???簡介

How will we survive when the population hits 10 billion?

演講者：Charles C.Mann?查爾斯·曼恩

語言：英語

簡介：到2050年，估計將有100億人生活在地球上衰倦。 我們?nèi)绾卧诒苊鈿夂蜃兓顕乐赜绊懙耐瑫r為每個人提供基本需求袒炉？ 科學(xué)記者查爾斯·曼（Charles C. Mann）在一次充滿機智和智慧的談話中打破了提議的解決方案旁理，發(fā)現(xiàn)答案分為兩個陣營 - 巫師和先知 - 同時提供自己對生存的最佳途徑樊零。

?彩蛋?：后臺回復(fù)“0419” 可免費獲得萬水整理好的【視頻+word版中英對照翻譯】,如需要，請盡快保存孽文。

???中英對照演講稿

How are we doing? No, no, no, by that, I meant, how are we, homo sapiens "we" ...

我們最近過得怎么樣驻襟？哦不，我的意思是芋哭，最近沉衣，身為現(xiàn)代人的“我們”...?

doing as a species?

作為一個物種，過得怎么樣减牺？

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. 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.?

關(guān)于這個問題的回答豌习，很典型的一類就是，選擇一些描述人們身體狀況的詞：平均壽命拔疚，每天平均的食物攝入量肥隆，平均收入，總?cè)丝诘鹊戎墒В缓螽嬕粋€隨時間變化的曲線栋艳。在幾乎所有的情況下，你得到的都是同樣的結(jié)果句各。在幾千年的時間線上吸占，變化都是處于一個較低的水平，隨后在19世紀和20世紀以指數(shù)方式猛漲凿宾。

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. In thesa me way, the line skitters along at a low level for millennia, then rockets up exponentially in the 19th and 20th century.

或者以消耗量為單位：消耗了多少能源矾屯，用了多少水，消耗了多少光合作用初厚，再畫一個隨時間變化的曲線问拘。同樣趟畏，時間線在幾千年來還是處于低值宽档，且變化平緩网持，在19世紀與20世紀以指數(shù)方式猛漲枢劝。

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. Pests, parasites, lack of resources prevent them from expanding too much.?

生物學(xué)家對此的解釋是：生物爆炸挺举。生物爆炸指的就是一種物種的數(shù)量超出了自然界所能承受的范圍汹碱。通常來說要尔，自然選擇在大致范圍內(nèi)控制了人口和物種的數(shù)量婉宰。害蟲势似，寄生蟲拌夏，資源缺乏等因素僧著，導(dǎo)致它們無法過度繁殖。

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. So here's a fundamental lesson from biology: outbreaks in nature don't end well.

但偶爾障簿，一些物種也會突破自身的邊界盹愚。比如印度洋的棘冠海星，北美五大湖的斑馬貽貝站故，加拿大的云杉蚜蟲皆怕。這些生物數(shù)量是呈百倍，千倍西篓，甚至是萬倍增長的愈腾。下面是一個生物學(xué)中普遍的教訓(xùn)：自然界中的生物爆炸通常沒什么好結(jié)果。

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. 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.

把幾種單細胞生物放入一個有營養(yǎng)物質(zhì)的培養(yǎng)皿中岂津，在它們的自然環(huán)境中虱黄，土壤或水分等因素限制了它們的繁衍。而在培養(yǎng)皿中吮成，它們營養(yǎng)充足橱乱，并且沒有天敵。它們不斷地攝入與繁殖粱甫，直到有一天泳叠，它們撐爆了培養(yǎng)皿，只能要么淹沒在自己的排泄物中魔种，要么因缺乏營養(yǎng)而餓死析二，或者兩者兼有之。生物爆炸總是以糟糕的方式結(jié)束节预。

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(xué)的方面來看叶摄，你和我比起培養(yǎng)皿中的單細胞生物，并沒有什么本質(zhì)上的區(qū)別安拟，我們并不特殊蛤吓。我們因虛榮心而認為，思想使得我們與眾不同糠赦，藝術(shù)会傲，科技等等，但這些都不重要拙泽。我們就是一種生物爆炸的物種淌山，我們就要撐爆我們的培養(yǎng)皿了，就這么簡單顾瞻。

