A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow | Kate Raworth

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

Have you ever watched a baby learning to crawl?

各位有沒有看過嬰兒學爬行？

Because as any parent knows, it's gripping.

為人父母都知道， 這是很吸引人的畫面。

First, they wriggle about on the floor,

一開始，嬰兒會在地上扭動，

usually backwards,

通常是向後退，

but then they drag themselves forwards,

但接著他們會拖著自己向前，

and then they pull themselves up to stand,

再來他們就會努力拉起身體直到站立，

and we all clap.

我們都會拍手叫好。

And that simple motion of forwards and upwards,

一個這麼簡單的動作：向前向上，

it's the most basic direction of progress we humans recognize.

它是我們人類認知中， 最基本的進步方向。

We tell it in our story of evolution as well,

我們在訴說人類 演化故事時也會提到它，

from our lolloping ancestors to Homo erectus, finally upright,

從搖晃著走路的祖先， 到直立猿人，最後才完全挺直，

to Homo sapiens, depicted, always a man,

成為現代人， 通常都被描繪成一個人走路

always mid-stride.

跨步跨到一半的樣子。

So no wonder we so readily believe

也難怪我們如此樂於相信

that economic progress will take this very same shape,

經濟進展的成長線也會是 同樣簡單的形狀：

this ever-rising line of growth.

一條一直上升的線。

It's time to think again,

該是重新思考的時候了，

to reimagine the shape of progress,

我們需要重新想像成長線的形狀，

because today, we have economies

因為現今，我們的經濟

that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive,

需要成長，不論它們 是否會讓我們繁榮，

and what we need, especially in the richest countries,

而我們所需要的， 特別是在最富有的國家中，

are economies that make us thrive

是讓我們繁榮的經濟，

whether or not they grow.

不論它們是否會成長。

Yes, it's a little flippant word

沒錯，這麼說有點輕率，

hiding a profound shift in mindset,

背後隱藏的是在心態上的深刻轉變，

but I believe this is the shift we need to make

但我相信我們需要做這樣的轉變，

if we, humanity, are going to thrive here together this century.

如果我們人類想要 在這個世紀一起繁榮的話。

So where did this obsession with growth come from?

所以，這種對於成長的 迷戀是從何而來的？

Well, GDP, gross domestic product,

GDP，即國內生產總值，

it's just the total cost of goods and services

只是一年內在一個經濟中

sold in an economy in a year.

所有商品和服務的總額。

It was invented in the 1930s,

它是在三十年代發明的，

but it very soon became the overriding goal of policymaking,

但它很快就變成 政策制訂的首要目標，

so much so that even today, in the richest of countries,

甚至到了現今， 在最富有的國家中，

governments think that the solution to their economic problems

政府還認為其經濟問題的解決方案

lies in more growth.

是需要更多的成長。

Just how that happened

那是如何發生的？

is best told through the 1960 classic by W.W. Rostow.

最好的說明方式是透過羅斯托 六十年代的經典著作來談。

I love it so much, I have a first-edition copy.

我非常喜歡它，還買了第一版。

"The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto."

書名叫《經濟成長的階段： 非共產黨宣言》。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You can just smell the politics, huh?

各位也聞得出政治味，對吧？

And Rostow tells us that all economies

羅斯托告訴我們，所有的經濟

need to pass through five stages of growth:

都會經過五個成長階段：

first, traditional society, where a nation's output is limited

第一，傳統社會階段， 在此階段，國家的產出

by its technology, its institutions and mindset;

會受到其科技、制度， 和心態的限制；

but then the preconditions for takeoff,

但接著就是起飛的先決條件階段，

where we get the beginnings of a banking industry,

在此階段，開始有金融業出現，

the mechanization of work

工作開始機械化，

and the belief that growth is necessary for something beyond itself,

且大家相信成長是必要的， 為的是遠超越它本身的更大目的，

like national dignity or a better life for the children;

比如國家尊嚴， 或是給孩子更好的生活；

then takeoff, where compound interest is built into the economy's institutions

接著是是起飛階段，在此階段， 經濟的制度就有內建複利，

and growth becomes the normal condition;

