What I'd like to talk about is really the biggest problems in the world. I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" -- probably that's also a good choice. (Laughter)
我想和大家談的是地球上最嚴重的問題。 我不會談到"多疑的環境保護論者"這本書 雖然那也是不錯的選擇。 (笑聲)
But I am going talk about: what are the big problems in the world? And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you to try and get out pen and paper because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that. So get out your pen and paper. Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world. I'm just going to list some of them. There are 800 million people starving. There's a billion people without clean drinking water. Two billion people without sanitation. There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS. The lists go on and on. There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on. There are many, many problems out there.
不過我要談的是,何謂地球上最嚴重的問題? 在我開始之前,必須說的是,我先請在座的每一位 拿出筆跟紙 因為我將請各位和我一起來找找我們所要的答案 所以請拿出筆和紙 最重要的是這世界上有很多的問題 我來舉些例子說明 全球有八億人口處於飢餓當中 十億人口沒有乾淨的水喝 二十億人口沒有基本衛生措施 幾百萬的人口因感染愛滋病毒和愛滋病而死亡 有太多的例子列舉不完 全球有二十億人口嚴重受到氣候變遷的影響--等等 有許多許多的問題
In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't. We don't actually solve all problems. And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves -- and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say, if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves, which ones should we solve first? And that's the question I'd like to ask you. If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend to do good in this world, where should we spend it? We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world, and I will just briefly read them: climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, population migration, sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers. We believe that these in many ways encompass the biggest problems in the world. The obvious question would be to ask, what do you think are the biggest things? Where should we start on solving these problems? But that's a wrong problem to ask. That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.
在一個完美的世界,我們會解決所有的問題,可是實際上我們不會。 現實世界裡我們不會解決所有的問題。 那麼如果我們不會,我想我們該問自己的是-- 這也是為什麼這場演講被安排在經濟議題的時段 既然我們無法解決所有問題,我們應該開始自我省察 我們應該先解決哪些問題? 這是今天我要問大家的問題 假設如果我們有500億美元,能夠在未來四年 可以為這世界做些事,這些錢該用在哪裡? 我們找出十項地球所面臨最嚴重的挑戰 我很快的念出來。 氣候變遷,傳染疾病,衝突 金融波動,政府治理,貪汙 營養失調及饑荒,人口遷移 衛生及水源,經濟資助及貿易保護 我們相信在很多的地方 涵蓋全球最嚴重的問題 我們要問的是 哪些是最重要的? 我們該從哪些問題開始解決? 不過這問題問得不對 今年一月這個問題早在瑞士達沃斯已被提出
But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems. Because we can't solve problems. Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die. But we don't have a technology to solve that, right? So the point is not to prioritize problems, but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems. And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated. To climate change that would be like Kyoto. To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets. To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on. The point that I would like to ask you to try to do, is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense an impossible task -- write down what you think is probably some of the top priorities. And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil -- to put down what are the things we should not do, first. What should be at the bottom of the list? Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor, and just figure out what should be the top priorities and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have to the world's biggest issues.
當然,把注意力集中在問題上,這本身就是個問題。 因為總是有解決不了的問題。 我們要面對的最大問題就是我們都會死 但卻沒有任何科技可以解決這問題,是吧? 因此重點不在於為問題訂出優先次序 而是為解決方法訂出優先次序 那就是說--當然事情沒有那麼簡單 氣候變遷的解決方法可能是京都協議 傳染病的解決方法可能是醫療診所或蚊帳 衝突的解決方法可能是聯合國維和部隊等等。 我想請大家一起嘗試做的是 請在三十秒內-我知道這幾乎是 不可能的任務-寫出你認為 應該最優先著手的項目 還有-這就是為什麼經濟學是很殘酷的-- 我們得列出哪些事是不需要最先被處理的 哪些事是最後要處理的? 請你用三十秒的時間,或許和旁邊的人討論 想想我們有哪些解決方法 與進行的優先次序來面對 世界上最嚴重的問題
The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean, I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes, I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right? I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process, and that's actually what we did. And I also strongly encourage you, and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards, to think about, how do we actually prioritize? Of course, you have to ask yourself, why on Earth was such a list never done before? And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable. Nobody wants to do this. Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list. But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list. And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense not to want to do such a list. We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years, yet we've never actually made a fundamental list of all the big things that we can do in the world, and said, which of them should we do first? So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing -- any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing, if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good as if we actually did the prioritization, and went in and talked about it.
