.

国家或者地方。

And you see it again all over the world

你会在世界各地看到，

that this is now the main struggle.

这是主要的斗争。

We probably need completely new political models

我们可能需要一个全新的政治模型，

and completely new ways of thinking about politics.

和全新的看待政治的方式。

In essence, what you can say is that we now have global ecology,

重点是， 我们可以说现在我们有全球生态学，

we have a global economy but we have national politics,

我么有全球经济， 但是我们有国家政治，

and this doesn't work together.

这没办法一起运作。

This makes the political system ineffective,

这让政治系统没有效果，

because it has no control over the forces that shape our life.

因为它控制不了我们的生活。

And you have basically two solutions to this imbalance:

你对这种不均衡有两个解决方案：

either de-globalize the economy and turn it back into a national economy,

一是反全球化经济，回归国家经济，

or globalize the political system.

或者全球化政治系统。

CA: So some, I guess many liberals out there

克里斯·安德森：我猜很多自由主义者

view Trump and his government as kind of irredeemably bad,

认为特朗普和他的政府 是无法挽救的恶劣，

just awful in every way.

在所有方面都是糟糕的。

Do you see any underlying narrative or political philosophy in there

你能看到任何值得参考的

that is at least worth understanding?

潜在线索或者政治哲学吗？

How would you articulate that philosophy?

你会如何阐述那个哲理？

Is it just the philosophy of nationalism?

只是国家主义的哲理吗？

YNH: I think the underlying feeling or idea

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我认为潜在的感觉和观点

is that the political system -- something is broken there.

是政治系统内的一些东西垮掉了。

It doesn't empower the ordinary person anymore.

它不再给普通人权利了。

It doesn't care so much about the ordinary person anymore,

它不再那么关注普通人，

and I think this diagnosis of the political disease is correct.

我认为这个对政治 存在问题的诊断是正确的。

With regard to the answers, I am far less certain.

但是对于答案，我并不确定。

I think what we are seeing is the immediate human reaction:

我认为我们正在 经历的是人类立刻的反应：

if something doesn't work, let's go back.

如果一些事情不再运作， 让我们回到过去。

And you see it all over the world,

你能在全世界看到这个现象，

that people, almost nobody in the political system today,

在现代政治系统里几乎没有人

has any future-oriented vision of where humankind is going.

有任何人类未来发展的远见。

Almost everywhere, you see retrograde vision:

几乎世界各地，你会看到倒退的观念：

"Let's make America great again,"

“让美国再次伟大。”

like it was great -- I don't know -- in the '50s, in the '80s, sometime,

像50年代、80年代的强大一样，

let's go back there.

让我们回到过去。

And you go to Russia a hundred years after Lenin,

在俄罗斯，列宁时代几百年后，

Putin's vision for the future

普京对未来的远景

is basically, ah, let's go back to the Tsarist empire.

基本上是让我们回到沙皇俄国。

And in Israel, where I come from,

在以色列，我来自以色列，

the hottest political vision of the present is:

现在最热门的政治远景就是

"Let's build the temple again."

“让我们重建寺庙。”

So let's go back 2,000 years backwards.

所以让我们倒退2000年。

So people are thinking sometime in the past we've lost it,

所以人们认为在过去的某个时间， 我们失败了，

and sometimes in the past, it's like you've lost your way in the city,

就像在过去的某个时间， 你在城市里迷了路，

and you say OK, let's go back to the point where I felt secure

你说：好，让我们 回到我们感觉安全的时候，

and start again.

然后重新开始。

I don't think this can work,

我不觉得这会有效果，

but a lot of people, this is their gut instinct.

但是对于很多人，这是他们的直觉。

CA: But why couldn't it work?

克里斯·安德森： 这为什么不会有效果？

"America First" is a very appealing slogan in many ways.

“美国优先”是一个非常吸引人的标语。

Patriotism is, in many ways, a very noble thing.

爱国主义是一个很高尚的事情。

It's played a role in promoting cooperation

在大群人中促进合作

among large numbers of people.

很有效果。

Why couldn't you have a world organized in countries,

为什么世界所有的国家都不能

all of which put themselves first?

把自己放在第一位？

YNH: For many centuries, even thousands of years,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 很多个世纪，甚至几千年，

patriotism worked quite well.

爱国主义挺有效果的。

Of course, it led to wars an so forth,

当然，它会带来战争等等，

but we shouldn't focus too much on the bad.

但是我们不能过度关注不好的事情。

There are also many, many positive things about patriotism,

爱国主义有非常多好处，

and the ability to have a large number of people

还有能力让一大群人

care about each other,

关心对方，

sympathize with one another,

同情他人，

and come together for collective action.

并团结合作。

If you go back to the first nations,

如果你回到第一民族的时候，

so, thousands of years ago,

就是几千年前，

the people who lived along the Yellow River in China --

在中国，住在黄河边的人们

it was many, many different tribes

分成许多部落，

and they all depended on the river for survival and for prosperity,

他们都依靠黄河来生存和繁荣，

but all of them also suffered from periodical floods

但是他们也遭受周期性的洪水

and periodical droughts.

和周期性的干旱。

And no tribe could really do anything about it,

没有部落可以做出一些改变，

because each of them controlled just a tiny section of the river.

因为每个部落只控制河的一小部分。

And then in a long and complicated process,

然后，通过长时间复杂的发展，

the tribes coalesced together to form the Chinese nation,

这些部落合并在一起， 形成了中华民族，

which controlled the entire Yellow River

掌控了整条黄河，

and had the ability to bring hundreds of thousands of people together

并有能力团结上万人，

to build dams and canals and regulate the river

修建水坝和水渠来管理黄河，

and prevent the worst floods and droughts

预防洪水和干旱

and raise the level of prosperity for everybody.

并使整个国家繁荣。

And this worked in many places around the world.

这在世界的很多地方都有效果。

But in the 21st century,

但是在21世纪，

technology is changing all that in a fundamental way.

科技从根源上改变了一切，

We are now living -- all people in the world --

世界上的所有人，

are living alongside the same cyber river,

都住在“网络”这条河边，

and no single nation can regulate this river by itself.

没有一个国家能够单独管理这条河。

We are all living together on a single planet,

我们都住在一个星球，

which is threatened by our own actions.

被我们自己的行动威胁的星球。

And if you don't have some kind of global cooperation,

如果你没有某种形式的全球合作，

nationalism is just not on the right level to tackle the problems,

国家主义不是解决这些问题的正确范畴，

whether it's climate change or whether it's technological disruption.

不管是气候变化还是科技发展。

CA: So it was a beautiful idea

克里斯·安德森：所以如果世界上

in a world where most of the action, most of the issues,

大多数的问题和解决方案 都是国家层面的话，

took place on national scale,

并不会产生问题，

but your argument is that the issues that matter most today

但是你认为当今最重要的问题

no longer take place on a national scale but on a global scale.

不再是国家层面了，而是世界层面。

YNH: Exactly. All the major problems of the world today

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 没有错，现在世界的主要问题

are global in essence,

都是世界范围的，

and they cannot be solved

除非通过某种全球合作，

unless through some kind of global cooperation.

它们无法被解决。

It's not just climate change,

不仅仅气候变化，

which is, like, the most obvious example people give.

气候变化是最显而易见的例子。

I think more in terms of technological disruption.

我认为还有科技发展带来的变化。

If you think about, for example, artificial intelligence,

想想看，比如说，人工智能，

over the next 20, 30 years

20、30年后，

pushing hundreds of millions of people out of the job market --

使上亿人失去工作，

this is a problem on a global level.

这是一个全球层面的问题。

It will disrupt the economy of all the countries.

这会搅乱所有国家的经济。

And similarly, if you think about, say, bioengineering

一样的道理，像生物工程，

and people being afraid of conducting,

人们害怕研究

I don't know, genetic engineering research in humans,

比如，人体基因实验，

it won't help if just a single country, let's say the US,

如果只有一国家并不会有很大起效，

outlaws all genetic experiments in humans,

比如说美国禁止所有人体基因实验，

but China or North Korea continues to do it.

但是中国或朝鲜却继续进行。

So the US cannot solve it by itself,

所以美国无法独自解决这个问题，

and very quickly, the pressure on the US to do the same will be immense

很快，美国也会逐渐动摇，

because we are talking about high-risk, high-gain technologies.

因为这是高风险高回报的科技。

If somebody else is doing it, I can't allow myself to remain behind.

如果其他人在做，我不能落后。

The only way to have regulations, effective regulations,

唯一有效管理

on things like genetic engineering,

像基因工程这类问题的方法，

is to have global regulations.

就是有全球规定。

If you just have national regulations, nobody would like to stay behind.

如果你只有国家规定， 没人会愿意落后。

CA: So this is really interesting.

克里斯·安德森：这很有意思。

It seems to me that this may be one key

在我看来这可能是促进

to provoking at least a constructive conversation

双方有建设性对话的要点，

between the different sides here,

because I think everyone can agree that the start point

因为我认为每个人都会同意

of a lot of the anger that's propelled us to where we are

是开始的不满让我们沦落到这个地步，

is because of the legitimate concerns about job loss.

这个不满就是对失业的担忧。

Work is gone, a traditional way of life has gone,

没有工作，也会失去正常的生活，

and it's no wonder that people are furious about that.

