Why societies collapse | Jared Diamond

譯者: Coco Shen 審譯者: Zhu Jie

I think all of us have been interested, at one time or another,

社會瓦解之謎，我相信各位都曾對此感過興趣，

in the romantic mysteries of all those societies that collapsed,

那些曾經存在，但後來瓦解的社會，

such as the classic Maya in the Yucatan, the Easter Islanders,

如瑪雅文明，尤卡坦半島上的古典瑪雅文明，復活節島文明，

the Anasazi, Fertile Crescent society, Angor Wat, Great Zimbabwe

阿納薩齊文明，新月沃地文明，吳哥文明，大辛巴威文明等等。

and so on. And within the last decade or two,

而在最近的10到20年裏，

archaeologists have shown us that there were environmental problems

考古學家們向我們展示了導致這些社會瓦解的

underlying many of these past collapses.

鮮為人知的的環境原因。

But there were also plenty of places in the world

但是這個世界上還有很多地方，

where societies have been developing for thousands of years

都有著上千年的歷史，

without any sign of a major collapse,

卻從未有過徹底的瓦解。

such as Japan, Java, Tonga and Tikopea. So evidently, societies

譬如：日本、爪哇島、湯加以及蒂科皮亞。顯然，

in some areas are more fragile than in other areas.

與其他社會相比，有些社會更加脆弱一些。

How can we understand what makes some societies more fragile

我們該如何來理解這一點呢？

than other societies? The problem is obviously relevant

顯然，這個問題非常有現實意義。

to our situation today, because today as well, there are

因為於當下世界同樣

some societies that have already collapsed, such as Somalia

有一些已經瓦解了的社會，如：索馬里、

and Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. There are also

盧旺達和前南斯拉夫。此外，

societies today that may be close to collapse, such as Nepal, Indonesia and Columbia.

還有一些行將崩潰的社會，比如：尼泊爾、印尼、哥倫比亞。

What about ourselves?

那麼，美國是什麼狀況呢？

What is there that we can learn from the past that would help us avoid

歷史上，有這麼多的社會或者衰敗、或者消亡，

declining or collapsing in the way that so many past societies have?

以史為鑒，我們應當如何避免重蹈覆轍呢？

Obviously the answer to this question is not going

這個問題的答案顯然得從多方面考慮，

to be a single factor. If anyone tells you that there is a single-factor

如果有人告訴你：“這些社會會崩潰，只有一個原因。”

explanation for societal collapses, you know right away

那麼你應該馬上反應過來，

that they're an idiot. This is a complex subject.

這人是個傻子。畢竟，這是個非常複雜的問題。

But how can we make sense out of the complexities of this subject?

那麼我們該如何來理清頭緒呢？

In analyzing societal collapses, I've arrived at a

在分析社會崩潰的過程中，我設計出了一個

five-point framework -- a checklist of things that I go through

“五點架構”：這其實是個清單，枚舉了我為了解釋社會瓦解之謎

to try and understand collapses. And I'll illustrate that five-point

而考慮的每一個因素。下面，我將通過分析格陵蘭島上的維京部落的消亡

framework by the extinction of the Greenland Norse society.

來闡釋這個“五點架構”。

This is a European society with literate records,

這是一個留有文字史料的歐洲社會，

so we know a good deal about the people and their motivation.

所以我們可以充分理解那裏的人和他們的動機。

In AD 984 Vikings went out to Greenland, settled Greenland,

西元984年，一群維京海盜登陸格陵蘭島並隨後定居下來。

and around 1450 they died out -- the society collapsed,

到1450年，整個社會瓦解，

and every one of them ended up dead.

最終，他們滅絕了。

Why did they all end up dead? Well, in my five-point framework,

他們怎麼就全滅絕了呢？嗯，在我的“五點構架”中，

the first item on the framework is to look for human impacts

第一點是：人對環境的影響。

on the environment: people inadvertently destroying the resource

因為大意，人們毀掉了他們賴以生存的資源。

base on which they depend. And in the case of the Viking Norse,

在這個具體的案例中，

the Vikings inadvertently caused soil erosion and deforestation,

維京人由於大意導致了土壤侵蝕和森林荒漠化，

which was a particular problem for them because

而之所以造成了麻煩是因為

they required forests to make charcoal, to make iron.