成長是種正常狀況；

fourth is the drive to maturity where you can have any industry you want,

第四階段是朝成熟前進階段， 在此階段，想要什麼產業都有，

no matter your natural resource base;

不論你的天然資源基礎是什麼；

and the fifth and final stage, the age of high-mass consumption

第五階段，也就是最後的階段， 是高度大量消費時代，

where people can buy all the consumer goods they want,

在此階段可以買到 任何想要買的消費品，

like bicycles and sewing machines --

比如腳踏車和縫紉機——

this was 1960, remember.

記住，這是六十年代。

Well, you can hear the implicit airplane metaphor in this story,

在這個故事中， 我們可以聽出隱含的飛機比喻，

but this plane is like no other,

但這架飛機獨一無二，

because it can never be allowed to land.

因為它永遠不會被允許降落。

Rostow left us flying into the sunset of mass consumerism,

羅斯托留給我們的， 是飛向大量消費主義的夕陽，

and he knew it.

他自己也知道。

As he wrote,

如他所寫的：

"And then the question beyond,

「接著，是再進一步的問題，

where history offers us only fragments.

歷史只能提供我們片段。

What to do when the increase in real income itself loses its charm?"

當實際收入的增加本身 失去了它的魅力時，該怎麼辦？」

He asked that question, but he never answered it, and here's why.

他問了那個問題， 但從來沒有回答，原因如下：

The year was 1960,

那時是六十年代，

he was an advisor to the presidential candidate John F. Kennedy,

他是總統候選人甘迺迪的顧問，

who was running for election on the promise of five-percent growth,

甘迺迪的競選承諾 是要讓經濟成長 5%，

so Rostow's job was to keep that plane flying,

所以羅斯托的工作是 要讓那架飛機持續飛行，

not to ask if, how, or when it could ever be allowed to land.

而不是去問它是否、如何或 何時會被允許降落。

So here we are, flying into the sunset of mass consumerism

所以就這樣子， 我們一直飛向大量消費主義的夕陽，

over half a century on,

持續了半個世紀，

with economies that have come to expect, demand and depend upon

這段時間，經濟漸漸開始 期望、需要，及仰賴

unending growth,

無止盡的成長，

because we're financially, politically and socially addicted to it.

因為在財務上、政治上， 和社會上，我們都對成長上癮了。

We're financially addicted to growth, because today's financial system

我們在財務上會對它上癮， 是因為現今的金融體系

is designed to pursue the highest rate of monetary return,

在設計上就是要追求 最高的貨幣收益率，

putting publicly traded companies under constant pressure

讓公開交易的公司 經常要承受很大的壓力，

to deliver growing sales, growing market share and growing profits,

它們得要實現業績成長、 市埸佔有率成長，和利潤成長，

and because banks create money as debt bearing interest,

且因為銀行把貨幣 創造成計息債款，

which must be repaid with more.

還錢時就得要支付更多。

We're politically addicted to growth

我們在政治上會對成長上癮，

because politicians want to raise tax revenue

是因為政治人物想要增加稅收，

without raising taxes

但不要提高稅率，

and a growing GDP seems a sure way to do that.

要做到這一點， 似乎就要靠 GDP 的成長了。

And no politician wants to lose their place in the G-20 family photo.

且沒有任何政治人物會想要在 二十國集團的大家庭合照中缺席。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But if their economy stops growing while the rest keep going,

但如果他們的經濟不再成長， 而其他國家的卻持續成長，

well, they'll be booted out by the next emerging powerhouse.

他們一定會被下一波 精力旺盛的後浪給推開。

And we are socially addicted to growth,

我們在社會上會對成長上癮，

because thanks to a century of consumer propaganda,

是因為一個世紀的消費者宣傳，

which fascinatingly was created by Edward Bernays,

它是由愛德華伯內斯 以迷人的方式創造出來的，

the nephew of Sigmund Freud,

愛德華是佛洛依德的姪子，

who realized that his uncle's psychotherapy

他發現他叔叔的心理治療

could be turned into very lucrative retail therapy

可以轉換為十分 有利可圖的零售治療，

if we could be convinced to believe that we transform ourselves

只要說服我們，讓我們相信 每次我們多買一些東西，

every time we buy something more.