這過程最奇妙的是--當然 我很樂意-但我只有十八分鐘 我已分給大家相當多的時間,是麼? 我想引導大家思考這個過程 這就是我們所做的 同時我也請大家認真想想 我相信以後也會有類似的討論 思考實際上我們如何訂定這先後順序? 當然各位也要問問自己 到底為什麼這樣的清單從來沒有人做過? 其中一個原因是優先順序會讓人感到極度不適 沒人想要這麼做 顯而易見的,每個組織都想成為清單上的最佳選項 卻更不想成為清單上的非首要選項 既然清單上非首要的項目,遠比首要項目 要來得多,理所當然地 沒有人想要做這清單 聯合國成立了快六十年 我們卻從未確實地做一份基本的清單 列出我們可以為世界做的所有重要事情 也就是說,哪些是我們應該先做的? 這不是說我們沒有決定優先次序 任何決定都包含了優先順序,所以我們仍然是決定了 假如有可能的話--有很高的可能性是, 沒有我們真正的訂出先後順序 坦白的說出來得好。
So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have, for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices. There are many, many things we can do out there, but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes. We have not had an idea. Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card, but you have no idea what the price is. You know, you have a pizza; you've no idea what the price is. It could be at one dollar; it could be 1,000 dollars. It could be a family-size pizza; it could be a very individual-size pizza, right? We'd like to know these things.
所以我要提議的,是我們長久以來 在面對狀況時已有一張清單可供我們選擇 我們可以做非常多的事 但如果我們沒有參考的數值或規模 是不會有什麼想法的。 想像一下我們走進一家餐廳,拿起菜單 卻不知道價錢 你想要個披薩,卻不知道多少錢 有可能是一塊錢,有可能是一千塊錢 有可能是個家庭號披薩 也有可能是一人份的披薩,不是麼? 我們需要知道這些事情
And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do -- to try to put prices on these issues. And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process. We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area. So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change. What can we do? What will be the cost and what will be the benefit of that? Likewise in communicable diseases. Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do? What would be the price? What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome? And so on.
而那就是哥本哈根共識想要做的 就是為這些議題訂定策略 基本上,這些都是哥本哈根共識的過程 我們找來三十位世界最頂尖的經濟學家,每個領域有三位, 所以在氣候變遷的領域有三位最優秀的經濟學家 我們能做什麼?要付出哪些代價? 又會得到哪些效益? 同樣的在傳染病的範疇中 我們有三位世界最頂尖的專家告訴我們,該怎麼做? 要付出什麼? 我們該怎麼做,結果又是如何? 以此類推。
Then we had some of the world's top economists, eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates, meet in Copenhagen in May 2004. We called them the "dream team." The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them the Real Madrid of economics. That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here. And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list. And then you ask, why economists? And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) -- because that's a very good question. The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria, you ask a malaria expert. If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first, you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do. That is what economists do. They prioritize. They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first, and which one should we do afterwards?
我們接著請世界最好的經濟學家 八位世界最佳經濟學家,包括三位諾貝爾獎得主, 2004年五月在哥本哈根相聚一堂 我們稱之為夢幻團隊 劍橋大學的督導長決定稱他們為 經濟學的皇家馬德里隊 在歐洲很適合,但在這裡似乎不太行得通 他們基本上在做的是列出一張優先順序表 然後你會問,那何必找經濟學家? 當然,我很開心妳問這問題(笑聲) 因為那是個非常好的問題 重點在於,如果你想了解瘧疾, 妳會找瘧疾專家 如果你想了解氣候,你會諮詢氣候學家 但如果你想知道兩者之間,何者應優先處理 你不能問他們任何一方,因為這不是他們的專長 那是經濟學家的工作 負責制定優先次序。 他們為那些看起來挺擾人的項目制定優先順序, 評估哪些先做,哪些該稍後進行?
