Hello, everyone. It's a bit funny, because I did write that humans will become digital, but I didn't think it will happen so fast and that it will happen to me. But here I am, as a digital avatar, and here you are, so let's start. And let's start with a question. How many fascists are there in the audience today?
大家好。 我曾经在作品中写过 人类将会数字化, 但有趣的是, 我想不到它实现得这么快, 而且就发生在我身上。 我正在以数字化的方式 和各位见面, 那我们就开始吧。 先提一个问题: 在座的各位有多少人 是法西斯主义者?
(Laughter)
(笑)
Well, it's a bit difficult to say, because we've forgotten what fascism is. People now use the term "fascist" as a kind of general-purpose abuse. Or they confuse fascism with nationalism. So let's take a few minutes to clarify what fascism actually is, and how it is different from nationalism.
不太好说, 因为我们忘记了 究竟什么是法西斯主义。 现在,“法西斯主义者”这个词 已经被大众随意滥用, 或者说人们混淆了 “法西斯主义者” 与 “民族主义者”。 那么我们不妨用几分钟搞清 究竟什么是 “法西斯主义”, 以及它和“民族主义”的区别。
The milder forms of nationalism have been among the most benevolent of human creations. Nations are communities of millions of strangers who don't really know each other. For example, I don't know the eight million people who share my Israeli citizenship. But thanks to nationalism, we can all care about one another and cooperate effectively. This is very good. Some people, like John Lennon, imagine that without nationalism, the world will be a peaceful paradise. But far more likely, without nationalism, we would have been living in tribal chaos. If you look today at the most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world, countries like Sweden and Switzerland and Japan, you will see that they have a very strong sense of nationalism. In contrast, countries that lack a strong sense of nationalism, like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan, tend to be violent and poor.
在人类的诸多创造中, 温和的民族主义 可谓最仁慈的那一类。 国家是由成千上万个体组成的, 但是他们彼此间素不相识。 举个例子,我就不认识 另外八百万和我一样 有以色列国籍的人。 但是感谢民族主义, 我们都互相关心并且有效地合作。 这是很好的一点。 但是有些人,像约翰·列侬, 想象着如果没有民族主义, 世界会成为和平的天堂。 但是更有可能的是, 离开了民族主义, 我们会生活在混乱的原始部落里。 以世界上最繁荣 和平的国家为例, 像是瑞典,瑞士以及日本, 你会看到那里的人民 有很强的民族主义感。 相反,有些缺少民族主义感的国家, 像是刚果,索马里以及阿富汗, 则会更加暴力与贫穷。
So what is fascism, and how is it different from nationalism? Well, nationalism tells me that my nation is unique, and that I have special obligations towards my nation. Fascism, in contrast, tells me that my nation is supreme, and that I have exclusive obligations towards it. I don't need to care about anybody or anything other than my nation. Usually, of course, people have many identities and loyalties to different groups. For example, I can be a good patriot, loyal to my country, and at the same time, be loyal to my family, my neighborhood, my profession, humankind as a whole, truth and beauty. Of course, when I have different identities and loyalties, it sometimes creates conflicts and complications. But, well, who ever told you that life was easy? Life is complicated. Deal with it.
那么究竟什么是法西斯主义? 它和民族主义又有什么区别? 民族主义告诉我, 我的国家是独特的, 对于我的国家, 我有特殊的责任感。 而法西斯主义告诉我, 我的国家是至高无上的, 我对它的责任感是排他性的。 除了我的国家,我不需要 关心其他任何人和事。 通常来说,人们有许多的身份, 以及对不同群体的忠诚感。 例如,我是一个爱国者, 我忠于我的国家, 同时也忠实于我的家庭, 我的邻居,我的职业, 忠于整个人类群体, 忠于真相与美好。 当然,有了不同的身份与忠诚, 也常常会因此导致冲突和困惑。 但是,谁说人生是简单的呢? 人生很复杂, 接受现实吧。
Fascism is what happens when people try to ignore the complications and to make life too easy for themselves. Fascism denies all identities except the national identity and insists that I have obligations only towards my nation. If my nation demands that I sacrifice my family, then I will sacrifice my family. If the nation demands that I kill millions of people, then I will kill millions of people. And if my nation demands that I betray truth and beauty, then I should betray truth and beauty. For example, how does a fascist evaluate art? How does a fascist decide whether a movie is a good movie or a bad movie? Well, it's very, very, very simple. There is really just one yardstick: if the movie serves the interests of the nation, it's a good movie; if the movie doesn't serve the interests of the nation, it's a bad movie. That's it. Similarly, how does a fascist decide what to teach kids in school? Again, it's very simple. There is just one yardstick: you teach the kids whatever serves the interests of the nation. The truth doesn't matter at all.
