about our hopes

我今天想談繁榮，

for a shared and lasting prosperity.

關於我們

And not just us,

想要維持共同繁榮的希望

but the two billion people worldwide

不僅僅是我們，

who are still chronically undernourished.

而是全世界二億

And hope actually is at the heart of this.

仍然處在營養不良狀態的人們。

In fact, the Latin word for hope

希望其實是這一切的關鍵。

is at the heart of the word prosperity.

事實上，拉丁語的希望

"Pro-speras," "speras," hope --

位於繁榮這個詞的中心。

in accordance with our hopes and expectations.

“Pro-speras,” “speras”, 希望--

The irony is, though,

與我們的希望和期待一致。

that we have cashed-out prosperity

諷刺的是

almost literally in terms of money and economic growth.

我們似乎已經把繁榮全數提領

And we've grown our economies so much

無論從金錢或經濟成長的方面看來都是如此

that we now stand

然而我們的經濟增長如此之多

in a real danger

以至於我們現在

of undermining hope --

處在一個

running down resources, cutting down rainforests,

侵蝕希望的危險處境--

spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico,

耗盡能源，砍伐森林，

changing the climate --

石油洩漏在墨西哥灣，

and the only thing that has actually

改變氣候--

remotely slowed down the relentless rise

過去的二十到三十年間唯一能夠

of carbon emissions over the last two to three decades

輕微地減緩源源不斷的

is recession.

碳排放的

And recession, of course,

就是經濟蕭條期。

isn't exactly a recipe for hope either,

經濟不景氣，當然，

as we're busy finding out.

也不是一個讓人滿懷希望的處方，

So we're caught in a kind of trap.

正如我們如今所發現的。

It's a dilemma, a dilemma of growth.

我們陷入了一種陷阱。

We can't live with it; we can't live without it.

一種困境，一種成長的困境。

Trash the system or crash the planet --

我們不能與它共存，沒有它我們也不能生存。

it's a tough choice; it isn't much of a choice.

破壞系統或是破壞這個星球。

And our best avenue of escape from this actually

這是個困難的選擇。這根本不算選擇。

is a kind of blind faith

我們逃避這些最佳的途徑實際上

in our own cleverness and technology and efficiency

是一種

and doing things more efficiently.

對我們自己的聰慧，科技和效率

Now I haven't got anything against efficiency.

以及更高效工作的盲目信仰。

And I think we are a clever species sometimes.

現在我還不反對效率。

But I think we should also just check the numbers,

有些時候我認為我們是聰明的物種。

take a reality check here.

但是我認為我們也應該核對一下數字，

So I want you to imagine a world,

審查一下現實。

in 2050, of around nine billion people,

現在我們來想像一個世界，

all aspiring to Western incomes,

在二零五零年，有九億的人，

Western lifestyles.

都有了西方的收入水平，

And I want to ask the question --

西方的生活方式。

and we'll give them that two percent hike in income, in salary each year as well,

我想問一個問題--

because we believe in growth.

我們將每年對他們的收入和工資都提高百分之二。

And I want to ask the question:

因為我們追求（經濟）成長。

how far and how fast would be have to move?

我想問這個問題：

How clever would we have to be?

我們需要行進多遠多快？

How much technology would we need in this world

我們需要有多聰明？

to deliver our carbon targets?

在這個世界上我們需要多少科學技術

And here in my chart --

來實現我們的低碳排放目標？

on the left-hand side is where we are now.

在這個圖表中

This is the carbon intensity of economic growth

左手邊的是我們現在的狀況

in the economy at the moment.

這是經濟增長與之相對應的碳排放密度

It's around about 770 grams of carbon.

在此時的經濟狀況。

In the world I describe to you,

這大約是七百七十克的碳。

we have to be right over here at the right-hand side

我用文字向你描述，

at six grams of carbon.

我們必須得達到右手邊的

It's a 130-fold improvement,

六克碳的程度。

and that is 10 times further and faster

這是一個一百三十倍的改進，

than anything we've ever achieved in industrial history.

而且這是

Maybe we can do it, maybe it's possible -- who knows?