So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you. Of course, you can also see it on the website, and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on. They basically came up with a list where they said there were bad projects -- basically, projects where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back. Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects. And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing. I'm going to go from backwards so that we end up with the best projects.
因此這就是我要和大家分享的清單, 當然你也可以在網路上看到 隨著時間我們也會更密集的談到 基本上他們完成了一份選單, 上頭有包含一些不良項目,簡單來說, 假設你投資了一塊錢,回收會小於一塊錢, 接著有些合理的項目,良好和優秀的項目 當然我們應該先發展優秀項目 我會從清單的末尾開始 把最後的留到最後。
These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn't come back, either. And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious. Why is it it came up? And I'll actually also try to get back to this because it's probably one of the things that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.
這些是不良項目 可以看見清單最末是氣候變遷 這惹惱了許多人,那可能就是為什麼有些人會說 我不應該再來。 這個我需要說明一下,因為看起來很奇怪 為何是這樣? 我想要再回頭談談這件事 因為這可能是我們的清單中 和你們的清單裡的項目不同之處
The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto -- or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal is simply because it's very inefficient. It's not saying that global warming is not happening. It's not saying that it's not a big problem. But it's saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That's a substantial amount of money. That's two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we've spent a lot of money doing a little good.
為什麼這些專家認為執行京都協議, 或者做得比京都會議要更多-並不是個好主意 原因很簡單,因為成效不彰 並不是說地球暖化沒有發生 也不是說問題不嚴重 而是說我們能做的 並不多,代價很高 這些專家基本上告訴我們,根據所有總體經濟學模組的平均估算 如果各國都同意執行京都協議,每年要花費大約一千五百億美元 這是筆龐大的數字 大約是我們每年援助第三世界發展 所花費的兩到三倍 但仍舊沒太大的幫助 所有的模組皆顯示這樣可以在二一零零年時將暖化問題延後六年 因此本來二一零零年在孟加拉發生的水災,可以延至二零一六年 是可以改善,但不是全面性的成效 因此真正來講,我們花了很多錢,卻沒什麼成效。
And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It's not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't want to do it. But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.
讓我給大家一些參考資料 根據聯合國的統計,只需使用一半的預算 大約每年七百五十億美元 我們可以解決世界上所有重大問題 我們可以為地球上的所有人類,提供乾淨飲用水,衛生措施, 基本醫療與教育措施。 所以我們捫心自問,我們真的要花兩倍的代價 卻只能換來一點好處? 或者只用一半的代價,達到出人意料的驚人成效? 這也是氣候變遷計畫成效不彰。 並不是說,如果我們有了這些錢,就不會去處理這個問題, 而是說,當我們沒有這些預算時,就不應該優先處理。
The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these -- but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it, simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing. It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly. Again, what it tells us is suddenly we start thinking about both sides of the equation. If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in. Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important, but it also costs a lot of infrastructure. So I'd like to show you the top four priorities which should be at least the first ones that we deal with when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.
成效普通的計畫,我並不在這逐項評論, 但傳染病,基本健康服務-可以進行。 原因在於,基本健康服務規模很大是件好事 會帶來很多效益,但是也相當昂貴。 我要強調的是,這突然提醒我們 該開始思考問題的兩面。 接著來看成效不錯的計畫,像是衛生和飲用水計畫 這兩個計畫極為重要。 也需要許多基本措施的建造 我們來看看為首的四項優先順序 哪些步驟是我們談到如何處理世界性問題時 必須優先處理的
The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria. The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year. It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP every year for affected nations. If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years, we could bring that incidence down to half. We could avoid about 500,000 people dying, but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a [million] people getting infected every year. We would significantly increase their ability to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with -- of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.