他們需要樹木來製成木炭，再用木炭冶鐵。

So they ended up an Iron Age European society, virtually

因此雖然他們是鐵器時代的歐洲社會，但當他們瓦解時，

unable to make their own iron. A second item on my checklist is

他們已經不能冶煉鐵器了。在清單上的第二點是：

climate change. Climate can get warmer or colder or dryer or wetter.

氣候變化：或變暖、或變冷、或變乾、或變濕。

In the case of the Vikings -- in Greenland, the climate got colder

在這個案例中，14世紀晚期，尤其是15世紀，

in the late 1300s, and especially in the 1400s. But a cold climate

氣候變冷。但寒冷的氣候並不是決定性的因素，

isn't necessarily fatal, because the Inuit -- the Eskimos inhabiting

理由是當時愛斯基摩人同樣住在格陵蘭島上，

Greenland at the same time -- did better, rather than worse,

面對變冷的氣候，他們的表現就挺不錯的。

with cold climates. So why didn't the Greenland Norse as well?

那麼，為什麼維京人沒能做到呢？

The third thing on my checklist is relations with neighboring

在我的清單上的第三點是：

friendly societies that may prop up a society. And if that

與周邊友邦的關係，這些友邦可以提供必要的援助。

friendly support is pulled away, that may make a society

而一旦這種來自友邦的援助終止，通常會使

more likely to collapse. In the case of the Greenland Norse,

這個社會瓦解。在這個案例中，

they had trade with the mother country -- Norway --

他們一直在與母邦，挪威，進行貿易往來，

and that trade dwindled: partly because Norway got weaker,

然而，一方面因為挪威逐漸衰弱，

partly because of sea ice between Greenland and Norway.

一方面因為兩地航道間的海水漸漸結冰，這種貿易與日俱減。

The fourth item on my checklist is relations with hostile societies.

在我清單上的第四點是：與敵國的關係。

In the case of Norse Greenland, the hostiles were the Inuit --

在這個案例中，他們的敵國是因紐特人

the Eskimos sharing Greenland -- with whom the Norse

以及愛斯基摩人，他們與維京人是格陵蘭島上的“室友”，

got off to bad relationships. And we know that the Inuit

但他們並不遭維京人待見。而且我們知道，

killed the Norse and, probably of greater importance,

他們有時會屠戮維京人，此外，可能更重要的是，

may have blocked access to the outer fjords, on which

他們擋住了維京人到出海口的路，

the Norse depended for seals at a critical time of the year.

而每年的特定季節，維京人是需要通過這個峽灣出海捕獵海豹的。

And then finally, the fifth item on my checklist is the political,

最後，在我的清單上的第五點：

economic, social and cultural factors in the society that make it

一個社會的政治、經濟、社會和文化因素，

more or less likely that the society will perceive and solve its

這些因素能促使一個社會意識到並解決它所遇到的環境問題。

environmental problems. In the case of the Greenland Norse,

在這個案例中，

cultural factors that made it difficult for them

因為文化的原因，維京人很難解決遇到的問題，具體而言：

to solve their problems were: their commitments to a

維京人是信仰基督教的，

Christian society investing heavily in cathedrals; their being

他們將大量的人力物力花費在建築大教堂上；此外，

a competitive-ranked chiefly society; and their scorn for the Inuit,

作為一個極其爭強好勝的社會，他們瞧不起因紐特人，

from whom they refused to learn. So that's how the five-part

因此他們拒絕傳授技術。綜上，這就是“五點構架”

framework is relevant to the collapse and eventual extinction of the Greenland Norse.

如何解釋社會瓦解的以及格陵蘭島上維京人消亡的原因。

What about a society today?

那麼當今的社會又是如何的呢？

For the past five years, I've been taking my wife and kids to

過去的5年裏，我和我的家人造訪了蒙大納州的西南部，

Southwestern Montana, where I worked as a teenager

在那裏，每當乾草收割時，

on the hay harvest. And Montana, at first sight, seems

我像個年輕人一樣工作。乍一看，

like the most pristine environment in the United States.

蒙大納州貌似是全美境內環境最自然的州。

But scratch the surface, and Montana suffers from serious problems.

但深入研究後，會發現其實它也面臨著許多嚴重的問題。

Going through the same checklist: human environmental impacts?

同樣用我的“五點架構”法來檢驗。第一點：人類對環境的影響。

Yes, acute in Montana. Toxic problems from mine waste

是的，這種影響在蒙大納州極為嚴重。

have caused damage of billions of dollars.

