Fifty-four percent of the world's population lives in our cities. In developing countries, one third of that population is living in slums. Seventy-five percent of global energy consumption occurs in our cities, and 80 percent of gas emissions that cause global warming come from our cities. So things that you and I might think about as global problems, like climate change, the energy crisis or poverty, are really, in many ways, city problems. They will not be solved unless people who live in cities, like most of us, actually start doing a better job, because right now, we are not doing a very good one. And that becomes very clear when we look into three aspects of city life: first, our citizens' willingness to engage with democratic institutions; second, our cities' ability to really include all of their residents; and lastly, our own ability to live fulfilling and happy lives.
世界上 54% 的人口 居住在我們的城市。 在發展中國家, 有三分之一的人口 住在貧民窟。 全球 75% 的能源消耗 發生在我們的城市, 而 80% 導致全球暖化的氣體排放, 來自我們的城市。 你和我都認為屬於 全球問題的事情, 例如氣候變化、能源危機, 或者貧窮, 從各方面看, 事實上都是城市的問題。 問題不會解決, 除非住在城市裡的人, 就像我們大部份的人, 真正開始做較好的事情, 因為我們現在做的還不足夠。 那就變得十分清楚, 當我們看看城市生活的三個面貌: 首先,是我們市民 參與民主制度的意願; 第二,我們城市能夠 使所有市民成為整體的一部分; 最後,我們自己能夠 充實且快樂地生活。
When it comes to engagement, the data is very clear. Voter turnout around the world peaked in the late '80s, and it has been declining at a pace that we have never seen before, and if those numbers are bad at the national level, at the level of our cities, they are just dismal. In the last two years, two of the world's most consolidated, oldest democracies, the U.S. and France, held nationwide municipal elections. In France, voter turnout hit a record low. Almost 40 percent of voters decided not to show up. In the U.S., the numbers were even scarier. In some American cities, voter turnout was close to five percent. I'll let that sink in for a second. We're talking about democratic cities in which 95 percent of people decided that it was not important to elect their leaders. The city of L.A., a city of four million people, elected its mayor with just a bit over 200,000 votes. That was the lowest turnout the city had seen in 100 years. Right here, in my city of Rio, in spite of mandatory voting, almost 30 percent of the voting population chose to either annul their votes or stay home and pay a fine in the last mayoral elections.
當談及參與的承諾時, 數據就十分清楚。 全世界的投票率 在八十年代後期達到高峰, 然後以我們從未見過的步伐下降, 在國家層面來說, 如果數字很糟榚的話, 在我們城市的層面來說, 可以說是慘淡。 在過去兩年, 全球兩個最團結 最古老的民主社會,美國和法國, 舉行了全國性的市政選舉。 在法國, 投票率創下歷史新低, 約 40% 選民決定 不去投票。 在美國,數字更為可怕。 在一些美國城市, 投票率接近 5%。 待會我們再談談這個。 我們正在談及一些民主城市, 當中 95% 的人 覺得選舉他們的領袖並不重要, 洛杉機市, 一個四百萬人口的城市, 其市長選舉剛得到超過 20 萬票, 那是 100 年來這個城市 最低的投票率, 就在這裡,我的城市里約熱內盧, 盡管實施強制投票, 約 30% 選民 卻選擇放棄他們的選票, 選擇留在家裡並繳交罰款, 也不願參與最近的市長選舉。 當涉及到包容性,
When it comes to inclusiveness, our cities are not the best cases of success either, and again, you don't need to look very far in order to find proof of that. The city of Rio is incredibly unequal. This is Leblon. Leblon is the city's richest neighborhood. And this is Complexo do Alemão. This is where over 70,000 of the city's poorest residents live. Leblon has an HDI, a Human Development Index, of .967. That is higher than Norway, Switzerland or Sweden. Complexo do Alemão has an HDI of .711. It sits somewhere in between the HDI of Algeria and Gabon. So Rio, like so many cities across the global South, is a place where you can go from northern Europe to sub-Saharan Africa in the space of 30 minutes. If you drive, that is. If you take public transit, it's about two hours.
