I spent a week at sea on a research vessel.

我乘上一艄調查船，在海上待了一個星期

Now I'm not a scientist,

我並非科學家

but I was accompanying a remarkable scientific team

但有一個優秀的科學家團隊與我同行

from the University of South Florida

團隊成員來自南弗羅里達大學

who have been tracking the travels of BP's oil

他們正在追踪BP原油

in the Gulf of Mexico.

在墨西哥灣的流向

This is the boat we were on, by the way.

這就是我們所乘坐的那艘船

The scientists I was with

與我同行的科學團隊

were not studying the effect of the oil and dispersants on the big stuff --

並非研究原油及散油劑對大型生物的影響

the birds, the turtles,

像是對鳥類、烏龜、

the dolphins, the glamorous stuff.

海豚、其它美麗生物的影響

They're looking at the really little stuff

而是研究原油對微生物的影響

that gets eaten by the slightly less little stuff

較小的生物會吃掉微型生物

that eventually gets eaten by the big stuff.

小型生物最終會被大型生物吃掉

And what they're finding

他們的研究顯示

is that even trace amounts of oil and dispersants

極微量的原油或散油劑

can be highly toxic to phytoplankton,

對浮游植物來說都是劇毒

which is very bad news,

這是個很糟的消息

because so much life depends on it.

因為很多生物都以浮游植物為生

So contrary to what we heard a few months back

所以不同於我們數月前聽到的-

about how 75 percent of that oil

也就是75%的原油

sort of magically disappeared

神奇似的消失了

and we didn't have to worry about it,

我們用不著再擔心-

this disaster is still unfolding.

事實上，災難還在持續擴散

It's still working its way up the food chain.

災難正沿著食物鏈向上延伸

Now this shouldn't come as a surprise to us.

我們不該以此感到訝異

Rachel Carson --

瑞秋．卡森

the godmother of modern environmentalism --

現代環保之母

warned us about this very thing

很早就警告過我們

back in 1962.

早在1962年之時

She pointed out that the "control men" --

卡森指出她稱為

as she called them --

環境控制者的人

who carpet-bombed towns and fields

污染了城鎮及田野的各個角落

with toxic insecticides like DDT,

他們噴灑DDT之類的毒性殺蟲劑

were only trying to kill the little stuff, the insects,

是為了除掉昆蟲之類的小型生物

not the birds.

本非為了除掉鳥類

But they forgot this:

但他們忘了：

the fact that birds dine on grubs,

鳥類以幼蟲為食

that robins eat lots of worms

知更鳥所吃下的蚯蚓

now saturated with DDT.

體內都累積了大量DDT

And so, robin eggs failed to hatch,

結果導致知更鳥的蛋無法孵化

songbirds died en masse,

歌聲悠揚的鳥兒大量死亡

towns fell silent.

城鎮因而變得安靜

Thus the title "Silent Spring."

因此卡森寫書名為《寂靜的春天》

I've been trying to pinpoint

我一直試圖解釋

what keeps drawing me back to the Gulf of Mexico,

是什麼不斷吸引我回到墨西哥灣

because I'm Canadian,

我是加拿大人

and I can draw no ancestral ties.

祖先並非來自墨西哥灣

And I think what it is

我想自己不斷回來

is I don't think we have fully come to terms

是因為我認為大家尚未真正理解

with the meaning of this disaster,

這場災難的影響

with what it meant to witness a hole

親見大地被撕裂

ripped in our world,

究竟代表什麼

with what it meant to watch the contents of the Earth

看見原油從地底衝出

gush forth on live TV,

在電視上被實況轉播

24 hours a day,

每天24小時

for months.

數月如此，究竟代表什麼

After telling ourselves for so long

長久以來，我們告訴自己

that our tools and technology can control nature,

工具及科技可以控制大自然

suddenly we were face-to-face

突然之間，我們必須面對

with our weakness,

自己的軟弱

with our lack of control,

我們束手無策

as the oil burst out

看著原油由地底衝出

of every attempt to contain it --

就算用盡方法也無法阻止油漏-

"top hats," "top kills"

試圖「蓋頂」、「封頂」

and, most memorably, the "junk shot" --

以及最讓人難忘的，投擲「垃圾彈」--

the bright idea

這個天才法子

of firing old tires and golf balls

要發射廢棄輪胎及高爾夫球

down that hole in the world.

