So, this is the first and the last slide

這是我上課時的第一張 也是最後一張投影片，

each of my 6,400 students over the last 15 years has seen.

過去十五年間，我的 6,400 名學生都看過。

I do not believe you can build a multibillion-dollar organization

我不相信你能建立起 數十億元的組織，

unless you are clear on which instinct or organ you are targeting.

除非你清楚你的目標 是哪一種本能或器官。

Our species has a need for a superbeing.

我們人類對神明是有所求的。

Our competitive advantage as a species is our brain.

人類這物種的競爭優勢就是頭腦，

Our brain is robust enough to ask these really difficult questions,

我們的頭腦夠健全， 能問真正有難度的問題，

but, unfortunately, it doesn't have the processing power to answer them,

遺憾的是，它並沒有足夠的處理能力 來解答這些有難度的問題，

which creates a need for a superbeing

於是就產生了對神明的需求。

that we can pray to and look to for answers.

我們可以向神明禱告並請求答案。

What is prayer?

禱告是什麼？

Sending a query into the universe,

就是把問題發送到宇宙中，

and hopefully there's some sort of divine intervention --

盼望能有某尊神明顯靈。

we don't need to understand what's going on --

我們不需要了解發生什麼事，

from an all-knowing, all-seeing superbeing

只要等待這位全知、全見的神明，

that gives us authority that this is the right answer.

告訴我們這就是權威的正確答案。

"Will my kid be all right?"

比如你會問神明： 「我的孩子會好起來嗎？」

You have your planet of stuff,

你有一大堆雜事、

you have your planet of work,

一大堆工作要做，

you have your planet of friends.

你有一堆朋友。

If you have kids,

如果你有孩子，

you know that once something comes off the rails with your kids,

你就能理解，一旦孩子脫離正軌，

everything melts,

一切都會被打亂。

in your universe to the Sun that is your kids.

在你的宇宙中，你的孩子是太陽。

"Will my kid be all right?"

「我的孩子會好起來嗎？」

"Symptoms and treatment of croup" in the Google query box.

你會跑去谷歌搜尋： 「喉炎的症狀與療法」。

One in six queries presented to Google have never been asked before

谷歌搜尋的問題中，每六則就有一則

in the history of mankind.

是人類史上從來沒被問過的。

What priest, teacher, rabbi, scholar, mentor, boss has so much credibility

有哪位牧師、老師、拉比、 學者、導師、老闆

that one in six questions posed to that person

能回答這六分之一從未被問過的問題

have never been asked before?

並且給出足夠令人信服的答案？

Google is our modern man's God.

谷歌就是我們現代人的神。

Imagine your face and your name above everything you've put into that box,

想像你的臉和你的名字 高於一切你敲進搜尋盒子的內容，

and you're going to realize you trust Google more than any entity

你會意識到你相信谷歌

in your history.

勝過相信歷史上的任何實體。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Let's move further down the torso.

讓我們沿著軀幹繼續往下看。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

One of the other wonderful things about our species

另一件關於我們人類的妙事是

is we not only need to be loved, but we need to love others.

我們不只需要被愛， 我們還需要愛別人。

Children with poor nutrition but a lot of affection

營養不足但內心有愛的孩子，

have better outcomes than children with good nutrition and poor affection.

會比營養充足但內心 沒什麼愛的孩子長得好。

However, the best signal that you might make it

然而，有三種最好的信號

to be part of the number-one fastest growing demographic in the world --

可以顯示你可能成功地

centenarians, people who live to triple digits --

加入了世界上成長最快速的人群──

there are three signals.

百歲人瑞，歲數有三位數的人── 有三種信號。

In reverse order: your genetics -- not as important as you'd like to think,

我們倒著來看： 「基因」沒有你認為的那麼重要，

so you can continue to treat your body like shit

所以你可以繼續糟踏你的身體，

and think, "Oh, Uncle Joe lived to 95,

然後心想：「喔， 喬叔活到 95 歲已成定局。」

the die have been cast."

基因沒你想的那麼重要。

It's less important than you think.

第二項是「生活方式」。

Number two is lifestyle.

別抽煙、別過胖、預先篩檢，

Don't smoke, don't be obese, and prescreen --

這樣能避免三分之二的早期癌症

get rid of about two-thirds of early cancers

以及心血管疾病。

and cardiovascular disease.

你會活到百歲的首項指標、信號是：

The number one indicator or signal that you'll make it to triple digits:

「你愛多少人」。

How many people do you love?

關懷就好比是一種監控鏡頭，

Caretaking is the security camera --

它是我們腦中的低解析度監控鏡頭

we call the low-resolution security camera in our brain --

關懷別人決定了你是否會多活幾年。

deciding whether or not you are adding value.

