I want to talk to you today about prosperity, about our hopes for a shared and lasting prosperity. And not just us, but the two billion people worldwide who are still chronically undernourished. And hope actually is at the heart of this. In fact, the Latin word for hope is at the heart of the word prosperity. "Pro-speras," "speras," hope -- in accordance with our hopes and expectations. The irony is, though, that we have cashed-out prosperity almost literally in terms of money and economic growth. And we've grown our economies so much that we now stand in a real danger of undermining hope -- running down resources, cutting down rainforests, spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico, changing the climate -- and the only thing that has actually remotely slowed down the relentless rise of carbon emissions over the last two to three decades is recession. And recession, of course, isn't exactly a recipe for hope either, as we're busy finding out. So we're caught in a kind of trap. It's a dilemma, a dilemma of growth. We can't live with it; we can't live without it. Trash the system or crash the planet -- it's a tough choice; it isn't much of a choice. And our best avenue of escape from this actually is a kind of blind faith in our own cleverness and technology and efficiency and doing things more efficiently. Now I haven't got anything against efficiency. And I think we are a clever species sometimes. But I think we should also just check the numbers, take a reality check here.
我今天想对你们讲一下繁荣, 关于我们的希望 为了共有且永久的繁荣。 不仅仅是我们, 而是全世界二十亿 仍然长期地处在饥饿状态的人们。 希望其实是这一切的关键。 事实上,拉丁语的希望 位于繁荣这个词的中心。 “Pro-speras”,“speras”,希望-- 与我们的希望和期待一致。 讽刺的是,尽管, 我们有现在的繁荣 从金钱和经济成长的方面来看的确如此。 然而我们的经济增长了如此之多 以至于我们现在 处在一个 侵蚀希望的危险处境-- 耗尽能源,砍伐森林, 石油泄漏在墨西哥湾, 改变气候-- 过去的二十到三十年间唯一能够 轻微地减缓源源不断的 碳排放的 就是经济萧条。 经济不景气,当然, 也不是对希望的一个精确的处方, 我们忙忙碌碌地所发掘的。 因此我们陷入了一个陷阱。 这是一个困境,一个成长的困境。 我们不能与它共存,没有它我们也不能生存。 破坏这个系统或是破坏这个星球。 这是个困难的选择。这算不上是一个选择。 我们逃避这些最佳的途径实际上 是一种 对我们自己的聪慧,科技和效率 以及更高效工作的盲目信任。 现在我不反对效率。 有些时候我认为我们是聪明的物种。 但是我认为我们也应该核对一下那些数字, 做一个现实核查。
So I want you to imagine a world, in 2050, of around nine billion people, all aspiring to Western incomes, Western lifestyles. And I want to ask the question -- and we'll give them that two percent hike in income, in salary each year as well, because we believe in growth. And I want to ask the question: how far and how fast would be have to move? How clever would we have to be? How much technology would we need in this world to deliver our carbon targets? And here in my chart -- on the left-hand side is where we are now. This is the carbon intensity of economic growth in the economy at the moment. It's around about 770 grams of carbon. In the world I describe to you, we have to be right over here at the right-hand side at six grams of carbon. It's a 130-fold improvement, and that is 10 times further and faster than anything we've ever achieved in industrial history. Maybe we can do it, maybe it's possible -- who knows? Maybe we can even go further and get an economy that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere, which is what we're going to need to be doing by the end of the century. But shouldn't we just check first that the economic system that we have is remotely capable of delivering this kind of improvement?
我希望你想象一个世界, 在二零五零年,有九十亿的人, 都渴求西方的收入水平, 西方的生活方式。 我想问一个问题-- 我们将每年对他们的收入和工资都提高百分之二。 因为我们相信会有(经济)增长。 我想问这个问题: 我们需要行进多远多快? 我们需要有多聪明? 在这个世界上我们需要多少科学技术 来实现我们低碳的目标? 在我的这个图表中。 在左手边的是我们现在所处的状态。 这是经济增长与之相对应的碳强度 在此时的经济下。 这大约是七百七十克的碳。 我用文字向你描述, 我们必须得达到右手边的 六克碳的程度。 这是一个一百三十倍的改进, 而且这是 我们在工业历史上至今所实现的十倍之快之深远。 我们也许可以完成,也许这是可能的--谁知道呢? 我们可能做得更好 形成一种可以将那些碳从大气中吸出来的经济, 这也正是我们需要在 这个世纪中做的事情。 但我们难道不应该首先核实 我们的经济体制 的能力是否远远不能达到 这种改进?
