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.
我今天想談繁榮, 關於我們 想要維持共同繁榮的希望 不僅僅是我們, 而是全世界二億 仍然處在營養不良狀態的人們。 希望其實是這一切的關鍵。 事實上,拉丁語的希望 位於繁榮這個詞的中心。 “Pro-speras,” “speras”, 希望-- 與我們的希望和期待一致。 諷刺的是 我們似乎已經把繁榮全數提領 無論從金錢或經濟成長的方面看來都是如此 然而我們的經濟增長如此之多 以至於我們現在 處在一個 侵蝕希望的危險處境-- 耗盡能源,砍伐森林, 石油洩漏在墨西哥灣, 改變氣候-- 過去的二十到三十年間唯一能夠 輕微地減緩源源不斷的 碳排放的 就是經濟蕭條期。 經濟不景氣,當然, 也不是一個讓人滿懷希望的處方, 正如我們如今所發現的。 我們陷入了一種陷阱。 一種困境,一種成長的困境。 我們不能與它共存,沒有它我們也不能生存。 破壞系統或是破壞這個星球。 這是個困難的選擇。這根本不算選擇。 我們逃避這些最佳的途徑實際上 是一種 對我們自己的聰慧,科技和效率 以及更高效工作的盲目信仰。 現在我還不反對效率。 有些時候我認為我們是聰明的物種。 但是我認為我們也應該核對一下數字, 審查一下現實。
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?
現在我們來想像一個世界, 在二零五零年,有九億的人, 都有了西方的收入水平, 西方的生活方式。 我想問一個問題-- 我們將每年對他們的收入和工資都提高百分之二。 因為我們追求(經濟)成長。 我想問這個問題: 我們需要行進多遠多快? 我們需要有多聰明? 在這個世界上我們需要多少科學技術 來實現我們的低碳排放目標? 在這個圖表中 左手邊的是我們現在的狀況 這是經濟增長與之相對應的碳排放密度 在此時的經濟狀況。 這大約是七百七十克的碳。 我用文字向你描述, 我們必須得達到右手邊的 六克碳的程度。 這是一個一百三十倍的改進, 而且這是 我們在工業歷史上至今所實現的十倍的速度。 或許我們可以,也許是可能的--誰知道呢? 說不定我們能做得更好 形成一種可以將那些碳從大氣中吸出來的經濟, 這也正是我們需要在 世紀末做的事情。 但我們難道不應該首先審視 我們的經濟體制 是否有能力達到 這種進步?
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.
因此我想要花費幾分鐘的時間在系統動力學上。 這有些複雜,為此我表示歉意。 我將要試圖去做的,是用人類的語言 簡單介紹一下 它看起來像這樣。 公司為家庭生產商品--也就是我們-- 並且為我們提供收入, 這更好,因為我們可以把這些收入 花在更多的商品和服務上。 這就是經濟循環。 它看起來無害。 我只是想強調這個體制中的一個最重要的特徵, 也就是投資的作用。 現在投資構成 僅僅大約百分之二十的國民收入 在大部分現代經濟中, 但是它扮演著一個絕對重要的角色。 基本上﹐它的作用 是刺激更多的消費增長。 它以幾種方式來達到此目的-- 追求生產率, 壓低價格並鼓勵我們買更多的東西。 但是我想聚焦於 投資的角色 在尋求新穎, 新事物的生產和消費。 Joseph Schumpeter 稱為 “充滿創意的毀滅過程。” 這是一個生產和再生產新事物的過程, 持續地尋求拓展消費者市場, 消費者商品,新的消費者商品。
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.
