Why fascism is so tempting -- and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

Hello, everyone.

哈囉，大家好。

It's a bit funny, because I did write that humans will become digital,

這有點好笑，因為我的確寫過 人類將來會變成數位的，

but I didn't think it will happen so fast

但我當時沒料到會這麼快發生，

and that it will happen to me.

且發生在我身上。

But here I am, as a digital avatar,

但我現在就以 數位人像的身份站在這裡，

and here you are, so let's start.

你們也都就座了，所以開始吧。

And let's start with a question.

咱們從一個問題開始。

How many fascists are there in the audience today?

今天觀眾席中， 有多少人是法西斯主義者？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Well, it's a bit difficult to say,

嗯，這有點難說，

because we've forgotten what fascism is.

因為我們已忘了法西斯主義是什麼。

People now use the term "fascist"

現代人使用「法西斯主義的」一詞

as a kind of general-purpose abuse.

通常是指某種一般性目的的傷害。

Or they confuse fascism with nationalism.

或是他們把法西斯主義 和國家主義搞混了。

So let's take a few minutes to clarify what fascism actually is,

所以，咱們先花幾分鐘時間， 澄清一下法西斯主義到底是什麼，

and how it is different from nationalism.

以及它和國家主義有什麼不同。

The milder forms of nationalism have been among the most benevolent

國家主義的溫和形式

一直都是人類最仁慈的產物之一。

of human creations.

Nations are communities of millions of strangers

國家就是數百萬名陌生人 所組成的共同體，

who don't really know each other.

這些人並不認識彼此。

For example, I don't know the eight million people

比如，我並不認識另外八百萬名

who share my Israeli citizenship.

擁有以色列公民身份的人。

But thanks to nationalism,

但多虧了國家主義，

we can all care about one another and cooperate effectively.

我們都在乎彼此，並能有效地合作。

This is very good.

這是非常好的。

Some people, like John Lennon, imagine that without nationalism,

像約翰藍儂（John Lennon）， 有些人臆測若沒有國家主義，

the world will be a peaceful paradise.

世界會是個和平的天堂。

But far more likely,

但更有可能的是，

without nationalism, we would have been living in tribal chaos.

若沒有國家主義， 我們會生活在部落的混亂中。

If you look today at the most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world,

如果你們想想看現今世界上 最繁榮、和平的國家，

countries like Sweden and Switzerland and Japan,

比如瑞典、瑞士和日本，

you will see that they have a very strong sense of nationalism.

就會發現它們都有 很強的國家主義感。

In contrast, countries that lack a strong sense of nationalism,

相對地，缺乏強烈 國家主義感的國家，

like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan,

比如剛果、索馬利亞，及阿富汗，

tend to be violent and poor.

都傾向較暴力和貧窮。

So what is fascism, and how is it different from nationalism?

所以，法西斯主義是什麼？ 它和國家主義有什麼不同？

Well, nationalism tells me that my nation is unique,

嗯，國家主義告訴我， 我的國家是獨一無二的，

and that I have special obligations towards my nation.

且我對於我的國家負有特殊的義務。

Fascism, in contrast, tells me that my nation is supreme,

相對地，法西斯主義告訴我， 我的國家是優越的，

and that I have exclusive obligations towards it.

且我對於我國家的義務是唯一的。

I don't need to care about anybody or anything other than my nation.

我只需要在乎我的國家， 其他人事物都不重要。

Usually, of course, people have many identities

當然，通常人對於不同的群體會有

and loyalties to different groups.

許多不同的身份和忠誠度。

For example, I can be a good patriot, loyal to my country,

比如，我可能是個愛國者， 對我的國家很忠誠，

and at the same time, be loyal to my family,

同時，我也忠於我的家庭、

my neighborhood, my profession,

我的鄰里、我的職業、

humankind as a whole,

全體人類、

truth and beauty.

真相以及美好。

Of course, when I have different identities and loyalties,

當然，當我有 不同的身份和忠誠度時，

it sometimes creates conflicts and complications.