我們的城市也不是最成功的個案, 而且,你並不需要看得太遠 去尋找證明。 里約熱內盧市是難以置信的不公平。 這是列布隆。 列布隆是城市裡最富有的社區。 而這是阿萊芒街區, 這座城市超過七萬名 最貧窮的居民住在此處, 列布隆的人類發展指數 (HDI), 為 .967, 較挪威、瑞士或瑞典還高。 阿萊芒街區的 HDI 為 .711, 在阿爾及利亞與 加彭共和國的 HDI 之間。 那麼里約熱內盧 就像南半球的眾多城市, 是一個可從北歐 到非洲南撒哈拉 只要花三十分鐘的地方。 如果你駕車的話,就可以了。 如果你乘搭公共交通,就需約二小時。
And lastly, perhaps most importantly, cities, with the incredible wealth of relations that they enable, could be the ideal places for human happiness to flourish. We like being around people. We are social animals. Instead, countries where urbanization has already peaked seem to be the very countries in which cities have stopped making us happy. The United States population has suffered from a general decrease in happiness for the past three decades, and the main reason is this. The American way of building cities has caused good quality public spaces to virtually disappear in many, many American cities, and as a result, they have seen a decline of relations, of the things that make us happy. Many studies show an increase in solitude and a decrease in solidarity, honesty, and social and civic participation.
最後,或者是最重要的, 不同的城市,以及其非常活躍的 人際關係,使它可成為 人類快樂幸褔發展的理想地。 我們喜歡被其他人圍繞, 我們是群體動物。 但是, 都市化已達至高峰的國家, 正是那些城市不再使我們高興的國家。 美國人 整體而言已受到幸褔感下降之苦, 過去三十年皆如此。 主要原因正是: 以美國方式建設的城市 使那麼高質素的公共空間 實質上在很多 很多的美國城市之中消失, 而結果是,他們看到 關係的倒退, 使我們快樂的事情消失。 很多研究都顯示現在孤獨感增加, 而減少了團結、 誠信、社會及公民參與。
So how do we start building cities that make us care? Cities that value their most important asset: the incredible diversity of the people who live in them? Cities that make us happy? Well, I believe that if we want to change what our cities look like, then we really have to change the decision-making processes that have given us the results that we have right now. We need a participation revolution, and we need it fast. The idea of voting as our only exercise in citizenship does not make sense anymore. People are tired of only being treated as empowered individuals every few years when it's time to delegate that power to someone else. If the protests that swept Brazil in June 2013 have taught us anything, it's that every time we try to exercise our power outside of an electoral context, we are beaten up, humiliated or arrested. And this needs to change, because when it does, not only will people re-engage with the structures of representation, but also complement these structures with direct, effective, and collective decision making, decision making of the kind that attacks inequality by its very inclusive nature, decision making of the kind that can change our cities into better places for us to live.
那麼我們是如何開始建立 一些我們關心的城市? 看重其最重要資產的城市: 住在城市裡的民眾 其異常豐富的多樣性? 使我們快樂的城市? 我相信如果我們要改變 我們城市的樣貌, 那麼我們真的要改變 決策過程, 以及導致我們現在所得的結果。 我們需要參與革命, 而且我們急迫需要。 投票這個我們唯一可行使的公民權利 已不再有意義, 民眾已厭倦每隔幾年 被看待成獲授權人士, 可將權力委派別人 作代表。 如果 2013 年 6 月的抗議潮 在巴西席捲後, 我們所學會的事情 就是每次嘗試 在選舉的背景之下, 行使我們的權力時, 我們會遭受到毆打、 侮辱、甚至逮捕, 這個情況需要改變, 因為當它真的改變時, 民眾不僅重新 參與代議體制, 也會把這些組織 與直接、有效的, 以及集體決策互補, 這類決策 可以對抗這種結構本身的不平等; 這類決策 可以改變我們的城市, 成為我們可活得更好的地方。
But there is a catch, obviously: Enabling widespread participation and redistributing power can be a logistical nightmare, and there's where technology can play an incredibly helpful role, by making it easier for people to organize, communicate and make decisions without having to be in the same room at the same time.
但是明顯地這有個陷阱: 實現廣泛的參與 以及重新分配權力 可會是難辦之事, 而在這方面,技術可以擔當 一個極為有用的角色, 使民眾更容易組織、 溝通和做出決定, 而不必同時身處 在同一個房間。
Unfortunately for us, when it comes to fostering democratic processes, our city governments have not used technology to its full potential. So far, most city governments have been effective at using tech to turn citizens into human sensors who serve authorities with data on the city: potholes, fallen trees or broken lamps. They have also, to a lesser extent, invited people to participate in improving the outcome of decisions that were already made for them, just like my mom when I was eight and she told me that I had a choice: I had to be in bed by 8 p.m., but I could choose my pink pajamas or my blue pajamas. That's not participation, and in fact, governments have not been very good at using technology to enable participation on what matters — the way we allocate our budget, the way we occupy our land, and the way we manage our natural resources. Those are the kinds of decisions that can actually impact global problems that manifest themselves in our cities.
