How are we doing? No, no, no, by that, I meant, how are we, homo sapiens "we" ... doing as a species? Now the typical way to answer that questionis this. You choose some measure of human physical well-being: average longevity, average calories per day, average income, overall population, that sort of thing, and draw a graph of its value over time.
我們最近過得怎麼樣？哦不，我的意思是，最近，身為現代人的「我們」...作為一個物種，過得怎麼樣？關於這個問題的回答，很典型的一類就是，選擇一些描述人們身體狀況的詞：平均壽命，每天平均的食物攝入量，平均收入，總人口等等，然後畫一個隨時間變化的曲線。
In almost every case, you get the same result. The line skitters along at a low level for millennia, then rockets up exponentially in the 19th and 20th century. Or choose a measure of consumption: consumption of energy, consumption of fresh water, consumption of the world's photosynthesis, and draw a graph of its value over time. 在幾乎所有的情況下，你得到的都是同樣的結果。在幾千年的時間線上，變化都是處於一個較低的水平，隨後在19世紀和20世紀以指數方式猛漲。或者以消耗量為單位：消耗了多少能源，用了多少水，消耗了多少光合作用，再畫一個隨時間變化的曲線。In thesa me way, the line skitters along at a low level for millennia, then rockets up exponentially in the 19th and 20th century. Biologists have a word for this: outbreak. An outbreak is when a population or species exceeds the bounds of natural selection. Natural selection ordinarily keeps populations and species within roughly defined limits. 同樣，時間線在幾千年來還是處於低值，且變化平緩，在19世紀與20世紀以指數方式猛漲。生物學家對此的解釋是：生物爆炸。生物爆炸指的就是一種物種的數量超出了自然界所能承受的範圍。通常來說，自然選擇在大致範圍內控制了人口和物種的數量。Pests, parasites, lack of resources prevent them from expanding too much. But every now and then, a species escapes its bounds. Crown-of-thorns starfish in the Indian Ocean, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, spruce budworm here in Canada. Populations explode, a hundredfold, athousand fold, a millionfold.害蟲，寄生蟲，資源缺乏等因素，導致它們無法過度繁殖。但偶爾，一些物種也會突破自身的邊界。比如印度洋的棘冠海星，北美五大湖的斑馬貽貝，加拿大的雲杉蚜蟲。這些生物數量是呈百倍，千倍，甚至是萬倍增長的。So here's a fundamental lesson from biology: outbreaks in nature don't end well. Put a couple of protozoa into a petri dish full of nutrient goo. In their natural habitat, soil or water, their environment constrains them. In the petri dish, they have an ocean of breakfast and no natural enemies. 下面是一個生物學中普遍的教訓：自然界中的生物爆炸通常沒什麼好結果。把幾種單細胞生物放入一個有營養物質的培養皿中，在它們的自然環境中，土壤或水分等因素限制了它們的繁衍。而在培養皿中，它們營養充足，並且沒有天敵。They eat and reproduce, eat and reproduce, until bang, they hit the edge of the petri dish, at which point they either drown in their own waste, starve from lack of resources, or both. The outbreak ends, always, badly.它們不斷地攝入與繁殖，直到有一天，它們撐爆了培養皿，只能要麼淹沒在自己的排洩物中，要麼因缺乏營養而餓死，或者兩者兼有之。生物爆炸總是以糟糕的方式結束。Now, from the viewpoint of biology, you and I are not fundamentally different than the protozoa in the petri dish. We're not special. All the things that we, in our vanity, think make us different --art, science, technology, and so forth, they don't matter. We're an outbreak species, we're going to hit the edge of the petri dish, simple as that.從生物學的方面來看，你和我比起培養皿中的單細胞生物，並沒有什麼本質上的區別，我們並不特殊。我們因虛榮心而認為，思想使得我們與眾不同，藝術，科技等等，但這些都不重要。我們就是一種生物爆炸的物種，我們就要撐爆我們的培養皿了，就這麼簡單。Well, the obvious question: Is this actually true? Are we in fact doomed to hit the edge of the petri dish? I'd like to set aside this question for a moment and ask you guys another one. If we are going to escape biology, how are we going to do it? 不過有個顯而易見的問題：這會是真的嗎？我們的人口真的會達到極限嗎？我暫且先把這個問題放一放，來問大家另一個問題。如果我們能夠突破生物爆炸的宿命，要怎麼做呢？