所以人们对此不满并不奇怪。

And in general, they have blamed globalism, global elites,

所以他们责怪全球主义、 世界上的社会高层，

for doing this to them without asking their permission,

在没有他们允许的情况下做出这样的决定，

and that seems like a legitimate complaint.

这看起来是个很合理的抱怨。

But what I hear you saying is that -- so a key question is:

但是你的意思，重要的问题的是

What is the real cause of job loss, both now and going forward?

现在和未来的工作岗位 流失的真正原因是什么？

To the extent that it's about globalism,

一部分是全球主义，

then the right response, yes, is to shut down borders

然而没错，正确的反应是关闭边界，

and keep people out and change trade agreements and so forth.

不让人进入并改变贸易协定等等。

But you're saying, I think,

但是我觉得你的意思是，

that actually the bigger cause of job loss is not going to be that at all.

事实上工作岗位流失 最大的原因并不是这个。

It's going to originate in technological questions,

这是和科技发展有关，

and we have no chance of solving that

而我们无法解决问题，

unless we operate as a connected world.

除非我们全球化。

YNH: Yeah, I think that,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：我认为，

I don't know about the present, but looking to the future,

我并不知道现在，但是放眼未来，

it's not the Mexicans or Chinese who will take the jobs

并不是墨西哥人或者中国人抢走

from the people in Pennsylvania,

宾夕法尼亚民众的工作岗位，

it's the robots and algorithms.

是机器人和计算机算法。

So unless you plan to build a big wall on the border of California --

所以除非你计划在 加利福尼亚州边境修建一堵墙，

(Laughter)

（笑声）

the wall on the border with Mexico is going to be very ineffective.

墨西哥州边境的墙不会有什么效果的。

And I was struck when I watched the debates before the election,

我看大选前辩论时，我总是很震惊，

I was struck that certainly Trump did not even attempt to frighten people

我很惊讶特朗普根本没有想通过说 “机器人会抢走你们的工作”

by saying the robots will take your jobs.

来震慑民众。

Now even if it's not true, it doesn't matter.

即使这不是真的，也没有关系，

It could have been an extremely effective way of frightening people --

这可以是一个非常有效的 震慑并激励民众的方式。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

and galvanizing people:

"The robots will take your jobs!"

“机器人会抢走你们的工作！”

And nobody used that line.

没人用这句话。

And it made me afraid,

这让我担心，

because it meant that no matter what happens

因为尽管这意味着在大学和实验室里，

in universities and laboratories,

and there, there is already an intense debate about it,

对此已经有激烈的讨论，

but in the mainstream political system and among the general public,

但是主流政治和公众，

people are just unaware

人们并没有意识到

that there could be an immense technological disruption --

会有很大的技术变动，

not in 200 years, but in 10, 20, 30 years --

不在未来200年， 而是10、20、30年，

and we have to do something about it now,

而我们现在就需要做一些事情，

partly because most of what we teach children today in school or in college

因为现在我们在学校和大学里教给孩子的，

is going to be completely irrelevant to the job market of 2040, 2050.

都会在2040、2050的工作市场上毫无作用。

So it's not something we'll need to think about in 2040.

所以我们不应该在2040才思考这个问题，

We need to think today what to teach the young people.

我们要在现在思考该教给年轻人什么。

CA: Yeah, no, absolutely.

克里斯·安德森：没有错。

You've often written about moments in history

你写过历史上人类几次无意地

where humankind has ... entered a new era, unintentionally.

进入一个新的时代。

Decisions have been made, technologies have been developed,

我们需要做出决定，研究科技，

and suddenly the world has changed,

然后突然之间，世界就会改变，

possibly in a way that's worse for everyone.

可能对所有人都没有好处。

So one of the examples you give in "Sapiens"

《人类简史》中的一个例子，

is just the whole agricultural revolution,

整个农业革命，

which, for an actual person tilling the fields,

用人力耕田，

they just picked up a 12-hour backbreaking workday

人们每天艰苦地劳作12个小时，

instead of six hours in the jungle and a much more interesting lifestyle.

而不是花6个小时在丛林里 享受一个更有意思的生活方式。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

So are we at another possible phase change here,

所以有可能我们在另一个转变期间，

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

我们就梦游般进入一个 我们并不希望的未来吗？

YNH: Yes, very much so.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：是的，很有可能。

During the agricultural revolution,

在农业革命期间，

what happened is that immense technological and economic revolution

科技和经济的巨变

empowered the human collective,

增强了全人类的能力，

but when you look at actual individual lives,

但是对于个体的生活，

the life of a tiny elite became much better,

社会高层的生活质量提高了许多，

and the lives of the majority of people became considerably worse.

但是大多数人的生活质量降低了。

And this can happen again in the 21st century.

然而这在21世纪也可能会发生。

No doubt the new technologies will empower the human collective.

新科技没有疑问会增强全人类的能力，

But we may end up again

但是结果可能还会是

with a tiny elite reaping all the benefits, taking all the fruits,

社会高层拿走全部利益，全部果实，

and the masses of the population finding themselves worse

然而大多数人却比以前过的更差了，

than they were before,

certainly much worse than this tiny elite.

而且一定比那些社会高层的要差很多。

CA: And those elites might not even be human elites.

克里斯·安德森： 而且那些社会高层可能不是人类。

They might be cyborgs or --

他们可能是半机械人……

YNH: Yeah, they could be enhanced super humans.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 没错，他们可能会是提高过的超人类。

They could be cyborgs.

他们可能会是半机械人。

They could be completely nonorganic elites.

他们可能会是完全人造。

They could even be non-conscious algorithms.

他们甚至可以是无意识的计算机算法。

What we see now in the world is authority shifting away

现在世界上的权利已经从人类

from humans to algorithms.

转移到计算机算法上了。

More and more decisions -- about personal lives,

越来越多的决定有关个人生活，

about economic matters, about political matters --

有关经济，有关政治，

are actually being taken by algorithms.

都在被算法取代。

If you ask the bank for a loan,

如果你向银行申请贷款，

chances are your fate is decided by an algorithm, not by a human being.

有可能你的命运是被 一个算法，而不是一个人类决定。

And the general impression is that maybe Homo sapiens just lost it.

原因可能是人类能力不够，

The world is so complicated, there is so much data,

世界过于复杂，有太多的数据，

things are changing so fast,

事情变化的太快，

that this thing that evolved on the African savanna

这个几万年前在非洲草原上

tens of thousands of years ago --

进化的东西，

to cope with a particular environment,

为了适应一个特定的环境，

a particular volume of information and data --

一个特定容量的信息和数据，

it just can't handle the realities of the 21st century,

它就是无法承受21世纪，

and the only thing that may be able to handle it

唯一可能能够承受的

is big-data algorithms.

就是大数据算法。

So no wonder more and more authority is shifting from us to the algorithms.

所以越来越多的权力 从我们转移到算法并不奇怪。

CA: So we're in New York City for the first of a series of TED Dialogues

克里斯·安德森：我们在纽约， 这是TED对话系列的第一集，

with Yuval Harari,

和尤瓦尔·赫拉利，

and there's a Facebook Live audience out there.

还有Facebook的直播。

We're excited to have you with us.

我们很高兴你们的参与。

We'll start coming to some of your questions

我们会开始提出一些你们的问题，

and questions of people in the room

和现场观众的问题，

in just a few minutes,

在几分钟之后，

so have those coming.

所以做好准备。

Yuval, if you're going to make the argument

尤瓦尔，你认为

that we need to get past nationalism because of the coming technological ...

我们需要放弃国家主义， 因为科技即将带来的……

danger, in a way,

危险，某种程度上，

presented by so much of what's happening

根据发生的事情，

we've got to have a global conversation about this.

我们一定要有一个与此有关全球对话。

Trouble is, it's hard to get people really believing that, I don't know,

问题是，很难让人们相信这个，

AI really is an imminent threat, and so forth.

人工智能是一个很大的威胁等等。

The things that people, some people at least,

人们，至少一些人们

care about much more immediately, perhaps,

当今更关注的问题可能

is climate change,

是气候变化，

perhaps other issues like refugees, nuclear weapons, and so forth.

还有其他问题像难民，核武器等等。

Would you argue that where we are right now

你认为现在

that somehow those issues need to be dialed up?

那些问题需要被强调吗？

You've talked about climate change,

你谈过气候变化，

but Trump has said he doesn't believe in that.

但是特朗普说过他不相信气候变化。

So in a way, your most powerful argument,

所以，你最有力的论证，

you can't actually use to make this case.

不能用来说服公众。

YNH: Yeah, I think with climate change,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 对的，我认为气候变化，

at first sight, it's quite surprising

刚开始，国家主义和气候变化之间

that there is a very close correlation

的密切关系令人惊讶。

between nationalism and climate change.

I mean, almost always, the people who deny climate change are nationalists.

我的意思是，几乎所有 否定气候变化的人都是国家主义者。

And at first sight, you think: Why?

刚开始，你想：为什么？

What's the connection?

联系是什么？

Why don't you have socialists denying climate change?

为什么没有社会主义者否认气候变化？

But then, when you think about it, it's obvious --

但是，仔细思考后，其实很显然，

because nationalism has no solution to climate change.

