I come from one of the most liberal, tolerant, progressive places in the United States, Seattle, Washington. And I grew up with a family of great Seattlites. My mother was an artist, my father was a college professor, and I am truly grateful for my upbringing, because I always felt completely comfortable designing my life exactly as I saw fit.
我來自全美最自由、 最包容、最前衛的地方之一: 華盛頓州的西雅圖。 我在大西雅圖地區的一個家庭長大。 我的母親是個藝術家,父親是大學教授, 我很感激所得到的教養, 因為我一直能完全照我的心意 設計、安排我的生活。
And in point of fact, I took a route that was not exactly what my parents had in mind. When I was 19, I dropped out of college -- dropped out, kicked out, splitting hairs.
事實上, 我走了一條並非父母期望的路。 我 19 歲的時候休學 —— 休學、退學,類似啦。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And I went on the road as a professional French horn player, which was my lifelong dream. I played chamber music all over the United States and Europe, and I toured for a couple of years with a great jazz guitar player named Charlie Bird. And by the end of my 20s, I wound up as a member of the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra in Spain. What a great life.
我後來成為職業法國號演奏家, 這是我畢生的夢想。 我在歐美各地巡迴兩、三年, 演奏室內樂, 和知名爵士吉他手查理·博德同團。 在我快 30 歲的時候, 加入西班牙的巴塞隆納交響樂團。 此生無憾了。
And you know, my parents never complained. They supported me all the way through it. It wasn't their dream. They used to tell their neighbors and friends, "Our son, he's taking a gap decade."
我父母從未抱怨過。 他們一路支持我, 儘管這不是他們的夢想。 他們曾跟鄰居和朋友說, 「我們的兒子在放長假。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And -- There was, however, one awkward conversation about my lifestyle that I want to tell you about. I was 27, and I was home from Barcelona, and I was visiting my parents for Christmas, and I was cooking dinner with my mother, and we were alone in the kitchen. And she was quiet, too quiet. Something was wrong. And so I said, "Mom, what's on your mind?" And she said, "Your dad and I are really worried about you." And I said, "What?" I mean, what could it be, at this point? And she said, "I want you to be completely honest with me: have you been voting for Republicans?"
然後... 我要告訴你一個 有關我生活形式的尷尬對話。 27歲時我從巴塞隆納回來, 在聖誕節時跟父母團聚, 當時只有母親和我在廚房煮晚餐。 她很安靜,一句話都沒說。 我知道一定有什麼事。 我問:「媽,妳在想什麼?」 她回答:「你爸和我很擔心你。」 我說:「什麼啊?」 意思是,在這個時候有什麼好擔心的? 她說:「你老實告訴我, 你投票給了共和黨嗎?」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Now, the truth is, I wasn't really political, I was just a French horn player. But I had a bit of an epiphany, and they had detected it, and it was causing some confusion. You see, I had become an enthusiast for capitalism, and I want to tell you why that is. It stems from a lifelong interest of mine in, believe it or not, poverty.
是這樣的, 我並不把政治掛在嘴邊, 我只是個法國號樂手。 但是我有些頓悟, 我的父母察覺了,所以這樣問。 我迷上了資本主義, 讓我告訴你怎麼了。 似乎從很久以前, 我就一直關心貧窮的問題。
See, when I was a kid growing up in Seattle, I remember the first time I saw real poverty. We were a lower middle class family, but that's of course not real poverty. That's not even close. The first time I saw poverty, and poverty's face, was when I was six or seven years old, early 1970s. And it was like a lot of you, kind of a prosaic example, kind of trite. It was a picture in the National Geographic Magazine of a kid who was my age in East Africa, and there were flies on his face and a distended belly. And he wasn't going to make it, and I knew that, and I was helpless. Some of you remember that picture, not exactly that picture, one just like it. It introduced the West to grinding poverty around the world. Well, that vision kind of haunted me as I grew up and I went to school and I dropped out and dropped in and started my family. And I wondered, what happened to that kid? Or to people just like him all over the world? And so I started to study, even though I wasn't in college, I was looking for the answer: what happened to the world's poorest people? Has it gotten worse? Has it gotten better? What?
