I've been thinking a lot about the world recently and how it's changed over the last 20, 30, 40 years. Twenty or 30 years ago, if a chicken caught a cold and sneezed and died in a remote village in East Asia, it would have been a tragedy for the chicken and its closest relatives, but I don't think there was much possibility of us fearing a global pandemic and the deaths of millions. Twenty or 30 years ago, if a bank in North America lent too much money to some people who couldn't afford to pay it back and the bank went bust, that was bad for the lender and bad for the borrower, but we didn't imagine it would bring the global economic system to its knees for nearly a decade.
我最近想了很多有關這個世界 最近20,30,40年發生的變化。 20或30年前, 如果一隻雞在遙遠的亞洲村莊 得了感冒,打了噴嚏死了, 這將是這隻雞和牠的親戚 的悲劇, 我不認為有很大的可能 會帶給我們全球的恐慌 可能數百萬人會死於流感。 20或者30年前,如果北美的銀行 貸款太多的錢給 那些不能還清的人 這個銀行會破產, 對債主來說是糟糕的 對貸款者也是糟糕的, 但是我們無法想象它會 擊垮全球經濟 將近一個年代。
This is globalization. This is the miracle that has enabled us to transship our bodies and our minds and our words and our pictures and our ideas and our teaching and our learning around the planet ever faster and ever cheaper. It's brought a lot of bad stuff, like the stuff that I just described, but it's also brought a lot of good stuff. A lot of us are not aware of the extraordinary successes of the Millennium Development Goals, several of which have achieved their targets long before the due date. That proves that this species of humanity is capable of achieving extraordinary progress if it really acts together and it really tries hard. But if I had to put it in a nutshell these days, I sort of feel that globalization has taken us by surprise, and we've been slow to respond to it. If you look at the downside of globalization, it really does seem to be sometimes overwhelming. All of the grand challenges that we face today, like climate change and human rights and demographics and terrorism and pandemics and narco-trafficking and human slavery and species loss, I could go on, we're not making an awful lot of progress against an awful lot of those challenges.
這就是全球化。 就是這樣的奇蹟使我們 的身體和思想 語言和圖畫和我們的想法 和我們的教學在這個星球 運轉得更快,更便宜。 它同樣帶來了不好的影響, 像我之前說的那些, 但是同樣也帶來了很多好的東西。 我們當中很多沒聽過 千年非凡成就發展目標, 當中的很多目標 在目標日期前就已實現。 這證明人類物種 可以取得非凡的成就, 如果我們一起同心協力,一起努力。 但是如果我要概括這些日子, 我有種感覺全球化 使我們吃了一驚, 而且我們對它的反應比較慢。 如果你看全球化的缺點, 它確實看起來可能有壓倒性。 我們今天面臨的所有大的挑戰, 如氣候變遷、人權、 人口分佈、恐怖主義、流行病、 販毒、奴役 和物種滅絕,我可以一直列舉下去, 我們並沒有取得太多的進步, 在這些挑戰性的問題上。
So in a nutshell, that's the challenge that we all face today at this interesting point in history. That's clearly what we've got to do next. We've somehow got to get our act together and we've got to figure out how to globalize the solutions better so that we don't simply become a species which is the victim of the globalization of problems.
所以概括的說,這就是我們 在今天 這個有趣的歷史時間點要面臨的挑戰。 這就是我們下一步要做的。 我們必須一起行動起來 並且我們要搞清楚如何 尋求好的全球化的解決方法 這樣我們不會僅僅成為一個 全球化問題下的受害物種。
Why are we so slow at achieving these advances? What's the reason for it? Well, there are, of course, a number of reasons, but perhaps the primary reason is because we're still organized as a species in the same way that we were organized 200 or 300 years ago. There's one superpower left on the planet and that is the seven billion people, the seven billion of us who cause all these problems, the same seven billion, by the way, who will resolve them all. But how are those seven billion organized? They're still organized in 200 or so nation-states, and the nations have governments that make rules and cause us to behave in certain ways. And that's a pretty efficient system, but the problem is that the way that those laws are made and the way those governments think is absolutely wrong for the solution of global problems, because it all looks inwards. The politicians that we elect and the politicians we don't elect, on the whole, have minds that microscope. They don't have minds that telescope. They look in. They pretend, they behave, as if they believed that every country was an island that existed quite happily, independently of all the others on its own little planet in its own little solar system. This is the problem: countries competing against each other, countries fighting against each other. This week, as any week you care to look at, you'll find people actually trying to kill each other from country to country, but even when that's not going on, there's competition between countries, each one trying to shaft the next.
