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

譯者: David Hsu 審譯者: Regina Chu

Chris Anderson: Hello. Welcome to this TED Dialogues.

克里斯安德森：大家好， 歡迎參與 TED Dialogues。

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

這是我們將播放一系列之首集，

in response to the current political upheaval.

來回應現今的政治風暴。

我不知你如何想；

I don't know about you;

但我是十分關注在本國

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

和在世界各地日益分裂之社會。

and in the world.

No one's listening to each other. Right?

大家都不能溝通，是不是？

絕對是。

They aren't.

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

我想當今局勢確需一種另類交談，

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

一種建立在──怎麼說呢， 在理性、聆聽、和諧意識上的，

on a broader context.

在一種更廣闊的視野上的。

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

最起碼，這是我們在 這 TED Dialogues 希望嘗試的，

starting today.

從今天首集開始。

And we couldn't have anyone with us

我們不可能邀請到

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

更能使我興奮的啟航嘉賓。

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

這嘉賓的思路見解是獨一無二的，

on the planet, I would hasten to say.

我指的是──以全球人類來說啊。

I'm serious.

我是認真的。

(Yuval Noah Harari laughs)

（尤瓦爾笑笑）

我真是認真的。

I'm serious.

他貫融歷史所用的概念，

He synthesizes history with underlying ideas

其體大思精能使你目瞪口呆。

in a way that kind of takes your breath away.

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

我猜你們知道這本書： 《人類大歷史》。

Has anyone here read "Sapiens"?

有誰看過這本書？

(Applause)

（鼓掌聲）

I mean, I could not put it down.

真的，我一讀就放不下。

The way that he tells the story of mankind

他所用的那些大概念 來解說人類的故事，

through big ideas that really make you think differently --

真的能讓你有脫胎換骨的想法──

it's kind of amazing.

實在震撼。

And here's the follow-up,

這本書還有續集，

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

就我所知，下星期就會在美國發行。

YNH: Yeah, next week.

尤：對，下星期。

CA: "Homo Deus."

克：《人類大命運》。

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

這書預卜人類未來百年，

I've had a chance to read it.

我有機會讀過它，

It's extremely dramatic,

真的是非常精湛。

and I daresay, for some people, quite alarming.

我敢說，對某些人， 或有出乎意料的顫慄，

It's a must-read.

這是本必讀的書。

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

說真的，我們不可得更理想的人

來幫我們理解當今地球發生的事態。

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

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

請熱烈的歡迎： 尤瓦爾 · 諾亞 · 哈拉瑞先生

(Applause)

（鼓掌聲）

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

我們很開心有臉書 和網路上的朋友參與。

Hello, Facebook.

臉書，你們好。

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

在我發問尤瓦爾時，

大家也想想自己的問題，

come up with your own questions,

and not necessarily about the political scandal du jour,

不一定是關於今日熱門的政治醜聞，

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

而是些宏觀的主題： 我們人類的前景？

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

大家準備好了嗎？我們開始。

So here we are, Yuval:

尤瓦爾，時下今日：

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

紐約市，2017 年，美國新總統上任，

and shock waves rippling around the world.

其震驚捲席全球，

What on Earth is happening?

到底發生了什麼事？

YNH: I think the basic thing that happened

尤：我想基本上發生的

is that we have lost our story.

是我們已失去了故事；

Humans think in stories,

人類以故事來思考，

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

通過故事，我們試圖去理解這世界。

And for the last few decades,

在過去數十年中，

we had a very simple and very attractive story

我們有個極簡單和極動聽的故事，

about what's happening in the world.

解釋世界發生的一切。

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

這故事在說：看啊！正在發生的

that the economy is being globalized,

是經濟邁向全球化，

politics is being liberalized,

而政治也同步開放化，

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

這兩者將使地球變為世外桃源。

and we just need to keep on globalizing the economy

只要我們不斷強化全球經濟，

and liberalizing the political system,

同時把政治更自由化，

and everything will be wonderful.

一切就自然美妙了。

And 2016 is the moment

但在 2016 年那一刻，

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

有非常大比例的人民， 包括西方國家的，

stopped believing in this story.

不再相信這故事了。

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

不管理由是好或是壞── 這不是關鍵，

People stopped believing in the story,

大家不再相信這故事了。

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

但當你失去了一個故事， 你就不能理解一切發生的事情。

克：我們心底一部分 是確信這故事是有效的。

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

It worked.

它是成功的。

YNH: To some extent, yes.

尤：就某種程度而言，是的。

According to some measurements,

依某些指標來看，

we are now in the best time ever

今天的人類確是活在

for humankind.

最輝煌的時刻：

Today, for the first time in history,

今天，首次在歷史中，

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

人類死於飲食過量多於飲食缺乏，

which is an amazing achievement.

這可是個驚人的成就。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Also for the first time in history,

還有也是首次在歷史中，

more people die from old age than from infectious diseases,

人類死於衰老的多於疾病感染。

and violence is also down.

至於暴力，這也降低了。

For the first time in history,

首次在歷史中，

more people commit suicide than are killed by crime and terrorism

人類因自殺死亡的， 多於死於罪行或恐怖暴力

and war put together.

和戰爭之總和。

Statistically, you are your own worst enemy.

依據統計上來說， 你是你最大的敵人；

At least, of all the people in the world,

起碼，把全球人算起來，

you are most likely to be killed by yourself --

你是最有可能被自己殺害的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

這亦可算是很好的消息──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

比起我們以往所看到的暴力程度。

CA: But this process of connecting the world

克：但依這個方法聯繫世界，

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

結果很大的一群人感覺被遺棄了，

and they've reacted.

而作出反應，

And so we have this bombshell

所以我們遇上這炸彈，

that's sort of ripping through the whole system.

其威力好像把整個系統撕裂了。

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

我想知道，您是怎樣看這一切呢？

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

感覺以往人民的舊有習慣， 把政黨分析

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

為左右派已被炸毀及撤換了。

How should we think of this?

我們該從何了解這事？

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

尤：沒錯，過往二十世紀的 左右派系之政黨模式，

is now largely irrelevant,

到現在是毫無意義了。

and the real divide today is between global and national,

而今天實質之分界是在 全球主義和國家主義，

global or local.

全球性或地緣性。

And you see it again all over the world

而你能觀察到這是在全球，

that this is now the main struggle.

正在進行中的掙扎。

We probably need completely new political models

我猜我們是需要嶄新的政治模式，

and completely new ways of thinking about politics.

和全新的政治思維。

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

精簡的說，你可說現在 我們是有個全球生態環境，

we have a global economy but we have national politics,

我們是有個全球經濟系統， 但卻只有國家性的政體，

and this doesn't work together.

這不能互通。

This makes the political system ineffective,

亦使現有的政治系統不足了，

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

因為它已無法駕馭 我們生活的支配因素了。

And you have basically two solutions to this imbalance:

而對這不平衡，你只有兩個選擇：

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

一者是把這個經濟系統反全球化， 退回到國家經濟；

or globalize the political system.

二者是把政治系統全球化。

CA: So some, I guess many liberals out there

克：我猜很多自由主義者

view Trump and his government as kind of irredeemably bad,

會覺得川普和他的政府 是無藥可救的，

just awful in every way.

在各方面都很糟糕。

Do you see any underlying narrative or political philosophy in there

你能在它當中看到 任何內涵或政治觀念，

是值得我們去揣摩了解的嗎？

that is at least worth understanding?

How would you articulate that philosophy?

你如何去闡明這觀念？

Is it just the philosophy of nationalism?

是否全然只是一種國家主義嗎？

YNH: I think the underlying feeling or idea

尤：我想它的基本感覺或概念，

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

是這個政治體制當中， 某些部分是壞掉了。

它已不再賦權給平民百姓了，

It doesn't empower the ordinary person anymore.

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

它已漠視平民百姓了。

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

我想這政治疾病之診斷是正確的，

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

但對它救治的答案， 我就不敢肯定了。

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

我想我們看見的 是人之自然反射行為：

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

如果有東西行不通了，就掉頭吧，

And you see it all over the world,

你可看到全球都這樣。

that people, almost nobody in the political system today,

全部人，幾乎沒有一位當今執政者

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

持有對人類未來走向的遠見。

Almost everywhere, you see retrograde vision:

差不多在所有地方， 你只看到懷舊思想：

"Let's make America great again,"

「讓美國重振雄風！」

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

像以前一樣偉大──我不知道── 像 50 年代，或 80年代，或其它。

let's go back there.

咱們回到過去罷！

And you go to Russia a hundred years after Lenin,

看看蘇聯，已是列寧時代百年後了，

Putin's vision for the future

而普丁的未來夢想，

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

基本上是，啊， 咱們回到沙皇帝國時代吧！

And in Israel, where I come from,

再說以色列，我的母國，

the hottest political vision of the present is:

當下最熱門的政治夢想是：

"Let's build the temple again."

「我們重建猶太聖殿！」

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

好像我們不如回到兩千年前。

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

所以大家的思維是： 過去某時刻，我們迷失了。

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

過去某時刻， 把它當是你在都市迷了路，

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

你說：「好罷，我們回到 之前安全熟識的地方，

and start again.