So I want to just spend a couple of minutes on system dynamics. It's a bit complex, and I apologize for that. What I'll try and do, is I'll try and paraphrase it is sort of human terms. So it looks a little bit like this. Firms produce goods for households -- that's us -- and provide us with incomes, and that's even better, because we can spend those incomes on more goods and services. That's called the circular flow of the economy. It looks harmless enough. I just want to highlight one key feature of this system, which is the role of investment. Now investment constitutes only about a fifth of the national income in most modern economies, but it plays an absolutely vital role. And what it does essentially is to stimulate further consumption growth. It does this in a couple of ways -- chasing productivity, which drives down prices and encourages us to buy more stuff. But I want to concentrate on the role of investment in seeking out novelty, the production and consumption of novelty. Joseph Schumpeter called this "the process of creative destruction." It's a process of the production and reproduction of novelty, continually chasing expanding consumer markets, consumer goods, new consumer goods.
因此我想要花费几分钟的时间在系统动态学上。 这有些复杂,为此我表示歉意。 我将要试图去做的,是简要解释一下它 是种人类语言。 这看起来有点像这样。 公司为家庭生产商品--也就是我们-- 并且为我们提供收入, 这更好,因为我们可以消费这些收入 在更多的商品和服务上。 这叫做经济循环。 它看起来一点都无害。 我只是想强调这个体制中的一个最重要的特征, 也就是投资的作用。 现在投资构成 仅仅大约百分之二十的国民收入 在大部分现代经济中, 但是它扮演着一个绝对重要的角色。 它本质上所做的 是刺激更多的消费增长。 它以几种方式来达到此目的-- 追求生产率, 这将压低价格并鼓励我们买更多的东西。 但是我想聚焦于 投资的角色 在寻求创新, 新事物的生产和消费。 约瑟夫 顺彼得称这是 “创造性毁灭的过程。” 这是一个生产和在生产新事物的过程, 持续地寻求拓展消费者市场, 消费者商品,新的消费者商品。
And this, this is where it gets interesting, because it turns out that human beings have something of an appetite for novelty. We love new stuff -- new material stuff for sure -- but also new ideas, new adventures, new experiences. But the materiality matters too, because in every society that anthropologists have looked at, material stuff operates as a kind of language -- a language of goods, a symbolic language that we use to tell each other stories -- stories, for example, about how important we are. Status-driven, conspicuous consumption thrives from the language of novelty. And here, all of a sudden, we have a system that is locking economic structure with social logic -- the economic institutions, and who we are as people, locked together to drive an engine of growth. And this engine is not just economic value; it is pulling material resources relentlessly through the system, driven by our own insatiable appetites, driven in fact by a sense of anxiety. Adam Smith, 200 years ago, spoke about our desire for a life without shame. A life without shame: in his day, what that meant was a linen shirt, and today, well, you still need the shirt, but you need the hybrid car, the HDTV, two holidays a year in the sun, the netbook and iPad, the list goes on -- an almost inexhaustible supply of goods, driven by this anxiety. And even if we don't want them, we need to buy them, because, if we don't buy them, the system crashes. And to stop it crashing over the last two to three decades, we've expanded the money supply, expanded credit and debt, so that people can keep buying stuff. And of course, that expansion was deeply implicated in the crisis.