為什麼達到這些進步是如此緩慢? 這的原因是什麼? 那麼,有這樣一些原因, 但是可能最主要的原因 是我們仍然是像 200, 300年以前那樣 組織著的物種。 這是地球上的超級大國 這是70億人, 我們這70億人造成的問題, 同樣這些70億人,順便一提, 將要解決一切問題。 但是這70億人是如何組織的? 他們依然按照200多個國家組織, 每個國家都有政府 制定規則, 讓我們按特定的方式行動。 這是一個相當有效的系統, 但是問題是這些法律制定的方式 和這些政府思考的方式 對於解決全球化問題來說,是相當錯誤的, 因為他們只看到內部。 我們選的政治人物 和非民選的政治人物,總體上, 思想很渺小。 他們沒有宏觀的遠見。 他們只看內部。他們假裝,他們的做法, 如同他們相信每個國家都是一個島嶼, 快樂的存在,相互獨立, 自外於所有的其他國家, 在他自己的小星球裡, 在他自己的小太陽系裡。 這就是問題所在: 國家之間相互競爭, 國家之間相互戰爭。 這週,和同樣其他 你在意的任何一 週一樣, 你會發現各國的人們 實際上正想方設法殺死對方, 但即使這並沒有發生, 國家之間依然有競爭, 每一個都想要把另一個壓下去。
This is clearly not a good arrangement. We clearly need to change it. We clearly need to find ways of encouraging countries to start working together a little bit better. And why won't they do that? Why is it that our leaders still persist in looking inwards?
這明顯不是一個好的安排。 我們明顯需要改變這個。 我們明顯需要找到方法 去鼓勵國家之間 更好的合作。 但是為什麼他們不這麼做? 為什麼我們的領導依然堅持向內部看?
Well, the first and most obvious reason is because that's what we ask them to do. That's what we tell them to do. When we elect governments or when we tolerate unelected governments, we're effectively telling them that what we want is for them to deliver us in our country a certain number of things. We want them to deliver prosperity, growth, competitiveness, transparency, justice and all of those things. So unless we start asking our governments to think outside a little bit, to consider the global problems that will finish us all if we don't start considering them, then we can hardly blame them if what they carry on doing is looking inwards, if they still have minds that microscope rather than minds that telescope. That's the first reason why things tend not to change.
好吧,最首要也是最明顯的原因 是因為是我們要求他們這麼做。 我們告訴他們這麼做的。 當我們選政黨 或者忍受非民選的政府, 我們有效的告訴他們我們想要什麼 是希望他們能帶個我們的國家 一些特定的東西。 我們希望他們帶來繁榮, 發展,競爭力,透明度,公正 和所有這些。 所以除非我們要求我們的政府 能向外考慮一點, 去考慮可能會摧毀我們的全球化問題 如果我們不開始考慮這些, 我們不能責怪政府 如果他們繼續只向內看, 如果他們的思想依然是微觀的 而不是宏觀的。 這就是為什麼事情沒有改變的首要原因。
The second reason is that these governments, just like all the rest of us, are cultural psychopaths. I don't mean to be rude, but you know what a psychopath is. A psychopath is a person who, unfortunately for him or her, lacks the ability to really empathize with other human beings. When they look around, they don't see other human beings with deep, rich, three-dimensional personal lives and aims and ambitions. What they see is cardboard cutouts, and it's very sad and it's very lonely, and it's very rare, fortunately.
