["Rebecca Newberger Goldstein"] ["Steven Pinker"] ["The Long Reach of Reason"] Cabbie: Twenty-two dollars. Steven Pinker: Okay. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: Reason appears to have fallen on hard times: Popular culture plumbs new depths of dumbth and political discourse has become a race to the bottom. We're living in an era of scientific creationism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, psychic hotlines, and a resurgence of religious fundamentalism. People who think too well are often accused of elitism, and even in the academy, there are attacks on logocentrism, the crime of letting logic dominate our thinking.
丽贝卡· 纽伯格· 戈德斯坦 史迪芬·平克 "理智的边际" 的哥:22块。 史迪芬·平克:好的。 丽贝卡· 纽伯格· 戈德斯坦: 理性已经遇到了多重障碍: 流行文化朝着愚昧的新深度去探索 而政治言论已成为 一场走下坡路的比赛。 我们生活在一个科学创世说的时代, 9/11密谋论,超自然的热线电话, 以及信仰原教旨主义的复苏 。 那些想法太丰富的人 往往都被指责为精英主义者, 即使在学术界, 标志中心主义也遭受攻击, 逻辑思维被定义为犯罪。
SP: But is this necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps reason is overrated. Many pundits have argued that a good heart and steadfast moral clarity are superior to triangulations of overeducated policy wonks, like the best and brightest and that dragged us into the quagmire of Vietnam. And wasn't it reason that gave us the means to despoil the planet and threaten our species with weapons of mass destruction? In this way of thinking, it's character and conscience, not cold-hearted calculation, that will save us. Besides, a human being is not a brain on a stick. My fellow psychologists have shown that we're led by our bodies and our emotions and use our puny powers of reason merely to rationalize our gut feelings after the fact.
史迪芬·平克:但这个一定就是件坏事吗? 或许理性有点被高估了。 许多权威专家都说一颗善良的心 和一个坚定的道德准则 胜过去顺从那些受太多教育的政策书呆子, 就好像那些将我们带入了越南的沼泽地 的所谓的最优秀和最聪明的人。 那不是就是给我们方法 让我们破坏地球 用杀伤性武器来威胁我们种族的原因吗? 以这种思维方法来看, 拯救我们的将是个性和良心, 而不是冷血的计算。 此外,一个人的头脑包含的不仅仅是智慧。 我的同事心理学家指出 我们不但受身体和情绪控制, 而且依赖我们弱小的理性力量 仅仅为了将事实后的直觉合理化。
RNG: How could a reasoned argument logically entail the ineffectiveness of reasoned arguments? Look, you're trying to persuade us of reason's impotence. You're not threatening us or bribing us, suggesting that we resolve the issue with a show of hands or a beauty contest. By the very act of trying to reason us into your position, you're conceding reason's potency. Reason isn't up for grabs here. It can't be. You show up for that debate and you've already lost it.
丽贝卡:“一个理性的争论 又怎么可能逻辑性地产生理性争论的无效性? 喂,你是想说服我们相信理性是没用的。 你没有在威胁我们或贿赂我们, 暗示我们用举手表决 或用选美比赛的方法来解决问题。 你这种试图让我们认同你的观点的行为, 事实上是在承认理性的效能。 理性在这里不是轻易可得,绝不可能。 当你参与这个辩论时, 你就已经失去了理性。
SP: But can reason lead us in directions that are good or decent or moral? After all, you pointed out that reason is just a means to an end, and the end depends on the reasoner's passions. Reason can lay out a road map to peace and harmony if the reasoner wants peace and harmony, but it can also lay out a road map to conflict and strife if the reasoner delights in conflict and strife. Can reason force the reasoner to want less cruelty and waste?
史迪芬:但理性可以为我们指引 好的,体面的,或者道德的方向吗? 毕竟,你对理性的解释是 它只是一种达到目的的手段 , 而结果取决于理性思考者的热情。 理性可以为和谐与和平铺一张路线图 如果理性的人希望得到和平与和谐, 但它的路线图也可以指引到冲突和纷争 如果理性的人喜欢在冲突和纷争中寻欢。 理性可以强制一个理性者 去寻找更少的残酷和浪费吗?
