I think all of us have been interested, at one time or another, in the romantic mysteries of all those societies that collapsed, such as the classic Maya in the Yucatan, the Easter Islanders, the Anasazi, Fertile Crescent society, Angor Wat, Great Zimbabwe and so on. And within the last decade or two, archaeologists have shown us that there were environmental problems underlying many of these past collapses. But there were also plenty of places in the world where societies have been developing for thousands of years without any sign of a major collapse, such as Japan, Java, Tonga and Tikopea. So evidently, societies in some areas are more fragile than in other areas. How can we understand what makes some societies more fragile than other societies? The problem is obviously relevant to our situation today, because today as well, there are some societies that have already collapsed, such as Somalia and Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. There are also societies today that may be close to collapse, such as Nepal, Indonesia and Columbia.
社會瓦解之謎,我相信各位都曾對此感過興趣, 那些曾經存在,但後來瓦解的社會, 如瑪雅文明,尤卡坦半島上的古典瑪雅文明,復活節島文明, 阿納薩齊文明,新月沃地文明,吳哥文明,大辛巴威文明等等。 而在最近的10到20年裏, 考古學家們向我們展示了導致這些社會瓦解的 鮮為人知的的環境原因。 但是這個世界上還有很多地方, 都有著上千年的歷史, 卻從未有過徹底的瓦解。 譬如:日本、爪哇島、湯加以及蒂科皮亞。顯然, 與其他社會相比,有些社會更加脆弱一些。 我們該如何來理解這一點呢? 顯然,這個問題非常有現實意義。 因為於當下世界同樣 有一些已經瓦解了的社會,如:索馬里、 盧旺達和前南斯拉夫。此外, 還有一些行將崩潰的社會,比如:尼泊爾、印尼、哥倫比亞。
What about ourselves? What is there that we can learn from the past that would help us avoid declining or collapsing in the way that so many past societies have? Obviously the answer to this question is not going to be a single factor. If anyone tells you that there is a single-factor explanation for societal collapses, you know right away that they're an idiot. This is a complex subject. But how can we make sense out of the complexities of this subject? In analyzing societal collapses, I've arrived at a five-point framework -- a checklist of things that I go through to try and understand collapses. And I'll illustrate that five-point framework by the extinction of the Greenland Norse society. This is a European society with literate records, so we know a good deal about the people and their motivation. In AD 984 Vikings went out to Greenland, settled Greenland, and around 1450 they died out -- the society collapsed, and every one of them ended up dead.
那麼,美國是什麼狀況呢? 歷史上,有這麼多的社會或者衰敗、或者消亡, 以史為鑒,我們應當如何避免重蹈覆轍呢? 這個問題的答案顯然得從多方面考慮, 如果有人告訴你:“這些社會會崩潰,只有一個原因。” 那麼你應該馬上反應過來, 這人是個傻子。畢竟,這是個非常複雜的問題。 那麼我們該如何來理清頭緒呢? 在分析社會崩潰的過程中,我設計出了一個 “五點架構”:這其實是個清單,枚舉了我為了解釋社會瓦解之謎 而考慮的每一個因素。下面,我將通過分析格陵蘭島上的維京部落的消亡 來闡釋這個“五點架構”。 這是一個留有文字史料的歐洲社會, 所以我們可以充分理解那裏的人和他們的動機。 西元984年,一群維京海盜登陸格陵蘭島並隨後定居下來。 到1450年,整個社會瓦解, 最終,他們滅絕了。
Why did they all end up dead? Well, in my five-point framework, the first item on the framework is to look for human impacts on the environment: people inadvertently destroying the resource base on which they depend. And in the case of the Viking Norse, the Vikings inadvertently caused soil erosion and deforestation, which was a particular problem for them because they required forests to make charcoal, to make iron. So they ended up an Iron Age European society, virtually unable to make their own iron. A second item on my checklist is climate change. Climate can get warmer or colder or dryer or wetter. In the case of the Vikings -- in Greenland, the climate got colder in the late 1300s, and especially in the 1400s. But a cold climate isn't necessarily fatal, because the Inuit -- the Eskimos inhabiting Greenland at the same time -- did better, rather than worse, with cold climates. So why didn't the Greenland Norse as well?
