So I've been "futuring," which is a term I made up --
我一直在「未來」著，好吧，這詞是我編的。
about three seconds ago. I've been futuring for about 20 years, and when I first started, I would sit down with people, and say, "Hey, let's talk 10, 20 years out." And they'd say, "Great."
3秒鐘前剛編的。我暢想未來已經有20年了，最開始的時候，我會坐在別人身旁，說，「嗨，我們來聊聊 10年、20年後吧。」他們說，「好呀。」
And I've been seeing that time horizon get shorter and shorter and shorter, so much so that I met with a CEO two months ago and I said -- we started our initial conversation. He goes, "I love what you do. I want to talk about the next six months."
後來我們聊的時間跨度越來越短，越來越短，就這樣，2個月前我遇到一位CEO，我還是說了之前的那套開場白。他說，「我喜歡你做的事情。但我就想聊聊未來6個月的事情。」
We have a lot of problems that we are facing. These are civilizational-scale problems. The issue though is, we can't solve them using the mental models that we use right now to try and solve these problems.
我們常常面臨著許多位於人類文明的尺度上的問題。關鍵在於，我們無法解決它們，僅僅依靠我們現有的思維方式是無法解決的。
Yes, a lot of great technical work is being done, but there is a problem that we need to solve for a priori, before, if we want to really move the needle on those big problems. "Short-termism." Right? There's no marches. There's no bracelets. There's no petitions that you can sign to be against short-termism. I tried to put one up, and no one signed. It was weird.
沒錯，許多技術性的工作正在進行中，但如果我們真的想前進，最先需要解決的問題是「短視主義」。對吧？你不能遊行，也沒有（標誌性的）手環。不是說你籤個請願書，就可以對抗短視主義。我曾起草過一個，然而並沒有人籤。挺奇怪的。
But it prevents us from doing so much. Short-termism, for many reasons, has pervaded every nook and cranny of our reality. I just want you to take a second and just think about an issue that you're thinking, working on. It could be personal, it could be at work or it could be move-the-needle world stuff, and think about how far out you tend to think about the solution set for that.
但它會阻礙我們做很多事。短視主義，出於種種原因，遍布在我們周圍的各個角落。我想請你們花幾秒鐘時間，想想你正在思考的問題，正在從事的事情。可以是私人事物，可以是工作，也可以是世界性的大事情，思考一下，你可以把解決方案考慮到多長遠。CEO出於短視可能不願意購買非常昂貴的安全設備。大問題就來了，例如「深水地平線號」這樣的事故。老師們出於短視而不願意花時間在一對一教學上。
Because short-termism prevents the CEO from buying really expensive safety equipment. It'll hurt the bottom line. So we get the Deepwater Horizon. Short-termism prevents teachers from spending quality one-on-one time with their students. So right now in America, a high school student drops out every 26 seconds. Short-termism prevents Congress -- sorry if there's anyone in here from Congress --
因此目前在美國，每26秒就有一個高中生退學。因為短視，國會——如果有誰是在國會工作的，我先說句抱歉——
or not really that sorry --
其實我也沒那麼抱歉——
from putting money into a real infrastructure bill. So what we get is the I-35W bridge collapse over the Mississippi a few years ago, 13 killed. It wasn't always like this. We did the Panama Canal. We pretty much have eradicated global polio. We did the transcontinental railroad, the Marshall Plan.
沒有通過一個基礎設施議案，從而導致數年前密西西比河上 I-35W橋梁的坍塌，造成了13人死亡。但也有例外情況。我們建造了巴拿馬運河。我們基本在世界範圍內消滅了小兒麻痺症。我們修建了橫貫大陸的鐵路，實施了馬歇爾計劃。
And it's not just big, physical infrastructure problems and issues. Women's suffrage, the right to vote. But in our short-termist time, where everything seems to happen right now and we can only think out past the next tweet or timeline post, we get hyper-reactionary.
