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?
哈囉,大家好。 這有點好笑,因為我的確寫過 人類將來會變成數位的, 但我當時沒料到會這麼快發生, 且發生在我身上。 但我現在就以 數位人像的身份站在這裡, 你們也都就座了,所以開始吧。 咱們從一個問題開始。 今天觀眾席中, 有多少人是法西斯主義者?
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
嗯,這有點難說, 因為我們已忘了法西斯主義是什麼。 現代人使用「法西斯主義的」一詞 通常是指某種一般性目的的傷害。 或是他們把法西斯主義 和國家主義搞混了。 所以,咱們先花幾分鐘時間, 澄清一下法西斯主義到底是什麼, 以及它和國家主義有什麼不同。
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.
國家主義的溫和形式 一直都是人類最仁慈的產物之一。 國家就是數百萬名陌生人 所組成的共同體, 這些人並不認識彼此。 比如,我並不認識另外八百萬名 擁有以色列公民身份的人。 但多虧了國家主義, 我們都在乎彼此,並能有效地合作。 這是非常好的。 像約翰藍儂(John Lennon), 有些人臆測若沒有國家主義, 世界會是個和平的天堂。 但更有可能的是, 若沒有國家主義, 我們會生活在部落的混亂中。 如果你們想想看現今世界上 最繁榮、和平的國家, 比如瑞典、瑞士和日本, 就會發現它們都有 很強的國家主義感。 相對地,缺乏強烈 國家主義感的國家, 比如剛果、索馬利亞,及阿富汗, 都傾向較暴力和貧窮。
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.
所以,法西斯主義是什麼? 它和國家主義有什麼不同? 嗯,國家主義告訴我, 我的國家是獨一無二的, 且我對於我的國家負有特殊的義務。 相對地,法西斯主義告訴我, 我的國家是優越的, 且我對於我國家的義務是唯一的。 我只需要在乎我的國家, 其他人事物都不重要。 當然,通常人對於不同的群體會有 許多不同的身份和忠誠度。 比如,我可能是個愛國者, 對我的國家很忠誠, 同時,我也忠於我的家庭、 我的鄰里、我的職業、 全體人類、 真相以及美好。 當然,當我有 不同的身份和忠誠度時, 有時就會產生出衝突和複雜。 但,誰說人生是容易的呢? 人生是複雜的。 想辦法處理它。
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.
法西斯主義之所以會發生, 就是因為人們試圖忽略複雜, 把他們自己的人生變得太輕鬆簡單。 法西斯主義否認 國家身份以外的所有身份, 並堅持我只對我的國家有義務。 如果我的國家需要我犧牲我的家人, 我就會犧牲我的家人。 如果國家需要我殺掉數百萬個人, 我就會殺掉數百萬個人。 如果我的國家需要我 背叛真相和美好, 我就該背叛真相和美好。 比如,法西斯主義者 要如何評鑑藝術? 法西斯主義者要如何 決定一部電影的優劣? 答案非常、非常、非常簡單。 衡量標準只有一種: 如果電影是為國家的利益著想, 它就是部好電影; 如果電影沒有為國家的利益著想, 它就是部爛電影。 就這樣。 同樣地,法西斯主義者要如何 決定在學校要教孩子什麼內容? 答案也非常簡單。 衡量標準只有一種: 不論你教孩子什麼, 只要對國家有利就對了。 真相完全不重要。
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.
二次大戰和大屠殺的恐怖, 讓我們想起 這種思維方式的可怖後果。 但通常,當我們談到 法西斯主義的不好之處時, 我們會用無效的方式來談, 因為我們傾向會把法西斯主義 描繪成一隻可怕的怪獸, 而不會真正去解釋 它有什麼誘人之處。 這就有點像好萊塢電影 描繪這些反派的方式—— 佛地魔、索倫,或達斯維德—— 醜陋、卑鄙,且殘酷。 他們甚至對自己的支持者也很殘酷。 當我看這些電影時, 我始終無法理解, 為什麼會有人被誘惑去追隨 佛地魔這種讓人討厭的卑鄙小人? 邪惡的問題在於,在真實生活中, 邪惡的外表不見得是醜陋的。 它可能看起來十分美好。 基督教就非常清楚知道這一點, 這就是為什麼基督教藝術 和好萊塢相反, 撒旦通常被描繪成 英俊且性感的男人。 那就是為什麼要拒絕 撒旦的誘惑是很困難的, 也是為什麼要拒絕 法西斯主義的誘惑也很困難。
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.
