Tim Jackson: An economic reality check

譯者: Coco Shen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

I want to talk to you today about prosperity,

我今天想談繁榮，

about our hopes

關於我們

for a shared and lasting prosperity.

想要維持共同繁榮的希望

And not just us,

不僅僅是我們，

but the two billion people worldwide

而是全世界二億

who are still chronically undernourished.

仍然處在營養不良狀態的人們。

And hope actually is at the heart of this.

希望其實是這一切的關鍵。

In fact, the Latin word for hope

事實上，拉丁語的希望

is at the heart of the word prosperity.

位於繁榮這個詞的中心。

"Pro-speras," "speras," hope --

“Pro-speras,” “speras”, 希望--

in accordance with our hopes and expectations.

與我們的希望和期待一致。

The irony is, though,

諷刺的是

that we have cashed-out prosperity

我們似乎已經把繁榮全數提領

almost literally in terms of money and economic growth.

無論從金錢或經濟成長的方面看來都是如此

And we've grown our economies so much

然而我們的經濟增長如此之多

that we now stand

以至於我們現在

in a real danger

處在一個

of undermining hope --

侵蝕希望的危險處境--

running down resources, cutting down rainforests,

耗盡能源，砍伐森林，

spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico,

石油洩漏在墨西哥灣，

changing the climate --

改變氣候--

and the only thing that has actually

過去的二十到三十年間唯一能夠

remotely slowed down the relentless rise

輕微地減緩源源不斷的

of carbon emissions over the last two to three decades

碳排放的

is recession.

就是經濟蕭條期。

And recession, of course,

經濟不景氣，當然，

isn't exactly a recipe for hope either,

也不是一個讓人滿懷希望的處方，

as we're busy finding out.

正如我們如今所發現的。

So we're caught in a kind of trap.

我們陷入了一種陷阱。

It's a dilemma, a dilemma of growth.

一種困境，一種成長的困境。

We can't live with it; we can't live without it.

我們不能與它共存，沒有它我們也不能生存。

Trash the system or crash the planet --

破壞系統或是破壞這個星球。

it's a tough choice; it isn't much of a choice.

這是個困難的選擇。這根本不算選擇。

And our best avenue of escape from this actually

我們逃避這些最佳的途徑實際上

is a kind of blind faith

是一種

in our own cleverness and technology and efficiency

對我們自己的聰慧，科技和效率

and doing things more efficiently.

以及更高效工作的盲目信仰。

Now I haven't got anything against efficiency.

現在我還不反對效率。

And I think we are a clever species sometimes.

有些時候我認為我們是聰明的物種。

But I think we should also just check the numbers,

但是我認為我們也應該核對一下數字，

take a reality check here.

審查一下現實。

So I want you to imagine a world,

現在我們來想像一個世界，

in 2050, of around nine billion people,

在二零五零年，有九億的人，

all aspiring to Western incomes,

都有了西方的收入水平，

Western lifestyles.

西方的生活方式。

And I want to ask the question --

我想問一個問題--

and we'll give them that two percent hike in income, in salary each year as well,

我們將每年對他們的收入和工資都提高百分之二。

because we believe in growth.

因為我們追求（經濟）成長。

And I want to ask the question:

我想問這個問題：

how far and how fast would be have to move?

我們需要行進多遠多快？

How clever would we have to be?

我們需要有多聰明？

How much technology would we need in this world

在這個世界上我們需要多少科學技術

to deliver our carbon targets?

來實現我們的低碳排放目標？

And here in my chart --

在這個圖表中

on the left-hand side is where we are now.

左手邊的是我們現在的狀況

This is the carbon intensity of economic growth

這是經濟增長與之相對應的碳排放密度

in the economy at the moment.

在此時的經濟狀況。

It's around about 770 grams of carbon.

這大約是七百七十克的碳。

In the world I describe to you,

我用文字向你描述，

we have to be right over here at the right-hand side

我們必須得達到右手邊的

at six grams of carbon.