並且,有趣的是 因為它證明人類 追求新奇事物的慾望。 我們熱愛新東西-- 毫無疑問地新素材-- 也包括新想法,新冒險, 新經驗。 但物質性也至關重要。 因為,在每一個社會裡 人類學者曾研究過, 物質 猶如一種語言般的運作, 一種商品語言, 一種象徵 我們用它來向彼此講述故事-- 故事,例如, 我們有多重要。 身份地位驅使的,炫耀式消費 從這種新事物語言 中滋生。 現在,突然地, 我們有一個體制 將經濟結構用社會邏輯-- 經濟制度﹐和我們是怎樣的人﹐鎖在一起 以促進這個增長引擎的強度。 這個引擎不僅僅是經濟價值; 它不斷地提取資源 持續地通過這個體制, 被我們無止境的慾望驅使, 事實上是被焦慮所驅使。 亞當 斯密在兩百年前, 講到我們 對“無愧一生”的慾望。 一個無愧的人生 在當時﹐那這意味著亞麻布襯衫, 今天,你仍然需要襯衫, 加上雙動力汽車 高清晰度電視,一年兩次的陽光假期 小筆電和 iPad,這個清單可以一直開下去 被焦慮驅使的 無止盡的物質 就算我們不想要 我們也需要 因為如果我們不買,這個體制就會崩塌。 為了阻止它崩塌 在過去的二十到三十年中, 我們擴大了貨幣供應量, 增加了貸款和負債, 為了使人們能夠持續不斷地買東西。 當然,那些膨脹與經濟危機是有關聯性的。
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--我只是想在這展示一些數據。 現在就像這樣,基本上 這些貸款和負債體制,僅僅是英國。 這是(經濟系統)崩塌前的十五年。 在這裡你可以看到,消費貸款急劇上升。 連續三年超過國內生產總值(注:GDP:Gross Domestic Product) 就在經濟危機之前。 同時,個人儲蓄暴跌。 這些儲蓄率,淨儲蓄, 在二零零八年中期是負值。 就在經濟危機之前。 人們增加債務,消耗他們的儲蓄, 僅僅為了留在這場遊戲之中。 這是一個奇怪的,更確切地說是有悖常理的故事, 用一個簡單的術語來說的話。 這是一個關於我們的故事,人們, 被說服 把不屬於我們的錢 花在我們不需要的東西上 為了在我們不在乎的人身上 創造一個不持久的印象
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
但是在我們將自己交付於絕望之前, 我們也許應該回過頭說,“真的是這樣嗎? 人們真的是這樣的嗎? 經濟真的是這樣運作的嗎? ” 馬上 我們就會發現一些奇怪的事 首先就是經濟危機本身。 在經濟危機時,經濟蕭條時,人們想怎麼做? 他們想節約。他們想放眼未來。 他們降低消費和增加儲蓄。 但從體制的角度來看 儲蓄卻是錯的 凱恩斯把這稱為“節儉的矛盾”-- 儲蓄減慢經濟復甦。 政治家們持續地號召我們 增加更多債務, 降低我們的儲蓄, 才能夠將經濟重新引向正軌, 才可以持續這種以增長為基礎的經濟。 這很奇怪, 體制和人的做法 竟然是相反的
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.
這裡是另外一個(例子)-- 一個完全不同的: 為什麼 為什麼我們不做那些我們明顯該做的事 抵抗氣候變化 非常,非常簡單的事情 像是買節能家電, 安裝節能燈炮,時常地將燈熄滅, 讓我們的房子更節能? 這些事情不但減碳,節約能源, 也為我們省錢。 為什麼就算這些事完全合乎經濟效益, 我們也不做﹖ 我對此有自己的見解 幾年前。 那是一個星期天的傍晚,星期天下午, 就在-- 實際上,說實話,在-- 我們剛剛搬進一個新家之後-- 我終於開始著手做一些擋風(設計), 在窗戶和門上安裝隔熱裝置 來抵禦氣流。 當時﹐我的五歲女兒 幫我一些五歲的小孩子所能幫的忙。 我們一起做了一會兒 她轉向我 十分嚴肅地說, “這個能真的擋住長頸鹿嗎?” (笑聲) “你看,長頸鹿。” 你能聽到一個五歲的孩子的大腦是怎樣運作的。 這些,很有趣地,在距離這里四百英里北部 的巴羅因弗內斯以外的坎布里亞郡。 天曉得牠們對湖區氣候會有什麼感覺(注:Lake District: 英格蘭西北部風景地) 但這個稚幼的錯誤認知 讓我印象深刻 因為我突然理解 為什麼我們不去做這些顯而易見的事 我們忙於阻擋這些長頸鹿-- 早晨將孩子們送到公車上, 準時上班 與超載的電子郵件拼命 還有工作上 的勾心鬥角, 在食品雜貨店尋找食物,匆匆拼湊成一頓飯, 終於在晚上擠出幾個寶貴小時 來看八點檔 或TED影片 一天又一天 擋長頸鹿。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我們的目的是什麼? “消費者的目的是什麼?” 瑪麗道格拉斯在一篇關於貧困的文章中問道 寫於三十五年前。 “它是”她說, “去創造一個社群 並且從中找到一個可敬的位置。 ” 這是對我們人生的一種 深度洞察。 並且它是一個完全不同的視野 我們這個經濟模式的視野 相比。 我們是誰? 這些人是誰? 我們是那些追求新穎,享樂主義的, 自私的個體嗎? 又或者我們事實上偶爾地 也會成為林布蘭特筆下描繪的 美好的無私的利他主義者? 心理學家說 這其中有個拉距, 在利己主義行為和 利他主義行為之間的一個拉距。 這些拉距是進化的結果 自私的行為 是用來適應特定的環境的 鬥爭還是逃跑。
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.
