Have you ever watched a baby learning to crawl? Because as any parent knows, it's gripping. First, they wriggle about on the floor, usually backwards, but then they drag themselves forwards, and then they pull themselves up to stand, and we all clap. And that simple motion of forwards and upwards, it's the most basic direction of progress we humans recognize.
各位有沒有看過嬰兒學爬行? 為人父母都知道, 這是很吸引人的畫面。 一開始,嬰兒會在地上扭動, 通常是向後退, 但接著他們會拖著自己向前, 再來他們就會努力拉起身體直到站立, 我們都會拍手叫好。 一個這麼簡單的動作:向前向上, 它是我們人類認知中, 最基本的進步方向。
We tell it in our story of evolution as well, from our lolloping ancestors to Homo erectus, finally upright, to Homo sapiens, depicted, always a man, always mid-stride.
我們在訴說人類 演化故事時也會提到它, 從搖晃著走路的祖先, 到直立猿人,最後才完全挺直, 成為現代人, 通常都被描繪成一個人走路 跨步跨到一半的樣子。
So no wonder we so readily believe that economic progress will take this very same shape, this ever-rising line of growth. It's time to think again, to reimagine the shape of progress, because today, we have economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive, and what we need, especially in the richest countries, are economies that make us thrive whether or not they grow. Yes, it’s a little flip in words hiding a profound shift in mindset, but I believe this is the shift we need to make if we, humanity, are going to thrive here together this century.
也難怪我們如此樂於相信 經濟進展的成長線也會是 同樣簡單的形狀: 一條一直上升的線。 該是重新思考的時候了, 我們需要重新想像成長線的形狀, 因為現今,我們的經濟 需要成長,不論它們 是否會讓我們繁榮, 而我們所需要的, 特別是在最富有的國家中, 是讓我們繁榮的經濟, 不論它們是否會成長。 沒錯,這麼說有點輕率, 背後隱藏的是在心態上的深刻轉變, 但我相信我們需要做這樣的轉變, 如果我們人類想要 在這個世紀一起繁榮的話。
So where did this obsession with growth come from? Well, GDP, gross domestic product, it's just the total cost of goods and services sold in an economy in a year. It was invented in the 1930s, but it very soon became the overriding goal of policymaking, so much so that even today, in the richest of countries, governments think that the solution to their economic problems lies in more growth.
所以,這種對於成長的 迷戀是從何而來的? GDP,即國內生產總值, 只是一年內在一個經濟中 所有商品和服務的總額。 它是在三十年代發明的, 但它很快就變成 政策制訂的首要目標, 甚至到了現今, 在最富有的國家中, 政府還認為其經濟問題的解決方案 是需要更多的成長。
Just how that happened is best told through the 1960 classic by W.W. Rostow. I love it so much, I have a first-edition copy. "The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto."
那是如何發生的? 最好的說明方式是透過羅斯托 六十年代的經典著作來談。 我非常喜歡它,還買了第一版。 書名叫《經濟成長的階段: 非共產黨宣言》。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
You can just smell the politics, huh?
各位也聞得出政治味,對吧?
And Rostow tells us that all economies need to pass through five stages of growth: first, traditional society, where a nation's output is limited by its technology, its institutions and mindset; but then the preconditions for takeoff, where we get the beginnings of a banking industry, the mechanization of work and the belief that growth is necessary for something beyond itself, like national dignity or a better life for the children; then takeoff, where compound interest is built into the economy's institutions and growth becomes the normal condition; fourth is the drive to maturity where you can have any industry you want, no matter your natural resource base; and the fifth and final stage, the age of high-mass consumption where people can buy all the consumer goods they want, like bicycles and sewing machines -- this was 1960, remember.