臉書正是利用這點，

Facebook taps into our instinctive need not only to be loved,

我們不只是需要被愛， 也需要關愛他人，

but to love others,

臉書多半透過照片來引起共鳴、

mostly through pictures that create empathy,

催化，並鞏固我們之間的關係。

catalyze and reinforce our relationships.

我們再繼續向軀幹更下方前進。

Let's continue our journey down the torso.

亞馬遜直擊我們的消費本能。

Amazon is our consumptive gut.

渴望擁有更多是我們的內在本性。

The instinct of more is hardwired into us.

擁有太少的懲罰 是餓肚子和營養不良。

The penalty for too little is starvation and malnutrition.

但打開你的食櫥、衣櫃，你會發現，

Open your cupboards, open your closets,

你所擁有的東西超過 你需要的十倍到百倍。

you have 10 to 100x times what you need.

為什麼？

Why?

因為擁有太少的懲罰 遠遠超過擁有更多的。

Because the penalty for too little is much greater

所以「用更少的錢買更多」 是永遠不會過時的商業策略。

than the penalty for too much.

採用該策略的有中國、

So "more for less" is a business strategy that never goes out of style.

有沃爾瑪，

It's the strategy of China,

還有世界上最成功的企業：

it's a the strategy of Walmart,

亞馬遜。

and now it's the strategy of the most successful company in the world,

你把「用更少的錢買更多」變成直覺，

Amazon.

將之內化到你那消費的 肌肉和骨骼系統中。

You get more for less into your gut;

再向前進一步，

digest, send it to your muscular and skeletal system of consumption.

一旦我們解決了生存的問題，

Moving further,

我們就會去運用第二強大的本能，

once we know we will survive, the basic instinct,

也就是去散播、篩選

we move to the second most powerful instinct,

最強壯、最聰明、最快速的種子， （註：指配對、傳宗接代）

and that is to spread and select the strongest, smartest and fastest seed

到地球各地，

to the four corners of the earth,

或是撿起最好的種子。

or pick the best seed.

這不是一個時鐘。

This is not a timepiece.

我有五年沒有給它上發條了。

I haven't wound it in five years.

這是我徒然的嘗試，想對人們說：

It's my vain attempt to say to people,

「如果你和我配對，會比 和戴著斯沃琪手錶的人配對

"If you mate with me, your children are more likely to survive

生下更有可能生存的孩子。」

than if you mate with someone wearing a Swatch watch."

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

做生意的關鍵在於利用 不理性的器官，

The key to business is tapping into the irrational organs.

「不理性」是哈佛商學院 和紐約商學院的用語，

"Irrational" is Harvard Business School's and New York Business School's term

指的是豐厚的利潤和股東價值。

for fat profit margins and shareholder value.

「給你的孩子高熱量的醬料。」

"High-caloric paste for your children."

不要？

No?

你愛你挑剔的老媽。

You love your choosy mom.

為什麼挑剔的老媽選 Jif 花生醬：你更愛你的孩子。

Why choosy moms choose Jif: you love your kids more.

從二次大戰之後到谷歌出現之間，

The greatest algorithm for shareholder creation from World War II

最偉大的股東創造演算法，

to the advent of Google

就是拿普通的產品來迎合人們內心。

was taking an average product and appealing to people's hearts.

你可以當個較好的母親、 較好的人、較愛國的人，

You're a better a mom, a better person, a better patriot

只要你購買的是這個普通肥皂， 而非那個普通肥皂。

if you buy this average soap versus this average soap.

如今股東價值第一的演算法 並不是科技。

Now, the number one algorithm for shareholder value isn't technology.

看看福布斯四百富豪。

Look at the Forbes 400.

去掉繼承的財富，去掉金融業，

Take out inherited wealth, take out finance.

創造財富第一名的來源：

The number one source of wealth creation:

迎合你的生殖器官。

appealing to your reproductive organs.

路威酩軒集團的勞德 是歐洲最有錢的人。

The Lauders; the number one wealthiest man in Europe, LVMH.

第二名和第三名：H&M 、印地紡。

Numbers two and three: H&M and Inditex.

你會想要把股東價值目標 設定在最不理性的器官上。

You want to target the most irrational organs for shareholder value.

因此，這四間公司 蘋果、亞馬遜、臉書、谷歌，

As a result, these four companies -- Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google --

讓我們與自我脫節了。

have disarticulated who we are.

神、愛、消費、性愛。

God, love, consumption, sex.

你接觸這些東西的比例， 決定了你是什麼樣的人。

The proportion in your approach to those things is who you are,

這些東西以逐利公司的形式， 將我們變成另一種樣貌。

and they have reassembled who we are in the form of for-profit companies.