六克碳的程度。

It's a 130-fold improvement,

這是一個一百三十倍的改進，

and that is 10 times further and faster

而且這是

than anything we've ever achieved in industrial history.

我們在工業歷史上至今所實現的十倍的速度。

Maybe we can do it, maybe it's possible -- who knows?

或許我們可以，也許是可能的--誰知道呢？

Maybe we can even go further

說不定我們能做得更好

and get an economy that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere,

形成一種可以將那些碳從大氣中吸出來的經濟，

which is what we're going to need to be doing

這也正是我們需要在

by the end of the century.

世紀末做的事情。

But shouldn't we just check first

但我們難道不應該首先審視

that the economic system that we have

我們的經濟體制

is remotely capable of delivering

是否有能力達到

this kind of improvement?

這種進步？

So I want to just spend a couple of minutes on system dynamics.

因此我想要花費幾分鐘的時間在系統動力學上。

It's a bit complex, and I apologize for that.

這有些複雜，為此我表示歉意。

What I'll try and do, is I'll try and paraphrase it

我將要試圖去做的，是用人類的語言

is sort of human terms.

簡單介紹一下

So it looks a little bit like this.

它看起來像這樣。

Firms produce goods for households -- that's us --

公司為家庭生產商品--也就是我們--

and provide us with incomes,

並且為我們提供收入，

and that's even better, because we can spend those incomes

這更好，因為我們可以把這些收入

on more goods and services.

花在更多的商品和服務上。

That's called the circular flow of the economy.

這就是經濟循環。

It looks harmless enough.

它看起來無害。

I just want to highlight one key feature of this system,

我只是想強調這個體制中的一個最重要的特徵，

which is the role of investment.

也就是投資的作用。

Now investment constitutes

現在投資構成

only about a fifth of the national income

僅僅大約百分之二十的國民收入

in most modern economies,

在大部分現代經濟中，

but it plays an absolutely vital role.

但是它扮演著一個絕對重要的角色。

And what it does essentially

基本上﹐它的作用

is to stimulate further consumption growth.

是刺激更多的消費增長。

It does this in a couple of ways --

它以幾種方式來達到此目的--

chasing productivity,

追求生產率，

which drives down prices and encourages us to buy more stuff.

壓低價格並鼓勵我們買更多的東西。

But I want to concentrate

但是我想聚焦於

on the role of investment

投資的角色

in seeking out novelty,

在尋求新穎，

the production and consumption of novelty.

新事物的生產和消費。

Joseph Schumpeter called this

Joseph Schumpeter 稱為

"the process of creative destruction."

“充滿創意的毀滅過程。”

It's a process of the production and reproduction of novelty,

這是一個生產和再生產新事物的過程，

continually chasing expanding consumer markets,

持續地尋求拓展消費者市場，

consumer goods, new consumer goods.

消費者商品，新的消費者商品。

And this, this is where it gets interesting,

並且，有趣的是

because it turns out that human beings

因為它證明人類

have something of an appetite for novelty.

追求新奇事物的慾望。

We love new stuff --

我們熱愛新東西--

new material stuff for sure --

毫無疑問地新素材--

but also new ideas, new adventures,

也包括新想法，新冒險，

new experiences.

新經驗。

But the materiality matters too,

但物質性也至關重要。

because in every society

因為，在每一個社會裡

that anthropologists have looked at,

人類學者曾研究過，

material stuff

物質

operates as a kind of language --

猶如一種語言般的運作，

a language of goods,

一種商品語言，

a symbolic language

一種象徵

that we use to tell each other stories --

我們用它來向彼此講述故事--

stories, for example,

故事，例如，

about how important we are.

我們有多重要。

Status-driven, conspicuous consumption

身份地位驅使的，炫耀式消費

thrives from the language

從這種新事物語言

of novelty.