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：這會是真的嗎泼疑？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荷荤，來問大家另一個問題退渗。如果我們能夠突破生物爆炸的宿命移稳，要怎么做呢？

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年会油，地球上將會有100億人口个粱，并且我們想要的東西，這些人也都會需要：豪車翻翩，名牌衣服都许，大別墅，奇奇怪怪的三角巧克力体斩。假設(shè)把三角巧克力分給100億個人梭稚。要怎么實現(xiàn)呢颖低？我們怎么給每個人足夠的食物絮吵，足夠的水，讓每個人保持足夠的體力來應(yīng)對最極端的氣候變化忱屑？

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. "Be smart, make more," they say. "That way, everyone can win." Prophets believe close to the opposite.?

我是一名科學(xué)記者蹬敲，這些年來我一直在問專家們這些問題，以我的經(jīng)驗看來莺戒，他們的回答大體可分為兩大類伴嗡，就是我說的“奇才”和“先知”。奇才从铲，也就是所謂的技術(shù)宅瘪校，認為恰當?shù)剡\用科技，會讓我們找到擺脫困境的方法名段。他們會說：“機靈點阱扬，提高生產(chǎn)力。那樣的話伸辟，每個人都會生存下來麻惶。”先知們則認為恰恰相反信夫。

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." 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.

他們認為世界有一種基本的生態(tài)法則窃蹋，而我們必須遵守這個法則，不然就要自食其果静稻。他們會說“少用點警没，存起來，不然的話振湾，每個人都得餓死杀迹。”幾十年來恰梢，奇才與先知的觀點一直處于對立的狀態(tài)佛南，但他們都認為梗掰，科技是一把通向美好明天的鑰匙。分歧在于嗅回，他們所預(yù)想的科技和未來都是不一樣的及穗。

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，高效率的大城市绵载，被周圍廣闊的原生態(tài)自然所包圍著埂陆，經(jīng)濟體從實體經(jīng)濟轉(zhuǎn)向數(shù)字經(jīng)濟，非物質(zhì)化的資本主義社會不再依賴于剝削自然娃豹。在奇才們看來焚虱，能源來自于核電站，來自于高生產(chǎn)力的小農(nóng)場生產(chǎn)的轉(zhuǎn)基因食物懂版，并且這些莊稼都由機器人看管鹃栽；

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.

水源都來自于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躯畴。這些人假設(shè)把我們100億人民鼓，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愿景：高度自由化的超級城市化世界蓬抄。

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丰嘉。他們指出，你不能抹去水和食物的物質(zhì)形態(tài)嚷缭，你不可能以吃比特為生吧饮亏，而且工業(yè)化農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)已經(jīng)給我們造成了嚴重的水土流失，造成海洋水體富營養(yǎng)化阅爽，微生物群落被摧毀路幸。那我問你們，這些土地都貧瘠成這副樣子了优床，還想著建你們的海水淡化工廠劝赔？

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(chǎn)生大量的有毒鹽胆敞，而這些基本上都是不可能處理掉的着帽。這就是你喜歡的超級城市？你能給我列出一座現(xiàn)實世界存在的這種城市嗎移层，除了東京之外仍翰，而且看著還不像一個腐敗和不平等的污濁之地？

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. Prophets don't generate water from giant desalination plants.?

相反地观话，先知們希望這個世界是一個更小型的予借，相互關(guān)聯(lián)的社區(qū)，與自然相處更和諧，一個全人類緊密相連的農(nóng)業(yè)世界灵迫，沒有任何商業(yè)紛爭秦叛。在這個愿景中，更多的人居住在鄉(xiāng)下瀑粥，用全社區(qū)規(guī)模的太陽能與對環(huán)境無破壞的風(fēng)力發(fā)電機來提供電力挣跋。先知們才不會用淡化工廠來提取水呢。

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.