第二點原因是這些政府, 和我們其他人一樣, 是文化的精神病患者。 我不想這麼無禮, 但是你知道精神病是什麼吧。 精神病是一個人呢, 很不幸的,他或者她, 缺乏對其他人 真正同情的能力。 當他們看四周的時候, 他們看其他人, 看不到深層,豐富,三維的 有目標和雄心的人。 他們看到的是剪紙人, 這是非常悲哀和孤獨的, 幸運的是,這非常罕見。
But actually, aren't most of us not really so very good at empathy? Oh sure, we're very good at empathy when it's a question of dealing with people who kind of look like us and kind of walk and talk and eat and pray and wear like us, but when it comes to people who don't do that, who don't quite dress like us and don't quite pray like us and don't quite talk like us, do we not also have a tendency to see them ever so slightly as cardboard cutouts too? And this is a question we need to ask ourselves. I think constantly we have to monitor it. Are we and our politicians to a degree cultural psychopaths?
但事實上,難道我們大多數人 不也是不能很好的同情? 當然,我們很擅長同情 當我們同情的對象 是和我們很像的人 向我們一樣走路,說話,吃飯,祈禱 和穿得像我們的人, 但是如果是不像我們的人, 穿得不像我們的人 不像我們一樣禱告的人 不像我們一樣說話的人, 難道我們不是傾向於 把他們看做紙板人一樣? 這是我們每個人需要捫心自問的。 我認為我們時刻需要監督這一點。 我們和我們的政治人物 是不是在某種程度上 是文化的精神病患者?
The third reason is hardly worth mentioning because it's so silly, but there's a belief amongst governments that the domestic agenda and the international agenda are incompatible and always will be. This is just nonsense. In my day job, I'm a policy adviser. I've spent the last 15 years or so advising governments around the world, and in all of that time I have never once seen a single domestic policy issue that could not be more imaginatively, effectively and rapidly resolved than by treating it as an international problem, looking at the international context, comparing what others have done, bringing in others, working externally instead of working internally.
第三個原因根本不值得一提 因為很愚蠢, 但是多數政府有一種信仰 認為國內事宜 和國際事宜 是不兼容的而且自始至終都是。 這就是胡扯。 我每天的工作。我是個政策顧問。 我花了最近15年左右的時間 建議世界上的政府, 在所有的這時間我從來沒有見過 一個單一個本土政策 可以如此有想像力的, 有效的,迅速的被解決, 如果把它當成是國際問題, 在國際背景下考慮, 對比其他人的做法, 調動其他人,外部合作 而不是內部合作。
And so you may say, well, given all of that, why then doesn't it work? Why can we not make our politicians change? Why can't we demand them? Well I, like a lot of us, spend a lot of time complaining about how hard it is to make people change, and I don't think we should fuss about it. I think we should just accept that we are an inherently conservative species. We don't like to change. It exists for very sensible evolutionary reasons. We probably wouldn't still be here today if we weren't so resistant to change. It's very simple: Many thousands of years ago, we discovered that if we carried on doing the same things, we wouldn't die, because the things that we've done before by definition didn't kill us, and therefore as long as we carry on doing them, we'll be okay, and it's very sensible not to do anything new, because it might kill you. But of course, there are exceptions to that. Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere. And one of the exceptions, the interesting exception, is when you can show to people that there might be some self-interest in them making that leap of faith and changing a little bit.
