Images like this, from the Auschwitz concentration camp, have been seared into our consciousness during the 20th century and have given us a new understanding of who we are, where we've come from and the times we live in. During the 20th century, we witnessed the atrocities of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Rwanda and other genocides, and even though the 21st century is only seven years old, we have already witnessed an ongoing genocide in Darfur and the daily horrors of Iraq. This has led to a common understanding of our situation, namely, that modernity has brought us terrible violence, and perhaps that native peoples lived in a state of harmony that we have departed from, to our peril.
アウシュビッツ強制収容所のようなイメージが 20世紀を通して 我々の意識に焼きついて 我々という人間の正体や 我々のたどった道 我々が生きる時代の 新しい解釈をもたらしました 20世紀には数々の残虐行為が見られました スターリン ヒトラー 毛沢東 ポルポト ルワンダやその他の集団虐殺 21世紀に突入して まだ7年しか経過していませんが 既に ダルフール紛争やイラクの日常となった 酷い状況を目にしてきました こうしてある共通の理解に至りました 現代社会は 暴力にあふれ 調和のとれた原始の時代から離れてしまったから今の危難があるのです 例えば 数年前の感謝祭のときの
Here is an example from an op-ed on Thanksgiving, in the "Boston Globe" a couple of years ago, where the writer wrote, "The Indian life was a difficult one, but there were no employment problems, community harmony was strong, substance abuse unknown, crime nearly nonexistent. What warfare there was between tribes was largely ritualistic and seldom resulted in indiscriminate or wholesale slaughter." Now you're all familiar with this treacle. We teach it to our children. We hear it on television and in storybooks. Now, the original title of this session was, "Everything You Know is Wrong," and I'm going to present evidence that this particular part of our common understanding is wrong, that, in fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are, that violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and that today, we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species's existence.
ボストングローブ紙の論評です “インディアンの生活は苦しいものであったが 雇用問題は無く 仲間意識が強く 薬物乱用など存在せず 犯罪は ほぼ皆無で 部族間の争いは 主に儀式的で 無差別虐殺や 大量虐殺につながることは滅多になかった” よく聞くお話です 子どもに教え テレビや絵本でも耳にします このセッションのテーマは“常識を疑う” ですが 今述べた常識的な理解の誤りについて 論証したいと思います 実際に我々の祖先は非常に残虐で 暴力は長い事 減少してきており 我々は おそらく人類史上 もっとも平和な時を生きています ダルフールやイラクでの紛争が起きている時代に
Now in the decade of Darfur and Iraq, a statement like that might seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene, but I'm going to try to convince you that that is the correct picture. The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon. You can see it over millennia, over centuries, over decades and over years, although there seems to have been a tipping point at the onset of the Age of Reason in the 16th century. One sees it all over the world, although not homogeneously. It's especially evident in the West, beginning with England and Holland around the time of the Enlightenment.
このような陳述は 幻覚か不当にすら感じますが これが正しい理解であると説明していきます 暴力の減少はフラクタル現象です これは数千年 数百年 数十年 そして数年のスケールで観測できます 16世紀の理性の時代の始まりが 転換点だったようです 一様ではなくとも世界中に見られます 啓蒙運動の時代 英国やオランダで始まり 特に西洋では顕著です
Let me take you on a journey of several powers of 10 -- from the millennium scale to the year scale -- to try to persuade you of this. Until 10,000 years ago, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, without permanent settlements or government. And this is the state that's commonly thought to be one of primordial harmony. But the archaeologist Lawrence Keeley, looking at casualty rates among contemporary hunter-gatherers, which is our best source of evidence about this way of life, has shown a rather different conclusion.
では数千年から数年のスケールで 説明していきましょう 一万年前まで人間は狩猟採集型の生活をして 永住地や政府はありませんでした これは一般に原始的な調和の一つとして 考えられる状態ですが 考古学者のローレンス キーリーは 現代の狩猟採取者の死亡率を参考にして 狩猟採取社会の新しい姿を描きました
Here is a graph that he put together, showing the percentage of male deaths due to warfare in a number of foraging or hunting and gathering societies. The red bars correspond to the likelihood that a man will die at the hands of another man, as opposed to passing away of natural causes, in a variety of foraging societies in the New Guinea highlands and the Amazon rain forest. And they range from a rate of almost a 60 percent chance that a man will die at the hands of another man to, in the case of the Gebusi, only a 15 percent chance. The tiny little blue bar in the lower left-hand corner plots the corresponding statistic from the United States and Europe in the 20th century, and it includes all the deaths of both World Wars. If the death rate in tribal warfare had prevailed during the 20th century, there would have been two billion deaths rather than 100 million.