因为国家主义对气候变化没有解决方案。

If you want to be a nationalist in the 21st century,

如果你想在21世纪当一个国家主义，

you have to deny the problem.

你一定要否定问题。

If you accept the reality of the problem, then you must accept that, yes,

如果你认清了事实， 你就会接受

there is still room in the world for patriotism,

爱国主义还能存活在世界上，

there is still room in the world for having special loyalties

世界上还能有对你的人民和你的国家

and obligations towards your own people, towards your own country.

的特别的忠诚和责任。

I don't think anybody is really thinking of abolishing that.

我不认为有人真的想放弃它。

But in order to confront climate change,

但是面对气候变化，

we need additional loyalties and commitments

我们需要更多的忠心和承诺

to a level beyond the nation.

超出国家范围。

And that should not be impossible,

而且这不是不可能，

because people can have several layers of loyalty.

因为人们可以忠诚于多样事物。

You can be loyal to your family

你可以忠诚于家庭，

and to your community

忠诚于社区，

and to your nation,

忠诚于你的国家，

so why can't you also be loyal to humankind as a whole?

所以为什么你不能忠诚于全人类呢？

Of course, there are occasions when it becomes difficult,

当然，有些境况下，事情变得困难，

what to put first,

哪个是首要的，

but, you know, life is difficult.

但是，生活并不简单，

Handle it.

想方法解决。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

CA: OK, so I would love to get some questions from the audience here.

克里斯·安德森： 好的，我想让现场观众提出一些问题。

We've got a microphone here.

我们有一些麦克风，

Speak into it, and Facebook, get them coming, too.

Facebook也可以参加。

Howard Morgan: One of the things that has clearly made a huge difference

霍华德·摩根：这个国家和其他国家

in this country and other countries

巨大的区别，

is the income distribution inequality,

是收入分配的不平等，

the dramatic change in income distribution in the US

从50年前到现在，

from what it was 50 years ago,

美国收入分配巨大的改变，

and around the world.

在世界范围内。

Is there anything we can do to affect that?

我们可以做什么来改变它的吗？

Because that gets at a lot of the underlying causes.

因为这和潜在原因有很多联系。

YNH: So far I haven't heard a very good idea about what to do about it,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：至今我还没有 听说过一个很好的解决方案，

again, partly because most ideas remain on the national level,

部分因为大多数的想法 都是在国家层面的，

and the problem is global.

但是问题是全球范围的。

I mean, one idea that we hear quite a lot about now

一个当今比较常见的主意是

is universal basic income.

无条件基本收入。

But this is a problem.

但它是有一个问题，

I mean, I think it's a good start,

虽然这是一个好的开始，

but it's a problematic idea because it's not clear what "universal" is

但是它之所以有问题， 是因为“无条件”的概念

and it's not clear what "basic" is.

和“基本”的概念不清晰，

Most people when they speak about universal basic income,

大多数人谈论无条件基本收入时，

they actually mean national basic income.

他们事实上说的是国家基本收入。

But the problem is global.

但是问题是全球范围的。

Let's say that you have AI and 3D printers taking away millions of jobs

比如人工智能和3D打印机在孟加拉国

in Bangladesh,

抢走上百万份工作，

from all the people who make my shirts and my shoes.

从生产我的衬衫和鞋子的人手中。

So what's going to happen?

然后会发生什么？

The US government will levy taxes on Google and Apple in California,

美国政府会向在加州的谷歌和苹果收税，

and use that to pay basic income to unemployed Bangladeshis?

用那些税来付孟加拉国 失业者的基本收入？

If you believe that, you can just as well believe

如果你相信这个，那你会相信

that Santa Claus will come and solve the problem.

圣诞老人会到来并解决这个问题。

So unless we have really universal and not national basic income,

所以除非我们有全球基本收入， 而不是国家基本收入，

the deep problems are not going to go away.

深根蒂固的问题不会被解决。

And also it's not clear what basic is,

而且我们也不清楚“基本”是什么，

because what are basic human needs?

因为人类的基本需求是什么？

A thousand years ago, just food and shelter was enough.

一千年前，食物和庇护所就够了。

But today, people will say education is a basic human need,

但是现在， 人们会说教育是人类基本需求，

it should be part of the package.

它应该是其中之一。

But how much? Six years? Twelve years? PhD?

但是，多久？6年？12年？博士？

Similarly, with health care,

相同，医疗保健，

let's say that in 20, 30, 40 years,

比如20、30、40年，

you'll have expensive treatments that can extend human life

你会有昂贵的治疗来延长人类寿命

to 120, I don't know.

到120岁，可能吧。

Will this be part of the basket of basic income or not?

这个会是基本收入中的一部分吗？

It's a very difficult problem,

这是一个很困难的问题，

because in a world where people lose their ability to be employed,

因为当人们失去工作，

the only thing they are going to get is this basic income.

他们唯一能够拿到的就是基本收入。

So what's part of it is a very, very difficult ethical question.

所以这是一个非常困难的道德问题。

CA: There's a bunch of questions on how the world affords it as well,

克里斯·安德森： 这如何影响世界还有很多未知，

who pays.

谁付钱？

There's a question here from Facebook from Lisa Larson:

Facebook上的丽莎·拉森 提了一个问题，

"How does nationalism in the US now

“现在美国的国家主义

compare to that between World War I and World War II

和上个世纪的一战二战期间相比

in the last century?"

是怎么样的？”

YNH: Well the good news, with regard to the dangers of nationalism,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 好消息是，不管国家主义的危险，

we are in a much better position than a century ago.

我们的情况比一世纪前好得多。

A century ago, 1917,

一世纪以前，1917，

Europeans were killing each other by the millions.

几百万人欧洲人互相残杀。

In 2016, with Brexit, as far as I remember,

2016年，英国脱欧，我所记得的，

a single person lost their life, an MP who was murdered by some extremist.

只有一个人失去生命， 一个议员被极端主义者谋杀。

Just a single person.

只有一个人。

I mean, if Brexit was about British independence,

如果英国脱欧意味着英国独立，

this is the most peaceful war of independence in human history.

这是人类历史上最和平的独立。

And let's say that Scotland will now choose to leave the UK

如果苏格兰决定离开英国，

after Brexit.

在英国脱欧之后。

So in the 18th century,

所以在18世纪，

if Scotland wanted -- and the Scots wanted several times --

如果苏格兰几次尝试

to break out of the control of London,

脱离伦敦的控制，

the reaction of the government in London was to send an army up north

伦敦政府的回应是向北派军队，

to burn down Edinburgh and massacre the highland tribes.

烧掉爱丁堡，并屠杀高地部落。

My guess is that if, in 2018, the Scots vote for independence,

我的猜测是，如果2018年， 苏格兰选择独立，

the London government will not send an army up north

伦敦政府不会向北派兵，

to burn down Edinburgh.

烧掉爱丁堡。

Very few people are now willing to kill or be killed

现在几乎没有人愿意杀人或者被杀

for Scottish or for British independence.

为了苏格兰或者英国独立。

So for all the talk of the rise of nationalism

至今国家主义的雄起，

and going back to the 1930s,

回到20世纪30年代，

to the 19th century, in the West at least,

到19实际，在西方

the power of national sentiments today is far, far smaller

国家主义的力量至少比一个世纪前

than it was a century ago.

小了很多。

CA: Although some people now, you hear publicly worrying

克里斯·安德森：现在有些人，

about whether that might be shifting,

担心这会不会被改变，

that there could actually be outbreaks of violence in the US

美国的犯罪会暴增，

depending on how things turn out.

根据结果来看。

Should we be worried about that,

我们需要担心这个吗，

or do you really think things have shifted?

或者你真的相信事情被改变了吗？

YNH: No, we should be worried.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 不，我们应该担心。

We should be aware of two things.

我们应该意识到两件事情，

First of all, don't be hysterical.

第一，不要太极端，

We are not back in the First World War yet.

我们还没有回到一战。

But on the other hand, don't be complacent.

但是另一方面，不要自鸣得意。

We reached from 1917 to 2017,

我们从1917到2017，

not by some divine miracle,

不是通过奇迹，

but simply by human decisions,

而只是人类的选择，

and if we now start making the wrong decisions,

如果我们现在开始作出错误的决定，

we could be back in an analogous situation to 1917

在几年之内，我们可能会 回到像1917年那样的局面。

in a few years.

One of the things I know as a historian

作为历史学家，我知道的一件事情

is that you should never underestimate human stupidity.

是不要低估人类的愚蠢。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

It's one of the most powerful forces in history,

这是历史上最强大的力量，

human stupidity and human violence.

人类的愚蠢和暴力。

Humans do such crazy things for no obvious reason,

人们做这样疯狂的事情， 然而却并没有很明显的原因，

but again, at the same time,

但是话又说回来，

another very powerful force in human history is human wisdom.

人类历史上另一个 很强大的力量是人类的智慧。

We have both.

我们两者都有。

CA: We have with us here moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt,

克里斯·安德森： 道德心理学家乔纳森·海特

who I think has a question.

有一个问题。

Jonathan Haidt: Thanks, Yuval.

