Let’s say you discover a magical gold coin that doubles every 25 years. 75 years later, you’d only have eight coins. But 1,000 years later, you’d have over a trillion. And in just 4,600 years, your gold coins would outweigh the observable universe.
假設你撿到一枚魔法金幣, 每 25 年增生一倍。 75 年後,你就擁有八枚金幣。 1,000 年後,你就擁有 超過一兆枚金幣。 而且只需 4,600 年,
This periodic doubling is an example of exponential growth, and while we’re not in any danger of discovering a real-life golden goose-coin, something almost as consequential has been growing like this for the past 200 or so years: the global economy.
你的金幣總值就會超越可觀測宇宙。 這種週期性倍增 是指數成長的一個例子, 雖然現實生活中沒有 生金蛋的鵝之類的金幣危機, 卻有一樣相當重要的東西, 在過去的兩百多年間 以同樣的方式增長: 全球經濟。
Many economists think that an eternally growing economy is necessary to keep improving people’s lives, and that if the global economy stops growing, people would fight more over the fixed amount of value that exists, rather than working to generate new value.
許多經濟學家認為, 不斷繁榮成長的經濟 是改善生活的必要條件, 如果全球經濟停止成長, 大家會更用力爭奪現存的有限價值, 而非努力去創造新的價值。
That raises the question: is infinite growth possible on a finite planet?
這就帶出了一個問題: 在一個有限的行星上, 無限的成長是可行的嗎?
We measure economic growth by tracking the total financial value of everything a country (or the world) produces and sells on the market. These products can help us meet basic needs or improve our individual and collective quality of life. But they also, crucially, take resources to invent, build, or maintain.
我們衡量經濟增長的方式是: 追蹤各國或全球市場上的 生產及銷售總值。 這些產品能幫助滿足我們的基本需求, 或改善個人和總體的生活品質。 但更重要地,這些產品也需要資源 才能被生產、製造,甚至維護。
For example, this smartphone. It’s valuable in part because it contains aluminum, gallium, and silicon, all of which took energy and resources to mine, purify, and turn into a phone. It’s also valuable because of all the effort that went into designing the hardware and writing the software. And it’s also valuable because a guy in a black turtleneck got up on stage and told you it was.
以這個智慧手機為例。 它的價值有部分來自於 它裡面的鋁、鎵,和矽, 這些得靠能源和資源去 開採、精鍊、最終製成手機。 它之所以有價值的另一個原因是: 投注在硬體設計及軟體編寫上的心力。 哦,還有,舞台上那個 穿黑色高領毛衣的傢伙, 告訴你它多有價值。
So how do we grow the total financial value of all things? One way is to make more things. Another way is to invent new things. However you do it, growing the economy requires resources and energy. And eventually, won’t we just run out?
那該如何增加所有商品的金融價值? 有一個方法是製造更多東西。 另一個方法是發明新東西。 不管如何,經濟要成長 就需要資源和能源。 而最終,難道不會有用盡的一天嗎?
To answer this question, let's consider what goes into the economy and what comes out of it: its inputs are labor, capital— which you can think of as money— and natural resources, like water or energy. Its output is value. Over the past 200 years, economies have gotten exponentially more efficient at producing value.
回答這個問題前, 咱們來思考一下經濟的輸入和輸出: 輸入包含勞動力、資本—— 也就是錢—— 以及自然資源,例如水或能源。 輸出則是價值。 過去兩百年間, 經濟在創造價值的效率 正是指數成長。
If we, as a species, are able to keep upgrading our economies so that they get ever-more efficient, we could theoretically pump out more and more value using the same— or, let’s be really ambitious here— fewer resources.
作為一個物種,假設人類 能永無止盡地提升經濟效率, 理論上我們應該能用同樣的資源 創造出越來越多的價值—— 又甚至,使用更少的資源即可辦到。
So, how do we do that? How do we increase efficiency? With new technologies.
那應該怎麼做?我們怎樣提高效率? 應用新的科技技術。
This is where we hit a snag.