羅斯托告訴我們,所有的經濟 都會經過五個成長階段: 第一,傳統社會階段, 在此階段,國家的產出 會受到其科技、制度, 和心態的限制; 但接著就是起飛的先決條件階段, 在此階段,開始有金融業出現, 工作開始機械化, 且大家相信成長是必要的, 為的是遠超越它本身的更大目的, 比如國家尊嚴, 或是給孩子更好的生活; 接著是是起飛階段,在此階段, 經濟的制度就有內建複利, 成長是種正常狀況; 第四階段是朝成熟前進階段, 在此階段,想要什麼產業都有, 不論你的天然資源基礎是什麼; 第五階段,也就是最後的階段, 是高度大量消費時代, 在此階段可以買到 任何想要買的消費品, 比如腳踏車和縫紉機—— 記住,這是六十年代。
Well, you can hear the implicit airplane metaphor in this story, but this plane is like no other, because it can never be allowed to land. Rostow left us flying into the sunset of mass consumerism, and he knew it. As he wrote, "And then the question beyond, where history offers us only fragments. What to do when the increase in real income itself loses its charm?" He asked that question, but he never answered it, and here's why. The year was 1960, he was an advisor to the presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who was running for election on the promise of five-percent growth, so Rostow's job was to keep that plane flying, not to ask if, how, or when it could ever be allowed to land.
在這個故事中, 我們可以聽出隱含的飛機比喻, 但這架飛機獨一無二, 因為它永遠不會被允許降落。 羅斯托留給我們的, 是飛向大量消費主義的夕陽, 他自己也知道。 如他所寫的: 「接著,是再進一步的問題, 歷史只能提供我們片段。 當實際收入的增加本身 失去了它的魅力時,該怎麼辦?」 他問了那個問題, 但從來沒有回答,原因如下: 那時是六十年代, 他是總統候選人甘迺迪的顧問, 甘迺迪的競選承諾 是要讓經濟成長 5%, 所以羅斯托的工作是 要讓那架飛機持續飛行, 而不是去問它是否、如何或 何時會被允許降落。
So here we are, flying into the sunset of mass consumerism over half a century on, with economies that have come to expect, demand and depend upon unending growth, because we're financially, politically and socially addicted to it. We're financially addicted to growth, because today's financial system is designed to pursue the highest rate of monetary return, putting publicly traded companies under constant pressure to deliver growing sales, growing market share and growing profits, and because banks create money as debt bearing interest, which must be repaid with more. We're politically addicted to growth because politicians want to raise tax revenue without raising taxes and a growing GDP seems a sure way to do that. And no politician wants to lose their place in the G-20 family photo.
所以就這樣子, 我們一直飛向大量消費主義的夕陽, 持續了半個世紀, 這段時間,經濟漸漸開始 期望、需要,及仰賴 無止盡的成長, 因為在財務上、政治上, 和社會上,我們都對成長上癮了。 我們在財務上會對它上癮, 是因為現今的金融體系 在設計上就是要追求 最高的貨幣收益率, 讓公開交易的公司 經常要承受很大的壓力, 它們得要實現業績成長、 市埸佔有率成長,和利潤成長, 且因為銀行把貨幣 創造成計息債款, 還錢時就得要支付更多。 我們在政治上會對成長上癮, 是因為政治人物想要增加稅收, 但不要提高稅率, 要做到這一點, 似乎就要靠 GDP 的成長了。 且沒有任何政治人物會想要在 二十國集團的大家庭合照中缺席。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But if their economy stops growing while the rest keep going, well, they'll be booted out by the next emerging powerhouse. And we are socially addicted to growth, because thanks to a century of consumer propaganda, which fascinatingly was created by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who realized that his uncle's psychotherapy could be turned into very lucrative retail therapy if we could be convinced to believe that we transform ourselves every time we buy something more.