我們就會讓自己有所轉變。

None of these addictions are insurmountable,

所有這些上癮狀況都是可以克服的，

but they all deserve far more attention than they currently get,

但是它們都需要 比現在多許多的關注，

because look where this journey has been taking us.

因為，看看這趟旅程 已經帶我們到了什麼地方。

Global GDP is 10 times bigger than it was in 1950

全球 GDP 比 1950 年要高十倍，

and that increase has brought prosperity to billions of people,

那樣的成長已經將繁榮 帶給了數十億人，

but the global economy has also become incredibly divisive,

但全球經濟已變得極其分裂，

with the vast share of returns to wealth

全球不到 1% 的人口 掌握巨大份額的財富。

now accruing to a fraction of the global one percent.

And the economy has become incredibly degenerative,

且經濟已經大幅度退化，

rapidly destabilizing this delicately balanced planet

在這個有著精密平衡的星球上， 快速地造成不穩定，

on which all of our lives depend.

而我們的生活都要仰賴這星球。

Our politicians know it, and so they offer new destinations for growth.

我們的政治人物知道這點， 所以他們提供新的成長目標。

You can have green growth, inclusive growth,

包括有綠色成長、包容性成長、

smart, resilient, balanced growth.

精明成長、韌性成長、平衡成長。

Choose any future you want so long as you choose growth.

你可以選擇任何未來， 只要選擇成長就好。

I think it's time to choose a higher ambition, a far bigger one,

我認為，該是選擇 更高、更大的野心的時候了，

because humanity's 21st century challenge is clear:

因為人類的二十一世紀 挑戰非常明確：

to meet the needs of all people

採用這個非凡獨特的活星球上

within the means of this extraordinary, unique, living planet

可以採用的任何手段， 來滿足所有人的需求，

so that we and the rest of nature can thrive.

讓我們人類和大自然都可以繁榮。

Progress on this goal isn't going to be measured with the metric of money.

針對這個目標的成長， 不能用貨幣制來衡量。

We need a dashboard of indicators.

我們需要一個指標儀表板。

And when I sat down to try and draw a picture of what that might look like,

我坐下來試著畫出 那個儀表板可能的樣子時，

strange though this is going to sound,

雖然聽起來好像很奇怪，

it came out looking like a doughnut.

但結果畫出來的就像是甜甜圈。

I know, I'm sorry,

我知道，很抱歉，

but let me introduce you to the one doughnut

但請容向大家介紹這個甜甜圈，

that might actually turn out to be good for us.

最後有可能發現 它其實對我們是有益的。

So imagine humanity's resource use radiating out from the middle.

所以，想像一下， 人類的資源使用是從中間向外放射。

That hole in the middle is a place

中間那個洞，

where people are falling short on life's essentials.

是人類生活必需品缺乏的地方。

They don't have the food, health care, education, political voice, housing

他們沒有食物、健康照護、 教育、政治聲音，和住房，

that every person needs for a life of dignity and opportunity.

每個人都需要上述這些， 他們的生命才會有尊嚴和機會。

We want to get everybody out of the hole, over the social foundation

我們想要讓所有人脫離這個洞， 越過社會基礎，

and into that green doughnut itself.

進入綠色的甜甜圈本身。

But, and it's a big but,

但是，這是個很大的「轉折」，

we cannot let our collective resource use overshoot that outer circle,

我們不能讓我們的 集體資源使用超出外圈，

the ecological ceiling,

也就是生態的上界，

because there we put so much pressure on this extraordinary planet

因為在外圈，我們會對這個 非凡的星球施加太多的壓力，

that we begin to kick it out of kilter.