他們怎麼就全滅絕了呢?嗯,在我的“五點構架”中, 第一點是:人對環境的影響。 因為大意,人們毀掉了他們賴以生存的資源。 在這個具體的案例中, 維京人由於大意導致了土壤侵蝕和森林荒漠化, 而之所以造成了麻煩是因為 他們需要樹木來製成木炭,再用木炭冶鐵。 因此雖然他們是鐵器時代的歐洲社會,但當他們瓦解時, 他們已經不能冶煉鐵器了。在清單上的第二點是: 氣候變化:或變暖、或變冷、或變乾、或變濕。 在這個案例中,14世紀晚期,尤其是15世紀, 氣候變冷。但寒冷的氣候並不是決定性的因素, 理由是當時愛斯基摩人同樣住在格陵蘭島上, 面對變冷的氣候,他們的表現就挺不錯的。 那麼,為什麼維京人沒能做到呢?
The third thing on my checklist is relations with neighboring friendly societies that may prop up a society. And if that friendly support is pulled away, that may make a society more likely to collapse. In the case of the Greenland Norse, they had trade with the mother country -- Norway -- and that trade dwindled: partly because Norway got weaker, partly because of sea ice between Greenland and Norway.
在我的清單上的第三點是: 與周邊友邦的關係,這些友邦可以提供必要的援助。 而一旦這種來自友邦的援助終止,通常會使 這個社會瓦解。在這個案例中, 他們一直在與母邦,挪威,進行貿易往來, 然而,一方面因為挪威逐漸衰弱, 一方面因為兩地航道間的海水漸漸結冰,這種貿易與日俱減。
The fourth item on my checklist is relations with hostile societies. In the case of Norse Greenland, the hostiles were the Inuit -- the Eskimos sharing Greenland -- with whom the Norse got off to bad relationships. And we know that the Inuit killed the Norse and, probably of greater importance, may have blocked access to the outer fjords, on which the Norse depended for seals at a critical time of the year.
在我清單上的第四點是:與敵國的關係。 在這個案例中,他們的敵國是因紐特人 以及愛斯基摩人,他們與維京人是格陵蘭島上的“室友”, 但他們並不遭維京人待見。而且我們知道, 他們有時會屠戮維京人,此外,可能更重要的是, 他們擋住了維京人到出海口的路, 而每年的特定季節,維京人是需要通過這個峽灣出海捕獵海豹的。
And then finally, the fifth item on my checklist is the political, economic, social and cultural factors in the society that make it more or less likely that the society will perceive and solve its environmental problems. In the case of the Greenland Norse, cultural factors that made it difficult for them to solve their problems were: their commitments to a Christian society investing heavily in cathedrals; their being a competitive-ranked chiefly society; and their scorn for the Inuit, from whom they refused to learn. So that's how the five-part framework is relevant to the collapse and eventual extinction of the Greenland Norse.
最後,在我的清單上的第五點: 一個社會的政治、經濟、社會和文化因素, 這些因素能促使一個社會意識到並解決它所遇到的環境問題。 在這個案例中, 因為文化的原因,維京人很難解決遇到的問題,具體而言: 維京人是信仰基督教的, 他們將大量的人力物力花費在建築大教堂上;此外, 作為一個極其爭強好勝的社會,他們瞧不起因紐特人, 因此他們拒絕傳授技術。綜上,這就是“五點構架” 如何解釋社會瓦解的以及格陵蘭島上維京人消亡的原因。
What about a society today? For the past five years, I've been taking my wife and kids to Southwestern Montana, where I worked as a teenager on the hay harvest. And Montana, at first sight, seems like the most pristine environment in the United States. But scratch the surface, and Montana suffers from serious problems. Going through the same checklist: human environmental impacts? Yes, acute in Montana. Toxic problems from mine waste have caused damage of billions of dollars. Problems from weeds, weed control, cost Montana nearly 200 million dollars a year. Montana has lost agricultural areas from salinization, problems of forest management, problems of forest fires. Second item on my checklist: climate change. Yes -- the climate in Montana is getting warmer and drier, but Montana agriculture depends especially on irrigation from the snow pack, and as the snow is melting -- for example, as the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing -- that's bad news for Montana irrigation agriculture.
