JONATHAN COOK APRIL 19, 2021

喬納森 · 庫克 2021年4月19日

Back in the 1880s, the mathematician and theologian Edwin Abbott tried to help us better understand our world by describing a very different one he called Flatland.

早在19世紀80年代，數(shù)學家和神學家埃德溫 · 阿博特試圖幫助我們更好地理解我們的世界，他描述了一個非常不同的世界，他稱之為“平面國”（Flatland）。

Imagine a world that is not a sphere moving through space like our own planet, but more like a vast sheet of paper inhabited by conscious, flat geometric shapes. These shape-people can move forwards and backwards, and they can turn left and right. But they have no sense of up or down. The very idea of a tree, or a well, or a mountain makes no sense to them because they lack the concepts and experiences of height and depth. They cannot imagine, let alone describe, obxts familiar to us.

想象一下這樣一個世界，它不像我們的星球那樣，是一個在空間中移動的球體，而像是一張巨大的紙，上面居住著有意識的、平面的、基于統(tǒng)一編碼標準的幾何圖形人，這些二維“類人體”可以前進和后退，可以左轉和右轉，但是他們沒有上升感或下降感，一棵樹，一口井，一座山對他們來說毫無意義，因為他們?nèi)狈﹃P于高度和深度的概念和經(jīng)驗，他們無法想象我們的世界，更不用說描述我們熟悉的事物。

In this two-dimensional world, the closest scientists can come to comprehending a third dimension are the baffling gaps in measurements that register on their most sophisticated equipment. They sense the shadows cast by a larger universe outside Flatland. The best brains infer that there must be more to the universe than can be observed but they have no way of knowing what it is they don’t know.

在這個二維的世界里，科學家們能理解的最接近第三維度的東西，就是他們最精密的儀器上記錄的那些令人困惑的測量誤差。
他們能感覺到平面國之外更大宇宙投下的陰影，他們之中最優(yōu)秀的大腦推斷宇宙中一定有比觀測到的更多的東西，但他們沒有辦法知道他們不知道的東西。

This sense of the the unknowable, the ineffable has been with humans since our earliest ancestors became self-conscious. They inhabited a world of immediate, cataclysmic events – storms, droughts, volcanoes and earthquakes – caused by forces they could not explain. But they also lived with a larger, permanent wonder at the mysteries of nature itself: the change from day to night, and the cycle of the seasons; the pin-pricks of light in the night sky, and their continual movement; the rising and falling of the seas; and the inevitability of life and death.

自從我們最早的祖先有自我意識以來，這種不可知、不可言說的感覺便一直伴隨著人類。
他們居住在一個由他們無法解釋的力量所引起的即時的、災難性的事件——風暴、干旱、火山和地震——造成的世界，但是他們也生活在一個更大的、永恒的奇跡中，那就是自然本身的奧秘 :
晝夜的變化和季節(jié)的循環(huán)，夜空中如針刺般的光亮，海洋的上升和下降，生與死的不可避免。

Perhaps not surprisingly, our ancestors tended to attribute common cause to these mysterious events, whether of the catastrophic or the cyclical variety, whether of chaos or order. They ascribed them to another world or dimension – to the spiritual realm, to the divine.

也許并不奇怪，無論是災難性的還是周期性的變化，無論是混亂還是有序的變化，我們的祖先傾向于把這些神秘事件歸咎于共同的原因，他們把它們歸于另一個世界或維度——靈性領域，神性領域。

Paradox and mystery

悖論與神秘

Science has sought to shrink the realm of the inexplicable. We now understand – at least approximately – the laws of nature that govern the weather and catastrophic events like an earthquake. Telescopes and rocket-ships have also allowed us to probe deeper into the heavens to make a little more sense of the universe outside our tiny corner of it.

