I've got apparently 18 minutes to convince you that history has a direction, an arrow; that in some fundamental sense, it's good; that the arrow points to something positive. Now, when the TED people first approached me about giving this upbeat talk -- (Laughter) -- that was before the cartoon of Muhammad had triggered global rioting. It was before the avian flu had reached Europe. It was before Hamas had won the Palestinian election, eliciting various counter-measures by Israel. And to be honest, if I had known when I was asked to give this upbeat talk that even as I was giving the upbeat talk, the apocalypse would be unfolding -- (Laughter) -- I might have said, "Is it okay if I talk about something else?" But I didn't, OK. So we're here. I'll do what I can. I'll do what I can.
我有18分鐘的時間 來說服你們歷史發展是有方向的 - 像個箭頭 本質上來說,這是個好事。 箭頭指向著一些積極的事物。 當TED找上我做個樂觀的演講時...... (笑聲) -- 當時那詆毀穆罕默德的漫畫尚未在世界各地引發暴亂 禽流感尚未抵達歐洲 哈馬斯尚未贏得巴勒斯坦大選 以色列也尚未對他們採取一系列的反對政策 說實話,如果當初接受邀請時 我能預知現在 啟示錄正在上演的話 (笑聲) 我也許會說,“我能不能說點別的?” 不過我當時沒說,那麼好吧,我只能盡力試試看了。
I've got to warn you: the sense in which my worldview is upbeat has always been kind of subtle, sometimes even elusive. (Laughter) The sense in which I can be uplifting and inspiring -- I mean, there's always been a kind of a certain grim dimension to the way I try to uplift, so if grim inspiration -- (Laughter) -- if grim inspiration is not a contradiction in terms, that is, I'm afraid, the most you can hope for. OK, today -- that's if I succeed. I'll see what I can do. OK?
我必須先警告你們 我積極的世界觀非常溫和 甚至可以說是晦澀難懂 (笑聲) 當我說:"我可以變得樂觀", 說真的嘗試變得樂觀本身 就有些陰暗,所以- (笑聲) --如果“悲觀的樂觀主義精神“不算自相矛盾的話,恐怕 這就是今天你們可以從我這兒得到的,最樂觀的東西了。 我會盡力的。
Now, in one sense, the claim that history has a direction is not that controversial. If you're just talking about social structure, OK, clearly that's gotten more complex a little over the last 10,000 years -- has reached higher and higher levels. And in fact, that's actually sustaining a long-standing trend that predates human beings, OK, that biological evolution was doing for us. Because what happened in the beginning, this stuff encases itself in a cell, then cells start hanging out together in societies. Eventually they get so close, they form multicellular organisms, then you get complex multicellular organisms; they form societies.
首先, 歷史發展有一定方向性這個觀點,不會引起太多異議。 如果我們談論的只是社會結構 很顯然,在過去的一萬年裡 社會結構越來越複雜,也越來越高級 事實上, 這個遠期的趨勢在人類出現之前就已經有了 這是生物進化的客觀規律所決定的 生命起源從一個細胞開始, 然後細胞們逐漸結黨成群 最後它們彼此親近,構成了多細胞組織 然後有了更複雜些的多細胞組織;他們組成了社群
But then at some point, one of these multicellular organisms does something completely amazing with this stuff, which is it launches a whole second kind of evolution: cultural evolution. And amazingly, that evolution sustains the trajectory that biological evolution had established toward greater complexity. By cultural evolution we mean the evolution of ideas. A lot of you have heard the term "memes." The evolution of technology, I pay a lot of attention to, so, you know, one of the first things you got was a little hand axe. Generations go by, somebody says, hey, why don't we put it on a stick? (Laughter) Just absolutely delights the little ones. Next best thing to a video game.