他們在降雨中獲得水分狞换，并且不斷地重復(fù)使用和循環(huán)利用避咆。食物呢，則有小型的網(wǎng)絡(luò)型農(nóng)場修噪，專門栽種樹木和薯類查库，而不是像大米小麥這樣產(chǎn)量低的谷物。

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. Above all, prophets say submitting to nature's restraints leads to a freer, more democratic, healthier way of life.

最重要的是黄琼，先知們希望人們能夠改變他們的生活方式樊销。他們不用開車上班，而是乘坐可再生能源列車适荣。他們每天早上不用再花30分鐘來洗個熱水澡现柠。像邁克爾·波倫說的院领，他們吃的是真正的食物弛矛，絕大多數(shù)是素食，還要控制食量比然。最重要的就是丈氓，先知們提倡利用地球母親給我們提供的一切，引領(lǐng)一個更自由强法，更民主万俗，更健康的生活方式。

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.?

不過饮怯，奇才們則認為這些都是異想天開闰歪。他們覺得這會導(dǎo)致狹隘，倒退蓖墅，以及全球性的貧困库倘。他們認為“先知”式的農(nóng)業(yè)就是擴展人類的足跡，給更多的人分配低薪的農(nóng)務(wù)论矾。

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(qū)使用的太陽能裝置教翩，聽起來還不錯，但依賴于一種尚未開發(fā)出來的技術(shù)手段贪壳，完全是癡人說夢饱亿。再說循環(huán)利用的水，這就是限制社會發(fā)展的一顆毒瘤。最重要的是彪笼，奇才們反對先知們在大規(guī)模社會生產(chǎn)上的觀點钻注，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(jié)制增長的話配猫，那么下一個世紀的歷史很可能是队寇，我們作為一個物種在這兩條道路之間做出的選擇。這些問題不管怎樣章姓，都會被我們的下一代給解決掉佳遣，終將成為構(gòu)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.?

等會兒凡伊，生物學(xué)家們現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該對此嗤之以鼻零渐，它們的反對之聲大到你都聽不到我說話了。他們鐵定會說系忙，所有這些“奇才”诵盼，“先知”之類的，都是白日夢银还。你認為你做的是什么白日夢并不重要风宁。

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.

自然界的生物爆炸注定沒有好結(jié)果。我是說蛹疯，你以為單細胞動物看到了培養(yǎng)皿的邊緣正在靠近戒财，然后說，"朋友們捺弦，我們是不是該改變一下社會結(jié)構(gòu)了饮寞？”不，它們只會繼續(xù)列吼。這就是生命幽崩，我們也是這個生命的一部分。我們也會做同樣的事寞钥。直面這個事實吧慌申。

Well, if you're a follower of Darwin, you have to take this into consideration. I mean, the basic counterargument boils down to: "We're special." How lame is that?

如果你是達爾文的追隨者，就必須考慮到這一點理郑√愀龋基本的反駁可以歸結(jié)為：“我們是特殊的∠愫疲”是不是挺厚顏無恥的类缤？

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(lǐng)我們的未來邻吭。但我們真的在行動了嗎餐弱？有什么證據(jù)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膏蚓。

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瓢谢，并且相信高產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物在未來能夠保證每個人的溫飽的話，那你就不得不擔心驮瞧，20年來科學(xué)家一直在證明轉(zhuǎn)基因食物是安全的氓扛，卻沒能夠說服公眾接受這項技術(shù)。

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.?

如果你是先知的話论笔，你也相信解決如今水資源短缺的唯一關(guān)鍵就是節(jié)約用水采郎，那你也不得不擔心世界上所有的城市里，不管是富裕還是貧窮的地方狂魔，通常都會因為破損和受到污染的管道蒜埋，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.

舉個例子最楷，前陣子開普敦差點就沒水用了整份。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籽孙，讓人無語的是烈评，人們在這個問題上幾乎沒有采取任何措施。

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.?