再重新來過。」

I don't think this can work,

我不相信這是可行的。

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

但很多人，這是他們之自然反應。

CA: But why couldn't it work?

克：但為什麼不可行呢？

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

「美國第一」在多方面 是個很吸引的口號。

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

愛國主義，在多方面是個崇高理想；

It's played a role in promoting cooperation

它曾經被用來

團結很龐大數目的人。

among large numbers of people.

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

為什麼你不可把世界分成多國，

all of which put themselves first?

而各國都以自利為先？

YNH: For many centuries, even thousands of years,

尤：很多世紀來，甚至幾千年來，

patriotism worked quite well.

愛國主義是蠻成功的。

Of course, it led to wars an so forth,

當然，它也引發戰爭等等，

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

但我們不該太注視那些不好的，

There are also many, many positive things about patriotism,

愛國主義的確有很多很多正面好處，

and the ability to have a large number of people

也能帶動很大群的人

care about each other,

去關懷照顧對方，

sympathize with one another,

去體恤包容對方，

and come together for collective action.

也團結合夥去聯合行動。

If you go back to the first nations,

如果你看最初的國家，

so, thousands of years ago,

就是數千年前，

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

住在中國黃河岸邊的居民──

it was many, many different tribes

有很多很多不同的部落，

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

他們都依靠著黃河生存和造福，

but all of them also suffered from periodical floods

但他們也遭受周期性水災，

and periodical droughts.

和周期性旱災。

And no tribe could really do anything about it,

但沒有任何部落能做些什麼，

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

因為各部落只控制很小一段的河岸。

And then in a long and complicated process,

但經過一個長而複雜的過程，

the tribes coalesced together to form the Chinese nation,

部落合組成為中國這國家，

which controlled the entire Yellow River

有效控制了整條黃河，

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

同時也有能力啟動數十萬居民，

to build dams and canals and regulate the river

一起來建水壩和運河， 來疏導這河流，

and prevent the worst floods and droughts

預防了最惡劣的洪水和大旱，

and raise the level of prosperity for everybody.

提升了全人民的富裕水平：

And this worked in many places around the world.

而這模式在世界多地都成功實施了。

But in the 21st century,

但是在二十一世紀，

technology is changing all that in a fundamental way.

科技在根本上改變了一切。

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

我們現在──地球上所有的人──

are living alongside the same cyber river,

都生活在同一條「網路大河」旁邊，

and no single nation can regulate this river by itself.

而沒有一個國家能單獨調控這大河。

We are all living together on a single planet,

我們全都一起活在一個地球上，

which is threatened by our own actions.

但它受到我們行為的威脅，

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

所以如果你不能建立某些全球合作，

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

國家主義不能解決這些問題，

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

不管對氣候變化，或對科技的衝擊。

CA: So it was a beautiful idea

克：所以國家主義曾是個 美麗的概念，

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

因為多數的事務，多數的議題

took place on national scale,

都局限在國域之內。

but your argument is that the issues that matter most today

但你的論點是，當今最重要的議題，

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

已不發生在國家範疇內， 而是全球性的。

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

尤：正是這樣。 所有今天世界重大的問題

are global in essence,

都是環球性質的，

and they cannot be solved

而這些都不可能被解決，

unless through some kind of global cooperation.

除非在全球合作之某些前提下。

It's not just climate change,

而這不僅是說氣候變化，

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

這是人人最常舉的明顯例子，

I think more in terms of technological disruption.

我倒是更關注科技衝突：

If you think about, for example, artificial intelligence,

比如說，你試想人工智慧

over the next 20, 30 years

在未來二十、三十年後，

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

會驅使數百千萬工人失業──

this is a problem on a global level.

這是一個全球性問題，

It will disrupt the economy of all the countries.

這將會影響全球國家的經濟。

And similarly, if you think about, say, bioengineering

同樣的，如果你想想， 比如生物工程，

and people being afraid of conducting,

有人會顧忌做這方面的實驗，

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

我不知道，基因工程之人體實驗；

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

如果只有一個國家，比如說美國，

outlaws all genetic experiments in humans,

立法禁止一切基因工程之人體實驗，

but China or North Korea continues to do it.

但中國或北韓堅持繼續實驗，

So the US cannot solve it by itself,

那這情況並非美國單獨能決定的，

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

美國也很快會遭受無比的壓力 要求進行同類的實驗，

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

因為這牽涉高風險、高利潤的科技。

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

如果他人在做， 我絕不能讓自己落後。

The only way to have regulations, effective regulations,

如果要建立這方面的法令， 有效之法令，

on things like genetic engineering,

涉及如基因工程之類的，

is to have global regulations.

就只能是全球性的法令。

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

如果你只有國家條令， 沒人會喜歡落後的。

CA: So this is really interesting.

克：這個觀點很有意思。

It seems to me that this may be one key

因為我覺得這就是一個契機，

to provoking at least a constructive conversation

來至少推動一個有建設性的交談，

between the different sides here,

讓多方都在一起。

because I think everyone can agree that the start point

因為我相信大家都會同意，

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

這麼多的怒氣演繹至今天的局勢，

is because of the legitimate concerns about job loss.

都是起源於工人對失業之合理訴求。

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

工作沒了，傳統生活方式也沒了，

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

不言而知工人必然是憤怒的；

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

而普遍來說，工人都怪責 全球主義和全球菁英等，

for doing this to them without asking their permission,

沒有先徵求工人的同意， 就要他們扛下來，

and that seems like a legitimate complaint.

這投訴也算合情合理的。

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

從我理解你所說的── 一個關鍵問題是：

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

失業真正的原因是什麼呢， 在今天與未來？

To the extent that it's about globalism,

起碼在涉及到全球主義之部分，

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

那正當的回應，沒錯， 就是把國家邊境封鎖，

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

把外人拒絕，把貿易協議修改等等。

But you're saying, I think,

但依我理解你說的，

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

真正造成失業的更大原因不是這些，

It's going to originate in technological questions,

而是源於科技有關的問題。

and we have no chance of solving that

所以對此，我們根本不可能解決它，

unless we operate as a connected world.

除非我們能全球牽手合作。

YNH: Yeah, I think that,

尤：對，我想是的。

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

現在暫且不會，但我推測未來，

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

並不是墨西哥人或中國人

from the people in Pennsylvania,

會奪取賓夕法尼亞州人的工作，

it's the robots and algorithms.

而是機器人和電腦演算法，

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

除非你計劃在加州州界 豎立個大圍牆──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

在墨西哥國界的圍牆是毫無用處的。

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

當我聽美國選舉前的 辯論，我很驚訝：

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

我驚訝為什麼川普 沒有嘗試恐嚇工人說：

by saying the robots will take your jobs.

「機械人會奪去工作」呢？

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

其實就算這不是真的，但也不重要。

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

這可以是恐嚇人民的極有效方法──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

and galvanizing people:

和刺激人民的：

「機械人會奪去你的工作！」

"The robots will take your jobs!"

And nobody used that line.

但沒有競選人用這口號，

And it made me afraid,

這倒是使我害怕，

because it meant that no matter what happens

因為這顯示出不管

in universities and laboratories,

在大學和實驗室，

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

在那裡，這潛在危機 已經常被討論了，

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

但在政界主流系統和大眾媒體中，

people are just unaware

人民好像是毫不知情的，

that there could be an immense technological disruption --

一個極為龐大的科技衝擊將要來臨，

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

不是 200 年後 而是在 10、20、30 年──

and we have to do something about it now,

所以我們現在必須要做準備，

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

部份原因是， 因為學校或大學現在教的

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

會完全與 2040、2050 年代的 就業環境全無關連。

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

所以這些不能等到 2040 年才考慮，

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

我們今天就得考慮該教 年輕人什麼了。

CA: Yeah, no, absolutely.

克：是的，絕對需要。

You've often written about moments in history

你常寫到，在某歷史時刻中，

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

人類不知然的，進入了一個新紀元。

Decisions have been made, technologies have been developed,

某些政策被採納， 某些科技被發明了，

and suddenly the world has changed,

一瞬間世界就已經變了，

possibly in a way that's worse for everyone.

但可能是對大家都不利的。

So one of the examples you give in "Sapiens"

其中一個例子你在 《人類大歷史》 中提過，

is just the whole agricultural revolution,

就是總體的農業革命：

which, for an actual person tilling the fields,

它對一個耕種農地的人來講，

they just picked up a 12-hour backbreaking workday

他們剛接納了 一天 12 小時的要命工作，

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

來取替以往在森林 更有樂趣的 6 小時生活。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So are we at another possible phase change here,

所以是否我們又可能面臨革命了，

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

我們就像夢遊人踏進一個 根本不想要的未來？

YNH: Yes, very much so.

尤：是的，就是這樣。

During the agricultural revolution,

在農業革命時代，

what happened is that immense technological and economic revolution

那巨大的科技和經濟改變

empowered the human collective,

賦予整體人類很大的力量。

but when you look at actual individual lives,

但當你觀察人民的實質生活時，

the life of a tiny elite became much better,

你發現只是小部分 菁英之生活有大提升，

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

剩餘大部份人的生活是糟糕很多。

And this can happen again in the 21st century.