你可能會說,好吧,那樣的話, 為什麼不那樣做呢? 為什麼我們不能改變政治家? 為什麼我們不能這麼要求他們? 我,和其他人一樣,花了很多時間抱怨 改變他人是多麼的不容易, 我認為我們沒必要大驚小怪。 我認為我們應該接受 我們本質上是保守的物種。 我們不喜歡改變。 這是理智的進化原因。 我們今天可能不會存在 如果我們不那麼抵制改變的話。 這非常簡單:數千年前, 我們發現如果我們繼續 做相同的事情,我們不會死, 因為我們之前做過的事情 理論上沒有殺死我們, 所以只要我們繼續做相同的事情, 我們就沒事, 不做其他新的事情是很理智的, 因為那樣可能會殺死你。 但是當然,有例外。 否則的話,我們沒有任何進步。 其中的例外,一個有意思的例外, 是當你展示給其他人 如果他們的信仰可以飛躍 做小小的改變 他們會受益。
So I've spent a lot of the last 10 or 15 years trying to find out what could be that self-interest that would encourage not just politicians but also businesses and general populations, all of us, to start to think a little more outwardly, to think in a bigger picture, not always to look inwards, sometimes to look outwards. And this is where I discovered something quite important. In 2005, I launched a study called the Nation Brands Index. What it is, it's a very large-scale study that polls a very large sample of the world's population, a sample that represents about 70 percent of the planet's population, and I started asking them a series of questions about how they perceive other countries. And the Nation Brands Index over the years has grown to be a very, very large database. It's about 200 billion data points tracking what ordinary people think about other countries and why. Why did I do this? Well, because the governments that I advise are very, very keen on knowing how they are regarded. They've known, partly because I've encouraged them to realize it, that countries depend enormously on their reputations in order to survive and prosper in the world. If a country has a great, positive image, like Germany has or Sweden or Switzerland, everything is easy and everything is cheap. You get more tourists. You get more investors. You sell your products more expensively. If, on the other hand, you have a country with a very weak or a very negative image, everything is difficult and everything is expensive. So governments care desperately about the image of their country, because it makes a direct difference to how much money they can make, and that's what they've promised their populations they're going to deliver.
所以我花了10到15年的時間 尋找那鼓勵不光是政治家 也是商人和民眾 的受益點, 我們所有人,開始外向的思維, 以一種全局的方式思維, 不要總是向內看,要試著向外看。 這就是我發現的 非常重要的事情。 在2005, 我發起一項研究 叫做國家品牌指數。 是一個大規模的研究, 從全世界抽取大量的樣本, 代表大概70%的 世界人口, 我開始問他們一系列的問題 關於他們是如何看待其他國家的。 現在世界品牌指數已經 發展成為很大的數據庫。 有2000億數據點 追蹤普通人是如何看待其他國家的 和為什麼。 我為什麼這麼做? 因為,我建議的那些政府 非常迫切想要知道 他們是如何被認為的。 他們知道,主要是 因為我鼓勵他們去意識到這一點, 國家的生存和發展 很大一部分 是依靠他們的形象的。 如果國家有一個偉大的正面的形象, 像德國、瑞士、瑞典, 所有的事情很簡單,便宜。 你有更多的旅遊者。你有更多的投資者。 你賣你的東西更貴。 如果,相反,你的國家 有一個很弱的,很負面的形象, 所有的事情很難,很貴。 所以國家相當的在乎 他們國家的形象, 因為這對他們能掙多少錢 有直接的影響, 而這些經濟就是 他們對民眾保證的事情。
So a couple of years ago, I thought I would take some time out and speak to that gigantic database and ask it, why do some people prefer one country more than another? And the answer that the database gave me completely staggered me. It was 6.8. I haven't got time to explain in detail. Basically what it told me was — (Laughter) (Applause) — the kinds of countries we prefer are good countries. We don't admire countries primarily because they're rich, because they're powerful, because they're successful, because they're modern, because they're technologically advanced. We primarily admire countries that are good. What do we mean by good? We mean countries that seem to contribute something to the world in which we live, countries that actually make the world safer or better or richer or fairer. Those are the countries we like. This is a discovery of significant importance — you see where I'm going — because it squares the circle. I can now say, and often do, to any government, in order to do well, you need to do good. If you want to sell more products, if you want to get more investment, if you want to become more competitive, then you need to start behaving, because that's why people will respect you and do business with you, and therefore, the more you collaborate, the more competitive you become.