那正是我們碰釘子的地方。
New tech, in addition to making things more efficient, can also generate new demand, which ends up using more resources.
新技術除了可以協助增加效率, 也可能產生新需求, 最終反而會用更多資源。
We’re actually not in imminent danger of running out of most resources. But we have a much bigger and more immediate problem: the global economy, and in particular those of rich countries, is driving climate change and destroying valuable natural environments on which all of us depend— soil, forests, fisheries, and countless other resources that help keep our civilization running.
其實大部分的資源 還不到短時間內被耗盡的危機。 但我們有一個更大、更急迫的問題: 全球經濟,特別是富裕國家的經濟, 正在加速氣候變遷、 摧毀全球所有人 賴以生存的珍貴自然環境: 土壤、森林、漁業, 和無數其他人類文明 賴以持續運作的資源。
So, what should we do?
到底該怎麽辦?經濟學家眾說紛紜。
This is where economists disagree.
Most economists think that new ideas will be able to fix most of these problems. They argue that, in the same way that exponentially increasing resource and energy use have fueled exponential economic growth, human ingenuity has also increased exponentially, and will rise to meet these challenges in ways that we simply can't predict. For example, between 2000 and 2014, Germany grew their GDP by 16%, while cutting CO2 emissions by 12%.
多數經濟學家認為, 大多數的問題能靠新點子解決。 他們主張, 如同資源和能源使用的指數成長 促成經濟的指數成長, 人類的才智一路以來也是指數成長, 應會能夠因應這些挑戰, 只是我們無法預測會以何種方式。 例如,2000 年到 2014 年間, 德國的國民生產毛額成長了 16%, 同時,二氧化碳排放減少了 12%。
That’s impressive, but it’s not cutting emissions fast enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. For this reason and others, some economists think the solution is to reengineer our economies completely. They make the case that what we should really be doing is weaning ourselves from the addiction to growth and shifting to a post-growth economy.
那很不簡單,但減排速度還不夠快, 無法將溫升控制在 攝氏 1.5 度之下。 因此,基於這種種原因, 某些經濟學家認為 徹底改造經濟才是解決方案。 他們說我們真正該做的事是: 戒掉經濟增長的癮, 轉向「後增長型經濟」。
What would that look like? A post-growth economy wouldn’t assume that the economy should grow; instead, it would require us to focus on improving what we really need— things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation. To do that, post-growth economists suggest that rich countries should do things like guarantee living wages, reduce wealth and income inequality, and ensure universal access to public services, like healthcare. In such an economy, people would be theoretically less dependent on their jobs to earn their living or get healthcare, so it might be more feasible to scale down production of things deemed less necessary.
那會是什麽樣子? 後增長型經濟少了經濟成長的預設; 取而代之的是,要求我們專注 改善我們真正所需的── 例如:可再生能源、 醫療照護,和公共運輸。 針對這些,後增長經濟學家的建議是: 富裕的國家應該做到保障生活所得、 減少財富和收入不均、 以及確保人人皆可取得 健康照護等公共服務。 在這種經濟理論下, 人們比較不需要靠工作謀生 或取得醫療照護, 如此一來,要降低生產 非必要產品就容易多了。
But this raises other questions: who gets to define what’s necessary? How would we resolve the inevitable disagreements? Could we really do away with entire industries?
但這又會帶出其他問題: 誰來定義什麽是必要的? 又該如何解決不可避免的紛爭?
The “we’ll come up with new ideas to solve these problems” approach
我們真的能廢除所有產業嗎?
can seem as realistic as, well, a magical gold coin. And the “we have to fundamentally change our economies” approach can seem politically daunting, particularly in rich countries. One way or another, we have to find a way to benefit everyone while also taking care of our planet.
「我們一定會有辦法來解決這些問題」 這個說法就和魔法金幣一樣不切實際。 至於「重新打造經濟」這個方法, 在政治上顯然很困難, 尤其是對富裕國家來說。 不管怎樣,我們都必須找到 對所有人都有利的方案, 同時還能兼顧我們的地球。