How do you feed a city? It's one of the great questions of our time. Yet it's one that's rarely asked. We take it for granted that if we go into a shop or restaurant, or indeed into this theater's foyer in about an hour's time, there is going to be food there waiting for us, having magically come from somewhere.
如何餵飽一個城市的所有居民? 這是現代一個大問題。 但很少被提起 就是很自然地, 當我們去商店 餐廳,或一小時以後到戲院大廳 總有食物等待著我們 神奇地出現
But when you think that every day for a city the size of London, enough food has to be produced, transported, bought and sold, cooked, eaten, disposed of, and that something similar has to happen every day for every city on earth, it's remarkable that cities get fed at all.
試想像倫敦這麽大的城市每天 要有足夠的食物被製造 運輸、買、賣 煮、吃、處置 同樣的事,日復一日 發生在每個城市裏 餵飽一座城市是相當不容易的
We live in places like this as if they're the most natural things in the world, forgetting that because we're animals and that we need to eat, we're actually as dependent on the natural world as our ancient ancestors were. And as more of us move into cities, more of that natural world is being transformed into extraordinary landscapes like the one behind me -- it's soybean fields in Mato Grosso in Brazil -- in order to feed us. These are extraordinary landscapes, but few of us ever get to see them.
對住在城市的我們 卻是稀鬆平常 忘了我們也是動物 我們也需要進食 我們還是依賴大自然而生 就跟我們老祖宗一樣 隨著更多人遷入城市 越來越多原始的大自然 被開發成這樣壯觀的景色 這是在巴西馬托格羅索的大豆田 就為了餵飽我們 這是十分壯觀的景色 但少有人見識過
And increasingly these landscapes are not just feeding us either. As more of us move into cities, more of us are eating meat, so that a third of the annual grain crop globally now gets fed to animals rather than to us human animals. And given that it takes three times as much grain -- actually ten times as much grain -- to feed a human if it's passed through an animal first, that's not a very efficient way of feeding us.
越來越廣大的田 卻不只用來餵飽我們 住城市的人越多 吃肉的人也越多 每年全球的農作物有三分之一 是拿去餵家畜 而不是直接給人吃 我們需要三倍的穀物 事實上是十倍的穀物 如果用家畜來餵飽人類的話 這是沒有效率的
And it's an escalating problem too. By 2050, it's estimated that twice the number of us are going to be living in cities. And it's also estimated that there is going to be twice as much meat and dairy consumed. So meat and urbanism are rising hand in hand. And that's going to pose an enormous problem. Six billion hungry carnivores to feed, by 2050. That's a big problem. And actually if we carry on as we are, it's a problem we're very unlikely to be able to solve.
而且是個日趨嚴峻的問題 到2050年住在城市的人 將是現在的兩倍 我們消費的肉與乳製品 估計也會變兩倍 都市化和肉的消費量是共同增長的 這將是個龐雜的問題 要餵飽六十億個肉食性動物 到2050年。 這是個大問題。如果我們不做改變 這個問題將會是無解
Nineteen million hectares of rainforest are lost every year to create new arable land. Although at the same time we're losing an equivalent amount of existing arables to salinization and erosion. We're very hungry for fossil fuels too. It takes about 10 calories to produce every calorie of food that we consume in the West. And even though there is food that we are producing at great cost, we don't actually value it. Half the food produced in the USA is currently thrown away. And to end all of this, at the end of this long process, we're not even managing to feed the planet properly. A billion of us are obese, while a further billion starve. None of it makes very much sense.
每年有一千九百萬公頃的熱帶雨林消失 被開發成農地 同時我們也失去同樣面積的可耕地 因爲土地的鹽化和水土流失 再加上對石化燃料的索求無度 在西方每製造一卡路里的食物 要耗去十卡路里的能量 雖然付出高昂的代價 我們卻不珍惜 半數在美國生產的食品是會被丟掉的 甚至,在這一長串過程的最後 我們也無法適當的分配食物 在地球上有十億人過胖,卻也有十億人吃不飽 這一切都很不合理
And when you think that 80 percent of global trade in food now is controlled by just five multinational corporations, it's a grim picture. As we're moving into cities, the world is also embracing a Western diet. And if we look to the future, it's an unsustainable diet.