RNG: All on its own, the answer is no, but it doesn't take much to switch it to yes. You need two conditions: The first is that reasoners all care about their own well-being. That's one of the passions that has to be present in order for reason to go to work, and it's obviously present in all of us. We all care passionately about our own well-being. The second condition is that reasoners are members of a community of reasoners who can affect one another's well-being, can exchange messages, and comprehend each other's reasoning. And that's certainly true of our gregarious and loquatious species, well endowed with the instinct for language.
丽贝卡: 光靠它自己的话不行, 但要让它改变并不难。 您需要两个条件: 首先理性者需要都关心 他们自己的福祉。 这是一个为了使让理性去行动 而必须存在的热情, 而且很明显地我们所有人都有这股热情。 我们都热情地关心 我们自己的幸福。 第二个条件是理性者 是整个理性团体的成员 他们可以影响互相的幸福, 可以交换消息, 和理解对方的理性思考。 这些的确符合我们作为合群的 和话多的物种的本性, 授予了语言的本能。
SP: Well, that sounds good in theory, but has it worked that way in practice? In particular, can it explain a momentous historical development that I spoke about five years ago here at TED? Namely, we seem to be getting more humane. Centuries ago, our ancestors would burn cats alive as a form of popular entertainment. Knights waged constant war on each other by trying to kill as many of each other's peasants as possible. Governments executed people for frivolous reasons, like stealing a cabbage or criticizing the royal garden. The executions were designed to be as prolonged and as painful as possible, like crucifixion, disembowelment, breaking on the wheel. Respectable people kept slaves. For all our flaws, we have abandoned these barbaric practices.
史迪芬: 嗯,理论上听起来还不错, 但这种方法在实践中成功过吗? 尤其是,它可以解释 我大约五年前在TED这里 讲过的一个重大的历史发展吗? 也就是说,我们似乎变得越来越仁慈了。 几个世纪前,我们的祖先还会将猫活烧 当作为一种大众的娱乐形式。 骑士们不断地 以杀尽对手的农名来向对方宣战。 各国政府为了一些琐屑无聊的原因 而处死自己的公民, 比如像偷白菜 或批评皇家花园。 处决通常都很漫长 而且非常痛苦,像被钉十字架, 剖腹,或者是轮刑。 可敬的人也变为奴隶。 就算我们有再多的缺点, 也已经停止了 这些野蛮的行为。
RNG: So, do you think it's human nature that's changed?
丽贝卡: 那么,你觉得这是人的本性改变了?
SP: Not exactly. I think we still harbor instincts that can erupt in violence, like greed, tribalism, revenge, dominance, sadism. But we also have instincts that can steer us away, like self-control, empathy, a sense of fairness, what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.
史迪芬:不完全是。我觉得我们仍然怀有 爆发暴力行为的本能, 比如像贪婪,部落主义, 复仇, 支配, 虐待主义。 但我们的某些本能 可以指导我们走正道, 比如像自我控制, 同感, 公正感, 亚伯拉罕 · 林肯将这些 称之为我们本性中更好的天使。
RNG: So if human nature didn't change, what invigorated those better angels?
丽贝卡: 所以如果人类的本性没有改变, 是什么激活了这些更好的天使?
SP: Well, among other things, our circle of empathy expanded. Years ago, our ancestors would feel the pain only of their family and people in their village. But with the expansion of literacy and travel, people started to sympathize with wider and wider circles, the clan, the tribe, the nation, the race, and perhaps eventually, all of humanity.
史迪芬: 好吧,在其它方面, 我们的同感范围扩大了。 很多年前,我们的祖先只会同情 他们的家庭和他们村人。 但随着文盲的减少和旅行的增加, 人们开始同情 更广泛的圈子, 氏族, 部落, 民族, 种族, 或许最终会包括所有的人类。
RNG: Can hard-headed scientists really give so much credit to soft-hearted empathy?
丽贝卡: 不感情用事的科学家们 真的对软心肠本质的同感有帮助吗?
SP: They can and do. Neurophysiologists have found neurons in the brain that respond to other people's actions the same way they respond to our own. Empathy emerges early in life, perhaps before the age of one. Books on empathy have become bestsellers, like "The Empathic Civilization" and "The Age of Empathy."