有時就會產生出衝突和複雜。

But, well, who ever told you that life was easy?

但，誰說人生是容易的呢？

Life is complicated.

人生是複雜的。

Deal with it.

想辦法處理它。

Fascism is what happens when people try to ignore the complications

法西斯主義之所以會發生， 就是因為人們試圖忽略複雜，

and to make life too easy for themselves.

把他們自己的人生變得太輕鬆簡單。

Fascism denies all identities except the national identity

法西斯主義否認 國家身份以外的所有身份，

and insists that I have obligations only towards my nation.

並堅持我只對我的國家有義務。

If my nation demands that I sacrifice my family,

如果我的國家需要我犧牲我的家人，

then I will sacrifice my family.

我就會犧牲我的家人。

If the nation demands that I kill millions of people,

如果國家需要我殺掉數百萬個人，

then I will kill millions of people.

我就會殺掉數百萬個人。

And if my nation demands that I betray truth and beauty,

如果我的國家需要我 背叛真相和美好，

then I should betray truth and beauty.

我就該背叛真相和美好。

For example, how does a fascist evaluate art?

比如，法西斯主義者 要如何評鑑藝術？

How does a fascist decide whether a movie is a good movie or a bad movie?

法西斯主義者要如何 決定一部電影的優劣？

Well, it's very, very, very simple.

答案非常、非常、非常簡單。

There is really just one yardstick:

衡量標準只有一種：

if the movie serves the interests of the nation,

如果電影是為國家的利益著想，

it's a good movie;

它就是部好電影；

if the movie doesn't serve the interests of the nation,

如果電影沒有為國家的利益著想，

it's a bad movie.

它就是部爛電影。

That's it.

就這樣。

Similarly, how does a fascist decide what to teach kids in school?

同樣地，法西斯主義者要如何 決定在學校要教孩子什麼內容？

Again, it's very simple.

答案也非常簡單。

There is just one yardstick:

衡量標準只有一種：

you teach the kids whatever serves the interests of the nation.

不論你教孩子什麼， 只要對國家有利就對了。

The truth doesn't matter at all.

真相完全不重要。

Now, the horrors of the Second World War and of the Holocaust remind us

二次大戰和大屠殺的恐怖， 讓我們想起

of the terrible consequences of this way of thinking.

這種思維方式的可怖後果。

But usually, when we talk about the ills of fascism,

但通常，當我們談到 法西斯主義的不好之處時，

we do so in an ineffective way,

我們會用無效的方式來談，

because we tend to depict fascism as a hideous monster,

因為我們傾向會把法西斯主義 描繪成一隻可怕的怪獸，

without really explaining what was so seductive about it.

而不會真正去解釋 它有什麼誘人之處。

It's a bit like these Hollywood movies that depict the bad guys --

這就有點像好萊塢電影 描繪這些反派的方式——

Voldemort or Sauron or Darth Vader --

佛地魔、索倫，或達斯維德——

as ugly and mean and cruel.

醜陋、卑鄙，且殘酷。

They're cruel even to their own supporters.

他們甚至對自己的支持者也很殘酷。

When I see these movies, I never understand --

當我看這些電影時， 我始終無法理解，

why would anybody be tempted to follow a disgusting creep like Voldemort?

為什麼會有人被誘惑去追隨 佛地魔這種讓人討厭的卑鄙小人？

The problem with evil is that in real life,

邪惡的問題在於，在真實生活中，

evil doesn't necessarily look ugly.

邪惡的外表不見得是醜陋的。

It can look very beautiful.

它可能看起來十分美好。

This is something that Christianity knew very well,

基督教就非常清楚知道這一點，

which is why in Christian art, as [opposed to] Hollywood,

這就是為什麼基督教藝術 和好萊塢相反，

Satan is usually depicted as a gorgeous hunk.