堵住地底的漏洞

But even more striking

但比起那股由地底上衝的力量

than the ferocious power emanating from that well

更加駭人的是

was the recklessness

人們的魯莽、輕率

with which that power was unleashed --

輕率所帶來的

the carelessness, the lack of planning

是粗心大意、缺乏計劃

that characterized the operation

計劃整個草率進行

from drilling to clean-up.

從鑽油到清理油污都是如此

If there is one thing

如果我們從 BP

BP's watery improv act made clear,

缺乏實質的改進計劃學到些什麼

it is that, as a culture,

那就是，在現今的文化下

we have become far too willing to gamble

我們總是肆無忌憚地下注

with things that are precious

賭的是我們最寶貴的資產

and irreplaceable,

無法替代的資產

and to do so without a back-up plan,

但我們並沒有後備計劃

without an exit strategy.

也沒有退出策略

And BP was hardly

此外，BP事件

our first experience of this in recent years.

也並非近年來的首見

Our leaders barrel into wars,

我們的領袖一頭鑽進戰爭

telling themselves happy stories

卻用美好的故事自我催眠

about cakewalks and welcome parades.

想像著閱兵儀式及迎軍遊行

Then, it is years of deadly damage control,

但接下來卻是數年的災害控制

Frankensteins of sieges and surges

無數城鎮被封鎖，各地興起反叛勢力

and counter-insurgencies,

只得再次鎮壓反叛勢力

and once again, no exit strategy.

同樣，我們沒有退出的策略

Our financial wizards routinely fall victim

而聰明的金融界人士，一再地

to similar overconfidence,

因過度自信而失腳

convincing themselves that the latest bubble

他們一再說服自己，這次的泡沫

is a new kind of market --

代表一種新型市場

the kind that never goes down.

而這新的市場絕不會垮

And when it inevitably does,

直到泡沫化真的發生

the best and the brightest

那些最優秀、最聰明的人

reach for the financial equivalent of the junk shot --

求助於金融界的「垃圾彈」--

in this case, throwing massive amounts

意即，要將大眾急需的公款

of much-needed public money

大量投擲到

down a very different kind of hole.

一個很不一樣的漏洞

As with BP, the hole does get plugged,

與 BP 一樣，洞是被封住了

at least temporarily,

至少暫時封住了

but not before

但至此

exacting a tremendous price.

已付出巨額代價

We have to figure out

我們必須想想清楚

why we keep letting this happen,

為何讓同樣的事一再發生

because we are in the midst

因為現今所處的時期

of what may be our highest-stakes gamble of all --

要求我們拿出或許是最高額的賭注：

deciding what to do, or not to do,

決定要對氣候變遷

about climate change.

做什麼，或不做什麼

Now as you know,

如你所知

a great deal of time is spent,

美國以及世界各國

in this country and around the world,

已花了許多時間

inside the climate debate,

討論氣候議題

on the question of, "What if the IPC scientists

也不斷在問，如果政府間氣候變遷小組的科學家

are all wrong?"

都錯了呢？

Now a far more relevant question --

再說一個更為要緊的問題--

as MIT physicist Evelyn Fox Keller puts it --

就是 MIT 物理學家 Evelyn Fox Keller 所問的 --

is, "What if those scientists are right?"

若是氣候變遷科學家都說對了呢？

Given the stakes, the climate crisis

由於影響深遠，針對氣候問題

clearly calls for us to act

我們必須立即採取行動

based on the precautionary principle --

行動應本於預防為主的原則上

the theory that holds

預防原則說

that when human health and the environment

當人類健康及環境

are significantly at risk

受到極大威脅

and when the potential damage is irreversible,

且潛在的傷害將無法逆轉時

we cannot afford to wait

我們就不能等待--

for perfect scientific certainty.

