TED英文演講：我們?yōu)槭裁匆ぷ?/h1>
時(shí)間：
楊杰1209由 分享
我們?yōu)槭裁匆ぷ?如果是想要賺錢，那就是最世俗的回答了。因?yàn)槲覀兒雎粤宋覀冏鳛槿祟愖畲蟮奶刭|(zhì)，就是創(chuàng)造力和有思想。為什么工業(yè)革命之父亞當(dāng)斯密曾說：在流水線工作的人會(huì)變得很笨，笨到人類的極點(diǎn)?因?yàn)樗嘈湃祟愋枰贫龋ㄟ^薪酬的方式把人們變成要滿足制度需要的人，剝奪了人們的創(chuàng)造機(jī)會(huì)。所以人們不應(yīng)該被設(shè)計(jì)活在別人的概念里而忽略自己本身的人性。下面是小編為大家收集關(guān)于TED英文演講：我們?yōu)槭裁匆ぷ鳎瑲g迎借鑒參考。
演講者：Barry Schwartz
Today I'm going to talk about work. And the question I want to ask and answer is this: "Why do we work?" Why do we drag ourselves out of bed every morning instead of living our lives just filled with bouncing from one TED-like adventure to another?
今天我要談一談工作。我想跟大家一起討論的問題是：“我們?yōu)槭裁匆ぷ?”為什么我們每天早上要掙扎著起床(去上班)而不是享受生活，讓我們的人生充滿一個(gè)個(gè)像TED大會(huì)這樣美妙的經(jīng)歷呢?
You may be asking yourselves that very question. Now, I know of course, we have to make a living, but nobody in this room thinks that that's the answer to the question, "Why do we work?" For folks in this room, the work we do is challenging, it's engaging, it's stimulating, it's meaningful. And if we're lucky, it might even be important.
你們也許也有同樣的疑問吧。當(dāng)然，我理解，我們要維持生計(jì)，但我相信，在座的各位不會(huì)認(rèn)為“維持生計(jì)”是問題的答案，“我們?yōu)槭裁匆ぷ?”對(duì)于在座的各位，工作是充滿挑戰(zhàn)的，它是迷人、刺激、富有意義的。如果我們幸運(yùn)的話，它甚至可能不可或缺。
So, we wouldn't work if we didn't get paid, but that's not why we do what we do. And in general, I think we think that material rewards are a pretty bad reason for doing the work that we do. When we say of somebody that he's "in it for the money," we are not just being descriptive.
因此，如果沒有薪水，我們就不會(huì)工作，但這還不是主要原因。通常情況下，我們認(rèn)為物質(zhì)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)并不是我們工作的好理由。當(dāng)我們說某人“做這個(gè)只是為了錢”的時(shí)候背后的含義大家懂的。
Now, I think this is totally obvious, but the very obviousness of it raises what is for me an incredibly profound question. Why, if this is so obvious, why is it that for the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, the work they do has none of the characteristics that get us up and out of bed and off to the office every morning?
我想這很顯而易見吧，但正因?yàn)轱@而易見，反而帶來一個(gè) 極其深刻的問題。為什么，盡管這很明顯，為什么地球上絕大多數(shù)的人都在做一些極其無聊的工作，無聊到讓我們甚至沒有動(dòng)力從床上爬起來去上班呢?
How is it that we allow the majority of people on the planet to do work that is monotonous, meaningless and soul-deadening? Why is it that as capitalism developed, it created a mode of production, of goods and services, in which all the nonmaterial satisfactions that might come from work were eliminated? Workers who do this kind of work, whether they do it in factories, in call centers,or in fulfillment warehouses, do it for pay. There is certainly no other earthly reason to do what they do except for pay.
而我們又為什么會(huì)允許大多數(shù)人去做乏味、無意義且讓人麻木的工作呢?為什么資本主義一直在發(fā)展，它創(chuàng)造出來的生產(chǎn)、商品和服務(wù)模式，反倒將工作帶來的精神滿足感損失殆盡呢?從事這種工作的工人，不管是在工廠，客服中心，還是在倉庫，工作就是為了賺錢。除此之外再無其他理由。
So the question is, "Why?" And here's the answer: the answer is technology. Now, I know, I know —yeah, yeah, yeah, technology, automation screws people, blah blah — that's not what I mean.