我從小在西雅圖長大, 還記得第一次看到真正的貧窮。 我們是較低的中產階級家庭, 並不真正窮, 和貧窮差得遠了。 第一次看到貧窮、貧窮的臉, 是在我六、七歲時, 也就是在70年代早期, 和許多人一樣,我看到一個平淡無奇, 甚至可算陳腐的例子, 是一張國家地理雜誌曾經刊登的照片, 一個跟我差不多年紀的東非孩子, 他的臉上有許多蒼蠅,肚子腫脹。 我知道他活不了多久了,但我無能為力。 你可能記得這張照片, 或者是其他類似的照片。 這照片讓西方看見世界其他地方的赤貧。 這影像在我腦海中盤旋不去。 我長大、上學、休學、復學, 然後有了自己的家庭。 我心裡想著,那小孩後來怎樣了? 世界上其他類似的人怎樣了? 雖然沒上大學,我還是開始研究這個問題, 試著找出答案。 世界上最貧窮的人後來怎樣了? 他們的情況更糟嗎?變好了嗎?到底怎麼了?
And I found the answer, and it changed my life, and I want to share it with you.
最後我找到答案,也徹底改變了我自己, 這就是我接下來要與你們分享的。
See -- most Americans believe that poverty has gotten worse since we were children, since they saw that vision. If you ask Americans, "Has poverty gotten worse or better around the world?", 70 percent will say that hunger has gotten worse since the early 1970s. But here's the truth. Here's the epiphany that I had that changed my thinking. From 1970 until today, the percentage of the world's population living in starvation levels, living on a dollar a day or less, obviously adjusted for inflation, that percentage has declined by 80 percent. There's been an 80 percent decline in the world's worst poverty since I was a kid. And I didn't even know about it. This, my friends, that's a miracle. That's something we ought to celebrate. It's the greatest antipoverty achievement in the history of mankind, and it happened in our lifetimes.
是這樣的 -- 大部分美國人以為 自我們幼時、或看到這景象時, 到現在,貧窮情況愈來愈糟。 如果你問一位美國人, 「世上的貧窮是更嚴重還是改善了?」 百分之七十的人回答, 自70年代到現在,越來越多人挨餓。 但,實情如下。 下面的頓悟改變了我的想法。 從1970年到今天, 世界上飢餓人口的百分比, 意即,隨通貨膨脹調整, 每天少於一美元的生活費, 百分比下降了八成之多。 從我幼時到現在, 世界的赤貧人口減少了80%。 以前我並不知道。 朋友們,這是個奇蹟啊! 我們應該為這件事慶祝。 這是人類歷史上 消滅貧窮最大的成就, 而且就發生在我們這一生中。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
So when I learned this, I asked, what did that? What made it possible? Because if you don't know why, you can't do it again. If you want to replicate it and get the next two billion people out of poverty, because that's what we're talking about: since I was a kid, two billion of the least of these, our brothers and sisters, have been pulled out of poverty. I want the next two billion, so I've got to know why. And I went in search of an answer. And it wasn't a political answer, because I didn't care. You know what, I still don't care. I wanted the best answer from mainstream economists left, right and center.
得知這事實時,我找原因, 想知道是如何脫貧的? 如果我們不知道原因, 就不能繼續改善貧窮的情況。 如果要複製 使另外二十億人能夠脫離貧窮, 如同我們正在談論的, 從我幼時至今, 有二十億最貧困的弟兄姊妹們已脫離赤貧。 我要接下來的二十億人也脫離貧困, 所以我必須明白如何辦得到。 我尋找答案。 不是政治的答案,因我不在乎政治。 至今,我仍不在乎政治。 我要主流經濟學家的最好答案, 不管左派、中間、或右派。
And here it is. Here are the reasons. There are five reasons that two billion of our brothers and sisters have been pulled out of poverty since I was a kid. Number one: globalization. Number two: free trade. Number three: property rights. Number four: rule of law. Number five: entrepreneurship. It was the free enterprise system spreading around the world after 1970 that did that.