法西斯主義讓人們 能夠感受到他們自己 隸屬於世界上最美好、 最重要的東西—— 國家。 接著,人們會想: 「嗯,他們教我們 法西斯主義是醜陋的。 但當我看向鏡子, 我看到的卻是美好的東西, 所以我不可能是法西斯主義者吧?」 錯。 那就是法西斯主義的問題。 當你看向法西斯主義的鏡子, 你看見的自己, 比實際上的還要美麗許多。 在 30 年代,當德國人 看向法西斯主義的鏡子時, 他們看到的是: 德國是世界上最美好的東西。 換到現今,若俄國人 看向法西斯主義的鏡子, 他們會看到: 俄國是世界上最美好的東西。 如果以色列人看向 法西斯主義的鏡子, 他們會看到: 以色列是世界上最美好的東西。 這並不表示我們現在 面臨到 30 年代的重演。
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.
法西斯主義和獨裁專政 有可能會回來, 但它們會以新的形式回來, 這個新的形式會和 21 世紀的 新技術現實有更多更高的相關性。 在古代的時候, 土地是世界上最重要的資產。 因此,政治都是 在努力試圖控制土地。 獨裁專政就表示所有的土地 都屬於單一統治者 或一個寡頭政治集團。 在近代,機器變得比土地更重要。 政治就變成是在努力控制機器。 而獨裁專政意味著 太多機器都被集中 在政府或少數菁英團體的手中。 現在,資料數據取代了土地和機器, 成為最重要的資產。 政治變成在努力控制資料流。 而現在的獨裁專政意味著 太多數據資料集中在政府或少數 菁英團體的手中,
The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution in information technology will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.
現在,自由民主要面對的最大危險 就是資訊科技的革命 將會讓獨裁政權變得比民主更有效。
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 世紀, 民主和資本主義打敗了 法西斯主義和共產主義, 因為民主比較擅長 處理數據和做決策。 以 20 世紀的科技, 如果要把太多數據資料 和太多權力集中在一個地方, 實在是太沒效益了。
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,自然的法則並沒有說 集中化的數據資料處理 就一定比分散式 更沒效益。 隨著人工智慧與機器學習的興起, 或許會可以在單一個地方 有效率地處理大量的資訊, 在單一個地方做所有的決策, 那麼,集中式的資料處理 就會比分散式的更有效益。 那麼,在 20 世紀, 權力主義政體的主要不利條件—— 這些政體試圖將所有資訊 集中在一個地方—— 就會變成它們最大的優勢。
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.
還有另一項科技危險, 會威脅到民主的未來, 那就是資訊科技和生物科技的合併, 這可能會創造出一種演算法, 能比我自己更了解我。 一旦有這種演算法, 一個外部系統,比如政府, 就不只是能預測我的決策, 它也能操控我的感受和情緒。 獨裁者也許無法提供我 好的健康照護, 但他能使我愛他, 而且痛恨反對派。 在這樣的發展下,民主很難生存, 因為,到頭來, 民主的基礎並不是人類的理性; 而是人類的感受。 在選舉和公民投票中, 你不會被問到:「你認為如何?」 你會被問到:「你感覺如何?」 若有人能夠有效地操控你的情緒, 民主就會變成一場情緒傀儡劇。
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.
所以,我們能做什麼, 來預防法西斯主義的再現, 以及新獨裁主義的興起? 我們最先面臨的問題 是誰控制著數據資料? 如果你是工程師, 那麼就想辦法來預防太多數據 被集中在太少數人手中。 並想辦法確保 分散式資料處理 至少要和集中式一樣有效益。 這會是民主的最佳防衛。 至於不是工程師的其他人, 我們面臨的第一個問題 就是如何不要讓我們自己被那些 控制數據資料的人給操控。
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.
自由民主的敵人有一種方法, 他們能「駭入」我們的感受中。 不是駭入我們的 電子郵件或銀行帳戶, 而是駭入我們的感受, 如恐懼、仇恨,和虛榮, 接著用這些感受 從內部將民主給兩極化並摧毀。 其實,這種方式的先驅者 就是矽谷,他們用這種方式 把產品銷售給我們。 但現在,民主的敵人 就是用同樣這種方式 把恐懼、仇恨和虛榮銷售給我們。 他們無法無中生有創造出這些感受。 所以他們開始了解 我們自己本來就有的弱點。 接著用這些弱點來對付我們。 因此,我們所有人都有責任 要去了解我們的弱點, 並確保這些弱點 不會被民主的敵人拿來當作武器。
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.