這可能會在 21 世紀重演。

No doubt the new technologies will empower the human collective.

不可置疑，新的科技會加強 人類的集體力量，

But we may end up again

但結果有可能再度還是

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

只有極少之菁英 獲得所有的利益，獨享勝果，

and the masses of the population finding themselves worse

而大部分的人民會

發現自己比以前還差多了，

than they were before,

certainly much worse than this tiny elite.

生活肯定是大大低於這些少數菁英。

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

克：這些菁英可能不是人類菁英，

They might be cyborgs or --

有可能是改造人或──

YNH: Yeah, they could be enhanced super humans.

尤：對，他們也可能是 增強超級人類，

They could be cyborgs.

也可能是改造人，

They could be completely nonorganic elites.

也可能是非生物菁英，

They could even be non-conscious algorithms.

也甚至是非意識的演算法。

What we see now in the world is authority shifting away

我們可觀察到， 現今世界已經漸把權柄

from humans to algorithms.

從人類轉移到演算法了。

More and more decisions -- about personal lives,

越來越多的決策── 關於個人生活，

about economic matters, about political matters --

關於經濟事項，關於政治事務──

are actually being taken by algorithms.

已實質被演算法奪取了。

If you ask the bank for a loan,

如果你去銀行申請貸款，

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

很大機會你的命運是由 演算法來決定，而非經人手了。

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

現在的一般看法是覺得人類 是不是已經打輸了？

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

世界是那麼的複雜，那麼多的數據，

things are changing so fast,

事物也瞬息萬變，

that this thing that evolved on the African savanna

所以在非洲大草原進化出來的這套，

tens of thousands of years ago --

從數十萬年前──

to cope with a particular environment,

來駕馭某特定大環境，

a particular volume of information and data --

來處理某特定數量的資訊和數據──

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

這套是絕對不能應付 21 世紀的現實要求了，

and the only thing that may be able to handle it

而唯一有可能滿足這要求的，

is big-data algorithms.

就只有是大數據分析了。

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

所以不難理解，越來越多的決策， 已從我們轉移到演算法分析了。

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

克：我們在紐約現場 舉行首場的 TED Dialogues 系列，

with Yuval Harari,

講員為尤瓦爾 · 哈拉瑞。

and there's a Facebook Live audience out there.

我們也有臉書直播的聽眾，

We're excited to have you with us.

我們很高興你們的參與，

We'll start coming to some of your questions

我們一會兒就開始 回答你們的一些問題，

and questions of people in the room

和現場觀眾的問題。

in just a few minutes,

幾分鐘即開始，

so have those coming.

請準備好問題。

Yuval, if you're going to make the argument

尤瓦爾，如果您要辯論，

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

我們有必要超越國家主義， 由於即將來臨的科技──

danger, in a way,

危險，可以說，

presented by so much of what's happening

以當今多方面發生之事情顯示，

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

對此我們必需要有全球性的討論。

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

但難題是不容易使人 真去相信，我不知道，

AI really is an imminent threat, and so forth.

人工智慧真的是燃眉之急等等，

The things that people, some people at least,

人人已注意到的，至少某些人，

care about much more immediately, perhaps,

可能此刻會比較重視的

is climate change,

就是氣候變遷，

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

或其它像難民潮的議題， 核武器等等。

Would you argue that where we are right now

依我們目前的情況，

that somehow those issues need to be dialed up?

你會爭辯說這些該趕快處理嗎？

You've talked about climate change,

你剛已談到氣候變遷，

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

但川普曾公開表示他不相信是真的；

So in a way, your most powerful argument,

因此可以說，你最有說服力的理據，

you can't actually use to make this case.

現在你卻不能實際拿出來用了。

YNH: Yeah, I think with climate change,

尤：對，關於氣候變遷，

at first sight, it's quite surprising

初步看，這是意料不到的，

that there is a very close correlation

確是有個很密切的關係

between nationalism and climate change.

連繫著國家主義和氣候變遷，

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

你看，幾乎總是這樣，

那些否定氣候變遷的人 都是國家主義者，

And at first sight, you think: Why?

你第一反應會問：為什麼？

What's the connection?

是有什麼關連原因？

Why don't you have socialists denying climate change?

為什麼沒有社會主義者 否定氣候變遷呢？

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

但只要你靜下來想想就知道──

because nationalism has no solution to climate change.

因為國家主義 對氣候變遷提不出解方。

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

如果你想在 21 世紀 做個國家主義者，

you have to deny the problem.

你就必要否定這個問題了。

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

但如果你認同這問題的真相， 你也就必須接受這點，

there is still room in the world for patriotism,

就是在這世界中， 還是有愛國主義的空間；

there is still room in the world for having special loyalties

在這世界中，還是有空間 表達特殊忠誠關係，

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

和民族情操的發輝， 和國家情懷的表達。

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

我想沒有人是真想毀掉這些的。

But in order to confront climate change,

但若要有效處理氣候變遷，

we need additional loyalties and commitments

我們需要更多的合作和決心，

to a level beyond the nation.

站在超國界的基礎上。

And that should not be impossible,

這其實不是不可能的，

because people can have several layers of loyalty.

因為人本來就擁有多重的忠心：

You can be loyal to your family

你可以忠於你的家庭，

and to your community

同時也忠於你的社區，

and to your nation,

亦忠於你的國家，

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

那為什麼你不可以 也忠於人類共同體呢？

Of course, there are occasions when it becomes difficult,

當然，是會遇上難以取捨的衝突，

what to put first,

該以什麼為先，

but, you know, life is difficult.

但你也清楚，人生是艱難的，

Handle it.

做個好決擇吧！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

克：好的，我很樂意聽聽 現場聽眾的問題。

We've got a microphone here.

我們這裡有麥克風，

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

對著說就行，臉書聽眾也請準備。

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

摩根：有一件很明顯的關鍵事情，

in this country and other countries

就是在這國家和其它國家

is the income distribution inequality,

人均收入之不平衡情況。

the dramatic change in income distribution in the US

在美國之人均收入分佈，

from what it was 50 years ago,

比起 50 年前，產生了巨變，

and around the world.

全世界也這樣。

Is there anything we can do to affect that?

我們能做些什麼去影響它嗎？

Because that gets at a lot of the underlying causes.

因為這是很多其它問題的根源。

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

尤：到目前，我還沒聽到 任何很好的解決方案，

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

這也正是因為有很多想法 都還困在國家性層面上，

and the problem is global.

但問題是跨國的。

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

我想，有一個概念近來常聽到的

is universal basic income.

是全民基本收入。

But this is a problem.

但概念本身就含有問題：

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

我意思是，這是個好起點，

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

但這概念是有問題的， 因為不清楚「全民」是什麼意思？

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

也不知道什麼是「基本」？

Most people when they speak about universal basic income,

很多提出這個全民基本收入的人，

they actually mean national basic income.

還是想著「國家基本收入」，

But the problem is global.

但這問題是跨國的。

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

比如說，現在人工智慧和 3D 列印

奪取了孟加拉數百萬人的工作，

in Bangladesh,

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

他們是這些製造我穿在身上的 襯衫和皮鞋的工人，

So what's going to happen?

那這該怎樣辦呢？

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

是否美國政府要向 加州的 Google 和 Apple 徵稅，

and use that to pay basic income to unemployed Bangladeshis?

來支付基本收入 給孟加拉國的失業者？

If you believe that, you can just as well believe

如果你相信這個，你不如也相信

that Santa Claus will come and solve the problem.

聖誕老人會來解決這問題了。

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

除非我們真的有全民基本收入， 而不是國家基本收入，

the deep problems are not going to go away.

這深層問題是不會消失的。

And also it's not clear what basic is,

另外，還有「基本」是什麼呢？

because what are basic human needs?

因為什麼是人類基本需求呢？

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

一千年前，溫飽已是足夠了；

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

但今天大家會說 教育也是人類基本需求，

it should be part of the package.

教育也該含在其中，

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

但至於程度呢？六年？ 十二年？博士學位？

Similarly, with health care,

同樣的，在醫療方面，

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

假設在 20、30、40 年後，

you'll have expensive treatments that can extend human life

你會接受昂貴的治療來延長壽命

to 120, I don't know.

到 120 歲？我可不確定。

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

那這也要包含在基本收入嗎？

It's a very difficult problem,

這是非常困難的問題，

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

因為當世界的 人民失去了謀生技能時，

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

人民只能靠這基本收入維生，

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

所以這基本收入該含什麼， 是個極度困難的倫理問題。

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

克：還有很多問題是， 這世界靠什麼來支付這筆費用？

who pays.

誰來付錢？

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

這是臉書來的問題，麗莎拉爾森：

"How does nationalism in the US now

「現今在美國的國家主義，

compare to that between World War I and World War II

和上世紀第一次 和第二次大戰之間比較，

in the last century?"

怎樣比？」

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

尤：在好的方面， 關於國家主義帶來的危險，

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

我們今天比一世紀前好多了。

A century ago, 1917,

一世紀前，在 1917 年當時，

Europeans were killing each other by the millions.