中滋生。

And here, all of a sudden,

現在，突然地，

we have a system

我們有一個體制

that is locking economic structure with social logic --

將經濟結構用社會邏輯--

the economic institutions, and who we are as people, locked together

經濟制度﹐和我們是怎樣的人﹐鎖在一起

to drive an engine of growth.

以促進這個增長引擎的強度。

And this engine is not just economic value;

這個引擎不僅僅是經濟價值；

it is pulling material resources

它不斷地提取資源

relentlessly through the system,

持續地通過這個體制，

driven by our own insatiable appetites,

被我們無止境的慾望驅使，

driven in fact by a sense of anxiety.

事實上是被焦慮所驅使。

Adam Smith, 200 years ago,

亞當 斯密在兩百年前，

spoke about our desire

講到我們

for a life without shame.

對“無愧一生”的慾望。

A life without shame:

一個無愧的人生

in his day, what that meant was a linen shirt,

在當時﹐那這意味著亞麻布襯衫，

and today, well, you still need the shirt,

今天，你仍然需要襯衫，

but you need the hybrid car,

加上雙動力汽車

the HDTV, two holidays a year in the sun,

高清晰度電視，一年兩次的陽光假期

the netbook and iPad, the list goes on --

小筆電和 iPad，這個清單可以一直開下去

an almost inexhaustible supply of goods,

被焦慮驅使的

driven by this anxiety.

無止盡的物質

And even if we don't want them,

就算我們不想要

we need to buy them,

我們也需要

because, if we don't buy them, the system crashes.

因為如果我們不買，這個體制就會崩塌。

And to stop it crashing

為了阻止它崩塌

over the last two to three decades,

在過去的二十到三十年中，

we've expanded the money supply,

我們擴大了貨幣供應量，

expanded credit and debt,

增加了貸款和負債，

so that people can keep buying stuff.

為了使人們能夠持續不斷地買東西。

And of course, that expansion was deeply implicated in the crisis.

當然，那些膨脹與經濟危機是有關聯性的。

But this -- I just want to show you some data here.

但是--我只是想在這展示一些數據。

This is what it looks like, essentially,

現在就像這樣，基本上

this credit and debt system, just for the U.K.

這些貸款和負債體制，僅僅是英國。

This was the last 15 years before the crash,

這是（經濟系統）崩塌前的十五年。

and you can see there, consumer debt rose dramatically.

在這裡你可以看到，消費貸款急劇上升。

It was above the GDP for three years in a row

連續三年超過國內生產總值（注：GDP:Gross Domestic Product)

just before the crisis.

就在經濟危機之前。

And in the mean time, personal savings absolutely plummeted.

同時，個人儲蓄暴跌。

The savings ratio, net savings,

這些儲蓄率，淨儲蓄，

were below zero in the middle of 2008,

在二零零八年中期是負值。

just before the crash.

就在經濟危機之前。

This is people expanding debt, drawing down their savings,

人們增加債務，消耗他們的儲蓄，

just to stay in the game.

僅僅為了留在這場遊戲之中。

This is a strange, rather perverse, story,

這是一個奇怪的，更確切地說是有悖常理的故事，

just to put it in very simple terms.

用一個簡單的術語來說的話。

It's a story about us, people,

這是一個關於我們的故事，人們，

being persuaded

被說服

to spend money we don't have

把不屬於我們的錢

on things we don't need

花在我們不需要的東西上

to create impressions that won't last

為了在我們不在乎的人身上

on people we don't care about.

創造一個不持久的印象

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

But before we consign ourselves to despair,

但是在我們將自己交付於絕望之前，

maybe we should just go back and say, "Did we get this right?

我們也許應該回過頭說，“真的是這樣嗎？

Is this really how people are?

人們真的是這樣的嗎？

Is this really how economies behave?"

經濟真的是這樣運作的嗎？ ”

And almost straightaway

馬上

we actually run up against a couple of anomalies.

我們就會發現一些奇怪的事

The first one is in the crisis itself.