撒旦通常被描繪成 英俊且性感的男人。

This is why it's so difficult to resist the temptations of Satan,

那就是為什麼要拒絕 撒旦的誘惑是很困難的，

and why it is also difficult to resist the temptations of fascism.

也是為什麼要拒絕 法西斯主義的誘惑也很困難。

Fascism makes people see themselves

法西斯主義讓人們 能夠感受到他們自己

as belonging to the most beautiful and most important thing in the world --

隸屬於世界上最美好、 最重要的東西——

the nation.

國家。

And then people think,

接著，人們會想：

"Well, they taught us that fascism is ugly.

「嗯，他們教我們 法西斯主義是醜陋的。

But when I look in the mirror, I see something very beautiful,

但當我看向鏡子， 我看到的卻是美好的東西，

so I can't be a fascist, right?"

所以我不可能是法西斯主義者吧？」

Wrong.

錯。

That's the problem with fascism.

那就是法西斯主義的問題。

When you look in the fascist mirror,

當你看向法西斯主義的鏡子，

you see yourself as far more beautiful than you really are.

你看見的自己， 比實際上的還要美麗許多。

In the 1930s, when Germans looked in the fascist mirror,

在 30 年代，當德國人 看向法西斯主義的鏡子時，

they saw Germany as the most beautiful thing in the world.

他們看到的是： 德國是世界上最美好的東西。

If today, Russians look in the fascist mirror,

換到現今，若俄國人 看向法西斯主義的鏡子，

they will see Russia as the most beautiful thing in the world.

他們會看到： 俄國是世界上最美好的東西。

And if Israelis look in the fascist mirror,

如果以色列人看向 法西斯主義的鏡子，

they will see Israel as the most beautiful thing in the world.

他們會看到： 以色列是世界上最美好的東西。

This does not mean that we are now facing a rerun of the 1930s.

這並不表示我們現在 面臨到 30 年代的重演。

Fascism and dictatorships might come back,

法西斯主義和獨裁專政 有可能會回來，

but they will come back in a new form,

但它們會以新的形式回來，

a form which is much more relevant

這個新的形式會和 21 世紀的

to the new technological realities of the 21st century.

新技術現實有更多更高的相關性。

In ancient times,

在古代的時候，

land was the most important asset in the world.

土地是世界上最重要的資產。

Politics, therefore, was the struggle to control land.

因此，政治都是 在努力試圖控制土地。

And dictatorship meant that all the land was owned by a single ruler

獨裁專政就表示所有的土地 都屬於單一統治者

or by a small oligarch.

或一個寡頭政治集團。

And in the modern age, machines became more important than land.

在近代，機器變得比土地更重要。

Politics became the struggle to control the machines.

政治就變成是在努力控制機器。

And dictatorship meant

而獨裁專政意味著

that too many of the machines became concentrated

太多機器都被集中

in the hands of the government or of a small elite.

在政府或少數菁英團體的手中。

Now data is replacing both land and machines

現在，資料數據取代了土地和機器，

as the most important asset.

成為最重要的資產。

Politics becomes the struggle to control the flows of data.

政治變成在努力控制資料流。

And dictatorship now means

而現在的獨裁專政意味著

that too much data is being concentrated in the hands of the government

太多數據資料集中在政府或少數

or of a small elite.

菁英團體的手中，

The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy

現在，自由民主要面對的最大危險

is that the revolution in information technology

就是資訊科技的革命

will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.

將會讓獨裁政權變得比民主更有效。

In the 20th century,

在 20 世紀，

democracy and capitalism defeated fascism and communism

民主和資本主義打敗了 法西斯主義和共產主義，

because democracy was better at processing data and making decisions.

因為民主比較擅長 處理數據和做決策。

Given 20th-century technology,

以 20 世紀的科技，

it was simply inefficient to try and concentrate too much data

如果要把太多數據資料 和太多權力集中在一個地方，

and too much power in one place.