那麼當今的社會又是如何的呢? 過去的5年裏,我和我的家人造訪了蒙大納州的西南部, 在那裏,每當乾草收割時, 我像個年輕人一樣工作。乍一看, 蒙大納州貌似是全美境內環境最自然的州。 但深入研究後,會發現其實它也面臨著許多嚴重的問題。 同樣用我的“五點架構”法來檢驗。第一點:人類對環境的影響。 是的,這種影響在蒙大納州極為嚴重。 為解決廢礦產生的有毒物質問題,已耗費了數十億美元。 而為了除去雜草,以及控制其擴散,蒙大納州每年幾乎都要花費 2億美元。此外,蒙大納州的可耕土壤面積還不斷在減少, 原因包括:土壤鹽鹼化、森林管理失調 以及森林大火問題等。接著考慮我的清單上的第二點: 氣候變化:是的,蒙大納州的氣候逐漸變得更加乾熱, 蒙大納州的農業主要是依靠雪水灌溉, 因為氣候變暖,雪水漸漸消融,我們可以看到, 國家冰河公園的冰川正在逐漸消失, 這對蒙大納州的農業來說,絕對是個十足的噩耗。
Third thing on my checklist: relations with friendlies that can sustain the society. In Montana today, more than half of the income of Montana is not earned within Montana, but is derived from out of state: transfer payments from social security, investments and so on -- which makes Montana vulnerable to the rest of the United States.
我的清單上的第三點:與可以提供援助的友鄰的關係。 在當今的蒙大納州,居民收入的一半以上 都不是產生於州內, 而是源自於州外,主要包括: 社會保險的款項轉賬,各界的投資等等。 這就使得蒙大納州成為了美國最脆弱的州之一。
Fourth: relations with hostiles. Montanans have the same problems as do all Americans, in being sensitive to problems created by hostiles overseas affecting our oil supplies, and terrorist attacks. And finally, last item on my checklist: question of how political, economic, social, cultural attitudes play into this. Montanans have long-held values, which today seem to be getting in the way of their solving their own problems. Long-held devotion to logging and to mines and to agriculture, and to no government regulation; values that worked well in the past, but they don't seem to be working well today.
第四點:與敵國的關係。這一點上,蒙大納州面臨的問題 與其他州一樣,都受到海外反美勢力的威脅, 在一些問題上尤為敏感:如干擾我們的石油供應, 恐怖襲擊等等。最後,在我清單上的最後一點: 一個社會的政治、經濟、社會和文化因素如何來解決 其所遇到的問題。蒙大納州一致奉行“長期持有”的觀點 如今似乎正在妨礙他們解決所遇到的問題。 “長期持有”的價值觀致力於伐木、採礦以及種植、 以及非政府管理。這一價值觀 在過去對他們經濟發展的幫助成效顯著,但如今卻似乎難以奏效。
So, I'm looking at these issues of collapses for a lot of past societies and for many present societies. Are there any general conclusions that arise? In a way, just like Tolstoy's statement about every unhappy marriage being different, every collapsed or endangered society is different -- they all have different details. But nevertheless, there are certain common threads that emerge from these comparisons of past societies that did or did not collapse and threatened societies today. One interesting common thread has to do with, in many cases, the rapidity of collapse after a society reaches its peak. There are many societies that don't wind down gradually, but they build up -- get richer and more powerful -- and then within a short time, within a few decades after their peak, they collapse. For example, the classic lowland Maya of the Yucatan began to collapse in the early 800s -- literally a few decades after the Maya were building their biggest monuments, and Maya population was greatest.