某個時間點,某一個多細胞組織 發生了一些奇妙的事情 啟動了一種全新的進化過程:文化進化。 更奇妙的是,這種進化所遵循的軌跡 與生物進化是一致的: 越來越複雜 文化進化,是指思想的演化過程。 你們中的很多人都聽說過"文化基因"這個詞。 一直以來,我還很關注技術進化, 我們從一把小小的斧片開始, 代代相傳,直到某人說,我們為什麼不把斧片安在棍子上呢? (笑聲) 矮小的人都很開心 電動是另一個好例子
This may not seem to impress, but technological evolution is progressive, so another 10, 20,000 years, and armaments technology takes you here. (Laughter) Impressive. And the rate of technological evolution speeds up, so a mere quarter of a century after this, you get this, OK. (Laughter) And this. (Laughter) I'm sorry -- it was a cheap laugh, but I wanted to find a way to transition back to this idea of the unfolding apocalypse, and I thought that might do it. (Applause)
看上去它好像沒什麼了不起的。 但是技術進化是一個持續的過程,所以過了一兩萬年, 我們的武器裝備看上去像這樣 (笑聲) 隨著技術進化的速度越來越快 再過25年,我們有了這個。 (笑聲) 還有這個。 (笑聲) 不好意思--這個笑話很糟,我只是 想找到一個回到啓示錄的方法, 有關我們是如何走到世界末日的 (掌聲)
So, what threatens to happen with this unfolding apocalypse is the collapse of global social organization. Now, first let me remind you how much work it took to get us where we are, to be on the brink of true global social organization. Originally, you had the most complex societies, the hunter-gatherer village. Stonehenge is the remnant of a chiefdom, which is what you get with the invention of agriculture: multi-village polity with centralized rule. With the invention of writing, you start getting cities. This is blurry. I kind of like that because it makes it look like a one-celled organism and reminds you how many levels organic organization has already moved through to get to this point. And then you get to, you know, you get empires.
當今世界社會體系的崩潰, 冥冥中預示著啓示錄的秘密 首先,我們來看看,世界上的社會體系 是如何演化到今天的樣子的。 起初,是一個複雜的、靠狩獵與採集維生的村落。 然後是酋長社會,代表遺跡---巨石陣, 在酋長社會,出現了農業,這是一種 有中央集權的多村落群體制。 隨著書寫的發明,城市出現了。這個關係看上去有點牽強。但是我很喜歡, 整個過程就像剛才所講的單細胞組織的進化過程, 有機體經過層層演化, 才成了今天的樣子。接下來的,你們一定猜到,是帝國。
I want to stress, you know, social organization can transcend political bounds. This is the Silk Road connecting the Chinese Empire and the Roman Empire. So you had social complexity spanning the whole continent, even if no polity did similarly. Today, you've got nation states. Point is: there's obviously collaboration and organization going on beyond national bounds. This is actually just a picture of the earth at night, and I'm just putting it up because I think it's pretty. Does kind of convey the sense that this is an integrated system.
我必須重申,社會組織不受政治界限約束 絲路貫通了古中國與古羅馬帝國。 整個歐亞大陸上的社會複雜性是一致的 即使政體不同。今天,有那麼多國家, 但很顯然,各種組織與合作蓬勃發展著, 超越了國界。 這是一張地球在夜裡的照片 我認為它非常漂亮, 傳遞著一種整體互動的感覺
Now, I explained this growth of complexity by reference to something called "non-zero sumness." Assuming that a few of you did not do the assigned reading, very quickly, the key idea is the distinction between zero-sum games, in which correlations are inverse: always a winner and a loser. Non-zero-sum games in which correlations can be positive, OK. So like in tennis, usually it's win-lose; it always adds up to zero-zero-sum. But if you're playing doubles, the person on your side of the net, they're in the same boat as you, so you're playing a non-zero-sum game with them. It's either for the better or for the worse, OK. A lot of forms of non-zero-sum behavior in the realm of economics and so on in everyday life often leads to cooperation.
現在,我要用"非零和效應" 來解釋這類演化。 考慮到有些人可能沒有看過閱讀資料, 在零和遊戲中,參與者的關係是對立的: 一個贏家,一個輸家。 而非零和遊戲,這種關係可以是雙贏的。 就像在網球賽中,通常是有輸贏的, 比分總是零和的,但是在雙打賽中, 你的搭檔,與你站在同一戰線, 因此你與你的搭檔之間,是一種非零和遊戲。 你們總是有福同享,有難同當。 在經濟學領域,發生在日常身上生活上的 非零和做法帶來合作
The argument I make is basically that, well, non-zero-sum games have always been part of life. You have them in hunter-gatherer societies, but then through technological evolution, new forms of technology arise that facilitate or encourage the playing of non-zero-sum games, involving more people over larger territory. Social structure adapts to accommodate this possibility and to harness this productive potential, so you get cities, you know, and you get all the non-zero-sum games you don't think about that are being played across the world. Like, have you ever thought when you buy a car, how many people on how many different continents contributed to the manufacture of that car? Those are people in effect you're playing a non-zero-sum game with. I mean, there are certainly plenty of them around.