In the year 2050,there will be almost 10 billion people in the world, and all of those people will want the things that you and I want: nice cars, nice clothes, nice homes, the odd chunk of Toblerone. I mean, think of it: Toblerone for 10 billion people. How are we going to do this? How are we going to feed everybody, get water to everybody, provide power to everybody, avoid the worst impacts ofclimate change?到2050年，地球上將會有100億人口，並且我們想要的東西，這些人也都會需要：豪車，名牌衣服，大別墅，奇奇怪怪的三角巧克力。假設把三角巧克力分給100億個人。要怎麼實現呢？我們怎麼給每個人足夠的食物，足夠的水，讓每個人保持足夠的體力來應對最極端的氣候變化？I'm a science journalist, and I've been asking these questions to researchers for years, and in my experience, their answers fall into two broad categories, which I call "wizards" and "prophets." Wizards, techno-whizzes, believe that science and technology, properly applied, will let us produce our way out of our dilemmas. 我是一名科學記者，這些年來我一直在問專家們這些問題，以我的經驗看來，他們的回答大體可分為兩大類，就是我說的「奇才」和「先知」。奇才，也就是所謂的技術宅，認為恰當地運用科技，會讓我們找到擺脫困境的方法。"Be smart, make more," they say. "That way, everyone can win." Prophets believe close to the opposite. They see the world as governed by fundamental ecological processes with limits that we transgress to our peril. "Use less, conserve," they say. "Otherwise, everybody's going to lose." 他們會說：「機靈點，提高生產力。那樣的話，每個人都會生存下來。」先知們則認為恰恰相反。他們認為世界有一種基本的生態法則，而我們必須遵守這個法則，不然就要自食其果。他們會說「少用點，存起來，不然的話，每個人都得餓死。」Wizards and prophets have been butting their heads together for decades, but they both believe that technology is key to a successful future. The trouble is, they envision different types of technology and different types of futures.幾十年來，奇才與先知的觀點一直處於對立的狀態，但他們都認為，科技是一把通向美好明天的鑰匙。分歧在於，他們所預想的科技和未來都是不一樣的。Wizards envision a world of glittering, hyperefficient megacities surrounded by vast tracts of untouched nature, economies that have transitioned from atoms to bits, dematerialized capitalist societies that no longer depend on exploiting nature. Energy, to wizards, comes from compact nuclear plants; food from low-footprint farms with ultraproductive, genetically modified crops tended by robots; 奇才們認為世界上都是燈火輝煌的，高效率的大城市，被周圍廣闊的原生態自然所包圍著，經濟體從實體經濟轉向數字經濟，非物質化的資本主義社會不再依賴於剝削自然。在奇才們看來，能源來自於核電站，來自於高生產力的小農場生產的轉基因食物，並且這些莊稼都由機器人看管；Water from high-throughput desalination plants, which means we no longer exploit rivers and aquifers. Wizards envision all 10 billion of us packed into ultradense but walk ablemegacities, an urbanized world of maximum human aspiration and maximum human liberty.水源都來自於高流通量的海水淡化工廠，這就意味著我們不再需要利用河流與地下水。這些人假設把我們100億人，全部塞進一個交通便捷的特大城市，這是一個全人類的美好願景：高度自由化的超級城市化世界。Now, prophets object to every bit of this. You can't dematerialize food and water, they point out. They say, you can't eat bits, and industrial agriculture has already given us massive soil erosion, huge coastal dead zones and ruined soil microbiomes. And you wizards, you want more of this? And those giant desalination plants? 而先知們則反對這一切說辭。他們指出，你不能抹去水和食物的物質形態，你不可能以吃比特為生吧，而且工業化農業生產已經給我們造成了嚴重的水土流失，造成海洋水體富營養化，微生物群落被摧毀。那我問你們，這些土地都貧瘠成這副樣子了，還想著建你們的海水淡化工廠？You know they generate equally giant piles of toxic salt that are basically impossible to dispose of. And those megacities you like? Can you name me an actually existing megacity that really exists in the world today, except for possibly Tokyo, that isn't acess pool of corruption and inequality? 