Emma Marris: Are wild animals really "wild"? | TED

Transcriber:

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

So, human relationships with animals can be pretty weird.

人類和動物的關係可能很怪。

We put them in categories based on how we see them.

我們將牠們分類的依據 是我們怎麼看待牠們。

So there's pets and they're, like, members of the family.

所以，有寵物，牠們 就像是家庭成員。

And then there's farm animals

然後還有農場動物，牠們 和寵物的極相似之處包括

and they're often very similar to pets in terms of their cognitive abilities

牠們的認知能力和情緒能力。

and their emotional abilities.

But of course, we eat them.

但，當然，我們會吃牠們。

And then there's wild animals.

然後還有野生動物。

And I've been wondering what wild animals even are anymore.

我甚至已經搞不清楚 野生動物到底是什麼了。

Like, you can get a degree in wildlife management,

比如，有所謂的 「野生生物管理」學位，

but if you're managing them, are they really wild?

但，如果去管理野生生物， 牠們還算是野生的嗎？

I started thinking about this in the context of wolf reintroduction.

我是在再度引入狼的情境下 開始思考這件事的。

So when wolves were first brought back to the American West in the 1990s,

1990 年代，狼初次 被帶回到美國西部，

they were pretty heavily managed and they still are today.

牠們受到重量級的管理， 現今仍然如此。

A lot of them wear collars,

很多狼都戴著項圈， 裝有 GPS 追蹤器，

they have GPS trackers,

they have their DNA on file, they have names and numbers.

牠們的 DNA 被建檔， 牠們有名字和號碼。

And if they get a taste for livestock,

如果牠們去吃家畜，

then we haze them with rubber bullets or air horns,

我們會用橡膠子彈 或汽笛去干擾牠們，

or sometimes those, like, floaty guys that you see in used-car lots.

有時，會用在二手車行 可以看到的充氣人。

And of course, if they don't get the message, they can be shot.

當然，如果牠們仍然搞不懂， 就可能會被射擊。

So how wild are they really

所以，牠們到底有多野生？

if they're being this carefully managed?

畢竟，牠們被很小心仔細地管理著。

It's occurred to me that a ground squirrel or a city robin

我心想，

地松鼠和城市知更鳥

is in some ways wilder than these wolves,

在某些層面上比這些狼還更野生，

because although they might live in a city,

因為，雖然牠們住在城市裡，

no one is managing their day-to-day life.

沒有人在管理牠們的日常生活。

But of course, they are living in a human world.

但，當然，牠們住在人類世界裡。

A world that's been shaped by massive influences

這個世界中有著大量的影響，如：

like conversion of land to agriculture,

把土地轉換為農地、

extinctions, domestications, movement of species across continent.

絕種、馴養、

橫越大陸的物種移動。

And we've rerouted rivers.

我們還把河流改道。

And of course, there's climate change, which means that every animal,

當然，還有氣候變遷，也就是說，

每種動物，不論離 人類居住地有多遠，

no matter how distant from a human settlement,

has some influence of the human world.

都受到一些人類世界的影響。

So if every animal lives in a human world,

那麼，如果所有動物 都住在人類世界裡，

does that mean that we somehow owe them more than we used to?

是不是表示，我們 欠牠們的人以前還多？

I think it does.

我認為是如此。

So take polar bears, for instance.

以北極熊為例。

Some populations of polar bears are struggling to live on the sea ice

有些北極熊在夏天時 很難生活在海冰上。

in the summer.

There's just not enough sea ice for them to go hunting for seals,

就沒有足夠的海冰 讓牠們可以去獵捕海豹，

which is what they'd normally eat.

海豹是牠們平常的食物。

So I think we should consider feeding them for at least part of the year.

我認為我們應該考量餵食牠們， 至少在一年的某些時候。

Now, there'd be a lot of logistical challenges with this

要這樣做的話，我們得想辦法 解決很多物流上的挑戰，

we'd have to work out.

