but also an immense power to do harm.

但造成傷害的力量也非常大。

Any tool can be used to build or to destroy.

每種工具都可以用來建設或破壞，

That all depends on our motivation.

全都看我們的起心動念。

Therefore, it is all the more important

因此，更重要的是

to foster an altruistic motivation rather than a selfish one.

培養利他主義的心念， 而非自私自利的想法。

So now we indeed are facing many challenges in our times.

我們所在的這個時代 確實面臨許多挑戰，

Those could be personal challenges.

可能是屬於個人的挑戰，

Our own mind can be our best friend or our worst enemy.

我們的心可以成為 我們最好的朋友，或是最壞的敵人。

There's also societal challenges:

也有一些是社會上的挑戰：

poverty in the midst of plenty, inequalities, conflict, injustice.

在富足、不平等、衝突 與不正義之中的貧窮。

And then there are the new challenges, which we don't expect.

還有一些是我們沒料到的挑戰。

Ten thousand years ago, there were about five million human beings on Earth.

一萬年前，地球上大約有五百萬人。

Whatever they could do,

不管他們做什麼，

the Earth's resilience would soon heal human activities.

地球都能夠快速撫平 人類活動留下的痕跡。

After the Industrial and Technological Revolutions,

工業革命和科技革命之後，

that's not the same anymore.

一切都不同了。

We are now the major agent of impact on our Earth.

現在，我們是影響地球的主因，

We enter the Anthropocene, the era of human beings.

我們進入人類世，就是人類的世代。

So in a way, if we were to say we need to continue this endless growth,

在某種意義上，如果我們需要 這種毫無止盡的成長，

endless use of material resources,

無止盡的使用物質資源，

it's like if this man was saying --

就會像這個人說的

and I heard a former head of state, I won't mention who, saying --

──出自一位前國家元首，我不說是誰──

"Five years ago, we were at the edge of the precipice.

他說：「五年前，我們還在懸崖邊緣，

Today we made a big step forward."

今天我們向前走了一大步。」

So this edge is the same that has been defined by scientists

科學家定義這個邊緣為

as the planetary boundaries.

地球限度，

And within those boundaries, they can carry a number of factors.

這些限度包含一些要素。

We can still prosper, humanity can still prosper for 150,000 years

我們還是可以繁盛， 人類還是能繁盛 150 萬年，

if we keep the same stability of climate

只要我們維持氣候穩定，

as in the Holocene for the last 10,000 years.

就像近萬年來的全新世一樣。

But this depends on choosing a voluntary simplicity,

但這得靠我們選擇自願簡樸，

growing qualitatively, not quantitatively.

發展重質不重量。

So in 1900, as you can see, we were well within the limits of safety.

你可以看到 1900 年的時候， 我們仍生活在安全的限度中，

Now, in 1950 came the great acceleration.

到了 1950 年急遽加速。

Now hold your breath, not too long, to imagine what comes next.

現在請暫時停止呼吸， 想像接下來會如何發展。

Now we have vastly overrun some of the planetary boundaries.

現在我們已大幅超出 地球某些方面的限度了。

Just to take biodiversity, at the current rate,

拿生物多樣性為例，以現在的速度

by 2050, 30 percent of all species on Earth will have disappeared.

到了 2050 年， 地球上有 30% 的物種會消失。

Even if we keep their DNA in some fridge, that's not going to be reversible.

即使我們冰存一些 DNA， 也回不來了。

So here I am sitting

我坐在七千公尺高，

in front of a 7,000-meter-high, 21,000-foot glacier in Bhutan.

即兩萬一千呎高的不丹冰河前。

At the Third Pole, 2,000 glaciers are melting fast, faster than the Arctic.

人稱第三極的青藏高原上， 兩千條冰河快速融化，比北極還快。

So what can we do in that situation?

這種情況下我們能怎麼辦？

Well, however complex politically, economically, scientifically

雖然牽扯政治、經濟、科學的

the question of the environment is,

環境問題錯綜複雜，

it simply boils down to a question of altruism versus selfishness.

但是簡單來說，只是一個 無私對上自私的問題。

I'm a Marxist of the Groucho tendency.

我是像機智喜劇演員格魯喬的 馬克思主義者。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Groucho Marx said, "Why should I care about future generations?

演員格魯喬．馬克思曾說： 「我何必管下一代？

What have they ever done for me?"

他們幫我做過什麼事嗎？」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Unfortunately, I heard the billionaire Steve Forbes,

不幸的是，我也聽過億萬富翁富比士

on Fox News, saying exactly the same thing, but seriously.

在福斯新聞上表達同樣的觀點， 但他是認真的。

He was told about the rise of the ocean,

當時他談到海平面上升，

and he said, "I find it absurd to change my behavior today

他說：「我發現現在改變行為很可笑，

for something that will happen in a hundred years."