歐洲人民數以百萬計的互相殘殺，

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

而在 2016 年，為英國脫歐之事，

依我能記得的，

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

只有一個人為此喪命， 一位英國國會議員被極端分子謀殺。

Just a single person.

只一個人而已。

I mean, if Brexit was about British independence,

你看，如果視英國脫歐 為英國爭取自由，

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

這可算是人類歷史中， 最和平的獨立戰爭。

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

同時，如果蘇格蘭未來 選擇脫離英國，

after Brexit.

在英國脫離歐盟之後，

So in the 18th century,

相對在 18 世紀時，

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

如蘇格蘭想── 事實上蘇格蘭也有好幾次──

to break out of the control of London,

擺脫倫敦的控制時，

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

倫敦政府之回應，是派軍隊北伐，

to burn down Edinburgh and massacre the highland tribes.

把愛丁堡燒掉和屠殺高地部落族人；

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

我猜如果在 2018 年， 蘇格蘭投票要獨立的話，

the London government will not send an army up north

倫敦政府不可能派軍隊北上

to burn down Edinburgh.

去把愛丁堡燒平。

Very few people are now willing to kill or be killed

今天絕少人數會願意去殺或被殺，

for Scottish or for British independence.

只為了蘇格蘭或英國之獨立。

So for all the talk of the rise of nationalism

所以說，不管常聽到 國家主義正崛起，

and going back to the 1930s,

但是比 1930 年代，

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

或再推前至 19 世紀， 起碼在西方世界，

the power of national sentiments today is far, far smaller

國家主義今天帶來的激情，

比上個世紀是少多了。

than it was a century ago.

CA: Although some people now, you hear publicly worrying

克：雖然現在有些人── 你聽到他們公然的擔憂，

不知道這是否也正在改變，

about whether that might be shifting,

that there could actually be outbreaks of violence in the US

就是可能在美國本土會有暴亂發生，

depending on how things turn out.

取決於事態之未來發展。

Should we be worried about that,

我們真該為這擔憂嗎？

或是你相信大局已改變了？

or do you really think things have shifted?

尤：沒改變，但我們是該擔心。

YNH: No, we should be worried.

We should be aware of two things.

我們須警惕兩件事：

首先，大家不要變得歇斯底里。

First of all, don't be hysterical.

We are not back in the First World War yet.

我們還沒回到第一次世界大戰，

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

但另一方面，亦不可躊躇滿志。

We reached from 1917 to 2017,

人類能從 1917 年跨到 2017年，

not by some divine miracle,

並不是因為神蹟，

but simply by human decisions,

而是因為人的正確選擇。

and if we now start making the wrong decisions,

所以如果我們 現在開始做錯誤的抉擇，

we could be back in an analogous situation to 1917

我們是可能倒退 至類似 1917 年的情況，

in a few years.

就在未來數年間。

One of the things I know as a historian

一件事我身為歷史學家清楚得很，

is that you should never underestimate human stupidity.

就是你永遠不應低估人類的愚蠢。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

它是歷史中最龐大力量之一：

human stupidity and human violence.

人類的愚蠢和人類的殘暴。

Humans do such crazy things for no obvious reason,

人類能毫無原因地做些 極瘋狂的事情；

but again, at the same time,

但卻同時，在人類歷史中

another very powerful force in human history is human wisdom.

有另一個非常龐大的力量 就是人類的智慧。

We have both.

兩者共存在人類中。

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

克：道德心理學家強納生海特在這裡，

who I think has a question.

他有一個問題。

Jonathan Haidt: Thanks, Yuval.

海特 : 多謝，尤瓦爾。

So you seem to be a fan of global governance,

看來您是位全球行政制之支持者，

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

但是如果你看到 國際透明組織的世界地圖，

which rates the level of corruption of political institutions,

它展示出政治機構的貪污程度，

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

它幾乎是片紅色大海， 偶爾這裡那裡有些小黃點

for those with good institutions.

來標識好的政權。

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

所以如果我們真的有某種全球政府，

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

你怎麼知道它會像丹麥，

rather than more like Russia or Honduras,

而不像蘇聯或宏都拉斯？

and aren't there alternatives,

而且可否有其它的選擇，

such as we did with CFCs?

像我們監控氟氯碳化物一樣？

There are ways to solve global problems with national governments.

其實是有方法通過國家機構 來解決環球問題的。

What would world government actually look like,

世界政府會像怎樣的呢？

and why do you think it would work?

同時為什麼您認為它會成功呢？

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

尤：哦，我不知道它會像什麼，

Nobody still has a model for that.

尚且沒有人能提出一個模式。

The main reason we need it

但我們需要它之主要原因，

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

就是因為很多的問題 會是雙輸的局面。

When you have a win-win situation like trade,

當你有個雙贏的情況時，如貿易，

both sides can benefit from a trade agreement,

雙方都能從貿易合作中取得利益，

then this is something you can work out.

這情況下雙方是可以找出方法的，

Without some kind of global government,

就算是沒有某種世界政府，

national governments each have an interest in doing it.

各國政府都受激勵去協調；

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

但是當有雙輸的局面時， 比如氣候變遷，

it's much more difficult

這就變困難多了，

without some overarching authority, real authority.

如果缺乏一個 有執行實權的真正政府。

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

至於如何能建立它和它會是怎樣的，

I don't know.

我不知道。

And certainly there is no obvious reason

但是可以說的確沒有明顯理由

to think that it would look like Denmark,

去預想它會像丹麥一樣，

or that it would be a democracy.

或一定是民主的，

Most likely it wouldn't.

很可能它不會是。

We don't have workable democratic models

我們還沒有一個能實施的民主制體

for a global government.

套用在世界政府。

So maybe it would look more like ancient China

所以它可能會像古中國

than like modern Denmark.

多於像現代丹麥。

But still, given the dangers that we are facing,

但是，考量到我們當前的危機，

I think the imperative of having some kind of real ability

我想這個迫切性， 去協調某些實質能力，

to force through difficult decisions on the global level

去強性通過一些 全球層面的艱難決策，

is more important than almost anything else.

幾乎比任何一切都更重要。

CA: There's a question from Facebook here,

克：臉書觀眾有一個問題，

and then we'll get the mic to Andrew.

然後我們會遞麥克風給安德魯。

So, Kat Hebron on Facebook,

這是臉書的凱特，

calling in from Vail:

從科羅拉多州韋爾打來的：

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

「這些已發展國家，如何能妥善安排 數以百萬的氣候移民？」

YNH: I don't know.

尤：我不知道。

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

克：這是你的答案，凱特。 （笑聲）。

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

尤：同時我相信他們也不曉得。

They'll just deny the problem, maybe.

他們可能只會逃避這問題。

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

克：其實移民，一般來說， 也是一個很好的難題例子，

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

若想在國與國的層面上解決， 它是很難處理的。

One nation can shut its doors,

一個國家可以把門關上，

but maybe that stores up problems for the future.

但這只是把問題留到未來。

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

尤：是的，我同意── 這是一個很好的例子，

especially because it's so much easier

尤其今天是那麼容易去移民，

to migrate today

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

比起在中世紀，或是在上古時候。

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

克：尤瓦爾，現在有個信念， 尤其在技術專家中，

that political concerns are kind of overblown,

說那些政治問題，是誇大其詞而已，

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

其實政治領袖在這世界中

in the world,

沒有那麼大的影響力，

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

在這個時代，真正能導航 人類未來的是科學，

by invention, by companies,

科技發明，或企業，

by many things other than political leaders,

或是很多其它的東西， 但決不是政治領袖，

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

其實政府領袖是很難做些什麼的：

so we're actually worrying about nothing here.

我們只是杞人憂天。

YNH: Well, first, it should be emphasized

尤：要明白，第一，我們需強調：

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

政治領袖做好事之能力， 確實是很有限的，

but their ability to do harm is unlimited.

但他們破壞之能力，是無限的。

There is a basic imbalance here.

這裡有個根本不平衡的地方：

You can still press the button and blow everybody up.

你還是可以按一按扭， 去毀滅全人類。

You have that kind of ability.

你真的有這種能力。

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

但如果你想，比如說， 減低社會不平等，

that's very, very difficult.

這是非常，非常艱難的，

But to start a war,

但要開戰的話，

you can still do so very easily.

這你很容易就可做到。

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

所以，這是個 當今政治之結構性不平衡，

which is very frustrating,

也讓人非常沮喪。

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

因你雖不能做很多好事， 但卻能作出極大傷害。

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

這就是為什麼政治系統， 必然還是一個很大的議題。

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

克：依您觀察現在世界事態，

and putting your historian's hat on,

從歷史學家的角度評斷，

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

在過去歷史中， 曾否有過雖是太平盛世，

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

但亦有因一個領袖 而陷全世界或國家後退嗎？

YNH: There are quite a few examples,

尤：有好幾個案例。

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

但我必須強調， 從不會因為一個領袖而已；

I mean, somebody put him there,

我的意思是，當事人也是 某些人推選他的，

and somebody allowed him to continue to be there.

