提示：點擊↑上方"小芳老師"免費關注哦
關注回復關鍵字「福利」，免費送你優質英文有聲讀物！
英語專業八級考試(TEM-8)的選材主要來自英美報刊雜誌、廣播電臺或網站。其中一個包括：TED演講，2018和2016年專八聽力講座(Mini-lecture)就來自TED演講。建議大家平時多看多聽TED演講。
演說者：Yuval Harari
演說題目：人類為何會崛起？
70,000 years ago, our ancestors were insignificant animals. The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is that they were unimportant. Their impact on the world was not much greater than that of jellyfish or fireflies or woodpeckers.70000年前，我們的祖先是微不足道的動物。了解史前人類的最關鍵一點就是他們是無足輕重的。他們對地球影響並不比水母、螢火蟲或啄木鳥大多少。Today, in contrast, we control this planet. And the question is: How did we come from there to here? How did we turn ourselves from insignificant apes, minding their own business in a corner of Africa, into the rulers of planet Earth?現在，反過來了，我們控制了這個星球。那麼問題來了：我們是怎麼從過去變成現在這樣子呢？我們是如何從毫不起眼、在某個角落默默幹活的猩猩，變成地球統治者的呢？Usually, we look for the difference between us and all the other animals on the individual level. We want to believe -- I want to believe -- that there is something special about me, about my body, about my brain, that makes me so superior to a dog or a pig, or a chimpanzee.But the truth is that, on the individual level, I'm embarrassingly similar to a chimpanzee. And if you take me and a chimpanzee and put us together on some lonely island, and we had to struggle for survival to see who survives better, I would definitely place my bet on the chimpanzee, not on myself.通常，我們尋找自身與其他動物在個體上的差異。我們想去相信--我也想去相信-我自己是特別的，我的身體，我的大腦，讓我比一隻狗、一隻豬或者一隻猩猩更加優越。然而事實是，在個體層面，我跟一隻猩猩是如此讓人尷尬地相似。如果你把我和一隻猩猩一起放在一個孤獨的小島，同時看看我們誰能更好地生存下去。我肯定會賭那隻猩猩贏，而不是我自己。And this is not something wrong with me personally. I guess if they took almost any one of you, and placed you alone with a chimpanzee on some island, the chimpanzee would do much better. The real difference between humans and all other animals is not on the individual level; it's on the collective level.這不是我個人有什麼問題。我估計，如果他們把你們任何一個人和一隻猩猩放在某個小島上，那隻猩猩也會活得比你們更好。人類與其他動物的真正區別不是在於個體層面，而是集體層面。Humans control the planet because they are the only animals that can cooperate both flexibly and in very large numbers. Now, there are other animals -- like the social insects, the bees, the ants -- that can cooperate in large numbers, but they don't do so flexibly.人類控制地球是因為他們是唯一能夠大規模並靈活地合作的動物。是的，有其他動物也能夠大規模地協同，比如蜜蜂、螞蟻這類社會性昆蟲，但是他們做不到那麼靈活。Their cooperation is very rigid. There is basically just one way in which a beehive can function. And if there's a new opportunity or a new danger, the bees cannot reinvent the social system overnight. They cannot, for example, execute the queen and establish a republic of bees, or a communist dictatorship of worker bees.他們之間的合作是非常僵硬的。基本上，一個蜂巢只能通過一種方式來運轉。如果面對新的機會或危機，蜜蜂不能在一夜之間重新發明一個社會系統。比如，他們不能夠處決蜂后並建立一個蜜蜂共和國，或者一個蜜蜂工人階級專政gongchan主義政權。Other animals, like the social mammals -- the wolves, the elephants, the dolphins, the chimpanzees -- they can cooperate much more flexibly, but they do so only in small numbers, because cooperation among chimpanzees is based on intimate knowledge, one of the other.其他動物，比如狼、大象、海豚、猩猩這類社會性哺乳動物，他們能夠更靈活地合作，但是他們只能在小規模地合作，因為猩猩之間的合作只是基於一隻對另一隻猩猩的熟悉。I'm a chimpanzee and you're a chimpanzee, and I want to cooperate with you. I need to know you personally. What kind of chimpanzee are you? Are you a nice chimpanzee? Are you an evil chimpanzee? Are you trustworthy?If I don't know you, how can I cooperate with you? The only animal that can combine the two abilities together and cooperate both flexibly and still do so in very large numbers is us, Homo sapiens.我是一隻猩猩，你也是一隻猩猩，我想跟你合作。我們需要私下地了解你。你是什麼樣的猩猩？你是一隻好猩猩？你是一隻壞猩猩？