就為了那些百年後才會發生的事情。」

So if you don't care for future generations,

如果你不關心下一代，

just go for it.

就繼續下去吧。

So one of the main challenges of our times

我們現在最主要的挑戰

is to reconcile three time scales:

就是取得這三段時期的平衡：

the short term of the economy,

短期的經濟，

the ups and downs of the stock market, the end-of-the-year accounts;

即股市漲跌、年終結算；

the midterm of the quality of life --

中期的生活品質，

what is the quality every moment of our life, over 10 years and 20 years? --

即我們生活的每一刻、 十年二十年間的生活品質如何？

and the long term of the environment.

以及長期的環境。

When the environmentalists speak with economists,

環保人士和經濟學者交談

it's like a schizophrenic dialogue, completely incoherent.

就像是精神分裂者的對話， 完全搭不上，

They don't speak the same language.

他們的語言不通。

Now, for the last 10 years, I went around the world

近十年來，我到世界各地

meeting economists, scientists, neuroscientists, environmentalists,

和經濟學者、科學家、 神經科學家、環保人士、

philosophers, thinkers in the Himalayas, all over the place.

哲學家和思想家 在喜馬拉雅山、世界各地碰面。

It seems to me, there's only one concept

對我來說，似乎只有一個想法

that can reconcile those three time scales.

能夠取得三者的平衡，

It is simply having more consideration for others.

就是只要多考量別人一點就行。

If you have more consideration for others, you will have a caring economics,

如果你多考量別人一點， 就會有關懷的經濟學，

where finance is at the service of society

那個時候，財政是為了幫助社會，

and not society at the service of finance.

而不是社會幫助財政。

You will not play at the casino

你就不會在賭場玩，

with the resources that people have entrusted you with.

賭上那些別人交付給你的財物。

If you have more consideration for others,

如果你多考量別人一點，

you will make sure that you remedy inequality,

你就會要求自己改善不平等的情況，

that you bring some kind of well-being within society,

你就會將安康帶進社會、

in education, at the workplace.

教育和工作之中。

Otherwise, a nation that is the most powerful and the richest

否則在權力最大、最富有的國家裡，

but everyone is miserable, what's the point?

每個人都很悲哀有什麼意義？

And if you have more consideration for others,

如果你多考量別人一點，

you are not going to ransack that planet that we have

你就不會掠奪我們共有的地球，

and at the current rate, we don't have three planets to continue that way.

以現在的速度繼續下去， 我們可沒有三個地球來搞破壞。

So the question is,

問題是，

okay, altruism is the answer, it's not just a novel ideal,

好吧，利他主義是解方， 不只是不切實際的理想，

but can it be a real, pragmatic solution?

那麼利他主義可以是 更真實、務實的解方嗎？

And first of all, does it exist,

首先，世界上真的有利他主義，

true altruism, or are we so selfish?

還是我們真的都這麼自私嗎？

So some philosophers thought we were irredeemably selfish.

某些哲學家認為我們自私得無藥可救。

But are we really all just like rascals?

但難道我們真的都是無賴嗎？

That's good news, isn't it?

那還真不錯，不是嗎？

Many philosophers, like Hobbes, have said so.

許多哲學家，例如霍布斯就曾說過。

But not everyone looks like a rascal.

但不是每個人看起來都像無賴，

Or is man a wolf for man?

還是說，人都是狼心狗肺？

But this guy doesn't seem too bad.

但這個人看起來沒那麼糟，

He's one of my friends in Tibet.

他是我的西藏朋友，

He's very kind.

很友善的人。

So now, we love cooperation.

我們喜歡合作，

There's no better joy than working together, is there?

沒有比合作更快樂的事了，對吧？

And then not only humans.

而且不只是人。

Then, of course, there's the struggle for life,

當然，還是要努力求生存，

the survival of the fittest, social Darwinism.

社會達爾文主義下的適者生存。

But in evolution, cooperation -- though competition exists, of course --

但是在演化上，合作， ──雖然一定有競爭存在──

cooperation has to be much more creative to go to increased levels of complexity.

在複雜度日漸增加的情況下 要用更創新的合作方式。

We are super-cooperators and we should even go further.

我們是超級合作團隊， 應該走得更長遠。

So now, on top of that, the quality of human relationships.

在那之上是人際關係的品質。

The OECD did a survey among 10 factors, including income, everything.

經合組織曾有一項調查 針對十項因素，包含收入等等。

The first one that people said, that's the main thing for my happiness,

大家說最重要， 也是讓我快樂的主因，

is quality of social relationships.

就是人際關係的品質。

Not only in humans.

不只是人類。

And look at those great-grandmothers.