キーリーはこんなグラフに 数々の狩猟採取社会での 争いによる男性死者の割合をまとめました 赤い棒線は 自然死ではなくて 誰かに殺される確率を示しています ニューギニア高地やアマゾン熱帯雨林の 様々な原住民社会におけるものです 殺される確率が60%の場所もあれば わずか15%の場所もあります 左下に見られる短い青い棒線は 20世紀の欧米の統計を表わしたもので 2度の世界大戦の犠牲者を含んでいます もし同じ死亡率のまま20世紀を迎えていたら 1億人どころか20億人が死んでいたでしょう
Also on the millennium scale, we can look at the way of life of early civilizations, such as the ones described in the Bible. And in this supposed source of our moral values, one can read descriptions of what was expected in warfare, such as the following, from Numbers 31: "And they warred against the Midianites as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew all the males. And Moses said unto them, 'Have you saved all the women alive? Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, but all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.'" In other words: kill the men, kill the children. If you see any virgins, then you can keep them alive so that you can rape them. And you can find four or five passages in the Bible of this ilk. Also in the Bible, one sees that the death penalty was the accepted punishment for crimes such as homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, talking back to your parents --
千年スケールの話の続きですが 聖書から 古代文明における社会の風習を見ることができます 道徳的価値の源泉と考えられる聖書の中に 戦争に対する見方がわかる記述があります 例えば 31章には“わが主がモーゼに命令すると 彼らはミデヤン人と戦い 彼らは すべての男どもを殺した そしてモーゼは言った 女は生かしておいたか? 直ちに 男の子たちを皆 殺せ 男と寝て男を知っている女も皆殺せ ただし 男を知らない娘は あなたたちのために 生かしておくがよい” と書かれています これは男や子どもは殺し 処女を見つけた時は生かしておいて 強姦してもよい という意味です 聖書には このような記述が4~5か所に見られます また聖書によると 死刑が容認される罪は 同性愛 姦通 冒涜 偶像崇拝 親への口答え
(Laughter)
安息日に枝を拾うことなどが含まれます
and picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Well, let's click the zoom lens down one order of magnitude and look at the century scale. Now, although we don't have statistics for warfare throughout the Middle Ages to modern times, we know just from conventional history that the evidence was under our nose all along that there has been a reduction in socially sanctioned forms of violence.
では一桁分ズームインして 世紀のスケールで見てみましょう 中世から現代に至る期間の 戦争の統計はありませんが 歴史をたどれば 社会的に 容認された暴力が減少してきたのは はっきりとしています 例えば どんな社会でも 手足の切断や拷問は
For example, any social history will reveal that mutilation and torture were routine forms of criminal punishment. The kind of infraction today that would give you a fine, in those days, would result in your tongue being cut out, your ears being cut off, you being blinded, a hand being chopped off and so on. There were numerous ingenious forms of sadistic capital punishment: burning at the stake, disemboweling, breaking on the wheel, being pulled apart by horses and so on. The death penalty was a sanction for a long list of nonviolent crimes: criticizing the king, stealing a loaf of bread. Slavery, of course, was the preferred labor-saving device, and cruelty was a popular form of entertainment. Perhaps the most vivid example was the practice of cat burning, in which a cat was hoisted on a stage and lowered in a sling into a fire, and the spectators shrieked in laughter as the cat, howling in pain, was burned to death.
刑罰として規定された形式でした 現在 違反行為に課せられるのは罰金ですが 当時は舌や耳を切られたり 目をつぶされたり 手を切断されたりしたのです 死刑も火あぶりや解体刑 車裂きの刑 八つ裂きの刑など 残酷なものは多々ありました 王様の批判や パン泥棒など 暴力とは関係のない罪にも 死刑は適用され 労働力を確保するために 奴隷制が多用されていました 娯楽も残酷で 一番強烈なのは 猫の火あぶりです 吊るされた猫が 火の中に入れられ 痛みで鳴き声を上げ 焼死する姿を見て 観客はギャーッと声をあげながら 笑っていたのです 殺人に関しては 多くの行政機関が
What about one-on-one murder? Well, there, there are good statistics, because many municipalities recorded the cause of death. The criminologist Manuel Eisner scoured all of the historical records across Europe for homicide rates in any village, hamlet, town, county that he could find, and then he supplemented them with national data when nations started keeping statistics. He plotted on a logarithmic scale, going from 100 deaths per 100,000 people per year, which was approximately the rate of homicide in the Middle Ages, and the figure plummets down to less than one homicide per 100,000 people per year in seven or eight European countries. Then, there is a slight uptick in the 1960s. The people who said that rock and roll would lead to the decline of moral values actually had a grain of truth to that. But there was a decline from at least two orders of magnitude in homicide from the Middle Ages to the present, and the elbow occurred in the early 16th century.