但是利他行為 是我們進化的基礎 作為社群生物。 從我們的觀點來看也許更有趣, 另一種在探尋新事物的行為和 傳統或保守之間的拉距。 追求新鮮是為了在世界轉變的時候 便於適應。 傳統是為了保持穩定 為了持家和組成合作的社會群體。 於是 突然地 我們注視著人類的內心世界。 它突然地揭露出, 事情的癥結所在。 我們創造了經濟。 我們創造了體制, (這個體制)系統地賦予我們特權,鼓勵, 人們靈魂的一個 狹窄的象限 其他方面卻被置之不理。 同樣地,解決方法也很簡單, 因為這不是 有關改變人性。 也不是關於刪減可能性。 它是關於保持開放 它是關於允許我們自己 成為完整的人類, 承認債務和 人類心靈的廣度 建造制度與機構 來保護我們心中那份脆弱的利他主義。
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.
這一切對經濟意味著什麼呢? 經濟將變成什麼樣子 如果我們用剛才提出的人性可能 作為核心 延伸它們 用這些 人類心理的正交維度? 它看起來大概像 過去的五年裡 在英國發展出的四千個社群服務公司 和在美國B公司的崛起有些相似, 企業們 那些把生態和社會目標 寫進他們的章程 它們的核心的公司, 像它,Ecosia. 我想很快地向你展示一下。 Ecosia是一個網絡搜索引擎。 網絡搜索引擎是 靠通過贊助商聯結來獲得收益 這些聯結在你搜索的時候出現。 Ecosia也以同樣的方式活力。 在這裡也一樣 我們輸入一個搜索詞。 牛津,我們所在之處 Ecosia的不同之處 就在於,Ecosia 以同樣的方式獲利, 但是它將 百分之八十的收入投入 一項保護亞馬遜雨林的專案中。 就像這樣 我們只是點了 Naturejobs.uk 網站。 假設在位有人想在這個不景氣的時候找工作, 可以去這裡看看 接下來發生的就是 贊助商給Ecosia錢, 然後Ecosia將這些收入的百分之八十 給與一個雨林保護專案。 它從一個地方獲得利潤 然後將它們交給 生態資源保護。
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.
這是一種不同的企業 在一個新經濟下。 它是一種新的形式, 生態型的利他主義-- 或是與此相關的什麼 不論它是什麼, 無論這種新經濟是什麼, 我們需要經濟的地方是 是投資造 這個模式的中心, 去重新思考投資。 只是現在,投資 將不再 殘酷和愚蠢地 追求提高消費。 投資必須得成為一個不同的生物。 投資要成為, 在新經濟下, 保護和培育 決定我們未來的生態資產的助力。 它得是一個過渡。 它得投資與低碳科技和 (低碳)基礎設施上。 我們需要投資在, 一個充滿意義的繁榮理念上, 提供人們 共享繁榮的能力
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.
