Let's talk about

我們來談談「億」吧

past and future billions.

我們來談談

We know

過去和未來的「億」

that about 106 billion people

眾所皆知

have ever lived.

在地球上生活過的人

And we know that most of them are dead.

有一千零六十億

And we also know

當然大多數人已經不在人世了

that most of them live or lived in Asia.

我們還知道

And we also know

他們大多數人生活在或曾經生活在亞洲

that most of them were or are very poor --

我們還知道

did not live for very long.

他們大多數人非常貧窮

Let's talk about billions.

壽命不長

Let's talk about

我們來談談「億」

the 195,000 billion dollars of wealth

我們來談談

in the world today.

現今世界

We know that most of that wealth

高達195萬億美金的財富

was made after the year 1800.

這些財富大部分

And we know that most of it

是從1800年開始創造出來的

is currently owned

而現在這些財富的

by people we might call Westerners:

主要擁有者

Europeans, North Americans, Australasians.

都是西方人

19 percent of the world's population today,

歐洲人、北美人和澳洲人

Westerners own two-thirds of its wealth.

只佔了世界人口百分之十九的西方人

Economic historians

卻擁有了全球三分之二的財富

call this "The Great Divergence."

經濟歷史學家

And this slide here

稱之為「大分流」

is the best simplification

這張投影片

of the Great Divergence story

最能讓我

I can offer you.

簡單說明

It's basically two ratios

「大分流」的故事

of per capita GDP,

上面是兩個

per capita gross domestic product,

平均每人的GDP比率

so average income.

也就是每人平均國內生產總值

One, the red line,

平均收入

is the ratio of British to Indian

紅線的部分

per capita income.

是代表英國人和印度人

And the blue line

每人平均收入的比

is the ratio of American to Chinese.

藍線則是

And this chart goes back to 1500.

美國人和中國人的平均收入比

And you can see here

這幅圖追溯到1500年

that there's an exponential Great Divergence.

大家可以看到

They start off pretty close together.

大分流的走勢

In fact, in 1500,

這兩條曲線起初相當接近

the average Chinese was richer than the average North American.

事實上在1500年

When you get to the 1970s,

中國人普遍比美國人富有

which is where this chart ends,

但到了1970年代

the average Briton is more than 10 times richer

也就是這幅圖中時間的終點

than the average Indian.

英國人平均比印度人

And that's allowing

富有十倍

for differences in the cost of living.

這就產生了

It's based on purchasing power parity.

生活消費的差異

The average American

這是建立在購買力對等基礎上

is nearly 20 times richer

到了1970年代

than the average Chinese

美國人平均

by the 1970s.

比中國人

So why?

富有二十倍

This wasn't just an economic story.

這是為什麼

If you take the 10 countries

這並不僅僅只是一個經濟問題

that went on to become

看看這十個

the Western empires,

後來成為

in 1500 they were really quite tiny --

帝國的西方國家

five percent of the world's land surface,

在1500年時，這些國家都很小

16 percent of its population,

僅占全球土地面積的百分之五

maybe 20 percent of its income.

人口僅佔世界人口的百分之十六

By 1913,

而收入在全球僅占百分之二十

these 10 countries, plus the United States,

到了1913年

controlled vast global empires --

包括美國在內的這十個國家

58 percent of the world's territory,

控制了全球大片土地

about the same percentage of its population,

佔據了全球百分之五十八的勢力範圍

and a really huge, nearly three-quarters share

而人口也佔了世界人口的百分之五十八左右

of global economic output.

創造了全球

And notice, most of that went to the motherland,

近四分之三的財富

to the imperial metropoles,

請注意，大部分的財富都流入了這些國家

not to their colonial possessions.

流入了帝國大都市裡

Now you can't just blame this on imperialism --

而不是殖民地

though many people have tried to do so --

我們不能只是怪罪帝國主義

for two reasons.

儘管很多人這麼做

One, empire was the least original thing

有兩項原因

that the West did after 1500.