第四個要優先處理的是瘧疾-面對瘧疾 每年有幾百萬人因感染瘧疾而受影響 對受影響的國家來說,每年所需的費用 可能激增至接近國民生產總值的百分之一 如果我們在未來四年投資了一百三十億美元 我們可以把感染的人數減半 可以救回大約五十萬人的生命 但更重要的是,我們每年可以防止大約十億人 感染這類的疾病。 這會很顯著的提高他們 解決處理其它很多問題的能力。 當然,長遠來看,這包含了處理全球暖化的能力。
This third best one was free trade. Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade, and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe, we could basically enliven the global economy to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year, half of which would accrue to the Third World. Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull two to three hundred million people out of poverty, very radically fast, in about two to five years. That would be the third best thing we could do.
第三項要優先處理的是自由貿易。 基本上,我們的經濟模組告訴我們, 如果我們有自由貿易,尤其是取消歐美國家的貿易津貼, 我們可以從根本活絡全球經濟。 每年可高達令人驚訝的兩萬四千億美元的數字。 半數會來自於第三世界。 再者,我們可以確實的在兩到五年內 協助兩到三億的人口 快速的脫離貧困。 這是第三件我們最應該做的事。
The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition. Not just malnutrition in general, but there's a very cheap way of dealing with malnutrition, namely, the lack of micronutrients. Basically, about half of the world's population is lacking in iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A. If we invest about 12 billion dollars, we could make a severe inroad into that problem. That would be the second best investment that we could do.
第二件我們最該做的事,是營養不良的問題 不只是一般的營養不良,而是有更經濟的方式 來面對解決微量營養元素缺乏的問題。 基本上全球有一半的人口缺乏 鐵,鋅,碘和維生素A 如果我們投資一百二十億美元 就可以為這問題帶來重大的解決方案 那會是我們能做的第二樣最棒的投資。
And the very best project would be to focus on HIV/AIDS. Basically, if we invest 27 billion dollars over the next eight years, we could avoid 28 new million cases of HIV/AIDS. Again, what this does and what it focuses on is saying there are two very different ways that we can deal with HIV/AIDS. One is treatment; the other one is prevention. And again, in an ideal world, we would do both. But in a world where we don't do either, or don't do it very well, we have to at least ask ourselves where should we invest first. And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention. So basically, what this focuses on is saying, we can do a lot more by investing in prevention. Basically for the amount of money that we spend, we can do X amount of good in treatment, and 10 times as much good in prevention. So again, what we focus on is prevention rather than treatment, at first rate.
至於我們成效最佳的專案,就是愛滋病的問題。 原則上,如果我們在未來八年內投資兩百七十億美元 我們可以預防兩千八百萬的人口感染愛滋。 同樣的我們必須考慮的是 對付愛滋問題有兩種截然不同的解決方式, 一個是治療,另一個是預防。 同樣的在一個理想世界,我們兩者都要做。 但如果不能兩者兼顧,或者沒法做得好 至少得先問自己,應該首要投資的是在哪裡? 治療是要比預防昂貴太多太多了, 所以基本上,如果我們投注心力在預防上, 我們可以得到比較多的成效。 基本上我們可以用一筆錢來預防愛滋 可以做無數個治療 也可以在預防得到十倍的成效 所以我們首要注重的應該是預防 而不是治療。
What this really does is that it makes us think about our priorities. I'd like to have you look at your priority list and say, did you get it right? Or did you get close to what we came up with here? Well, of course, one of the things is climate change again. I find a lot of people find it very, very unlikely that we should do that.
這告訴我們的是,考慮我們的優先順序是很重要的。 請你看看你們手上的清單,捫心自問: 這清單是否正確? 或者與我們所制定的是否類似? 當然,我們要面對的其中一個問題,又是氣候變遷。 我知道很多人都不認為我們應該這麼做。
We should also do climate change, if for no other reason, simply because it's such a big problem. But of course, we don't do all problems. There are many problems out there in the world. And what I want to make sure of is, if we actually focus on problems, that we focus on the right ones. The ones where we can do a lot of good rather than a little good. And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling, one of the participants in the dream team, he put it very, very well. One of things that people forget, is that in 100 years, when we're talking about most of the climate change impacts will be, people will be much, much richer. Even the most pessimistic impact scenarios of the U.N. estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100 will be about as rich as we are today. Much more likely, they will be two to four times richer than we are. And of course, we'll be even richer than that.