經濟大衰退晚期，

At the end of the Great Recession,

這些公司的總市值已經等同 尼日的國內生產總值。

the market capitalization of these companies was equivalent

現在他們的總市值已等同 印度的國內生產總值，

to the GDP of Niger.

且在 2013、2014 年 便已超越俄羅斯和加拿大。

Now it is equivalent to the GDP of India,

現在只有五個國家

having blown past Russia and Canada in '13 and '14.

能在國內生產總值上超過

There are only five nations

那四間公司的總市值。

that have a GDP greater than the combined market capitalization

不過，某事正在發生。

of these four firms.

一年前，人們的對話還是： 哪個執行長更像聖人？

Something is happening, though.

誰要競選總統？

The conversation just a year ago was, which CEO was more Jesus-like?

現在，風向變了。

Who was running for president?

他們所做的一切都困擾著我們。

Now the worm has turned.

我們會擔心他們企圖避稅。

Everything they're doing is bothering us.

從經濟大衰退開始算， 沃爾瑪已經繳了 640 億美金

We're worried they're tax avoiders.

用以支付公司所得稅；

Walmart, since the Great Recession, has paid 64 billion dollars

亞馬遜付了 14 億。

in corporate income tax;

我們怎麼養得起 消防人員、軍人還有社工？

Amazon has paid 1.4.

如果這些世界上最成功的公司 不付他們應當付的錢？

How do we pay our firefighters, our soldiers and our social workers

很簡單，這意味著

if the most successful companies in the world don't pay their fair share?

那些沒那麼成功的公司 必須付出比他們應付的更多的稅錢。

Pretty easy.

Alexa，這樣好嗎？

That means the less successful companies have to pay

這還沒算──

more than their fair share.

（笑聲）

Alexa, is this a good thing?

這還沒算

This is despite that fact --

亞馬遜的市值增長了 一整個沃爾瑪的市值，

(Laughter)

就在過去的 19 個月中。

This is despite the fact

這是誰的錯？是我們的錯。

that Amazon has added the entire market capitalization of Walmart

我們選出的管理者沒有骨氣

to its market cap in the last 19 months.

真去追查這些公司。

Whose fault is it? It's our fault.

臉書對歐盟管理者說謊，

We're electing regulators who don't have the backbone

臉書說：「我們不可能

to actually go after these companies.

在核心平台與我們的想要收購的對象 WhatsApp 之間分享資料。

Facebook lies to EU regulators

同意併購吧。」

and says, "It would be impossible for us to share the data

歐盟同意了併購案。

between our core platform and our proposed acquisition of WhatsApp.

然後爆雷了！他們發現了真相。

Approve the merger."

歐盟就說：「我覺得被騙了。

They approve the merger and then -- spoiler alert! -- they figure it out.

要罰你 1.2 億美金。」 （註：1.1 億歐元，1.22 億美金）

And the EU says, "I feel lied to.

罰金約是收購價 190 億的 0.6%。

We're fining you 120 billion dollars,"

若馬克·祖克柏花收購價的 0.6% 買個保險，

about .6 percent of the acquisition price of 19 billion dollars.

就能讓收購案安然通過，

If Mark Zuckerberg could take out an insurance policy

難道他會不做嗎？

that the acquisition would go through for .6 percent,

這是反競爭的行為。

wouldn't he do it?

25 億美金的罰款、

Anticompetitive behavior.

30 億的現金流量，

A two-and-a-half-billion-dollar fine,

只佔谷歌財務狀況表上的 3％。

three billion of the cash flow,

我們告訴這些公司的是：

three percent of the cash on Google's balance sheet.

「聰明的做法、

We are telling these companies, "The smart thing to do,

以股東利益為導向的做法，

the shareholder-driven thing to do,

就是要說謊、要作弊。」

is to lie and to cheat."

我們正用每小時耗資 100 美元的測量儀，

We are issuing 25-cent parking tickets

發行價值美金 25 分的停車券。

on a meter that costs 100 dollars an hour.

聰明的做法就是說謊。

The smart thing to do is lie.

沒工作啦！

Job destruction!

亞馬遜只需要 1 位員工時， 梅西百貨公司需要 2 位。

Amazon only needs one person for two at Macy's.

若亞馬遜今年銷售成長 200 億， 他們很可能會達成這數字，

If they grow their business 20 billion dollars this year, which they will,

我們就會少掉 53,000 位 收銀員和店員。

we will lose 53,000 cashiers and clerks.

這事很常見；

This is nothing unusual;

這在我們的經濟體中到處發生，

this has happened all through our economy,

我們只是沒見過 如此善於這樣操作的公司。

we've just never seen companies this good at it.