當然,這個任務有物質層面。 在人們沒有衣服 食物和居所的時候 討論發展是無意義的 但發展和繁榮不只是這樣 它有社會和心理的目標-- 家庭,友情, 投入,社會, 參與社會生活。 這也 需要投資, 投資於那些 我們能夠接觸的地方, 我們能夠參與的地方, 公共空間, 音樂廳,花園, 公園, 圖書館,博物館,安靜的場所 用來慶祝的地方, 那些讓人可以安靜思考的地方, 能“培育公民意識” 的場所 如 Michael Sandel 所說 一個投資--投資,最終,只是一個基本的經濟概念-- 只是 一種 介於現在和未來之中的關係 共有的現在和共同的未來。 我們則需要那個關係來回應, 來重申希望。
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.
讓我們帶著這種希望回頭來 看這二億人口 他們仍然每天試圖 以不到隔壁餐廳一杯低脂拿鐵價格的 錢來生存。 我們可以給他們什麼? 很明顯的我們有一種 來幫助他們脫貧的責任。 很明顯我們有一種 幫助他們發展的責任 發展在這些最窮困的國家才真的有意義 很明顯的,我們將永遠不能達到(這個目標) 除非我們能在這些富裕國家中 重新定義發展的意義 一個更有意義的繁榮 以發展為基礎 而不是提昇消費的模式。 因此這不僅僅是 一個西方的後物質主義的幻想 事實上,在“無須成長的發展”出版時 一個非洲的哲學家寫給我, 指出 這種關於繁榮發展的觀點 與傳統非洲的 ubuntu 價值觀很相似 Ubuntu 說,“我的存在 是因為大家存在。 ” 繁榮發展就是來自共同的努力。 它的根源長且深。 它的基礎,如同我所展示的 早已存在於我們每個人心中。 所以這不是要 阻擋發展。 也不是要 推翻資本主義。 它不是 試圖改變人性。 我們想要的是 採取幾個簡單的步驟 讓我們的經濟發展更有意義。 在經濟的核心裡, 置入一個更有價值的、 更完滿的、 更真實的眼光 關於身為人所應該做的些什麼。
Thank you very much.
非常感謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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."
Chris Anderson:在我們搬移講臺的時候,很快地問個問題。 首先,經濟學家不應該感動人心, 所以我想你可能要改變你的語調 (笑聲) 你可以想像有那個政治家可以接受這些嗎﹖ 我的意思是,你可以想像 一個政治家在英國說, “好消息!國內生產總值今年降了百分之二! 我們都更快樂,這個國家更美麗, 我們的生活變得更好了。 ”
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.
Tim Jackson:當然這不是我們在做的 你不能以GDP下跌作為新聞 而是告訴人們我們正在繁榮發展 有政治家想做這件事嗎﹖ 實際上,我已經看到了一些。 當我們第一次開始做這些工作時, 政治家們會站出來,財政部發言人會站出來, 指責我們想要回歸到從前,住在山洞。 事實上在那段時間裡 在過去的十八年裡,我們一直在做這件事情-- 一部分是因為經濟危機 和一些專業經濟學的謙遜 實際上在世界上許多國家 人們都在探討這些問題。
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?
CA:但是這主要是由政治家們一起行動, 或者僅是一些公民社會和公司?
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.
TJ:必須得是公司,必須得是公民社會。 但是它需要有政治領導。 這是一種推進, 事實上政治家他們自己 也困在那個難題中, 因為他們自己被那個增長模式勾住了。 實際上如果大家放開心 想一想不同的治理方式, 不同的政治運作, 創造空間 讓公民社會和商業可以有其他運作方法 是很重要的。
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?
CA:如果某人想要說服你 其實我們可以做到--那個是什麼來著? -- 一百三十倍的效能改進, 來降低碳足跡, 你是否會期待更多來自於智慧商品消費 的經濟增長呢﹖
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.
TJ:我還是想知道你是否在這樣做的同時 然後在世紀末降到負值, 將碳從大氣中抽出來, 解決生態多樣性的問題 減少對土地利用的影響 改善表層土侵蝕和水質。 如果你能說服我們能做到這些, 那麼,是的,我可以接受那百分之二的成長(國內生產總值)。
CA: Tim, thank you for a very important talk. Thank you.
CA:Tim,謝謝你的重要演講。謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)