我們在工業歷史上至今所實現的十倍的速度。

Maybe we can even go further

或許我們可以，也許是可能的--誰知道呢？

and get an economy that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere,

說不定我們能做得更好

which is what we're going to need to be doing

形成一種可以將那些碳從大氣中吸出來的經濟，

by the end of the century.

這也正是我們需要在

But shouldn't we just check first

世紀末做的事情。

that the economic system that we have

但我們難道不應該首先審視

is remotely capable of delivering

我們的經濟體制

this kind of improvement?

是否有能力達到

So I want to just spend a couple of minutes on system dynamics.

這種進步？

It's a bit complex, and I apologize for that.

因此我想要花費幾分鐘的時間在系統動力學上。

What I'll try and do, is I'll try and paraphrase it

這有些複雜，為此我表示歉意。

is sort of human terms.

我將要試圖去做的，是用人類的語言

So it looks a little bit like this.

簡單介紹一下

Firms produce goods for households -- that's us --

它看起來像這樣。

and provide us with incomes,

公司為家庭生產商品--也就是我們--

and that's even better, because we can spend those incomes

並且為我們提供收入，

on more goods and services.

這更好，因為我們可以把這些收入

That's called the circular flow of the economy.

花在更多的商品和服務上。

It looks harmless enough.

這就是經濟循環。

I just want to highlight one key feature of this system,

它看起來無害。

which is the role of investment.

我只是想強調這個體制中的一個最重要的特徵，

Now investment constitutes

也就是投資的作用。

only about a fifth of the national income

現在投資構成

in most modern economies,

僅僅大約百分之二十的國民收入

but it plays an absolutely vital role.

在大部分現代經濟中，

And what it does essentially

但是它扮演著一個絕對重要的角色。

is to stimulate further consumption growth.

基本上﹐它的作用

It does this in a couple of ways --

是刺激更多的消費增長。

chasing productivity,

它以幾種方式來達到此目的--

which drives down prices and encourages us to buy more stuff.

追求生產率，

But I want to concentrate

壓低價格並鼓勵我們買更多的東西。

on the role of investment

但是我想聚焦於

in seeking out novelty,

投資的角色

the production and consumption of novelty.

在尋求新穎，

Joseph Schumpeter called this

新事物的生產和消費。

"the process of creative destruction."

Joseph Schumpeter 稱為

It's a process of the production and reproduction of novelty,

“充滿創意的毀滅過程。”

continually chasing expanding consumer markets,

這是一個生產和再生產新事物的過程，

consumer goods, new consumer goods.

持續地尋求拓展消費者市場，

And this, this is where it gets interesting,

消費者商品，新的消費者商品。

because it turns out that human beings

並且，有趣的是

have something of an appetite for novelty.

因為它證明人類

We love new stuff --

追求新奇事物的慾望。

new material stuff for sure --

我們熱愛新東西--

but also new ideas, new adventures,

毫無疑問地新素材--

new experiences.

也包括新想法，新冒險，

But the materiality matters too,

新經驗。

because in every society

但物質性也至關重要。

that anthropologists have looked at,

因為，在每一個社會裡

material stuff

人類學者曾研究過，

operates as a kind of language --

物質

a language of goods,

猶如一種語言般的運作，

a symbolic language

一種商品語言，

that we use to tell each other stories --

一種象徵

stories, for example,

我們用它來向彼此講述故事--

about how important we are.

故事，例如，

Status-driven, conspicuous consumption

我們有多重要。

thrives from the language

身份地位驅使的，炫耀式消費

of novelty.

從這種新事物語言

And here, all of a sudden,

中滋生。

we have a system

現在，突然地，

that is locking economic structure with social logic --

我們有一個體制

the economic institutions, and who we are as people, locked together

將經濟結構用社會邏輯--

to drive an engine of growth.

經濟制度﹐和我們是怎樣的人﹐鎖在一起

And this engine is not just economic value;

以促進這個增長引擎的強度。

it is pulling material resources

這個引擎不僅僅是經濟價值；

relentlessly through the system,

它不斷地提取資源

driven by our own insatiable appetites,

持續地通過這個體制，

driven in fact by a sense of anxiety.