為解決廢礦產生的有毒物質問題，已耗費了數十億美元。

Problems from weeds, weed control, cost Montana nearly

而為了除去雜草，以及控制其擴散，蒙大納州每年幾乎都要花費

200 million dollars a year. Montana has lost agricultural areas

2億美元。此外，蒙大納州的可耕土壤面積還不斷在減少，

from salinization, problems of forest management,

原因包括：土壤鹽鹼化、森林管理失調

problems of forest fires. Second item on my checklist:

以及森林大火問題等。接著考慮我的清單上的第二點：

climate change. Yes -- the climate in Montana is getting warmer

氣候變化：是的，蒙大納州的氣候逐漸變得更加乾熱，

and drier, but Montana agriculture depends especially on irrigation

蒙大納州的農業主要是依靠雪水灌溉，

from the snow pack, and as the snow is melting -- for example,

因為氣候變暖，雪水漸漸消融，我們可以看到，

as the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing --

國家冰河公園的冰川正在逐漸消失，

that's bad news for Montana irrigation agriculture.

這對蒙大納州的農業來說，絕對是個十足的噩耗。

Third thing on my checklist: relations with friendlies

我的清單上的第三點：與可以提供援助的友鄰的關係。

that can sustain the society. In Montana today, more than half of

在當今的蒙大納州，居民收入的一半以上

the income of Montana is not earned within Montana,

都不是產生於州內，

but is derived from out of state: transfer payments from

而是源自於州外，主要包括：

social security, investments and so on --

社會保險的款項轉賬，各界的投資等等。

which makes Montana vulnerable to the rest of the United States.

這就使得蒙大納州成為了美國最脆弱的州之一。

Fourth: relations with hostiles. Montanans have the same problems

第四點：與敵國的關係。這一點上，蒙大納州面臨的問題

as do all Americans, in being sensitive to problems

與其他州一樣，都受到海外反美勢力的威脅，

created by hostiles overseas affecting our oil supplies,

在一些問題上尤為敏感：如干擾我們的石油供應，

and terrorist attacks. And finally, last item on my checklist:

恐怖襲擊等等。最後，在我清單上的最後一點：

question of how political, economic, social, cultural attitudes

一個社會的政治、經濟、社會和文化因素如何來解決

play into this. Montanans have long-held values, which today

其所遇到的問題。蒙大納州一致奉行“長期持有”的觀點

seem to be getting in the way of their solving their own problems.

如今似乎正在妨礙他們解決所遇到的問題。

Long-held devotion to logging and to mines and to agriculture,

“長期持有”的價值觀致力於伐木、採礦以及種植、

and to no government regulation; values that worked well

以及非政府管理。這一價值觀

in the past, but they don't seem to be working well today.

在過去對他們經濟發展的幫助成效顯著，但如今卻似乎難以奏效。

So, I'm looking at these issues of collapses

當我在思考社會瓦解的問題時，

for a lot of past societies and for many present societies.

不管是過去的或是當下的社會，

Are there any general conclusions that arise?

我不禁問自己，我能得到什麼普適性的結論麼？

In a way, just like Tolstoy's statement about every unhappy marriage

在某種程度上，正如托爾斯泰所言：不幸的家庭各有各的不幸。

being different, every collapsed or endangered society is different --

同樣的道理，每一個瓦解或者行將瓦解的社會都是不同的。

they all have different details. But nevertheless, there are certain

它們的瓦解各有各的原因。儘管如此，

common threads that emerge from these comparisons

我們還是可以得到一些共識的，通過對比

of past societies that did or did not collapse

歷史上那些崩潰了和沒有崩潰的社會，

and threatened societies today. One interesting common thread

這些共識於今也有借鑒意義。在眾多社會瓦解的案例中，

has to do with, in many cases, the rapidity of collapse

可以發現一個有趣的相似點：這個社會發展到其鼎盛時期，

after a society reaches its peak. There are many societies

突然急轉直下，然後瓦解。歷史上，許多社會的發展軌跡

that don't wind down gradually, but they build up -- get richer

並不是逐漸衰弱然後消亡，而是國力逐漸強盛，

and more powerful -- and then within a short time, within a few decades

勢力逐漸擴大，最後達到鼎盛期。突然，在一個極短的時間裏，

after their peak, they collapse. For example,

如幾十年間，他們就瓦解了。比如說，

the classic lowland Maya of the Yucatan began to collapse in the

尤卡坦半島的低地古典瑪雅，他們瓦解於

early 800s -- literally a few decades after the Maya were building

9世紀早期，而正是在此之前的數十年，瑪雅人

their biggest monuments, and Maya population was greatest.