試想全球百分之八十的食物交易 只掌握在五大跨國公司的手上時 這是可怕的情景 當人們搬到城市住時,大家也接受了西方的飲食習慣 如果我們想一想未來 這絕不是長久之計
So how did we get here? And more importantly, what are we going to do about it? Well, to answer the slightly easier question first, about 10,000 years ago, I would say, is the beginning of this process in the ancient Near East, known as the Fertile Crescent. Because, as you can see, it was crescent shaped. And it was also fertile. And it was here, about 10,000 years ago, that two extraordinary inventions, agriculture and urbanism, happened roughly in the same place and at the same time.
那麽,我們是如何走到這一步的? 而更重要的是,下一步該怎麽走? 第一個問題稍微容易一些 大概一萬年前,我想 是這個演變的開始 在古老的近東 又稱作“新月沃土”的地區 你可以看這像一輪新月的形狀 這地區的土壤肥沃 大約在一萬年前,在這裡 有兩項非凡的發明 農業以及城市的產生 大約在同一地點同一時間
This is no accident, because agriculture and cities are bound together. They need each other. Because it was discovery of grain by our ancient ancestors for the first time that produced a food source that was large enough and stable enough to support permanent settlements. And if we look at what those settlements were like, we see they were compact. They were surrounded by productive farm land and dominated by large temple complexes like this one at Ur, that were, in fact, effectively, spiritualized, central food distribution centers.
這並非偶然 因爲城市和農業是分不開的。他們互相需要 這起因於我們的祖先 第一次認識到穀物 可以產生足量又供給穩定的食物 去支撐一個永久聚落 我們看看一些當時的聚落 他們的結構是緊密的 他們的周圍有農田 並以一大型神殿為中心 例如這一個在烏爾的神殿 在當時 是神聖化的中央食物分配中心
Because it was the temples that organized the harvest, gathered in the grain, offered it to the gods, and then offered the grain that the gods didn't eat back to the people. So, if you like, the whole spiritual and physical life of these cities was dominated by the grain and the harvest that sustained them. And in fact, that's true of every ancient city. But of course not all of them were that small. Famously, Rome had about a million citizens by the first century A.D. So how did a city like this feed itself? The answer is what I call "ancient food miles."
因爲是神殿安排農作收割 收集穀物獻給諸神 再把諸神沒吃的穀物發還給人們 你可以這麽說 這些城市的精神及實體生活 是由他們賴以爲生的穀物和收成 所支配 事實上,這對每一個古代的城市而言皆如此 當然,不是每一個城市都這麽小 眾所皆知,在西元一世紀時 羅馬就有將近一百萬的居民 像這麽大的城市如何餵飽所有的居民? 答案就在我所謂的“古代食物道路”
Basically, Rome had access to the sea, which made it possible for it to import food from a very long way away. This is the only way it was possible to do this in the ancient world, because it was very difficult to transport food over roads, which were rough. And the food obviously went off very quickly. So Rome effectively waged war on places like Carthage and Egypt just to get its paws on their grain reserves. And, in fact, you could say that the expansion of the Empire was really sort of one long, drawn out militarized shopping spree, really. (Laughter) In fact -- I love the fact, I just have to mention this: Rome in fact used to import oysters from London, at one stage. I think that's extraordinary.