然而這樣的計劃並不限於大型的實體基礎設施問題。還有女性的選舉權、投票權等。但在我們短視的時代，一切事情都感覺發生在當下，我們想到的只有下一條推特或者時間線上的帖子，我們的反應過於迅速。
So what do we do? We take people who are fleeing their war-torn country, and we go after them. We take low-level drug offenders, and we put them away for life. And then we build McMansions without even thinking about how people are going to get between them and their job. It's a quick buck.
我們都做了什麼？對於躲避戰亂的人，我們追捕他們。我們抓捕小毒販，把他們終身監禁。我們不假思索地蓋起獨棟別墅，卻沒有考慮人們將如何從那裡出發去上班。都想賺點快錢。
Now, the reality is, for a lot of these problems, there are some technical fixes, a lot of them. I call these technical fixes sandbag strategies. So you know there's a storm coming, the levee is broken, no one's put any money into it, you surround your home with sandbags.
如今的現實是，對於許多類似的問題都有技術層面的解決方案，真的很多。而我將它們稱為「沙袋策略」。想像一下，風雨將至，由於沒有經費進行維護，防洪堤即將崩潰，你只能用沙袋把家圍起來
And guess what? It works. Storm goes away, the water level goes down, you get rid of the sandbags, and you do this storm after storm after storm. And here's the insidious thing. A sandbag strategy can get you reelected. A sandbag strategy can help you make your quarterly numbers.
你猜怎麼著？它們還挺管用。等到暴風雨過去，水位下降，你再把沙袋挪走，每當暴風雨來臨你都這麼幹。而危及也正潛藏於此。沙袋策略能讓你繼續當選。沙袋策略可以讓你的季度報表很漂亮。
Now, if we want to move forward into a different future than the one we have right now, because I don't think we've hit -- 2016 is not peak civilization.
接下來，如果我們想要邁入一個更美好的未來，畢竟我並不覺得我們達到了—— 2016年遠不是人類文明的頂峰。
There's some more we can do. But my argument is that unless we shift our mental models and our mental maps on how we think about the short, it's not going to happen.
我們還有很多事情可以做。但我的觀點是，只有當我們擺脫在我們思維模型和思維地圖上的短視時，我們才可能見證美好的來臨。
So what I've developed is something called "longpath," and it's a practice. And longpath isn't a kind of one-and-done exercise. I'm sure everyone here at some point has done an off-site with a lot of Post-It notes and whiteboards, and you do -- no offense to the consultants in here who do that -- and you do a long-term plan, and then two weeks later, everyone forgets about it.
因此我創立了名為「長路徑」的理論，這也是一種實踐。注意「長路徑」並不是一個一勞永逸的做法。我相信在座的各位都曾經用即時貼和白板做過許多計劃，你們制定出——並不是針對你們中間做諮詢服務的啊——你們也制定出長期計劃，然後兩周之後就把它拋到九霄雲外。
Right? Or a week later. If you're lucky, three months. It's a practice because it's not necessarily a thing that you do. It's a process where you have to revisit different ways of thinking for every major decision that you're working on. So I want to go through those three ways of thinking.
是吧？或者乾脆一周就忘，幸運的話持續三個月。這些小事情，並不是非做不可，但同時這也是一個你針對每一個重大決定不斷重溫不同的思維方式的過程。我想總結以下3種思考方式。
So the first: transgenerational thinking. I love the philosophers: Plato, Socrates, Habermas, Heidegger. I was raised on them. But they all did one thing that didn't actually seem like a big deal until I really started kind of looking into this. And they all took, as a unit of measure for their entire reality of what it meant to be virtuous and good, the single lifespan, from birth to death.
第一種是：跨代際的思考。我熱愛哲學家們：柏拉圖，蘇格拉底，哈貝馬斯，海德格爾。我從小就很喜歡他們。但他們都做了一件在我真正開始思考它之前看起來很不起眼的事。他們都在尋找某種評價準則，來判斷什麼叫品德高尚，究其一生，直至死亡。
But here's a problem with these issues: they stack up on top of us, because the only way we know how to do something good in the world is if we do it between our birth and our death. That's what we're programmed to do. If you go to the self-help section in any bookstore, it's all about you. Which is great, unless you're dealing with some of these major issues.