你值得信任嗎？如果我不知道你，我怎麼能跟你合作呢？唯一能夠同時掌握兩種能力，能夠靈活地合作並能非常大規模地去做的動物就是我們，現代人。One versus one, or even 10 versus 10, chimpanzees might be better than us. But, if you pit 1,000 humans against 1,000 chimpanzees, the humans will win easily, for the simple reason that a thousand chimpanzees cannot cooperate at all. And if you now try to cram 100,000 chimpanzees into Oxford Street, or into Wembley Stadium, or Tienanmen Square or the Vatican, you will get chaos, complete chaos. Just imagine Wembley Stadium with 100,000 chimpanzees. Complete madness.在單對單，甚至10個對10個的情況下，黑猩猩也許比人類強。然而，如果1000個人類與同等數量的猩猩對抗，人類能夠輕易取勝。理由很簡單，那1000隻黑猩猩完全不能協同合作。如果你把10萬隻黑猩猩塞進牛津街，溫布利球場，天安門廣場或者梵蒂岡，你看到的將會是完全混亂的局面。想像下10萬隻猩猩湧進溫布利球場的畫面，簡直讓人徹底抓狂。In contrast, humans normally gather there in tens of thousands, and what we get is not chaos, usually. What we get is extremely sophisticated and effective networks of cooperation. All the huge achievements of humankind throughout history, whether it's building the pyramids or flying to the moon, have been based not on individual abilities, but on this ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers.當人類成千上萬地聚集在一起，通常我們不會陷入混亂。恰恰相反，我們看到的是相當精細有效的協作組織網絡。人類史上所有的顯著成就，無論是建造金字塔或飛奔月球，都並非憑藉一人之力，而是基於大規模靈活協作的能力之上。Think even about this very talk that I'm giving now: I'm standing here in front of an audience of about 300 or 400 people, most of you are complete strangers to me. Similarly, I don't really know all the people who have organized and worked on this event. I don't know the pilot and the crew members of the plane that brought me over here, yesterday, to London. I don't know the people who invented and manufactured this microphone and these cameras, which are recording what I'm saying. I don't know the people who wrote all the books and articles that I read in preparation for this talk. And I certainly don't know all the people who might be watching this talk over the Internet, somewhere in Buenos Aires or in New Delhi.試想一下我正在做的演講：我站在這裡面對著300或者400號觀眾，大多數都未曾謀面。同樣，我不怎麼認識演講組織方的工作人員，或者昨天載我到倫敦的飛行師及飛機上的所有機組人員。我也不認識正在記錄我演講內容的麥克風及攝像機的發明製造者，或者我為這次演講準備而閱讀的書及文章的作者。我當然也不知道在布宜諾斯艾利斯或新德裡所有通過網絡觀看這次演講的人。Nevertheless, even though we don't know each other, we can work together to create this global exchange of ideas. This is something chimpanzees cannot do. They communicate, of course, but you will never catch a chimpanzee traveling to some distant chimpanzee band to give them a talk about bananas or about elephants, or anything else that might interest chimpanzees.然而，即使對彼此毫不了解，我們依然可以一起完成這次世界範圍的思想交流。這個是黑猩猩沒法做到的。當然，它們可以交流，但你絕不會看到它們跑到老遠去給黑猩猩群體作關於香蕉、大象或其它可能吸引它們的演講。Now cooperation is, of course, not always nice; all the horrible things humans have been doing throughout history -- and we have been doing some very horrible things -- all those things are also based on large-scale cooperation. Prisons are a system of cooperation; slaughterhouses are a system of cooperation; concentration camps are a system of cooperation. Chimpanzees don't have slaughterhouses and prisons and concentration camps.協作當然並不總是帶來好的結果。人類過去及現在所做過的所有恐怖事情，--我們一直在一些非常恐怖的事情--都是基於大規模的協作。監獄，屠殺場，集中營都是協作系統，而黑猩猩不會有這些。Now suppose I've managed to convince you perhaps that yes, we control the world because we can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. The next question that immediately arises in the mind of an inquisitive listener is: How, exactly, do we do it? What enables us alone, of all the animals, to cooperate in such a way? The answer is our imagination.現在假設我已成功說服你相信這點--由於人類可以大規模靈活協作，我們在掌控著這個世界。好奇心強的聽眾腦中浮現的下一個即時問題則是:我們具體是如何做到的？