以致於我們開始讓生態失序。

We cause climate breakdown, we acidify the oceans,

我們造成了氣候崩壞、海洋酸化、

a hole in the ozone layer,

臭氧層破洞，

pushing ourselves beyond the planetary boundaries

將我們自己推出過去已存在了

of the life-supporting systems that have for the last 11,000 years

一萬一千年的生命維持系統 在地球上的界線，

made earth such a benevolent home to humanity.

若不是這些系統， 地球不會成為人類的親切家園。

So this double-sided challenge to meet the needs of all

所以，這個雙面挑戰是 要用這個星球上的手段

within the means of the planet,

來滿足所有人的需求，

it invites a new shape of progress,

它的成長線形狀會是全新的，

no longer this ever-rising line of growth,

不再是一直向上爬升的成長線，

but a sweet spot for humanity,

而是人類的最有效擊球點（致勝關鍵），

thriving in dynamic balance between the foundation and the ceiling.

在基礎和上界之間的動態平衡中繁榮。

And I was really struck once I'd drawn this picture

當我畫出這張圖時， 我真的吃了一驚，

to realize that the symbol of well-being in many ancient cultures

因為我了解到， 在許多古老文化中的安康象徵，

reflects this very same sense of dynamic balance,

都反映出同樣的動態平衡概念，

from the Maori Takarangi

從毛利的 Takarangi （一種螺旋圖案）

to the Taoist Yin Yang, the Buddhist endless knot,

到道教的陰陽、佛教的吉祥結、

the Celtic double spiral.

凱爾特的雙螺旋。

So can we find this dynamic balance in the 21st century?

所以，我們能夠在二十一世紀 找到這個動態平衡嗎？

Well, that's a key question,

這是個關鍵問題，

because as these red wedges show, right now we are far from balanced,

因為如同這些紅色楔形所呈現的， 我們現在離平衡很遠，

falling short and overshooting at the same time.

同時有不足也有過頭。

Look in that hole, you can see that millions or billions of people worldwide

看看那個洞，你可以看到世界上 有數百萬或數十億人

still fall short on their most basic of needs.

仍然連最基本的需求都還很缺乏。

And yet, we've already overshot at least four of these planetary boundaries,

但我們卻已經至少越過了 這些星球界線中的四個，

risking irreversible impact of climate breakdown

瀕臨不可逆的氣候崩壞衝擊

和生態系統瓦解。

and ecosystem collapse.

This is the state of humanity and our planetary home.

這是人類和地球家園的狀況。

We, the people of the early 21st century,

我們這些二十一世紀初期的人類，

this is our selfie.

這是我們的自拍照。

No economist from last century saw this picture,

上個世紀沒有任何 經濟學家預見這張圖，

so why would we imagine that their theories

那麼我們為什麼會認為他們的理論

would be up for taking on its challenges?

能被用來面對這個挑戰呢？

We need ideas of our own,

我們得要有自己的想法，

because we are the first generation to see this

因為我們是看見 這個狀況的第一個世代，

and probably the last with a real chance of turning this story around.

且可能也是有機會改變 這個故事的最後一個世代。

You see, 20th century economics assured us that if growth creates inequality,

二十世紀的經濟學向我們保證， 如果成長造成不平等，

don't try to redistribute,

不要試圖做重新分配，

because more growth will even things up again.

因為更多的成長將會再度形成均等。

If growth creates pollution,

如果成長造成污染，

don't try to regulate, because more growth will clean things up again.

不用試圖制訂規定， 因為更多的成長將會再次清理一切。

Except, it turns out, it doesn't,

唯一的問題是， 結果發現並非如此，

and it won't.

將來亦不會如此。

We need to create economies that tackle this shortfall and overshoot together,

我們需要創造出的經濟， 是能一併處理不足和過度的經濟，

by design.

透過設計來達成。

We need economies that are regenerative and distributive by design.

我們需要的經濟，是在設計上 就能再生和分配的經濟。

You see, we've inherited degenerative industries.