答案揭曉。 是這些原因。 自幼至今,是這五個原因 使二十億我們的弟兄姊妹們脫離貧窮。 一:全球化。 二:自由貿易。 三:產權。 四:法治。 五:創業。 是1970年後,廣泛散佈世界各地的 自由企業制度所達成的。
Now, I'm not naive. I know that free enterprise isn't perfect, and I know that free enterprise isn't everything we need to build a better world. But that is great. And that's beyond politics. Here's what I learned. This is the epiphany. Capitalism is not just about accumulation. At its best, it's about aspiration, which is what so many people on this stage talk about, is the aspiration that comes from dreams that are embedded in the free enterprise system. And we've got to share it with more people.
我並不天真。 我知道自由企業制度並非完美, 我們不能僅靠自由企業制度 來建造更美好的世界。 但是它很棒。 它凌駕於政治之上。 這是我學到、頓悟到的。 資本主義不僅是資產的累積。 而是心願、抱負的極致, 如同這講台上許多人所說的, 在自由企業制度中的資本主義 能夠讓夢想延伸成心願、抱負。 而且我們必須與更多的人分享。
Now, I want to tell you about a second epiphany that's related to that first one that I think can bring us progress, not just around the world, but right here at home. The best quote I've ever heard to summarize the thoughts that I've just given you about pulling people out of poverty is as follows: "Free markets have created more wealth than any system in history. They have lifted billions out of poverty."
讓我告訴你第二個頓悟, 與第一個有關, 它能帶來進步,不只世界各地, 我們美國本地也是。 我所聽過最好的引用句, 總結我剛剛所說 拯救貧窮的想法, 如下: 「自由市場比歷史上任何的機制 創造了更多的財富。 它們使數十億的人出脫貧窮。」
Who said it? It sounds like Milton Friedman or Ronald Reagan. Wrong. President Barack Obama said that. Why do I know it by heart? Because he said it to me. Crazy. And I said, "Hallelujah." But more than that, I said, "What an opportunity."
誰說的? 聽起來像米爾頓·弗里德曼 或 雷根總統。 錯了。 奧巴馬總統說的。 為什麼我熟知? 因為是他對我說的。 難以置信啊。 我說,「哈利路亞!」 我還說, 「大好的機會。」
You know what I was thinking? It was at an event that we were doing on the subject at Georgetown University in May of 2015. And I thought, this is the solution to the biggest problem facing America today. What? It's coming together around these ideas, liberals and conservatives, to help people who need us the most.
可知道我想什麼? 那是2015年的5月, 我們正在喬治城大學研討這議題。 當時我想,這正是當前美國 所面對的最大問題的解答。 什麼? 是接受這些想法, 自由派和保守派攜手幫助 那些最需要被幫助的人。
Now, I don't have to tell anybody in this room that we're in a crisis, in America and many countries around the world with political polarization. It's risen to critical, crisis levels. It's unpleasant. It's not right. There was an article last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals published in the West. And it was an article in 2014 on political motive asymmetry. What's that? That's what psychologists call the phenomenon of assuming that your ideology is based in love but your opponents' ideology is based in hate. It's common in world conflict. You expect to see this between Palestinians and Israelis, for example. What the authors of this article found was that in America today, a majority of Republicans and Democrats suffer from political motive asymmetry. A majority of people in our country today who are politically active believe that they are motivated by love but the other side is motivated by hate. Think about it. Think about it. Most people are walking around saying, "You know, my ideology is based on basic benevolence, I want to help people, but the other guys, they're evil and out to get me." You can't progress as a society when you have this kind of asymmetry. It's impossible.