當我在思考社會瓦解的問題時, 不管是過去的或是當下的社會, 我不禁問自己,我能得到什麼普適性的結論麼? 在某種程度上,正如托爾斯泰所言:不幸的家庭各有各的不幸。 同樣的道理,每一個瓦解或者行將瓦解的社會都是不同的。 它們的瓦解各有各的原因。儘管如此, 我們還是可以得到一些共識的,通過對比 歷史上那些崩潰了和沒有崩潰的社會, 這些共識於今也有借鑒意義。在眾多社會瓦解的案例中, 可以發現一個有趣的相似點:這個社會發展到其鼎盛時期, 突然急轉直下,然後瓦解。歷史上,許多社會的發展軌跡 並不是逐漸衰弱然後消亡,而是國力逐漸強盛, 勢力逐漸擴大,最後達到鼎盛期。突然,在一個極短的時間裏, 如幾十年間,他們就瓦解了。比如說, 尤卡坦半島的低地古典瑪雅,他們瓦解於 9世紀早期,而正是在此之前的數十年,瑪雅人 完成了他們最大的紀念碑,而且,人口數量也達到了史上最多。
Or again, the collapse of the Soviet Union took place within a couple of decades, maybe within a decade, of the time when the Soviet Union was at its greatest power. An analogue would be the growth of bacteria in a petri dish. These rapid collapses are especially likely where there's a mismatch between available resources and resource consumption, or a mismatch between economic outlays and economic potential. In a petri dish, bacteria grow. Say they double every generation, and five generations before the end the petri dish is 15/16ths empty, and then the next generation's 3/4ths empty, and the next generation half empty. Within one generation after the petri dish still being half empty, it is full. There's no more food and the bacteria have collapsed. So, this is a frequent theme: societies collapse very soon after reaching their peak in power.
同樣的,蘇聯的瓦解亦然。 在蘇聯瓦解的前幾十年,甚至可能僅僅在其前10年, 他們還處於史上最輝煌的時期。 有一個現象倒是與此種情形很相似:培養皿中細菌數量的增加曲線 這些社會之所以暴斃,極有可能是因為 他們能夠獲取的資源已無法滿足他們的需求, 或者他們在經濟上入不敷出。 在培養皿中,細菌繁殖。每隔一代,數目翻倍, 只需五代,便告終結。起初,培養皿會有15/16的空白區域, 而一代之後,只剩下3/4的空間,再下一代, 只有一半。當培養皿還有一半空間時,只需要再有一代, 培養皿就被占滿了。因為沒有了更多的食物來源,這個細菌社會於是瓦解。 由此可見,在短時間內, 一個社會由盛轉衰繼而消亡的現象是很常見的。
What it means to put it mathematically is that, if you're concerned about a society today, you should be looking not at the value of the mathematical function -- the wealth itself -- but you should be looking at the first derivative and the second derivatives of the function. That's one general theme. A second general theme is that there are many, often subtle environmental factors that make some societies more fragile than others. Many of those factors are not well understood. For example, why is it that in the Pacific, of those hundreds of Pacific islands, why did Easter Island end up as the most devastating case of complete deforestation? It turns out that there were about nine different environmental factors -- some, rather subtle ones -- that were working against the Easter Islanders, and they involve fallout of volcanic tephra, latitude, rainfall. Perhaps the most subtle of them is that it turns out that a major input of nutrients which protects island environments in the Pacific is from the fallout of continental dust from central Asia. Easter, of all Pacific islands, has the least input of dust from Asia restoring the fertility of its soils. But that's a factor that we didn't even appreciate until 1999.
這個現象用數學思維可以這樣理解:如果你要考慮一個當今的社會, 你最該關心的並不應該是這個數學函數的值, 具體而言,即一個社會的GDP;你應該留意的, 應該是這個函數的一階導以及二階導。 以上便是得到的瓦解社會的共性之一。其二, 總是會有許多微妙的環境因素使得 一些社會較之其他更為脆弱,而這些環境因素 目前我們尚未能完全理解。比如說,為何在太平洋中, 在數以百計的島嶼中,只有復活節島 因為徹底的森林荒漠化而完全荒蕪繼而消亡? 結論是這大約涉及到了9種不同的環境因數, 每一種都異常微妙,這些因數都給復活節島帶來了 消極的影響,這些因數涉及火山噴發產生的沉降物, 所在地的緯度以及降雨量。也許這些因數中最微妙的一個, 是沉降在島嶼上的那些主要來自亞洲的大陸塵埃, 這些塵埃,附帶著大量的營養物質, 而正是這些營養物質,保護著太平洋上這些島嶼的生態環境。 在恢復土壤肥力的過程中,所有太平洋的島嶼都能從來自亞洲的大陸塵埃獲利, 但唯有復活節島,因為距離原因,獲利最少。 這一現象,我們居然一直到1999年,才開始察覺。
So, some societies, for subtle environmental reasons, are more fragile than others. And then finally, another generalization. I'm now teaching a course at UCLA, to UCLA undergraduates, on these collapses of societies. What really bugs my UCLA undergraduate students is, how on earth did these societies not see what they were doing? How could the Easter Islanders have deforested their environment? What did they say when they were cutting down the last palm tree? Didn't they see what they were doing? How could societies not perceive their impacts on the environments and stop in time? And I would expect that, if our human civilization carries on, then maybe in the next century people will be asking, why on earth did these people today in the year 2003 not see the obvious things that they were doing and take corrective action? It seems incredible in the past. In the future, it'll seem incredible what we are doing today. And so I've been trying to develop a hierarchical set of considerations about why societies fail to solve their problems -- why they fail to perceive the problems or, if they perceive them, why they fail to tackle them. Or, if they tackle them, why do they fail to succeed in solving them?