且我們肯定要確保

And certainly we would want to make sure

that the Inuit who have lived with these bears

數千年來和北極熊一起生活、 獵殺牠們的伊努伊特人

and hunted them for millennia

would be on board with any plan.

能參與計畫。

There might be other ethical obligations

在照顧北極熊的義務之後

that supersede our obligation to care for the bears,

可能還會伴隨其他倫理上的義務，

like, we'd have to think pretty hard about where we get the meat

比如，我們要很用力思考， 要從哪裡取得餵食牠們的肉。

that we feed them,

或者有沒有可能拿某種植物性 北極熊食物來餵食牠們，

or if it'd be possible to feed them some kind of plant-based polar bear chow

且能滿足牠們的需求。

that would meet all their requirements.

So these are not easy questions,

這些問題都不容易，

but I think we should be thinking about them.

但我認為我們應該要想想它們。

On the other hand, if we really want to see animals happy,

另一方面，如果我們 真的想讓動物快樂，

we need to start asking what that full happiness looks like,

我們就得開始問： 完全的快樂是什麼樣子的？

what does it mean for an animal to really flourish?

對動物而言的成長茁壯是什麼意思？

So this would go beyond just being well-fed and healthy

這就不只是吃得好和健康了，

and it might include something like freedom

可能還包含比如自由，

or at least the ability to make your own choices day-to-day.

或者至少平常就有能力自己做選擇。

A few years back in Washington State,

幾年前，在華盛頓州，

there was this dog that ran away from his home

有一隻狗逃家，

and joined up with two wolves

和兩隻狼結伴，形成一個小群體。

and they formed a little pack.

And wildlife managers were very nervous about this

野生生物管理者對此事感到很緊張，

because they didn't want the dog impregnating either of the wolves

因為他們不希望那隻狗 和任何一隻狼交配，

because any puppies would be hybrids.

因為生出的小狗就會是混種。

They would be neither domestic nor wild.

牠們既不是馴養的，也不是野生的。

They wouldn't fit into either category.

牠們無法融入任何一個類別。

Regulating them or figuring out what to do with them would be a nightmare.

管理牠們或想辦法處理 牠們都會是場惡夢。

So they tracked the pack down

所以他們追蹤了這群動物，

and when they found that one of the wolves was indeed pregnant by the dog,

當他們發現其中一隻狼 真的懷了狗的孩子，

他們終止了牠的身孕。

they ended her pregnancy.

So in that case, the sort of purity of the wolf,

所以，在那個情況中，野狼的純種

or the genetic wildness of the wolf,

或者狼在基因上的野性，

was deemed to be more important than its actual autonomy.

都被認為比牠的自主權更重要。

I'd like to say that there's some sort of algorithm

我很想說我可以給你某種演算法，

that I could give you

隨時都可以協助你決定

that would always help you decide what to do in any given case

在任何情況下要如何處置野生動物。

with wild animals.

But I bet you saw this coming

但我敢說，你已經猜到我會告訴你

when I tell you that there aren't really any easy answers to this.

這個問題並沒有任何簡單的答案。

The tricky thing is that sometimes we're having to compare things

難搞之處在於，有時我們得做比較，

而被比較的兩者可以說 不是用同樣的貨幣。

that are not in the same currency, so to speak, right?

So what I really struggle with

所以，真的讓我很頭痛的情況是

are situations where biodiversity trades off against animal welfare

要在生物多樣性 和動物福祉之間做取捨，

or the well-being of individual animals.

或者和個別動物的幸福做取捨。

So there's actually a lot more of these conundrums than you might think.

所以，實際上這類難題 比你所想的還多。

Like in New Zealand, for example,

比如，在紐西蘭，

tons of iconic animals like the Kiwi are threatened by introduced predators,

許多代表性的動物，比如鷸鴕，

受到引入的捕食性動物威脅，

including stoats, which are, like, this cute furry little weasel.

包括短尾鼬，牠們就像 毛絨絨的可愛小鼬鼠。

So do you kill the introduced predators to save the endangered species?