第一、1500年以後

Everybody did empire.

西方國家都是帝國

They beat preexisting Oriental empires

大家都建立帝國

like the Mughals and the Ottomans.

之前建立的東方帝國被打敗了

So it really doesn't look like empire is a great explanation

例如莫臥兒帝國和奧斯曼帝國

for the Great Divergence.

所以帝國並不見得

In any case, as you may remember,

足以解釋大分流的現象

the Great Divergence reaches its zenith in the 1970s,

不知道各位是否記得

some considerable time after decolonization.

到了1970年代

This is not a new question.

大分流在非殖民時期後一段相當長的時間達到高峰

Samuel Johnson,

這不是一個新問題了

the great lexicographer,

著名辭典編篡家

[posed] it through his character Rasselas

Samuel Johnson

in his novel "Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia,"

透過他1759年所寫的小說

published in 1759.

《阿比西尼亞國拉塞拉斯王子傳》中的人物拉塞拉斯

"By what means are the Europeans thus powerful;

提出了這個問題

or why, since they can so easily visit Asia and Africa

「歐洲人為何如此強大？

for trade or conquest,

他們為何能輕而易舉地來到亞洲和非洲

cannot the Asiaticks and Africans

進行貿易或征服

invade their coasts,

而亞洲人和非洲人

plant colonies in their ports,

為何無力攻占他們的海岸

and give laws to their natural princes?

將他們的港口化為殖民地

The same wind that carries them back

並控制他們的王子呢？

would bring us thither?"

既然是同一股風，為何他只將他們送回家

That's a great question.

卻將我們送去他們那裡？」

And you know what,

這個問題問得很好

it was also being asked at roughly the same time

無獨有偶

by the Resterners -- by the people in the rest of the world --

幾乎在同一時期

like Ibrahim Muteferrika,

西方國家之外的人

an Ottoman official,

其中有

the man who introduced printing, very belatedly,

一位奧斯曼帝國的大官

to the Ottoman Empire --

也是後來將印刷術

who said in a book published in 1731,

引入奧斯曼帝國的人

"Why do Christian nations which were so weak in the past

在他1731年出版的一本書裡

compared with Muslim nations

他說：「與穆斯林國家相比，

begin to dominate so many lands in modern times

基督教國家原先顯得弱不禁風，

and even defeat the once victorious Ottoman armies?"

但他們何以在現代統治了大片土地，

Unlike Rasselas,

甚至戰勝了曾經盛極一時的奧斯曼帝國？」

Muteferrika had an answer to that question,

和拉塞拉斯不同

which was correct.

Muteferrika對問題做了回答

He said it was "because they have laws and rules

答案還是正確的

invented by reason."

他說；「因為他們制定了

It's not geography.

合理的法律規章。」

You may think we can explain the Great Divergence

這和地理環境無關

in terms of geography.

各位可能認為我們能從地理的角度

We know that's wrong,

解釋大分流

because we conducted two great natural experiments in the 20th century

這個想法是錯誤的

to see if geography mattered more than institutions.

我們在二十世紀進行了兩次自然實驗

We took all the Germans,

來證明地理和制度就近哪個作用較大

we divided them roughly in two,

我們把德國

and we gave the ones in the East communism,

分成了兩部份

and you see the result.

在東德推行共產主義

Within an incredibly short period of time,

結果大家都看到了

people living in the German Democratic Republic

在極短的時間裡

produced Trabants, the Trabbi,

東德人

one of the world's worst ever cars,

生產了特拉邦(Trabant)汽車

while people in the West produced the Mercedes Benz.

是世界上性能最差的車款之一

If you still don't believe me,

而西德人卻生產出了朋馳

we conducted the experiment also in the Korean Peninsula.

這如果還不足以回答問題

And we decided we'd take Koreans

我們又在朝鮮半島進行了實驗

in roughly the same geographical place

我們決定

with, notice, the same basic traditional culture,

將生活在同一地理位置

and we divided them in two, and we gave the Northerners communism.