乔纳森·海特：谢谢，尤瓦尔。

So you seem to be a fan of global governance,

似乎你支持世界政府，

but when you look at the map of the world from Transparency International,

但是当你看“透明国际”的地图时，

which rates the level of corruption of political institutions,

标注政府的腐败程度，

it's a vast sea of red with little bits of yellow here and there

那些作风优良的政府有

for those with good institutions.

大量的红色和一点点的黄色，

So if we were to have some kind of global governance,

所以如果我们有某种世界政府，

what makes you think it would end up being more like Denmark

为什么你认为它会变成像是丹麦一样，

rather than more like Russia or Honduras,

而不是像俄罗斯或者洪都拉斯，

and aren't there alternatives,

或者不是其他选择，

such as we did with CFCs?

像我们对CFC做的？

There are ways to solve global problems with national governments.

通过某种方式国家政府 是可以解决全球问题。

What would world government actually look like,

世界政府看起来是什么样的，

and why do you think it would work?

为什么你认为它能够有用？

YNH: Well, I don't know what it would look like.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我并不知道它会是怎么样的。

Nobody still has a model for that.

没人有一个模型。

The main reason we need it

我们需要它的主要原因

is because many of these issues are lose-lose situations.

是因为这些问题都是两败的局面。

When you have a win-win situation like trade,

当有像交易一样的双赢局面，

both sides can benefit from a trade agreement,

两方都能从贸易协定中获益，

then this is something you can work out.

这才是我们能够解决的事情。

Without some kind of global government,

没有某种世界政府，

national governments each have an interest in doing it.

国家政府都有独自的利益。

But when you have a lose-lose situation like with climate change,

但是当你有一个两败的局面， 像气候变化，

it's much more difficult

如果没有一些权利上的统治，

without some overarching authority, real authority.

会变得很困难。

Now, how to get there and what would it look like,

如何做到和结果是怎么样

I don't know.

我不知道。

And certainly there is no obvious reason

而且肯定没有确切的原因，

to think that it would look like Denmark,

认为会变成丹麦一样，

or that it would be a democracy.

或者会变成民主政治。

Most likely it wouldn't.

更有可能它不会。

We don't have workable democratic models

我们没有可行的民主政治模型

for a global government.

适用于世界政府。

So maybe it would look more like ancient China

所以可能它会更像古中国

than like modern Denmark.

而不是现代丹麦。

But still, given the dangers that we are facing,

但是，因为我们面对的危险，

I think the imperative of having some kind of real ability

我认为大国们有真正的能力

to force through difficult decisions on the global level

在世界实施这些艰难的决定，

is more important than almost anything else.

比其他都要重要。

CA: There's a question from Facebook here,

克里斯·安德森： Facebook上有一个问题，

and then we'll get the mic to Andrew.

然后我们会把麦克风给安德鲁。

So, Kat Hebron on Facebook,

Facebook上的凯特·希伯伦，

calling in from Vail:

从范尔：

"How would developed nations manage the millions of climate migrants?"

“发展中国家如何管理 百万气候变化的移民？”

YNH: I don't know.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：我不知道。

CA: That's your answer, Kat. (Laughter)

克里斯·安德森： 这是你的答案，凯特。（笑声）

YNH: And I don't think that they know either.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我觉得他们也不知道。

They'll just deny the problem, maybe.

可能他们会否认问题。

CA: But immigration, generally, is another example of a problem

克里斯·安德森： 但是移民是国家层面难以解决的问题

that's very hard to solve on a nation-by-nation basis.

的另一个例子。

One nation can shut its doors,

一个国家可以关闭边界，

but maybe that stores up problems for the future.

但是这可能加深未来的问题。

YNH: Yes, I mean -- it's another very good case,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 没错，这是另外一个很好的例子，

especially because it's so much easier

特别是因为现在移民

to migrate today

比中世纪和古代更为简单。

than it was in the Middle Ages or in ancient times.

CA: Yuval, there's a belief among many technologists, certainly,

克里斯·安德森： 尤瓦尔，很多科技人相信一件事情，

that political concerns are kind of overblown,

政治有点被夸张了，

that actually, political leaders don't have that much influence

事实上，政治领导人 在世界上没有那么大的影响力，

in the world,

that the real determination of humanity at this point is by science,

现在真正决定人类的是科学、

by invention, by companies,

发明、公司、

by many things other than political leaders,

除政治领导人外的很多东西，

and it's actually very hard for leaders to do much,

领导人做不了很多事情，

so we're actually worrying about nothing here.

所以我们是白担心。

YNH: Well, first, it should be emphasized

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：首先，

that it's true that political leaders' ability to do good is very limited,

政治领导人做好事 的能力是非常有限的，

but their ability to do harm is unlimited.

但是他们做坏事的能力是没有限制的。

There is a basic imbalance here.

这是基本的不平衡。

You can still press the button and blow everybody up.

你依旧可以按下按钮，炸掉所有人。

You have that kind of ability.

你可以有这样的能力。

But if you want, for example, to reduce inequality,

但是如果你想，比如，减轻不平等现象，

that's very, very difficult.

是非常，非常困难的。

But to start a war,

但是开始一场战争，

you can still do so very easily.

你依旧可以轻而易举的做到。

So there is a built-in imbalance in the political system today

所以现在的政治系统有 一个根深蒂固的不平衡，

which is very frustrating,

这挺令人沮丧的，

where you cannot do a lot of good but you can still do a lot of harm.

你不能做很多好事， 但你依旧可以造成很多伤害。

And this makes the political system still a very big concern.

这依旧是政治系统很大的隐患。

CA: So as you look at what's happening today,

克里斯·安德森： 所以当你看看现在发生的事情，

and putting your historian's hat on,

从一个历史学家的角度，

do you look back in history at moments when things were going just fine

历史上有一切都很好，

and an individual leader really took the world or their country backwards?

然后一个领导人使世界 和他的国家倒退的时候吗？

YNH: There are quite a few examples,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：有几个例子，

but I should emphasize, it's never an individual leader.

但是我应该强调， 从来都不只是一个领导人，

I mean, somebody put him there,

有人把他推上台的，

and somebody allowed him to continue to be there.

有人允许他继续待在台上。

So it's never really just the fault of a single individual.

所以并不是单一一个人的错，

There are a lot of people behind every such individual.

有很多人在这样的人身后。

CA: Can we have the microphone here, please, to Andrew?

克里斯·安德森： 我们能把麦克风给安德鲁吗？

Andrew Solomon: You've talked a lot about the global versus the national,

安德鲁·索罗门： 你谈了很多关于世界和国家的事情，

but increasingly, it seems to me,

但是在我看来，

the world situation is in the hands of identity groups.

世界还是掌握在一群一群的人手中的。

We look at people within the United States

看看在美国被ISIS招募的人，

who have been recruited by ISIS.

We look at these other groups which have formed

还有其他的组群，

which go outside of national bounds

不受国家的限制，

but still represent significant authorities.

但是依旧代表着重要的权力。

How are they to be integrated into the system,

他们该如何被融入系统？

and how is a diverse set of identities to be made coherent

以及如何使一个多样背景的设定团结，

under either national or global leadership?

在国家或者世界领导下？

YNH: Well, the problem of such diverse identities

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：多样背景的问题

is a problem from nationalism as well.

在国家主义里也有。

Nationalism believes in a single, monolithic identity,

国家主义偏爱单一背景，

and exclusive or at least more extreme versions of nationalism

更极端的国家主义

believe in an exclusive loyalty to a single identity.

偏爱对单一背景的唯一忠诚。

And therefore, nationalism has had a lot of problems

因此，国家主义有了很多问题，

with people wanting to divide their identities

对想要在不同组群中

between various groups.

有多样背景的人。

So it's not just a problem, say, for a global vision.

所以这仅是全球背景下的一个问题，

And I think, again, history shows

我认为，历史表明

that you shouldn't necessarily think in such exclusive terms.

你不能片面的思考。

If you think that there is just a single identity for a person,

若果你认为每个人是单一背景的话，

"I am just X, that's it, I can't be several things, I can be just that,"

“我只是X，我不能是其他东西。”

that's the start of the problem.

这就是问题的开始。

You have religions, you have nations

你有宗教信仰，你有国籍，

that sometimes demand exclusive loyalty,

可能需要唯一忠诚，

but it's not the only option.

但是这不是唯一的选择。

There are many religions and many nations

有很多宗教信仰和很多国家，

that enable you to have diverse identities at the same time.

能够让你同时有非常多样的背景。

CA: But is one explanation of what's happened in the last year

克里斯·安德森： 去年发生的事情的解释

that a group of people have got fed up with, if you like,

是一群人忍受不住了，

the liberal elites, for want of a better term,

自由主义精英，

obsessing over many, many different identities and them feeling,

痴迷于很多很多不同的背景， 然后他们感觉，

"But what about my identity? I am being completely ignored here.

“但是我的身份呢？我被完全遗忘了。

And by the way, I thought I was the majority"?

似乎我觉得我是多数人？”

And that that's actually sparked a lot of the anger.

然而这只是诸多愤怒的冰山一角。

YNH: Yeah. Identity is always problematic,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 身份总会带来很多问题，

because identity is always based on fictional stories

因为身份总是基于虚构的故事，

that sooner or later collide with reality.