我們已經繼承了在退化的產業。

We take earth's materials, make them into stuff we want,

我們取用地球的材料， 製做成我們要的東西，

use it for a while, often only once, and then throw it away,

使用一陣子之後， 通常只使用一次，就把它丟了，

and that is pushing us over planetary boundaries,

就是這樣才會把我們 推過地球的界線，

so we need to bend those arrows around,

所以，我們得要 把這些箭頭轉個方向，

create economies that work with and within the cycles of the living world,

在生活世界的循環之內， 創造出能與這些循環合作的經濟，

so that resources are never used up but used again and again,

這麼一來，資源永遠不會用光， 能一再被重覆使用，

economies that run on sunlight,

經濟能靠著太陽光來運作，

where waste from one process is food for the next.

一個過程產生出的廢物， 能成為下一個過程的材料。

And this kind of regenerative design is popping up everywhere.

這種再生性的設計是處處可見的。

Over a hundred cities worldwide, from Quito to Oslo,

全世界有超過一百個城市， 從基多到奧斯陸，

from Harare to Hobart,

從哈拉雷到荷巴特，

already generate more than 70 percent of their electricity

都已經能做到電力的 70%

from sun, wind and waves.

是由太陽、風力，和海浪來產生。

Cities like London, Glasgow, Amsterdam are pioneering circular city design,

倫敦、格拉斯哥 及阿姆斯特丹等城市，

都是循環城市設計的先鋒，

finding ways to turn the waste from one urban process

它們找到方法， 把城市的一個過程所產生的癈物，

into food for the next.

轉為下一個過程用的材料。

And from Tigray, Ethiopia to Queensland, Australia,

從衣索比亞的提格雷州 到澳洲的昆士蘭州，

farmers and foresters are regenerating once-barren landscapes

農夫和林中居民 讓本來貧瘠的土地得以再生，

so that it teems with life again.

讓土地再現生機。

But as well as being regenerative by design,

但就如同要用設計來達成再生，

our economies must be distributive by design,

我們的經濟也必須要 在設計上就能分配，

and we've got unprecedented opportunities for making that happen,

我們有著史無前例的機會， 可以讓這一點實現，

because 20th-century centralized technologies,

因為二十世紀的中心是科技、

institutions,

制度、

concentrated wealth, knowledge and power in few hands.

集中在少數人身上的 財富、知識，和權力。

This century, we can design our technologies and institutions

在這個世妃，我們可以 在設計我們的科技和制度時，

to distribute wealth, knowledge and empowerment to many.

就讓它們能分配財富、 知識，及賦權給多數人。

Instead of fossil fuel energy and large-scale manufacturing,

不再用化石燃料能源和大規模製造，

we've got renewable energy networks, digital platforms and 3D printing.

我們改用可再生能源網路、 數位平台，和 3D 列印。

200 years of corporate control of intellectual property is being upended

兩百年來智慧財產都是由企業控制， 現在這點正在被顛覆，

by the bottom-up, open-source, peer-to-peer knowledge commons.

因為現在有由下而上、資源開放、 點對點的知識分享空間。

And corporations that still pursue maximum rate of return

還在為了股東而追求

for their shareholders,

收益率最大化的企業，

well they suddenly look rather out of date

突然間，它們看起來落伍，

next to social enterprises that are designed to generate

比不上那些設計來創造出各種價值形式

multiple forms of value and share it with those throughout their networks.

並分享給其網路上 所有人的社會企業。

If we can harness today's technologies,

如果我們可以利用現今的科技，

from AI to blockchain

從人工智慧到區塊鏈，

to the Internet of Things to material science,

到物聯網，到材料科學，

if we can harness these in service of distributive design,

如果我們可以利用這些， 來協助做到分配式的設計，

we can ensure that health care, education, finance, energy, political voice

我們就能確保健康照護、 教育、金融、能源、政治聲音

reaches and empowers those people who need it most.

都能被交給最需要的人， 並賦權給他們。

You see, regenerative and distributive design

再生性和分配性的設計

create extraordinary opportunities for the 21st-century economy.

能為二十一世紀的經濟 創造出不凡的機會。

So where does this leave Rostow's airplane ride?