那些丟掉工作的人的數量 可以塞滿整個洋基球場。

That's one Yankee Stadium of workers.

媒體業的情況更糟。

It's even worse in media.

若臉書和谷歌今年的營業額 成長 220 億美元，

If Facebook and Google grow their businesses

他們會達到這數字，

22 billion dollars this year, which they will,

我們就會少掉大約 150,000 位創意主管、

we're going to lose approximately 150,000 creative directors,

規劃師和文案人員。

planners and copywriters.

我們又能塞滿兩個半洋基球場，

Or we can fill up two-and-a-half Yankee Stadiums

說：「感謝亞馬遜，你們失業啦。」

and say, "You are out of work, courtesy of Amazon."

我們現在主要從社群媒體接收消息，

We now get the majority of our news from our social media feeds,

而社群媒體最多的訊息就是⋯⋯

and the majority of our news coming off of social media feeds is ...

假消息。

fake news.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

我不能在課堂上談政治、罵髒話，

I am not allowed to be political or use curse words,

或談宗教，

or talk about religion in class,

所以我當然也不能說：

so I can definitely not say,

「祖克柏已經成為普京的婊子。」

"Zuckerberg has become Putin's bitch."

我絕對不能說這話。

I definitely cannot say that.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

他們的辯解：

Their defense:

「臉書不是媒體公司，是科技公司。」

"Facebook is not a media company; it's a technology company."

你寫出了原創的內容，

You create original content,

你付錢給運動聯盟取得原創的內容，

you pay sports leagues to give you original content,

你與它對立刊登廣告── 賓果！你就是個媒體公司。

you run advertising against it -- boom! -- you're a media company.

就在幾天前，

Just in the last few days,

雪柔·桑德伯格又重述了這個謊言： 「我們不是媒體公司。」

Sheryl Sandberg has repeated this lie, that "We are not a media company."

臉書公開擁抱名人帶來的利潤，

Facebook has openly embraced the margins of celebrity

以及媒體公司的影響力，

and the influence of a media company

但卻似乎對

yet seems to be allergic to the responsibilities

媒體公司應負的責任很感冒。

of a media company.

用麥當勞來想像看看。

Imagine McDonald's.

我們發現它們 80% 的牛肉是假的，

We find 80 percent of their beef is fake,

會讓我們得腦炎，

and it's giving us encephalitis,

我們在做可怕的決定。

and we're making terrible decisions.

我們說：「麥當勞，我們很生氣！」

And we say, "McDonald's, we're pissed off!"

麥當勞說：「等等、等等──

And they say, "Wait, wait --

我們不是速食餐廳，

we're not a fast-food restaurant,

我們是速食平台。」

we're a fast-food platform."

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

這些公司及他們的那些執行長

These companies and CEOs wrap themselves

將自己用霓虹藍、粉色、彩虹 和藍色的布將自己包裝起來，

in a neon-blue pink rainbow and blue blanket

為他們每日的行為製造出一種幻覺，

to create an illusionist trick from their behavior each day,

更像是黑武士和艾因·蘭德的產物。 （註：星際大戰角色；哲學家、小說家）

which is more indicative of the spawn of Darth Vader and Ayn Rand.

為什麼？我們進步論者 看起來很好但很弱。

Why? Because we as progressives are seen as nice but weak.

若雪柔·桑德伯格寫書討論擁槍權

If Sheryl Sandberg had written a book on gun rights

或討論反墮胎運動，

or on the pro-life movement,

她會因此被吹捧去坎城嗎？

would they be flying Sheryl to Cannes?

不會。

No.

我不是在質疑他們的進步價值觀，

And I'm not doubting their progressive values,

但它符合股東價值利益，

but it foots to shareholder value,

我們被視為虛弱的進步論者。

because we as progressives are seen as weak.

他們真好──還記得微軟嗎？

They're so nice -- remember Microsoft?

當時他們看似沒那麼好，

They didn't seem as nice,

而當時的監管者 比現在的監管者更早介入，

and regulators stepped in much earlier than the regulators now,

現在的監管者絕不會介入 那些看似很好、很好的人們。

who would never step in on those nice, nice people.

我今天晚上要搭飛機，

I'm about to get on a plane tonight,

運輸安全管理局有個 叫羅伊的傢伙會騷擾我。

and I'm going to have a guy named Roy from TSA molest me.

若我在回家的路上被懷疑酒醉駕駛，

If I am suspected of a DUI on the way home,

我可能會遭到驗血。

I can have blood taken from my person.

但慢著！不要檢查我的 iPhone，

But wait! Don't tap into the iPhone --

iPhone 是很神聖的。

it's sacred.

這就是我們現在的十字架。

This is our new cross.

我們不應該講 iPhone X，

It shouldn't be the iPhone X,