是什麼讓我們從所有動物中脫穎而出，可以進行如此大規模協作？想像力是答案。We can cooperate flexibly with countless numbers of strangers, because we alone, of all the animals on the planet, can create and believe fictions, fictional stories.And as long as everybody believes in the same fiction, everybody obeys and follows the same rules, the same norms, the same values.我們之所以可以跟無數的陌生人靈活進行合作，那是因為在這星球上所有的動物當中，唯獨我們，懂得創造和願意相信虛構出來的故事。一旦每個人都相信同一個虛構的故事，每個人就會遵循統一的規則，統一的行為規範和統一的價值觀。All other animals use their communication system only to describe reality. A chimpanzee may say, "Look! There's a lion, let's run away!" Or, "Look! There's a banana tree over there! Let's go and get bananas!"所有其他的動物只用他們的溝通系統去描述現實。（好比如）一隻大猩猩會說：「看！來了只獅子，我們趕緊跑吧！」或者「看！那裡有棵香蕉樹！我們過去摘香蕉吧！」Humans, in contrast, use their language not merely to describe reality, but also to create new realities, fictional realities. A human can say, "Look, there is a god above the clouds! And if you don't do what I tell you to do, when you die, God will punish you and send you to hell."And if you all believe this story that I've invented, then you will follow the same norms and laws and values, and you can cooperate.相反，人類不僅用他們的語言描述現實，也用來創造新的、虛擬的現實。人類會說：「看！上帝就在我們的雲端之上（監視著眾生）！如果你不按照我的旨意去行事，你死去的時候就會被上帝懲罰，詛咒你下地獄去。」如果你們相信了我所創造出來的故事，你們就會去遵循統一的行為準則、規則和價值了。然後你就可以與他人合作了。This is something only humans can do. You can never convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana by promising him, "... after you die, you'll go to chimpanzee heaven ..." (Laughter) "... and you'll receive lots and lots of bananas for your good deeds. So now give me this banana."這一切只有人類才可以做到。你是永遠無法說服一隻大猩猩會給你一根香蕉，僅僅承諾他說：「你死了之後，將會升上大猩猩的天堂（笑聲），你會因為你現在的德行而獲得非常多的香蕉。所以贈我一根香蕉吧！」No chimpanzee will ever believe such a story. Only humans believe such stories, which is why we control the world, whereas the chimpanzees are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.從來沒有猩猩會相信這種故事，只有人類才會相信。這就是為什麼我們能操控著這個世界，而大猩猩它們只能被所在動物園和實驗室裡面。Now you may find it acceptable that yes, in the religious field, humans cooperate by believing in the same fictions. Millions of people come together to build a cathedral or a mosque or fight in a crusade or a jihad, because they all believe in the same stories about God and heaven and hell.現在你或許會開始接受——沒錯，在宗教的領域裡面，人類通過深信同一個故事來去通力合作。成千上百萬的人會齊聚一起，大興土木建造一間天主教堂或者一座清真寺，或是一起在十字軍東徵或護教運動中並肩作戰。因為他們都深深相信同一個關於上帝、天堂和地獄的故事。But what I want to emphasize is that exactly the same mechanism underlies all other forms of mass-scale human cooperation, not only in the religious field.Take, for example, the legal field. Most legal systems today in the world are based on a belief in human rights. But what are human rights?但我更加想強調的是，正是這同一種機理可以解釋其它所有形式的人類大規模合作活動，而不僅僅在宗教領域中才適用。舉個例子，在法律的領域中，世界上現今大部分的法律體系是基於我們對於人權的信念。但是，人權是什麼呢？Human rights, just like God and heaven, are just a story that we've invented. They are not an objective reality; they are not some biological effect about homo sapiens.Take a human being, cut him open, look inside, you will find the heart, the kidneys, neurons, hormones, DNA, but you won't find any rights.人權正如上帝和天堂一樣，它只是我們創造出來的故事而已。它們並非客觀存在的實際，它們也不是某種關於人類的生物學作用。拿一個人，切開他看看裡面的東西，你會找到心臟、腎臟、神經元、荷爾蒙激素、DNA，但是你不會找到一種叫「權利」的東西。The only place you find rights are in the stories that we have invented and spread around over the last few centuries. They may be very positive stories, very good stories, but they're still just fictional stories that we've invented.你唯一可以找到權利的地方，只有在過去幾個世紀裡我們創造出來並四處傳播宣揚開來的故事當中。它們或許是很積極向上的、很好的故事願景，但它們始終只是我們憑空製造出來的故事。