法西斯主义则意味着人们 试图去忽略这些复杂的东西, 使自己的人生过分地简单化。 法西斯主义否认了所有 除了国家身份以外的身份, 并坚持人们只对 自己的国家承担着责任。 如果国家需要我去牺牲我的家庭, 那么我就去牺牲我的家庭。 如果我的国家需要我杀人如麻, 那么我就去大开杀戒。 如果我的国家需要我 背叛真相与美好, 那我就应该去背叛真相与美好。 举个例子,法西斯主义者 怎样评估艺术作品? 他们怎样决定一部电影的好坏? 这非常,非常,非常简单。 只有一个衡量尺度: 如果这部电影为国家的利益服务, 那么这就是一部好电影; 如果这部电影 对国家的利益没有好处, 这就是一部烂片。 仅此而已。 与此类似,法西斯主义者 怎样决定学校给孩子教些什么? 还是非常简单。 只有一个衡量尺度: 如果你教孩子的东西 是对国家利益有利的, 那么真相往往一点也不重要。
Now, the horrors of the Second World War and of the Holocaust remind us of the terrible consequences of this way of thinking. But usually, when we talk about the ills of fascism, we do so in an ineffective way, because we tend to depict fascism as a hideous monster, without really explaining what was so seductive about it. It's a bit like these Hollywood movies that depict the bad guys -- Voldemort or Sauron or Darth Vader -- as ugly and mean and cruel. They're cruel even to their own supporters. When I see these movies, I never understand -- why would anybody be tempted to follow a disgusting creep like Voldemort? The problem with evil is that in real life, evil doesn't necessarily look ugly. It can look very beautiful. This is something that Christianity knew very well, which is why in Christian art, as [opposed to] Hollywood, Satan is usually depicted as a gorgeous hunk. This is why it's so difficult to resist the temptations of Satan, and why it is also difficult to resist the temptations of fascism.
二战和大屠杀的恐怖程度 提醒了我们 这种思考方式的可怕后果。 但一般来说,当我们谈论 法西斯主义的弊端, 我们用的是一种无效的方式。 因为我们更趋向于把法西斯主义 描绘成可怕的怪物, 却对它为何吸引人只字不提。 就像是好莱坞电影 描绘的反派人物一样—— 伏地魔,索伦或者达斯维达—— 他们丑陋,刻薄和残忍。 他们甚至残忍地 对待他们的支持者。 每当我看这些电影的时候, 我始终不能理解—— 为什么有人会想要去追随 伏地魔这样的大反派呢? 问题在于现实生活中, 邪恶未必总是丑陋不堪的。 它也可以看上去很美好。 基督教非常了解这一点, 和好莱坞恰恰相反, 在基督教的艺术中, 撒旦通常被描绘成 迷人的美男子。 这也是为什么有时 人们很难拒绝撒旦的诱惑, 同时,这也是为什么人们 很难去拒绝法西斯主义的诱惑。
Fascism makes people see themselves as belonging to the most beautiful and most important thing in the world -- the nation. And then people think, "Well, they taught us that fascism is ugly. But when I look in the mirror, I see something very beautiful, so I can't be a fascist, right?" Wrong. That's the problem with fascism. When you look in the fascist mirror, you see yourself as far more beautiful than you really are. In the 1930s, when Germans looked in the fascist mirror, they saw Germany as the most beautiful thing in the world. If today, Russians look in the fascist mirror, they will see Russia as the most beautiful thing in the world. And if Israelis look in the fascist mirror, they will see Israel as the most beautiful thing in the world. This does not mean that we are now facing a rerun of the 1930s.