但如果他們的經濟不再成長, 而其他國家的卻持續成長, 他們一定會被下一波 精力旺盛的後浪給推開。 我們在社會上會對成長上癮, 是因為一個世紀的消費者宣傳, 它是由愛德華伯內斯 以迷人的方式創造出來的, 愛德華是佛洛依德的姪子, 他發現他叔叔的心理治療 可以轉換為十分 有利可圖的零售治療, 只要說服我們,讓我們相信 每次我們多買一些東西, 我們就會讓自己有所轉變。
None of these addictions are insurmountable, but they all deserve far more attention than they currently get, because look where this journey has been taking us. Global GDP is 10 times bigger than it was in 1950 and that increase has brought prosperity to billions of people, but the global economy has also become incredibly divisive, with the vast share of returns to wealth now accruing to a fraction of the global one percent. And the economy has become incredibly degenerative, rapidly destabilizing this delicately balanced planet on which all of our lives depend. Our politicians know it, and so they offer new destinations for growth. You can have green growth, inclusive growth, smart, resilient, balanced growth. Choose any future you want so long as you choose growth.
所有這些上癮狀況都是可以克服的, 但是它們都需要 比現在多許多的關注, 因為,看看這趟旅程 已經帶我們到了什麼地方。 全球 GDP 比 1950 年要高十倍, 那樣的成長已經將繁榮 帶給了數十億人, 但全球經濟已變得極其分裂, 全球不到 1% 的人口 掌握巨大份額的財富。 且經濟已經大幅度退化, 在這個有著精密平衡的星球上, 快速地造成不穩定, 而我們的生活都要仰賴這星球。 我們的政治人物知道這點, 所以他們提供新的成長目標。 包括有綠色成長、包容性成長、 精明成長、韌性成長、平衡成長。 你可以選擇任何未來, 只要選擇成長就好。
I think it's time to choose a higher ambition, a far bigger one, because humanity's 21st century challenge is clear: to meet the needs of all people within the means of this extraordinary, unique, living planet so that we and the rest of nature can thrive.
我認為,該是選擇 更高、更大的野心的時候了, 因為人類的二十一世紀 挑戰非常明確: 採用這個非凡獨特的活星球上 可以採用的任何手段, 來滿足所有人的需求, 讓我們人類和大自然都可以繁榮。
Progress on this goal isn't going to be measured with the metric of money. We need a dashboard of indicators. And when I sat down to try and draw a picture of what that might look like, strange though this is going to sound, it came out looking like a doughnut. I know, I'm sorry, but let me introduce you to the one doughnut that might actually turn out to be good for us. So imagine humanity's resource use radiating out from the middle. That hole in the middle is a place where people are falling short on life's essentials. They don't have the food, health care, education, political voice, housing that every person needs for a life of dignity and opportunity. We want to get everybody out of the hole, over the social foundation and into that green doughnut itself. But, and it's a big but, we cannot let our collective resource use overshoot that outer circle, the ecological ceiling, because there we put so much pressure on this extraordinary planet that we begin to kick it out of kilter. We cause climate breakdown, we acidify the oceans, a hole in the ozone layer, pushing ourselves beyond the planetary boundaries of the life-supporting systems that have for the last 11,000 years made earth such a benevolent home to humanity.
針對這個目標的成長, 不能用貨幣制來衡量。 我們需要一個指標儀表板。 我坐下來試著畫出 那個儀表板可能的樣子時, 雖然聽起來好像很奇怪, 但結果畫出來的就像是甜甜圈。 我知道,很抱歉, 但請容向大家介紹這個甜甜圈, 最後有可能發現 它其實對我們是有益的。 所以,想像一下, 人類的資源使用是從中間向外放射。 中間那個洞, 是人類生活必需品缺乏的地方。 他們沒有食物、健康照護、 教育、政治聲音,和住房, 每個人都需要上述這些, 他們的生命才會有尊嚴和機會。 我們想要讓所有人脫離這個洞, 越過社會基礎, 進入綠色的甜甜圈本身。 但是,這是個很大的「轉折」, 我們不能讓我們的 集體資源使用超出外圈, 也就是生態的上界, 因為在外圈,我們會對這個 非凡的星球施加太多的壓力, 以致於我們開始讓生態失序。 我們造成了氣候崩壞、海洋酸化、 臭氧層破洞, 將我們自己推出過去已存在了 一萬一千年的生命維持系統 在地球上的界線, 若不是這些系統, 地球不會成為人類的親切家園。
So this double-sided challenge to meet the needs of all within the means of the planet, it invites a new shape of progress, no longer this ever-rising line of growth, but a sweet spot for humanity, thriving in dynamic balance between the foundation and the ceiling. And I was really struck once I'd drawn this picture to realize that the symbol of well-being in many ancient cultures reflects this very same sense of dynamic balance, from the Maori Takarangi to the Taoist Yin Yang, the Buddhist endless knot, the Celtic double spiral.