所以幾年前,我想我可以花 一些時間和這個龐大的數據庫聊聊 問問它, 為什麼有些人傾向一個國家 而不是另一個國家? 數據庫給我的答案 完全出乎我的意料。 是6.8。 我沒有時間去仔細解釋。 基本上它告訴我- (笑)(鼓掌)- 是我們傾向好的國家。 我們不羨慕國家只因為它們富有, 它們強大,它們成功, 它們現代,它們科技很進步。 我們主要嚮往好的國家。 什麼是好的? 我們認為那些對我們生活的世界 作出了好的貢獻的國家, 那些真正讓這個世界變得安全 更好,更富有,更公平的國家。 這些是我們喜歡的國家。 這是重要的發現- 你明白我的意圖了- 因為它使圓變方。 我現在可以說,基本上,任何政府, 為了更好的發展,你需要做好事。 如果你需要賣更多的產品, 如果你需要引進資金, 如果你需要變得更有競爭力, 那麼你需要開始注意自己的行為, 因為這是為什麼人們尊重你和 跟你做生意的原因, 所以,你越合作, 你越有競爭力。
This is quite an important discovery, and as soon as I discovered this, I felt another index coming on. I swear that as I get older, my ideas become simpler and more and more childish. This one is called the Good Country Index, and it does exactly what it says on the tin. It measures, or at least it tries to measure, exactly how much each country on Earth contributes not to its own population but to the rest of humanity. Bizarrely, nobody had ever thought of measuring this before. So my colleague Dr. Robert Govers and I have spent the best part of the last two years, with the help of a large number of very serious and clever people, cramming together all the reliable data in the world we could find about what countries give to the world.
這是相當重要的發現, 一旦我發現了這一點, 我覺得另一指數也來了。 我發誓,隨著我變老了,我的想法變得簡單了 而且越來越幼稚。 這一個叫做好的國家指數, 而且它就是字面意思。 它衡量,或者至少盡量去衡量, 確切的世界上每個國家對整個人類 而不是自己國家人民的貢獻。 很奇怪的是,以前沒有人想到 這種測量方式。 所以我的同事Robert Govers和我花了 最近兩年的時間, 和其他大量認真聰明的人, 聚集世界上我們可以找到的 可靠的數據有關每個國家 貢獻什麼給世界。
And you're waiting for me to tell you which one comes top. And I'm going to tell you, but first of all I want to tell you precisely what I mean when I say a good country. I do not mean morally good. When I say that Country X is the goodest country on Earth, and I mean goodest, I don't mean best. Best is something different. When you're talking about a good country, you can be good, gooder and goodest. It's not the same thing as good, better and best. This is a country which simply gives more to humanity than any other country. I don't talk about how they behave at home because that's measured elsewhere. And the winner is Ireland. (Applause) According to the data here, no country on Earth, per head of population, per dollar of GDP, contributes more to the world that we live in than Ireland. What does this mean? This means that as we go to sleep at night, all of us in the last 15 seconds before we drift off to sleep, our final thought should be, godammit, I'm glad that Ireland exists. (Laughter) And that — (Applause) — In the depths of a very severe economic recession, I think that there's a really important lesson there, that if you can remember your international obligations whilst you are trying to rebuild your own economy, that's really something. Finland ranks pretty much the same. The only reason why it's below Ireland is because its lowest score is lower than Ireland's lowest score.