實在是太沒效益了。

But it is not a law of nature

但，自然的法則並沒有說

that centralized data processing is always less efficient

集中化的數據資料處理 就一定比分散式

than distributed data processing.

更沒效益。

With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning,

隨著人工智慧與機器學習的興起，

it might become feasible to process enormous amounts of information

或許會可以在單一個地方

有效率地處理大量的資訊，

very efficiently in one place,

to take all the decisions in one place,

在單一個地方做所有的決策，

and then centralized data processing will be more efficient

那麼，集中式的資料處理

就會比分散式的更有效益。

than distributed data processing.

And then the main handicap of authoritarian regimes

那麼，在 20 世紀，

權力主義政體的主要不利條件——

in the 20th century --

their attempt to concentrate all the information in one place --

這些政體試圖將所有資訊 集中在一個地方——

it will become their greatest advantage.

就會變成它們最大的優勢。

Another technological danger that threatens the future of democracy

還有另一項科技危險， 會威脅到民主的未來，

is the merger of information technology with biotechnology,

那就是資訊科技和生物科技的合併，

which might result in the creation of algorithms

這可能會創造出一種演算法，

that know me better than I know myself.

能比我自己更了解我。

And once you have such algorithms,

一旦有這種演算法，

an external system, like the government,

一個外部系統，比如政府，

cannot just predict my decisions,

就不只是能預測我的決策，

it can also manipulate my feelings, my emotions.

它也能操控我的感受和情緒。

A dictator may not be able to provide me with good health care,

獨裁者也許無法提供我 好的健康照護，

but he will be able to make me love him

但他能使我愛他，

and to make me hate the opposition.

而且痛恨反對派。

Democracy will find it difficult to survive such a development

在這樣的發展下，民主很難生存，

because, in the end,

因為，到頭來，

democracy is not based on human rationality;

民主的基礎並不是人類的理性；

it's based on human feelings.

而是人類的感受。

During elections and referendums,

在選舉和公民投票中，

you're not being asked, "What do you think?"

你不會被問到：「你認為如何？」

You're actually being asked, "How do you feel?"

你會被問到：「你感覺如何？」

And if somebody can manipulate your emotions effectively,

若有人能夠有效地操控你的情緒，

democracy will become an emotional puppet show.

民主就會變成一場情緒傀儡劇。

So what can we do to prevent the return of fascism

所以，我們能做什麼， 來預防法西斯主義的再現，

and the rise of new dictatorships?

以及新獨裁主義的興起？

The number one question that we face is: Who controls the data?

我們最先面臨的問題 是誰控制著數據資料？

If you are an engineer,

如果你是工程師，

then find ways to prevent too much data

那麼就想辦法來預防太多數據

from being concentrated in too few hands.

被集中在太少數人手中。

And find ways to make sure

並想辦法確保

the distributed data processing is at least as efficient

分散式資料處理

至少要和集中式一樣有效益。

as centralized data processing.

This will be the best safeguard for democracy.

這會是民主的最佳防衛。

As for the rest of us who are not engineers,

至於不是工程師的其他人，

the number one question facing us

我們面臨的第一個問題

is how not to allow ourselves to be manipulated

就是如何不要讓我們自己被那些

控制數據資料的人給操控。

by those who control the data.

The enemies of liberal democracy, they have a method.

自由民主的敵人有一種方法，

They hack our feelings.

他們能「駭入」我們的感受中。

Not our emails, not our bank accounts --

不是駭入我們的 電子郵件或銀行帳戶，

they hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity,

而是駭入我們的感受， 如恐懼、仇恨，和虛榮，

and then use these feelings

接著用這些感受

to polarize and destroy democracy from within.

從內部將民主給兩極化並摧毀。

This is actually a method

其實，這種方式的先驅者

that Silicon Valley pioneered in order to sell us products.

就是矽谷，他們用這種方式 把產品銷售給我們。

But now, the enemies of democracy are using this very method

但現在，民主的敵人 就是用同樣這種方式

to sell us fear and hate and vanity.