擁有共同文化習俗的朝鮮人

And the result is an even bigger divergence

分成兩邊，並在北朝鮮實行共產主義

in a very short space of time

結果朝鮮半島兩方

than happened in Germany.

在更短的時間內

Not a big divergence in terms of uniform design for border guards admittedly,

出現了大分流，比德國的情況更甚

but in almost every other respect,

我承認，他們邊防軍制服的款式差別不大

it's a huge divergence.

但在其他方面

Which leads me to think

雙方存在極大的差異

that neither geography nor national character,

這讓我不得不認為

popular explanations for this kind of thing,

地理、國家特徵

are really significant.

以及其他主流的解釋

It's the ideas.

都站不住腳

It's the institutions.

真正發揮作用的是思想

This must be true

是制度

because a Scotsman said it.

這應該是千真萬確的

And I think I'm the only Scotsman here at the Edinburgh TED.

這可是一位蘇格蘭人說的

So let me just explain to you

我想我是這裡唯一的蘇格蘭人

that the smartest man ever was a Scotsman.

我來解釋一下

He was Adam Smith --

世界上最聰明的人是一位蘇格蘭人

not Billy Connolly, not Sean Connery --

他就是亞當‧斯密

though he is very smart indeed.

不是比利‧康諾利或是史恩‧康納萊

(Laughter)

雖然他也很聰明

Smith -- and I want you to go

(笑聲)

and bow down before his statue in the Royal Mile;

亞當‧斯密，你們都應該

it's a wonderful statue --

到他在皇家麥爾大道的雕像前一鞠躬

Smith, in the "Wealth of Nations"

這座雕像非常雄偉

published in 1776 --

亞當‧斯密在1776年發表了

that's the most important thing that happened that year ...

《國富論》

(Laughter)

這可是當年最了不起的事情

You bet.

(笑聲)

There was a little local difficulty in some of our minor colonies, but ...

難道不是嗎？

(Laughter)

雖然當時我們一些次要的殖民地出了點問題，但...

"China seems to have been long stationary,

(笑聲)

and probably long ago acquired that full complement of riches

他說：「中國似乎已經停滯很久了，

which is consistent with the nature of its laws and institutions.

也許在很久以前，中國創造財富的能力已經發揮到了極致，

But this complement may be much inferior

而這取決於該國法律和制度的性質。

to what, with other laws and institutions,

但如果中國採用其他型式的法律和制度

the nature of its soil, climate, and situation

那麼這一能力

might admit of."

反而無法在同樣的土壤，氣候和條件下

That is so right and so cool.

得到完全發揮。」

And he said it such a long time ago.

這說得非常有道理

But you know, this is a TED audience,

在那麼久以前，他就說出了這番話

and if I keep talking about institutions,

但是，各位是TED的觀眾

you're going to turn off.

如果我繼續談論制度

So I'm going to translate this into language that you can understand.

你們可能就聽不下去了

Let's call them the killer apps.

所以我得用通俗的白話告訴各位

I want to explain to you that there were six killer apps

我們就把這些制度稱做「殺手級」應用程式吧

that set the West apart from the rest.

我會逐一介紹六種「殺手級」應用程式

And they're kind of like the apps on your phone,

解釋他們如何讓西方國家脫穎而出

in the sense that they look quite simple.

它們就像你手機上的應用程式

They're just icons; you click on them.

因為它們都很容易上手

But behind the icon, there's complex code.

它們就像一個個圖標，手指一點就行了

It's the same with institutions.

然而在圖標背後，則是複雜的程序

There are six

制度也是如此

which I think explain the Great Divergence.

我認為，這六個「殺手級」應用程式

One, competition.

能夠解釋大分流形成的原因

Two, the scientific revolution.

第一：競爭

Three, property rights.

第二：科技革命

Four, modern medicine.