你現在等著我告訴你哪個國家是第一。 我將要告訴你, 但是我先要告訴你 我準確的想要表達什麼 當我說一個好的國家的時候。 我不是說道德上好的。 當我說國家X 是世界上更好的國家, 我說更好的, 而不是最好的。最好的是有區別的。 當你說一個好的國家, 你可以是好的,好一些的,更好的。 這不等同於好的,更好的,最好的。 這只是一個國家僅僅付出更多 給整個人類和其他國家相比。 我沒有談論他們本國內部的表現 因為這在其他地方衡量。 那麼冠軍是 愛爾蘭。 (鼓掌) 根據數據, 世界上沒有國家,人均, 美元GDP,比愛爾蘭 貢獻更多給這個世界。 這意味著什麼? 這意味著當我們晚上睡覺, 我們所有人睡覺前的15秒鐘, 我們最終的想法就是, 天啊,我很高興有愛爾蘭的存在。 (笑) 這-(笑)- 在嚴重的經濟危機深層, 我認為這是很重要的一課, 如果你記得你的國際義務 當你重建本國經濟的時候, 這是非常了不起的。 芬蘭排名也差不多。 唯一的原因它在愛爾蘭後面 是因為它的最低分低於愛爾蘭最低分。
Now the other thing you'll notice about the top 10 there is, of course, they're all, apart from New Zealand, Western European nations. They're also all rich. This depressed me, because one of the things that I did not want to discover with this index is that it's purely the province of rich countries to help poor countries. This is not what it's all about. And indeed, if you look further down the list, I don't have the slide here, you will see something that made me very happy indeed, that Kenya is in the top 30, and that demonstrates one very, very important thing. This is not about money. This is about attitude. This is about culture. This is about a government and a people that care about the rest of the world and have the imagination and the courage to think outwards instead of only thinking selfishly.
其他的有關前10名你會發現 是, 當然,它們所有,除了紐西蘭, 西歐國家。 它們都很富有。 這一點讓我沮喪, 因為我不想要發現有關這一指數 的一點就是 基本上是富裕的國家 幫助貧窮的國家。 這不是全部。 事實上,如果你看名單下面, 我沒有幻燈片,你將看到 讓我開心的事情, 肯尼亞在前30, 這證明了非常重要的一點。 這和金錢無關。 這和態度有關。 這和文化有關。 這是關於政府和人民關心 世界上其他人 並有想像和勇氣去 向外看而不是自私的向內看。
I'm going to whip through the other slides just so you can see some of the lower-lying countries. There's Germany at 13th, the U.S. comes 21st, Mexico comes 66th, and then we have some of the big developing countries, like Russia at 95th, China at 107th. Countries like China and Russia and India, which is down in the same part of the index, well, in some ways, it's not surprising. They've spent a great deal of time over the last decades building their own economy, building their own society and their own polity, but it is to be hoped that the second phase of their growth will be somewhat more outward-looking than the first phase has been so far.
我將要快進幻燈片 這樣你可以看到靠後的國家。 德國在第13, 美國第21, 墨西哥第66, 接著我們有發展中大國, 像俄羅斯第95, 中國107。 像中國、俄國和印度的國家, 在指數較低的位置, 實際上,從某種角度,並不驚奇。 他們花了相當長的時間 最近幾十年建立他們自己的經濟, 建立他們自己的社會和政策, 但是希望 在他們發展的第二階段 他們可以比在第一階段 更向外看。
And then you can break down each country in terms of the actual datasets that build into it. I'll allow you to do that. From midnight tonight it's going to be on goodcountry.org, and you can look at the country. You can look right down to the level of the individual datasets.