科學試圖縮小無法解釋的領域，我們現(xiàn)在至少大致了解了支配天氣和災難性事件 (如地震) 的自然法則，望遠鏡、火箭、飛船也使我們能夠更深入地探索宇宙，讓我們對我們這個小角落之外的宇宙有更多的了解。

But the more we investigate the universe the more rigid appear the limits to our knowledge. Like the shape-people of Flatland, our ability to understand is constrained by the dimensions we can observe and experience: in our case, the three dimensions of space and the additional one of time. Influential “string theory” posits another six dimensions, though we would be unlikely to ever sense them in any more detail than the shadows almost-detected by the scientists of Flatland.

但是，我們對宇宙研究得越多，我們的知識就顯得越有限，就像“平面國”的二維類人體一樣，我們的理解能力也受到我們可以觀察和體驗的維度的限制 :
對我們來說，是三維空間和時間這一額外維度，頗具影響力的“弦理論”假設了另外的六個維度，就像平面國的科學家們探測到的陰影一樣，我們幾乎不太可能在任何細節(jié)上感覺到它們 。

The deeper we peer into the big universe of the night sky and our cosmic past, and the deeper we peer into the small universe inside the atom and our personal past, the greater the sense of mystery and wonder.
At the sub-atomic level, the normal laws of physics break down. Quantum mechanics is a best-guess attempt to explain the mysteries of movement of the tiniest particles we can observe, which appear to be operating, at least in part, in a dimension we cannot observe directly.

我們越深入地觀察夜空中的浩瀚宇宙和我們宇宙的過，越深入地觀察原子內(nèi)部的小宇宙和我們個人的過去，我們就越感到神秘和驚奇。
在亞原子水平上，物理學的正常定律被打破了——量子力學是一個很好的猜測，試圖解釋我們能觀察到的最小粒子運動的奧秘，這些粒子似乎至少部分地在我們無法直接觀察到的維度中運作。

And most cosmologists, looking outwards rather inwards, have long known that there are questions we are unlikely ever to answer: not least what exists outside our universe – or expressed another way, what existed before the Big Bang. For some time, dark matter and black holes have baffled the best minds. This month scientists conceded to the New York Times that there are forms of matter and energy unknown to science but which can be inferred because they disrupt the known laws of physics.
Inside and outside the atom, our world is full of paradox and mystery.

大多數(shù)的宇宙學家都是向外看，而不是向內(nèi)看，他們早就知道有一些問題我們可能永遠無法回答 :
尤其是我們的宇宙之外存在什么——或者用另一種方式表達，即大爆炸之前存在什么。
一段時間以來，暗物質(zhì)和黑洞一直困擾著最聰明的頭腦，本月，科學家們向《紐約時報》承認，有一些形式的物質(zhì)和能量是科學所不知道的，但可以推斷出來，因為它們破壞了已知的物理定律。
—— 在原子內(nèi)外，我們的世界充滿了悖論和神秘。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


Conceit and humility

自負和謙遜

Despite our science-venerating culture, we have arrived at a similar moment to our forebears, who gazed at the night sky in awe. We have been forced to acknowledge the boundaries of knowledge.
There is a difference, however. Our ancestors feared the unknowable, and therefore preferred to show caution and humility in the face of what could not be understood. They treated the ineffable with respect and reverence. Our culture encourages precisely the opposite approach. We show only conceit and arrogance. We seek to defeat, ignore or trivialise that which we cannot explain or understand.

盡管我們有崇尚科學的文化，但我們所處的境地與我們的祖先是相似的，他們滿懷敬畏地凝視著夜空，而我們則被迫承認知識的邊界。
然而，這是有區(qū)別的。
我們的祖先害怕不可知的事物，因此在面對無法理解的事物時，更愿意表現(xiàn)出謹慎和謙卑。
他們以尊敬和崇敬的態(tài)度對待不可言喻的事物，而我們的文化則鼓勵完全相反的方式，我們表現(xiàn)出的，是自負和傲慢，我們試圖攻擊、忽視或者淡化那些我們無法解釋或者理解的事物。

The greatest scientists do not make this mistake. As an avid viewer of science programmes like the BBC’s Horizon, I am always struck by the number of cosmologists who openly speak of their religious belief. Carl Sagan, the most famous cosmologist, never lost his sense of awestruck wonder as he examined the universe. Outside the lab, his was not the language of hard, cold, calculating science. He described the universe in the language of poetry. He understood the necessary limits of science. Rather than being threatened by the universe’s mysteries and paradoxes, he celebrated them.