迟早会和现实冲突。

Almost all identities,

几乎所有的身份，

I mean, beyond the level of the basic community

高于基本群体的级别，

of a few dozen people,

和十几个人的级别，

are based on a fictional story.

都是基于虚构的故事。

They are not the truth.

他们都不是事实。

They are not the reality.

他们都不是真的。

It's just a story that people invent and tell one another

这只是人们发明出来

and start believing.

互相告诉然后相信的故事。

And therefore all identities are extremely unstable.

所以所有的身份都是不稳定的。

They are not a biological reality.

他们不是生物学上的事实。

Sometimes nationalists, for example,

有的时候国家主义者，

think that the nation is a biological entity.

认为国家是一个生物学上的物体。

It's made of the combination of soil and blood,

由土壤和血液组成的，

creates the nation.

形成了国家。

But this is just a fictional story.

但是这只是一个虚构的故事。

CA: Soil and blood kind of makes a gooey mess.

克里斯·安德森： 土壤和血液和在一起是一团糟。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

YNH: It does, and also it messes with your mind

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 没错，而且它还会搞乱你的头脑，

when you think too much that I am a combination of soil and blood.

当你认为你是土壤和血液的组合过多。

If you look from a biological perspective,

如果从生物学的角度来看，

obviously none of the nations that exist today

显而易见现在的国家没有一个

existed 5,000 years ago.

在5千年前存在。

Homo sapiens is a social animal, that's for sure.

智人无疑是一个社交的动物。

But for millions of years,

但是百万年来，

Homo sapiens and our hominid ancestors lived in small communities

智人和我们的人类祖先

of a few dozen individuals.

生活在几十个个体的小群体内。

Everybody knew everybody else.

所有人都知道所有人。

Whereas modern nations are imagined communities,

但是现在国家是虚构的群体，

in the sense that I don't even know all these people.

我并不认识这些人。

I come from a relatively small nation, Israel,

我来自一个相对小的国家，以色列，

and of eight million Israelis,

八百万以色列人中，

I never met most of them.

我从来没有见过绝大多数人。

I will never meet most of them.

我也不会见到绝大多数人。

They basically exist here.

他们只是简单地存在在这里。

CA: But in terms of this identity,

克里斯·安德森：这样的身份，

this group who feel left out and perhaps have work taken away,

这群人感觉被抛弃，可能被抢走工作，

I mean, in "Homo Deus,"

在《未来简史》里，

you actually speak of this group in one sense expanding,

你谈到这样的组群在扩大，

that so many people may have their jobs taken away

太多人可能会被科技

by technology in some way that we could end up with

夺走工作，

a really large -- I think you call it a "useless class" --

然后我们可能会有一个 你称之为的很大的“无用阶层”，

a class where traditionally,

一个传统上存在，

as viewed by the economy, these people have no use.

经济上无用的阶层。

YNH: Yes.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利没错。

CA: How likely a possibility is that?

克里斯·安德森：有多大可能会发生？

Is that something we should be terrified about?

我们该为此担心吗？

And can we address it in any way?

以及我们能够解决这个吗？

YNH: We should think about it very carefully.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我们应该非常仔细的思考这件事。

I mean, nobody really knows what the job market will look like

没人真的知道2040、2050年

in 2040, 2050.

的工作市场是怎样的。

There is a chance many new jobs will appear,

有可能新的工作会出现，

but it's not certain.

但并不是绝对。

And even if new jobs do appear,

即使新的工作真的出现了，

it won't necessarily be easy

一个被自动驾驶汽车 抢走工作的50岁的卡车司机

for a 50-year old unemployed truck driver

的生活也不一定简单。

made unemployed by self-driving vehicles,

it won't be easy for an unemployed truck driver

一个失业卡车司机

to reinvent himself or herself as a designer of virtual worlds.

把自己重塑成一个 虚拟世界的设计者是很难的。

Previously, if you look at the trajectory of the industrial revolution,

之前，工业革命的发展史，

when machines replaced humans in one type of work,

当在某个产业机器代替人力，

the solution usually came from low-skill work

解决方式通常是 在新的生产中低技术的工作。

in new lines of business.

So you didn't need any more agricultural workers,

所以你不需要更多的农民，

so people moved to working in low-skill industrial jobs,

人们转向低技术工业的工作，

and when this was taken away by more and more machines,

当这些工作被 越来越多的机器抢走的时候，

people moved to low-skill service jobs.

人们转移到低技术的服务业。

Now, when people say there will be new jobs in the future,

当人们说未来会有新的职业，

that humans can do better than AI,

那些职业人类会比人工智能做的更好，

that humans can do better than robots,

那些职业人类能比机器人做的更好，

they usually think about high-skill jobs,

他们说的其实是高技术的工作，

like software engineers designing virtual worlds.

像软件工程师设计虚拟世界。

Now, I don't see how an unemployed cashier from Wal-Mart

我不认为一个失业沃尔玛收银员

reinvents herself or himself at 50 as a designer of virtual worlds,

能够在50岁把自己 变成一个虚拟世界的设计者，

and certainly I don't see

我更不认为

how the millions of unemployed Bangladeshi textile workers

孟加拉国的百万失业纺织业工人

will be able to do that.

能够做到这个。

I mean, if they are going to do it,

如果他们真的想做到，

we need to start teaching the Bangladeshis today

那我们现在就要开始教孟加拉国人

how to be software designers,

如何成为一个软件工程师，

and we are not doing it.

但是我们并没有在做这件事。

So what will they do in 20 years?

所以他们在20年内会做什么？

CA: So it feels like you're really highlighting a question

克里斯·安德森： 我感觉你很重视一个问题，

that's really been bugging me the last few months more and more.

其实这前几个月就一直困扰着我，

It's almost a hard question to ask in public,

这个问题不好在公众问，

but if any mind has some wisdom to offer in it, maybe it's yours,

但是如果任何人能够有智慧回答， 那就是你了，

so I'm going to ask you:

所以问题是：

What are humans for?

人类存在的目的是什么？

YNH: As far as we know, for nothing.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 据我们现在所知，没有任何目的。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

I mean, there is no great cosmic drama, some great cosmic plan,

并没有什么宏大的宇宙戏剧， 或者宏大的宇宙计划，

that we have a role to play in.

人类拥有一个角色的。

And we just need to discover what our role is

我们只需要发现我们的角色，

and then play it to the best of our ability.

然后尽可能做好我们的角色。

This has been the story of all religions and ideologies and so forth,

这一直是所有宗教和价值观的故事，

but as a scientist, the best I can say is this is not true.

但是作为一个科学家， 我能说的是这不是真的。

There is no universal drama with a role in it for Homo sapiens.

并没有什么智人参加的宇宙戏剧。

So --

所以……

CA: I'm going to push back on you just for a minute,

克里斯·安德森：我要打断你一下，

just from your own book,

在你的书里，

because in "Homo Deus,"

因为在《未来简史》里，

you give really one of the most coherent and understandable accounts

你做出了条理清楚和易于理解的解释，

about sentience, about consciousness,

关于知觉，关于意识，

and that unique sort of human skill.

以及那种人类特别的能力。

You point out that it's different from intelligence,

你指出了和智力的区别，

the intelligence that we're building in machines,

那种我们建造机器的智力，

and that there's actually a lot of mystery around it.

并没有什么神秘之处。

How can you be sure there's no purpose

你是怎么知道人类没有目的，

when we don't even understand what this sentience thing is?

如果我们还无法理解知觉是什么？

I mean, in your own thinking, isn't there a chance

以你的理解，有没有可能

that what humans are for is to be the universe's sentient things,

人类的目的是成为宇宙的知觉，

to be the centers of joy and love and happiness and hope?

成为快乐、爱情和喜悦的中心呢？

And maybe we can build machines that actually help amplify that,

可能我们能够建造放大那些东西的机器，

even if they're not going to become sentient themselves?

即使它们不会获得感知？

Is that crazy?

这听起来很疯狂吗？

I kind of found myself hoping that, reading your book.

读你的书，我似乎有点渴望这个。

YNH: Well, I certainly think that the most interesting question today in science

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我相信现在科学最有意思的问题是

is the question of consciousness and the mind.

关于意识和头脑的。

We are getting better and better in understanding the brain

我们能够越来越好的理解

and intelligence,

大脑和智力，

but we are not getting much better

但是我们并没有越来越好的

in understanding the mind and consciousness.

理解思维和意识。

People often confuse intelligence and consciousness,

人们经常把智力和意识混为一谈，

especially in places like Silicon Valley,

特别是像硅谷这样的地方，

which is understandable, because in humans, they go together.

这是可以理解的， 因为在人类身上，这两个是相似的。

I mean, intelligence basically is the ability to solve problems.

智力基本上就是解决问题的能力。

Consciousness is the ability to feel things,

意识是感受事情的能力，

to feel joy and sadness and boredom and pain and so forth.

感受快乐、悲伤、无聊、痛苦等等。

In Homo sapiens and all other mammals as well -- it's not unique to humans --

智人和其他哺乳动物，不仅仅人类，

in all mammals and birds and some other animals,

所有哺乳动物和鸟类及其他一些动物，

intelligence and consciousness go together.

智力和意识很相似。

We often solve problems by feeling things.