基本上,羅馬靠近海 所以食物可以從很遠的地方運來 這在古代非得透過海運才行 因為用陸運運輸是很困難的 路況很差 而且食物很快就壞掉 所以羅馬有效地攻擊 伽太基和埃及 就爲了取得他們的存糧 事實上,整個羅馬帝國的擴張 可說是一個長期有計劃的 軍事化的瘋狂大採購 (笑聲) 事實上,我喜歡這個事實,我要指出 羅馬還曾經[從英國輸入牡蠣] 我覺得這就挺不簡單的
So Rome shaped its hinterland through its appetite. But the interesting thing is that the other thing also happened in the pre-industrial world. If we look at a map of London in the 17th century, we can see that its grain, which is coming in from the Thames, along the bottom of this map. So the grain markets were to the south of the city. And the roads leading up from them to Cheapside, which was the main market, were also grain markets.
可以說羅馬領土的形狀 是由它的食欲來決定 有趣的還有其他的事 也發生在工業化前的世界 我們看這十七世紀的倫敦地圖 我們可以看到,穀物是從泰晤士河運入 在這張圖的下方 所以穀物市場都是在市區的南方 這些路從穀物市場直指 到區普塞得,在當時是主要的市場 沿途也都是穀物市場
And if you look at the name of one of those streets, Bread Street, you can tell what was going on there 300 years ago. And the same of course was true for fish. Fish was, of course, coming in by river as well. Same thing. And of course Billingsgate, famously, was London's fish market, operating on-site here until the mid-1980s. Which is extraordinary, really, when you think about it. Everybody else was wandering around with mobile phones that looked like bricks and sort of smelly fish happening down on the port.
你要是看這些道路的名字 麵包街,你可以看出 三百年前人們在這裡做什麽 漁獲的運輸也同理可證 魚當然是從河裏運來的 比林斯門是過去倫敦有名的魚市場 一直到1980年代中期都還在使用 那真是很不可思議,真的,想像一下 每個路人手裡 拿著磚頭大的大哥大 還依稀聞到港口的魚腥味
This is another thing about food in cities: Once its roots into the city are established, they very rarely move. Meat is a very different story because, of course, animals could walk into the city. So much of London's meat was coming from the northwest, from Scotland and Wales. So it was coming in, and arriving at the city at the northwest, which is why Smithfield, London's very famous meat market, was located up there. Poultry was coming in from East Anglia and so on, to the northeast. I feel a bit like a weather woman doing this. Anyway, and so the birds were coming in with their feet protected with little canvas shoes. And then when they hit the eastern end of Cheapside, that's where they were sold, which is why it's called Poultry.
這是另一個與城市、食物有關的事實 一旦運輸的進城路線被建立 就幾乎不會再改變 肉類產品則是另外一回事 因爲,動物們可以自己走進市内 所以倫敦的大部分肉品 是從西北方來的 從蘇格蘭及威爾斯 最後到達倫敦的西北方 那裡是史密斯菲爾德 倫敦著名的肉市場, 便在那裏 家禽類從東安格利亞進入倫敦的東北方 講到這裡我覺得好像在作氣象預報.... 禽鳥類也這樣被運進來 腳上都套著帆布保護套 當牠們抵達區普塞得東邊時 就會被賣掉 所以這個地方就叫做“家禽區”
And, in fact, if you look at the map of any city built before the industrial age, you can trace food coming in to it. You can actually see how it was physically shaped by food, both by reading the names of the streets, which give you a lot of clues. Friday Street, in a previous life, is where you went to buy your fish on a Friday. But also you have to imagine it full of food. Because the streets and the public spaces were the only places where food was bought and sold.
如果你細看任一城市地圖 如果它在工業化前就存在 你就能追溯食物的道路 切實地看出城市是如何被食物所改變 看一看街道的名稱,就可以給你很多線索 星期五街,在以前 是你在星期五去買魚的地方 想像街裏擠滿了食物 因爲在街上和公共空間 是買賣食物唯一的場所
And if we look at an image of Smithfield in 1830 you can see that it would have been very difficult to live in a city like this and be unaware of where your food came from. In fact, if you were having Sunday lunch, the chances were it was mooing or bleating outside your window about three days earlier. So this was obviously an organic city, part of an organic cycle. And then 10 years later everything changed.