所以，要殺掉引入的捕食性動物 來拯救瀕臨絕種的物種嗎？

In questions like these,

我想，這類問題 都沒有「正確」答案。

I don't think there really are "right" answers.

I think we just have to do the best when we're comparing apples and oranges,

我想，我們只有在比較 蘋果和橘子時盡力而為，

a species versus the welfare of many individuals.

一個物種 vs. 許多個體的福祉。

All we can do is our best,

我們只能盡力而為，

working together and trying to act with humility.

同心協力，試著謙遜行事。

We've really changed the world

我們真的改變了世界，

and all of the animals that live in it now are basically living in our world.

現在世界上的所有動物，

基本的上都是生活在我們的世界裡。

I think this gives us new responsibilities.

我想，這賦予了我們新的責任。

In this world we've created,

在我們創造的這個世界裡， 該是我們好好扛起責任的時候了，

it's time for us to take those responsibilities

to other species seriously.

那些是對其他物種的責任。

Thanks so much.

非常謝謝。

David Biello: That was excellent.

大衛·貝羅：說得很棒。謝謝你。

Thank you.

And I know it was a short talk,

這段演說很短，所以我想

so I want you to expand upon it a little bit.

請你再多談一點。

You talked about our ethical obligations to these wild animals.

你剛有談到

我們對這些野生動物的倫理責任。

What do you think those specifically are,

依你所見，

在經過寫這本書的過程之後， 你認為有哪些明確的責任？

after the journey of writing this book?

Emma Marris: Well, I do think that because we have created this world,

艾瑪·馬里斯：我認為， 因為我們創造了這個世界，

that because there's so much human influence,

因為人類的影響很大，

that we do bear some kind of collective responsibility,

所以我們確實要背負起集體的責任，

especially in situations where we can clearly see that animals are suffering

特別要針對的情況是， 我們能清楚知道

人類的影響導致動物受苦或不好過。

or not doing well because of our influence.

So there's a sort of a very intuitive ethical relationship there.

所以，有種非常 直覺式的倫理關係存在。

If you actually knock someone over in a crowd,

如果你在人群中撞倒了別人，

you feel like you have the responsibility to pick them back up.

你會覺得你有責任要把他扶起來。

我想，這就是類似的意思。

So I think there's a kind of a parallel there.

但，我也認為，如果我們 對野生動物有義務，

But I also think that if we have obligations to wild animals

that go beyond just letting nature take its course,

超越了只是讓大自然順其自然，

then I think we have to learn more about them

那麼，我想，我們得

多了解野生動物，才能 弄清楚怎樣做對牠們最好。

to figure out how to best serve them.

And I think that includes figuring out what really makes them flourish.

我想，那就包括了要弄清楚 如何讓牠們能成長茁壯。

And I do think that that kind of flourishing --

我認為，那種成長茁壯——

And this is the word that you see in discussions about Aristotle, right,

這是在關於亞里斯多德的討論中

會看到的詞，人的成長茁壯，

like, the flourishing of a human --

But to think about a flourishing of an animal is a little more complicated.

但，動物的成長茁壯 會比較複雜一點。

But I do think that for many animals,

但，我認為，對許多動物，

特別是在生命分類樹上 和我們很接切的動物，

especially animals that are close to us on the taxonomic tree of life,

like chimpanzees and other large mammals,

比如黑猩猩及其他大型哺乳類動物，

that being able to make your own choices is part of that flourishing.

那種成長茁壯的其中一部分 就是能夠自己做選擇。

So that means we want to balance our intervention

那就表示，我們要在我們的干預

和尊重牠們的自主性之間找到平衡。

with our respect for their autonomy.

And I think that's really tricky sometimes.

有時，這真的很難搞。

大衛：咱們來看看觀眾的問題。

DB: So let's turn to some audience questions.

Starting with Kim,

首先是金姆，

who I feel may have read your recent op-ed in "The New York Times."