我們應該單單處理好氣候變遷的問題, 因為這是個影響深遠的問題。 不過我們也不會解決所有的問題。 世界上有太多的問題了 我想要確定的是,如果我們專注在問題上, 高過專注在對的問題上, 就是那些可以讓我們得到重要成效而不只是無關痛癢的問題, 我們夢幻隊伍中的成員, 湯瑪斯謝琳說得非常好,他指出, 人們常常忘記一百年後 當我們討論氣候變遷所帶來的巨大影響時, 人們會比現在富有很多。 即使是聯合國最不樂觀的預測, 在二一零零年時,發展中國家的人最差的時候 也和我們現在一樣富有。 很有可能的是,他們要比我們現在富有兩到四倍。 當然,到時我們也會比現在更富有。
But the point is to say, when we talk about saving people, or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100, we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi. We're actually talking about a fairly rich Dutch guy. And so the real point, of course, is to say, do we want to spend a lot of money helping a little, 100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy? Or do we want to help real poor people, right now, in Bangladesh, who really need the help, and whom we can help very, very cheaply? Or as Schelling put it, imagine if you were a rich -- as you will be -- a rich Chinese, a rich Bolivian, a rich Congolese, in 2100, thinking back on 2005, and saying, "How odd that they cared so much about helping me a little bit through climate change, and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather and my great grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more, and who needed the help so much more?"
我要說的是,當我們說要在二一零零年, 幫助孟加拉人民時, 我們面對的不是一個窮困的孟加拉, 而是一個挺富有的荷蘭人 追根究底來說, 我們是否真的想花一大筆錢,去幫助一位 一百年後相當富有的荷蘭人? 還是我們現在幫助那些窮困的孟加拉人民 而所花費的不需太龐大的代價? 或者如同Schelling所說,想像自己到了2100年 是個有錢的中國人,波利維亞人,或者是剛果人, 當你回想2005年時你會說,"為何他們會這麼在意 幫助應付氣候變遷上的事, 卻不在意幫助我的祖父, 和我的曾祖父,即使他們能夠做的 是那麼那麼的多?
So I think that really does tell us why it is we need to get our priorities straight. Even if it doesn't accord to the typical way we see this problem. Of course, that's mainly because climate change has good pictures. We have, you know, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- it looks great, right? It's a good film in the sense that I certainly want to see it, right, but don't expect Emmerich to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter) It just doesn't make for as much of a movie. So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus and the whole discussion of priorities as a defense for boring problems. To make sure that we realize it's not about making us feel good. It's not about making things that have the most media attention, but it's about making places where we can actually do the most good.
所以我認為這正說明了 為何正確地制定優先順序是如此重要。 雖然這和我們一般看這問題的角度不同。 當然,主要原因是氣候變遷有許多闡述方式 我們有像[明天以後]的電影,看起來挺棒的,不是麼? 那是部好電影, 會讓我想去欣賞,但別期待Emmerich 會找布萊特彼特出現在他下一部戲中。 在坦桑尼亞挖廁所之類的(笑聲) 因為那沒什麼票房可言。 所以從許多方面來看,我認為哥本哈根共識 與整個關於優先次序的討論 只是對於沉悶問題的辯解罷了。 為了確保我們意識到不是要做些自我感覺良好的事, 也不是要做吸引媒體注意力的事, 而是去做最能帶來果效的事。
The other objections, I think, that are important to say, is that I'm somehow -- or we are somehow -- positing a false choice. Of course, we should do all things, in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree. I think we should do all things, but we don't. In 1970, the developed world decided we were going to spend twice as much as we did, right now, than in 1970, on the developing world. Since then our aid has halved. So it doesn't look like we're actually on the path of suddenly solving all big problems.