死因を記録しているので 統計データが出されています 犯罪学者のマヌエル アイズナーは ヨーロッパ全域で見つけた 殺人の全記録を研究し そのデータを 国家の統計と 継ぎ合わせました 対数スケールでプロットすると 年間に10万人あたり100件の殺人という 中世の代表的な値から始まりますが その数字はどんどん低下して ヨーロッパ諸国では 年間に 10万人あたり1件以下まで減ります そして 1960年に少し上昇が見られます ロックンロールが道徳的価値観を下げるという指摘は あながち間違いとも言えないようです ともかく 殺人件数は現代に至るまで 16世紀初頭を境に 少なくとも二桁の減少を遂げました 10年単位で見てみましょう
Let's click down now to the decade scale. According to nongovernmental organizations that keep such statistics, since 1945, in Europe and the Americas, there has been a steep decline in interstate wars, in deadly ethnic riots or pogroms and in military coups, even in South America. Worldwide, there's been a steep decline in deaths in interstate wars. The yellow bars here show the number of deaths per war per year from 1950 to the present. And, as you can see, the death rate goes down from 65,000 deaths per conflict per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 deaths per conflict per year in this decade, as horrific as it is. Even in the year scale, one can see a decline of violence. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been fewer civil wars, fewer genocides -- indeed, a 90 percent reduction since post-World War II highs -- and even a reversal of the 1960s uptick in homicide and violent crime. This is from the FBI uniform crime statistics. You can see that there's a fairly low rate of violence in the '50s and the '60s, then it soared upward for several decades and began a precipitous decline, starting in the 1990s, so that it went back to the level that was last enjoyed in 1960. President Clinton, if you're here: thank you.
非政府組織の統計によれば ヨーロッパと南北アメリカでは1945年以来 戦争や犠牲者を出す民族暴動 虐殺や軍事クーデターは減少しています 世界的にも 戦争による犠牲者は激減しています 黄色の棒線は1950年から現在に至るまでの 一つの戦争の年間犠牲者を示しています 50年代には一つの戦争の年間犠牲者数が 6万5千人でしたが 2000年以降は酷い状況とは言え 年間犠牲者数は2千人以下まで減少しています 一年スケールで見ても 暴力の減少がわかります 冷戦終結の後 内戦や集団虐殺は減りました 第二次世界大戦後 90%の減少です 殺人や暴力犯罪における60年代の上昇分も取り返しました これは FBI がまとめた他殺の統計です 50年代と60年代は暴力が抑えられていましたが その後 何十年か高めの数字を経て 1990年代に激減し始め ほぼ60年代のレベルへと戻りました クリントン大統領 ありがとう (笑)
(Laughter)
さて これだけ大切な事実に対し
So the question is: Why are so many people so wrong about something so important? I think there are a number of reasons. One of them is we have better reporting. The Associated Press is a better chronicler of wars over the surface of the earth than 16th-century monks were.
誤解が生じる理由は多々あると思います 報道が充実したということも理由の一つです AP通信は16世紀の修道士よりも 戦争に関して上をいく年代史家です 認知的錯覚によって ある具体的な事例を思い出すのが簡単になるほど
(Laughter)
There's a cognitive illusion. We cognitive psychologists know that the easier it is to recall specific instances of something, the higher the probability that you assign to it. Things that we read about in the paper with gory footage burn into memory more than reports of a lot more people dying in their beds of old age. There are dynamics in the opinion and advocacy markets; no one ever attracted advocates and donors by saying, "Things just seem to be getting better and better."