法西斯主义使人们认为自己 归属于世界上最美丽、 最重要的东西—— ——国家。 然后人们这样想, “他们总说法西斯主义是丑陋的, 但是当我照镜子时, 我看到的是美丽的东西, 所以我不是法西斯主义者,对吧?” 错了。 这就是法西斯主义的问题。 当你透过法西斯主义的镜子观察自己, 你看到的自己比真实情况 要美好得多。 20 世纪 30 年代, 当德国人看向法西斯主义的镜子时, 他们看到德国是世界上 最美的国家。 如果今天俄国人 也看向法西斯主义的镜子, 他们将会看到俄罗斯 是世界上最美的国家。 如果以色列看向法西斯主义的镜子, 他们会看到以色列 是世界上最美的国家。 这不代表我们会重蹈 20 世纪 30 年代的覆辙。
Fascism and dictatorships might come back, but they will come back in a new form, a form which is much more relevant to the new technological realities of the 21st century. In ancient times, land was the most important asset in the world. Politics, therefore, was the struggle to control land. And dictatorship meant that all the land was owned by a single ruler or by a small oligarch. And in the modern age, machines became more important than land. Politics became the struggle to control the machines. And dictatorship meant that too many of the machines became concentrated in the hands of the government or of a small elite. Now data is replacing both land and machines as the most important asset. Politics becomes the struggle to control the flows of data. And dictatorship now means that too much data is being concentrated in the hands of the government or of a small elite.
法西斯主义以及专政 的确可能会卷土重来, 但是它们将以新的形式归来, 以一种更贴合实际, 顺应 21 世纪科技现实的方式。 在古代, 土地是世界上最宝贵的财富。 因此,政治势力一直在 争夺对土地的掌控权。 专政意味着所有的土地 都归属于一个统治者, 或者一小群寡头。 到了近代, 机器变得比土地更重要。 政治方面于是开始 竞争对机器的掌控权。 这时候的专政意味着 大多的机器只掌握在 政府或者小部分的精英手中。 现在,数据代替土地与机器 成为了最重要的资产。 政治就演变为竞争对数据流的掌控。 现在的专政意味着 政府以及小部分的精英手中 控制了过多的数据。
The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution in information technology will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.
现在,自由民主面临的 更大的危机是, 技术信息的革命 将会使得专政比民主更加有效。
In the 20th century, democracy and capitalism defeated fascism and communism because democracy was better at processing data and making decisions. Given 20th-century technology, it was simply inefficient to try and concentrate too much data and too much power in one place.
在 20 世纪, 民主和资本主义打败了 法西斯主义以及社会主义, 因为民主政治可以更好地 处理数据并做出决定。 鉴于 20 世纪的技术水平, 试图集中大量数据 以及过多的权力 完全是低效率的做法。
But it is not a law of nature that centralized data processing is always less efficient than distributed data processing. With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it might become feasible to process enormous amounts of information very efficiently in one place, to take all the decisions in one place, and then centralized data processing will be more efficient than distributed data processing. And then the main handicap of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century -- their attempt to concentrate all the information in one place -- it will become their greatest advantage.
但这并不是自然规律, 集中化数据处理并不是 天然就比分布式数据处理效率低。 伴随人工智能和机器学习的崛起, 集中处理大量的信息 可能会更加可行与高效, 在一个地方做所有的决定 并集中化处理数据 将会比分布式数据处理更高效。 而独裁的政权在 20 世纪 最主要的障碍—— 即尝试集中所有信息的企图—— 反而会成为他们最大的优势。
Another technological danger that threatens the future of democracy is the merger of information technology with biotechnology, which might result in the creation of algorithms that know me better than I know myself. And once you have such algorithms, an external system, like the government, cannot just predict my decisions, it can also manipulate my feelings, my emotions. A dictator may not be able to provide me with good health care, but he will be able to make me love him and to make me hate the opposition. Democracy will find it difficult to survive such a development because, in the end, democracy is not based on human rationality; it's based on human feelings. During elections and referendums, you're not being asked, "What do you think?" You're actually being asked, "How do you feel?" And if somebody can manipulate your emotions effectively, democracy will become an emotional puppet show.
有可能威胁未来民主政治的 另外一个技术危机 是信息技术与生物技术的合并, 这可能会导致比我自己 更加了解我的算法开始出现。 一旦你有了这样的算法, 一个外部的系统,例如政府, 不仅能猜测我的决定, 还可以操纵我的感受,我的情绪。 一个独裁者可能不会 给我提供好的医疗服务, 但是他会使我开始仰慕他, 使我恨他的敌人。 民主将会很难在这样的发展中存活, 因为归根结底, 民主政治并非基于人类的理智, 而是基于人类的感受。 在竞选与公投时, 你面临的问题其实并非 ”你怎么想?“ 而是 “ 你感觉怎么样?” 如果有人可以 有效操纵你的情绪, 民主政治将会沦为 一个情绪化的木偶戏。
So what can we do to prevent the return of fascism and the rise of new dictatorships? The number one question that we face is: Who controls the data? If you are an engineer, then find ways to prevent too much data from being concentrated in too few hands. And find ways to make sure the distributed data processing is at least as efficient as centralized data processing. This will be the best safeguard for democracy. As for the rest of us who are not engineers, the number one question facing us is how not to allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who control the data.