然而這些看似合乎情理的話題存在一個問題，那就是，我們只有在有生之年做出好事，才能悟到如何做一件好事。我們生來便被如此設定。當你來到任何一家自助書店，一切可以自己決定。這非常好，除非你需要解決這樣的大問題
And so with transgenerational thinking, which is really kind of transgenerational ethics, you're able to expand how you think about these problems, what is your role in helping to solve them.
擁有了跨代際的思維方式，或者說實際上是跨代際的倫理與準則，你將能夠擴展你對這些問題的看法，明確你在解決它們的過程中扮演的角色。這並不是只能在聯合國安理會的會議廳裡解決的事情。
Now, this isn't something that just has to be done at the Security Council chamber. It's something that you can do in a very kind of personal way. So every once in a while, if I'm lucky, my wife and I like to go out to dinner, and we have three children under the age of seven. So you can imagine it's a very peaceful, quiet meal.
你完全可以用個人的方式處理它。幸運的話，每隔一段時間我都會和妻子出去吃一頓飯，我們有三個不到七歲的孩子。所以你能想得到那將是一頓非常和平，安靜的晚飯。
So we sit down and literally all I want to do is just eat and chill, and my kids have a completely and totally different idea of what we're going to be doing. And so my first idea is my sandbag strategy, right?
我們坐下來準備點餐，我一心只想著能安靜地吃東西，然而對於我們的計劃，孩子們卻有著完全不同的想法。因此，我想到的第一個辦法就是「沙袋策略」，對吧？
It's to go into my pocket and take out the iPhone and give them "Frozen" or some other bestselling game thing. And then I stop and I have to kind of put on this transgenerational thinking cap. I don't do this in the restaurant, because it would be bizarre, but I have to -- I did it once, and that's how I learned it was bizarre.
其實就是從口袋裡掏出iPhone，讓他們看《冰雪奇緣》，或是給他們玩暢銷遊戲。然後我打住了，接下來不得不在某種程度上進入跨代際的思考狀態。我知道在餐館裡這樣做很詭異，然而我身不由己——我試了一次，對，我就是這樣發現了它有多麼詭異的。
And you have to kind of think, "OK, I can do this." But what is this teaching them? So what does it mean if I actually bring some paper or engage with them in conversation? It's hard. It's not easy, and I'm making this very personal.
然後你得告訴自己，「我能做到」。可是這能教會他們什麼呢？所以如果我真的帶上紙筆，或是與他們交談，會發生什麼呢？這很困難，況且我在把它搞得個人化
It's actually more traumatic than some of the big issues that I work on in the world -- entertaining my kids at dinner. But what it does is it connects them here in the present with me, but it also -- and this is the crux of transgenerational thinking ethics -- it sets them up to how they're going to interact with their kids and their kids and their kids.
比起我在從事的世界上的大問題，讓孩子們在晚餐時娛樂可能帶來更大的負面後果。但它的功用是，在此時此刻將我和孩子們連結為一體，而且——這正是代際倫理思想的關鍵——幫助他們認識到如何與孩子互動，子子孫孫，始終如此。
Second, futures thinking. When we think about the future, 10, 15 years out, give me a vision of what the future is. You don't have to give it to me, but think in your head. And what you're probably going to see is the dominant cultural lens that dominates our thinking about the future right now: technology.
第二：面向未來思考。當我們以10年，15年的尺度，去思考未來時，我們將得到一個未來的願景。不必說出來，但你可以想一想。你將有可能透過它們觀察世界，並任之引領我們的想像的是：科學技術。
So when we think about the problems, we always put it through a technological lens, a tech-centric, a techno-utopia, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's something that we have to really think deeply about if we're going to move on these major issues, because it wasn't always like this. Right? The ancients had their way of thinking about what the future was.