完成了他們最大的紀念碑，而且，人口數量也達到了史上最多。

Or again, the collapse of the Soviet Union took place

同樣的，蘇聯的瓦解亦然。

within a couple of decades, maybe within a decade, of the time

在蘇聯瓦解的前幾十年，甚至可能僅僅在其前10年，

when the Soviet Union was at its greatest power.

他們還處於史上最輝煌的時期。

An analogue would be the growth of bacteria in a petri dish.

有一個現象倒是與此種情形很相似：培養皿中細菌數量的增加曲線

These rapid collapses are especially likely where there's

這些社會之所以暴斃，極有可能是因為

a mismatch between available resources and resource consumption,

他們能夠獲取的資源已無法滿足他們的需求，

or a mismatch between economic outlays and economic potential.

或者他們在經濟上入不敷出。

In a petri dish, bacteria grow. Say they double every generation,

在培養皿中，細菌繁殖。每隔一代，數目翻倍，

and five generations before the end the petri dish is 15/16ths empty,

只需五代，便告終結。起初，培養皿會有15/16的空白區域，

and then the next generation's 3/4ths empty, and the next generation

而一代之後，只剩下3/4的空間，再下一代，

half empty. Within one generation after the petri dish still

只有一半。當培養皿還有一半空間時，只需要再有一代，

being half empty, it is full. There's no more food and the bacteria have collapsed.

培養皿就被占滿了。因為沒有了更多的食物來源，這個細菌社會於是瓦解。

So, this is a frequent theme:

由此可見，在短時間內，

societies collapse very soon after reaching their peak in power.

一個社會由盛轉衰繼而消亡的現象是很常見的。

What it means to put it mathematically is that, if you're concerned

這個現象用數學思維可以這樣理解：如果你要考慮一個當今的社會，

about a society today, you should be looking not at the value

你最該關心的並不應該是這個數學函數的值，

of the mathematical function -- the wealth itself -- but you should

具體而言，即一個社會的GDP；你應該留意的，

be looking at the first derivative and the second derivatives

應該是這個函數的一階導以及二階導。

of the function. That's one general theme. A second general theme

以上便是得到的瓦解社會的共性之一。其二，

is that there are many, often subtle environmental factors that make

總是會有許多微妙的環境因素使得

some societies more fragile than others. Many of those factors

一些社會較之其他更為脆弱，而這些環境因素

are not well understood. For example, why is it that in the Pacific,

目前我們尚未能完全理解。比如說，為何在太平洋中，

of those hundreds of Pacific islands, why did Easter Island end up as

在數以百計的島嶼中，只有復活節島

the most devastating case of complete deforestation?

因為徹底的森林荒漠化而完全荒蕪繼而消亡？

It turns out that there were about nine different environmental

結論是這大約涉及到了9種不同的環境因數，

factors -- some, rather subtle ones -- that were working against

每一種都異常微妙，這些因數都給復活節島帶來了

the Easter Islanders, and they involve fallout of volcanic tephra,

消極的影響，這些因數涉及火山噴發產生的沉降物，

latitude, rainfall. Perhaps the most subtle of them

所在地的緯度以及降雨量。也許這些因數中最微妙的一個，

is that it turns out that a major input of nutrients

是沉降在島嶼上的那些主要來自亞洲的大陸塵埃，

which protects island environments in the Pacific is from

這些塵埃，附帶著大量的營養物質，

the fallout of continental dust from central Asia.

而正是這些營養物質，保護著太平洋上這些島嶼的生態環境。

Easter, of all Pacific islands, has the least input of dust

在恢復土壤肥力的過程中，所有太平洋的島嶼都能從來自亞洲的大陸塵埃獲利，

from Asia restoring the fertility of its soils. But that's

但唯有復活節島，因為距離原因，獲利最少。

a factor that we didn't even appreciate until 1999.