看看1830年史密斯菲爾德當時的街景 你可以想見,住在這裡你很難不知道 你的食物從哪裏來 事實上,當你在吃禮拜日午餐時 你吃的牛或羊,可能三天前 還在你的窗外咩咩叫 所以這是一個有機的城市 是有機循環的一部分 而十年後一切都改變了
This is an image of the Great Western in 1840. And as you can see, some of the earliest train passengers were pigs and sheep. So all of a sudden, these animals are no longer walking into market. They're being slaughtered out of sight and mind, somewhere in the countryside. And they're coming into the city by rail. And this changes everything. To start off with, it makes it possible for the first time to grow cities, really any size and shape, in any place. Cities used to be constrained by geography; they used to have to get their food through very difficult physical means. All of a sudden they are effectively emancipated from geography.
這是1840年大西部鐵路的畫像 你可以看到,最早的鐵路旅客中 有一些是豬和羊 一夕之間,這些動物不再自己走進市場 牠們在眼不見心為淨的情況下被屠宰 在鄉下的某處 再用鐵路運進城市 這一來一切都改變了 這是有史以來第一次 城市可在任何地方 成長到任何大小和形狀 過去城市受限於地理條件 食物必須用艱辛地運送進來 突然間城市從地理限制中大解放
And as you can see from these maps of London, in the 90 years after the trains came, it goes from being a little blob that was quite easy to feed by animals coming in on foot, and so on, to a large splurge, that would be very, very difficult to feed with anybody on foot, either animals or people. And of course that was just the beginning. After the trains came cars, and really this marks the end of this process. It's the final emancipation of the city from any apparent relationship with nature at all.
你可以從倫敦的地圖上看出 在火車通行的九十年後 倫敦從一個容易餵飽的小點 一個靠動物走進來就能餵飽的小點 變成一個龐然大物 步行運輸再也不能餵飽每個人 對人對動物都一樣 這只是個開端。火車之後又來了汽車 這成就了這場變化的終點 這是城市最終的解放 徹底地從大自然的連繫中解放
And this is the kind of city that's devoid of smell, devoid of mess, certainly devoid of people, because nobody would have dreamed of walking in such a landscape. In fact, what they did to get food was they got in their cars, drove to a box somewhere on the outskirts, came back with a week's worth of shopping, and wondered what on earth to do with it. And this really is the moment when our relationship, both with food and cities, changes completely.
這些城市的街上聞不到動物的味道 不再紊亂,當然也沒有人跡 因為那已是夢裡都夢不到的風景了 食物的取得變成開車 到郊區的大倉儲裏 買回一整個星期的庫存 再想這些食材該怎麽處理 這時候我們跟城市及食物的關係 已完全改變
Here we have food -- that used to be the center, the social core of the city -- at the periphery. It used to be a social event, buying and selling food. Now it's anonymous. We used to cook; now we just add water, or a little bit of an egg if you're making a cake or something. We don't smell food to see if it's okay to eat. We just read the back of a label on a packet. And we don't value food. We don't trust it. So instead of trusting it, we fear it. And instead of valuing it, we throw it away.
過去食物是我們生活的中心 城市的社交重心 -- 現在則是邊緣化 買賣食物曾是社交活動的一部分 現在則是隱姓埋名 我們曾要料理食物,現在只需要加水[到調理包] 或者再打個蛋,如果你要做蛋糕的話 你不再先聞聞看東西有沒壞掉 你只須讀包裝背後的説明 我們不再珍惜食物。也不再信任它 從信賴轉變成疑懼 從體會它的價值變成浪費
One of the great ironies of modern food systems is that they've made the very thing they promised to make easier much harder. By making it possible to build cities anywhere and any place, they've actually distanced us from our most important relationship, which is that of us and nature. And also they've made us dependent on systems that only they can deliver, that, as we've seen, are unsustainable.