首先就是經濟危機本身。

In the crisis, in the recession, what do people want to do?

在經濟危機時，經濟蕭條時，人們想怎麼做？

They want to hunker down, they want to look to the future.

他們想節約。他們想放眼未來。

They want to spend less and save more.

他們降低消費和增加儲蓄。

But saving is exactly the wrong thing to do

但從體制的角度來看

from the system point of view.

儲蓄卻是錯的

Keynes called this the "paradox of thrift" --

凱恩斯把這稱為“節儉的矛盾”--

saving slows down recovery.

儲蓄減慢經濟復甦。

And politicians call on us continually

政治家們持續地號召我們

to draw down more debt,

增加更多債務，

to draw down our own savings even further,

降低我們的儲蓄，

just so that we can get the show back on the road,

才能夠將經濟重新引向正軌，

so we can keep this growth-based economy going.

才可以持續這種以增長為基礎的經濟。

It's an anomaly,

這很奇怪，

it's a place where the system actually is at odds

體制和人的做法

with who we are as people.

竟然是相反的

Here's another one -- completely different one:

這裡是另外一個（例子）-- 一個完全不同的：

Why is it

為什麼

that we don't do the blindingly obvious things we should do

為什麼我們不做那些我們明顯該做的事

to combat climate change,

抵抗氣候變化

very, very simple things

非常，非常簡單的事情

like buying energy-efficient appliances,

像是買節能家電，

putting in efficient lights, turning the lights off occasionally,

安裝節能燈炮，時常地將燈熄滅，

insulating our homes?

讓我們的房子更節能？

These things save carbon, they save energy,

這些事情不但減碳，節約能源，

they save us money.

也為我們省錢。

So is it that, though they make perfect economic sense,

為什麼就算這些事完全合乎經濟效益，

we don't do them?

我們也不做﹖

Well, I had my own personal insight into this

我對此有自己的見解

a few years ago.

幾年前。

It was a Sunday evening, Sunday afternoon,

那是一個星期天的傍晚，星期天下午，

and it was just after --

就在--

actually, to be honest, too long after --

實際上，說實話，在--

we had moved into a new house.

我們剛剛搬進一個新家之後--

And I had finally got around to doing some draft stripping,

我終於開始著手做一些擋風（設計），

installing insulation around the windows and doors

在窗戶和門上安裝隔熱裝置

to keep out the drafts.

來抵禦氣流。

And my, then, five year-old daughter

當時﹐我的五歲女兒

was helping me in the way that five year-olds do.

幫我一些五歲的小孩子所能幫的忙。

And we'd been doing this for a while,

我們一起做了一會兒

when she turned to me very solemnly and said,

她轉向我 十分嚴肅地說，

"Will this really keep out the giraffes?"

“這個能真的擋住長頸鹿嗎？”

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"Here they are, the giraffes."

“你看，長頸鹿。”

You can hear the five-year-old mind working.

你能聽到一個五歲的孩子的大腦是怎樣運作的。

These ones, interestingly, are 400 miles north of here

這些，很有趣地，在距離這里四百英里北部

outside Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria.

的巴羅因弗內斯以外的坎布里亞郡。

Goodness knows what they make of the Lake District weather.

天曉得牠們對湖區氣候會有什麼感覺（注：Lake District: 英格蘭西北部風景地）

But actually that childish misrepresentation

但這個稚幼的錯誤認知

stuck with me,

讓我印象深刻

because it suddenly became clear to me

因為我突然理解

why we don't do the blindingly obvious things.

為什麼我們不去做這些顯而易見的事

We're too busy keeping out the giraffes --

我們忙於阻擋這些長頸鹿--

putting the kids on the bus in the morning,

早晨將孩子們送到公車上，

getting ourselves to work on time,

準時上班

surviving email overload

與超載的電子郵件拼命

and shop floor politics,

還有工作上 的勾心鬥角，

foraging for groceries, throwing together meals,

在食品雜貨店尋找食物，匆匆拼湊成一頓飯，

escaping for a couple of precious hours in the evening

終於在晚上擠出幾個寶貴小時

into prime-time TV

來看八點檔

or TED online,

或TED影片

getting from one end of the day to the other,

一天又一天

keeping out the giraffes.