這一現象，我們居然一直到1999年，才開始察覺。

So, some societies, for subtle environmental reasons,

所以說，有一些社會，由於這些微妙的環境因數，

are more fragile than others. And then finally,

比其他社會更加脆弱。最後，

another generalization. I'm now teaching a course

我將闡述第三個共識。 因為目前不才正執教於

at UCLA, to UCLA undergraduates, on these collapses

加州大學洛杉磯分校，給那裏的本科生們講授關於社會瓦解的課程。

of societies. What really bugs my UCLA undergraduate students is,

課堂上，最讓我的這群學生們迷惑不解的事情是，

how on earth did these societies not see what they were doing?

這些社會為什麼沒有發現他們在自尋死路？

How could the Easter Islanders have deforested their environment?

那些復活節島上的居民怎麼忍心砍盡森林，毀滅自己的家園？

What did they say when they were cutting down the last palm tree?

當他們砍倒最後一棵棕櫚樹時，他們是什麼感覺？

Didn't they see what they were doing? How could societies

難道他們不知道自己在幹什麼嗎？

not perceive their impacts on the environments and stop in time?

那些社會怎麼可能沒有察覺到自己對環境的影響，進而懸崖勒馬？

And I would expect that, if our human civilization carries on,

我想，答案應該是這樣的：假設我們的文明能夠延續下去，

then maybe in the next century people will be asking,

那麼也許到了下一個世紀，那時的人們同樣會好奇：

why on earth did these people today in the year 2003 not see

那幫生活在2003年的人怎麼可能沒有注意到

the obvious things that they were doing and take corrective action?

他們所犯下的如此明顯的錯誤，他們怎麼就不迷途知返？

It seems incredible in the past. In the future, it'll seem

回顧歷史，我們發現那幫人不可理喻。但在後人看來，

incredible what we are doing today. And so I've been

我們似乎同樣也不可理喻。鑒於此，

trying to develop a hierarchical set of considerations

我嘗試著分析出了了幾個理由

about why societies fail to solve their problems --

來解釋為什麼這些社會沒能處理好他們面臨的問題。

why they fail to perceive the problems or, if they perceive them,

為什麼他們沒有意識到問題的存在？或者意識到了，

why they fail to tackle them. Or, if they tackle them,

卻沒能解決問題？或者，如果他們已經開始解決問題

why do they fail to succeed in solving them?

為什麼他們沒有保持下去？

I'll just mention two generalizations in this area.

就這一問題，我只簡單的概括兩點原因。

One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely,

一個可能導致社會瓦解的困境是：利益衝突

is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term

短期利益與長期利益的衝突。

interest of the decision-making elites and the long-term

這裏是指決策制定者的短期利益與整個社會的長期利益相衝突，

interest of the society as a whole, especially if the elites

尤其是當執行了這一不明智的政策後，社會整體利益受損時，

are able to insulate themselves from the consequences

政策制定者們可以置身事外的情形下。

of their actions. Where what's good in the short run for the elite

當某一決策可能最終造成整個社會的悲劇，但短期內政策制定者卻可以從中獲利時，

is bad for the society as a whole, there's a real risk of the elite

他們極有可能鼠目寸光，推行這一極具風險的決策。

doing things that would bring the society down in the long run.

短視的主事者，就會把這個社會帶向瓦解。

For example, among the Greenland Norse --

舉例而言，在格陵蘭島的維京人，

a competitive rank society -- what the chiefs really wanted

那是一個極其爭強好勝的社會，那個社會的首領們最想要的，

is more followers and more sheep and more resources

是更多的子民，更多的羊群和更多的資源，多多益善，

to outcompete the neighboring chiefs. And that led the chiefs

直到這些的數量超過了相鄰部落的首領。這一風氣的驅使下，

to do what's called flogging the land: overstocking the land,

首領們紛紛行動，後世稱之為“刮地皮”：他們過度積壓土地，

forcing tenant farmers into dependency. And that made

強迫土地租用人成為附庸。這些舉措，

the chiefs powerful in the short run,

短期內是使首領們的勢力大為增加，

but led to the society's collapse in the long run.