當我們考慮問題時，我們總是從科技的角度出發，以科技為核心，實現科技烏託邦，這些並沒有什麼問題，但如果我們要確實地解決這些大問題，就需要三思而行，畢竟沒有萬全之策，對吧？古人自有他們自己思考未來的方式。
The Church definitely had their idea of what the future could be, and you could actually pay your way into that future. Right? And luckily for humanity, we got the scientific revolution. From there, we got the technology, but what has happened -- And by the way, this is not a critique. I love technology. Everything in my house talks back to me, from my children to my speakers to everything.
教會一定也有它們對於未來的看法，實際上你完全可以自己構想一下未來的樣子，對麼？對於人類而言，幸運的是，我們迎來了科學革命。由此我們獲得了科學技術，但發生的事情是——順便澄清一下，我無意批判。我愛科技。我家的所有東西，從孩子到揚聲器，都可以跟我對話。
But we've abdicated the future from the high priests in Rome to the high priests of Silicon Valley. So when we think, well, how are we going to deal with climate or with poverty or homelessness, our first reaction is to think about it through a technology lens.
然而我們只是把未來的掌控權從羅馬教皇轉移到了「矽谷教皇」。因此，當我們思考如何應對氣候變化或是貧困和無家可歸問題，我們的第一反應是以科技為武器。
And look, I'm not advocating that we go to this guy. I love Joel, don't get me wrong, but I'm not saying we go to Joel. What I'm saying is we have to rethink our base assumption about only looking at the future in one way, only looking at it through the dominant lens. Because our problems are so big and so vast that we need to open ourselves up.
請注意，我並不是在鼓動大家去投靠他。我愛Joel，但別誤會，這並不代表我們都要投靠Joel。我的意思是，我們需要質疑以單一視角看未來的大前提，和被主流看法所左右的現狀。我們面臨的問題很大，覆蓋範圍非常廣，因而我們需要開放的視角。
So that's why I do everything in my power not to talk about the future. I talk about futures. It opens the conversation again. So when you're sitting and thinking about how do we move forward on this major issue -- it could be at home, it could be at work, it could be again on the global stage -- don't cut yourself off from thinking about something beyond technology as a fix because we're more concerned about technological evolution right now than we are about moral evolution. And unless we fix for that, we're not going to be able to get out of short-termism and get to where we want to be.
這就是為什麼，我盡力不討論單一的未來，而是未來的無限可能。這樣可以再度放開我們的對話。因此，你完全可以在家在上班的時候，以至在國際舞臺上，安靜專注地思考我們該如何解決這個問題，發散你的思維，嘗試科技以外的事物吧，因為相較於道德的發展，我們當今更容易關注的是科技的發展。當我們局限在科技視角時，我們將無法擺脫短視的把控以到達我們期待的目的地。
The final, telos thinking. This comes from the Greek root. Ultimate aim and ultimate purpose. And it's really asking one question: to what end? When was the last time you asked yourself: To what end? And when you asked yourself that, how far out did you go? Because long isn't long enough anymore. Three, five years doesn't cut it. It's 30, 40, 50, 100 years.
第三種，則是目的論思維，它起源於希臘。旨在尋求終極的目的。它實際上就在不斷提出問題：最後怎麼樣？最近一次你問自己「最後怎麼樣」是什麼時候了？你又在何時問過自己你已經走了多遠？因為曾經的漫長，如今已不再漫長。區區三五年已經遠遠不夠了，而是要放眼30，40，50，甚至100年。
In Homer's epic, "The Odyssey," Odysseus had the answer to his "what end." It was Ithaca. It was this bold vision of what he wanted -- to return to Penelope. And I can tell you, because of the work that I'm doing, but also you know it intuitively -- we have lost our Ithaca. We have lost our "to what end," so we stay on this hamster wheel.