我覺得他應該看過你最近 在《紐約時報》上寫的專欄。

"How do you feel about zoos or sanctuaries for wild animals?"

「你怎麼看動物園

或野生動物庇護所？」

有更好的方式可以保護牠們嗎？

Is there a better way to protect them?

And is there a better way to spend time with animals,

有沒有更好的方式可以 花時間和動物相處，

which is what zoos offer, and have them accessible to humans,

即動物園提供的， 讓人類可以接近牠們，

but also be sure that the animals' kind of flourishing comes first?

但同時確保動物的

成長茁壯能擺在第一優先？

EM: Right. Thanks, Kim.

艾瑪：謝謝金姆。我最近 確實寫了一篇相關文章，

I did write a piece about this recently,

and the piece is sort of drawn from the book.

那篇文章算是取自我的書， 所以如果你喜歡那篇文章，

So if you enjoyed that piece, there's more goodness in the book.

書會更精采。

But I do think --

但我認為——在研究了動物園

After researching zoos and the sort of happiness level of animals in zoos,

以及動物園中動物的快樂指數之後，

I came to realize that there's a sort of a problem with the business model of zoos,

我漸漸了解，

動物園的商業模型有個問題，

which is that the very animals

那就是，最有可能 吸引大家進門的動物，

that are most likely to get people in the door,

are the ones that do the worst in captivity.

正是在圈養中狀況最差的動物。

So there's a real problem there,

所以，真的有問題，

which is that if zoos got rid of all of the animals

那就是，如果動物園不再用所有那些

that tend to show kind of behaviors that show they're unhappy,

透過行為展現出不開心的動物，

like pacing or rocking or repetitive behaviors

比如踱步、搖擺、重覆性行為，

or other kinds of behavioral problems,

或其他類型的行為問題，

they'd be left with animals that aren't as much of a draw.

動物園剩下的動物 就沒什麼吸引力了。

So I think that puts them in an awkward position.

這讓動物園的立場很棘手。

I do think that zoos should stop breeding animals

我認為動物園應該停止繁殖動物，

that aren't a part of a sort of a legitimate conservation breeding program

除非是某種合法的

保育繁殖計畫，

that has a real chance of going back out into the wild someday.

真的讓動物將來有一天 有機會回到野外。

So I think it's a lot easier to ethically justify breeding animals in captivity

如果在圈養環境中繁殖的動物 或牠們的後代將來有一天能

if they or their grandchildren are someday going to taste freedom again.

再次嚐到自由，那就比較容易 在倫理上有正當理由。

But if you're just breeding tigers and elephants over and over again

但如果只是一而再 再而三繁殖老虎和大象，

just for display in captivity,

目的只是關起來展示用，

I don't think that's great.

我不覺得那是好事。

Every time I see the birth announcement of some new adorable gorilla baby,

每次我看到可愛的大猩猩 寶寶出生的消息，

my heart breaks a little bit

我又心碎了一點，因為我知道 這寶寶是永遠出不去的。

because I know this gorilla baby is never getting out.

並不是說……

That's not like, you know,

這隻大猩猩在成長期時 會待在某某動物園，

this gorilla is going to spend its formative years at the such-and-such zoo

接著就會返回叢林。這不會發生的。

and then it's going to return to the jungle.

That's not happening.

Sanctuaries are a different proposition.

庇護所就不一樣了。 庇護所不會繁殖動物。

So sanctuaries don't breed their animals.

They just take care of animals that can't return to the wild

它們只是照顧基於某種原因 而無法返回野外的動物。

for one reason or another.

所以我認為它們 在倫理上的定位好很多。

So I think that they're at a much better place ethically.

Oh, but let me address the question of how you then see animals, right,

讓我來說明大家應該 要如何觀看動物的問題，

if we remove these breeding populations of fun animals from zoos,

如果沒有了

動物園中用來繁殖的 有趣動物，那要如何體驗？

how do you have that experience?

Well, first of all, there is an amazing ability

首先，現在有很強的技術，

for us to virtually interact with animals through nature documentaries,

能讓我們透過大自然紀錄片 來和動物做虛擬互動，

which are better than ever.