但卻為隨後整個社會的瓦解埋下禍根。

Those same issues of conflicts of interest are acute

這兩種利益的衝突在今天的美國

in the United States today. Especially because

同樣非常劇烈。特別是考慮到

the decision makers in the United States are frequently

如今美國的政策制定者們通常

able to insulate themselves from consequences

可以置身事外。不管外面世界因為他們制定的政策發生了什麼，

by living in gated compounds, by drinking bottled water

他們都能安穩生活在有柵欄的院子裏，喝著純淨水，

and so on. And within the last couple of years,

悠哉遊哉，高枕無憂。在最近的10多年裏，

it's been obvious that the elite in the business world

很明顯的事實是：那些商業世界的精英們，

correctly perceive that they can advance

察覺到了他們可以通過一些事情來短期獲利，

their short-term interest by doing things that are

儘管這些事情雖然可以給他們帶來利益，

good for them but bad for society as a whole,

但終將給整個社會帶來災難。

such as draining a few billion dollars out of Enron

比如在伊朗問題上砸下數十億美元，

and other businesses. They are quite correct

或者類似的決策。這樣的事情，

that these things are good for them in the short term,

倒是的確對他們的短期利益很有幫助，

although bad for society in the long term.

然而長遠點看，這在未來將危害到整個社會。

So, that's one general conclusion about why societies

綜上，這就是關於為何有的社會會做出

make bad decisions: conflicts of interest.

愚蠢決策的概括之一：利益衝突。

And the other generalization that I want to mention

我要概括的第二點是，

is that it's particularly hard for a society to make

就一個社會而言，有時的確很難制定出、或者照搬

quote-unquote good decisions when there is a conflict involving

一些恰當的決策，尤其是當涉及到

strongly held values that are good in many circumstances

根深蒂固的價值觀時。有時，這種堅定的價值觀是必須的，

but are poor in other circumstances. For example,

但有時，卻也是不合時宜的。比如說，

the Greenland Norse, in this difficult environment,

格陵蘭島上的維京人，早期，他們的生存環境極為惡劣，

were held together for four-and-a-half centuries

之所以他們能相互扶持，頑強的持續4個半世紀，

by their shared commitment to religion,

那是因為他們有著共同的信仰，

and by their strong social cohesion. But those two things --

以及巨大的凝聚力。但恰恰正是因為這兩個原因：

commitment to religion and strong social cohesion --

宗教信仰以及社會凝聚力，

also made it difficult for them to change at the end

導致了他們最後很難去做出改變，

and to learn from the Inuit. Or today -- Australia.

以及向因紐特人學習。另外一個例子：澳大利亞。

One of the things that enabled Australia to survive

澳大利亞之所以生存並能夠持續發展，

in this remote outpost of European civilization

即使它在地理位置上遠離歐洲文明，

for 250 years has been their British identity.

那是因為250年來，他們一直是大不列顛的屬國。

But today, their commitment to a British identity

但如今，他們的這種身份，

is serving Australians poorly in their need to adapt

卻使得自己很難去適應他們在

to their situation in Asia. So it's particularly difficult

亞洲的地位。因此，這的確是個艱難的轉變過程：

to change course when the things that get you in trouble

意識到那些給你帶來麻煩的事情，

are the things that are also the source of your strength.

正是之前你力量的來源。

What's going to be the outcome today?

當今社會可能會走向何方呢？

Well, all of us know the dozen sorts of ticking time bombs

嗯，我們都知道，當今世界上，數十種可能導致社會瓦解的“定時炸彈”

going on in the modern world, time bombs that have fuses

正在滴答滴答的走著。這些“定時炸彈”大都是

of a few decades to -- all of them, not more than 50 years,

最近數十年被“點燃”的，而最早的，不會超過50年。

and any one of which can do us in; the time bombs of water,

但其中每一個，都能讓我們萬劫不復。比方說：水資源、

of soil, of climate change, invasive species,

土壤問題、氣候變化、外來物種入侵、

the photosynthetic ceiling, population problems, toxics, etc., etc. --

光合上限問題、人口問題、有毒物質等等、等等。

listing about 12 of them. And while these time bombs --

一共有將近12個。如前所述，這些“定時炸彈”

none of them has a fuse beyond 50 years, and most of them

幾乎都是近50年以來才產生的，而且其中大多數

have fuses of a few decades -- some of them, in some places,

是近幾十年才有的。有些地方

have much shorter fuses. At the rate at which we're going now,

甚至更近幾年才有的。按照目前這個趨勢，

the Philippines will lose all its accessible loggable forest

菲律賓耗盡他們可供砍伐的森林，

within five years. And the Solomon Islands are only

只需要5年時間；而所羅門群島，

one year away from losing their loggable forest,

只需要1年時間，

which is their major export. And that's going to be spectacular

而木材，正是他們的主要出口物。這無疑對

for the economy of the Solomons. People often ask me,

所羅門群島的經濟是毀滅性的打擊。人們常常問我，

Jared, what's the most important thing that we need to do

賈德，為了拯救地球，對於生態環境的惡化，

about the world's environmental problems?