在這樣的情況下， 又要如何看待羅斯托的飛機旅程？

Well, for some it still carries the hope of endless green growth,

對一些人而言，

它仍然帶著無止盡綠色成長的希望，

the idea that thanks to dematerialization,

這個想法是，由於非物質化，

exponential GDP growth can go on forever while resource use keeps falling.

GDP 的指數成長能永遠持續下去， 同時，資源使用則會不斷減少。

But look at the data. This is a flight of fancy.

但看看數據， 這是趟異想天開的飛行。

Yes, we need to dematerialize our economies,

我們的確需要將我們的 經濟給非物質化。

but this dependency on unending growth cannot be decoupled from resource use

但這種對無止境增長的依賴 無法與資源的使用脫鉤，

on anything like the scale required

不可能透過使用合理規模的資源

to bring us safely back within planetary boundaries.

來把我們安全地帶回地球界線內。

I know this way of thinking about growth is unfamiliar,

我知道大家並不熟悉 這種對成長的看法，

because growth is good, no?

因為成長是好的，不是嗎？

We want our children to grow, our gardens to grow.

我們希望我們的孩子成長， 我們的花園成長。

Yes, look to nature and growth is a wonderful, healthy source of life.

是的，看看大自然， 成長是美好的、健康的生命來源。

It's a phase, but many economies like Ethiopia and Nepal today

它是一個階段，但許多經濟， 像現今的衣索比亞和尼泊爾，

may be in that phase.

可能是在那個階段中。

Their economies are growing at seven percent a year.

它們的經濟每年成長 7%。

But look again to nature,

但，再次看看大自然，

because from your children's feet to the Amazon forest,

因為，從你們的孩子腳下， 一直到亞馬遜森林都一樣，

nothing in nature grows forever.

大自然中沒有什麼能永遠成長。

Things grow, and they grow up and they mature,

東西會成長， 它們會長大，會成熟，

and it's only by doing so

只有透過這麼做，

that they can thrive for a very long time.

它們才能繁榮很長一段時間。

We already know this.

我們已經知道這一點。

If I told you my friend went to the doctor

如果我告訴你們， 我的朋友去看醫生，

who told her she had a growth

醫生告訴她，她的成長

that feels very different,

感覺非常不同，

because we intuitively understand that when something tries to grow forever

因為我們直覺認為， 當某樣東西試圖在

within a healthy, living, thriving system,

一個健康、有生命、 繁榮的系統中永遠成長時，

it's a threat to the health of the whole.

它會對整體的健康造成威脅。

So why would we imagine that our economies

所以，為什麼我們會想像我們的經濟

would be the one system that could buck this trend

有可能是能抵抗這個趨勢，

and succeed by growing forever?

成功地永遠成長的例外？

We urgently need financial, political and social innovations

我們很迫切地需要財務、 政治，和社會的創新，

that enable us to overcome this structural dependency on growth,

讓我們能克服對於成長的 這種結構性依賴，

so that we can instead focus on thriving and balance

這麼一來，我們就能 把焦點放在繁榮和平衡，

within the social and the ecological boundaries of the doughnut.

在甜甜圈的社會與生態 界線內的繁榮和平衡。

And if the mere idea of boundaries makes you feel, well, bounded,

如果這個界線的小小想法 讓你覺得……受限，

think again.

再重新想想。

Because the world's most ingenious people

因為這個世界上最足智多謀的人

turn boundaries into the source of their creativity.

會把界線轉變成他們創意的資源。

From Mozart on his five-octave piano

例如莫札特用他五個八度的鋼琴，

Jimi Hendrix on his six-string guitar,

吉米亨德里克斯用他的六弦吉他，

Serena Williams on a tennis court,

在網球場上的小威廉絲，

it's boundaries that unleash our potential.

是界線釋放出了我們的潛能。

And the doughnut's boundaries unleash the potential for humanity to thrive

甜甜圈的界線釋放出了 人類用無限的創意、

with boundless creativity, participation, belonging and meaning.

參與、歸屬，與意義， 來達成繁榮的潛能。

It's going to take all the ingenuity that we have got to get there,

要做到這一點， 會需要用到我們所有的才智，

so bring it on.

所以，出招吧。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）