擋長頸鹿。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What is the objective?

我們的目的是什麼？

"What is the objective of the consumer?"

“消費者的目的是什麼？”

Mary Douglas asked in an essay on poverty

瑪麗道格拉斯在一篇關於貧困的文章中問道

written 35 years ago.

寫於三十五年前。

"It is," she said,

“它是”她說，

"to help create the social world

“去創造一個社群

and find a credible place in it."

並且從中找到一個可敬的位置。 ”

That is a deeply humanizing

這是對我們人生的一種

vision of our lives,

深度洞察。

and it's a completely different vision

並且它是一個完全不同的視野

than the one that lies at the heart

我們這個經濟模式的視野

of this economic model.

相比。

So who are we?

我們是誰？

Who are these people?

這些人是誰？

Are we these novelty-seeking, hedonistic,

我們是那些追求新穎，享樂主義的，

selfish individuals?

自私的個體嗎？

Or might we actually occasionally be

又或者我們事實上偶爾地

something like the selfless altruist

也會成為林布蘭特筆下描繪的

depicted in Rembrandt's lovely, lovely sketch here?

美好的無私的利他主義者？

Well psychology actually says

心理學家說

there is a tension --

這其中有個拉距，

a tension between self-regarding behaviors

在利己主義行為和

and other regarding behaviors.

利他主義行為之間的一個拉距。

And these tensions have deep evolutionary roots,

這些拉距是進化的結果

so selfish behavior

自私的行為

is adaptive in certain circumstances --

是用來適應特定的環境的

fight or flight.

鬥爭還是逃跑。

But other regarding behaviors

但是利他行為

are essential to our evolution

是我們進化的基礎

as social beings.

作為社群生物。

And perhaps even more interesting from our point of view,

從我們的觀點來看也許更有趣，

another tension between novelty-seeking behaviors

另一種在探尋新事物的行為和

and tradition or conservation.

傳統或保守之間的拉距。

Novelty is adaptive when things are changing

追求新鮮是為了在世界轉變的時候

and you need to adapt yourself.

便於適應。

Tradition is essential to lay down the stability

傳統是為了保持穩定

to raise families and form cohesive social groups.

為了持家和組成合作的社會群體。

So here, all of a sudden,

於是 突然地

we're looking at a map of the human heart.

我們注視著人類的內心世界。

And it reveals to us, suddenly,

它突然地揭露出，

the crux of the matter.

事情的癥結所在。

What we've done is we've created economies.

我們創造了經濟。

We've created systems,

我們創造了體制，

which systematically privilege, encourage,

（這個體制）系統地賦予我們特權，鼓勵，

one narrow quadrant

人們靈魂的一個

of the human soul

狹窄的象限

and left the others unregarded.

其他方面卻被置之不理。

And in the same token, the solution becomes clear,

同樣地，解決方法也很簡單，

because this isn't, therefore,

因為這不是

about changing human nature.

有關改變人性。

It isn't, in fact, about curtailing possibilities.

也不是關於刪減可能性。

It is about opening up.

它是關於保持開放

It is about allowing ourselves the freedom

它是關於允許我們自己

to become fully human,

成為完整的人類，

recognizing the depth and the breadth

承認債務和

of the human psyche

人類心靈的廣度

and building institutions

建造制度與機構

to protect Rembrandt's fragile altruist within.

來保護我們心中那份脆弱的利他主義。

What does all this mean for economics?

這一切對經濟意味著什麼呢？

What would economies look like

經濟將變成什麼樣子

if we took that vision of human nature

如果我們用剛才提出的人性可能

at their heart

作為核心

and stretched them

延伸它們

along these orthogonal dimensions

用這些

of the human psyche?