并且,这正是趣味所在, 因为它证明了人类 有着对新奇事物的渴望。 我们热爱新事物-- 毫无疑问地新东西-- 但也包括新想法,新的冒险, 新的经验。 但物质性也至关重要。 因为,在每一个社会里 人类学者曾研究过的, 物质性东西 犹如一种语言般的运作, 一种商品语言, 一种象征性的语言 我们用它来向彼此讲述故事-- 故事,例如, 我们有多重要。 身份地位驱使的,炫耀式消费 从这种新事物语言 中滋生。 现在,突然地, 我们有一个体制 将经济结构用社会逻辑-- 经济制度和我们锁在一起 去追求增长。 这个引擎不仅仅是经济价值; 它拉动物质资源 持续地通过这个体制, 被我们无止境的欲望驱使, 事实上被一种渴望所驱使。 亚当 斯密,两百年前, 讲到我们 活得光彩一生的欲望。 高贵的一生: 在他的那个时候,这意味着亚麻布的衬衫, 今天,你仍然需要衬衫, 但是你需要混合动力汽车, 高清电视,一年两次的阳光假期, 上网本和苹果平板电脑,可以列举出很多-- 几乎是无穷无尽的商品供给, 被这种渴望驱使。 即使我们不想要它们, 我们得买它们, 因为,如果我们不买它们,这个体制会崩塌。 为了阻止它崩塌 在过去的二十到三十年中, 我们扩大了货币供应量, 增加了贷款和负债, 为了使人们能够持续不断地买东西。 当然,那些膨胀与经济危机是有牵连的。
But this -- I just want to show you some data here. This is what it looks like, essentially, this credit and debt system, just for the U.K. This was the last 15 years before the crash, and you can see there, consumer debt rose dramatically. It was above the GDP for three years in a row just before the crisis. And in the mean time, personal savings absolutely plummeted. The savings ratio, net savings, were below zero in the middle of 2008, just before the crash. This is people expanding debt, drawing down their savings, just to stay in the game. This is a strange, rather perverse, story, just to put it in very simple terms. It's a story about us, people, being persuaded to spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about.
但是--我只是想在这里为你展示一些数据。 它看起来是这样,本质上, 这些贷款和负债体制,仅仅是英国。 这是(经济系统)崩塌前的十五年。 你可以看到在这里,消费债务急剧地上升。 连续三年超过国内生产总值(注:GDP:Gross Domestic Product) 就在经济危机之前。 同时,个人储蓄暴跌。 这些储蓄率,净储蓄, 在二零零八年中期是负值。 就在经济危机之前。 这是人们增加债务,消耗他们的储蓄, 仅仅为了持续在这场游戏之中。 这是一个奇怪的,更确切地说是有悖常理的,故事, 用一个简单的术语来说的话。 这是一个关于我们的故事,人们, 被说服 去花费我们没有的钱 在不需要的东西上 去营造一种不能持久的景象 为了我们并不在乎的人。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
(Applause)
(掌声)
But before we consign ourselves to despair, maybe we should just go back and say, "Did we get this right? Is this really how people are? Is this really how economies behave?" And almost straightaway we actually run up against a couple of anomalies. The first one is in the crisis itself. In the crisis, in the recession, what do people want to do? They want to hunker down, they want to look to the future. They want to spend less and save more. But saving is exactly the wrong thing to do from the system point of view. Keynes called this the "paradox of thrift" -- saving slows down recovery. And politicians call on us continually to draw down more debt, to draw down our own savings even further, just so that we can get the show back on the road, so we can keep this growth-based economy going. It's an anomaly, it's a place where the system actually is at odds with who we are as people.
但是在我们将自己交付于绝望之前, 我们也许应该回过头说,“我们做对了吗? 人们真的是这样的吗? 经济真的是这样运作的吗?” 几乎是立即的 我们实际上遭遇了许多个异常(现象)。 首先就是经济危机本身。 在经济危机时,经济萧条时,人们想做什么? 他们想顽固坚持。他们想依靠未来。 他们想消费较少而储储蓄更多。 但是储蓄恰好是一件错误的事情 从(经济)体制的角度来看。 凯恩斯把这称为“节俭悖论”-- 储蓄减慢经济复苏。 政治家们持续地号召我们 增加更多的负债, 甚至更多地减少我们的储蓄, 如此一来我们才能够将经济重新引向正轨, 我们才可以持续这种以增长为基础的经济。 这是一个反常现象, 在这里(经济)体制 和我们人类是矛盾的。
Here's another one -- completely different one: Why is it that we don't do the blindingly obvious things we should do to combat climate change, very, very simple things like buying energy-efficient appliances, putting in efficient lights, turning the lights off occasionally, insulating our homes? These things save carbon, they save energy, they save us money. So is it that, though they make perfect economic sense, we don't do them? Well, I had my own personal insight into this a few years ago. It was a Sunday evening, Sunday afternoon, and it was just after -- actually, to be honest, too long after -- we had moved into a new house. And I had finally got around to doing some draft stripping, installing insulation around the windows and doors to keep out the drafts. And my, then, five year-old daughter was helping me in the way that five year-olds do. And we'd been doing this for a while, when she turned to me very solemnly and said, "Will this really keep out the giraffes?" (Laughter) "Here they are, the giraffes." You can hear the five-year-old mind working. These ones, interestingly, are 400 miles north of here outside Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. Goodness knows what they make of the Lake District weather. But actually that childish misrepresentation stuck with me, because it suddenly became clear to me why we don't do the blindingly obvious things. We're too busy keeping out the giraffes -- putting the kids on the bus in the morning, getting ourselves to work on time, surviving email overload and shop floor politics, foraging for groceries, throwing together meals, escaping for a couple of precious hours in the evening into prime-time TV or TED online, getting from one end of the day to the other, keeping out the giraffes.