所以,這個雙面挑戰是 要用這個星球上的手段 來滿足所有人的需求, 它的成長線形狀會是全新的, 不再是一直向上爬升的成長線, 而是人類的最有效擊球點(致勝關鍵), 在基礎和上界之間的動態平衡中繁榮。 當我畫出這張圖時, 我真的吃了一驚, 因為我了解到, 在許多古老文化中的安康象徵, 都反映出同樣的動態平衡概念, 從毛利的 Takarangi (一種螺旋圖案) 到道教的陰陽、佛教的吉祥結、 凱爾特的雙螺旋。
So can we find this dynamic balance in the 21st century? Well, that's a key question, because as these red wedges show, right now we are far from balanced, falling short and overshooting at the same time. Look in that hole, you can see that millions or billions of people worldwide still fall short on their most basic of needs. And yet, we've already overshot at least four of these planetary boundaries, risking irreversible impact of climate breakdown and ecosystem collapse. This is the state of humanity and our planetary home. We, the people of the early 21st century, this is our selfie.
所以,我們能夠在二十一世紀 找到這個動態平衡嗎? 這是個關鍵問題, 因為如同這些紅色楔形所呈現的, 我們現在離平衡很遠, 同時有不足也有過頭。 看看那個洞,你可以看到世界上 有數百萬或數十億人 仍然連最基本的需求都還很缺乏。 但我們卻已經至少越過了 這些星球界線中的四個, 瀕臨不可逆的氣候崩壞衝擊 和生態系統瓦解。 這是人類和地球家園的狀況。 我們這些二十一世紀初期的人類, 這是我們的自拍照。
No economist from last century saw this picture, so why would we imagine that their theories would be up for taking on its challenges? We need ideas of our own, because we are the first generation to see this and probably the last with a real chance of turning this story around. You see, 20th century economics assured us that if growth creates inequality, don't try to redistribute, because more growth will even things up again. If growth creates pollution, don't try to regulate, because more growth will clean things up again.
上個世紀沒有任何 經濟學家預見這張圖, 那麼我們為什麼會認為他們的理論 能被用來面對這個挑戰呢? 我們得要有自己的想法, 因為我們是看見 這個狀況的第一個世代, 且可能也是有機會改變 這個故事的最後一個世代。 二十世紀的經濟學向我們保證, 如果成長造成不平等, 不要試圖做重新分配, 因為更多的成長將會再度形成均等。 如果成長造成污染, 不用試圖制訂規定, 因為更多的成長將會再次清理一切。
Except, it turns out, it doesn't, and it won't. We need to create economies that tackle this shortfall and overshoot together, by design. We need economies that are regenerative and distributive by design. You see, we've inherited degenerative industries. We take earth's materials, make them into stuff we want, use it for a while, often only once, and then throw it away, and that is pushing us over planetary boundaries, so we need to bend those arrows around, create economies that work with and within the cycles of the living world, so that resources are never used up but used again and again, economies that run on sunlight, where waste from one process is food for the next.