史迪芬: 他们可以而且会这样做。 神经生理学家发现大脑中的神经元 对他人行为做出的响应 和对自己作出的响应是相同的。 同感在成长早期出现, 也许在我们一岁之前。 关于同感的书已经成为畅销书, 像 "The Empathic Civilization" 和"The Age of Empathy."
RNG: I'm all for empathy. I mean, who isn't? But all on its own, it's a feeble instrument for making moral progress. For one thing, it's innately biased toward blood relations, babies and warm, fuzzy animals. As far as empathy is concerned, ugly outsiders can go to hell. And even our best attempts to work up sympathy for those who are unconnected with us fall miserably short, a sad truth about human nature that was pointed out by Adam Smith.
丽贝卡: 我完全赞成同感。又有谁会反对呢? 但在道德进步的过程中, 它单独只是一个微弱的工具。 一方面,它天生就对 血缘关系,婴儿 和温暖毛茸茸的动物存在偏见。 就同感而言, 丑陋的局外人可以下地狱。 甚至我们尽最大努力尝试 引起那些与我们脱轨的人 内心的同情 结果也是事与愿违,这是人类本性的一个悲哀事实 亚当 · 史密斯指出。
Adam Smith: Let us suppose that the great empire of China was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe would react on receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people. He would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure with the same ease and tranquility as if no such accident had happened. If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep tonight, but provided he never saw them, he would snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren.
亚当 · 史密斯: 让我们假设伟大的帝国, 中国突然被地震吞没, 试想一下一个欧洲人 接到这场可怕的灾难的消息后 会是怎样的反应。 他会,我想,首先非常强烈的表示 他对那些不幸的人感到的悲哀。 他会对人类生命面对的危险 做很多的悲哀的反思, 当所有这些仁慈的感伤 以恰当的程度表达出后, 他将继续他的自己的生活与乐趣 如何以往一样的舒适和宁静 仿佛没有任何不幸发生过一样。 如果他明天会失去他的小手指, 他今晚会无法入睡, 但只要他从没见过受害者, 他会选择打鼾的入睡 而不去担心超过1亿的同人所遭受的灾难。
SP: But if empathy wasn't enough to make us more humane, what else was there?
史迪芬: 但如果同感不足够 让我们变得更加人性化, 哪还有什么可以?
RNG: Well, you didn't mention what might be one of our most effective better angels: reason. Reason has muscle. It's reason that provides the push to widen that circle of empathy. Every one of the humanitarian developments that you mentioned originated with thinkers who gave reasons for why some practice was indefensible. They demonstrated that the way people treated some particular group of others was logically inconsistent with the way they insisted on being treated themselves.
丽贝卡: 嗯,你还没有提到 也许是我们最有效的更好的天使之一: 理性。 理性是有血有肉的。 理性为我们扩展同感范围 提供了推动力。 你所提到的每一个 人道主义的发展 都起源于那些 理性地解释了为什么一些实践 是站不住脚的思想家。 他们表现出对待 特别的人群 与他们对待自己大方法 在逻辑上是不一致的。
SP: Are you saying that reason can actually change people's minds? Don't people just stick with whatever conviction serves their interests or conforms to the culture that they grew up in?
史迪芬: 你是在说理性 其实是可以改变人们的思维吗? 人们难道不是只跟随那些 对自己有利 或者符合他们文化背景的信念吗?
RNG: Here's a fascinating fact about us: Contradictions bother us, at least when we're forced to confront them, which is just another way of saying that we are susceptible to reason. And if you look at the history of moral progress, you can trace a direct pathway from reasoned arguments to changes in the way that we actually feel. Time and again, a thinker would lay out an argument as to why some practice was indefensible, irrational, inconsistent with values already held. Their essay would go viral, get translated into many languages, get debated at pubs and coffee houses and salons, and at dinner parties, and influence leaders, legislators, popular opinion. Eventually their conclusions get absorbed into the common sense of decency, erasing the tracks of the original argument that had gotten us there. Few of us today feel any need to put forth a rigorous philosophical argument as to why slavery is wrong or public hangings or beating children. By now, these things just feel wrong. But just those arguments had to be made, and they were, in centuries past.