人類心理的正交維度？

Well, it might look a little bit

它看起來大概像

like the 4,000 community-interest companies

過去的五年裡

that have sprung up in the U.K. over the last five years

在英國發展出的四千個社群服務公司

and a similar rise in B corporations in the United States,

和在美國B公司的崛起有些相似，

enterprises

企業們

that have ecological and social goals

那些把生態和社會目標

written into their constitution

寫進他們的章程

at their heart --

它們的核心的公司，

companies, in fact, like this one, Ecosia.

像它，Ecosia.

And I just want to, very quickly, show you this.

我想很快地向你展示一下。

Ecosia is an Internet search engine.

Ecosia是一個網絡搜索引擎。

Internet search engines work

網絡搜索引擎是

by drawing revenues from sponsored links

靠通過贊助商聯結來獲得收益

that appear when you do a search.

這些聯結在你搜索的時候出現。

And Ecosia works in pretty much the same way.

Ecosia也以同樣的方式活力。

So we can do that here --

在這裡也一樣

we can just put in a little search term.

我們輸入一個搜索詞。

There you go, Oxford, that's where we are. See what comes up.

牛津，我們所在之處

The difference with Ecosia though

Ecosia的不同之處

is that, in Ecosia's case,

就在於，Ecosia

it draws the revenues in the same way,

以同樣的方式獲利，

but it allocates

但是它將

80 percent of those revenues

百分之八十的收入投入

to a rainforest protection project in the Amazon.

一項保護亞馬遜雨林的專案中。

And we're going to do it.

就像這樣

We're just going to click on Naturejobs.uk.

我們只是點了 Naturejobs.uk 網站。

In case anyone out there is looking for a job in a recession,

假設在位有人想在這個不景氣的時候找工作，

that's the page to go to.

可以去這裡看看

And what happened then was

接下來發生的就是

the sponsor gave revenues to Ecosia,

贊助商給Ecosia錢，

and Ecosia is giving 80 percent of those revenues

然後Ecosia將這些收入的百分之八十

to a rainforest protection project.

給與一個雨林保護專案。

It's taking profits from one place

它從一個地方獲得利潤

and allocating them

然後將它們交給

into the protection of ecological resources.

生態資源保護。

It's a different kind of enterprise

這是一種不同的企業

for a new economy.

在一個新經濟下。

It's a form, if you like,

它是一種新的形式，

of ecological altruism --

生態型的利他主義--

perhaps something along those lines. Maybe it's that.

或是與此相關的什麼

Whatever it is,

不論它是什麼，

whatever this new economy is,

無論這種新經濟是什麼，

what we need the economy to do, in fact,

我們需要經濟的地方是

is to put investment

是投資造

back into the heart of the model,

這個模式的中心，

to re-conceive investment.

去重新思考投資。

Only now, investment

只是現在，投資

isn't going to be

將不再

about the relentless and mindless

殘酷和愚蠢地

pursuit of consumption growth.

追求提高消費。

Investment has to be a different beast.

投資必須得成為一個不同的生物。

Investment has to be,

投資要成為，

in the new economy,

在新經濟下，

protecting and nurturing

保護和培育

the ecological assets on which our future depends.

決定我們未來的生態資產的助力。

It has to be about transition.

它得是一個過渡。

It has to be investing in low-carbon technologies

它得投資與低碳科技和

and infrastructures.

（低碳）基礎設施上。

We have to invest, in fact,

我們需要投資在，

in the idea of a meaningful prosperity,

一個充滿意義的繁榮理念上，

providing capabilities

提供人們

for people to flourish.

共享繁榮的能力

And of course, this task has material dimensions.

當然，這個任務有物質層面。

It would be nonsense to talk about people flourishing

在人們沒有衣服 食物和居所的時候

if they didn't have food, clothing and shelter.

討論發展是無意義的

But it's also clear that prosperity goes beyond this.