當今食品工業最最諷刺的是 他們讓生活極致地便利 卻也使得一切更為複雜 因為可以自由地建立新城市 我們卻切斷了最重要的連繫 那就是和大自然的連繫 最後我們只能依賴他們的供給系統 而我們已經看到,這個系統是不能永久持續的
So what are we going to do about that? It's not a new question. 500 years ago it's what Thomas More was asking himself. This is the frontispiece of his book "Utopia." And it was a series of semi-independent city-states, if that sounds remotely familiar, a day's walk from one another where everyone was basically farming-mad, and grew vegetables in their back gardens, and ate communal meals together, and so on. And I think you could argue that food is a fundamental ordering principle of Utopia, even though More never framed it that way.
所以,我們該怎麽辦呢? 這不是個新的問題 五百年前湯瑪士.摩爾就在問他自己 這是他的著作“烏托邦”的卷頭插圖 裏面是幾個半自給自足的城邦 聼起來挺熟悉的 幾乎每個人都有種田的狂熱 在自家的後院種蔬菜 並一起享用餐點等等 你可以說 食物是烏托邦的根本原則 即便摩爾最初不是這樣設想
And here is another very famous "Utopian" vision, that of Ebenezer Howard, "The Garden City." Same idea: series of semi-independent city-states, little blobs of metropolitan stuff with arable land around, joined to one another by railway. And again, food could be said to be the ordering principle of his vision. It even got built, but nothing to do with this vision that Howard had. And that is the problem with these Utopian ideas, that they are Utopian.
另一個著名的烏托邦的願景 是埃本内則.霍華著的“田園城市” 相同的,也是一些半自給自足的城邦 一些小型的都會區,周圍有農田圍繞 之間用鐵路連接 食物是,再一次地, 是他建立願景的原則 這些田園都市是有的,但與當初 霍華的願景沒有關係 這些烏托邦理念的問題就在於 他們只是烏托邦
Utopia was actually a word that Thomas Moore used deliberately. It was a kind of joke, because it's got a double derivation from the Greek. It can either mean a good place, or no place. Because it's an ideal. It's an imaginary thing. We can't have it. And I think, as a conceptual tool for thinking about the very deep problem of human dwelling, that makes it not much use. So I've come up with an alternative, which is Sitopia, from the ancient Greek, "sitos" for food, and "topos" for place.
“烏托邦”是湯瑪斯.摩爾刻意選用的字 半玩笑的。因為希臘語裡它有雙重含義 可以指“好地方”或“不存在的地方” 因爲它是理想的,抽象的。我們無法擁有它 我想這只是個概念 用來思考人類居住的深刻問題 這讓它不太有用 所以我提出另一個的概念 ”希托邦“,在古希臘文中 “希托”是代表食物,“邦”是地方
I believe we already live in Sitopia. We live in a world shaped by food, and if we realize that, we can use food as a really powerful tool -- a conceptual tool, design tool, to shape the world differently. So if we were to do that, what might Sitopia look like? Well I think it looks a bit like this. I have to use this slide. It's just the look on the face of the dog. But anyway, this is -- (Laughter) it's food at the center of life, at the center of family life, being celebrated, being enjoyed, people taking time for it. This is where food should be in our society.
我相信我們已經住在“希托邦”裏 這世界是受食物影響的 只要認清楚這事實,食物便能成爲有力的工具 一個概念性的工具,設計工具,來改變這個世界 如果這樣做,希托邦會長得怎樣? 我的看法是這樣 我用這張投影片,因爲這狗的臉很可愛 無論如何,在這裡 (笑聲) 食物是生活的中心 在家庭生活的中心,被讚頌 被享用,人們花時間在這上面 這是食物在我們社會裏應有的地位
But you can't have scenes like this unless you have people like this. By the way, these can be men as well. It's people who think about food, who think ahead, who plan, who can stare at a pile of raw vegetables and actually recognize them. We need these people. We're part of a network. Because without these kinds of people we can't have places like this. Here, I deliberately chose this because it is a man buying a vegetable. But networks, markets where food is being grown locally. It's common. It's fresh. It's part of the social life of the city. Because without that, you can't have this kind of place, food that is grown locally and also is part of the landscape, and is not just a zero-sum commodity off in some unseen hell-hole. Cows with a view. Steaming piles of humus. This is basically bringing the whole thing together.