所以說,有一些社會,由於這些微妙的環境因數, 比其他社會更加脆弱。最後, 我將闡述第三個共識。 因為目前不才正執教於 加州大學洛杉磯分校,給那裏的本科生們講授關於社會瓦解的課程。 課堂上,最讓我的這群學生們迷惑不解的事情是, 這些社會為什麼沒有發現他們在自尋死路? 那些復活節島上的居民怎麼忍心砍盡森林,毀滅自己的家園? 當他們砍倒最後一棵棕櫚樹時,他們是什麼感覺? 難道他們不知道自己在幹什麼嗎? 那些社會怎麼可能沒有察覺到自己對環境的影響,進而懸崖勒馬? 我想,答案應該是這樣的:假設我們的文明能夠延續下去, 那麼也許到了下一個世紀,那時的人們同樣會好奇: 那幫生活在2003年的人怎麼可能沒有注意到 他們所犯下的如此明顯的錯誤,他們怎麼就不迷途知返? 回顧歷史,我們發現那幫人不可理喻。但在後人看來, 我們似乎同樣也不可理喻。鑒於此, 我嘗試著分析出了了幾個理由 來解釋為什麼這些社會沒能處理好他們面臨的問題。 為什麼他們沒有意識到問題的存在?或者意識到了, 卻沒能解決問題?或者,如果他們已經開始解決問題 為什麼他們沒有保持下去?
I'll just mention two generalizations in this area. One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely, is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term interest of the decision-making elites and the long-term interest of the society as a whole, especially if the elites are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Where what's good in the short run for the elite is bad for the society as a whole, there's a real risk of the elite doing things that would bring the society down in the long run. For example, among the Greenland Norse -- a competitive rank society -- what the chiefs really wanted is more followers and more sheep and more resources to outcompete the neighboring chiefs. And that led the chiefs to do what's called flogging the land: overstocking the land, forcing tenant farmers into dependency. And that made the chiefs powerful in the short run, but led to the society's collapse in the long run.
就這一問題,我只簡單的概括兩點原因。 一個可能導致社會瓦解的困境是:利益衝突 短期利益與長期利益的衝突。 這裏是指決策制定者的短期利益與整個社會的長期利益相衝突, 尤其是當執行了這一不明智的政策後,社會整體利益受損時, 政策制定者們可以置身事外的情形下。 當某一決策可能最終造成整個社會的悲劇,但短期內政策制定者卻可以從中獲利時, 他們極有可能鼠目寸光,推行這一極具風險的決策。 短視的主事者,就會把這個社會帶向瓦解。 舉例而言,在格陵蘭島的維京人, 那是一個極其爭強好勝的社會,那個社會的首領們最想要的, 是更多的子民,更多的羊群和更多的資源,多多益善, 直到這些的數量超過了相鄰部落的首領。這一風氣的驅使下, 首領們紛紛行動,後世稱之為“刮地皮”:他們過度積壓土地, 強迫土地租用人成為附庸。這些舉措, 短期內是使首領們的勢力大為增加, 但卻為隨後整個社會的瓦解埋下禍根。
Those same issues of conflicts of interest are acute in the United States today. Especially because the decision makers in the United States are frequently able to insulate themselves from consequences by living in gated compounds, by drinking bottled water and so on. And within the last couple of years, it's been obvious that the elite in the business world correctly perceive that they can advance their short-term interest by doing things that are good for them but bad for society as a whole, such as draining a few billion dollars out of Enron and other businesses. They are quite correct that these things are good for them in the short term, although bad for society in the long term. So, that's one general conclusion about why societies make bad decisions: conflicts of interest.