我想說的是, 非零和遊戲始終是我們生活的一部分。 在人類採集狩獵的時代就有這些合作。 然而隨著技術進步,新的技術不斷興起, 促進了非零和遊戲的發生。 參與者越來越多,分佈也越來越廣。 為了適應這種可能性,社會的結構不斷改變, 來保證我們有這樣的生產潛力,於是城市出現了 你沒想過的非零和遊戲合作 也開始發生在世界各地 舉個例子,當你買車的時候, 你有沒有想過,有多少身處各大洲的人, 涉及了這輛車的製造過程?這些相關人士, 就是你進行非零和遊戲的對象。 顯然,他們人數眾多。
Now, this sounds like an intrinsically upbeat worldview in a way, because when you think of non-zero, you think win-win, you know, that's good. Well, there are a few reasons that actually it's not intrinsically upbeat. First of all, it can accommodate; it doesn't deny the existence of inequality exploitation war. But there's a more fundamental reason that it's not intrinsically upbeat, because a non-zero-sum game, all it tells you for sure is that the fortunes will be correlated for better or worse. It doesn't necessarily predict a win-win outcome.
本質上這是一種非常積極的世界觀, 因為當你提到零和時,你所考慮的是雙贏的結果, 這很不錯。不過,我也認為, 本質上,它也並不是那麼積極樂觀。 首先,它並沒有否定 不平等的剝削戰爭的存在。 還有一個更深層的原因, 因為非零和遊戲, 它只能保證結果要麼是都好,要麼是都壞, 它不能保證最後的結果是雙贏的。
So, in a way, the question is: on what grounds am I upbeat at all about history? And the answer is, first of all, on balance I would say people have played their games to more win-win outcomes than lose-lose outcomes. On balance, I think history is a net positive in the non-zero-sum game department. And a testament to this is the thing that most amazes me, most impresses me, and most uplifts me, which is that there is a moral dimension to history; there is a moral arrow. We have seen moral progress over time.
那麼,我到底憑什麼 對整個歷史進程保持樂觀的態度呢?答案如下, 第一,總的來說,我認為 雙贏是比同敗更多的 我認為在歷史進程的非零和遊戲裡,淨結果是正的。 對這個結論,有一個最令我驚異的實際證明, 它給我留下了深刻的印象,也非常激勵我: 歷史進程,本身包含了一個道德維度, 存在一個道德指向。可以看到,道德也是隨著時間而發展的。
2,500 years ago, members of one Greek city-state considered members of another Greek city-state subhuman and treated them that way. And then this moral revolution arrived, and they decided that actually, no, Greeks are human beings. It's just the Persians who aren't fully human and don't deserve to be treated very nicely.
2500年前,希臘城邦裡的人, 認為其他希臘城邦裡的人,都是次等人, 用對待此等人的方式對待他們。隨著道德革命的開始, 他們改變了主意,所有的希臘人都是人類。 只有波斯人是次等人, 用不著對他們太好,
But this was progress -- you know, give them credit. And now today, we've seen more progress. I think -- I hope -- most people here would say that all people everywhere are human beings, deserve to be treated decently, unless they do something horrendous, regardless of race or religion. And you have to read your ancient history to realize what a revolution that has been, OK. This was not a prevalent view, few thousand years ago, and I attribute it to this non-zero-sum dynamic. I think that's the reason there is as much tolerance toward nationalities, ethnicities, religions as there is today. If you asked me, you know, why am I not in favor of bombing Japan, well, I'm only half-joking when I say they built my car. We have this non-zero-sum relationship, and I think that does lead to a kind of a tolerance to the extent that you realize that someone else's welfare is positively correlated with yours -- you're more likely to cut them a break.