这里是另外一个(例子)--完全不同的一个: 为什么 我们不盲目地做我们应该做的那些明显的事情 去与气候变化作斗争, 非常,非常简单的事情 像是买节能器具, 安装高效能灯,时常地将灯熄灭, 使我们的房子隔热? 这些事情减少碳,节约能源, 节约我们的金钱。 但是事实是这样的,尽管他们有完美的经济道理, 我们为什么不做呢? 我对此有自己的见解 几年前。 那是一个星期天的傍晚,星期天下午, 就在-- 实际上,说实话,在-- 我们搬进一个新家之后-- 我最终开始着手做一些挡风(设计), 在窗户和门上安装隔热装置 来减少气流。 我的,那时五岁的女儿 帮我一些五岁的小孩子能帮的忙。 我们持续得做了一会儿, 她转向我十分严肃地说, “这个能真的挡住长颈鹿吗?” (笑声) “是它们,那些长颈鹿们。” 你能听到一个五岁的孩子的大脑是怎样运作的。 这些,很有趣地,在距离这里四百英里北部 的巴罗因弗内斯以外的坎布里亚郡。 谁知道湖区(注:Lake District: 英格兰西北部风景地)的气候是怎么形成的呢。 但是实际上那种孩童的误解 使我无法摆脱, 因为它使突然变得很清楚 为什么我们不能做这些明显的事情。 我们忙于阻挡这些长颈鹿-- 早晨将孩子们送到公交车上, 使我们自己按时上班, 避免过量的电子邮件 还有工作上的勾心斗角, 在食品杂货店寻找食物,匆匆拼凑成一顿饭, 在晚间的几个宝贵的小时 来看黄金时段的电视 或是TED在线, 一天又一天的晚上, 将长颈鹿挡在外面。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
What is the objective? "What is the objective of the consumer?" Mary Douglas asked in an essay on poverty written 35 years ago. "It is," she said, "to help create the social world and find a credible place in it." That is a deeply humanizing vision of our lives, and it's a completely different vision than the one that lies at the heart of this economic model. So who are we? Who are these people? Are we these novelty-seeking, hedonistic, selfish individuals? Or might we actually occasionally be something like the selfless altruist depicted in Rembrandt's lovely, lovely sketch here? Well psychology actually says there is a tension -- a tension between self-regarding behaviors and other regarding behaviors. And these tensions have deep evolutionary roots, so selfish behavior is adaptive in certain circumstances -- fight or flight.
目的是什么? “消费者的目的是什么?” 玛丽 道格拉斯在一篇关于贫困的文章中问过 写于三十五年前。 “它是”,她说, “去帮助创造社会化世界 并且从中找到一个可靠的地方。” 那是对我们的生命的一种深层的 人性化的视野, 并且它是一个完全不同的视野 与那个在这个经济模式中心的 (视野)相对比。 那么我们是谁? 那些人是谁? 我们是那些追求新颖,享乐主义的, 自私的个体吗? 又或者我们事实上偶尔地 是那些 在林布兰特素描中所描绘的美好的,美好的无私的利他主义者? 心理学家说 这里有一个张力, 在利己主义行为和 利他主义行为之间的一个张力。 这些张力维持着进化的根源。 因此自私的行为 是适应特定的环境的-- 斗争还是逃跑。
But other regarding behaviors are essential to our evolution as social beings. And perhaps even more interesting from our point of view, another tension between novelty-seeking behaviors and tradition or conservation. Novelty is adaptive when things are changing and you need to adapt yourself. Tradition is essential to lay down the stability to raise families and form cohesive social groups. So here, all of a sudden, we're looking at a map of the human heart. And it reveals to us, suddenly, the crux of the matter. What we've done is we've created economies. We've created systems, which systematically privilege, encourage, one narrow quadrant of the human soul and left the others unregarded. And in the same token, the solution becomes clear, because this isn't, therefore, about changing human nature. It isn't, in fact, about curtailing possibilities. It is about opening up. It is about allowing ourselves the freedom to become fully human, recognizing the depth and the breadth of the human psyche and building institutions to protect Rembrandt's fragile altruist within.