不需要我告訴在座的各位 我們正面臨危機, 美國和世界各地許多國家 正面臨政治的兩極化。 已經升高到關鍵危機的層次。 這是不宜人、不對的。 西方世界最負盛名的期刊之一的 美國國家科學院期刊, 在去年發表了一篇文章。 這篇2014年的文章講得是 政治動機的不對稱性。 那是什麼?這就是心理學家所說的現象: 臆斷你的思想基於愛, 而對手的思想卻基於仇恨。 這是世界衝突常見的現象。 例如,在以巴衝突中看得到。 本文作者發現 在今日的美國, 大多數共和黨和民主黨人 苦於政治動機的不對稱性。 今天,我國大多數關心政治的人認為 己方的出發點是愛, 而對方的出發點則是恨。 想想吧。想想吧。 大多數人到處宣揚, 「我的思想以善為本, 我想幫助人; 但是對方是邪惡的,故意和我作對。」 有這種不對稱性的社會不能進步。 不可能。
How do we solve it? Well, first, let's be honest: there are differences. Let's not minimize the differences. That would be really naïve. There's a lot of good research on this. A veteran of the TED stage is my friend Jonathan Haidt. He's a psychology professor at New York University. He does work on the ideology and values and morals of different people to see how they differ. And he's shown, for example, that conservatives and liberals have a very different emphasis on what they think is important. For example, Jon Haidt has shown that liberals care about poverty 59 percent more than they care about economic liberty. And conservatives care about economic liberty 28 percent more than they care about poverty.
我們該如何解決呢? 首先,我們得誠實面對 差異的存在。 我們不是去減少分歧,因那是很幼稚的。 已有許多相關的好研究。 我的朋友喬納森·海特 是TED舞台的常客。 他是紐約大學的心理學教授。 他研究不同人的意識形態、道德觀念, 看有什麼差異。 他表示,保守派和自由派 所看重的重點,非常不同。 喬納森·海特舉例, 自由派關心貧窮 比關心自由經濟超出59%。 而保守派關心自由經濟 比關心貧窮,超出28%。
Irreconcilable differences, right? We'll never come together. Wrong. That is diversity in which lies our strength. Remember what pulled up the poor. It was the obsession with poverty, accompanied by the method of economic freedom spreading around the world. We need each other, in other words, if we want to help people and get the next two billion people out of poverty. There's no other way.
不可調和的分歧,對吧? 我們永遠走不到一起。錯了。 我們的實力 奠基在「多樣性上」。 回顧一下,是什麼拯救了赤貧。 是在乎貧窮, 加上傳遍世界的自由經濟法 。 換言之,我們必須彼此攜手, 以幫助接下來的二十億人 也脫離貧窮。 別無他法。
Hmm. How are we going to get that? It's a tricky thing, isn't it. We need innovative thinking. A lot of it's on this stage. Social entrepreneurship. Yeah. Absolutely. Phenomenal. We need investment overseas in a sustainable, responsible, ethical and moral way. Yes. Yes.
嗯。 我們如何能做到呢? 很棘手,是吧? 我們需要創新思維。 台上有許多。 社會企業家精神。 是啊。絕對。非凡的。 海外投資必須是 永續的、負責任的、 符合倫理道德的。對。對。
But you know what we really need? We need a new day in flexible ideology. We need to be less predictable. Don't we? Do you ever feel like your own ideology is starting to get predictable? Kinda conventional? Do you ever feel like you're always listening to people who agree with you? Why is that dangerous? Because when we talk in this country about economics, on the right, conservatives, you're always talking about taxes and regulations and big government. And on the left, liberals, you're talking about economics, it's always about income inequality. Right? Now those are important things, really important to me, really important to you. But when it comes to lifting people up who are starving and need us today, those are distractions. We need to come together around the best ways to mitigate poverty using the best tools at our disposal, and that comes only when conservatives recognize that they need liberals and their obsession with poverty, and liberals need conservatives and their obsession with free markets. That's the diversity in which lies the future strength of this country, if we choose to take it.