丽贝卡: 这是关于我们的一个有趣事实: 矛盾让我们不快, 至少当我们被迫面对他们的时候, 这只是对我们倾向于理性思考的 另外一种说法。 如果你观察我们过去 在道德上的进步, 你可以找到从理性争论 到我们实际上感觉方式的变化的一条轨迹。 一次又一次,一位思想家将争论 为什么一些实践是站不住脚的, 非理性的,与我们的现今价值观不一致的。 他们的论文会迅速传播, 被译成多种语言, 在酒吧,咖啡屋,沙龙 以及晚宴上被人们辩论, 它还可以影响领导人, 立法会议员, 以及大众的意见。 他们的结论最终被吸入到 正派常识中, 将最初把我们带到 那里的争论的轨迹抹掉。 今天很少人觉得需要提出 一个严格的哲学争论 来说明为什么奴隶制是错误的 或这公开绞刑,或殴打儿童。 现在,这些行为都被认为是错的。 但那些争议必须被提出, 而且存在了几个世纪。
SP: Are you saying that people needed a step-by-step argument to grasp why something might be a wee bit wrong with burning heretics at the stake?
史迪芬: 你是在说我们需要 一套步骤性的争论来理解 为什么像火刑异教徒 这类行为是不对的吗?
RNG: Oh, they did. Here's the French theologian Sebastian Castellio making the case.
丽贝卡: 哦,他们做了。这是法国神学家 塞巴斯蒂安 · 卡斯特利奥说的一段话。
Sebastian Castellio: Calvin says that he's certain, and other sects say that they are. Who shall be judge? If the matter is certain, to whom is it so? To Calvin? But then, why does he write so many books about manifest truth? In view of the uncertainty, we must define heretics simply as one with whom we disagree. And if then we are going to kill heretics, the logical outcome will be a war of extermination, since each is sure of himself.
塞巴斯蒂安 · 卡斯特利奥: 卡尔文说他确定, 而其他宗派说他们也是。 谁来当法官呢? 如果这件事是肯定的, 是对谁来说呢?对卡尔文? 那他为什么还要写这么多关于已知真相的书呢? 鉴于不确定性,我们必须将异教徒定义 为一个人仅仅与我们持有不同意见的个人。 如果这样我们就要杀死异教徒, 逻辑性的结果就是一场灭绝的战争, 因为每个人都坚信自己的观点。
SP: Or with hideous punishments like breaking on the wheel?
史迪芬: 或许勇可怕的刑罚 比如轮刑?
RNG: The prohibition in our constitution of cruel and unusual punishments was a response to a pamphlet circulated in 1764 by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria.
丽贝卡: 美国宪法禁止 残忍和不寻常的刑罚 是对1764年由意大利法学家切西萨尔·贝卡里亚 颁发的一本宣传小册的回应。
Cesare Beccaria: As punishments become more cruel, the minds of men, which like fluids always adjust to the level of the objects that surround them, become hardened, and after a hundred years of cruel punishments, breaking on the wheel causes no more fear than imprisonment previously did. For a punishment to achieve its objective, it is only necessary that the harm that it inflicts outweighs the benefit that derives from the crime, and into this calculation ought to be factored the certainty of punishment and the loss of the good that the commission of the crime will produce. Everything beyond this is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical.
西萨尔·贝卡里亚: 当刑罚变得更残酷时, 人的思想,就好像液体一样 总是变得像他们周围 物体一样,变得无情, 在经历一百年的残忍刑罚后, 轮刑不会比像以前那样 比监禁造成更大的恐惧。 要让一种刑罚达到它的目标, 只需要让它造成的伤害 超过犯罪所带来的利益, 这种计算应该考虑到 刑罚的确定性 以及犯罪会产生的 利益的丢失。 超出这些的都是多余的, 所以它们都是暴虐。
SP: But surely antiwar movements depended on mass demonstrations and catchy tunes by folk singers and wrenching photographs of the human costs of war.
史迪芬: 但反战运动肯定取决于 大规模示威 民歌歌手那些上口的曲调 还有那些让人看了觉得悲痛战争照片。
RNG: No doubt, but modern anti-war movements reach back to a long chain of thinkers who had argued as to why we ought to mobilize our emotions against war, such as the father of modernity, Erasmus.