但這至少是個進步--給他們一些鼓勵 今日的進步就更大了。我認為--我也希望--在座的大部分人, 都會承認,世界各地的人都是同類, 所有人都應該被平等對待, 除非他們做了一些恐怖的事,不論什麼種族什麼宗教。 你應該去讀讀古代史,然後才能明白這是怎樣一個革命。 這個觀點並未被廣泛接受, 我認為正是因為非零和效應,幾千年前的人類, 就學會了包容國籍、 種族和宗教方面的差異,這與現在的情況無異。如果你問我, 為什麼我不支持向日本投放原子彈, 如果我說那是因為日本人造了我的車,那是半開玩笑的。 我們之間存在一種非零和關係, 我認為,這種關係確實促進我們彼此包容, 因為他人的福祉確實與你的福祉有關。 你可能更願意給他們一個機會。
I kind of think this is a kind of a business-class morality. Unfortunately, I don't fly trans-Atlantic business class often enough to know, or any other kind of business class really, but I assume that in business class, you don't hear many expressions of, you know, bigotry about racial groups or ethnic groups, because the people who are flying trans-Atlantic business class are doing business with all these people; they're making money off all these people. And I really do think that, in that sense at least, capitalism has been a constructive force, and more fundamentally, it's a non-zero-sumness that has been a constructive force in expanding people's realm of moral awareness. I think the non-zero-sum dynamic, which is not only economic by any means -- it's not always commerce -- but it has driven us to the verge of a moral truth, which is the fundamental equality of everyone. It has done that. As it has moved global, moved us toward a global level of social organization, it has driven us toward moral truth. I think that's wonderful.
我想這是一種商務艙的道德準則。 不幸的是,我不常坐trans-Atlantics公司的商務艙, 也真不太了解其他航空公司的商務艙 我暫且認定,在商務艙,你不會聽到太多 關於種族的不當言論, 因為坐商務艙的人, 與各種各樣的人進行交易; 他們只想從這些人手裡賺錢。因此我認為,至少在這個層面, 資本主義是有建設性的 它是非常非零和的, 它幫助人們擴張了 道德意識的領域。我認為非零和機制, 不只是說經濟--任何事都不能只歸到經濟利益-- 非零和機制帶領我們逼近了道德真相的邊緣, 那就是人人平等。 當我們進入一個全球層面的社會機構, 我們必須面對道德真相。 這太棒了。
Now, back to the unfolding apocalypse. And you may wonder, OK, that's all fine, sounds great -- moral direction in history -- but what about this so-called clash of civilizations? Well, first of all, I would emphasize that it fits into the non-zero-sum framework, OK. If you look at the relationship between the so-called Muslim world and Western world -- two terms I don't like, but can't really avoid; in such a short span of time, they're efficient if nothing else -- it is non-zero-sum. And by that I mean, if people in the Muslim world get more hateful, more resentful, less happy with their place in the world, it'll be bad for the West. If they get more happy, it'll be good for the West. So that is a non-zero-sum dynamic.
現在,回到那本正開啟的啟示錄。 好吧,你可能會好奇, 聽起來不錯--歷史的道德維度-- 但是怎麼解釋那些不同文明之間的衝突?首先, 我要強調一下,這些衝突的發生也是符合非零和機制的, 如果我們仔細看看 所謂的穆斯林世界與西方世界的關係-- 這兩個詞是我不喜歡用的,但是又無法避免使用它們-- 在這麼短的時間內,沒什麼比這兩個詞更有用了。 這個關係是非零和的。我是說, 如果穆斯林世界的人懷著更多的敵意、更多的憎恨, 對他們在世界上的位置更不滿意, 這對西方世界來說,也是不利的。反之,如果他們更快樂,對西方世界也是有益處的。 所以這是一種非零和機制。
And I would say the non-zero-sum dynamic is only going to grow more intense over time because of technological trends, but more intense in a kind of negative way. It's the downside correlation of their fortunes that will become more and more possible. And one reason is because of something I call the "growing lethality of hatred." More and more, it's possible for grassroots hatred abroad to manifest itself in the form of organized violence on American soil. And that's pretty new, and I think it's probably going to get a lot worse -- this capacity -- because of trends in information technology, in technologies that can be used for purposes of munitions like biotechnology and nanotechnology. We may be hearing more about that today.