最偉大的科學家不會犯這樣的錯誤，作為一個BBC《地平線》( Horizon ) 等科學節(jié)目的忠實觀眾，我時常為這么多公開談論自己宗教信仰的宇宙學家所震撼。卡爾·薩根，最著名的宇宙學家，他在研究宇宙時從未失去敬畏之心，在實驗室之外，他并不是用冷酷無情、精于計算的科學語言而是詩歌的語言來描繪宇宙，他理解科學的局限性，他沒有被宇宙的神秘和悖論所威脅，而是贊美它們。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


When in 1990, for example, space probe Voyager 1 showed us for the first time our planet from 6 billion km away, Sagan did not mistake himself or his fellow NASA scientists for gods. He saw “a pale blue dot” and marvelled at a planet reduced to a “mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”. Humility was his response to the vast scale of the universe, our fleeting place within it, and our struggle to grapple with “the great enveloping cosmic dark”.

例如，當1990年航天探測器旅行者1號第一次從60億公里外向我們展示我們的星球時，薩根并沒有把他自己或他的 NASA 科學家同事誤當成上帝，他看到了“一個淡藍色的小點”，驚嘆于一顆行星竟然變成了“懸浮在陽光中的一粒塵?！保t遜是他對浩瀚宇宙的回應，是對我們在宇宙中短暫的存在的回應，是對我們與“浩瀚宇宙的黑暗”搏斗的回應。

Mind and matter

思想和物質(zhì)
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


Sadly, Sagan’s approach is not the one that dominates the western tradition. All too often, we behave as if we are gods. Foolishly, we have made a religion of science. We have forgotten that in a world of unknowables, the application of science is necessarily tentative and ideological. It is a tool, one of many that we can use to understand our place in the universe, and one that is easily appropriated by the corrupt, by the vain, by those who seek power over others, by those who worship money.

遺憾的是，薩根的方法并不是主導西方傳統(tǒng)的方法，很多時候，我們的行為表現(xiàn)得如同我們是上帝一樣，我們愚蠢地把科學當成了宗教，我們忘記了在一個充滿未知的世界里，科學的應用必然是試探性的和意識性的，科學只是一個工具，是我們用來理解我們在宇宙中的地位的眾多工具之一，也是一個很容易被腐敗者、虛榮者、那些尋求凌駕于他人之上權力的人、那些崇拜金錢的人所利用的工具。

Until relatively recently, science, philosophy and theology sought to investigate the same mysteries and answer the same existential questions. Through much of history, they were seen as complementary, not in competition. Abbott, remember, was a mathematician and theologian, and Flatland was his attempt to explain the nature of faith. Similarly, the man who has perhaps most shaped the paradigm within which much western science still operates was a French philosopher using the scientific methods of the time to prove the existence of God.

直到不久以前，科學、哲學和神學都試圖探索同樣的奧秘，回答同樣的存在主義問題，縱觀歷史，它們被視為互補，而不是競爭。埃德溫 · 阿博特，是一位數(shù)學家和神學家，他試圖以二維的“平面國”來解釋信仰的本質(zhì)，同樣地，也許最能體現(xiàn)這一點的是一位法國哲學家，他塑造了眾多如今西方科學仍在運作的范式，他用當時的科學方法來證明上帝的存在。

Today, Rene Descartes is best remembered for his famous – if rarely understood – dictum: “I think, therefore I am.” Four hundred years ago, he believed he could prove God’s existence through his argument that mind and matter are separate. Just as human bodies were distinct from souls, so God was separate and distinct from humans. Descartes believed knowledge was innate, and therefore our idea of a perfect being, of God, could only derive from something that was perfect and obxtively real outside us.