去了解我們自己的弱點, 也能協助我們避開 法西斯主義鏡子的陷阱。 如我們先前解釋過的, 法西斯主義會利用我們的虛榮。 它會讓我們認為自己 比真正的狀況還要美麗非常多。 這就是誘惑。 但如果你真的了解你自己, 你就不會落入這種諂媚奉承。 如果有人把一面鏡子擺在你眼前, 它把你所有醜陋的部分 隱藏起來,讓你覺得 鏡中的自己比真實的自己更漂亮、 更重要許多, 那就把鏡子打破。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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:哈拉瑞,謝謝你。 天哪。 真高興再次見到你。 如果我沒誤解你的意思, 你是在警告我們兩項危機。 其一是法西斯主義的 誘惑形式有可能會再現, 還有和那很相近的獨裁專政, 不見得完全是法西斯主義, 但能控制所有的數據資料。 我在納悶是否有第三項議題要關心, 這裡的一些人已經提出了這個議題, 就是,有些大企業,而非政府, 控制了所有我們的資料。 你會怎麼看它? 我們對它又該有多擔心?
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.
哈拉瑞:嗯,到頭來,企業和政府 之間並沒有太大的差別, 因為,如我剛說過的, 問題在於:誰控制了資料? 這就是真正的政府。 如果你稱它為企業或政府—— 如果是一間企業控制了資料, 它就是我們真正的政府。 所以,這個差別是表象多於實際。
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:但就某種層面來說, 至少如果是企業的話, 你還可以想像有市場機制 來把企業拉垮。 我是指,如果消費者決定 這間公司已經不是為了 消費者的利益在營運, 那確實就會打開 通往另一個市場的門。 似乎比較容易可以想像, 比如,公民起義 拉垮控制一切的政府。
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.
哈:嗯,我們還沒走到那一步, 但,如果一間企業 比你自己還了解你—— 至少它可以操控你 最深的情緒和慾望, 而你甚至不會發現—— 你會認為這就是你最真實的自己。 理論上,是的,理論上, 你可以起義對抗一間企業, 就如同,理論上, 你可以起義對抗獨裁專政。 但實際上,是極度困難的。
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:在《人類大命運: 從智人到神人》中, 你主張在這個世紀 人類有點變成了神, 可能是透過人工智慧的發展, 或是透過基因工程。 這種政治體制轉換、 崩壞的預期前景 是否會衝擊你 對於那種可能性的看法?
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.
哈:嗯,我想反而可能性會更高, 更可能會發生,且更快發生, 因為在危機的時期,人們會願意 冒他們在其他時候不願冒的險。 人們會願意嘗試 各種高風險、高獲益的技術。 所以這些類型的危機 有可能會和 20 世紀的 兩次世界大戰有相同的功能。 那兩次世界大戰大大加速了 危險新技術的發展。 同樣的狀況可能 會在 21 世紀發生。 我是指,你得要 有點瘋狂才能跑太快, 比如在基因工程方面。 但現在有越來越多瘋狂的人 主導世界上的不同國家, 所以可能性反而會更高,而非更低。
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:所以,總的來說, 哈拉瑞,你有非常獨特的遠景。 把時間向未來快轉 30 年。 你的猜測是什麼? 人類是否會以某種方式勉強渡過, 回頭看,並說:「哇, 差一點就失敗,但我們成功了!」 或者不會?
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.
哈:目前,我們都有辦法 克服過去的所有危機。 特別是,如果你去看自由民主, 你會認為現在狀況不好, 別忘了在 1938 或 1968 年時 狀況有多糟。 這其實不算什麼,只是個小危機。 但你永遠不會知道, 因為,身為歷史學家, 我知道永遠都不要 低估了人類的愚蠢。
(Laughter) (Applause)
(笑聲)(掌聲)
It is one of the most powerful forces that shape history.
那是形成歷史最強大的力量之一。
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:哈拉瑞,非常榮幸 能請你來與我們分享。 謝謝你透過虛擬旅程來到現場。 祝你在特拉維夫有個美好的夜晚。 哈拉瑞!
YNH: Thank you very much.
哈:非常謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)