這種機制,會因為科技的發展趨勢, 這種非零和機制,會越來越激烈地向負面方向進行。 他們未來的命運,將越來越可能呈現負面的相關性。 我稱其為憎恨的破壞性累積效應。 很有可能,基層草根會在美國發動更頻繁、有組織的暴力 來發洩他們對異族的強烈憎恨。 我認為這種狀況很有可能繼續惡化, 我之所以這麼說, 是因為資訊科技的迅速發展, 生物技術和奈米技術也正更多地被運用在軍火上。 我們時常能聽到新技術在軍事上的新應用。
And there's something I worry about especially, which is that this dynamic will lead to a kind of a feedback cycle that puts us on a slippery slope. What I have in mind is: terrorism happens here; we overreact to it. That, you know, we're not sufficiently surgical in our retaliation leads to more hatred abroad, more terrorism. We overreact because being human, we feel like retaliating, and it gets worse and worse and worse. You could call this the positive feedback of negative vibes, but I think in something so spooky, we really shouldn't have the word positive there at all, even in a technical sense. So let's call it the death spiral of negativity. (Laughter) I assure you if it happens, at the end, both the West and the Muslim world will have suffered.
我尤其憂慮的是, 這種動態變化會導致一種回饋循環,逼迫我們走上陡坡。 我的想法是:恐怖主義已經發生了;我們的反應過於激烈。 我們對於恐怖主義的複仇,並不是那麼理智, 這只會讓外族更憎恨我們,導致更猖狂的恐怖主義。 當我們感到被憎恨時,我們的反應會更加激烈,這是人的本性, 這是一種惡性循環。 你可以稱之為負面情緒的正向反饋效應, 這在我看來非常可怕, 我們甚至不該使用“正向”這個詞,即使只是術語的表達。 所以讓我們稱之為負面情緒的死亡螺旋效應。 (笑聲) 我敢說,一旦這個效應開始作用,到頭來, 西方世界和穆斯林世界都要受罪。
So, what do we do? Well, first of all, we can do a lot more with arms control, the international regulation of dangerous technologies. I have a whole global governance sermon that I will spare you right now, because I don't think that's going to be enough anyway, although it's essential. I think we're going to have to have a major round of moral progress in the world. I think you're just going to have to see less hatred among groups, less bigotry, and, you know, racial groups, religious groups, whatever. I've got to admit I feel silly saying that. It sounds so kind of Pollyannaish. I feel like Rodney King, you know, saying, why can't we all just get along? But hey, I don't really see any alternative, given the way I read the situation. There's going to have to be moral progress. There's going to have to be a lessening of the amount of hatred in the world, given how dangerous it's becoming. In my defense, I'd say, as naive as this may sound, it's ultimately grounded in cynicism.
所以我們到底該怎麼辦?首先,我們要做的遠遠不只是武裝控制, 或者什麼對威脅性技術的國際公約。 我想給你們講一大堆道理, 講講整個地球該怎麼治理, 但我覺得雖然必要,但怎麼講也講不完 我認為, 我們應該展開新一輪的道德進化。 我認為,不同群體---不同的種族、宗教,任何有差異的群體, 他們之間的厭惡會減少,偏執的行為會減少, 好吧我必須承認當我這麼說時,我也覺得自己很傻。 聽起來我好像在盲目樂觀,好像 Rodney King 當年說, 難道大家就不能就好好在一起嗎? 但是,就目前的處境看,我沒有其他選擇了。 道德進化一定要發生。 整個世界上瀰漫的仇恨一定要減少, 因為現在這個世界是如此岌岌可危。 儘管聽起來很無知,但我還是要維護自己一下, 即使一大堆冷嘲熱諷依然存在。
That is to say -- (Laughter) -- thank you, thank you. That is to say, remember: my whole view of morality is that it boils down to self-interest. It's when people's fortunes are correlated. It's when your welfare conduces to mine, that I decide, oh yeah, I'm all in favor of your welfare. That's what's responsible for this growth of this moral progress so far, and I'm saying we once again have a correlation of fortunes, and if people respond to it intelligently, we will see the development of tolerance and so on -- the norms that we need, you know. We will see the further evolution of this kind of business-class morality.