那么,我们该怎样 防止法西斯主义卷土重来 以及新专政的崛起呢? 我们面对的首要问题是 “ 谁在掌控数据?” 如果你是工程师, 那么就设法避免过多的数据 集中掌握在少数人手里, 设法保证 分布式数据处理至少能和 集中数据处理一样有效。 这将是对民主政治最好的保障。 对于我们这些不是工程师的人, 我们面临的首要问题是, 我们怎样才能不被 这些掌握数据的人操纵。
The enemies of liberal democracy, they have a method. They hack our feelings. Not our emails, not our bank accounts -- they hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity, and then use these feelings to polarize and destroy democracy from within. This is actually a method that Silicon Valley pioneered in order to sell us products. But now, the enemies of democracy are using this very method to sell us fear and hate and vanity. They cannot create these feelings out of nothing. So they get to know our own preexisting weaknesses. And then use them against us. And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us to get to know our weaknesses and make sure that they do not become a weapon in the hands of the enemies of democracy.
民主政治的对手有一种套路。 他们侵入了我们的感受, 不是我们的邮箱, 不是我们的银行账号—— 他们侵入我们的恐惧,仇恨和虚荣, 然后利用这些感受 从内部分裂和摧毁民主政治。 事实上这个方法和那些硅谷先驱 向我们推销他们的 产品的方法如出一辙。 但是现在民主政治的对手 正在用这种方式 向我们“推销”恐惧,恨意以及虚荣。 他们不能无中生有地 创造这些感觉。 所以他们要了解我们 原本就存在的弱点, 然后利用这些来对付我们。 因此我们大家都有责任 了解自己的弱点, 确保它们不会成为 民主政治对手的武器。
Getting to know our own weaknesses will also help us to avoid the trap of the fascist mirror. As we explained earlier, fascism exploits our vanity. It makes us see ourselves as far more beautiful than we really are. This is the seduction. But if you really know yourself, you will not fall for this kind of flattery. If somebody puts a mirror in front of your eyes that hides all your ugly bits and makes you see yourself as far more beautiful and far more important than you really are, just break that mirror.
了解我们自己的弱点 也能帮助我们 避免法西斯主义镜子的陷阱。 就像我之前说的一样, 法西斯主义会利用我们的虚荣心, 使我们看到的自己 比实际上的自己更美。 这就是诱惑。 但是如果你真的了解你自己, 你肯定不会陷入这种花言巧语。 如果有人给你照的镜子 藏起了你所有的丑陋, 并且让你看到的自己 远比真正的你 更美,更重要, 那就打碎那面镜子。
Thank you.
谢谢大家。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you. Goodness me. It's so nice to see you again. So, if I understand you right, you're alerting us to two big dangers here. One is the possible resurgence of a seductive form of fascism, but close to that, dictatorships that may not exactly be fascistic, but control all the data. I wonder if there's a third concern that some people here have already expressed, which is where, not governments, but big corporations control all our data. What do you call that, and how worried should we be about that?
克里斯·安德森(克里斯): 尤瓦尔,谢谢你。 太不可思议了。 很高兴再次见到你。 所以,如果我理解正确的话, 你是在提醒大家两个重大危机。 一个是法西斯主义有可能 以更吸引人的方式复苏, 还有,专政未必等同于法西斯主义, 也可能是掌握所有的数据。 我在想,如果存在第三种忧虑, 这也是有在场的人已经提出的, 那就是,不是政府,而是 一个大公司掌握了我们所有的数据, 你怎样看待这个问题, 以及针对这个问题, 我们需要担心些什么?
Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end, there isn't such a big difference between the corporations and the governments, because, as I said, the questions is: Who controls the data? This is the real government. If you call it a corporation or a government -- if it's a corporation and it really controls the data, this is our real government. So the difference is more apparent than real.
尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利(尤瓦尔): 说到底,公司与政府之间 并没有很大的区别, 因为就像我说的那样, 问题是:谁掌管着数据? 这是真正的政府, 不论你称呼它为公司还是政府—— 如果这个公司真正掌管着数据, 它就是我们真正的政府。 所以这种区别比现实中更加明显。
CA: But somehow, at least with corporations, you can imagine market mechanisms where they can be taken down. I mean, if consumers just decide that the company is no longer operating in their interest, it does open the door to another market. It seems easier to imagine that than, say, citizens rising up and taking down a government that is in control of everything.