而某些人也容許當事人繼續留著；

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

所以客觀說， 這從來不是一個人的錯，

There are a lot of people behind every such individual.

這人背後都是有很多人支持著的。

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

克：請把麥克風遞給安德魯。

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

安德魯索羅門：您談了很多 全球主義和國家主義的比較，

but increasingly, it seems to me,

但依我來看，日漸明顯的是，

the world situation is in the hands of identity groups.

世界局勢已經落在某些 擁有共同理想之團體組織中了。

We look at people within the United States

我們看到在美國境內的居民，

who have been recruited by ISIS.

竟然被伊斯蘭國恐怖組織招攬入會；

We look at these other groups which have formed

我們同時也看看其它的團體，

它們不局限於某些國界，

which go outside of national bounds

but still represent significant authorities.

但也表現出相當程度的勢力。

How are they to be integrated into the system,

該如何把這些團體融入 傳統政治框架，

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

這類團體又如何能順利調合，

under either national or global leadership?

受制於國家或全球行政管理中？

YNH: Well, the problem of such diverse identities

尤：其實這些不同主義的組織，

is a problem from nationalism as well.

其實也是從國家主義衍生出來的。

Nationalism believes in a single, monolithic identity,

國家主義相信單一、統一的概念，

and exclusive or at least more extreme versions of nationalism

它是獨尊的，或是說那些 比較偏激的國家主義份子，

believe in an exclusive loyalty to a single identity.

只會獨忠於一個團體。

And therefore, nationalism has had a lot of problems

所以說，國家主義歷來 都遇上很多困難，

with people wanting to divide their identities

去處理那些想自我分割

between various groups.

為忠於多個不同主義的團體。

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

所以這問題不僅是 全球主義者要面對的。

And I think, again, history shows

但我想歷史再一次教導，

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

我們不該堅守著這種排外的視野；

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

如果你的思路是 一個人只能擁有一個身份，

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

「我就是某某，就這樣！

我不能有多重身份， 我只有一個身份」，

that's the start of the problem.

這就正是問題的開端了。

You have religions, you have nations

某些宗教，某些國家，

that sometimes demand exclusive loyalty,

有時候是要求你獨忠不二的，

but it's not the only option.

但這些不是唯一的選擇。

There are many religions and many nations

世界上有很多宗教和很多國家，

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

容許你同時有多重身份的。

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

克：如要試圖解釋去年發生的事情，

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

某一階層的民眾受夠了 這些所謂自由派精英，

the liberal elites, for want of a better term,

希望有更好的說法，

obsessing over many, many different identities and them feeling,

著迷於很多很多不同的身份認同； 但這階層的人想，

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

「那我的身份又怎樣？ 我已經被完全忽略掉了。

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

可不要忘記，我還以為 我們是主流呢？」

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

這想法正是構成很大的民憤之原因。

YNH: Yeah. Identity is always problematic,

尤：對，身份認知總是大問題，

because identity is always based on fictional stories

因為這認知是建立在虛構的故事上，

that sooner or later collide with reality.

而故事遲早會與現實相撞。

Almost all identities,

幾乎所有的身份認知，

I mean, beyond the level of the basic community

我指的是，任何超越 那些基本生活圈子內的，

of a few dozen people,

大概人數也不過是數十人，

are based on a fictional story.

都建立在一個虛構的故事上。

They are not the truth.

這故事不是真理，

They are not the reality.

更不是實際的狀況：

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

故事只是某些人虛構出來，

and start believing.

而大家互傳，之後大家就相信了。

And therefore all identities are extremely unstable.

因為這樣，所有的身份都非常脆弱，

They are not a biological reality.

這些身份都沒有 生物上的事實支撐著：

Sometimes nationalists, for example,

有些國家主義者，舉例說，

think that the nation is a biological entity.

會想國家是個生物單元，

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

是大地泥土和血的混成物，

creates the nation.

再團聚為一個國家，

But this is just a fictional story.

但這純粹是一個虛構故事。

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

克：泥土和血是一團糟啊。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

尤：是的，它也能混亂你的思想，

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

如果你常想自己是土和血的混成物。

If you look from a biological perspective,

如果你是從生物角度的立場來想，

obviously none of the nations that exist today

那明顯的是，沒有一個現今的國家，

existed 5,000 years ago.

5000 年之前是存在的。

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

人類是一個社會動物，這是肯定的，

But for millions of years,

但是幾百萬年來，

Homo sapiens and our hominid ancestors lived in small communities

人類和原始人類祖先都住在小社團，

of a few dozen individuals.

才不過幾十人，

Everybody knew everybody else.

每人都認識每個人。

Whereas modern nations are imagined communities,

但是現代的國家 只是個構思出來的團體，

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

因為我根本不認識全國的人。

I come from a relatively small nation, Israel,

我來自以色列，一個小國家，

and of eight million Israelis,

約八百萬以色列人民；

I never met most of them.

絕大部分人我從來沒接觸過，

I will never meet most of them.

我也永遠都不會認識他們，

They basically exist here.

他們只是存在著。

CA: But in terms of this identity,

克：依這種身分認同角度來看，

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

感覺被遺棄、很可能 連工作也被奪去的這個階層，

I mean, in "Homo Deus,"

我是指，在《人類大命運》書中，

you actually speak of this group in one sense expanding,

你有指出這群人正在擴大，

that so many people may have their jobs taken away

因為有很多人的工作將被奪走，

by technology in some way that we could end up with

被科技取代；最後我們可能會剩下

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

非常龐大的──記得你稱它為 「無用的階層」──

a class where traditionally,

這階層傳統以來，

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

是以經濟生產而建立的， 現在就都沒用了。

YNH: Yes.

尤：對。

CA: How likely a possibility is that?

克：這有多大的可能性呢？

Is that something we should be terrified about?

我們應該對此驚恐嗎？

And can we address it in any way?

還有我們能有方法應對它嗎？

YNH: We should think about it very carefully.

尤：我們要非常謹慎思考這問題。

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

我是說，沒有人真的知道

我們在 2040、2050 年的就業情況，

in 2040, 2050.

There is a chance many new jobs will appear,

是有可能會有很多新的就業機會，

but it's not certain.

但這不可肯定。

And even if new jobs do appear,

就算是有新的行業出來，

it won't necessarily be easy

它不一定是一個 50 歲的

for a 50-year old unemployed truck driver

失業卡車司機容易勝任的，

made unemployed by self-driving vehicles,

失業之原因是被無人駕車取代了；

it won't be easy for an unemployed truck driver

一個失業卡車司機是不容易

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

去重塑自己為虛擬世界的設計師。

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

依過去來看，如果 你觀察工業革命的走勢，

when machines replaced humans in one type of work,

當機器在某行業取代了人類，

the solution usually came from low-skill work

解緩方法就是

in new lines of business.

在新的行業裡找到低技能的工作：

So you didn't need any more agricultural workers,

比如你不需要農業勞工，

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

這些人就去低技術的 工業生產線就業；

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

而當這些又被更多的機器取替後，

people moved to low-skill service jobs.

這些人就遷到低技術的服務性行業。

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

但現在，有人說未來會有新的工作，

that humans can do better than AI,

而且人類會比人工智慧做得更好，

that humans can do better than robots,

人類會比機械人做得更好，

they usually think about high-skill jobs,

他們想的都是高技術的工作，

like software engineers designing virtual worlds.

像軟體工程師設計虛擬世界。

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

可是，我無法想像， 一位失業的沃爾瑪大賣場出納員，

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

能在 50 歲時轉行為 虛擬世界設計師；

and certainly I don't see

我更不能想像，

how the millions of unemployed Bangladeshi textile workers

這數百萬孟加拉國籍的 失業紡織工人，

will be able to do that.

如何能夠做得到。

I mean, if they are going to do it,

我是說，如果我們真要做到，

we need to start teaching the Bangladeshis today

我們今天就要教導這些 孟加拉國籍工人，

how to be software designers,

如何成為軟體設計師。

and we are not doing it.

但是我們現在沒這樣做，

So what will they do in 20 years?

20 年後這群人能做什麼？

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

克：我感到你真的突顯了一個問題，

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

也真的是這數月來， 越來越困擾我的，

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

這幾乎是一個在大眾前忌諱的問題，

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

但是如果有人能作出有智慧的回應， 這人可能是你，

so I'm going to ask you:

所以我現在請問你：

What are humans for?

「人類有什麼意義？」

YNH: As far as we know, for nothing.

尤：據我們所知的，毫無意義。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

我是指，沒有偉大的神曲， 偉大的神的計劃，

that we have a role to play in.

等待著我們去參與。

And we just need to discover what our role is

我們只需要發掘自我的角色，

and then play it to the best of our ability.

然後演繹得盡善盡美就是了。

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

這是所有宗教 和思想體系的共同故事。

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

但身為一個科學家， 我只能說，這不是事實；

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

沒有什麼偉大的神曲， 盼望我們人類參與。

So --

所以──

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

克：我要追問你。

just from your own book,

在你的書中，

because in "Homo Deus,"

因為在《人類大命運》中，

you give really one of the most coherent and understandable accounts

你作了一個最緊密和能理解的訴說，

about sentience, about consciousness,

關於感知性，關於自覺性，

and that unique sort of human skill.