今天，勒內(nèi) · 笛卡爾最為人們所銘記的是他那句著名的格言: “我思故我在。”
四百年前，他相信他可以通過精神和物質(zhì)是分離的這一論點來證明上帝的存在，正如人類的身體和靈魂是不同的，上帝也是不同于人類的，笛卡爾認為知識是與生俱來的，因此我們對于完美存在的概念，對于上帝的概念，對于上帝，只能來自于我們之外的完美和客觀真實的東西。

Weak and self-serving as many of his arguments sound today, Descartes’ lasting ideological influence on western science was profound. Not least so-called Cartesian dualism – the treatment of mind and matter as separate realms – has encouraged and perpetuated a mechanistic view of the world around us.

盡管笛卡爾的許多論點在今天聽起來都是軟弱和自私的，但他對西方科學長久以來的意識影響是深遠的，至少，所謂的笛卡爾二元論——將心靈和物質(zhì)視為獨立的領域——鼓勵并延續(xù)了對我們周圍世界的機械論觀點。

We can briefly grasp how strong the continuing grip of his thinking is on us when we are confronted with more ancient cultures that have resisted the west’s extreme rationalist discourse – in part, we should note, because they were exposed to it in hostile, oppressive ways that served only to alienate them from the western canon.

當我們面對眾多抵制西方極端理性主義論述的古老文化時，我們可以簡單地看出，他的思想是多么強大而牢固地持續(xù)著——在某種程度上，我們應該注意到，這是因為他們以敵對的、壓迫的方式接觸到它，這只會使他們與西方經(jīng)典疏遠。

Hearing a Native American or an Australian Aboriginal speak of the sacred significance of a river or a rock – or about their ancestors – is to become suddenly aware of how alien their thinking sounds to our “modern” ears. It is the moment when we are likely to respond in one of two ways: either to smirk internally at their childish ignorance, or to gulp at a wisdom that seems to fill a yawning emptiness in our own lives.

當我們聽到美洲原住民或澳大利亞土著人談論河流或巖石的神圣意義——或談論他們的祖先——我們就會猛然意識到他們的思想對于我們的“現(xiàn)代”來說是多么陌生，那一剎那，我們可能會有兩種反應：
要么在內(nèi)心嗤笑他們幼稚的無知，要么吞咽下一種似乎填補了我們自己生活中巨大空虛的智慧。

Science and power

科學與力量

Descartes’ legacy – a dualism that assumes separation between soul and body, mind and matter – has in many ways proved a poisonous one for western societies. An impoverished, mechanistic worldview treats both the planet and our bodies primarily as material obxts: one a plaything for our greed, the other a canvas for our insecurities.

笛卡爾的遺產(chǎn)——假定靈魂與身體、精神與物質(zhì)分離的二元論——在許多方面被證明對西方社會是有害的，一個貧窮、機械的世界觀把我們的星球和我們的身體主要當作物質(zhì)對象: 一個是我們貪婪的玩物，另一個是描述我們不安全感的畫布。

The British scientist James Lovelock who helped model conditions on Mars for NASA so it would have a better idea how to build the first probes to land there, is still ridiculed for the Gaia hypothesis he developed in the 1970s. He understood that our planet was best not viewed as a very large lump of rock with life-forms living on it, though distinct from it. Rather Earth was as a complete, endlessly complex, delicately balanced living entity. Over billions of years, life had grown more sophisticated, but each species, from the most primitive to the most advanced, was vital to the whole, maintaining a harmony that sustained the diversity.

英國科學家詹姆斯 · 洛夫洛克曾幫助NASA模擬火星環(huán)境，以便更好地構建第一個登陸火星的探測器，但他在20世紀70年代提出的蓋亞假說（ Gaia hypothesis）至今仍受備受嘲諷，他明白，我們的星球最好不要被看作是一塊有著各種生命存在的巨大巖石，地球于此截然不同，相反，地球是一個完整的、無限復雜的、微妙平衡的生命實體，數(shù)十億年來，生命變得更加復雜，但是每個物種，從最原始的到最先進的，對于整體來說都是至關重要的，維持著多樣性的和諧。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


Few listened to Lovelock. Our god-complex got the better of us. And now, as the bees and other insects disappear, everything he warned of decades ago seems far more urgent. Through our arrogance, we are destroying the conditions for advanced life. If we don’t stop soon, the planet will dispose of us and return to an earlier stage of its evolution. It will begin again, without us, as simple flora and microbes once again begin recreating gradually – measured in aeons – the conditions favourable to higher life forms.