我在想,另外的反對聲音是需要注意到的, 就是我-或者我們有時候會提出假象的選擇。 當然,我們應當做所有的事, 尤其是在一個理想的世界裡-我是絕對同意。 我們該做所有的事,但事實上並沒有。 在七十年代,已開發國家估計我們所花費的成本 是現在實際上花費在開發中國家的兩倍。 從那時以來,我們所援助的金額減了一半。 由此可見,我們現在走的方向, 不會馬上解決所有重大問題。
Likewise, people are also saying, but what about the Iraq war? You know, we spend 100 billion dollars -- why don't we spend that on doing good in the world? I'm all for that. If any one of you guys can talk Bush into doing that, that's fine. But the point, of course, is still to say, if you get another 100 billion dollars, we still want to spend that in the best possible way, don't we? So the real issue here is to get ourselves back and think about what are the right priorities. I should just mention briefly, is this really the right list that we got out? You know, when you ask the world's best economists, you inevitably end up asking old, white American men. And they're not necessarily, you know, great ways of looking at the entire world.
同樣的,有人會問,那美伊戰爭呢? 我們已為了這戰爭花費了一千億美元, 為何不用這筆錢為世界做些好事? 這點我全力支持 如果你們其中有人能說服布希那樣做,那最好。 但我的論點仍然是, 如果有額外的一千億美元, 我們仍想把這筆錢做最好的運用,是吧? 所以最重要的問題是,我們重新回頭想想, 哪些是正確的優先制序。 還有一點我要說的,是這張清單是否訂定的夠正確? 當我們找來世界上頂尖的經濟學家, 不可避免找來的都是些有點年紀的美國白人, 然而他們並不一定能提供 觀察這個世界的最好方法。
So we actually invited 80 young people from all over the world to come and solve the same problem. The only two requirements were that they were studying at the university, and they spoke English. The majority of them were, first, from developing countries. They had all the same material but they could go vastly outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did, to come up with their own lists. And the surprising thing was that the list was very similar -- with malnutrition and diseases at the top and climate change at the bottom. We've done this many other times. There's been many other seminars and university students, and different things. They all come out with very much the same list. And that gives me great hope, really, in saying that I do believe that there is a path ahead to get us to start thinking about priorities, and saying, what is the important thing in the world? Of course, in an ideal world, again we'd love to do everything. But if we don't do it, then we can start thinking about where should we start?
所以我們從世界各地邀請來了八十位年輕人, 邀請他們解決相同的問題。 他們只需符合兩個條件:大學生 並懂英文 大多數的從開發中國家來的人 他們都有相同的資訊 在討論時有寬廣的思考空間,也都這麼做了 提出他們自己的清單 令人驚訝的是這些清單的雷同之處 饑荒與疾病為當務之急 氣候變遷是最不重要的 我們嘗試了很多次 經過許多論壇與大學生的討論 大家都有著類似的清單 這給我很大的希望,真的,我衷心相信 是有這麼一條路引領我們開始好好思考優先順序 並問:什麼是世界上最重要的事? 當然在一個裡想的世界裡,我們希望做所有的事 但如果我們不做,仍可以開始思考從哪裡先做起?
I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process. We did it in 2004, and we hope to assemble many more people, getting much better information for 2008, 2012. Map out the right path for the world -- but also to start thinking about political triage. To start thinking about saying, "Let's do not the things where we can do very little at a very high cost, not the things that we don't know how to do, but let's do the great things where we can do an enormous amount of good, at very low cost, right now."
哥本哈根協議是個過程 2004年我們做到了 並希望結合更多的人 為2008, 2012年匯集更多的資訊 鋪陳出一條對世界有益的路 並開始思考政治上的分類 思考並提倡"就去做" 而不是做一些小事卻得付出極大的代價 也不是那些我們不知如何去做的事 而是,就從現在, 用最小的成本去做很多很棒的好事。
At the end of the day, you can disagree with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these, but we have to be honest and frank about saying, if there's some things we do, there are other things we don't do. If we worry too much about some things, we end by not worrying about other things. So I hope this will help us make better priorities, and think about how we better work for the world. Thank you.
到了最後,你可以不同意 我們所討論的制定優先秩序的事情 但我們必須坦誠佈公的說 如果有我們能做的事,也有我們不能做的事 如果我們為某些事情太煩憂 最後會忘了其他事 希望這能夠幫助我們做出更好的選擇 並想想怎麼讓世界更好 謝謝