也就是說-- (笑聲) --謝謝,謝謝。也就是說,請記住: 我所有的道德,都歸結於自我利益。 當人們的命運彼此相連, 當你的好處也能帶給我好處,那麼行呀, 我絕對為你著想。 這個就是道德進步的原動力。 我再強調一遍,我們的命運緊緊相連。 如果人們採取明智的回應, 我們將看到更多的包容,以及 其他我們所需要的東西。 我們講看到此類商務艙道德的再次進化。
So, these two things, you know, if they get people's attention and drive home the positive correlation and people do what's in their self-interests, which is further the moral evolution, then they could actually have a constructive effect. And that's why I lump growing lethality of hatred and death spiral of negativity under the general rubric, reasons to be cheerful. (Laughter) Doing the best I can, OK. (Laughter) I never called myself Mr. Uplift. I'm just doing what I can here. (Laughter)
所以這兩個方面--人們注意到並且認可這種正相關性, 並且他們從自己的利益出發-- 促成了道德的進一步發展, 那麼,可以看到一些建設性作用。 這就是我為什麼把"增強的憎恨的破壞性效應" 和"負面效應的死亡螺旋效應"放在一個大標題下: 這值得高興。 (笑聲) 我已經很盡力了,好嘛。 (笑聲) 我從來不叫自己“樂觀先生”。 我只是做我所能做的罷了 (笑聲)
Now, launching a moral revolution has got to be hard, right? I mean, what do you do? And I think the answer is a lot of different people are going to have to do a lot of different things. We all start where we are. Speaking as an American who has children whose security 10, 20, 30 years down the road I worry about -- what I personally want to start out doing is figuring out why so many people around the world hate us, OK. I think that's a worthy research project myself. I also like it because it's an intrinsically kind of morally redeeming exercise. Because to understand why somebody in a very different culture does something -- somebody you're kind of viewing as alien, who's doing things you consider strange in a culture you consider strange -- to really understand why they do the things they do is a morally redeeming accomplishment, because you've got to relate their experience to yours. To really understand it, you've got to say, "Oh, I get it. So when they feel resentful, it's kind of like the way I feel resentful when this happens, and for somewhat the same reasons." That's true understanding. And I think that is an expansion of your moral compass when you manage to do that.
好吧,道德進化的展開,確實是非常困難的,對吧? 你們要怎麼做? 我的回答是, 我們所有人各盡其責。 我們就從眼下開始。作為一個美國人, 我們的孩子有10年,20年,30年的安全保障, 我的憂慮在於-- 我自己想要發現的是 為什麼這個世界上,有這麼多人討厭我們。 我個人認為這是個很值得研究的課題。 本質上,這也可以算做一個道德自救的小練習。 因為要理解那些 不同文化背景的人所做的事-- 這些人對你來說簡直就是外星人-- 他們的所作所為在你看來奇怪極了, 在這樣一個奇怪的文化背景下,真正能理解他們, 是一個道德救贖方面的大成就, 你必須把他們的經歷與你的聯繫起來, 才能真正明白,才能說,“啊,我懂了。 因此當他們感到憤恨時, 我似乎也能感到憤恨, 出於完全一致的理由。" 這才是真正的理解。 我認為,你應該把這種理解,添加到你的道德範疇中。
It's especially hard to do when people hate you, OK, because you don't really, in a sense, want to completely understand why people hate you. I mean, you want to hear the reason, but you don't want to be able to relate to it. You don't want it to make sense, right? (Laughter) You don't want to say, "Well, yeah, I can kind of understand how a human being in those circumstances would hate the country I live in." That's not a pleasant thing, but I think it's something that we're going to have to get used to and
當對方憎恨你時,這變的尤其困難了,對吧, 因為確實沒有人會願意, 去完整地搞清楚為什麼有人憎恨你。 我是說,你當然想知道原因,但是你不會願意把前後兩者聯繫起來。 你不想承認這個因果關係,對嗎? 你不想說,“好吧好吧,我明白了, 為什麼一個處於那種環境下的人, 會討厭我所在的國家。” 這畢竟是件彆扭的事情, 但我想我們不得不漸漸去適應。
work on. Now, I want to stress that to understand, you know -- there are people who don't like this whole business of understanding the grassroots, the root causes of things; they don't want to know why people hate us. I want to understand it. The reason you're trying to understand why they hate us, is to get them to quit hating us. The idea when you go through this moral exercise of really coming to appreciate their humanity and better understand them, is part of an effort to get them to appreciate your humanity in the long run. I think it's the first step toward that. That's the long-term goal.