很少有人愿意聽洛夫洛克的話，我們的上帝情結戰(zhàn)勝了我們，如今，隨著蜜蜂和其他昆蟲的消失，他幾十年前警告的一切似乎都變得更加緊迫，由于我們的傲慢，我們正在破壞高級生命生存的條件，如果我們不盡快停下來，這個星球就會拋棄我們，退回到它進化的早期階段，如果沒有我們，它將再次開始，因為簡單的植物群和微生物再次開始逐漸重新創(chuàng)造——以億萬年為單位——有利于更高級生命形式的條件。

But the abusive, mechanistic relationship we have with our planet is mirrored by the one we have with our bodies and our health. Dualism has encouraged us to think of our bodies as fleshy vehicles, which like the metal ones need regular outside intervention. The pandemic has only served to underscore these unwholesome tendencies.

但是，我們與地球之間的虐待性、機械性的關系，與我們與我們的身體和健康之間的關系形成了鏡像，二元論鼓勵我們把自己的身體看作是肉質(zhì)的載體，就像金屬工具一樣，需要外界的定期干預，這場大流行加劇了這些有害的、不健康的趨勢。

In part, the medical establishment, like all establishments, has been corrupted by the desire for power and enrichment. Science is not some pristine discipline, free from real-world pressures. Scientists need funding for research, they have mortgages to pay, and they crave status and career advancement like everyone else.

在某種程度上，醫(yī)療機構就像其它所有機構一樣，已經(jīng)被權力和財富的渴望所腐蝕，科學不是一門沒有現(xiàn)實壓力的原始學科，科學家需要研究經(jīng)費，他們也需要還抵押貸款，他們和其他人一樣渴望地位和職業(yè)發(fā)展。

Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, wrote an editorial last November warning of British state corruption that had been unleashed on a grand scale by covid-19. But it was not just politicians responsible. Scientists and health experts had been implicated too: “The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency.”

去年11月，《英國醫(yī)學雜志》(British Medical Journal) 的執(zhí)行編輯卡姆阿巴西去年11月在一篇社論中警告稱，Covid19引發(fā)了英國政府的大規(guī)模腐敗，但這不僅僅是政客們的責任，科學家和健康專家也牽涉其中： “疫情暴露了一個在緊急情況下操縱醫(yī)學和政治復合體?！?/b>

He added: “The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.”

他補充說: “英國的疫情應對措施過于依賴科學家和其他政府官員，他們存在令人擔憂的利益沖突，包括在生產(chǎn)Covid19診斷檢測、治療和疫苗的公司的股份?！?/b>

Doctors and clerics

醫(yī)生和牧師

But in some ways Abbasi is too generous. Scientists haven’t only corrupted science by prioritising their personal, political and commercial interests. Science itself is shaped and swayed by the ideological assumptions of scientists and the wider societies to which they belong. For centuries, Descartes’ dualism has provided the lens through which scientists have often developed and justified medical treatments and procedures. Medicine has its fashions too, even if they tend to be longer-lived – and more dangerous – than the ones of the clothing industry.

但在某種程度上說，阿巴西還是低估了，科學家不僅僅因為優(yōu)先考慮個人、政治和商業(yè)利益而腐化了科學，科學本身是由科學家的意識假設和他們所屬的更廣泛的社會塑造和影響的，幾個世紀以來，笛卡爾的二元論為科學家提供了一個透鏡，通過這個透鏡，科學家們經(jīng)常通過這個透鏡來發(fā)展和證明醫(yī)學治療及其程序是正確的，醫(yī)學也有它的時尚，盡管它們往往比服裝業(yè)的時尚壽命更長——也更危險。

In fact, there were self-interested reasons why Descartes’s dualism was so appealing to the scientific and medical community four centuries ago. His mind-matter division carved out a space for science free from clerical interference. Doctors could now claim an authority over our bodies separate from that claimed by the Church over our souls.