在荷馬史詩《奧德賽》中，奧德修斯對於「最後怎麼樣」有自己的答案，是來到伊薩卡島，來到美麗的帕尼羅珀身邊這樣大膽的設想。然而經由我的工作經歷，實際上你也可以直觀地感受到我們的」伊薩卡島「已經淪陷。我們不再追問「最後怎麼樣」，因而就好像被困在在的倉鼠輪上。
And yes, we're trying to solve these problems, but what comes after we solve the problem? And unless you define what comes after, people aren't going to move. The businesses -- this isn't just about business -- but the businesses that do consistently, who break out of short-termism not surprisingly are family-run businesses.
確實，我們正在嘗試解決這些問題，但是當它們被解決後，又會發生什麼呢？如果你不為下一步作出定義，人們是不會行動的。就商業活動而言——（而又不限於商業）那些能夠避免短視而長久維繫的企業毫不意外的都是家族企業。
They're transgenerational. They're telos. They think about the futures. And this is an ad for Patek Philippe. They're 175 years old, and what's amazing is that they literally embody this kind of longpathian sense in their brand, because, by the way, you never actually own a Patek Philippe, and I definitely won't --
它們有跨時代的理念，追根究底，並思考未來。這是瑞士百達翡麗手錶的廣告，它已經有175年歷史了，但最令人驚異的是，他們實際上在品牌中熔鑄了這種「長路徑』的意識，因為，你實際上並不會真正地擁有一塊百達翡麗表，而我更是肯定不會有——
unless somebody wants to just throw 25,000 dollars on the stage. You merely look after it for the next generation.
除非有人就想砸25000美金給我。在下一代當中沒準你能找到。所以大家要記住的是，我們總認為「未來」是一個名詞。
So it's important that we remember, the future, we treat it like a noun. It's not. It's a verb. It requires action. It requires us to push into it. It's not this thing that washes over us. It's something that we actually have total control over. But in a short-term society, we end up feeling like we don't. We feel like we're trapped. We can push through that.
然而並非如此，它是一個動詞。它需要我們付出行動，需要我們的推動力。它並不會如海浪般衝刷我們。相反，它是可以被我們完全掌控的。但是身處一個短視的社會，我們開始懷疑自己把握未來的能力。我們感到自己受到縛束。
Now I'm getting more comfortable in the fact that at some point in the inevitable future, I will die. But because of these new ways of thinking and doing, both in the outside world and also with my family at home, and what I'm leaving my kids, I get more comfortable in that fact.
實際上，我們可以實現超越。現在我已經能夠逐漸接受在未來的某個時候不可避免地，我會死掉。但正是由於這些思考和行動的新方法，無論是在家裡還是外面的世界，以及傳授給孩子們的時候，我實際上能收穫更多的愉悅。
And it's something that a lot of us are really uncomfortable with, but I'm telling you, think it through. Apply this type of thinking and you can push yourself past what's inevitably very, very uncomfortable.
它是我們許多人並不喜歡的，但我還是想勸告各位，再來考慮一下。應用這種思維方式，並從中使自己獲得超越的過程，存在著不可避免的不適感。
And it all begins really with yourself asking this question: What is your long path? But I ask you, when you ask yourself that now or tonight or behind a steering wheel or in the boardroom or the situation room: push past the long path, quick, oh, what's my long path the next three years or five years? Try and push past your own life if you can because it makes you do things a little bit bigger than you thought were possible.
但你可以從質問自己「長期目標是什麼」來邁出第一步。我希望你做到的是。無論是在此刻或是今晚。或者是在你開車的時候。在會議室，還是在指揮室：用前面所述的「長路徑」思維，確定你在接下來三到五年的規劃。嘗試去超越自己過往的生活，因為這樣將會幫助你做出以前力所不能及的事情。
Yes, we have huge, huge problems out there. With this process, with this thinking, I think we can make a difference. I think you can make a difference, and I believe in you guys.
是的，我們需要面對大得可怕的問題。但經歷了這樣的思維過程，我認為我們能夠做出改變。我相信你也可以，我相信你們。
Thank you.
謝謝。