唯一的問題是, 結果發現並非如此, 將來亦不會如此。 我們需要創造出的經濟, 是能一併處理不足和過度的經濟, 透過設計來達成。 我們需要的經濟,是在設計上 就能再生和分配的經濟。 我們已經繼承了在退化的產業。 我們取用地球的材料, 製做成我們要的東西, 使用一陣子之後, 通常只使用一次,就把它丟了, 就是這樣才會把我們 推過地球的界線, 所以,我們得要 把這些箭頭轉個方向, 在生活世界的循環之內, 創造出能與這些循環合作的經濟, 這麼一來,資源永遠不會用光, 能一再被重覆使用, 經濟能靠著太陽光來運作, 一個過程產生出的廢物, 能成為下一個過程的材料。
And this kind of regenerative design is popping up everywhere. Over a hundred cities worldwide, from Quito to Oslo, from Harare to Hobart, already generate more than 70 percent of their electricity from sun, wind and waves. Cities like London, Glasgow, Amsterdam are pioneering circular city design, finding ways to turn the waste from one urban process into food for the next. And from Tigray, Ethiopia to Queensland, Australia, farmers and foresters are regenerating once-barren landscapes so that it teems with life again.
這種再生性的設計是處處可見的。 全世界有超過一百個城市, 從基多到奧斯陸, 從哈拉雷到荷巴特, 都已經能做到電力的 70% 是由太陽、風力,和海浪來產生。 倫敦、格拉斯哥 及阿姆斯特丹等城市, 都是循環城市設計的先鋒, 它們找到方法, 把城市的一個過程所產生的癈物, 轉為下一個過程用的材料。 從衣索比亞的提格雷州 到澳洲的昆士蘭州, 農夫和林中居民 讓本來貧瘠的土地得以再生, 讓土地再現生機。
But as well as being regenerative by design, our economies must be distributive by design, and we've got unprecedented opportunities for making that happen, because 20th-century centralized technologies, institutions, concentrated wealth, knowledge and power in few hands. This century, we can design our technologies and institutions to distribute wealth, knowledge and empowerment to many. Instead of fossil fuel energy and large-scale manufacturing, we've got renewable energy networks, digital platforms and 3D printing. 200 years of corporate control of intellectual property is being upended by the bottom-up, open-source, peer-to-peer knowledge commons. And corporations that still pursue maximum rate of return for their shareholders, well they suddenly look rather out of date next to social enterprises that are designed to generate multiple forms of value and share it with those throughout their networks. If we can harness today's technologies, from AI to blockchain to the Internet of Things to material science, if we can harness these in service of distributive design, we can ensure that health care, education, finance, energy, political voice reaches and empowers those people who need it most. You see, regenerative and distributive design create extraordinary opportunities for the 21st-century economy.
但就如同要用設計來達成再生, 我們的經濟也必須要 在設計上就能分配, 我們有著史無前例的機會, 可以讓這一點實現, 因為二十世紀的中心是科技、 制度、 集中在少數人身上的 財富、知識,和權力。 在這個世妃,我們可以 在設計我們的科技和制度時, 就讓它們能分配財富、 知識,及賦權給多數人。 不再用化石燃料能源和大規模製造, 我們改用可再生能源網路、 數位平台,和 3D 列印。 兩百年來智慧財產都是由企業控制, 現在這點正在被顛覆, 因為現在有由下而上、資源開放、 點對點的知識分享空間。 還在為了股東而追求 收益率最大化的企業, 突然間,它們看起來落伍, 比不上那些設計來創造出各種價值形式 並分享給其網路上 所有人的社會企業。 如果我們可以利用現今的科技, 從人工智慧到區塊鏈, 到物聯網,到材料科學, 如果我們可以利用這些, 來協助做到分配式的設計, 我們就能確保健康照護、 教育、金融、能源、政治聲音 都能被交給最需要的人, 並賦權給他們。 再生性和分配性的設計 能為二十一世紀的經濟 創造出不凡的機會。
So where does this leave Rostow's airplane ride? Well, for some it still carries the hope of endless green growth, the idea that thanks to dematerialization, exponential GDP growth can go on forever while resource use keeps falling. But look at the data. This is a flight of fancy. Yes, we need to dematerialize our economies, but this dependency on unending growth cannot be decoupled from resource use on anything like the scale required to bring us safely back within planetary boundaries.