當務之急，我們最應該做的一件事情是什麼？

And my answer is, the most important thing we need to do

我的答案通常是：我們最應該做的一件事情是，

is to forget about there being any single thing that is

放棄這個天真的想法：認為我們只需要做好最應該做好的那一件事，

the most important thing we need to do.

就可以把整個問題解決。

Instead, there are a dozen things, any one of which could do us in.

畢竟我們面臨著一打問題，而每一個，都是致命的。

And we've got to get them all right, because if we solve 11,

我們必須將它們全部解決，要不然，就算我們成功解決了11個，

we fail to solve the 12th -- we're in trouble. For example,

還剩下第12個，我們同樣得完蛋。舉例來說，

if we solve our problems of water and soil and population,

如果我們解決了水資源問題、土壤問題以及人口問題，

but don't solve our problems of toxics, then we are in trouble.

但沒能解決有毒物質的問題，我們還是得陷入麻煩。

The fact is that our present course is a non-sustainable course,

事實上，我們現在正處於不穩定階段，

which means, by definition, that it cannot be maintained.

這就是說，理論上講，這種狀態不可能長久的。

And the outcome is going to get resolved within a few decades.

在未來的數十年間，這些問題終將被解決。

That means that those of us in this room who are less than

這就是說，現在正在觀看我這個演講的人中，

50 or 60 years old will see how these paradoxes are resolved,

那些五六十歲以下的人，將有幸看到這些矛盾被解決，

and those of us who are over the age of 60 may not see

而那些超過60歲的人，比如說我，可能就不能親眼目睹了，

the resolution, but our children and grandchildren certainly will.

不過我們的孩子，或者孫子們肯定可以見證這一刻。

The resolution is going to achieve either of two forms:

這些問題將會可能有兩種解決形式：

either we will resolve these non-sustainable time-fuses

一種是：我們通過一些溫和的方式來停止這一不穩定狀態，

in pleasant ways of our own choice by taking remedial action,

比如說主動採取一些矯正措施；

or else these conflicts are going to get settled

或者是，這些衝突會通過一些

in unpleasant ways not of our choice -- namely, by war,

非我們意志所能改變的方式被解決，即戰爭、

disease or starvation. But what's for sure is that our

疾病或者饑荒。可以肯定的是，

non-sustainable course will get resolved in one way or another

這一不穩定狀態在未來數十年間會結束，通過這樣或那樣的方法。

in a few decades. In other words, since the theme of this session

換言之，既然這個系列的主題是

is choices, we have a choice. Does that mean that we should

“選擇”，我們還有得選。之前的分析是不是意味著

get pessimistic and overwhelmed? I draw the reverse conclusion.

一切已經無濟於事，我們只能悲觀以對呢？我認為，恰恰相反。

The big problems facing the world today are not at all

當今世界面臨著的那些大的問題一點都沒有

things beyond our control. Our biggest threat is not an asteroid

超出我們的控制範圍。畢竟，我們面對的最大威脅並不是

about to crash into us, something we can do nothing about.

小行星撞地球，如果是那樣，我們倒的確只能坐以待斃。

Instead, all the major threats facing us today are problems

相反的，當今我們所面臨的所有重大威脅，

entirely of our own making. And since we made the problems,

其實都是自找的。既然我們能製造出這些問題，

we can also solve the problems. That then means that it's

我們其實也能解決這些問題。這就是說，

entirely in our power to deal with these problems.

靠我們的力量，足以應付這些麻煩。

In particular, what can all of us do? For those of you

具體而言，我們可以做些什麼呢？

who are interested in these choices, there are lots of things

對於那些相信“我們的選擇可以改變未來”的人而言，你們能做的

you can do. There's a lot that we don't understand,

有很多。有許多事情我們現在並不清楚，

and that we need to understand. And there's a lot that

但這些事很重要，我們一定得弄清楚；還有許多事情，

we already do understand, but aren't doing, and that

雖然我們已經弄明白了，但還沒有開始做﹐

we need to be doing. Thank you.

謝謝!

(Applause)

(掌聲)