和那人類獨一無二的技能。

You point out that it's different from intelligence,

你也說這智慧，

the intelligence that we're building in machines,

和我們設計在機器中的 智慧是不同的。

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

其實關於這一點， 還是有很多的奧秘：

How can you be sure there's no purpose

你怎樣確定是沒有意義的呢？

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

當我們還不全明白這感知性是什麼？

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

我是想，在你的思路範疇中， 會不會有一個可能性，

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

人類的意義就是要 成就宇宙的感知性代表物，

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

成為宇宙中的 喜悅和愛和快樂和希望？

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

我們同時也許可以設計一些 擴大這方面的機器，

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

就算這些機器本身 不會真的有感知性的？

Is that crazy?

這是狂想嗎？

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

當我在閱讀你的書時， 我心底有著這寄望。

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

尤：是的，我想當今科學中 最有趣的問題，

is the question of consciousness and the mind.

就是關於自覺性和人的思想。

We are getting better and better in understanding the brain

我們對頭腦機能越來越了解，

and intelligence,

還有智力，

but we are not getting much better

但我們沒有多大的進步，

in understanding the mind and consciousness.

對思想和自覺性之了解。

People often confuse intelligence and consciousness,

一般人容易混淆智力和自覺性，

especially in places like Silicon Valley,

尤其是在矽谷這類地方，

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

這也是可以理解的， 因為在人類，這兩者是共存的。

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

我的意思是，智力基本上是 解決問題的能力；

Consciousness is the ability to feel things,

自覺性是能感知事物，

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

能感知喜悅和悲哀， 無聊和痛楚等等；

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

這些是人類和所有哺乳動物 都能的──不是人類獨能的──

in all mammals and birds and some other animals,

所有哺乳動物和鳥類 和其它一些動物，

intelligence and consciousness go together.

智力和自覺性是並行的。

We often solve problems by feeling things.

我們常依賴我們的感覺去解決問題，

So we tend to confuse them.

所以我們常把它們混同了，

But they are different things.

但其實它們是不同的事物。

What's happening today in places like Silicon Valley

目前在矽谷這類地方進行的，

is that we are creating artificial intelligence

是研發人工智慧，

but not artificial consciousness.

但不是人工自覺性。

There has been an amazing development in computer intelligence

可以說在電腦智能方面，

over the last 50 years,

過往 50 年來真是有驚人的進步，

and exactly zero development in computer consciousness,

但是在電腦自覺性只有零進步。

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

同時也沒有跡象顯示 電腦有一天會有自覺性，

anytime soon.

起碼不在可想像的未來當中。

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

所以說，首先，如果自覺性 在宇宙中有特殊角色，

it's not unique to Homo sapiens.

這不是人類獨有的。

Cows are conscious, pigs are conscious,

牛也自覺，豬也自覺，

chimpanzees are conscious, chickens are conscious,

黑猩猩也自覺，雞也自覺，

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

所以如果要向這方探索， 首先我們必要開闊我們的視野；

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

而且要非常清楚記得，我們不是 地球上唯一有感知性的生物。

and when it comes to sentience --

依感知性來說──

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

依智力來說， 我們確是有很好理由去相信

we are the most intelligent of the whole bunch.

我們是這群最聰明的；

But when it comes to sentience,

但是依感知性來說，

to say that humans are more sentient than whales,

如果我們說人類的感知勝於鯨魚，

or more sentient than baboons or more sentient than cats,

或感知勝於狒狒，或感知勝於貓，

I see no evidence for that.

我是沒看到證據的。

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

所以第一步，如你想走這方向， 首先擴大範圍。

And then the second question of what is it for,

跟著的第二問題是： 「為了什麼目的？」

I would reverse it

我會反問，

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

我會說：「我不知道 感知性有任何目的。」

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

我想我們不需要 找我們在宇宙的角色，

The really important thing is to liberate ourselves from suffering.

真正重要的事情， 是要使我們脫離痛苦。

What characterizes sentient beings

感知生物的特徵，

in contrast to robots, to stones,

相對於機械人，或石頭，

to whatever,

或任何其它的，

is that sentient beings suffer, can suffer,

就是感知生物感覺到苦，會受苦。

and what they should focus on

所以他們需要注意的是，

is not finding their place in some mysterious cosmic drama.

並不是在神秘的神曲中找個位子，

They should focus on understanding what suffering is,

而是該致力去了解痛苦是什麼，

what causes it and how to be liberated from it.

它怎樣產生的， 和如何能解脫遠離痛苦。

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

克：我知道這對你是一個重要的問題， 而您的回答也是極精闢。

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

我們現場聽眾有非常多的問題，

and maybe from Facebook as well,

臉書的聽眾也有，

and maybe some comments as well.

同時也可能有些評語。

So let's go quick.

好！

There's one right here.

這邊有一位，

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

坐後面的，如果要麥克風 請把手舉高，

and we'll get it back to you.

我們會有安排。

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

問題：你的著作中， 多處談及到虛構的故事，

that we accept as truth,

我們卻認作為事實，

and we live our lives by it.

而且更依它為生活指引。

As an individual, knowing that,

對您個人來說，明白到這一點後，

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

這對你已選擇的虛構故事 有怎樣影響嗎？

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

你會像很多人， 將故事與真實混淆嗎？

YNH: I try not to.

尤：我試著防備。

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

對我來說，最重要的問題，

both as a scientist and as a person,

不論是以科學家身份或是個人身份，

is how to tell the difference between fiction and reality,

是能夠清楚分辨虛構和現實，

because reality is there.

因為現實是存在的。

I'm not saying that everything is fiction.

我不是說所有一切都是虛構的，

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

只是對人類來說，是很難去分辨

between fiction and reality,

虛構和現實。

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

而且隨著歷史的累積， 也變得越來越扭曲，

because the fictions that we have created --

因為我們創造出來的這些故事──

nations and gods and money and corporations --

國家和神明，金錢和企業──

they now control the world.

它們已支配著這世界。

So just to even think,

所以就算要去反思：

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

「啊！這些都是 我們創造的故事而已，」

is very difficult.

就已經會感到吃力了。

But reality is there.

但現實是存在的。

For me the best ...

對我個人，最好的……

There are several tests

有好幾個測試

to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

可用來分辨故事和現實。

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

最簡單的，最易講解的，

is the test of suffering.

就是痛苦的測試。

If it can suffer, it's real.

如果能感到痛苦的，是存在的。

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

如果不能感到痛苦的， 便是不存在的。

A nation cannot suffer.

一個國家是不能感到痛苦的，

That's very, very clear.

這應是非常，非常明顯的。

Even if a nation loses a war,

就算是一個國家打敗戰時，

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

我們說：「德國在第一次 世界大戰受敗戰之苦，」

it's a metaphor.

這只是個比喻，

Germany cannot suffer. Germany has no mind.

德國不可能感到痛苦， 德國沒有思想，

Germany has no consciousness.

德國沒有自覺性。

Germans can suffer, yes, but Germany cannot.

德國人民可受苦了，這沒錯， 但德國是不可能的。

Similarly, when a bank goes bust,

同樣，當一個銀行倒閉時，

the bank cannot suffer.

銀行是不可能受苦的。

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

當貨幣貶值，貨幣不可能受苦的。

People can suffer. Animals can suffer.

人民會苦。動物會苦。

This is real.

這是真實存在的。

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

所以如果你想體悟存在， 我建議初步嘗試，

I would go through the door of suffering.

我會走進痛苦的大門，

If you can really understand what suffering is,

如果你真的能體悟什麼是痛苦，

this will give you also the key

這也會讓你能夠

to understand what reality is.

明白什麼是存在。

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

克：這裡有個來自臉書的問題， 也是關於同一點的。

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

這從哪國來我不知道， 我不會讀這文字。

尤：啊，是希伯來語。 克：希伯來語。你的。

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

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Can you read the name?

你能讀這名字嗎？

YNH: Or Lauterbach Goren.

尤：Or Lauterbach Goren.

CA: Well, thank you for writing in.

克：謝謝你的問題。

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

問題是：「這個後真相政治時代 真的是一個全新時代嗎？

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

或只不過是一個高潮， 或邁向永無止境之一刻而已？」

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

尤：我個人而言，我對這個 後真相政治概念毫無共鳴。

My basic reaction as a historian is:

我身為歷史學家的反應是：

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

如果今天是後真相政治時代， 請問曾幾何時是真相政治時代？

CA: Right.

克：對。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

尤：是在 1980 年代， 1950 年代，或中世紀？

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

我認為，我們一路來 都像是活在後真相時代。

CA: But I'd push back on that,

克：這一點我們緩下來。

because I think what people are talking about

因為我想大家在談論的，

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

是以往在世界上， 還沒有那麼多的媒體渠道，

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

而那時候的傳統， 資訊都是會經過考證查核的。

It was incorporated into the charter of those organizations

這自律精神也宣明在 媒體組織的憲章中，

that the truth mattered.