這兩種利益的衝突在今天的美國 同樣非常劇烈。特別是考慮到 如今美國的政策制定者們通常 可以置身事外。不管外面世界因為他們制定的政策發生了什麼, 他們都能安穩生活在有柵欄的院子裏,喝著純淨水, 悠哉遊哉,高枕無憂。在最近的10多年裏, 很明顯的事實是:那些商業世界的精英們, 察覺到了他們可以通過一些事情來短期獲利, 儘管這些事情雖然可以給他們帶來利益, 但終將給整個社會帶來災難。 比如在伊朗問題上砸下數十億美元, 或者類似的決策。這樣的事情, 倒是的確對他們的短期利益很有幫助, 然而長遠點看,這在未來將危害到整個社會。 綜上,這就是關於為何有的社會會做出 愚蠢決策的概括之一:利益衝突。
And the other generalization that I want to mention is that it's particularly hard for a society to make quote-unquote good decisions when there is a conflict involving strongly held values that are good in many circumstances but are poor in other circumstances. For example, the Greenland Norse, in this difficult environment, were held together for four-and-a-half centuries by their shared commitment to religion, and by their strong social cohesion. But those two things -- commitment to religion and strong social cohesion -- also made it difficult for them to change at the end and to learn from the Inuit. Or today -- Australia. One of the things that enabled Australia to survive in this remote outpost of European civilization for 250 years has been their British identity. But today, their commitment to a British identity is serving Australians poorly in their need to adapt to their situation in Asia. So it's particularly difficult to change course when the things that get you in trouble are the things that are also the source of your strength.
我要概括的第二點是, 就一個社會而言,有時的確很難制定出、或者照搬 一些恰當的決策,尤其是當涉及到 根深蒂固的價值觀時。有時,這種堅定的價值觀是必須的, 但有時,卻也是不合時宜的。比如說, 格陵蘭島上的維京人,早期,他們的生存環境極為惡劣, 之所以他們能相互扶持,頑強的持續4個半世紀, 那是因為他們有著共同的信仰, 以及巨大的凝聚力。但恰恰正是因為這兩個原因: 宗教信仰以及社會凝聚力, 導致了他們最後很難去做出改變, 以及向因紐特人學習。另外一個例子:澳大利亞。 澳大利亞之所以生存並能夠持續發展, 即使它在地理位置上遠離歐洲文明, 那是因為250年來,他們一直是大不列顛的屬國。 但如今,他們的這種身份, 卻使得自己很難去適應他們在 亞洲的地位。因此,這的確是個艱難的轉變過程: 意識到那些給你帶來麻煩的事情, 正是之前你力量的來源。
What's going to be the outcome today? Well, all of us know the dozen sorts of ticking time bombs going on in the modern world, time bombs that have fuses of a few decades to -- all of them, not more than 50 years, and any one of which can do us in; the time bombs of water, of soil, of climate change, invasive species, the photosynthetic ceiling, population problems, toxics, etc., etc. -- listing about 12 of them. And while these time bombs -- none of them has a fuse beyond 50 years, and most of them have fuses of a few decades -- some of them, in some places, have much shorter fuses. At the rate at which we're going now, the Philippines will lose all its accessible loggable forest within five years. And the Solomon Islands are only one year away from losing their loggable forest, which is their major export. And that's going to be spectacular for the economy of the Solomons. People often ask me, Jared, what's the most important thing that we need to do about the world's environmental problems? And my answer is, the most important thing we need to do is to forget about there being any single thing that is the most important thing we need to do. Instead, there are a dozen things, any one of which could do us in. And we've got to get them all right, because if we solve 11, we fail to solve the 12th -- we're in trouble. For example, if we solve our problems of water and soil and population, but don't solve our problems of toxics, then we are in trouble.