第三：產權

Five, the consumer society.

第四：現代醫藥

And six, the work ethic.

第五：消費者導向社會

You can play a game and try and think of one I've missed at,

第六：職業道德

or try and boil it down to just four,

各位可以玩這個遊戲，看看我有沒有遺漏什麼

but you'll lose.

或者試試看能否直接刪除其中兩個

(Laughter)

但是你輸定了

Let me very briefly tell you what I mean by this,

(笑聲)

synthesizing the work of many economic historians

透過綜合經濟歷史學家的觀點

in the process.

我來簡短解釋一下

Competition means,

我的意思是

not only were there a hundred different political units in Europe in 1500,

競爭代表

but within each of these units,

1500年時歐洲不僅擁有一百多個政治單位

there was competition between corporations as well as sovereigns.

而在這些單位中

The ancestor of the modern corporation, the City of London Corporation,

既有組織間的競爭，又有主權國家之間的競爭

existed in the 12th century.

現代機構的始祖，倫敦市法團

Nothing like this existed in China,

12世紀時便存在了

where there was one monolithic state

中國沒有這樣的制度

covering a fifth of humanity,

中國的人口占世界總人口的五分之一

and anyone with any ambition

國家實施中央集權制度

had to pass one standardized examination,

胸懷大志的人

which took three days and was very difficult

必須通過統一的科舉考試

and involved memorizing vast numbers of characters

一考就是三天，考試難度很大

and very complex Confucian essay writing.

要求記憶大量漢字

The scientific revolution was different

還要寫繁複的儒家文章

from the science that had been achieved in the Oriental world

科技革命和東方的科學成就

in a number of crucial ways,

在很多重要方面

the most important being

都有不同

that, through the experimental method,

其中最大的不同在於

it gave men control over nature in a way that had not been possible before.

科技革命通過實驗性方法

Example: Benjamin Robins's extraordinary application

讓人們用前所未見的方式掌控自然

of Newtonian physics to ballistics.

Benjamin Robins將牛頓物理學運用到彈道研究

Once you do that,

就是個很好的例子

your artillery becomes accurate.

這麼做

Think of what that means.

能夠保證砲彈發射的精準度

That really was a killer application.

這意味著

(Laughter)

這個應用程式果然厲害

Meanwhile, there's no scientific revolution anywhere else.

(笑聲)

The Ottoman Empire's not that far from Europe,

同時科技革命只發生在西方

but there's no scientific revolution there.

奧斯曼帝過離歐洲不遠

In fact, they demolish Taqi al-Din's observatory,

但沒有發生科技革命

because it's considered blasphemous

事實上，該國政府拆毀了科學家Taqi al-Din的天文觀測台

to inquire into the mind of God.

認為該觀測台窺視上帝

Property rights: It's not the democracy, folks;

褻瀆聖靈

it's having the rule of law based on private property rights.

各位，產權不是民主

That's what makes the difference

透過法律管理私有財產權

between North America and South America.

北美洲和南美洲

You could turn up in North America

為何如此不同

having signed a deed of indenture

你到北美洲去

saying, "I'll work for nothing for five years.

簽一項契約

You just have to feed me."

說：「我願意無償工作五年。

But at the end of it, you've got a hundred acres of land.

你只要讓我有飯吃就行。」

That's the land grant

而五年後，你得到了一百公頃的土地

on the bottom half of the slide.

這張幻燈片下面的就是

That's not possible in Latin America

土地贈與書

where land is held onto

但在拉丁美洲，這是不可能的

by a tiny elite descended from the conquistadors.

這裡的土地

And you can see here the huge divergence

都掌握在極少數西班牙征服者的後裔手上

that happens in property ownership between North and South.

你們看，南北美洲

Most people in rural North America

由於產權不同而出現了大分流

owned some land by 1900.

到1900年為止

Hardly anyone in South America did.

北美洲的大部份人都擁有了土地