現在做得非常好。

I actually wrote about them recently, too,

我最近寫過相關的文章，

but their filming can get you closer to a wild animal

紀錄片的拍攝能讓你 很接近野生動物，

than you would ever be wise to do in the real world.

遠比你在真實世界中 能做到的更接近。

But I also think that we need to sort of reshift our thinking a little bit

但我也認為我們應該要 稍微換個方式來思考

我們自己生態系統當中的動物，

around the animals that exist in our own ecosystems,

even in our city ecosystems, right?

甚至我們的城市生態系統。

You can see a surprising diversity of bird life, insect life in some case,

某些情況，看得到驚人的多樣性，

有各種鳥類、昆蟲、哺乳類動物，

and mammal life inside even very busy cities.

甚至在非常繁忙的城市都有。

你會發現那些動物也非常棒，

And realizing that those animals are really awesome, too,

and just because they aren't elephants,

而只因為牠們不是大象，

we've forgotten to take pleasure in encountering them.

我們就忘了好好享受和牠們的接觸。

I think a perspective shift there can be really helpful.

我想這種想法轉變會很有幫助。

DB: Now, Catherine and Gordon want us to take this to the sea.

戴夫：凱瑟琳和戈登 要把話題帶到海洋裡。

How does this all apply to sea creatures,

這一切要如何套用到海洋生物上？

which are obviously in a far different position than the land animals?

牠們的處境很顯然

和陸地動物有很大的不同。

But there are more of them, right?

但牠們數量更多，對吧？

EM: Yes, great question.

艾瑪：是的，好問題。首先，

First of all, I think that many of my critiques of zoos

我對動物園的許多評論 也適用於水族館。

apply to aquaria as well.

And, you know, certainly there has been a real public discussion

且，肯定……

已經有很多公開討論都談到

about the captivity of whales and other marine mammals.

鯨魚及其他海洋哺乳動物 被圈養的議題。

So I think the tide is turning on that.

我想，那方面的局勢正在轉變。

我在為這本書做研究時，

I did read, while I was researching this book,

I read a book that I recommend by Jonathan Balcombe

我讀了一本我很推薦的書， 作者是強納森·拜爾康，

about the secret lives of fish,

講的是魚類的秘密生活，

which really did blow my mind

真的讓我感到很驚奇，

in terms of the cognitive abilities of fish.

讚嘆魚類的認知能力。

And I think that many of us have grown up with this idea

我想，有很多人成長過程中都以為

that fish are somehow dumber than land animals

魚類比陸地動物更笨，

or that they don't, you know, that they don't feel pain,

或者牠們沒有痛覺，

is a common thing that people have said about fish.

大家都常常這樣說魚類。

This is not true.

這些不是真的。我認為，

So I think that much of this applies to, you know,

前述那些多半也都適用於海洋世界。

to the marine world as well.

And in the book, I talk about, you know, what can we do for wild animals?

在書中，我談到我們 能為野生動物做什麼？

And honestly,

老實說，我們能做的 重要工作之一就是

one of the biggest things we can do is try to address climate change

處理氣候變遷和棲息地破壞的問題。

and habitat destruction.

那真的很重要，

That's really the biggie,

because then we'd have fewer of these confusing conundrums

因為這樣我們面臨的 混亂難題就會少很多，

where we have to decide whether or not to intervene

比較不用去決定要不要 用這些複雜的方式介入。

in these complicated ways.

If they have more space and they have a more stable climate,

如果動物有更多空間 和更穩定的氣候，

they can do a lot of flourishing on their own

牠們靠自己就很能夠成長茁壯，

and we don't have to get into as many moral dilemmas.

我們就不用面對這麼多道德兩難。

So honestly, if you find these ethical pickles uncomfortable,

老實說，如果這些 倫理困境讓你很不舒服，

the best way to avoid the ethical pickle

避免倫理困境的最佳方式

is to create a lot of stable habitat for non-humans.