畢竟，它們會產生大量的有毒鹽，而這些基本上都是不可能處理掉的。這就是你喜歡的超級城市？你能給我列出一座現實世界存在的這種城市嗎，除了東京之外，而且看著還不像一個腐敗和不平等的汙濁之地？Instead, prophets pray for a world of smaller, interconnected communities, closer to the earth, a more agrarian world of maximum human connection and reduced corporate control. More people live in the countryside in this vision, with power provided by neighborhood-scale solar and wind installations that disappear into the background. 相反地，先知們希望這個世界是一個更小型的，相互關聯的社區，與自然相處更和諧，一個全人類緊密相連的農業世界，沒有任何商業紛爭。在這個願景中，更多的人居住在鄉下，用全社區規模的太陽能與對環境無破壞的風力發電機來提供電力。Prophets don't generate water from giant desalination plants. They capture it from rainfall, and they reuse and recycle it endlessly. And the food comes from small-scalenet works of farms that focus on trees and tubers rather than less productive cereals like wheat and rice.先知們才不會用淡化工廠來提取水呢。他們在降雨中獲得水分，並且不斷地重複使用和循環利用。食物呢，則有小型的網絡型農場，專門栽種樹木和薯類，而不是像大米小麥這樣產量低的穀物。Above all, though, prophets envision people changing their habits. They don't drive to work, they take their renewable-powered train. They don't take 30-minute hot showers every morning. They eat, you know, like Michael Pollan says, real food, mostly plants, not too much. 最重要的是，先知們希望人們能夠改變他們的生活方式。他們不用開車上班，而是乘坐可再生能源列車。他們每天早上不用再花30分鐘來洗個熱水澡。像麥可·波倫說的，他們吃的是真正的食物，絕大多數是素食，還要控制食量。Above all, prophets say submitting to nature's restraints leads to a freer, more democratic, healthier way of life. Now, wizards regard all this as hooey. They see it as a recipe for narrowness, regression, and global poverty. Prophet-style agriculture, they say, only extends the human footprint and shunts more people into low-wage agricultural labor. 最重要的就是，先知們提倡利用地球母親給我們提供的一切，引領一個更自由，更民主，更健康的生活方式。不過，奇才們則認為這些都是異想天開。他們覺得這會導致狹隘，倒退，以及全球性的貧困。他們認為「先知」式的農業就是擴展人類的足跡，給更多的人分配低薪的農務。Those neighborhood-run solar facilities, they sound great, but they depend on a technology that doesn't exist yet. They're a fantasy. And recycling water? It's a brake on growth and development. Above all, though, wizards object to the prophets'emphas is on wide-scale social engineering, which they see as deeply anti-democratic.那些在社區使用的太陽能裝置，聽起來還不錯，但依賴於一種尚未開發出來的技術手段，完全是痴人說夢。再說循環利用的水，這就是限制社會發展的一顆毒瘤。最重要的是，奇才們反對先知們在大規模社會生產上的觀點，他們認為這是完全反民主的。If the history of the last two centuries was one of unbridled growth, the history of the coming century may well be the choice we make as a species between these two paths. These are the arguments that will be resolved, in one way or another, by our children's generation, the generation that will come into the world of 10 billion.如果過去兩個世紀的歷史是無節制增長的話，那麼下一個世紀的歷史很可能是，我們作為一個物種在這兩條道路之間做出的選擇。這些問題不管怎樣，都會被我們的下一代給解決掉，終將成為構成100億人口的下一代人。Now, but wait, by this point, biologists should be rolling their eyes so loud you can barely hear me speak. They should be saying, all of this, wizards, prophets, it's a pipe dream. It doesn't matter which illusory path you think you're taking. 等會兒，生物學家們現在應該對此嗤之以鼻，它們的反對之聲大到你都聽不到我說話了。他們鐵定會說，所有這些「奇才」，「先知」之類的，都是白日夢。你認為你做的是什麼白日夢並不重要。Outbreaks in nature don't end well. I mean, you think the protozoa see the edge of the petri dish approaching and say, "Hey guys, time to change society"? No. They just let her rip. That's what life does, and we're part of life. We'll do the same thing. Deal with it.Well, if you're a follower of Darwin, you have to take this into consideration. I mean, the basic counter argument boils down to: "We're special." How lame is that?