先入観が強くなるというのが 認知心理学の知見です 新聞で目にする残虐な写真やニュースは 老衰で亡くなるお年寄りよりも 記憶に焼きつきやすいのです 世論や政策提言における力学の問題として 状況は改善し続けていると訴え 注目をあびて 支持や支援を集めることはできません (笑) 先住民に対して罪悪感があるため
(Laughter)
現代の知識人たちは西洋文化の特長を
There's guilt about our treatment of native peoples in modern intellectual life, and an unwillingness to acknowledge there could be anything good about Western culture. And, of course, our change in standards can outpace the change in behavior. One of the reasons violence went down is that people got sick of the carnage and cruelty in their time. That's a process that seems to be continuing, but if it outstrips behavior by the standards of the day, things always look more barbaric than they would have been by historic standards. So today, we get exercised -- and rightly so -- if a handful of murderers get executed by lethal injection in Texas after a 15-year appeal process. We don't consider that a couple of hundred years ago, they may have been burned at the stake for criticizing the king after a trial that lasted 10 minutes, and indeed, that that would have been repeated over and over again. Today, we look at capital punishment as evidence of how low our behavior can sink, rather than how high our standards have risen.
素直に認めようとはしません 道徳の変化が行動の変化を追い抜くこともあるでしょう 暴力が減少した理由の一つは 人々が当時の大虐殺や残酷な行為に嫌気がさしたからです 今もそうですが 道徳が行動を追い越して 変化してしまうと 当時の歴史的な基準に照らした場合以上に 野蛮であったと見なされます よって 15年の司法手続を経た殺人犯たちが 薬殺刑で死刑になることが 気にかかるのも無理はありません 数百年前であれば王様を批判したことで 10分程度の裁判にかけられ 火あぶりの刑に処せられたかもしれません むしろ 幾度となく繰り返されたことだったでしょう 今日 死刑制度は野蛮な行為として 捉えられています 基準の向上とは見なされません なぜ暴力が減少したのか 誰もわかりませんが 私が知っている4つの説明は どれも
Well, why has violence declined? No one really knows, but I have read four explanations, all of which, I think, have some grain of plausibility. The first is: maybe Thomas Hobbes got it right. He was the one who said that life in a state of nature was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
ある程度うなずけるものです 一つ目はトマスホッブズが正しいというものです ホッブズによると 人間の自然状態とは “孤独で貧しく 不機嫌で残酷 しかも短命” 血の渇望や 攻撃的な本能や 縄張り争いが原因なのではなく
(Laughter)
Not because, he argued, humans have some primordial thirst for blood or aggressive instinct or territorial imperative, but because of the logic of anarchy. In a state of anarchy, there's a constant temptation to invade your neighbors preemptively, before they invade you.
無政府状態のロジックが原因だと言っています 無政府状態では やられる前にやらなければおしまいです トーマス シェリングがこれについて 自宅の地下で物音がした状況で例示しています アメリカ人の常として
More recently, Thomas Schelling gives the analogy of a homeowner who hears a rustling in the basement. Being a good American, he has a pistol in the nightstand, pulls out his gun, walks down the stairs. And what does he see but a burglar with a gun in his hand? Now, each one of them is thinking, "I don't really want to kill that guy, but he's about to kill me. Maybe I had better shoot him before he shoots me, especially since, even if he doesn't want to kill me, he's probably worrying right now that I might kill him before he kills me." And so on. Hunter-gatherer peoples explicitly go through this train of thought and will often raid their neighbors out of fear of being raided first.
ベッド脇から銃を掴み 階下へ降ります 目に飛び込んだのは 銃を持った侵入者 お互いに考えるのは “人殺しはいやだが 撃たれるぐらいなら その前に撃った方がよさそうだ 奴も殺す気はないかもしれないが 殺される可能性があることを 恐れているだろう” 狩猟採集の部族はこの一連の考えをたどり 襲われる恐怖から 相手を襲うのです さて 抑止力がこの問題の解決策の一つです 先制攻撃はしませんが もしも侵略されたら
Now, one way of dealing with this problem is by deterrence. You don't strike first, but you have a publicly announced policy that you will retaliate savagely if you are invaded. The only thing is that it's liable to having its bluff called, and therefore can only work if it's credible. To make it credible, you must avenge all insults and settle all scores, which leads to the cycles of bloody vendetta. Life becomes an episode of "The Sopranos." Hobbes's solution, "Leviathan," was that if authority for the legitimate use of violence was vested in a single democratic agency -- a leviathan -- then such a state can reduce the temptation of attack, because any kind of aggression will be punished, leaving its profitability zero. That would remove the temptation to invade preemptively out of fear of them attacking you first. It removes the need for a hair trigger for retaliation to make your deterrent threat credible, and therefore, it would lead to a state of peace. Eisner -- the man who plotted the homicide rates that you failed to see in the earlier slide -- argued that the timing of the decline of homicide in Europe coincided with the rise of centralized states. So that's a bit of a support for the leviathan theory. Also supporting it is the fact that we today see eruptions of violence in zones of anarchy, in failed states, collapsed empires, frontier regions, mafias, street gangs and so on.