在這樣的情況下, 又要如何看待羅斯托的飛機旅程? 對一些人而言, 它仍然帶著無止盡綠色成長的希望, 這個想法是,由於非物質化, GDP 的指數成長能永遠持續下去, 同時,資源使用則會不斷減少。 但看看數據, 這是趟異想天開的飛行。 我們的確需要將我們的 經濟給非物質化。 但這種對無止境增長的依賴 無法與資源的使用脫鉤, 不可能透過使用合理規模的資源 來把我們安全地帶回地球界線內。
I know this way of thinking about growth is unfamiliar, because growth is good, no? We want our children to grow, our gardens to grow. Yes, look to nature and growth is a wonderful, healthy source of life. It's a phase, but many economies like Ethiopia and Nepal today may be in that phase. Their economies are growing at seven percent a year. But look again to nature, because from your children's feet to the Amazon forest, nothing in nature grows forever. Things grow, and they grow up and they mature, and it's only by doing so that they can thrive for a very long time. We already know this. If I told you my friend went to the doctor who told her she had a growth that feels very different, because we intuitively understand that when something tries to grow forever within a healthy, living, thriving system, it's a threat to the health of the whole. So why would we imagine that our economies would be the one system that could buck this trend and succeed by growing forever? We urgently need financial, political and social innovations that enable us to overcome this structural dependency on growth, so that we can instead focus on thriving and balance within the social and the ecological boundaries of the doughnut.
我知道大家並不熟悉 這種對成長的看法, 因為成長是好的,不是嗎? 我們希望我們的孩子成長, 我們的花園成長。 是的,看看大自然, 成長是美好的、健康的生命來源。 它是一個階段,但許多經濟, 像現今的衣索比亞和尼泊爾, 可能是在那個階段中。 它們的經濟每年成長 7%。 但,再次看看大自然, 因為,從你們的孩子腳下, 一直到亞馬遜森林都一樣, 大自然中沒有什麼能永遠成長。 東西會成長, 它們會長大,會成熟, 只有透過這麼做, 它們才能繁榮很長一段時間。 我們已經知道這一點。 如果我告訴你們, 我的朋友去看醫生, 醫生告訴她,她的成長 感覺非常不同, 因為我們直覺認為, 當某樣東西試圖在 一個健康、有生命、 繁榮的系統中永遠成長時, 它會對整體的健康造成威脅。 所以,為什麼我們會想像我們的經濟 有可能是能抵抗這個趨勢, 成功地永遠成長的例外? 我們很迫切地需要財務、 政治,和社會的創新, 讓我們能克服對於成長的 這種結構性依賴, 這麼一來,我們就能 把焦點放在繁榮和平衡, 在甜甜圈的社會與生態 界線內的繁榮和平衡。
And if the mere idea of boundaries makes you feel, well, bounded, think again. Because the world's most ingenious people turn boundaries into the source of their creativity. From Mozart on his five-octave piano Jimi Hendrix on his six-string guitar, Serena Williams on a tennis court, it's boundaries that unleash our potential. And the doughnut's boundaries unleash the potential for humanity to thrive with boundless creativity, participation, belonging and meaning.
如果這個界線的小小想法 讓你覺得……受限, 再重新想想。 因為這個世界上最足智多謀的人 會把界線轉變成他們創意的資源。 例如莫札特用他五個八度的鋼琴, 吉米亨德里克斯用他的六弦吉他, 在網球場上的小威廉絲, 是界線釋放出了我們的潛能。 甜甜圈的界線釋放出了 人類用無限的創意、 參與、歸屬,與意義, 來達成繁榮的潛能。
It's going to take all the ingenuity that we have got to get there, so bring it on.
要做到這一點, 會需要用到我們所有的才智, 所以,出招吧。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)