期待見到科學確據才行動

Better to err on the side of caution.

寧可謹慎也不要後悔

More overt, the burden of proving

再來，談到舉證責任

that a practice is safe

一項行動是否安全

should not be placed on the public that would be harmed,

不該由可能受行動傷害的公眾來證明

but rather on the industry that stands to profit.

而應該由可能從中獲利的產業來證明

But climate policy in the wealthy world --

但富裕世界的氣候政策 --

to the extent that such a thing exists --

如果這政策真的存在的話 --

is not based on precaution,

並不是基於預防原則

but rather on cost-benefit analysis --

而是基於成本效益分析 --

finding the course of action that economists believe

所尋找的行動方案，是經濟學家認為

will have the least impact

對國家生產總額

on our GDP.

影響最小的方案

So rather than asking, as precaution would demand,

因此不像預防原則所問的

what can we do as quickly as possible

我們可以儘快採取那些行動

to avoid potential catastrophe,

以預防可能的災難

we ask bizarre questions like this:

我們反而問奇怪的問題，像是：

"What is the latest possible moment we can wait

現狀最久可以維持到什麼時候

before we begin seriously lowering emissions?

然後才需要認真的降低排放量？

Can we put this off till 2020,

可以維持到2020

2030, 2050?"

2030, 2050?

Or we ask,

或著我們會問：

"How much hotter can we let the planet get

地球溫度還可上升幾度

and still survive?

而人類可同時存活？

Can we go with two degrees, three degrees, or --

可再加上2度、3度，或是--

where we're currently going --

現在是說--

four degrees Celsius?"

可再上升4度？

And by the way,

順便一提

the assumption that we can safely control

我們假設自己可以安全地控制

the Earth's awesomely complex climate system

地球絕妙複雜的氣候系統

as if it had a thermostat,

好似地球有個恆溫器

making the planet not too hot, not too cold,

可將它調整到不太熱、不太冷

but just right -- sort of Goldilocks style --

剛剛好的溫度、恰好適合居住的溫度

this is pure fantasy,

這純粹是幻想

and it's not coming from the climate scientists.

這種想法並非出自氣候科學家

It's coming from the economists

而是來自於經濟學家

imposing their mechanistic thinking

經濟學家將機械性的思考

on the science.

運用於科學上

The fact is that we simply don't know

事實是我們根本不知道

when the warming that we create

我們所造成的暖化

will be utterly overwhelmed

何時會因為循環作用

by feedback loops.

使得地球無法負荷

So once again,

所以我再問

why do we take these crazy risks

為何我們拿最寶貴的東西

with the precious?

下這場賭注呢？

A range of explanations

一連串的解釋

may be popping into your mind by now,

可能正從你腦海中冒出

like "greed."

像是貪婪

This is a popular explanation, and there's lots of truth to it,

許多人都如此解釋，而當中也不乏道理

because taking big risks, as we all know,

因為我們都知道，承擔極大風險

pays a lot of money.

會帶來極大的利益

Another explanation that you often hear for recklessness

大家常為輕率所做的另一個解釋

is hubris.

是傲慢

And greed and hubris

貪婪以及傲慢

are intimately intertwined

兩者時常如影隨形

when it comes to recklessness.

特別是在談到輕率之時

For instance, if you happen to be a 35-year-old banker

例如，如果你恰巧是一位35歲的銀行家

taking home 100 times more

所賺取的收入

than a brain surgeon,

是腦外科醫師的100倍之多

then you need a narrative,

那你就需要使用敘事技巧

you need a story

並需要一個故事

that makes that disparity okay.

讓收入差距合理化

And you actually don't have a lot of options.

而事實上，你沒有太多選擇

You're either an incredibly good scammer,

你要不是技術高超的騙子

and you're getting away with it -- you gamed the system --

厲害到可以瞞天過海、掌握全局

or you're some kind of boy genius,

要不就最好是個天才小子

the likes of which the world has never seen.