我们经常通过感受事情来解决问题。

So we tend to confuse them.

所以我们更有可能会把它们混淆。

But they are different things.

但它们是不同的东西。

What's happening today in places like Silicon Valley

现在在像硅谷一样的地方发生的事情

is that we are creating artificial intelligence

是我们在创造人工智能，

but not artificial consciousness.

但是不是人工意识。

There has been an amazing development in computer intelligence

过去的50年里，

over the last 50 years,

电脑智能有非常卓越的发展，

and exactly zero development in computer consciousness,

但是电脑意识完全没有进步，

and there is no indication that computers are going to become conscious

也没有现象表明电脑

anytime soon.

在不远的将来会取得意识。

So first of all, if there is some cosmic role for consciousness,

所以，第一， 意识在宇宙中扮演的角色，

it's not unique to Homo sapiens.

它不是智人特有的。

Cows are conscious, pigs are conscious,

牛是有意识的，猪是有意识的，

chimpanzees are conscious, chickens are conscious,

猩猩是有意识的，鸡是有意识的，

so if we go that way, first of all, we need to broaden our horizons

所以如果我们想搞清楚我们的角色， 首先，我们要扩大我们的视野，

and remember very clearly we are not the only sentient beings on Earth,

一定要记住我们不是 地球上唯一有意识的生物，

and when it comes to sentience --

当谈到意识，

when it comes to intelligence, there is good reason to think

当谈到智力，

we are the most intelligent of the whole bunch.

我们有理由认为我们是整个生态系统中最聪明的。

But when it comes to sentience,

但是谈到意识时，

to say that humans are more sentient than whales,

说人类比鲸鱼更有意识，

or more sentient than baboons or more sentient than cats,

或者比狒狒，或者比猫更有意识，

I see no evidence for that.

我找不到证据。

So first step is, you go in that direction, expand.

所以第一步是， 如果你想要搞清楚，扩大视野。

And then the second question of what is it for,

第二个问题是意识的目的是什么？

I would reverse it

我要推翻这个问题，

and I would say that I don't think sentience is for anything.

我不认为意识有任何目的。

I think we don't need to find our role in the universe.

我不认为我们需要 在宇宙中找到我们的角色。

The really important thing is to liberate ourselves from suffering.

重要的事情是使我们不再痛苦。

What characterizes sentient beings

有意识的生物

in contrast to robots, to stones,

和机器人、石头或者其他东西相比

to whatever,

is that sentient beings suffer, can suffer,

是有意识生物会感受到痛苦，

and what they should focus on

而且他们应该关注的

is not finding their place in some mysterious cosmic drama.

不是在什么神秘的 宇宙戏剧中找到他们的角色。

They should focus on understanding what suffering is,

而应该关注痛苦是什么，

what causes it and how to be liberated from it.

什么造成了痛苦以及如何从中解脱。

CA: I know this is a big issue for you, and that was very eloquent.

克里斯·安德森： 我知道这对你是一个非常重要的问题。

We're going to have a blizzard of questions from the audience here,

但是现场有很多的问题，

and maybe from Facebook as well,

可能Facebook也是，

and maybe some comments as well.

可能还有一些评论。

So let's go quick.

所以让我们开始吧。

There's one right here.

这里就有一个问题。

Keep your hands held up at the back if you want the mic,

如果你要麦克风，请保持手举高，

and we'll get it back to you.

我们会递给你。

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

问题：在你的工作里， 你谈论了很多关于

that we accept as truth,

我们当成现实的虚构故事，

and we live our lives by it.

我们的生活基于这些故事。

As an individual, knowing that,

作为个人，知道这个，

how does it impact the stories that you choose to live your life,

这如何影响你的人生。

and do you confuse them with the truth, like all of us?

以及你会像我们一样把 这些故事和现实混在一起吗？

YNH: I try not to.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：我尝试不要。

I mean, for me, maybe the most important question,

对于我来说，最重要的问题，

both as a scientist and as a person,

作为一个科学家和一个人类，

is how to tell the difference between fiction and reality,

是如何分辨虚构和事实的区别，

because reality is there.

因为事实存在。

I'm not saying that everything is fiction.

我并不是说所有的事情都是虚构的。

It's just very difficult for human beings to tell the difference

只是对于人类，我们很难分辨

between fiction and reality,

虚构和现实的区别，

and it has become more and more difficult as history progressed,

而且随着历史的发展， 这变得越来越困难，

because the fictions that we have created --

因为我们创造的虚拟事物，

nations and gods and money and corporations --

国家、神、金钱和公司，

they now control the world.

它们现在控制着世界。

So just to even think,

所以甚至思考

"Oh, this is just all fictional entities that we've created,"

“哦，这只是我们创造的虚构的东西。”

is very difficult.

是很困难的。

But reality is there.

但是事实依旧存在。

For me the best ...

对于我来说，

There are several tests

有几个能够分辨虚构和现实的方法。

to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

The simplest one, the best one that I can say in short,

最简单的，最好用的， 我能够简而言之的，

is the test of suffering.

是痛苦。

If it can suffer, it's real.

如果它能够感受痛苦，它是真的。

If it can't suffer, it's not real.

如果它不能感受痛苦，它不是真的。

A nation cannot suffer.

一个国家无法感受痛苦。

That's very, very clear.

这非常非常显而易见。

Even if a nation loses a war,

即使一个国家输了一场战争，

we say, "Germany suffered a defeat in the First World War,"

我们说： “德国因为一战的失败而痛苦。”

it's a metaphor.

这是一个比喻。

Germany cannot suffer. Germany has no mind.

德国无法感受痛苦，德国没有意识。

Germany has no consciousness.

德国没有知觉。

Germans can suffer, yes, but Germany cannot.

德国人能够感受痛苦， 没错，但是德国不可以。

Similarly, when a bank goes bust,

相似的是，当一个银行倒闭，

the bank cannot suffer.

那个银行无法感受痛苦。

When the dollar loses its value, the dollar doesn't suffer.

当美元的价值降低， 美元无法感受痛苦。

People can suffer. Animals can suffer.

人能够感受痛苦， 美国人能够感受痛苦。

This is real.

这是真的。

So I would start, if you really want to see reality,

所以如果你真的想看到现实，

I would go through the door of suffering.

我会测试其能否感受痛苦。

If you can really understand what suffering is,

如果你真的能够理解什么是痛苦，

this will give you also the key

这也会让你了解什么是现实。

to understand what reality is.

CA: There's a Facebook question here that connects to this,

from someone around the world in a language that I cannot read.

从看不懂的语言的人。

YNH: Oh, it's Hebrew. CA: Hebrew. There you go.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：哦这是希伯来语。 克里斯·安德森：噢，希伯来语。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Can you read the name?

你能读这个名字吗？

YNH: Or Lauterbach Goren.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：……

CA: Well, thank you for writing in.

克里斯·安德森：谢谢你的问题，

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

问题是：“真相后时期 真的是一个全新的时期，

or just another climax or moment in a never-ending trend?

还是另一个历史长河的时刻？”

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

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：个人所见， 我不同意“真相后”这个概念。

My basic reaction as a historian is:

我作为历史学家的反应是，

If this is the era of post-truth, when the hell was the era of truth?

如果这是真相后的时期， 真相的时期是什么时候？

CA: Right.

克里斯·安德森：没错。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

YNH: Was it the 1980s, the 1950s, the Middle Ages?

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：是20世纪80年代， 50年代还是中世纪时期？

I mean, we have always lived in an era, in a way, of post-truth.

我们一直都生活在某种真相后的时期。

CA: But I'd push back on that,

克里斯·安德森：我要打断一下，

because I think what people are talking about

因为我认为人们谈论的

is that there was a world where you had fewer journalistic outlets,

是有更少的记者报道，

where there were traditions, that things were fact-checked.

有被验真过的现实的世界，

It was incorporated into the charter of those organizations

被那些注重真实的机构检查过的世界。

that the truth mattered.

So if you believe in a reality,

所以如果你相信一个事实，

then what you write is information.

你所写的就是信息。

There was a belief that that information should connect to reality in a real way,

有人认为信息应该真正与现实相连，

and if you wrote a headline, it was a serious, earnest attempt

如果你写一个头条， 这是一个很严肃重要的

to reflect something that had actually happened.

反映现实的事情。

And people didn't always get it right.

然而有些人不这么认为。

But I think the concern now is you've got

但是我认为担心是

a technological system that's incredibly powerful

现在的科技非常强大

that, for a while at least, massively amplified anything

在一段时间下，能够放大所有的事物，

with no attention paid to whether it connected to reality,

不管其与现实的联系，

only to whether it connected to clicks and attention,

只管点击量和吸引注意，

and that that was arguably toxic.

这是非常有害的。

That's a reasonable concern, isn't it?

这会导致一个很正常的担忧，对吧？

YNH: Yeah, it is. I mean, the technology changes,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 没错，随着科技发展，

and it's now easier to disseminate both truth and fiction and falsehood.

现在传播现实、虚构和虚假更简单了。

It goes both ways.

现实和虚构的都有。

It's also much easier, though, to spread the truth than it was ever before.

宣传现实都比以前简单了非常多。

But I don't think there is anything essentially new

但是我不认为有什么非常新的东西

about this disseminating fictions and errors.