被我們無止境的慾望驅使，

Adam Smith, 200 years ago,

事實上是被焦慮所驅使。

spoke about our desire

亞當 斯密在兩百年前，

for a life without shame.

講到我們

A life without shame:

對“無愧一生”的慾望。

in his day, what that meant was a linen shirt,

一個無愧的人生

and today, well, you still need the shirt,

在當時﹐那這意味著亞麻布襯衫，

but you need the hybrid car,

今天，你仍然需要襯衫，

the HDTV, two holidays a year in the sun,

加上雙動力汽車

the netbook and iPad, the list goes on --

高清晰度電視，一年兩次的陽光假期

an almost inexhaustible supply of goods,

小筆電和 iPad，這個清單可以一直開下去

driven by this anxiety.

被焦慮驅使的

And even if we don't want them,

無止盡的物質

we need to buy them,

就算我們不想要

because, if we don't buy them, the system crashes.

我們也需要

And to stop it crashing

因為如果我們不買，這個體制就會崩塌。

over the last two to three decades,

為了阻止它崩塌

we've expanded the money supply,

在過去的二十到三十年中，

expanded credit and debt,

我們擴大了貨幣供應量，

so that people can keep buying stuff.

增加了貸款和負債，

And of course, that expansion was deeply implicated in the crisis.

為了使人們能夠持續不斷地買東西。

But this -- I just want to show you some data here.

當然，那些膨脹與經濟危機是有關聯性的。

This is what it looks like, essentially,

但是--我只是想在這展示一些數據。

this credit and debt system, just for the U.K.

現在就像這樣，基本上

This was the last 15 years before the crash,

這些貸款和負債體制，僅僅是英國。

and you can see there, consumer debt rose dramatically.

這是（經濟系統）崩塌前的十五年。

It was above the GDP for three years in a row

在這裡你可以看到，消費貸款急劇上升。

just before the crisis.

連續三年超過國內生產總值（注：GDP:Gross Domestic Product)

And in the mean time, personal savings absolutely plummeted.

就在經濟危機之前。

The savings ratio, net savings,

同時，個人儲蓄暴跌。

were below zero in the middle of 2008,

這些儲蓄率，淨儲蓄，

just before the crash.

在二零零八年中期是負值。

This is people expanding debt, drawing down their savings,

就在經濟危機之前。

just to stay in the game.

人們增加債務，消耗他們的儲蓄，

This is a strange, rather perverse, story,

僅僅為了留在這場遊戲之中。

just to put it in very simple terms.

這是一個奇怪的，更確切地說是有悖常理的故事，

It's a story about us, people,

用一個簡單的術語來說的話。

being persuaded

這是一個關於我們的故事，人們，

to spend money we don't have

被說服

on things we don't need

把不屬於我們的錢

to create impressions that won't last

花在我們不需要的東西上

on people we don't care about.

為了在我們不在乎的人身上

(Laughter)

創造一個不持久的印象

(Applause)

（笑聲）

But before we consign ourselves to despair,

（掌聲）

maybe we should just go back and say, "Did we get this right?

但是在我們將自己交付於絕望之前，

Is this really how people are?

我們也許應該回過頭說，“真的是這樣嗎？

Is this really how economies behave?"

人們真的是這樣的嗎？

And almost straightaway

經濟真的是這樣運作的嗎？ ”

we actually run up against a couple of anomalies.

馬上

The first one is in the crisis itself.

我們就會發現一些奇怪的事

In the crisis, in the recession, what do people want to do?

首先就是經濟危機本身。

They want to hunker down, they want to look to the future.

在經濟危機時，經濟蕭條時，人們想怎麼做？

They want to spend less and save more.

他們想節約。他們想放眼未來。

But saving is exactly the wrong thing to do

他們降低消費和增加儲蓄。

from the system point of view.

但從體制的角度來看

Keynes called this the "paradox of thrift" --

儲蓄卻是錯的

saving slows down recovery.