事實真相是重要的。

So if you believe in a reality,

所以如果你真的重視事實，

then what you write is information.

那你所寫的就是資訊，

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

而且有個信念是要求 這資訊要與事實有關連；

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

所以當你寫報章頭條時， 你的心態是慎重誠懇的，

to reflect something that had actually happened.

來傳遞一些已發生的事物，

And people didn't always get it right.

雖然不一定能百分百之正確。

But I think the concern now is you've got

而我想現在人人關注的

a technological system that's incredibly powerful

是因為有了一個超強的科技系統，

that, for a while at least, massively amplified anything

它能夠，雖然只是片刻， 極大量氾濫地傳遞資訊，

with no attention paid to whether it connected to reality,

但毫不注重資訊 是否與事實真的相關，

only to whether it connected to clicks and attention,

卻只重視觀聽人數和熱門度。

and that that was arguably toxic.

這種情況：確是有人視之為污染，

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

這是合理的顧慮，是不是？

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

尤：是的，是合理， 這是因為科技之改變，

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

現在是很容易傳播 事實和虛構故事和謬誤。

It goes both ways.

但是這改變可以是雙向的。

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

同樣，今時也是比往時 更容易傳播事實真相。

But I don't think there is anything essentially new

但我不認為在根本上， 有什麼嶄新的變化，

about this disseminating fictions and errors.

在傳播幻想和謊言方面。

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

我猜想沒有什麼是納粹宣傳長 約瑟夫·戈培爾不知情的，

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

關於這假新聞和後真相時代的問題。

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

他說過一名句： 「如果你不斷重複一個謊言，

people will think it's the truth,

人人就會信它是真的，

and the bigger the lie, the better,

而越大的謊言，越是可信，

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

因為人們絕對不敢相信， 這麼大的事情竟然是個謊言。」

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

我相信假新聞， 已陪伴著人類幾千年了。

Just think of the Bible.

聖經就是一個。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

CA: But there is a concern

克：但這裡有個疑慮，

that the fake news is associated with tyrannical regimes,

就是當假新聞是從獨裁政府出來的，

and when you see an uprise in fake news

而當你也看到假新聞上升時，

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

大家都會知道黑暗可能會來臨了。

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

尤：對，我也知道，故意散佈 假新聞是個令人不安的跡象。

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

不過我不是說這是對的， 我是說這不是現今才有的。

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

克：在臉書聽眾中有 很多有興趣知道關於

about global governance versus nationalism.

環球管理和國家主義這議題。

Question here from Phil Dennis:

這是菲爾·丹尼思的問題：

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

「我們怎能使人民， 政權放棄權力呢？」

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

這——這那字體非常大啊。

I can't read the full question.

我看不清整條問題。

But is that a necessity?

「這是否不可避免，

Is it going to take war to get there?

真的要以戰爭來達到目標嗎？」

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

對不起菲爾，我搞錯您的問題， 不過我卸責於這文檔。

YNH: One option that some people talk about

尤：有一些人在討論一個可能性，

is that only a catastrophe can shake humankind

就是只有浩劫能警醒人類，

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

才能開展一條全球治理系統之道路。

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

他們說我們絕不能在浩劫前做到，

but we need to start laying the foundations

但我們要開始打下基礎，

so that when the disaster strikes,

以便浩劫來臨時，

we can react quickly.

我們能很快回應；

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

可是人民不會有動力做這些，

before the disaster strikes.

在浩劫發生之前。

Another thing that I would emphasize

另外一件事我必要強調的，

is that anybody who is really interested in global governance

就是任何真正對 全球治理有興趣的人，

should always make it very, very clear

必要使人人都時時清楚知道，

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

原有的本地身份和社區團體， 是不會被取代或廢除的。

that it should come both as --

全球治理應該要融匯兩者，

It should be part of a single package.

要全部納為同一整體方案。

CA: I want to hear more on this,

克：我想多聽些這方面的，

because the very words "global governance"

因為「全球治理」這個字眼本身，

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

在很多人腦海中，差不多 是意味著邪惡的頂峰，

on the alt-right right now.

尤其在另類右派之眼中：

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

它讓人覺得可怕、冷漠、遙遠； 因為曾經讓他們失望過，

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

所以對全球治理主義者， 或全球治理──不要，走開！

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

同時很多人對這次選舉結果，

視之為對全球治理主義者 終極之打擊。

to anyone who believes in that.

So how do we change the narrative

但是，我們該如何改變我們的訴求，

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

使它不那麼可怕與冷漠呢？

Build more on this idea of it being compatible

可否在概念上更多的演繹，

全球治理主義為何能兼容 本地身份和社區團體等。

with local identity, local communities.

YNH: Well, I think again we should start

尤：我想，我們還是需要

really with the biological realities

確實的回到

我們人類的生理實況。

of Homo sapiens.

And biology tells us two things about Homo sapiens

生物學告訴我們關於人類的兩點，

which are very relevant to this issue:

對這論點有很大關連的：

first of all, that we are completely dependent

第一點，人類完全依賴

on the ecological system around us,

我們身邊的生態環境系統，

and that today we are talking about a global system.

依時下說來，我們談的 是一個全球系統，

You cannot escape that.

你不可逃避這一點。

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

同時，生物學也告訴我們，

that we are social animals,

人類是一種社會動物。

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

但我們社交建立在一個 非常、非常地方性的層面；

It's just a simple fact of humanity

這是一個易見的人類實況，

that we cannot have intimate familiarity

我們能建立親近關係之人數

with more than about 150 individuals.

也多不多 150 個人。

The size of the natural group,

這是一個自然的團體人數，

the natural community of Homo sapiens,

一個自然聚集之社區

is not more than 150 individuals,

應不會超過150 人。

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

任何大於這個數字的人際網絡， 都是建立在各類虛構故事

and large-scale institutions,

和大型組織裡。

and I think that we can find a way,

我想我們是能夠找出一條路，

again, based on a biological understanding of our species,

當然，這是要建立在對人類 生理學上之了解，

to weave the two together

把這兩點融貫一起，

and to understand that today in the 21st century,

和清楚了解在 21 世紀的今天，

we need both the global level and the local community.

我們同時需要全球性和社區性。

And I would go even further than that

還有，我會更深一層地詮釋，

and say that it starts with the body itself.

說我們要從身體開始：

The feelings that people today have of alienation and loneliness

人類今天有疏離感和孤獨感，

and not finding their place in the world,

和不能在世界找到自己的定位，

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

據我的看法這主要原因 不是在於全球資本主義。

The chief problem is that over the last hundred years,

主要問題是在於近一百年來，

people have been becoming disembodied,

人類日漸蒙受到心身隔離，

have been distancing themselves from their body.

開始與自己的身體疏遠，

As a hunter-gatherer or even as a peasant,

一個狩獵採集者， 或就算一位農民而言，

to survive, you need to be constantly in touch

要能活下去，你必須經常與

with your body and with your senses,

自己的身體和感官聯繫，

every moment.

每一個時刻都要。

If you go to the forest to look for mushrooms

如果你走進森林去尋找蕈類，

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

但你不留心你所聽到的，

to what you smell, to what you taste,

所嗅到的，嚐到的，

you're dead.

那你就沒命了。

So you must be very connected.

所以你必需身心合一。

In the last hundred years, people are losing their ability

但在近一百年來， 人類已漸漸失去了這能力，

to be in touch with their body and their senses,

與自己身體和感官合一，

to hear, to smell, to feel.

去聽，去嗅，去觸覺；

More and more attention goes to screens,

越來越多的精神是費在看螢幕，

to what is happening elsewhere,

在其它地方發生的事物，

some other time.

在其它的時代。

This, I think, is the deep reason

我相信這個就是一個深層理由，

for the feelings of alienation and loneliness and so forth,

人類有疏離感和孤單感等等。

and therefore part of the solution

所以解決問題一部份方法，

is not to bring back some mass nationalism,

並不在復興國家主義，

but also reconnect with our own bodies,

而是要身心合一，

and if you are back in touch with your body,

如果你能身心合一，

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

你自然會在世界中有自在安全感。

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

克：是的，看世局如何走， 我們亦可以很快的回到森林。

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

我們將接受現場最後一個問題，

and one more on Facebook.

和一個臉書的問題。

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

阿馬：你好，我來自 西非加納，我的問題是：

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

我想知道你會怎樣推行 和辯解全球治理，

to countries that have been historically disenfranchised

面對著那些歷來 都是被剝奪權力的國家，

by the effects of globalization,

而其原因正是全球化引發的。

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

還有，當我們談到全球治理，

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

我看來這個概念必定是從一個

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

極西方國家角度 對「全球」來定義的，

So how do we present and justify that idea of global

所以我們如何說明和比較 這個全球概念

versus wholly nationalist

與國家主義，

to people in countries like Ghana and Nigeria and Togo

對加納，奈及利亞和多哥的人民，

and other countries like that?

以及類似的國家呢？

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

尤：首先我會說歷史非常不公平，

and that we should realize that.