关于传播虚构和虚假信息。

There is nothing that -- I don't know -- Joseph Goebbels, didn't know

关于虚假信息和“真实后”，

about all this idea of fake news and post-truth.

约瑟夫·戈培尔也都知道。

He famously said that if you repeat a lie often enough,

他经常说如果你重复一个谎言，

people will think it's the truth,

人们为认为那是事实，

and the bigger the lie, the better,

谎越大越好，

because people won't even think that something so big can be a lie.

因为人们甚至都不认为 这么夸张的事情是一个谎言。

I think that fake news has been with us for thousands of years.

我认为虚假新闻已经存在上千年了。

Just think of the Bible.

就像圣经。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

CA: But there is a concern

克里斯·安德森：但是有人担心

that the fake news is associated with tyrannical regimes,

虚假新闻和专制政权有关，

and when you see an uprise in fake news

当虚假新闻上升的时候，

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

那是一个危险信号， 黑暗的时代可能会到来。

YNH: Yeah. I mean, the intentional use of fake news is a disturbing sign.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：没错，国际上 虚假新闻的使用是很令人不安的。

But I'm not saying that it's not bad, I'm just saying that it's not new.

但是我不是说这不好。 我只是说这不是什么新鲜的东西。

CA: There's a lot of interest on Facebook on this question

克里斯·安德森： 在Facebook上对这个问题有很多关注，

about global governance versus nationalism.

关于世界政府和国家主义。

Question here from Phil Dennis:

来自菲利斯·丹尼斯的问题：

"How do we get people, governments, to relinquish power?

“我们如何让人们，让政府放弃权利？

Is that -- is that -- actually, the text is so big

这个含义太宏大了

I can't read the full question.

我看不到整个宏观的问题。

But is that a necessity?

但是这必要吗？

Is it going to take war to get there?

这需要战争才能实现吗？

Sorry Phil -- I mangled your question, but I blame the text right here.

不好意思菲利斯， 我篡改了你的问题，但是我怪文字。

YNH: One option that some people talk about

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 人们谈论的一个选择，

is that only a catastrophe can shake humankind

只有灾难才能打动人类，

and open the path to a real system of global governance,

开始一个真正世界政府的系统，

and they say that we can't do it before the catastrophe,

他们说我们无法在灾难前完成，

but we need to start laying the foundations

但是我们需要开始打基础，

so that when the disaster strikes,

所以当灾难来袭时，

we can react quickly.

我们能够快速反应。

But people will just not have the motivation to do such a thing

但是人们在灾难前

before the disaster strikes.

是不会有动机去做这样的事情的。

Another thing that I would emphasize

另外一件我要强调的事情

is that anybody who is really interested in global governance

是任何真正相信世界政府的人，

should always make it very, very clear

都要澄清

that it doesn't replace or abolish local identities and communities,

它并不会取代或者取消地方户口或者社区，

that it should come both as --

它们应该共同存在，

It should be part of a single package.

应该都是系统中的一部分。

CA: I want to hear more on this,

克里斯·安德森：我想多谈谈这个，

because the very words "global governance"

因为“世界政府”中的每一个字，

are almost the epitome of evil in the mindset of a lot of people

是非主流右派很多人心目中

on the alt-right right now.

恶魔的缩影。

It just seems scary, remote, distant, and it has let them down,

它看起来很吓人，很遥远，很未来， 它还让人们失望过，

and so globalists, global governance -- no, go away!

所以全球主义者，世界政府， 不要，走开！

And many view the election as the ultimate poke in the eye

很多人认为这次大选

to anyone who believes in that.

就是对任何相信这个的人的鼓励。

So how do we change the narrative

我们如何改变叙述方式，

so that it doesn't seem so scary and remote?

让它看起来不那么吓人和遥远？

Build more on this idea of it being compatible

基于你说的

with local identity, local communities.

和地方户口、地方社区的主意。

YNH: Well, I think again we should start

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：我认为我们应该

really with the biological realities

以智人的生物学现实开始。

of Homo sapiens.

And biology tells us two things about Homo sapiens

生物学告诉我们两件关于智人的事情

which are very relevant to this issue:

和这个问题非常有关：

first of all, that we are completely dependent

第一，我们完全依赖于

on the ecological system around us,

我们身边的生态系统，

and that today we are talking about a global system.

而且现在我们所谈论的是世界范围的系统。

You cannot escape that.

你无法逃避这件事。

And at the same time, biology tells us about Homo sapiens

同时，生物学告诉我们，

that we are social animals,

智人是社交动物，

but that we are social on a very, very local level.

但我们只在非常非常小的范围内社交。

It's just a simple fact of humanity

这只是人类的简单事实，

that we cannot have intimate familiarity

我们无法和超过150个个体

with more than about 150 individuals.

有亲密关系。

The size of the natural group,

我们社交群体的大小，

the natural community of Homo sapiens,

智人社交群体的大小

is not more than 150 individuals,

不超过150个个体，

and everything beyond that is really based on all kinds of imaginary stories

一切超过那个数字的， 都是基于某种虚构故事，

and large-scale institutions,

和大型机构，

and I think that we can find a way,

我认为我们能够找到一个方法，

again, based on a biological understanding of our species,

基于生物学上对我们的理解，

to weave the two together

为了它们编织在一起，

and to understand that today in the 21st century,

为了了解21世纪的现在，

we need both the global level and the local community.

我们需要世界范围和地方社区。

And I would go even further than that

我甚至会进一步说，

and say that it starts with the body itself.

我们自己才是开始。

The feelings that people today have of alienation and loneliness

现在人们感觉被疏远和寂寞，

and not finding their place in the world,

和找不到在世界上的位置，

I would think that the chief problem is not global capitalism.

我会认为重要的问题不是世界资本主义。

The chief problem is that over the last hundred years,

重要的问题是过去的几百年里，

people have been becoming disembodied,

人们开始脱离实体，

have been distancing themselves from their body.

开始和他们的身体保持距离。

As a hunter-gatherer or even as a peasant,

作为一个依靠狩猎和 采集生活的人或者一个农民，

to survive, you need to be constantly in touch

为了生存，你需要不断

with your body and with your senses,

和你的身体和感官保持联系，

every moment.

每一分每一秒。

If you go to the forest to look for mushrooms

如果你去森林寻找蘑菇，

and you don't pay attention to what you hear,

然而你不关注你听到的，

to what you smell, to what you taste,

你闻到的，你尝到的，

you're dead.

你已经死了。

So you must be very connected.

所以你一定要保持联系。

In the last hundred years, people are losing their ability

在过去的几百年里，人们正在失去

to be in touch with their body and their senses,

与他们的身体和感官的联系，

to hear, to smell, to feel.

去听，去闻，去感受。

More and more attention goes to screens,

越来越多的注意力转到了屏幕上，

to what is happening elsewhere,

转到了其他地方发生的事情，

some other time.

到了其他的时间。

This, I think, is the deep reason

这个，我认为，

for the feelings of alienation and loneliness and so forth,

是感觉被疏远和寂寞等等的原因，

and therefore part of the solution

因此，部分解决方式，

is not to bring back some mass nationalism,

不是带回国家主义，

but also reconnect with our own bodies,

而是和我们的身体重新联系，

and if you are back in touch with your body,

如果你和你的身体重新联系，

you will feel much more at home in the world also.

你也会在世界上感觉更像待在家里。

CA: Well, depending on how things go, we may all be back in the forest soon.

克里斯·安德森：取决于事情的发展， 我们可能很快会回到森林里。

We're going to have one more question in the room

我们会再提出现场的一个问题，

and one more on Facebook.

一个Facebook上的问题。

Ama Adi-Dako: Hello. I'm from Ghana, West Africa, and my question is:

艾玛·艾迪达克：你好， 我来自非洲西部的加纳，我的问题是

I'm wondering how do you present and justify the idea of global governance

你是如何提出并辩解世界政府对

to countries that have been historically disenfranchised

历史上被全球化剥夺利益的国家历史上

by the effects of globalization,

and also, if we're talking about global governance,

以及我们谈论的世界政府，

it sounds to me like it will definitely come from a very Westernized idea

在我的眼里，它一定很像西方国家 认为的“世界”的模样。

of what the "global" is supposed to look like.

So how do we present and justify that idea of global

所以我们该如何表达和解释这个

versus wholly nationalist

全球主义和国家主义的概念，

to people in countries like Ghana and Nigeria and Togo

向加纳，尼日利亚和多哥这样国家

and other countries like that?

和其他国家的人们？

YNH: I would start by saying that history is extremely unfair,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我认为历史是非常不公平的，

and that we should realize that.

我们应该认识到这点。

Many of the countries that suffered most

许多遭受过

from the last 200 years of globalization

持续两百年的

and imperialism and industrialization

国际化，帝国主义和工业化的国家，

are exactly the countries which are also most likely to suffer most

下一次也最有可能

from the next wave.

遭受到打击。

And we should be very, very clear about that.

我们应该非常非常强调这一点。

If we don't have a global governance,

如果我们没有一个世界政府，

and if we suffer from climate change,

如果我们遭受到气候变化，

from technological disruptions,

遭受到科技导致的扰乱，

the worst suffering will not be in the US.