自然界的生物爆炸註定沒有好結果。我是說，你以為單細胞動物看到了培養皿的邊緣正在靠近，然後說，"朋友們，我們是不是該改變一下社會結構了？」不，它們只會繼續。這就是生命，我們也是這個生命的一部分。我們也會做同樣的事。直面這個事實吧。如果你是達爾文的追隨者，就必須考慮到這一點。基本的反駁可以歸結為：「我們是特殊的。」是不是挺厚顏無恥的？I mean, we can accumulate and share knowledge and use it to guide our future. Well, are we actually doing this? Is there any evidence that we're actually using our accumulated, shared knowledge to guarantee our long-term prosperity? It's pretty easy to say no.我們可以積累和分享知識，再用知識來引領我們的未來。但我們真的在行動了嗎？有什麼證據能夠證明我們在用我們所積攢的知識，來保證我們長期的繁榮呢？答案顯而易見是否定的。If you're a wizard, and you believe that hyperproductive, genetically engineered crops are key to feeding everyone in tomorrow's world, you have to worry that 20 years of scientists demonstrating that they are safe to consume has failed to convince the public to embrace this technology. 如果你站在奇才那邊，並且相信高產轉基因作物在未來能夠保證每個人的溫飽的話，那你就不得不擔心，20年來科學家一直在證明轉基因食物是安全的，卻沒能夠說服公眾接受這項技術。If you're a prophet and you believe that key to solving today's growing shortage of fresh water is to stop wasting it, you have to worry that cities around the world, in rich places as well as poor, routinely lose a quarter or more of their water to leaky and contaminated pipes. 如果你是先知的話，你也相信解決如今水資源短缺的唯一關鍵就是節約用水，那你也不得不擔心世界上所有的城市裡，不管是富裕還是貧窮的地方，通常都會因為破損和受到汙染的管道，浪費掉至少四分之一的水。I mean, CapeTown, just a little while ago, almost ran out of water. Cape Town loses a third of its water to leaky pipes. This problem has been getting worse for decades, and remarkably little has been done about it. If you're a wizard, and you think that clean, abundant, carbon-free nuclear power is key to fighting climate change, then you have to worry that the public willingness to build nukes is going down. 舉個例子，前陣子開普敦差點就沒水用了。開普敦有三分之一的水是因管道漏水而流失的。幾十年來這個問題一直在惡化，讓人無語的是，人們在這個問題上幾乎沒有採取任何措施。如果你是一個奇才的話，你會認為清潔、豐富、無碳的核能是對抗氣候變化的關鍵，那你就不得不考慮公眾對於建造核電站的意願正在下降。If you're a prophet, and you think that the solution to the same problem is these neighborhood-run solar facilities shuttling power back and forth, you have to worry that no nation anywhere in the world has devoted anything like the resources necessary to develop this technology and deploy it in the time that we need it. 如果你是先知，你覺得解決同樣問題的關鍵是靠這些社區運營的太陽能設施來回運送的電力的話，你就不得不考慮，這世上是否有哪個國家真正投入了開發這項技術所需的資源，並且在我們需要的時候能夠部署它。And if you're on either side, wizard or prophet, you have to worry that, despite the massive alarm about climate change, the amount of energy generated every year from fossil fuels has gone up by about 30 percent since the beginning of this century. So, still think we're different than the protozoa? Still think we're special? Actually, it's even worse than that.如果你是任意一方，奇才或先知，你得考慮，儘管氣候變化的嚴重預警早已出現，自本世紀初以來，每年從化石燃料中產生的能量增加了約30%。那麼，你還認為我們和單細胞動物不一樣嗎?還覺得我們很特別嗎？實際情況其實更加糟糕。We're not in the streets. No seriously, if there's a difference between us and the protozoa, a difference that matters, it's not just our art and science and technology and so forth -- it's that we can yell and scream, we can go out into the streets, and, over time, change the way society works, but we're not doing it. 我們又不是在市區。說真的，如果說我們與單細胞動物之間存在什麼差異的話，一個重要的差異並不是我們的藝術和科技等等——而是我們可以走到大街上，我們可以大喊大叫，隨著時間的推移，改變了社會的運作方式，但我們並沒有。