はげしく報復するという方針を公言しておくのです このポリシーは 虚勢と見なされがちですが 本気だと思われたときにだけ効力を発揮します 本気と知らせるためには 全ての侵入に復讐を果たし 借りは必ず返して やがて血の復讐に至るのです ギャング映画の世界です ホッブスの解決策である「リヴァイアサン」では 暴力の公使における正統性を リヴァイアサンという民主的機関だけに帰属させた状態なら 攻撃の企てが減るというものでした なぜなら いかなる攻撃も罰せられ そこから得られるものは無いので 自分が襲われる恐怖からの 先制攻撃を抑止するのです 抑止力では 本気だと示すために一触即発で復讐する必要があったのが 不要となり こうして平和へと至るのです 先ほどお見せ出来なかった 殺人件数の割合を グラフにしたアイズナーは ヨーロッパで殺人が減少した時期は 中央集権国家の勃興と期を同じくすると指摘しています リヴァイアサン理論のちょっとした裏付けです 今日 無政府状態の地域で暴力が吹き荒れることも 理論を裏付けます 破たん国家や崩壊した帝国 辺境地帯 マフィアやストリートギャング等です 二つ目の説明は 人生は取るに足らないものと 見られていた時代と場所が多かったことです
The second explanation is that in many times and places, there is a widespread sentiment that life is cheap. In earlier times, when suffering and early death were common in one's own life, one has fewer compunctions about inflicting them on others. And as technology and economic efficiency make life longer and more pleasant, one puts a higher value on life in general. This was an argument from the political scientist James Payne.
苦しみや若死にが普通であった昔 他人に危害を加えることに抵抗は感じませんでした テクノロジーや経済効率が人生をより長く楽しくさせるにつれて 人間は一般的に人生への価値を高めるようになります これは政治学者のジェームズ ペインの議論です 三つ目の説明は“非ゼロ和” の概念を連想させます ジャーナリストであるロバート ライトは
A third explanation invokes the concept of a nonzero-sum game, and was worked out in the book "Nonzero" by the journalist Robert Wright. Wright points out that, in certain circumstances, cooperation or nonviolence can benefit both parties in an interaction, such as gains in trade when two parties trade their surpluses and both come out ahead, or when two parties lay down their arms and split the so-called peace dividend that results in them not having to fight the whole time. Wright argues that technology has increased the number of positive-sum games that humans tend to be embroiled in, by allowing the trade of goods, services and ideas over longer distances and among larger groups of people. The result is that other people become more valuable alive than dead, and violence declines for selfish reasons. As Wright put it, "Among the many reasons that I think that we should not bomb the Japanese is that they built my minivan."
ある種の状況下で 非暴力を含む協力は 双方に利益があると指摘しています 過剰な物資の貿易を行い 両者が争いをしないこと 又は 戦時編制を解き いわゆる平和の配当を分配することで いかなる時でも 戦う必要がなくなることに つながると言っています ライトは 人が関わる ポジティブサムゲームの件数が増えたと言います テクノロジーが 物資やサービスやアイデアの交換を より遠方と より大人数で行えるようにしたからです その結果 死者よりも生きている他者の価値が高まり 自己中心的な理由での暴力は減るのです ライトに言わせると “日本への爆弾投下はいけない 彼らは私のミニバンを作ってくれたのだ” (笑) 四つ目の説明は哲学者であるピーター シンガーが書いた
(Laughter)
本のタイトルに示されています
The fourth explanation is captured in the title of a book called "The Expanding Circle," by the philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that evolution bequeathed humans with a sense of empathy, an ability to treat other people's interests as comparable to one's own. Unfortunately, by default, we apply it only to a very narrow circle of friends and family. People outside that circle are treated as subhuman and can be exploited with impunity. But, over history, the circle has expanded. One can see, in historical record, it expanding from the village, to the clan, to the tribe, to the nation, to other races, to both sexes and, in Singer's own arguments, something that we should extend to other sentient species. So the question is: If this has happened, what has powered that expansion?