最严重的打击不会发生在美国。

The worst suffering will be in Ghana, will be in Sudan, will be in Syria,

最严重的打击会在加纳， 会在苏丹，会在叙利亚，

will be in Bangladesh, will be in those places.

会在孟加拉国，会在像这样的地方。

So I think those countries have an even greater incentive

所以我认为这些国家愿意

to do something about the next wave of disruption,

为下一次扰乱做出行动，

whether it's ecological or whether it's technological.

不管是生态上的，或者科技上的。

Again, if you think about technological disruption,

想想科技导致的扰乱，

so if AI and 3D printers and robots will take the jobs

如果人工智能、3D打印机和机器人会

from billions of people,

抢走上十亿人的工作，

I worry far less about the Swedes

相比瑞典，

than about the people in Ghana or in Bangladesh.

我会更担心在加纳或孟加拉国的人。

And therefore, because history is so unfair

因此，因为历史如此不公平，

and the results of a calamity

灾难的结果，

will not be shared equally between everybody,

并不会被所有人平分，

as usual, the rich will be able to get away

富人们总是能够逃脱

from the worst consequences of climate change

气候变化最严重的结果，

in a way that the poor will not be able to.

穷人们并不能以自之力造成这个结果。

CA: And here's a great question from Cameron Taylor on Facebook:

克里斯·安德森： Facebook上的卡梅伦·泰勒有一个好问题，

"At the end of 'Sapiens,'"

在《人类简史》的结尾，

you said we should be asking the question,

你说我们应该问一个问题，

'What do we want to want?'

“我们想要我们想要什么？”

Well, what do you think we should want to want?"

你认为我们应该想要想要什么？

YNH: I think we should want to want to know the truth,

尤瓦尔·赫拉利： 我认为我们应该想要了解真相，

to understand reality.

理解事实。

Mostly what we want is to change reality,

我们所想的大部分是改变现实，

to fit it to our own desires, to our own wishes,

来容纳我们的渴望和希望，

and I think we should first want to understand it.

我认为我们首先应该想的是要去理解它。

If you look at the long-term trajectory of history,

根据历史上的长期轨迹，

what you see is that for thousands of years

你能看到上千年以来，

we humans have been gaining control of the world outside us

我们人类开始控制外界，

and trying to shape it to fit our own desires.

尝试改变它来适应我们的欲望。

And we've gained control of the other animals,

我们已经控制了其他动物，

of the rivers, of the forests,

控制了河流，控制了森林，

and reshaped them completely,

并完全改变了它们，

causing an ecological destruction

造成了一个生态性的毁灭，

without making ourselves satisfied.

但并没有满足我们。

So the next step is we turn our gaze inwards,

所以下一步我们会转向内在，

and we say OK, getting control of the world outside us

我们会说：好，掌握外在世界

did not really make us satisfied.

其实还没有让我们满足。

Let's now try to gain control of the world inside us.

现在尝试掌握内在世界。

This is the really big project

这是一个很大的计划，

of science and technology and industry in the 21st century --

关于21世纪科学、科技和工业，

to try and gain control of the world inside us,

尝试取得对内在的控制，

to learn how to engineer and produce bodies and brains and minds.

学习如何驱动和制造身体、大脑和意识。

These are likely to be the main products of the 21st century economy.

这些有可能是21世纪经济的主要产品。

When people think about the future, very often they think in terms,

当人们谈论未来的时候， 经常他们想的是

"Oh, I want to gain control of my body and of my brain."

“哦，我想要获得 我的身体和大脑的控制权。”

And I think that's very dangerous.

然而我认为这非常危险。

If we've learned anything from our previous history,

我们从历史中学到的一件事，

it's that yes, we gain the power to manipulate,

是没错，我们能够操控，

but because we didn't really understand the complexity

但是因为我们并不 了解生态系统的复杂性，

of the ecological system,

we are now facing an ecological meltdown.

我们现在面临着生态系统崩溃。

And if we now try to reengineer the world inside us

如果我们现在尝试改变内在的世界，

without really understanding it,

但是并不真正了解他，

especially without understanding the complexity of our mental system,

特别是没有对心理复杂程度的了解，

we might cause a kind of internal ecological disaster,

我们可能会造成某种内心环境灾难，

and we'll face a kind of mental meltdown inside us.

我们会面对某种内在心理崩溃。

CA: Putting all the pieces together here --

克里斯·安德森：总结一下，

the current politics, the coming technology,

现在的时政，现在的科技，

concerns like the one you've just outlined --

像你刚刚说过的担忧，

I mean, it seems like you yourself are in quite a bleak place

似乎你觉得未来

when you think about the future.

是一个比较黑暗的地方。

You're pretty worried about it.

你好像很担心。

Is that right?

没错吗？

And if there was one cause for hope, how would you state that?

如果有希望，你认为是什么样的？

YNH: I focus on the most dangerous possibilities

尤瓦尔·赫拉利：我注重最危险的可能，

partly because this is like my job or responsibility

因为这是我的工作和责任，

as a historian or social critic.

作为一个历史学家和批判家。

I mean, the industry focuses mainly on the positive sides,

社会主要关注于积极的一面，

so it's the job of historians and philosophers and sociologists

所以历史学家、哲学家和社会学家的责任

to highlight the more dangerous potential of all these new technologies.

就是强调这些新科技更危险的潜能。

I don't think any of that is inevitable.

我不认为这些是不可避免的。

Technology is never deterministic.

科技决定不了一切。

You can use the same technology

你可以用同样的科技，

to create very different kinds of societies.

来创造非常不同的社会。

If you look at the 20th century,

看看20世纪，

so, the technologies of the Industrial Revolution,

工业革命时的科技，

the trains and electricity and all that

火车和电力等等

could be used to create a communist dictatorship

都会被用来成立社会主义独裁，

or a fascist regime or a liberal democracy.

或者一个法西斯政权，或者自由民主。

The trains did not tell you what to do with them.

火车并不会告诉你要做什么。

Similarly, now, artificial intelligence and bioengineering and all of that --

相似的，人工智能和生物工程等等，

they don't predetermine a single outcome.

它们不会决定一个单一的未来。

Humanity can rise up to the challenge,

人类会积极面对挑战，

and the best example we have

人类雄起面对新科技的挑战最好的例子，

of humanity rising up to the challenge of a new technology

is nuclear weapons.

就是核武器。

In the late 1940s, '50s,

在20世纪40、50年代后期，

many people were convinced

很多人相信

that sooner or later the Cold War will end in a nuclear catastrophe,

冷战迟早会在一场核灾难中结束，

destroying human civilization.

摧毁人类文明。

And this did not happen.

然而这没有发生，

In fact, nuclear weapons prompted humans all over the world

事实上，核武器在世界上促进了

to change the way that they manage international politics

人类改变国际政治的方式，

to reduce violence.

来减少暴力。

And many countries basically took out war

很多国家基本上把战争

from their political toolkit.

从他们的战略书中移除。

They no longer tried to pursue their interests with warfare.

它们不在尝试用战争追求利益。

Not all countries have done so, but many countries have.

不是所有的国家都做到了， 但是许多做到了。

And this is maybe the most important reason

这可能是为什么1945年后

why international violence declined dramatically since 1945,

国际冲突急剧减少的重要原因。

and today, as I said, more people commit suicide

现在，正如我说的，

than are killed in war.

死于自杀的人其实多余死于战争的。

So this, I think, gives us a good example

所以，我认为，这给我们了一个很好的例子

that even the most frightening technology,

说明了即使最令人害怕的科技，

humans can rise up to the challenge

人类也能雄起面对挑战，

and actually some good can come out of it.

而且还会能从中获益。

The problem is, we have very little margin for error.

问题是，留给我们犯错的余地太少了，

If we don't get it right,

如果我们做的不对，

we might not have a second option to try again.

我们可能不会有第二次尝试的机会。

CA: That's a very powerful note,

克里斯·安德森： 这是一个很有利的说服点，

on which I think we should draw this to a conclusion.

我认为我们应该总结一下了。

Before I wrap up, I just want to say one thing to people here

在结束之前，我想对现场的人、

and to the global TED community watching online, anyone watching online:

TED全球社区 和所有在网络上观看的人说：

help us with these dialogues.

帮助我们建立这些对话。

If you believe, like we do,

如果你像我们一样相信，

that we need to find a different kind of conversation,

我们需要找到一个不同的沟通方式，

now more than ever, help us do it.

就在当下，帮助我们。

Reach out to other people,

帮助其他人，

try and have conversations with people you disagree with,

尝试和你不同意的人沟通，

understand them,

理解他们，

pull the pieces together,

理清思路，

and help us figure out how to take these conversations forward

并帮助我们想方法推动这个对话，

so we can make a real contribution

所以我们可以像世界上发生的事情

to what's happening in the world right now.

做出真正的贡献。

I think everyone feels more alive,

我认为每一个人都感觉更清晰了，

more concerned, more engaged

更担忧了，更深入了，

with the politics of the moment.

对现在的时政。

The stakes do seem quite high,

赌注真的看似很高，

so help us respond to it in a wise, wise way.

所以帮助我们把它下在一个明智的地方。

Yuval Harari, thank you.

尤瓦尔·赫拉利，谢谢。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）