可知我們真正需要什麼? 我們需要新的一天、靈活的思想意識。 我們需要少些可預期性。 不是嗎? 你可曾覺得自己的思想意識 開始變得越來越可預期? 落入常規? 可曾覺得你總是在聽 合你心意的人所說的話? 為什麼危險呢? 因為每當我國在討論經濟時, 在右派、保守派, 總是談稅、管制法規、和大政府。 而左派、自由派, 在討論經濟時,總是談所得的不均。對吧? 這些都是重要的事情, 對我很重要,對你很重要。 但是對那些身處飢餓中 需要我們幫助脫貧的人而言, 這些只是分心而已。 我們必須一起覺醒 以可使用的最好工具 找出減輕貧窮的最佳途徑, 要達到這目標,必須得 保守派認知他們 需要自由主義者 與其所執著的貧困, 加上自由主義者認知 需要保守派及其痴迷的自由市場。 「多樣性」是我們國家未來的力量, 如果我們選擇了多樣性。
So how are we going to do it? How are we going to do it together? I've got to have some action items, not just for you but for me. Number one. Action item number one: remember, it's not good enough just to tolerate people who disagree. It's not good enough. We have to remember that we need people who disagree with us, because there are people who need all of us who are still waiting for these tools. Now, what are you going to do? How are you going to express that? Where does this start? It starts here. You know, all of us in this room, we're blessed. We're blessed with people who listen to us. We're blessed with prosperity. We're blessed with leadership. When people hear us, with the kind of unpredictable ideology, then maybe people will listen. Maybe progress will start at that point. That's number one. Number two. Number two: I'm asking you and I'm asking me to be the person specifically who blurs the lines, who is ambiguous, who is hard to classify. If you're a conservative, be the conservative who is always going on about poverty and the moral obligation to be a warrior for the poor. And if you're a liberal, be a liberal who is always talking about the beauty of free markets to solve our problems when we use them responsibly.
那我們如何做呢?怎麼做起來呢? 我必須有一些行動項目, 不只為你,而是為我。 第一,第一個行動: 記住,只是「容忍」意見不同的人 是不夠的。 是不夠的。 我們必須記住,我們「需要」異議者, 因為世上還有許多人等著 我們所有的人攜手, 一起提供解決問題的工具。 接下來,你打算怎麼辦? 你將如何表達? 從哪裡開始?從這裡開始。 要知道,在這房裡的人都是有福的。 我們有幸,有人聽從我們。 我們有繁榮的福氣。 我們有幸,居於領導地位。 當人們聽到 我們有這出乎意料的意識形態, 也許他們會聽從,自此開始進展。 以上是第一點。 第二, 第二:我要求你、也要求我自己, 做一個界線模糊的人, 模糊,很難被分歸於哪一類的人。 如果你是保守派, 做一個關心窮人 肩負道德責任,為窮人戰鬥的保守派。 如果你屬自由派,做一個服膺 -- 自由市場機制的美好, 在於若被負責任地使用 就能夠解決問題 -- 的自由主義者。
If we do that, we get two things. Number one: we get to start to work on the next two billion and be the solution that we've seen so much of in the past and we need to see more of in the future. That's what we get. And the second is that we might just be able to take the ghastly holy war of ideology that we're suffering under in this country and turn it into a competition of ideas based on solidarity and mutual respect. And then maybe, just maybe, we'll all realize that our big differences aren't really that big after all.
如果我們這樣做,我 們可以得到兩件事情。 第一:我們可以開始下一輪 二十億人的脫貧工作, 讓我們成為解決之道, 如同過去看到的那些解方法, 未來需要更多的解決之道。 這就是我們得到的。 第二:也許我們能夠 把我國正遭受著的、 可怕的意識形態聖戰, 變成了基於團結和互重的 產生新想法的良性競爭。 然後,也許,只是也許, 我們都意識到 我們的大差異 畢竟不是真的那麼大。 畢竟不是真的那麼大。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)