但是利他行为 是我们进化的本质 作为社会人。 从我们的观点来看也许更有趣, 另一种在探寻新事物的行为和 传统或保守之间的张力。 新事物是与事物发展相适应的 你需要使自己适应。 传统是制定稳定性 为了养家和组成有凝聚力的社会群体。 因此,突然地, 我们在注视一个人类心脏的地图。 它突然地揭露出, 这件事情的症结所在。 我们所做的是,我们创造了经济。 我们创造了体制, (这个体制)系统地赋予我们特权,鼓励, 人们灵魂的一个 狭窄的象限 远离他人不去关注。 同样地,答案变得清晰, 因为这不是,因此, 关于改变人性。 它不是,事实上,关于删减可能性。 它是关于开放。 它是关于允许我们自己自由 称为完整的人类, 承认债务和 人类灵魂的宽度 和建造机构 在其中来保护林布兰特的脆弱的利他主义。
What does all this mean for economics? What would economies look like if we took that vision of human nature at their heart and stretched them along these orthogonal dimensions of the human psyche? Well, it might look a little bit like the 4,000 community-interest companies that have sprung up in the U.K. over the last five years and a similar rise in B corporations in the United States, enterprises that have ecological and social goals written into their constitution at their heart -- companies, in fact, like this one, Ecosia. And I just want to, very quickly, show you this. Ecosia is an Internet search engine. Internet search engines work by drawing revenues from sponsored links that appear when you do a search. And Ecosia works in pretty much the same way. So we can do that here -- we can just put in a little search term. There you go, Oxford, that's where we are. See what comes up. The difference with Ecosia though is that, in Ecosia's case, it draws the revenues in the same way, but it allocates 80 percent of those revenues to a rainforest protection project in the Amazon. And we're going to do it. We're just going to click on Naturejobs.uk. In case anyone out there is looking for a job in a recession, that's the page to go to. And what happened then was the sponsor gave revenues to Ecosia, and Ecosia is giving 80 percent of those revenues to a rainforest protection project. It's taking profits from one place and allocating them into the protection of ecological resources.
这一切对经济意味着什么呢? 经济将变成什么样子 如果我们用人性的眼光来看待它们 在它们的内心 延伸它们 用这些 人类心灵的角度? 它看起来大概像 四千个 过去的五年里在英国出现的社区利益公司 和在美国B公司的崛起有些相似, 企业们 那些有着生态和社会目标的 写进他们的章程 在他们的心中, 公司,实际上,像这一个,Ecosia. 我很快地向你演示一下这个。 Ecosia是一个网络搜索引擎。 网络搜索引擎运作 通过赞助商链接来获得收益 这些当你搜索的时候出现。 Ecosia也以同样的方式运营。 所以在这儿我们可以那样做。 我们可以输入一个搜索词。 好的,牛津,那就是我们要的。看看会出现什么。 Ecosia的不同之处 就在于,Ecosia的情况, 就是它也是以同样的方式获得收益, 但是它将 百分之八十的收入分配 给在亚马逊的一个雨林保护项目。 我们来做这个。 我们仅仅点击Naturejobs.uk网站。 假使有一个人在这个经济萧条期找个工作, 这是一个可以去看的网页。 接下来会发生的就是 赞助商给Ecosia收益, 然后Ecosia将这些收入的百分之八十 给与一个雨林保护项目。 它从一个地方获得利润 然后将它们分配 给生态资源保护。
It's a different kind of enterprise for a new economy. It's a form, if you like, of ecological altruism -- perhaps something along those lines. Maybe it's that. Whatever it is, whatever this new economy is, what we need the economy to do, in fact, is to put investment back into the heart of the model, to re-conceive investment. Only now, investment isn't going to be about the relentless and mindless pursuit of consumption growth. Investment has to be a different beast. Investment has to be, in the new economy, protecting and nurturing the ecological assets on which our future depends. It has to be about transition. It has to be investing in low-carbon technologies and infrastructures. We have to invest, in fact, in the idea of a meaningful prosperity, providing capabilities for people to flourish.