不幸的是, 當我們談到促進民主進程時, 我們的市政府並沒有運用科技 來充份發揮其潛力。 到目前為止, 大部分市政府有效地 運用科技把市民變成人類感應器, 把城市裡的數據傳送給當局: 路面的坑洞、樹木倒塌 以至街燈損壞。 在較小的程度上, 他們也邀請市民參與改善 那些已為他們決定的決策結果。 就像我八歲時, 我媽告訴我:我可以選擇 在晚上八點前必須上床, 但是我可以選擇 粉紅色睡衣或藍色睡衣。 這並不是參與。 而事實上,各國政府從來也沒有 好好地運用技術 增加要事的民眾參與度, 像是我們分配預算的方式、 我們佔領土地的方式, 以及我們管理自然資源的方式。 這些都是各種不同類型的決定, 實際上可影響全球的問題, 而在我們的城市表露出來的。 好消息是,
The good news is, and I do have good news to share with you, we don't need to wait for governments to do this. I have reason to believe that it's possible for citizens to build their own structures of participation. Three years ago, I cofounded an organization called Meu Rio, and we make it easier for people in the city of Rio to organize around causes and places that they care about in their own city, and have an impact on those causes and places every day. In these past three years, Meu Rio grew to a network of 160,000 citizens of Rio. About 40 percent of those members are young people aged 20 to 29. That is one in every 15 young people of that age in Rio today.
我的確有好消息可跟大家分享, 我們無需等待政府來做這件事。 我有理由相信, 市民的確有可能 建立起代議體制。 三年前,我與其他人創辦了一個組織, 名為「我們的里約」(Meu Rio) 。 我們讓里約熱內盧裡的市民, 就著他們所關心的事情和地方 更容易地組織起來, 對他們每日所關心的 事情和地方產生影響。 在過去三年,「我們的里約」增長為 一個達到 16 萬居民的網絡。 大約 40% 的成員是年輕人, 年齡介於 20 歲至 29 歲。 在今天的里約熱內盧, 每十五個青年中就有一個是那年紀。 這個可愛的小女孩是 我們其中一個會員,
Amongst our members is this adorable little girl, Bia, to your right, and Bia was just 11 years old when she started a campaign using one of our tools to save her model public school from demolition. Her school actually ranks among the best public schools in the country, and it was going to be demolished by the Rio de Janeiro state government to build, I kid you not, a parking lot for the World Cup right before the event happened. Bia started a campaign, and we even watched her school 24/7 through webcam monitoring, and many months afterwards, the government changed their minds. Bia's school stayed in place.
她叫比亞,你們右手邊這位, 比亞年僅 11 歲時, 就使用我們其中一個工具 來挽救她的模範公立學校 以避免拆遷時, 事實上,她的學校 在全國公立學校中名列前茅, 它要被拆除是因為 里約熱內盧州政府, 我不是開玩笑, 為了要興建一個停車場 以供即將舉行的世界盃之用。 比亞開展了一場運動後, 我們甚至透過網路攝影機 全天候監測她的學校。 幾個月後, 政府改變主意了。 比亞的學校可保留在原地。 還有袓菲達,
There's also Jovita. She's an amazing woman whose daughter went missing about 10 years ago, and since then, she has been looking for her daughter. In that process, she found out that first, she was not alone. In the last year alone, 2013, 6,000 people disappeared in the state of Rio. But she also found out that in spite of that, Rio had no centralized intelligence system for solving missing persons cases. In other Brazilian cities, those systems have helped solve up to 80 percent of missing persons cases. She started a campaign, and after the secretary of security got 16,000 emails from people asking him to do this, he responded, and started to build a police unit specializing in those cases. It was open to the public at the end of last month, and Jovita was there giving interviews and being very fancy.