然後你可以分解每個國家 就實際的數據組而言。 我讓你們做這些。 從今夜開始將呈現在goodcountry.org. 你可以看這些國家。 你可以深入看到獨立的數據組。
Now that's the Good Country Index. What's it there for? Well, it's there really because I want to try to introduce this word, or reintroduce this word, into the discourse. I've had enough hearing about competitive countries. I've had enough hearing about prosperous, wealthy, fast-growing countries. I've even had enough hearing about happy countries because in the end that's still selfish. That's still about us, and if we carry on thinking about us, we are in deep, deep trouble. I think we all know what it is that we want to hear about. We want to hear about good countries, and so I want to ask you all a favor. I'm not asking a lot. It's something that you might find easy to do and you might even find enjoyable and even helpful to do, and that's simply to start using the word "good" in this context. When you think about your own country, when you think about other people's countries, when you think about companies, when you talk about the world that we live in today, start using that word in the way that I've talked about this evening. Not good, the opposite of bad, because that's an argument that never finishes. Good, the opposite of selfish, good being a country that thinks about all of us. That's what I would like you to do, and I'd like you to use it as a stick with which to beat your politicians. When you elect them, when you reelect them, when you vote for them, when you listen to what they're offering you, use that word, "good," and ask yourself, "Is that what a good country would do?" And if the answer is no, be very suspicious. Ask yourself, is that the behavior of my country? Do I want to come from a country where the government, in my name, is doing things like that? Or do I, on the other hand, prefer the idea of walking around the world with my head held high thinking, "Yeah, I'm proud to come from a good country"? And everybody will welcome you. And everybody in the last 15 seconds before they drift off to sleep at night will say, "Gosh, I'm glad that person's country exists."
這就是好的國家指數。 它有什麼用? 實際上,它的存在是因為我想 介紹這個詞, 或者說重新介紹這個詞,到話語中。 我聽了夠多的有競爭力的國家。 我聽了夠多的 繁榮,富強,迅速發展國家。 我甚至聽夠了快樂的國家 因為最終它也是自私的。 那只是關於我們, 而且如果我們繼續只考慮自己, 我們會陷入深深的麻煩。 我想我們大家都知道 我們想要聽到的是什麼。 我們想要聽到好的國家, 我有個請求。 我要求的並不多。 是你們發現很容易做到的 而且你樂意做的 而且很願意幫忙做的, 僅僅是開始使用“好的”這個詞 在這個語境。 當你想自己國家的時候, 想其他人的國家的時候, 當你想公司的時候, 當你談論今天我們生活的世界的時候, 開始用這個詞, 以我今晚談論的這種方式。 不是壞的反義詞的好, 因為那將是無盡的爭論。 好,而是自私的反義詞, 做一個好的國家為所有人著想。 這就是我希望你們做的, 我希望你用它如同鞭策 政治人物的棍棒。 當你選他們的時候,當你重選他們的時候, 當你投票的時候,當你聽 他們提供給你們的時候, 用這個詞“好的” 並且問你們自己, 「這是一個好的國家的所作所為嗎?」 如果答案是否定的,那麼就要留意。 問你們自己,這就是我的國家的 作為? 我希望自己來自這樣的國家, 政府,以我的名義, 做這樣的事情? 或者,另一方面, 我傾向於走在世界 昂頭並想著,「是的, 我很自豪來自於一個好的國家。」 而且所有人都會歡迎你。 而且每個人在睡前 的15秒鐘都會說, 「天啊,我很高興那個人的國家的存在。」
Ultimately, that, I think, is what will make the change. That word, "good," and the number 6.8 and the discovery that's behind it have changed my life. I think they can change your life, and I think we can use it to change the way that our politicians and our companies behave, and in doing so, we can change the world. I've started thinking very differently about my own country since I've been thinking about these things. I used to think that I wanted to live in a rich country, and then I started thinking I wanted to live in a happy country, but I began to realize, it's not enough. I don't want to live in a rich country. I don't want to live in a fast-growing or competitive country. I want to live in a good country, and I so, so hope that you do too.
最終,我想, 這將改變一切。 那個詞,「好的,」 和這個數字6.8 和這些發現的背後 改變了我的人生。 我認為他們可以改變你的人生, 我認為我們可以用它來改變 我們的政治人物和企業的作為, 這麼做,我們可以改變世界。 我開始以另外的方式思考 我自己的國家,自從我開始 以不同的方式思考這些事情。 我曾經認為我想生活在富裕的國家, 接著我認為我想生活在快樂的國家, 但是我意識到,這些都不夠。 我不想生活在富裕的國家。 我不希望生活在發展迅速 或者是有競爭力的國家。 我希望生活在一個好的國家, 我同樣,也希望你也是。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)