这是一个不同的企业 在一个新经济下。 它是一种形式,如果你喜欢的话, 生态型的利他主义-- 也许沿着这条线的一些事。也许就是。 不论它是什么, 无论新经济是什么, 我们需要经济去做,实际上, 是去将投资放 回在这个模式的中心, 去再-构想投资。 只是现在,投资 将不再 持续和盲目地 追求消费增长。 投资必须得成为一个不同的猛兽。 投资要成为, 在新经济下, 保护和培育 决定我们未来的生态资产。 它得是一个过渡。 它要投资到低碳科技和 (低碳)基础设施上。 我们需要投资在,事实上, 一个有意义的繁荣的理念上, 提供能力 为人们繁荣昌盛。
And of course, this task has material dimensions. It would be nonsense to talk about people flourishing if they didn't have food, clothing and shelter. But it's also clear that prosperity goes beyond this. It has social and psychological aims -- family, friendship, commitments, society, participating in the life of that society. And this too requires investment, investment -- for example, in places -- places where we can connect, places where we can participate, shared spaces, concert halls, gardens, public parks, libraries, museums, quiet centers, places of joy and celebration, places of tranquility and contemplation, sites for the "cultivation of a common citizenship," in Michael Sandel's lovely phrase. An investment -- investment, after all, is just such a basic economic concept -- is nothing more nor less than a relationship between the present and the future, a shared present and a common future. And we need that relationship to reflect, to reclaim hope.
当然,这个任务有物质层面。 这将是无意义的如果谈论人们的繁荣富强 而他们却没有食物,衣服和居所。 但是繁荣富强远超过于此也是很清楚的。 它有社会和心理的目标-- 家庭,友情, 义务,社会, 参与社会生活。 这也 要求投资, 投资,例如,在那些, 我们能够联系的地方, 我们能够参与的地方, 共同的空间, 音乐厅,花园, 公园, 图书馆,博物馆,安静的场所(娱乐中心), 那些快活和庆典的地方, 那些安静和让人思考的地方, 为“培育 一种普遍的公民意识”的场所 是迈克 桑德尔的美好的句子。 一个投资--投资,最终,只是一个基本的经济概念-- 恰好是 一种关系 现在和未来的关系, 一个共有的现在和一个共同的未来。 我们则需要那个关系来反射, 来重新获得希望。
So let me come back, with this sense of hope, to the two billion people still trying to live each day on less than the price of a skinny latte from the cafe next door. What can we offer those people? It's clear that we have a responsibility to help lift them out of poverty. It's clear that we have a responsibility to make room for growth where growth really matters in those poorest nations. And it's also clear that we will never achieve that unless we're capable of redefining a meaningful sense of prosperity in the richer nations, a prosperity that is more meaningful and less materialistic than the growth-based model. So this is not just a Western post-materialist fantasy. In fact, an African philosopher wrote to me, when "Prosperity Without Growth" was published, pointing out the similarities between this view of prosperity and the traditional African concept of ubuntu. Ubuntu says, "I am because we are." Prosperity is a shared endeavor. Its roots are long and deep -- its foundations, I've tried to show, exist already, inside each of us. So this is not about standing in the way of development. It's not about overthrowing capitalism. It's not about trying to change human nature. What we're doing here is we're taking a few simple steps towards an economics fit for purpose. And at the heart of that economics, we're placing a more credible, more robust, and more realistic vision of what it means to be human.
让我带着这种希望回过头来, 到这二十亿人们 他们仍然每天试图 以不到隔壁餐厅一杯低脂拿铁价格的 钱来生存。 我们可以向这些人提供什么? 很明显我们有一个责任 来帮助他们脱贫。 很明显我们有一个责任 来创造增长的空间 在这些最贫困的最需要增长的国家。 这也很明显,我们将永远不能达到(这个目标) 除非我们能够重新定义 在这些较富裕的国家繁荣的真正意义。 一个更有意义的繁荣 和与以发展为基础的模式 相比更少的物质化。 因此这不仅仅是 一个西方的后唯物主义的幻想。 事实上,一个非洲的哲学家写信给我, 在“缺乏增长的繁荣” 指出这种 关于繁荣的观点 与传统非洲的乌班图(注:非洲传统的一种价值观,类似华人社会的“仁爱”思想)的相似之处。 乌班图说,“我的存在 是因为大家的存在。” 繁荣就是一个共同的努力。 它的根源长且深。 它的基础,我曾试图展示, 早已存在于我们每个人心中。 所以这不是关于 代替发展。 它不是 推翻资本主义。 它不是 试图改变人性。 我们在这里要做的 是采取几个简单的步骤 以适当的经济为目的。 在那个经济的中心, 我们用一个更可靠的, 更健全的, 更现实的眼光 来看待它(经济)对人类意味着什么。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)
Chris Anderson: While they're taking the podium away, just a quick question. First of all, economists aren't supposed to be inspiring, so you may need to work on the tone a little. (Laughter) Can you picture the politicians ever buying into this? I mean, can you picture a politician standing up in Britain and saying, "GDP fell two percent this year. Good news! We're actually all happier, and a country's more beautiful, and our lives are better."