事實上，笛卡爾的二元論在四個世紀前對科學界和醫(yī)學界如此有吸引力，是有其自身利益原因的，他的精神與物質(zhì)分離的思想為科學開辟了一個沒有牧師干預的空間——醫(yī)生現(xiàn)在可以宣稱對我們的身體擁有權威，與教會對我們的靈魂所宣稱的權威分開。

But the mechanistic view of health has been hard to shake off, even as scientific understanding – and exposure to non-western medical traditions – should have made it seem ever less credible. Cartesian dualism reigns to this day, seen in the supposedly strict separation of physical and mental health. To treat the mind and body as indivisible, as two sides of the same coin, is to risk being accused of quackery. “Holistic” medicine still struggles to be taken seriously.

但是，對健康的機械論觀點一直難以擺脫，即使科學理解——以及對非西方醫(yī)學傳統(tǒng)的接觸——本應讓這種觀點看起來更不可信。
笛卡爾的二元論統(tǒng)治至今，被視為身體和精神健康的嚴格分離，如果有人把精神和身體視為不可分割的，就像一枚硬幣的兩面，很可能會被指控為江湖騙子，“整體醫(yī)學”仍然難以得到認真對待。

Faced with a fear-inducing pandemic, the medical establishment has inevitably reverted even more strongly to type. The virus has been viewed through a single lens: as an invader seeking to overwhelm our defences, while we are seen as vulnerable patients in desperate need of an extra battalion of soldiers who can help us to fight it off. With this as the dominant frxwork, it has fallen to Big Pharma – the medical corporations with the greatest firepower – to ride to our rescue.

面對一場引發(fā)恐懼的大流行，醫(yī)療機構已不可避免地、更加強烈地回歸傳統(tǒng)，人們從一個單一的角度來看待這種病毒：
將其視為試圖摧毀我們的防御系統(tǒng)的“入侵者”，而將我們視為迫切需要更多“士兵”來幫助我們戰(zhàn)勝病毒的脆弱病人。
有了這一主導框架，就輪到大型制藥公司——擁有“最強大火力”的醫(yī)藥公司——來拯救我們了。

Vaccines are part of an emergency solution, of course. They will help save lives among the most vulnerable. But the reliance on vaccines, to the exclusion of everything else, is a sign that once again we are being lured back to viewing our bodies as machines. We are being told by the medical establishment we can ride out this war with some armour-plating from Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. We can all be Robocop in the battle against Covid-19.

當然，疫苗是緊急解決方案的一部分，它們有助于挽救最脆弱群體的生命，但是，對疫苗的依賴以及對其他一切的排斥是一個跡象，表明我們再一次被引誘回到將我們的身體視為機器的思想，醫(yī)療機構告訴我們，只要輝瑞、莫德納、阿斯利康提供一些“裝甲”就能讓我們安然度過這場戰(zhàn)爭，我們都可以成為對抗冠狀病毒的“機器戰(zhàn)警”。

But there are others ways to view health than as an expensive, resource-depleting technological battle against virus-warriors. Where is the focus on improving the ever-more nutrient-deficient, processed, pesticide-laden, and sugar and chemical-rich diets most of us consume? How do we address the plague of stress and anxiety we all endure in a competitive, digitally connected, no-rest world stripped of all spiritual meaning? What do we do about the cosseted lifestyles we prefer, where exertion is a lifestyle choice renamed as exercise rather than integral to our working day, and where regular exposure to sunshine, outside of a beach vacation, is all but impossible in our office-bound schedules?