彼は 進化によって人間は共感できるようになったと論じています 他人の利害を自らのものとして考える力です 残念ながら 我々がそうするのは基本的に 非常に限られた仲間や身内だけです それ以外の人は人間以下の扱いを受け 当然のことのように食い物にされるのです しかし時間が経つうちに その範囲は広がり 歴史上の記録には 村から一族へ 部族へ 国家へ 他の人種へ 男女へと広がり シンガー自身の議論では 感覚をもつ他の種にも 広げるべきものだとしています そこで この広がりの原動力は何かという問いが生じます 可能性はたくさんあります ロバート ライトが論じる相互依存の輪の増加や黄金律などです
And there are a number of possibilities, such as increasing circles of reciprocity in the sense that Robert Wright argues for. The logic of the Golden Rule -- the more you think about and interact with other people, the more you realize that it is untenable to privilege your interests over theirs, at least not if you want them to listen to you. You can't say that my interests are special compared to yours any more than you can say the particular spot that I'm standing on is a unique part of the universe because I happen to be standing on it that very minute. It may also be powered by cosmopolitanism, by histories and journalism and memoirs and realistic fiction and travel and literacy, which allows you to project yourself into the lives of other people that formerly you may have treated as subhuman, and also to realize the accidental contingency of your own station in life, the sense that "There but for fortune go I."
つまり他者のことを考え影響しあうほどに 相手に耳を傾けてほしい場合には 自分の利益を優先するのは 良くないことがわかります 自己中心的な態度は不適切です 自分が今いる場所が 宇宙の中で特別な場所だと言えないのと 同じことです 世界主義も理由かもしれません 歴史 報道 記憶 リアルな小説 旅行記 識字― こうして かつて人間以下に見ていた他人の姿に 自分の姿を重ね合わせることを可能にして 自分の人生の立場が偶然の結果と気づかせます 誰にでも起こり得るということです 原因は何にせよ 暴力の減少には 深い意味があるため “なぜ戦争をするのか” と問わずに
Whatever its causes, the decline of violence, I think, has profound implications. It should force us to ask not just, "Why is there war?" but also, "Why is there peace?" Not just, "What are we doing wrong?" but also, "What have we been doing right?" Because we have been doing something right, and it sure would be good to find out what it is. Thank you very much.
“なぜ平和があるのか” と問うべきです “我々の過ち” だけではなく “我々の正しい行い”も問うべきです そこを追究するのは 価値あることだと思います どうもありがとう (拍手) 素晴らしい内容でした ピーターシンガーが書いた内容ですが
(Applause)
あの広がりとは テクノロジーや
Chris Anderson: I loved that talk. I think a lot of people here in the room would say that that expansion you were talking about, that Peter Singer talks about, is also driven just by technology, by greater visibility of the other and the sense that the world is therefore getting smaller. I mean, is that also a grain of truth?
目に見える他者の増加が 引き起こしたと 感じる人も多いと思います そして それゆえに世界が 小さくなっているという感覚 これも真実なのでしょうか? はい どちらもライト氏の理論にあてはまります ずっと大きな輪の中での協力はメリットが大きいのです
Steven Pinker: Very much. It would fit both in Wright's theory, that it allows us to enjoy the benefits of cooperation over larger and larger circles. But also, I think it helps us imagine what it's like to be someone else. I think when you read of these horrific tortures that were common in the Middle Ages, you think, "How could they possibly have done it, how could they not have empathized with the person that they're disemboweling?" But clearly, as far as they're concerned, this is just an alien being that does not have feelings akin to their own. Anything, I think, that makes it easier to imagine trading places with someone else means that it increases your moral consideration to that other person.
また 他人の立場に思いを馳せることの 手助けにもなっています 中世の恐ろしい拷問の話を読んだら なぜ そんなことが出来たのか 犠牲者をかわいそうだと思わなかったのかと 思うでしょうが 彼らにとっては 自分と似た存在だとは思いようもない― ただのよそ者に過ぎなかったのです 他人と立場を入れ替える想像を 容易にするものは何でも 他人への配慮を 高めるのです 大切なことなので 近いうちに報道機関にも聴いてもらいたいですね どうもありがとう どういたしまして
CA: I'd love every news media owner to hear that talk at some point, it's so important.
CA: Thank you. SP: My pleasure.