就是為人類以外的生命 創造許多穩定的棲息地。

DB: So you mentioned the Inuit earlier

大衛：你先前有提到

伊努伊特人以及他們 和北極熊的特殊關係。

and their special relationship with the polar bear.

琳恩想知道，我們能不能用什麼方式

Is there a way that we could better, kind of, steward wild areas,

把野生地區管理得更好，

Lynn wants to know,

and perhaps the folks who have been living alongside those wild animals the longest

也許和那些野生動物共存

最久的族群，

could be paid or hired in some way

可以用付薪或其他方式僱用他們，

to be caretakers of that wild environment?

來照顧那些野生環境？

EM: Yeah, I think that is kind of how the conservation movement is trending,

艾瑪：是的，我想那就是

保育運動的趨勢，

honestly, I think indigenous protected areas

老實說，我認為 原住民保護的區域算是

are the sort of hot new topic in conservation.

保育領域中的熱門新話題。

They're getting set up in different parts around the world.

世界各地都在設立這樣的區域。

Canada has just announced quite a few of them over the last five years.

過去五年間加拿大就宣佈了 好幾個這類區域。

There was a paper that came out recently that got a lot of attention,

有一篇最近提出的論文， 得到不少關注，它指出，

showing that in Australia, Brazil and Canada,

在澳洲、巴西，和加拿大，

indigenous protected areas have higher levels of biodiversity than parks,

在原住民保護的區域， 生物多樣性比公園還高，

suggesting that, yes,

意味著，是的，

those management approaches that are millennia-old

那些有數千年歷史的管理方法

are really effective in keeping a kind of a multi-species-community going.

的確可以有效地 持續維護多物種的社區。

So I think there's a lot of interest in that,

那是很多人關注的議題，

a lot of hope that could be a way forward.

很有希望能成為將來的做法。

In the book, I talk about going to the Peruvian Amazon,

在書中，我談到在秘魯亞馬遜地區

where there's a big park called Manu,

有個馬努國家公園，

which is one of the highest biodiversity parks probably on Earth,

它可能是地球上生物多樣性 最高的公園之一，

and they have people living inside of it,

公園裡面有住人，馬奇根加人，

the Machiguenga,

有一些老古板的保育人士覺得

and some more sort of old-fashioned conservationists feel

that the presence of the Machiguenga in the park is a problem

公園裡有馬奇根加人是個問題，

因為他們在那裡打獵。

because they hunt there.

But it seems pretty clear from the research I read

但，我讀到的研究說得很清楚，

and from my time that I spent in the park

我自己在該公園裡的 親身體驗也一樣，

that they're actually acting as de facto biodiversity managers and guards.

他們實際上扮演的是

生物多樣性的管理者和守護者。

And yes, they're hunting, but they're hunting in a sustainable way.

是的，他們會打獵， 但用的是永續的方式。

So, yeah, I think that this is honestly the best way forward, right,

所以，是的，老實說， 我認為這是走下去的最佳方式，

because it marries the sort of justice cause of indigenous sovereignty

因為它能結合原住民主權 這個正義的理由

with the pragmatic cause of getting the people

以及務實的理由，

讓最有資格管理風景的人 來做這份工作。

who are best qualified to manage landscapes on the job.

So, yes, I agree with Lynn completely.

所以，我完全同意琳恩的看法。

DB: Amazing.

大衛：太棒了。

Well, thank you again for this wonderful talk and conversation.

再次謝謝你帶來 這麼棒的演說和對談。

And it truly is a great book.

這本書真的很棒。

Best of luck with with everything.

祝一切順利。

EM: Great. Thanks so much.

艾瑪：非常謝謝。

DB: Goodbye and thank you.

大衛：再見，謝謝。

[Get access to thought-provoking events you won't want to miss.]

〔別錯過這些發人深省的 活動，若要參與

[Become a TED member at ted.com/membership]

〔請加入 TED 會員： ted.com/membership〕