如果你是一個奇才的話犯建，你會認為清潔讲冠、豐富、無碳的核能是對抗氣候變化的關(guān)鍵胎挎，那你就不得不考慮公眾對于建造核電站的意愿正在下降沟启。

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(guān)鍵是靠這些社區(qū)運營的太陽能設(shè)施來回運送的電力的話犹菇，你就不得不考慮，這世上是否有哪個國家真正投入了開發(fā)這項技術(shù)所需的資源芽卿，并且在我們需要的時候能夠部署它揭芍。

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.

如果你是任意一方，奇才或先知卸例，你得考慮称杨，盡管氣候變化的嚴重預(yù)警早已出現(xiàn)，自本世紀初以來筷转，每年從化石燃料中產(chǎn)生的能量增加了約30%姑原。

So, still think we're different than the protozoa? Still think we're special? Actually, it's even worse than that.

那么，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呜舒？實際情況其實更加糟糕锭汛。

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(qū)。說真的，如果說我們與單細胞動物之間存在什么差異的話唤殴，一個重要的差異并不是我們的藝術(shù)和科技等等——而是我們可以走到大街上般婆，我們可以大喊大叫，隨著時間的推移朵逝，改變了社會的運作方式蔚袍，但我們并沒有。

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. 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.?

幾十年來配名，奇才們一直在爭論核能是不是解決氣候變化的關(guān)鍵啤咽。但歷史上第一次支持核武器的游行就發(fā)生在不到兩年前，與過去的反核武器游行相比渠脉，它顯得相形見絀闰蚕。先知們幾十年來一直在爭論，在不破壞產(chǎn)生淡水供應(yīng)的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的前提下连舍，保持淡水供應(yīng)的關(guān)鍵就是貯存没陡。

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. Afterall, these people are concerned about the same thing: How are we going to make our way in the world of 10 billion?

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索赏。事實上盼玄，在這個領(lǐng)域的大多數(shù)政治活動，一直都是奇才們和先知們在相互爭斗潜腻，相互抗議埃儿，而不是承認他們從根本上就是在同一戰(zhàn)線的。畢竟融涣，這些人都在關(guān)心同一個問題：在100億人口的世界里童番，我們將如何生存?

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?

開始必要的社會運動，創(chuàng)造一種群眾效益威鹿，并且開始走上街游行的第一步是顯而易見的：奇才們與先知們是在同一戰(zhàn)線的剃斧。但考慮到十幾年來的敵意，要如何實現(xiàn)呢忽你？

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幼东。接受核能是安全且無碳的，而且鈾礦的污染也非常嚴重科雳，把大量的有毒污染物滯留在破舊的火車上根蟹，讓火車在鄉(xiāng)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. 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.

對我來說糟秘，這很快就引出了一個想法简逮，在我們發(fā)展和部署可再生能源時，小型社區(qū)的臨時核電站供應(yīng)的核能是我們的過渡性技術(shù)尿赚∩⑹或者接受改良轉(zhuǎn)基因食物是安全的蕉堰，并且農(nóng)業(yè)產(chǎn)業(yè)化已經(jīng)對環(huán)境造成了巨大破壞。在我看來督赤，植物科學(xué)家們很快就會發(fā)現(xiàn)他們應(yīng)該花費更多的精力研究那些比谷物更高產(chǎn)嘁灯，比谷物更節(jié)水，對環(huán)境造成的侵蝕更少的作物躲舌，像樹木和薯類作物丑婿。

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没卸。問題的關(guān)鍵就是羹奉，奇才和先知的觀點結(jié)合起來會使人類走向成功。而成功不僅僅意味著生存约计，盡管活下來的確很重要诀拭。

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煤蚌，如果我們能有保證每個人都飯吃耕挨，有水喝，有電用尉桩，要是我們避開氣候變化的嚴重后果的話筒占，要是我們能夠保護生物圈的話，那未來就會相當美好蜘犁。我覺得我會說翰苫，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这橙。

Thank you.(Applause)

謝謝大家奏窑。（掌聲）

轉(zhuǎn)載需在文章開頭注明：來自：TED博物館 ID：TEDMORE

版權(quán)歸TED所有，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流如有侵權(quán)也請后臺聯(lián)系

???往期內(nèi)容

▼點擊原文 到TED官網(wǎng)看本期