我想強調一下,之所以, 某些人並不喜歡我這一整套理解草根的玩意兒, 根本原因是:他們不想知道 為什麼人們討厭我們。但是我想了解。 只有弄明白他們為什麼討厭我們, 我們才能讓他們不再討厭我們,對吧。 當我們通過這種道德反思,去真正體諒 他們的人性,去更理解他們, 他們才能更體諒我們的想法。 這是第一步。這是個需要長期努力才能實現的目標。
There are people who worry about this, and in fact, I, myself, apparently, was denounced on national TV a couple of nights ago because of an op-ed I'd written. It was kind of along these lines, and the allegation was that I have, quote, "affection for terrorists." Now, the good news is that the person who said it was Ann Coulter. (Laughter) (Applause) I mean, if you've got to have an enemy, do make it Ann Coulter. (Laughter) But it's not a crazy concern, OK, because understanding behavior can lead to a kind of empathy, and it can make it a little harder to deliver tough love, and so on. But I think we're a lot closer to erring on the side of not comprehending the situation clearly enough, than in comprehending it so clearly that we just can't, you know, get the army out to kill terrorists.
有些人有顧慮,大家都知道, 就幾天前,我在國家電視台上被公開指責, 起因是我在專欄裡所寫的東西。 我所寫的字句,被指控為, 引用他們的話,“對恐怖主義動情。” 好消息是,至少指控我的人是 Ann Coulter (笑聲) (掌聲) 如果你一定要樹敵,就找 Ann Coulter 好了 (笑聲) 他們不是杞人憂天。 嘗試理解恐怖主義,引起了某種共鳴, 使得傳達這種糾結的情感變得更為困難。 但我也認為,選擇不去理解,會是個更大的錯誤, 情況已經很清楚了, 我們不能再派士兵去殺害恐怖分子了。
So I'm not really worried about it. So -- (Laughter) -- I mean, we're going to have to work on a lot of fronts, but if we succeed -- if we succeed -- then once again, non-zero-sumness and the recognition of non-zero-sum dynamics will have forced us to a higher moral level. And a kind of saving higher moral level, something that kind of literally saves the world. If you look at the word "salvation" in the Bible -- the Christian usage that we're familiar with -- saving souls, that people go to heaven -- that's actually a latecomer. The original meaning of the word "salvation" in the Bible is about saving the social system. "Yahweh is our Savior" means "He has saved the nation of Israel," which at the time, was a pretty high-level social organization.
我並不真在乎這個問題。所以-- (笑聲) --我是說,我們必須再採取些更直接更勇敢的措施, 一旦我們成功了--那麼, 非零和效應將再一次被認可,非零和機制將再一次被接受, 我們的道德水準無疑將進入新的水平。 某種意義上,拯救性的,更高的道德水準, 可以拯救世界。 如果你看看聖經裡的“救贖”這個詞-- 我們已很熟悉它在基督教中的用法-- 拯救靈魂,帶人們上天堂--這其實是後人給的解釋了。 救贖在聖經裡最原始的意思是,拯救社會系統。 “耶和華是我們的救世主,”是指“他拯救了以色列人的國,” 那個時候,以色列已經是個很高級的社會組織了。
Now, social organization has reached the global level, and I guess, if there's good news I can say I'm bringing you, it's just that all the salvation of the world requires is the intelligent pursuit of self-interests in a disciplined and careful way. It's going to be hard. I say we give it a shot anyway because we've just come too far to screw it up now. Thanks. (Applause)
現在,整個地球都是一個社會組織,所以我猜想, 如果我說我能帶給你們什麼好消息的話, 只要以規範而謹慎的方式,明智地追求自我利益, 就能拯救這個世界。 這很難。但我們無論如何要試試看, 因為我們已經來得太遠,不能再犯錯了 謝謝。 (掌聲)