克里斯:但是无论如何, 至少对于公司, 你可以想象, 市场机制可以把它淘汰。 我的意思是,如果消费者认为 公司不再服务于他们的利益了, 它打开了其他市场的大门。 这种情况有可能比 公民们起义然后 推翻管理一切的政府 更容易发生。
YNH: Well, we are not there yet, but again, if a corporation really knows you better than you know yourself -- at least that it can manipulate your own deepest emotions and desires, and you won't even realize -- you will think this is your authentic self. So in theory, yes, in theory, you can rise against a corporation, just as, in theory, you can rise against a dictatorship. But in practice, it is extremely difficult.
尤瓦尔:我们还没到那个地步, 但是,如果一个公司 甚至比你更了解你自己—— 那至少它可以操纵 你深层的情绪和欲望, 而你甚至不会意识到—— 你会觉得这是最真实的你自己。 所以理论上来说, 的确可以去对抗一个公司, 就像理论上来说, 你也能起义对抗专政制度。 但是实际上,这是极度困难的。
CA: So in "Homo Deus," you argue that this would be the century when humans kind of became gods, either through development of artificial intelligence or through genetic engineering. Has this prospect of political system shift, collapse impacted your view on that possibility?
克里斯:在你的著作 《未来简史》中,你提到 通过发展人工智能, 或者基因工程, 我们将迎来人类成为上帝的时代。 这种政治系统巨变 或崩溃的前景影响了 你对上述种种可能性的观点吗?
YNH: Well, I think it makes it even more likely, and more likely that it will happen faster, because in times of crisis, people are willing to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise take. And people are willing to try all kinds of high-risk, high-gain technologies. So these kinds of crises might serve the same function as the two world wars in the 20th century. The two world wars greatly accelerated the development of new and dangerous technologies. And the same thing might happen in the 21st century. I mean, you need to be a little crazy to run too fast, let's say, with genetic engineering. But now you have more and more crazy people in charge of different countries in the world, so the chances are getting higher, not lower.
尤瓦尔:我认为这使它更可能发生, 而且会发生得更快, 因为在危机的时代, 人们愿意去承担 平时不会去承担的风险。 并且人们愿意去尝试 不同类型的高风险-高回报的技术。 所以这种危机可能会与 20 世纪的两次世界大战 发挥相同的作用。 这两次世界大战大幅加速了 具有风险性的新技术的发展。 相同的事情可能 也会发生在 21 世纪。 我的意思是,你需要变得 有点”疯狂“才能进步得更快, 基因工程就是一个例子。 现在有更多“疯狂”的人 管理着不同的国家, 所以这个几率是逐渐升高 而不是下降的。
CA: So, putting it all together, Yuval, you've got this unique vision. Roll the clock forward 30 years. What's your guess -- does humanity just somehow scrape through, look back and say, "Wow, that was a close thing. We did it!" Or not?
克里斯:总结一下, 你的说法是很独特的。 将时间往后推 30 年, 你的猜想是什么? 如果人们挺过去了, 再回顾这段时期时,是否会说, “真是千钧一发,幸好我们做到了!” 会这样吗?
YNH: So far, we've managed to overcome all the previous crises. And especially if you look at liberal democracy and you think things are bad now, just remember how much worse things looked in 1938 or in 1968. So this is really nothing, this is just a small crisis. But you can never know, because, as a historian, I know that you should never underestimate human stupidity.
尤瓦尔:目前为止,我们已经 克服了之前发生过的危机。 特别是当你审视 当下自由民主政治, 认为情况很糟, 只需回想 1938 年和 1968 年, 情况比起现在有过之无不及。 所以这真的不足为虑, 只是一个小的危机。 但是谁知道呢, 作为一个历史学家, 我知道永远不应该低估 人类的愚蠢程度。
(Laughter) (Applause)
(笑)(鼓掌)
It is one of the most powerful forces that shape history.
这是塑造历史最强大的力量之一。
CA: Yuval, it's been an absolute delight to have you with us. Thank you for making the virtual trip. Have a great evening there in Tel Aviv. Yuval Harari!
克里斯:感谢你的精彩演讲 和为我们带来的虚拟旅行。 祝你在特拉维夫 度过一个愉快的夜晚。 感谢尤瓦尔·赫拉利!
YNH: Thank you very much.
尤瓦尔:非常感谢。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)