丽贝卡: 没有怀疑,但是现代反战运动 可追溯到一长串的思想家 他们争论为什么我们将 反对战争的情绪表达出来, 其中包括现代性之父- 伊拉斯莫斯。
Erasmus: The advantages derived from peace diffuse themselves far and wide, and reach great numbers, while in war, if anything turns out happily, the advantage redounds only to a few, and those unworthy of reaping it. One man's safety is owing to the destruction of another. One man's prize is derived from the plunder of another. The cause of rejoicings made by one side is to the other a cause of mourning. Whatever is unfortunate in war, is severely so indeed, and whatever, on the contrary, is called good fortune, is a savage and a cruel good fortune, an ungenerous happiness deriving its existence from another's woe.
伊拉斯莫斯: 和平所带来的好处 将自己弥漫到远方, 影响到更多人, 然而在战争中,如果任何事是好的结果, 优势只会回报少数几人, 而且他们都是那些不值得获取回报的人。 一个人的安全应归功于 对另一个人的破坏。 一个人的奖是来自对另一个人的掠夺。 一边的欢庆 是另一边的哀悼。 战争中的所有不幸, 都非常的严重 与此任何相反的, 都被称为好运, 是野蛮和残忍的好运气, 从他人的祸中得到的一种吝啬的幸福。
SP: But everyone knows that the movement to abolish slavery depended on faith and emotion. It was a movement spearheaded by the Quakers, and it only became popular when Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" became a bestseller.
史迪芬: 但大家都知道 废除奴隶制运动 是取决于信念和情感。 它是由贵格会信徒 率先发起的一场运动 它在哈丽特 · 比彻 · 斯托夫人的小说 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" 成为了一本畅销书后才成名。
RNG: But the ball got rolling a century before. John Locke bucked the tide of millennia that had regarded the practice as perfectly natural. He argued that it was inconsistent with the principles of rational government.
丽贝卡: 但这一运动在一个世纪前就开始了。 约翰 · 洛克顶住几千年来的浪潮 这曾被认为实践作为完美的自然。 他认为那是 与理性的政府的原则不一致的。
John Locke: Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by common to everyone of that society and made by the legislative power erected in it, a liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
约翰 · 洛克: 公民在政府领导下的自由 是依靠一个规则来生活 这个规则对社会的每个人都一样 而且是由竖立它的立法权力来制定, 一个自由让我在所有事上面 都可以追随自己意愿 在此这条规则不规定, 无须接受另一个人的无常, 不确定,未知,和随意的希望, 作为自然的自由权就是除了自然法则 它不受到任何其他约束。
SP: Those words sound familiar. Where have I read them before? Ah, yes.
史迪芬: 这句话我好像听过。 我是在哪听说的呢?啊,对的。
Mary Astell: If absolute sovereignty be not necessary in a state, how comes it to be so in a family? Or if in a family, why not in a state? Since no reason can be alleged for the one that will not hold more strongly for the other, if all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves, as they must be if being subjected to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of men be the perfect condition of slavery?
玛丽· 阿斯特尔: 如果绝对主权在一个国家 不是必要的,那为什么在一个家庭要是呢? 或者如果在家庭里是必要的,为什么在国家不是呢? 因为我们找不出任何理由 让我们可以只是支持其中一个观点,而不同时支持另外的观点 如果所有人 天生就有自由, 为什么所有女人天生是奴隶, 因为她们必须是 当她们遭到无常、 不确定 未知,和男人随意的意愿 这不正是完美奴役状况的吗?
RNG: That sort of co-option is all in the job description of reason. One movement for the expansion of rights inspires another because the logic is the same, and once that's hammered home, it becomes increasingly uncomfortable to ignore the inconsistency. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement inspired the movements for women's rights, children's rights, gay rights and even animal rights. But fully two centuries before, the Enlightenment thinker Jeremy Bentham had exposed the indefensibility of customary practices such as the cruelty to animals.