The same is true of the political field. The most important factors in modern politics are states and nations. But what are states and nations? They are not an objective reality.這一規律也適用於政治領域。現代政治中最重要的因素就是州與國家。但是什麼是州和國家？它們不是客觀現實。A mountain is an objective reality. You can see it, you can touch it, you can ever smell it. But a nation or a state, like Israel or Iran or France or Germany, this is just a story that we've invented and became extremely attached to.The same is true of the economic field. The most important actors today in the global economy are companies and corporations. Many of you today, perhaps, work for a corporation, like Google or Toyota or McDonald's. What exactly are these things? They are what lawyers call legal fictions. They are stories invented and maintained by the powerful wizards we call lawyers.一座山是客觀現實。你可以看到它，觸摸它，甚至聞到它。但一個國家或一個州，像是伊斯蘭或伊朗或法國或德國，只是我們發明並極度迷戀的一個故事。經濟領域也如此。當今全球經濟中最重要的角色就是公司和企業了。今天，你們許多人，也許為一個公司工作，比如谷歌或豐田或麥當勞。這些公司到底是什麼呢？它們是律師所謂的法律虛擬。他們是被我們稱為力量強大的巫師的律師所發明並維持的教義。(Laughter) And what do corporations do all day? Mostly, they try to make money. Yet, what is money? Again, money is not an objective reality; it has no objective value. Take this green piece of paper, the dollar bill. Look at it -- it has no value. You cannot eat it, you cannot drink it, you cannot wear it.這些公司整天在做什麼呢？主要來說，它們努力掙錢。但是，什麼是錢呢？同樣，錢也不是客觀現實；它沒有客觀價值。拿這張綠色的紙 美鈔 來說吧。看看它，它沒有價值。你不能吃它，你不能喝它，你不能穿上他。But then came along these master storytellers -- the big bankers, the finance ministers, the prime ministers -- and they tell us a very convincing story: "Look, you see this green piece of paper? It is actually worth 10 bananas."但是隨後就來了這些大師級別的講故事的人――那些大銀行家，財政部長，首相。――他們給我們講了一個令人信服的故事：「看，你看到這張綠色的紙了嗎？它實際上值10個香蕉。」And if I believe it, and you believe it, and everybody believes it, it actually works. I can take this worthless piece of paper, go to the supermarket, give it to a complete stranger whom I've never met before, and get, in exchange, real bananas which I can actually eat. This is something amazing.如果我相信這個故事，你也相信，大家都相信，它就起作用了。我可以拿著這張無價值的紙，去超市，把它給我素未謀面的陌生人，作為交換得到我能真正吃到的香蕉。這是令人驚奇的事兒。You could never do it with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees trade, of course: "Yes, you give me a coconut, I'll give you a banana." That can work. But, you give me a worthless piece of paper and you except me to give you a banana? No way! What do you think I am, a human? (Laughter)你對黑猩猩就永遠不能做這種事兒。當然，黑猩猩也貿易：「是的，你給我一個椰子，我會給你一個香蕉。」那能行得通。但是，你給我一張沒價值的紙然後你希望我給你一個香蕉？沒門兒！你以為我是什麼，人類嗎？Money, in fact, is the most successful story ever invented and told by humans, because it is the only story everybody believes. Not everybody believes in God, not everybody believes in human rights, not everybody believes in nationalism, but everybody believes in money, and in the dollar bill.Take, even, Osama Bin Laden. He hated American politics and American religion and American culture, but he had no objection to American dollars. He was quite fond of them, actually. 錢，事實上，是人類發明並講述的最成功的故事，因為它是唯一一個大家都相信的故事。不是所有人都相信神，不是所有人都相信人權，不是所有人都相信民族主義，但是所有人都相信錢和美鈔。甚至拿奧薩瑪 賓拉登來說吧。他憎恨美國政治美國宗教和美國文化，但是他一點都不反對美元。事實上，他還想當喜歡它們。To conclude, then: We humans control the world because we live in a dual reality. All other animals live in an objective reality. Their reality consists of objective entities, like rivers and trees and lions and elephants.We humans, we also live in an objective reality. In our world, too, there are rivers and trees and lions and elephants.那麼，總結一下吧：我們人類控制著世界因為我們生活在雙重現實中。所有其他的動物生活在一個客觀現實中。他們的現實由客觀的存在組成，像河流，樹木，獅子和大象。我們人類也生活在客觀世界裡。