看看那些曾祖母級的長輩。

So now, this idea that if we go deep within,

有此一說，如果我們深究這個問題，

we are irredeemably selfish,

就會發現我們是無藥可救的自私鬼，

this is armchair science.

這是沒有實證的科學。

There is not a single sociological study,

從來沒有一份社會學研究、

psychological study, that's ever shown that.

心理學研究做出這種結論，

Rather, the opposite.

研究結果反而相反。

My friend, Daniel Batson, spent a whole life

我的朋友尼爾．巴特森這輩子

putting people in the lab in very complex situations.

都在實驗室裡研究 各種複雜情境中的人類。

And of course we are sometimes selfish, and some people more than others.

當然我們有時候會自私， 而且有些人特別自私。

But he found that systematically, no matter what,

但是他發現無論如何

there's a significant number of people

顯然都有一群人

who do behave altruistically, no matter what.

無論如何待人都很無私。

If you see someone deeply wounded, great suffering,

如果你看到有人 傷得很重、非常痛苦，

you might just help out of empathic distress --

你會幫忙可能只是出於同理心窘迫，

you can't stand it, so it's better to help than to keep on looking at that person.

你受不了只好幫忙， 而非只是坐視不管。

So we tested all that, and in the end, he said, clearly people can be altruistic.

我們做所有測試， 最後他說顯然人類可以無私。

So that's good news.

這是好消息。

And even further, we should look at the banality of goodness.

更進一步來說， 我們應該檢視日常的良善。

Now look at here.

就看看這裡吧，

When we come out, we aren't going to say, "That's so nice.

我們走出會場時，我們不會說： 「真是太好了，

There was no fistfight while this mob was thinking about altruism."

只要這夥人心裡惦著無私， 就沒人要打架了。」

No, that's expected, isn't it?

不對，本來就不會打架吧？

If there was a fistfight, we would speak of that for months.

這裡如果有人打架， 我們會講這個講好幾個月。

So the banality of goodness is something that doesn't attract your attention,

因此你不會注意日常平庸的良善，

but it exists.

但確實存在。

Now, look at this.

請看這段影片。

So some psychologists said,

某些心理學家說

when I tell them I run 140 humanitarian projects in the Himalayas

──我告訴他們我在喜馬拉雅山 做了 140 件博愛計畫

that give me so much joy,

讓我感到非常愉快──

they said, "Oh, I see, you work for the warm glow.

他們說：「噢，我知道， 你是為了積功德才做。

That is not altruistic. You just feel good."

那不是無私，你只是感覺好罷了。」

You think this guy, when he jumped in front of the train,

你想這個人跳到火車前面的時候，

he thought, "I'm going to feel so good when this is over?"

他會想：「一切都結束的時候 我感覺超棒」嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But that's not the end of it.

還不只這樣，

They say, well, but when you interviewed him, he said,

他們會說，喔， 如果你和他訪談，他會說：

"I had no choice. I had to jump, of course."

「我別無選擇，我當然得跳。」

He has no choice. Automatic behavior. It's neither selfish nor altruistic.

他別無選擇自然會這麼做， 和無私或博愛沒有關係。

No choice?

別無選擇？

Well of course, this guy's not going to think for half an hour,

當然，這個人不會花半小時考慮：

"Should I give my hand? Not give my hand?"

「我該伸出援手嗎？還是不要好了？」

He does it. There is a choice, but it's obvious, it's immediate.

他會做，那就是選擇， 而且顯然是立即的選擇。

And then, also, there he had a choice.

當然，牠也有選擇。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

There are people who had choice, like Pastor André Trocmé and his wife,

還有很多人做了選擇， 牧師安德烈．卓克梅夫婦

and the whole village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon in France.

和法國樂善邦的村民也是。

For the whole Second World War, they saved 3,500 Jews,

二次大戰從頭到尾， 他們救了 3,500 位猶太人，

gave them shelter, brought them to Switzerland,

提供他們避難處，帶他們到瑞士，

against all odds, at the risk of their lives and those of their family.

排除萬難，還讓全家冒生命危險。

So altruism does exist.

因此利他主義真的存在。

So what is altruism?

那什麼是利他主義？

It is the wish: May others be happy and find the cause of happiness.

那就是「願人人快樂，覓得歡喜之源」。

Now, empathy is the affective resonance or cognitive resonance that tells you,

同理是指感同身受， 或是理智的反應告訴你

this person is joyful, this person suffers.

這個人很快樂，這個人在受苦。

But empathy alone is not sufficient.

但只有同理心還不夠。

If you keep on being confronted with suffering,

如果你不斷面對受苦之人，

you might have empathic distress, burnout,

你可能會同理心到很苦惱、精疲力竭，

so you need the greater sphere of loving-kindness.