丽贝卡: 那类的共同选择 都在理性的工作职责中。 一个扩大权利的运动 激发另一个因为逻辑是一样的, 当它费尽全力让某人理解的时候, 它会变得越来越不舒服 若要忽略不一致的问题。 在20世纪60 年代, 民权运动 启发了妇女权利的运动, 儿童权利,同性恋权利,甚至动物权利。 但两个世纪前, 启蒙思想家 杰里米 · 边沁 暴露了习惯性实践的 不可靠性 比如说残酷对待动物。
Jeremy Bentham: The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?
杰里米 · 边沁: 问题不是它们能不能理性思考, 也不是它们能不能说话,而是它们能否感到痛苦。
RNG: And the persecution of homosexuals.
丽贝卡: 还有对同性恋者的迫害。
JB: As to any primary mischief, it's evident that it produces no pain in anyone. On the contrary, it produces pleasure. The partners are both willing. If either of them be unwilling, the act is an offense, totally different in its nature of effects. It's a personal injury. It's a kind of rape. As to the any danger exclusive of pain, the danger, if any, much consist in the tendency of the example. But what is the tendency of this example? To dispose others to engage in the same practices. But this practice produces not pain of any kind to anyone.
史迪芬: 对任何主要的恶作剧, 很明显它没有给任何人带来痛苦。 与此相反,它会产生快感。 双方都愿意。 如果其中一方不愿意, 那么该行为就是一种冒犯, 在其影响的性质完全不同。 它是人身伤害。它是一种强奸。 就好像任何不带痛苦的危险, 如果有这种危险, 多存在于 示例的倾向中。 但此示例的倾向是什么? 安排他人从事同样的做法。 但这种做法不会产生任何一种痛苦 对任何人都是。
SP: Still, in every case, it took at least a century for the arguments of these great thinkers to trickle down and infiltrate the population as a whole. It kind of makes you wonder about our own time. Are there practices that we engage in where the arguments against them are there for all to see but nonetheless we persist in them?
史迪芬: 但是,每一个案例都花了至少一个世纪 这些伟大思想家的争论 垂滴和渗透到整个人类。 它会让你会想知道我们自己的时间。 在我们参与的实践中, 有没有将 反对他们的论点有给大家看 但我们仍然坚持?
RNG: When our great grandchildren look back at us, will they be as appalled by some of our practices as we are by our slave-owning, heretic-burning, wife-beating, gay-bashing ancestors?
丽贝卡: 当我们的曾孙子回看我们的时候, 他们会不会因为我们的一些实践感到震惊 就好像我们对那些拥有奴隶,焚烧异教徒, 殴打妻子、 贬低同性恋的祖先一样呢?
SP: I'm sure everyone here could think of an example.
史迪芬: 我相信在这里的每个人 都能想到的一个例子。
RNG: I opt for the mistreatment of animals in factory farms.
丽贝卡: 我选择虐待动物的行为 在工厂化的农场。
SP: The imprisonment of nonviolent drug offenders and the toleration of rape in our nation's prisons.
史迪芬: 对非暴力毒品罪犯的监禁 和我们国家的监狱中对强奸行为的容忍。
RNG: Scrimping on donations to life-saving charities in the developing world.
丽贝卡:对针对发展中国家 拯救生命慈善机构 捐款的吝啬。
SP: The possession of nuclear weapons.
史迪芬: 拥有核武器。
RNG: The appeal to religion to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, such as the ban on contraception.
丽贝卡: 诉诸于宗教 要求他们给予 其它途径得不到的公正。 如对避孕的禁令。
SP: What about religious faith in general?
史迪芬:还有一般的宗教信仰呢?
RNG: Eh, I'm not holding my breath.
丽贝卡: 哎,我期望不高。
SP: Still, I have become convinced that reason is a better angel that deserves the greatest credit for the moral progress our species has enjoyed and that holds out the greatest hope for continuing moral progress in the future.
史迪芬: 不过,我还是相信 理性是一个更好的天使 它在我们人类享受过去的道德进步 和对未来的进步 抱着大希望方面 有着最大的功劳。
RNG: And if, our friends, you detect a flaw in this argument, just remember you'll be depending on reason to point it out.
丽贝卡: 如果,我们的朋友们, 你如果在这个争论中 检测到缺陷的存在, 请记得以理性的方式 来将它们找出来。
Thank you. SP: Thank you.
谢谢。 史迪芬·平克:“谢谢大家。”
(Applause)
掌声