把恐懼、仇恨和虛榮銷售給我們。

They cannot create these feelings out of nothing.

他們無法無中生有創造出這些感受。

So they get to know our own preexisting weaknesses.

所以他們開始了解 我們自己本來就有的弱點。

And then use them against us.

接著用這些弱點來對付我們。

And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us

因此，我們所有人都有責任

to get to know our weaknesses

要去了解我們的弱點，

and make sure that they do not become a weapon

並確保這些弱點

不會被民主的敵人拿來當作武器。

in the hands of the enemies of democracy.

Getting to know our own weaknesses

去了解我們自己的弱點，

will also help us to avoid the trap of the fascist mirror.

也能協助我們避開 法西斯主義鏡子的陷阱。

As we explained earlier, fascism exploits our vanity.

如我們先前解釋過的， 法西斯主義會利用我們的虛榮。

It makes us see ourselves as far more beautiful than we really are.

它會讓我們認為自己 比真正的狀況還要美麗非常多。

This is the seduction.

這就是誘惑。

But if you really know yourself,

但如果你真的了解你自己，

you will not fall for this kind of flattery.

你就不會落入這種諂媚奉承。

If somebody puts a mirror in front of your eyes

如果有人把一面鏡子擺在你眼前，

that hides all your ugly bits and makes you see yourself

它把你所有醜陋的部分 隱藏起來，讓你覺得

鏡中的自己比真實的自己更漂亮、

as far more beautiful and far more important

than you really are,

更重要許多，

just break that mirror.

那就把鏡子打破。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you.

克里斯安德森：哈拉瑞，謝謝你。

Goodness me.

天哪。

It's so nice to see you again.

真高興再次見到你。

So, if I understand you right,

如果我沒誤解你的意思，

you're alerting us to two big dangers here.

你是在警告我們兩項危機。

One is the possible resurgence of a seductive form of fascism,

其一是法西斯主義的 誘惑形式有可能會再現，

but close to that, dictatorships that may not exactly be fascistic,

還有和那很相近的獨裁專政， 不見得完全是法西斯主義，

but control all the data.

但能控制所有的數據資料。

I wonder if there's a third concern

我在納悶是否有第三項議題要關心，

that some people here have already expressed,

這裡的一些人已經提出了這個議題，

which is where, not governments, but big corporations control all our data.

就是，有些大企業，而非政府， 控制了所有我們的資料。

What do you call that,

你會怎麼看它？

and how worried should we be about that?

我們對它又該有多擔心？

Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end, there isn't such a big difference

哈拉瑞：嗯，到頭來，企業和政府

between the corporations and the governments,

之間並沒有太大的差別，

because, as I said, the questions is: Who controls the data?

因為，如我剛說過的， 問題在於：誰控制了資料？

This is the real government.

這就是真正的政府。

If you call it a corporation or a government --

如果你稱它為企業或政府——

if it's a corporation and it really controls the data,

如果是一間企業控制了資料，

this is our real government.

它就是我們真正的政府。

So the difference is more apparent than real.

所以，這個差別是表象多於實際。

CA: But somehow, at least with corporations,

克：但就某種層面來說， 至少如果是企業的話，

you can imagine market mechanisms where they can be taken down.

你還可以想像有市場機制 來把企業拉垮。

I mean, if consumers just decide

我是指，如果消費者決定

that the company is no longer operating in their interest,

這間公司已經不是為了 消費者的利益在營運，

it does open the door to another market.

那確實就會打開 通往另一個市場的門。

It seems easier to imagine that

似乎比較容易可以想像，

than, say, citizens rising up and taking down a government

比如，公民起義

拉垮控制一切的政府。

that is in control of everything.

YNH: Well, we are not there yet,

哈：嗯，我們還沒走到那一步，

but again, if a corporation really knows you better than you know yourself --

但，如果一間企業 比你自己還了解你——

at least that it can manipulate your own deepest emotions and desires,

至少它可以操控你 最深的情緒和慾望，

and you won't even realize --

而你甚至不會發現——

you will think this is your authentic self.