但發展和繁榮不只是這樣

It has social and psychological aims --

它有社會和心理的目標--

family, friendship,

家庭，友情，

commitments, society,

投入，社會，

participating in the life of that society.

參與社會生活。

And this too

這也

requires investment,

需要投資，

investment -- for example, in places --

投資於那些

places where we can connect,

我們能夠接觸的地方，

places where we can participate,

我們能夠參與的地方，

shared spaces,

公共空間，

concert halls, gardens,

音樂廳，花園，

public parks,

公園，

libraries, museums, quiet centers,

圖書館，博物館，安靜的場所

places of joy and celebration,

用來慶祝的地方，

places of tranquility and contemplation,

那些讓人可以安靜思考的地方，

sites for the "cultivation

能“培育公民意識”

of a common citizenship,"

的場所

in Michael Sandel's lovely phrase.

如 Michael Sandel 所說

An investment -- investment, after all, is just such a basic economic concept --

一個投資--投資，最終，只是一個基本的經濟概念--

is nothing more nor less

只是

than a relationship

一種

between the present and the future,

介於現在和未來之中的關係

a shared present and a common future.

共有的現在和共同的未來。

And we need that relationship to reflect,

我們則需要那個關係來回應，

to reclaim hope.

來重申希望。

So let me come back, with this sense of hope,

讓我們帶著這種希望回頭來

to the two billion people

看這二億人口

still trying to live each day

他們仍然每天試圖

on less than the price of a skinny latte

以不到隔壁餐廳一杯低脂拿鐵價格的

from the cafe next door.

錢來生存。

What can we offer those people?

我們可以給他們什麼？

It's clear that we have a responsibility

很明顯的我們有一種

to help lift them out of poverty.

來幫助他們脫貧的責任。

It's clear that we have a responsibility

很明顯我們有一種

to make room for growth

幫助他們發展的責任

where growth really matters in those poorest nations.

發展在這些最窮困的國家才真的有意義

And it's also clear that we will never achieve that

很明顯的，我們將永遠不能達到（這個目標）

unless we're capable of redefining

除非我們能在這些富裕國家中

a meaningful sense of prosperity in the richer nations,

重新定義發展的意義

a prosperity that is more meaningful

一個更有意義的繁榮

and less materialistic

以發展為基礎

than the growth-based model.

而不是提昇消費的模式。

So this is not just

因此這不僅僅是

a Western post-materialist fantasy.

一個西方的後物質主義的幻想

In fact, an African philosopher wrote to me,

事實上，在“無須成長的發展”出版時

when "Prosperity Without Growth" was published,

一個非洲的哲學家寫給我，

pointing out the similarities

指出

between this view of prosperity

這種關於繁榮發展的觀點

and the traditional African concept of ubuntu.

與傳統非洲的 ubuntu 價值觀很相似

Ubuntu says, "I am

Ubuntu 說，“我的存在

because we are."

是因為大家存在。 ”

Prosperity is a shared endeavor.

繁榮發展就是來自共同的努力。

Its roots are long and deep --

它的根源長且深。

its foundations, I've tried to show,

它的基礎，如同我所展示的

exist already, inside each of us.

早已存在於我們每個人心中。

So this is not about

所以這不是要

standing in the way of development.

阻擋發展。

It's not about

也不是要

overthrowing capitalism.

推翻資本主義。

It's not about

它不是

trying to change human nature.

試圖改變人性。

What we're doing here

我們想要的是

is we're taking a few simple steps

採取幾個簡單的步驟

towards an economics fit for purpose.

讓我們的經濟發展更有意義。

And at the heart of that economics,

在經濟的核心裡，

we're placing a more credible,

置入一個更有價值的、

more robust,

更完滿的、

and more realistic vision

更真實的眼光

of what it means to be human.

關於身為人所應該做的些什麼。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: While they're taking the podium away, just a quick question.