Wizards have been arguing literally for decades that nuclear power is key to resolving climate change. But the first pro-nuke march in history occurred less than two years ago, and it was dwarfed by the anti-nuke marches of the past. 幾十年來，奇才們一直在爭論核能是不是解決氣候變化的關鍵。但歷史上第一次支持核武器的遊行就發生在不到兩年前，與過去的反核武器遊行相比，它顯得相形見絀。Prophets have been arguing, a gainliterally for decades, that conservation is key to keeping freshwater supplies without destroying the ecosystems that generate those freshwater supplies. 先知們幾十年來一直在爭論，在不破壞產生淡水供應的生態系統的前提下，保持淡水供應的關鍵就是貯存。But in the history of humankind, there has never been a street full of angry protesters waving signs about leaky pipes. In fact, most of the political activity in this sphere has been wizards and prophets fighting each other, protesting each other rather than recognizing that they are, fundamentally, on the same side. 但在人類歷史上，從來沒有任何一條街擠滿了揮舞著寫著破舊管道標語的憤怒的抗議者。事實上，在這個領域的大多數政治活動，一直都是奇才們和先知們在相互爭鬥，相互抗議，而不是承認他們從根本上就是在同一戰線的。Afterall, these people are concerned about the same thing: How are we going to make our way in the world of 10 billion? The first step towards generating that necessary social movement, creating that critical mass and getting that yelling and screaming going seems obvious: wizards and prophets join together. But how are you going to do this, given the decades of hostility?畢竟，這些人都在關心同一個問題：在100億人口的世界裡，我們將如何生存?開始必要的社會運動，創造一種群眾效益，並且開始走上街遊行的第一步是顯而易見的：奇才們與先知們是在同一戰線的。但考慮到十幾年來的敵意，要如何實現呢？One way might be this: Each side agrees to accept the fundamental premises of the other. Accept that nuclear power is safe and carbon-free, and that uranium mines can be hideously dirty and that putting large volumes of toxic waste on rickety trains and shuttling them around the countryside is a terrible idea. 一種可行的方式是這樣：雙方同意接受對方的基本前提。接受核能是安全且無碳的，而且鈾礦的汙染也非常嚴重，把大量的有毒汙染物滯留在破舊的火車上，讓火車在鄉村間穿行是個糟糕的想法。To me, this leads rather quickly to a vision of small, neighborhood scale, temporary nukes, nuclear power as a bridge technology while we develop and deploy renewables. Or accept that genetically modified crops are safe and that industrial agriculture has caused huge environmental problems. 對我來說，這很快就引出了一個想法，在我們發展和部署可再生能源時，小型社區的臨時核電站供應的核能是我們的過渡性技術。或者接受改良轉基因食物是安全的，並且農業產業化已經對環境造成了巨大破壞。To me, this leads rather quickly to a vision of plant scientists devoting much more of their attention to tree and tuber crops, which can be much more productive than cereals, use much less water than cereals, and cause much less erosion than cereals.在我看來，植物科學家們很快就會發現他們應該花費更多的精力研究那些比穀物更高產，比穀物更節水，對環境造成的侵蝕更少的作物，像樹木和薯類作物。These are just ideas from a random journalist. I'm sure there's a hundred better ones right here in this room. The main point is, wizards and prophets working together have many paths to success. And success would mean much more than mere survival, important though that is. 這些想法都只是來自我這樣一個普通人。而我相信在這兒有更多人比我聰明。問題的關鍵就是，奇才和先知的觀點結合起來會使人類走向成功。而成功不僅僅意味著生存，儘管活下來的確很重要。I mean, if humankind somehow survives its own outbreak, if we get food to everybody, get water to everybody, get power to everybody, if we avoid the worst effects of climate change, if we somehow safeguard the biome, it would be amazing. It would say, I think, even to a hardened cynic like me, maybe wereally are special. 我是說，如果人類能夠挺過來的話，如果我們能有保證每個人都飯吃，有水喝，有電用，要是我們避開氣候變化的嚴重後果的話，要是我們能夠保護生物圈的話，那未來就會相當美好。我覺得我會說，即使像我這樣冷酷的憤世嫉俗者，都會覺得我們這個物種可能真的有點特別。