她是一個了不起的女人, 大約 10 年前,她的女兒失蹤了。 從那時起, 她一直在尋找女兒。 過程中,她首先發現 她並不孤單。 僅在去年 2013 年, 在里約熱內盧市已有 6000 人失蹤。 但是她也發現,緃使如此, 里約熱內盧並沒有中央化的情報系統 以處理失蹤人口的案件。 在巴西的其他城市, 這些系統可協助警察 偵破高達 80 %的 失蹤人口案件。 她展開了一場運動, 國家安全局局長收到 16000 封電郵, 市民要求這樣做, 他才回應訴求, 並建立一個警察單位, 專門對付這類案件。 在上個月底,它向公眾開放, 袓菲達也在那裡 接受採訪,非常引人注目。
And then, there is Leandro. Leandro is an amazing guy in a slum in Rio, and he created a recycling project in the slum. At the end of last year, December 16, he received an eviction order by the Rio de Janeiro state government giving him two weeks to leave the space that he had been using for two years. The plan was to hand it over to a developer, who planned to turn it into a construction site. Leandro started a campaign using one of our tools, the Pressure Cooker, the same one that Bia and Jovita used, and the state government changed their minds before Christmas Eve.
然後,還有萊昂德羅。 萊昂德羅是一個 在里約熱內盧貧民窟裡 了不起的傢伙, 他在貧民窟創建了一個回收計劃。 在去年年底,12 月 16 日, 他收到里約熱內盧州政府 發出的驅逐令, 要求他在兩個星期內 離開那個已使用了兩年的空間。 政府計劃把土地交給開發商, 打算把它發展成為一個工地。 萊昂德羅使用我們其中一個工具 展開了一場運動, 高壓鍋, 比亞和袓菲達曾使用過的同一工具, 州政府在平安夜前 改變了主意。
These stories make me happy, but not just because they have happy endings. They make me happy because they are happy beginnings. The teacher and parent community at Bia's school is looking for other ways they could improve that space even further. Leandro has ambitious plans to take his model to other low-income communities in Rio, and Jovita is volunteering at the police unit that she helped created. Bia, Jovita and Leandro are living examples of something that citizens and city governments around the world need to know: We are ready. As citizens, we are ready to decide on our common destinies, because we know that the way we distribute power says a lot about how we actually value everyone, and because we know that enabling and participating in local politics is a sign that we truly care about our relations to one another, and we are ready to do this in cities around the world right now. With the Our Cities network, the Meu Rio team hopes to share what we have learned with other people who want to create similar initiatives in their own cities. We have already started doing it in São Paulo with incredible results, and want to take it to cities around the world through a network of citizen-centric, citizen-led organizations that can inspire us, challenge us, and remind us to demand real participation in our city lives.
這些故事使我感到高興, 不只是因為他們都得到完滿結局。 他們讓我高興是因為 它們是快樂的開端。 比亞學校裡的教師和家長團體 正在尋找其他方法 以進一步改善那個空間。 萊昂德羅有著雄心勃勃的計劃, 把他的模型帶到里約熱內盧 其他低收入的社區裡。 而袓菲達成為一位志工, 在她協助建立的警察單位中服務。 比亞、袓菲達和萊昂德羅 都是活生生的例子, 全世界各地的公民、城市和政府 也需要知道的: 我們準備好了。 身為公民,我們已經準備好 決定我們共同的命運, 因為我們都知道, 我們分配權力的方式 說明了我們如何真正地珍惜每個人, 因為我們都知道, 能夠參與地方政治 就是我們對彼此關係 真正關心的跡象, 現在我們也準備 在世界各地的城市做同樣的事情。 利用我們的城市網絡, 「我們的里約」團隊 希望透過我們所學到的, 跟其他要在他們自己的城市 展開類似活動的人一起分享。 我們在聖保羅已開始這樣做, 且得到驚人的結果, 希望透過以公民為中心的網絡, 把它帶到世界各地的城市, 由公民領導的組織, 可使我們感到鼓舞、 挑戰我們,並提醒我們 要真正地參與我們的城市生活。
It is up to us to decide whether we want schools or parking lots, community-driven recycling projects or construction sites, loneliness or solidarity, cars or buses, and it is our responsibility to do that now, for ourselves, for our families, for the people who make our lives worth living, and for the incredible creativity, beauty, and wonder that make our cities, in spite of all of their problems, the greatest invention of our time.
只有我們才能決定 是要保留學校 還是興建停車場, 決定是要社區帶動的回收計劃, 還是蓋建築工地, 決定要孤獨亦或團結、要汽車還是公車。 這是我們的責任,現在就要做, 為我們自己,為我們的家庭, 為著那些使我們的生活 值得活下去的人, 為那些驚人的創造力、 美麗、奇蹟, 儘管要面對不同的問題, 也能使我們的城市 成為這時代最偉大的創造物。
Obrigado. Thank you.
謝謝。謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)