但想做到這樣,得先有這些人 對了,他也可以是男的 這些人是會想到食物的 他們會預先思考,作計劃 看到一堆生菜時 知道那是什麽菜 我們需要這些人。我們都是網路的一部分 因爲,少了這種人,這個地方將無法存在 我故意選這張是因為這是男人在買菜 在這個網路或市場裏,食物是當地生産的 是普及的,新鮮的 是社交生活的一部分 沒有了這一部分,這樣的地方就無法存在 當地生産的食物也是風景的一部分 而不只是另一個消費商品 來自看不到的黑暗角落 牛在野地放牧 冒著水汽的肥沃土壤 這才使一切變得完整
And this is a community project I visited recently in Toronto. It's a greenhouse, where kids get told all about food and growing their own food. Here is a plant called Kevin, or maybe it's a plant belonging to a kid called Kevin. I don't know. But anyway, these kinds of projects that are trying to reconnect us with nature is extremely important.
這是一個社區性的計劃 我最近去了一趟多倫多 這個溫室裡小朋友學習 有關食物,和種菜的一切 這顆菜名叫凱文,或是 這是凱文種的菜,我不確定 總而言之,這類計劃 使我們和大自然再度連繫,這是非常重要的
So Sitopia, for me, is really a way of seeing. It's basically recognizing that Sitopia already exists in little pockets everywhere. The trick is to join them up, to use food as a way of seeing. And if we do that, we're going to stop seeing cities as big, metropolitan, unproductive blobs, like this. We're going to see them more like this, as part of the productive, organic framework of which they are inevitably a part, symbiotically connected. But of course, that's not a great image either, because we need not to be producing food like this anymore. We need to be thinking more about permaculture, which is why I think this image just sums up for me the kind of thinking we need to be doing. It's a re-conceptualization of the way food shapes our lives.
所以,希托邦,對我是另一種觀點 基本上,我們認爲希托邦 已在各地小規模地分散地存在 下一步就是把它們連接起來 從食物的角度來看 如果我們這麽看,城市就不會是 像這樣一個大而不事生産的區塊 我們將把城市看成 是一個有生産力的有機體的一部分 在這架構下無可避免地 自然地連結 這不是什麽大理論 因爲我們不需要再這樣生産食物 而應該多想想社區生態農業 所以這張圖 替我們該做的事做個結論 我們需要重新思考 食物如何改變我們的生活
The best image I know of this is from 650 years ago. It's Ambrogio Lorenzetti's "Allegory of Good Government." It's about the relationship between the city and the countryside. And I think the message of this is very clear. If the city looks after the country, the country will look after the city. And I want us to ask now, what would Ambrogio Lorenzetti paint if he painted this image today? What would an allegory of good government look like today? Because I think it's an urgent question. It's one we have to ask, and we have to start answering. We know we are what we eat. We need to realize that the world is also what we eat. But if we take that idea, we can use food as a really powerful tool to shape the world better. Thank you very much. (Applause)
最棒的例子是這張650年前的畫 安布洛吉歐.羅倫澤提的“良好政府的寓言” 他勾畫出城市和鄉下的關係 這裡面的訊息是很清楚的 如果城市細心照顧田園 那田園也會回頭來照顧城市 我要大家來想一想 安布洛吉歐.羅倫澤提會怎麽畫? 他如果在今天畫這張圖 現代版"良好政府的寓言"會是什麽? 因為這是個不能等的問題 每個人都必須問自己 每個人也必須開始回答 我們怎麼吃,就會像什麼 也要知道,我們怎麼吃,這世界就會像什麽 一旦有了這個概念,我們可以藉由食物 作爲一個十分有力的工具來改善世界 謝謝大家 (掌聲)