且是全世界都沒見過的那種

Now both of these options -- the boy genius and the scammer --

而這兩種呢--天才或騙子--

are going to make you vastly overconfident

都會讓你變得過分自信

and therefore more prone

也因此更有可能

to taking even bigger risks in the future.

在未來冒更大的風險

By the way, Tony Hayward, the former CEO of BP,

順帶一提，BP 的前總裁東尼．海沃德

had a plaque on his desk

在他桌上有一銘牌

inscribed with this inspirational slogan:

上面刻了這段引人發省的標語：

"What would you attempt to do

「如果你知道自己不會失敗，

if you knew you could not fail?"

那你會嘗試做什麼事？」

Now this is actually a popular plaque,

這銘牌倒是挺流行的

and this is a crowd of overachievers,

喜歡的人各個野心勃勃

so I'm betting that some of you have this plaque.

我猜你們當中也有人有這銘牌

Don't feel ashamed.

別感到羞愧

Putting fear of failure out of your mind

將害怕失敗的心情拋諸腦後

can be a very good thing

可以是一件好事

if you're training for a triathlon

像是當你在接受鐵人三項之時

or preparing to give a TEDTalk,

或當你在準備 TEDTalk 之時

but personally, I think people with the power

但我個人認為，這些人擁有強大權利

to detonate our economy and ravage our ecology

可以對經濟及生態造成破壞

would do better having

他們的牆上若有伊卡魯斯的畫像

a picture of Icarus hanging from the wall,

或許會成就更好的事

because -- maybe not that one in particular --

因為--未必一定要掛伊卡魯斯的畫像--

but I want them thinking about the possibility of failure

但我要他們想想失敗的可能性

all of the time.

無論何時都想到那可能性

So we have greed,

所以我們都同意

we've got overconfidence/hubris,

我們都變得過分自信/傲慢

but since we're here at TEDWomen,

但既然我們來參與 TEDWomen

let's consider one other factor

可以一同想想有什麼做法

that could be contributing in some small way

或許可以貢獻一點微小力量

to societal recklessness.

來抗衡社會的輕率魯莽

Now I'm not going to belabor this point,

接下來這點，我不會說明過多

but studies do show that, as investors,

不過據研究顯示，同為投資人

women are much less prone

女性比起男性

to taking reckless risks than men,

較少輕率地冒風險

precisely because, as we've already heard,

這是因為，就如我們所知的

women tend not to suffer from overconfidence

女性不會像男性那樣

in the same way that men do.

過度地自我膨脹

So it turns out

所以我們發現

that being paid less and praised less

獲得較少的薪資及讚美

has its upsides --

其實是有好處的--

for society at least.

至少對社會而言是如此

The flipside of this

反之

is that constantly being told

不斷聽到他人對你說

that you are gifted, chosen

你有天賦，是萬中選一的人才

and born to rule

生來就要統御他人

has distinct societal downsides.

這種說法對社會有害

And this problem -- call it the "perils of privilege" --

且會產生問題--稱其為特權的危害--

brings us closer, I think,

但我認為，也會讓我們了解

to the root of our collective recklessness.

眾人行為輕率的根本原因

Because none of us -- at least in the global North --

因為我們當中所有人--至少在北半球--

neither men nor women,

不管男女

are fully exempt from this message.

多少都受自我吹捧的言辭影響

Here's what I'm talking about.

我所要談的就是這個

Whether we actively believe them

不管我們是相信自我吹捧的言辭

or consciously reject them,

或有意識的拒絕

our culture remains in the grips

我們的文化依舊相信

of certain archetypal stories

一些典型的故事

about our supremacy

當中講述我們如何優秀

over others and over nature --

比他人或大自然還要優秀

the narrative of the newly discovered frontier

故事講述一個新天新地

and the conquering pioneer,

由拓荒者所征服

the narrative of manifest destiny,

這是一個關於天命的故事

the narrative of apocalypse and salvation.

關於末日與救贖的故事

And just when you think these stories are fading into history,