在我們的世界也有河水，樹木，獅子和大象。But over the centuries, we have constructed on top of this objective reality a second layer of fictional reality, a reality made of fictional entities, like nations, like gods, like money, like corporations.And what is amazing is that as history unfolded, this fictional reality became more and more powerful so that today, the most powerful forces in the world are these fictional entities.在過去幾個世紀，我們在這個客觀存在的世界之上又建立了第二層虛擬的現實。這現實是基於虛擬的實體而建立的，如國家，上帝，金錢，公司。而且更令人驚訝的是，研究歷史我們會發現，這虛擬的現實越來越有強大而有生命力。以至於今天，世界上最有力的約束武器竟然是這些虛擬實體。Today, the very survival of rivers and trees and lions and elephants depends on the decisions and wishes of fictional entities, like the United States, like Google, like the World Bank -- entities that exist only in our own imagination.時至今日，河流，樹木，獅子，大象的生死存亡取決於這些虛擬實體的決定與意願，如美國，谷歌，世界銀行等，這些僅在我們人類的規則中有意義的虛擬實體。Bruno Giussani: Yuval, you have a new book out.After Sapiens, you wrote another one, and it's out in Hebrew, but not yet translated into ...在《現代人》後，你用希伯來語寫了一本新書，已經上市了。但還沒翻譯成……Yuval Noah Harari: I'm working on the translation as we speak.BG: In the book, if I understand it correctly, you argue that the amazing breakthroughs that we are experiencing right now not only will potentially make our lives better, but they will create -- and I quote you -- "... new classes and new class struggles, just as the industrial revolution did."布魯諾：在書裡面，如果我理解得沒錯的話，你認為我們現在經歷這些驚人的突破和進步不僅僅會逐漸令我們的生活變得更好，而且會創造，恕我引用原文「一個新的階級和階級鬥爭，正如工業革命一樣」。Can you elaborate for us?YNH: Yes. In the industrial revolution, we saw the creation of a new class of the urban proletariat.And much of the political and social history of the last 200 years involved what to do with this class, and the new problems and opportunities.Now, we see the creation of a new massive class of useless people. 是的，在工業革命，我們見到一個新的，無產階級的誕生。而且，在過去200年的政治和社會歷史中，這個階級，以及一些新的機遇和問題也與此有關。現在我們可以看到一批數量龐大的廢柴階級。As computers become better and better in more and more fields, there is a distinct possibility that computers will out-perform us in most tasks and will make humans redundant.And then the big political and economic question of the 21st century will be, "What do we need humans for?", or at least, "What do we need so many humans for?"正如現在電腦在很多方面都越來越好，很有可能電腦會比我們表現更棒，令人類變得多餘。而21世紀在一個在政治和經濟方面的大問題是「我們要人類來做什麼？」，至少「我們要那麼多人幹嘛？」BG: Do you have an answer in the book?YNH: At present, the best guess we have is to keep them happy with drugs and computer games ... (Laughter) but this doesn't sound like a very appealing future.目前，讓這些人開心的最佳辦法就是讓他們多打遊戲、多磕藥。雖然這並不是一個光明的未來。BG: Ok, so you're basically saying in the book and now, that for all the discussion about the growing evidence of significant economic inequality, we are just kind of at the beginning of the process?諾魯諾：好的。那你在書中和現在都傳達的意思是，現在，我們所有討論的不斷出現的明顯的經濟不平衡的現狀也只是這個過程的開始？YNH: Again, it's not a prophecy; it's seeing all kinds of possibilities before us. One possibility is this creation of a new massive class of useless people. Another possibility is the division of humankind into different biological castes, with the rich being upgraded into virtual gods, and the poor being degraded to this level of useless people.尤哇：再次強調，這也只是預測。我們在探索所有的可能性。一種可能是產生一個龐大新的階級——無用之人。另一個可能是人類會分成不同的階級，有錢人就好像看得見的神一樣。而窮人只能慢慢降級到無用之人的階級。BG: I feel there is another TED talk coming up in a year or two. Thank you, Yuval, for making the trip.布魯諾：我感覺這一兩年內你會在這裡有一個新的TED演講哦。謝謝你，尤哇，特地飛過來為我們講述。聲明：除特別註明原創授權轉載文章外，其他文章均為轉載，版權歸原作者或平臺所有。如有侵權，請後臺聯繫，告知刪除，謝謝1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22