你會認為這就是你最真實的自己。

So in theory, yes, in theory, you can rise against a corporation,

理論上，是的，理論上， 你可以起義對抗一間企業，

just as, in theory, you can rise against a dictatorship.

就如同，理論上， 你可以起義對抗獨裁專政。

But in practice, it is extremely difficult.

但實際上，是極度困難的。

CA: So in "Homo Deus," you argue that this would be the century

克：在《人類大命運： 從智人到神人》中，

你主張在這個世紀 人類有點變成了神，

when humans kind of became gods,

either through development of artificial intelligence

可能是透過人工智慧的發展，

or through genetic engineering.

或是透過基因工程。

Has this prospect of political system shift, collapse

這種政治體制轉換、 崩壞的預期前景

是否會衝擊你 對於那種可能性的看法？

impacted your view on that possibility?

YNH: Well, I think it makes it even more likely,

哈：嗯，我想反而可能性會更高，

and more likely that it will happen faster,

更可能會發生，且更快發生，

because in times of crisis, people are willing to take risks

因為在危機的時期，人們會願意

冒他們在其他時候不願冒的險。

that they wouldn't otherwise take.

And people are willing to try

人們會願意嘗試

all kinds of high-risk, high-gain technologies.

各種高風險、高獲益的技術。

So these kinds of crises might serve the same function

所以這些類型的危機 有可能會和 20 世紀的

兩次世界大戰有相同的功能。

as the two world wars in the 20th century.

The two world wars greatly accelerated

那兩次世界大戰大大加速了

the development of new and dangerous technologies.

危險新技術的發展。

And the same thing might happen in the 21st century.

同樣的狀況可能 會在 21 世紀發生。

I mean, you need to be a little crazy to run too fast,

我是指，你得要 有點瘋狂才能跑太快，

let's say, with genetic engineering.

比如在基因工程方面。

But now you have more and more crazy people

但現在有越來越多瘋狂的人

in charge of different countries in the world,

主導世界上的不同國家，

so the chances are getting higher, not lower.

所以可能性反而會更高，而非更低。

CA: So, putting it all together, Yuval, you've got this unique vision.

克：所以，總的來說， 哈拉瑞，你有非常獨特的遠景。

Roll the clock forward 30 years.

把時間向未來快轉 30 年。

What's your guess -- does humanity just somehow scrape through,

你的猜測是什麼？ 人類是否會以某種方式勉強渡過，

look back and say, "Wow, that was a close thing. We did it!"

回頭看，並說：「哇， 差一點就失敗，但我們成功了！」

Or not?

或者不會？

YNH: So far, we've managed to overcome all the previous crises.

哈：目前，我們都有辦法 克服過去的所有危機。

And especially if you look at liberal democracy

特別是，如果你去看自由民主，

and you think things are bad now,

你會認為現在狀況不好，

just remember how much worse things looked in 1938 or in 1968.

別忘了在 1938 或 1968 年時 狀況有多糟。

So this is really nothing, this is just a small crisis.

這其實不算什麼，只是個小危機。

But you can never know,

但你永遠不會知道，

because, as a historian,

因為，身為歷史學家，

I know that you should never underestimate human stupidity.

我知道永遠都不要 低估了人類的愚蠢。

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲）（掌聲）

It is one of the most powerful forces that shape history.

那是形成歷史最強大的力量之一。

CA: Yuval, it's been an absolute delight to have you with us.

克：哈拉瑞，非常榮幸 能請你來與我們分享。

Thank you for making the virtual trip.

謝謝你透過虛擬旅程來到現場。

Have a great evening there in Tel Aviv.

祝你在特拉維夫有個美好的夜晚。

Yuval Harari!

哈拉瑞！

YNH: Thank you very much.

哈：非常謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）