當今社會可能會走向何方呢? 嗯,我們都知道,當今世界上,數十種可能導致社會瓦解的“定時炸彈” 正在滴答滴答的走著。這些“定時炸彈”大都是 最近數十年被“點燃”的,而最早的,不會超過50年。 但其中每一個,都能讓我們萬劫不復。比方說:水資源、 土壤問題、氣候變化、外來物種入侵、 光合上限問題、人口問題、有毒物質等等、等等。 一共有將近12個。如前所述,這些“定時炸彈” 幾乎都是近50年以來才產生的,而且其中大多數 是近幾十年才有的。有些地方 甚至更近幾年才有的。按照目前這個趨勢, 菲律賓耗盡他們可供砍伐的森林, 只需要5年時間;而所羅門群島, 只需要1年時間, 而木材,正是他們的主要出口物。這無疑對 所羅門群島的經濟是毀滅性的打擊。人們常常問我, 賈德,為了拯救地球,對於生態環境的惡化, 當務之急,我們最應該做的一件事情是什麼? 我的答案通常是:我們最應該做的一件事情是, 放棄這個天真的想法:認為我們只需要做好最應該做好的那一件事, 就可以把整個問題解決。 畢竟我們面臨著一打問題,而每一個,都是致命的。 我們必須將它們全部解決,要不然,就算我們成功解決了11個, 還剩下第12個,我們同樣得完蛋。舉例來說, 如果我們解決了水資源問題、土壤問題以及人口問題, 但沒能解決有毒物質的問題,我們還是得陷入麻煩。
The fact is that our present course is a non-sustainable course, which means, by definition, that it cannot be maintained. And the outcome is going to get resolved within a few decades. That means that those of us in this room who are less than 50 or 60 years old will see how these paradoxes are resolved, and those of us who are over the age of 60 may not see the resolution, but our children and grandchildren certainly will. The resolution is going to achieve either of two forms: either we will resolve these non-sustainable time-fuses in pleasant ways of our own choice by taking remedial action, or else these conflicts are going to get settled in unpleasant ways not of our choice -- namely, by war, disease or starvation. But what's for sure is that our non-sustainable course will get resolved in one way or another in a few decades. In other words, since the theme of this session is choices, we have a choice. Does that mean that we should get pessimistic and overwhelmed? I draw the reverse conclusion.
事實上,我們現在正處於不穩定階段, 這就是說,理論上講,這種狀態不可能長久的。 在未來的數十年間,這些問題終將被解決。 這就是說,現在正在觀看我這個演講的人中, 那些五六十歲以下的人,將有幸看到這些矛盾被解決, 而那些超過60歲的人,比如說我,可能就不能親眼目睹了, 不過我們的孩子,或者孫子們肯定可以見證這一刻。 這些問題將會可能有兩種解決形式: 一種是:我們通過一些溫和的方式來停止這一不穩定狀態, 比如說主動採取一些矯正措施; 或者是,這些衝突會通過一些 非我們意志所能改變的方式被解決,即戰爭、 疾病或者饑荒。可以肯定的是, 這一不穩定狀態在未來數十年間會結束,通過這樣或那樣的方法。 換言之,既然這個系列的主題是 “選擇”,我們還有得選。之前的分析是不是意味著 一切已經無濟於事,我們只能悲觀以對呢?我認為,恰恰相反。
The big problems facing the world today are not at all things beyond our control. Our biggest threat is not an asteroid about to crash into us, something we can do nothing about. Instead, all the major threats facing us today are problems entirely of our own making. And since we made the problems, we can also solve the problems. That then means that it's entirely in our power to deal with these problems. In particular, what can all of us do? For those of you who are interested in these choices, there are lots of things you can do. There's a lot that we don't understand, and that we need to understand. And there's a lot that we already do understand, but aren't doing, and that we need to be doing. Thank you. (Applause)
當今世界面臨著的那些大的問題一點都沒有 超出我們的控制範圍。畢竟,我們面對的最大威脅並不是 小行星撞地球,如果是那樣,我們倒的確只能坐以待斃。 相反的,當今我們所面臨的所有重大威脅, 其實都是自找的。既然我們能製造出這些問題, 我們其實也能解決這些問題。這就是說, 靠我們的力量,足以應付這些麻煩。 具體而言,我們可以做些什麼呢? 對於那些相信“我們的選擇可以改變未來”的人而言,你們能做的 有很多。有許多事情我們現在並不清楚, 但這些事很重要,我們一定得弄清楚;還有許多事情, 雖然我們已經弄明白了,但還沒有開始做﹐ 謝謝! (掌聲)