克里斯 安德森:在把讲台移走时,很快地问个问题。 首先,经济学家本不应该令人感到振奋的, 所以你得要在这个基调上多下点功夫。 (笑声) 你可以构想到每一个政治家都相信这些吗? 我的意思是,你可以构想一下 一个政治家在英国说, “国内生产总值今年降了百分之二。好消息! 我们实际上更幸福,这个国家变得更美好, 我们的生活变得更好。”
Tim Jackson: Well that's clearly not what you're doing. You're not making news out of things falling down. You're making news out of the things that tell you that we're flourishing. Can I picture politicians doing it? Actually, I already am seeing a little bit of it. When we first started this kind of work, politicians would stand up, treasury spokesmen would stand up, and accuse us of wanting to go back and live in caves. And actually in the period through which we've been working over the last 18 years -- partly because of the financial crisis and a little bit of humility in the profession of economics -- actually people are engaging in this issue in all sorts of countries around the world.
蒂姆 杰克逊:那很明显得不是你现在做的。 你不会以下降来做新闻。 你会以那些告诉你我们是繁荣富强的东西来做新闻。 我能否构想政治家做这个? 实际上,我已经看到了一些。 当我们第一次开始做这种事情, 政治家们应该站出来,财政部发言人应该站出来, 指责我们想要回归到从前,住在山洞。 事实上在那段时间里 在过去的十八年里,我们一直在做这件事情-- 一部分是因为经济危机 和一些专业经济学(家)的谦逊-- 实际上人们探讨此问题 在这世界上的任何一个国家(都不例外)。
CA: But is it mainly politicians who are going to have to get their act together, or is it going to be more just civil society and companies?
克里斯 安德森:但是这主要是由政治家们一起行动, 或者仅是一些民间社会和公司吧?
TJ: It has to be companies. It has to be civil society. But it has to have political leadership. This is a kind of agenda, which actually politicians themselves are kind of caught in that dilemma, because they're hooked on the growth model themselves. But actually opening up the space to think about different ways of governing, different kinds of politics, and creating the space for civil society and businesses to operate differently -- absolutely vital.
蒂姆 杰克逊:必须得是公司。必须得是公民社会。 但是它需要有政治领导。 这是一种议程, 事实上政治家他们自己 被困在那个难题中, 因为他们自己被那个增长模式勾住了。 但是实际上敞开来 想一想不同的管理的方式, 不同的政治体制, 创造空间 为公民社会和商业不一样地运作-- 是绝对的关键。
CA: And if someone could convince you that we actually can make the -- what was it? -- the 130-fold improvement in efficiency, of reduction of carbon footprint, would you then actually like that picture of economic growth into more knowledge-based goods?
克里斯 安德森:如果某人想要说服你 其实我们可以做到--那个是什么来着?-- 一百三十倍的效能改进, 来降低碳, 那你是否会喜欢将经济增长构想 于更多的以知识为基础的商品上呢?
TJ: I would still want to know that you could do that and get below zero by the end of the century, in terms of taking carbon out of the atmosphere, and solve the problem of biodiversity and reduce the impact on land use and do something about the erosion of topsoils and the quality of water. If you can convince me we can do all that, then, yes, I would take the two percent.
蒂姆 杰克逊:我始终想知道你可以 在世纪末降到负值, 就是将碳从大气中抽出来, 并且解决生态多样性的问题 减少对土地利用的影响 做一些事情(来改善)表层土侵蚀和水质。 如果你能说服我我们能做到这些, 那么,是的,我愿意选择那百分之二(国内生产总值)。
CA: Tim, thank you for a very important talk. Thank you.
克里斯 安德森:蒂姆,谢谢你的重要演讲。谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)