Chris Anderson：在我們搬移講臺的時候，很快地問個問題。

First of all, economists aren't supposed to be inspiring,

首先，經濟學家不應該感動人心，

so you may need to work on the tone a little.

所以我想你可能要改變你的語調

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Can you picture the politicians ever buying into this?

你可以想像有那個政治家可以接受這些嗎﹖

I mean, can you picture

我的意思是，你可以想像

a politician standing up in Britain and saying,

一個政治家在英國說，

"GDP fell two percent this year. Good news!

“好消息！國內生產總值今年降了百分之二!

We're actually all happier, and a country's more beautiful,

我們都更快樂，這個國家更美麗，

and our lives are better."

我們的生活變得更好了。 ”

Tim Jackson: Well that's clearly not what you're doing.

Tim Jackson：當然這不是我們在做的

You're not making news out of things falling down.

你不能以GDP下跌作為新聞

You're making news out of the things that tell you that we're flourishing.

而是告訴人們我們正在繁榮發展

Can I picture politicians doing it?

有政治家想做這件事嗎﹖

Actually, I already am seeing a little bit of it.

實際上，我已經看到了一些。

When we first started this kind of work,

當我們第一次開始做這些工作時，

politicians would stand up, treasury spokesmen would stand up,

政治家們會站出來，財政部發言人會站出來，

and accuse us of wanting to go back and live in caves.

指責我們想要回歸到從前，住在山洞。

And actually in the period

事實上在那段時間裡

through which we've been working over the last 18 years --

在過去的十八年裡，我們一直在做這件事情--

partly because of the financial crisis

一部分是因為經濟危機

and a little bit of humility in the profession of economics --

和一些專業經濟學的謙遜

actually people are engaging in this issue

實際上在世界上許多國家

in all sorts of countries around the world.

人們都在探討這些問題。

CA: But is it mainly politicians who are going to have to get their act together,

CA：但是這主要是由政治家們一起行動，

or is it going to be more just civil society and companies?

或者僅是一些公民社會和公司？

TJ: It has to be companies. It has to be civil society.

TJ：必須得是公司，必須得是公民社會。

But it has to have political leadership.

但是它需要有政治領導。

This is a kind of agenda,

這是一種推進，

which actually politicians themselves

事實上政治家他們自己

are kind of caught in that dilemma,

也困在那個難題中，

because they're hooked on the growth model themselves.

因為他們自己被那個增長模式勾住了。

But actually opening up the space

實際上如果大家放開心

to think about different ways of governing,

想一想不同的治理方式，

different kinds of politics,

不同的政治運作，

and creating the space

創造空間

for civil society and businesses to operate differently --

讓公民社會和商業可以有其他運作方法

absolutely vital.

是很重要的。

CA: And if someone could convince you

CA：如果某人想要說服你

that we actually can make the -- what was it? --

其實我們可以做到--那個是什麼來著？ --

the 130-fold improvement in efficiency,

一百三十倍的效能改進，

of reduction of carbon footprint,

來降低碳足跡，

would you then actually like that picture of economic growth

你是否會期待更多來自於智慧商品消費

into more knowledge-based goods?

的經濟增長呢﹖

TJ: I would still want to know that you could do that

TJ：我還是想知道你是否在這樣做的同時

and get below zero by the end of the century,

然後在世紀末降到負值，

in terms of taking carbon out of the atmosphere,

將碳從大氣中抽出來，

and solve the problem of biodiversity

解決生態多樣性的問題

and reduce the impact on land use

減少對土地利用的影響

and do something about the erosion of topsoils and the quality of water.

改善表層土侵蝕和水質。

If you can convince me we can do all that,

如果你能說服我們能做到這些，

then, yes, I would take the two percent.

那麼，是的，我可以接受那百分之二的成長（國內生產總值）。

CA: Tim, thank you for a very important talk. Thank you.

CA：Tim，謝謝你的重要演講。謝謝。

(Applause)

(掌聲)