因此你需要更寬廣的仁慈。

With Tania Singer at the Max Planck Institute of Leipzig,

萊比錫馬克斯．普朗克研究所的 尼亞．辛格

we showed that the brain networks for empathy and loving-kindness are different.

讓我們知道腦部 同理和仁慈的神經不同。

Now, that's all well done,

這兩項都已經發展了，

so we got that from evolution, from maternal care, parental love,

我們從進化、母愛、親情中得到，

but we need to extend that.

但我們還需要再擴展，

It can be extended even to other species.

甚至能擴展到其他物種。

Now, if we want a more altruistic society, we need two things:

如果我們想要更無私的社會， 我們需要做到兩點：

individual change and societal change.

個人改變與社會改變。

So is individual change possible?

個人有可能改變嗎？

Two thousand years of contemplative study said yes, it is.

兩百年來研究冥想的結果是 人有可能改變。

Now, 15 years of collaboration with neuroscience and epigenetics

腦神經科學和表觀遺傳學 共同研究 15 年

said yes, our brains change when you train in altruism.

答案是肯定的， 人腦在培養利他主義時會改變。

So I spent 120 hours in an MRI machine.

我在核磁共振機裡共待了 120 小時。

This is the first time I went after two and a half hours.

這是我第一次 在裡面待了兩個半小時。

And then the result has been published in many scientific papers.

結果刊登在許多科學論文中。

It shows without ambiguity that there is structural change

研究明確顯示大腦的構造

and functional change in the brain when you train the altruistic love.

和功能會產生變化， 在你培養無私的愛之際。

Just to give you an idea:

這裡有一些資料可以參考：

this is the meditator at rest on the left,

左邊是一位冥想者在休息，

meditator in compassion meditation, you see all the activity,

冥想者在做憐憫的冥想， 你可以看到所有的腦部活動；

and then the control group at rest, nothing happened,

右邊的控制組沒有任何變化，

in meditation, nothing happened.

即使在冥想也沒有變化。

They have not been trained.

他們沒有接受過訓練。

So do you need 50,000 hours of meditation? No, you don't.

那麼你需要做五萬小時冥想嗎？ 不需要。

Four weeks, 20 minutes a day, of caring, mindfulness meditation

四週，每天二十分鐘， 慈愛、專注的冥想，

already brings a structural change in the brain compared to a control group.

就能在腦構造中產生變化， 有別於控制組。

That's only 20 minutes a day for four weeks.

每天只要花二十分鐘，連續四週。

Even with preschoolers -- Richard Davidson did that in Madison.

即使是學齡前的孩子也是， 理查德．戴維森在麥迪遜做了實驗，

An eight-week program: gratitude, loving- kindness, cooperation, mindful breathing.

八週的課程包含：感謝、 仁慈、合作、專注呼吸。

You would say, "Oh, they're just preschoolers."

你可能會說：「欸， 他們還沒讀書，很小耶。」

Look after eight weeks,

看看八週後，

the pro-social behavior, that's the blue line.

喜愛社交行為，是藍色的線。

And then comes the ultimate scientific test, the stickers test.

接著是孩童的終極科學試驗 ──貼紙試驗。

Before, you determine for each child who is their best friend in the class,

一開始，你找出誰是小朋友 班上最要好的同學，

their least favorite child, an unknown child, and the sick child,

他們最不喜歡、不認識 和反感的同學，

and they have to give stickers away.

他們要送貼紙給同學。

So before the intervention, they give most of it to their best friend.

在冥想前，他們把貼紙 給最要好的朋友。

Four, five years old, 20 minutes three times a week.

四、五歲的小孩， 一次二十分鐘，每週三次。

After the intervention, no more discrimination:

練過冥想後就沒有歧視的問題了：

the same amount of stickers to their best friend and the least favorite child.

給最好的朋友和最不喜歡的同學 一樣多的貼紙。

That's something we should do in all the schools in the world.

全世界的學校都應該做這件事。

Now where do we go from there?

那我們的下一步在哪裡？

(Applause)

（掌聲）

When the Dalai Lama heard that, he told Richard Davidson,

當達賴喇嘛聽到這件事， 他告訴理查德．戴維森：

"You go to 10 schools, 100 schools, the U.N., the whole world."

「你再去十所、百所學校， 去聯合國和全世界。」

So now where do we go from there?

那我們的下一步在哪裡？

Individual change is possible.

個人改變是有可能的。

Now do we have to wait for an altruistic gene to be in the human race?

我們需要等待利他主義的基因 出現在人類身上嗎？

That will take 50,000 years, too much for the environment.

那得等上五萬年， 環境等不了那麼久。

Fortunately, there is the evolution of culture.