但除了將健康視為一場昂貴的、耗盡資源的技術戰(zhàn)爭以對抗病毒入侵者之外，還有其他方式來看待健康。
我們大多數(shù)人的飲食越來越缺乏營養(yǎng)，我們的食物是加工過的、含農(nóng)藥的、富含糖和化學物質(zhì)的，我們?nèi)绾胃纳七@些飲食？在一個競爭激烈、數(shù)字化連接、沒有休息的世界里，我們?nèi)绾螒獙毫徒箲]的瘟疫？對于我們喜歡的那種嬌慣的生活方式，我們該怎么辦? 在這樣的生活方式下，運動是一種選擇，被重新命名為鍛煉，而不是我們?nèi)粘Ｉ畈豢苫蛉钡囊徊糠?，在這樣的生活方式下，除了海灘度假，經(jīng)常接觸陽光幾乎不可能出現(xiàn)在我們的辦公室日程表上？

Fear and quick-fixes

恐懼與速效對策

For much of human history, our chief concern was the fight for survival – against animals and other humans, against the elements, against natural disasters. Technological developments proved invaluable in making our lives safer and easier, whether it was flint axes and domesticated animals, wheels and combustion engines, medicines and mass communications. Our brains now seem hardwired to look to technological innovation to address even the smallest inconvenience, to allay even our wildest fears.

在人類歷史的大部分時間里，我們主要關心的是為生存而戰(zhàn)——對抗動物和其他人類，對抗自然環(huán)境，對抗自然災害。
事實證明，無論是燧石斧、馴養(yǎng)動物、車輪、內(nèi)燃機、醫(yī)藥和大眾通訊，技術的發(fā)展都使我們的生活更安全、更方便，其價值無可估量，我們的大腦現(xiàn)在似乎已經(jīng)習慣于依靠技術創(chuàng)新來解決哪怕是最小的不便，減輕我們最瘋狂的恐懼。

So, of course, we have invested our hopes, and sacrificed our economies, in finding a technological fix to the pandemic. But does this exclusive fixation on technology to solve the current health crisis not have a parallel with the similar, quick-fix technological remedies we keep seeking for the many ecological crises we have created?

因此，自然而然的，我們投資于希望，犧牲我們的經(jīng)濟，寄望于尋找一種技術手段來解決這種流行病，但是，這種專注于技術以解決當前健康危機的做法，難道不與我們?yōu)樽约阂呀?jīng)造成的許多生態(tài)危機不斷尋求的、類似的、快速解決的技術補救辦法相類似嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


Global warming? We can create an even whiter paint to reflect back the sun’s heat. Plastics in every corner of our oceans? We can build giant vacuum-cleaners that will suck it all out. Vanishing bee populations? We can invent pollinator drones to take their place. A dying planet? Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk will fly millions of us to space colonies.

全球變暖？我們可以造一種更白的油漆來反射太陽的熱量。
塑料遍布我們海洋的每一個角落 ？我們可以造一個巨大的真空吸塵器把它吸走。
蜜蜂種群消失？我們可以發(fā)明傳粉蜂來取代它們。
星球瀕臨滅絕 ？杰夫 · 貝佐斯和埃隆 · 馬斯克將帶我們飛往太空殖民地。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


Were we not so technology obsessed, were we not so greedy, were we not so terrified of insecurity and death, if we did not see our bodies and minds as separate, and humans as separate from everything else, we might pause to ponder whether our approach is not a little misguided.

如果我們不是如此癡迷于科技，如果我們不是如此貪婪，如果我們不是如此害怕不安全感和死亡，如果我們不認為我們的身體和思想是分開的，如果我們不認為人類是與其他一切分開的，我們可能會停下來思考，我們的方法是否有一點走入歧途了。

Science and technology can be wonderful things. They can advance our knowledge of ourselves and the world we inhabit. But they need to be conducted with a sense of humility we increasingly seem incapable of. We are not conquerors of our bodies, or the planet, or the universe – and if we imagine we are, we will soon find out that the battle we are waging is one we can never hope to win.

科學和技術本是美好的東西，它們可以提高我們對自己和我們居住的世界的認識，但這些行動需要本著一種謙遜的態(tài)度進行，而我們似乎越來越無能為力，我們不是我們身體、地球或宇宙的征服者——如果我們想象自己是，我們很快就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們正在進行的戰(zhàn)斗永遠不可能贏。