那是我們需要了解的，

Many of the countries that suffered most

很多受傷害最大的國家，

from the last 200 years of globalization

在過往 200 年的全球化發展下，

and imperialism and industrialization

和大英帝國主義和工業革命下，

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

將會再次受到最大的傷害，

from the next wave.

在下一個浪頭來臨時。

And we should be very, very clear about that.

我們必須非常、非常明確的指出，

If we don't have a global governance,

如果我們沒有建立全球治理，

and if we suffer from climate change,

當我們受到氣候變遷災害，

from technological disruptions,

或科技衝擊時，

the worst suffering will not be in the US.

最苦的不會是在美國，

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

最苦的會發生在加納， 在蘇丹，在敘利亞，

will be in Bangladesh, will be in those places.

在孟加拉國，在這些地方。

So I think those countries have an even greater incentive

所以，我相信這些國家 應該更受激勵，

to do something about the next wave of disruption,

去做些準備來面對下一波的衝擊，

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

不管是生態環境方面， 或是在科學技術方面。

Again, if you think about technological disruption,

再重覆，如果你考慮到 科技上的衝擊，

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

如果說人工智慧，3D 列印和機械人，

會奪去數以億計的工作，

from billions of people,

I worry far less about the Swedes

我比較不擔心瑞典人民，

than about the people in Ghana or in Bangladesh.

而比較擔心在加納， 或在孟加拉國的人民。

And therefore, because history is so unfair

因此，因為歷史曾是那麼不公平，

and the results of a calamity

而浩劫的後果，

will not be shared equally between everybody,

將不會平均分攤到每個人。

as usual, the rich will be able to get away

而且照慣例，這些富裕的人能逃避

from the worst consequences of climate change

氣候變遷帶來的最嚴重災害，

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

但相對貧窮的人就不能夠了。

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

克：臉書聽眾泰勒有個很好的問題：

"At the end of 'Sapiens,'"

「在《人類大歷史》的結尾，

you said we should be asking the question,

你說我們應該問：

'What do we want to want?'

『我們想要要什麼呢？』

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

請問你認為我們應該 想要要什麼呢？」

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

尤：我認為我們應該是想要 想知道真相，

to understand reality.

想明白現實真相。

Mostly what we want is to change reality,

一般來說，我們想要的 只是去改變現實，

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

來迎合我們自己的慾望， 迎合我們的需求，

and I think we should first want to understand it.

我想我們該先去了解這些。

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

如果你以長期角度來覽觀歷史，

what you see is that for thousands of years

你看到幾千年來，

we humans have been gaining control of the world outside us

我們人類能不斷掌控 我們外在的世界，

and trying to shape it to fit our own desires.

而且試圖改造它來滿足我們的欲望；

And we've gained control of the other animals,

同時我們也控制了其它的動物，

of the rivers, of the forests,

控制河流，控制森林，

and reshaped them completely,

而且更截然的把它們改頭換面，

causing an ecological destruction

引發出生態環境的破壞，

without making ourselves satisfied.

但卻不能滿足我們。

So the next step is we turn our gaze inwards,

所以下一步， 就是要把我們目光向內廻轉，

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

而且告訴自己： 好，控制了外面世界

did not really make us satisfied.

不能真的滿足我們。

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

我們現在該嘗試降服內在的世界。

This is the really big project

這是一個真正大的項目，

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

一個在 21 世紀的科學和科技 和工業的項目──

to try and gain control of the world inside us,

試圖把我們內心世界馴服，

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

研究如何去建造和生產 身體和大腦和思想。

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

這些很可能就是 21 世紀 主要經濟產物。

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

當人想到未來，很多時候會這樣想：

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

「啊！我想要能夠控制 我的身體和我的大腦。」

And I think that's very dangerous.

但我想這會是非常危險的。

If we've learned anything from our previous history,

如果我們有從過去 歷史中學到一點教訓，

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

就是，沒錯，我們是有了操控力，

but because we didn't really understand the complexity

但是因為我們並不確實了解

我們生態系統的複雜性，

of the ecological system,

we are now facing an ecological meltdown.

所以我們今天正要面對 生態環境的崩潰。

And if we now try to reengineer the world inside us

同樣如果我們現在就想操控 我們內心世界，

without really understanding it,

在沒有真的了解的情況下，

especially without understanding the complexity of our mental system,

尤其是沒能真正了解 我們思想系統之複雜性之前，

we might cause a kind of internal ecological disaster,

我們有可能會造成 類似內在的生態崩潰，

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

結果就是我們未來將要面對 一種思想系統的崩潰。

CA: Putting all the pieces together here --

克：我把所談的做個結論──

the current politics, the coming technology,

現今政治，未來的科技，

concerns like the one you've just outlined --

你剛才提出需要關注的事項──

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

我的直覺，好像你本人不太樂觀。

when you think about the future.

當你想到未來的時候，

You're pretty worried about it.

你好像很擔心的，

Is that right?

是不是？

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

但是如果個中真有一線希望，

你說是什麼？

YNH: I focus on the most dangerous possibilities

尤：我專注在最危險的可能性，

partly because this is like my job or responsibility

一部分是因為這是我的工作或責任，

as a historian or social critic.

身為一個歷史學家或社會評論人。

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

我是說，工業界只會談正面的，

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

所以歷史學家、 哲學家和社會學家的責任，

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

是把這些新科技的潛在危險提出來。

I don't think any of that is inevitable.

我所談的沒有一項是必定要發生的，

Technology is never deterministic.

科技本身並無既定性，

You can use the same technology

你可以用同一樣的科技，

to create very different kinds of societies.

來營造很不一樣的社會。

If you look at the 20th century,

如果你看 20 世紀，

so, the technologies of the Industrial Revolution,

工業革命的科技發明，

the trains and electricity and all that

火車、電力和其它一切，

could be used to create a communist dictatorship

可用來創造一個共產獨裁主義，

or a fascist regime or a liberal democracy.

或一個法西斯政權， 或一個自由民主政黨。

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

火車沒有叫你用它來做什麼。

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

同樣的，今天的人工智慧， 生物工程和一切其它的──

they don't predetermine a single outcome.

它們不會預定任何一個結果。

Humanity can rise up to the challenge,

人類可以面對挑戰。

and the best example we have

而我們最好的例子，

of humanity rising up to the challenge of a new technology

人類能戰勝科技帶來的挑戰

is nuclear weapons.

就是核武器。

In the late 1940s, '50s,

在 1940 年代後期，1950 年代，

many people were convinced

很多人都相信

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

冷戰遲早會引發一場核武大災難，

destroying human civilization.

毀滅全人類文明。

And this did not happen.

這沒有發生。

In fact, nuclear weapons prompted humans all over the world

反過來，核武驅使世界各地民族

to change the way that they manage international politics

改變了手法去協調國際政治問題，

to reduce violence.

為了去減低暴力發生。

And many countries basically took out war

更有很多國家基本上已把戰爭

from their political toolkit.

從他們的政治工具包中拿掉了。

They no longer tried to pursue their interests with warfare.

這些國家已選擇不用戰爭手段 來追求它們的利益。

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

不是全部國家， 但是很多已經是這樣了；

And this is maybe the most important reason

這可能就是最主要原因，

why international violence declined dramatically since 1945,

為什麼國際暴力 從 1945 年來急劇降低了。

and today, as I said, more people commit suicide

在今天，我早前也說過， 自殺的人之數字

than are killed in war.

多於在戰爭死亡的。

So this, I think, gives us a good example

所以我想這是個好的例子，

that even the most frightening technology,

就算面對著使人最駭怕的科技，

humans can rise up to the challenge

人類也是能戰勝的，

and actually some good can come out of it.

而且最終也能在其中挖出些寶。

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

難題是，我們只有 極微小的誤差餘地，

If we don't get it right,

如果我們出了錯，

we might not have a second option to try again.

我們可能再沒有第二次機會了。

CA: That's a very powerful note,

克：這是很震撼的呼籲，

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

我想我們也在這裡結束。

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

在結束前，我想對在場聽眾

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

和全球的 TED 社團， 及網上的觀眾說：

help us with these dialogues.

支持這系列的 TED Dialogues。

If you believe, like we do,

如果你相信，像我們一樣的相信，

that we need to find a different kind of conversation,

我們需要尋找另類的交談，

now more than ever, help us do it.

此時此刻比過往更迫切， 請協助我們完成這事。

Reach out to other people,

向其他人伸出手，

try and have conversations with people you disagree with,

嘗試跟你意見不同的人對話，

understand them,

了解他們，

pull the pieces together,

綜合多方意見，

and help us figure out how to take these conversations forward

幫助我們找出最好的方法 去推展這論壇，

so we can make a real contribution

使我們能對今天正在世界

to what's happening in the world right now.

發生的一切做出真實的貢獻。

I think everyone feels more alive,

我相信每個人能活得更真實，

more concerned, more engaged

更誠懇，更有參與感，

with the politics of the moment.

對當今這些政治議題。

The stakes do seem quite high,

這次成敗之差異是非常大的，

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

所以幫助我們以 非常智慧來回應這些。

Yuval Harari, thank you.

尤瓦爾 · 哈拉瑞先生，謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）