凱恩斯把這稱為“節儉的矛盾”--

And politicians call on us continually

儲蓄減慢經濟復甦。

to draw down more debt,

政治家們持續地號召我們

to draw down our own savings even further,

增加更多債務，

just so that we can get the show back on the road,

降低我們的儲蓄，

so we can keep this growth-based economy going.

才能夠將經濟重新引向正軌，

It's an anomaly,

才可以持續這種以增長為基礎的經濟。

it's a place where the system actually is at odds

這很奇怪，

with who we are as people.

體制和人的做法

Here's another one -- completely different one:

竟然是相反的

Why is it

這裡是另外一個（例子）-- 一個完全不同的：

that we don't do the blindingly obvious things we should do

為什麼

to combat climate change,

為什麼我們不做那些我們明顯該做的事

very, very simple things

抵抗氣候變化

like buying energy-efficient appliances,

非常，非常簡單的事情

putting in efficient lights, turning the lights off occasionally,

像是買節能家電，

insulating our homes?

安裝節能燈炮，時常地將燈熄滅，

These things save carbon, they save energy,

讓我們的房子更節能？

they save us money.

這些事情不但減碳，節約能源，

So is it that, though they make perfect economic sense,

也為我們省錢。

we don't do them?

為什麼就算這些事完全合乎經濟效益，

Well, I had my own personal insight into this

我們也不做﹖

a few years ago.

我對此有自己的見解

It was a Sunday evening, Sunday afternoon,

幾年前。

and it was just after --

那是一個星期天的傍晚，星期天下午，

actually, to be honest, too long after --

就在--

we had moved into a new house.

實際上，說實話，在--

And I had finally got around to doing some draft stripping,

我們剛剛搬進一個新家之後--

installing insulation around the windows and doors

我終於開始著手做一些擋風（設計），

to keep out the drafts.

在窗戶和門上安裝隔熱裝置

And my, then, five year-old daughter

來抵禦氣流。

was helping me in the way that five year-olds do.

當時﹐我的五歲女兒

And we'd been doing this for a while,

幫我一些五歲的小孩子所能幫的忙。

when she turned to me very solemnly and said,

我們一起做了一會兒

"Will this really keep out the giraffes?"

她轉向我 十分嚴肅地說，

(Laughter)

“這個能真的擋住長頸鹿嗎？”

"Here they are, the giraffes."

（笑聲）

You can hear the five-year-old mind working.

“你看，長頸鹿。”

These ones, interestingly, are 400 miles north of here

你能聽到一個五歲的孩子的大腦是怎樣運作的。

outside Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria.

這些，很有趣地，在距離這里四百英里北部

Goodness knows what they make of the Lake District weather.

的巴羅因弗內斯以外的坎布里亞郡。

But actually that childish misrepresentation

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）

stuck with me,

但這個稚幼的錯誤認知

because it suddenly became clear to me

讓我印象深刻

why we don't do the blindingly obvious things.

因為我突然理解

We're too busy keeping out the giraffes --

為什麼我們不去做這些顯而易見的事

putting the kids on the bus in the morning,

我們忙於阻擋這些長頸鹿--

getting ourselves to work on time,

早晨將孩子們送到公車上，

surviving email overload

準時上班

and shop floor politics,

與超載的電子郵件拼命

foraging for groceries, throwing together meals,

還有工作上 的勾心鬥角，

escaping for a couple of precious hours in the evening

在食品雜貨店尋找食物，匆匆拼湊成一頓飯，

into prime-time TV

終於在晚上擠出幾個寶貴小時

or TED online,

來看八點檔

getting from one end of the day to the other,

或TED影片

keeping out the giraffes.

一天又一天

(Laughter)

擋長頸鹿。

What is the objective?

（笑聲）

"What is the objective of the consumer?"

我們的目的是什麼？

Mary Douglas asked in an essay on poverty

“消費者的目的是什麼？”

written 35 years ago.

瑪麗道格拉斯在一篇關於貧困的文章中問道

"It is," she said,

寫於三十五年前。

"to help create the social world

“它是”她說，