那么問題來了，“為什么呢?”我認(rèn)為答案是這樣：是技術(shù)。哦，我知道了，我明白了—— 是的，沒錯(cuò)，技術(shù)、自動(dòng)化毀了人類，諸如此類陳詞濫調(diào)——我想說的并不是這個(gè)。
I'm not talking about the kind of technology that has enveloped our lives, and that people come to TED to hear about. I'm not talking about the technology of things, profound though that is. I'm talking about another technology. I'm talking about the technology of ideas. I call it, "idea technology" — how clever of me.
我所指的技術(shù)，并不是那些已經(jīng)進(jìn)入我們生活的，我們?cè)赥ED演講中能聽到的技術(shù)。我說的并不是實(shí)物科技，盡管實(shí)物科技也很深?yuàn)W。我指的是另一種技術(shù)。是關(guān)于思想的技術(shù)。我稱之為“思維技術(shù)”——機(jī)智如我。
In addition to creating things, science creates ideas. Science creates ways of understanding. And in the social sciences, the ways of understanding that get created are ways of understanding ourselves. And they have an enormous influence on how we think, what we aspire to, and how we act.
除了創(chuàng)造事物，科學(xué)也創(chuàng)造思想?？茖W(xué)創(chuàng)造理解方式。在社會(huì)科學(xué)中，被創(chuàng)造出來的理解方式成為了我們了解自身的途徑。它們極大的影響了我們的思維方式、我們的追求和我們的行為方式。
If you think your poverty is God's will, you pray. If you think your poverty is the result of your own inadequacy, you shrink into despair. And if you think your poverty is the result of oppression and domination, then you rise up in revolt. Whether your response to poverty is resignation or revolution,depends on how you understand the sources of your poverty. This is the role that ideas play in shaping us as human beings, and this is why idea technology may be the most profoundly important technologythat science gives us.
如果你覺得貧窮是上帝的旨意，那你便會(huì)祈禱。如果你覺得貧窮是因?yàn)樽约翰粔蚝?，你便?huì)陷入絕望。如果你覺得貧窮是壓迫和統(tǒng)治造成的，那你就會(huì)造反。你對(duì)貧窮的反應(yīng)是認(rèn)命還是革命，取決于你如何理解貧窮的原因。這就是思想在將我們塑造成人類過程中所起的作用，這就是為什么思維技術(shù)也許是科學(xué)賦予我們的最重要的技術(shù)。
And there's something special about idea technology, that makes it different from the technology of things. With things, if the technology sucks, it just vanishes, right? Bad technology disappears. With ideas — false ideas about human beings will not go away if people believe that they're true. Because if people believe that they're true, they create ways of living and institutions that are consistent with these very false ideas.
思維技術(shù)有它的特別之處，這也使其同實(shí)物技術(shù)有所區(qū)別。如果實(shí)物技術(shù)很爛，就會(huì)遭到淘汰，對(duì)吧?糟糕的技術(shù)會(huì)消失。而在思想方面——關(guān)于人類的錯(cuò)誤思想并不會(huì)消失，只要人們覺得對(duì)，就不會(huì)消失。因?yàn)橹灰腥擞X得這些思想是正確的，那他們就會(huì)創(chuàng)造出相應(yīng)的生活方式和制度，來與這些錯(cuò)誤思想保持一致。
And that's how the industrial revolution created a factory system in which there was really nothing you could possibly get out of your day's work, except for the pay at the end of the day. Because the father — one of the fathers of the Industrial Revolution, Adam Smith — was convinced that human beings were by their very natures lazy, and wouldn't do anything unless you made it worth their while, and the way you made it worth their while was by incentivizing, by giving them rewards. That was the only reason anyone ever did anything.
工業(yè)革命就是這么創(chuàng)造出工廠體制的，在這體制下，你工作一整天后除了錢什么也得不到 因?yàn)楣I(yè)革命之父——工業(yè)革命之父之一亞當(dāng)·史密斯，他相信人天生就是懶惰的，如果你不讓他們覺得值，他們寧愿閑著什么也不做，怎么讓他們覺得值呢?就是激勵(lì)他們，給他們報(bào)酬。這是任何人做任何事的唯一原因。
So we created a factory system consistent with that false view of human nature. But once that system of production was in place, there was really no other way for people to operate, except in a way that was consistent with Adam Smith's vision. So the work example is merely an example of how false ideas can create a circumstance that ends up making them true.
于是我們基于對(duì)人性的 錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)識(shí)建立了工廠體系。但這種生產(chǎn)制度一旦建立，人們就別無選擇了，只能選擇與亞當(dāng)·史密斯的觀點(diǎn)相符的(工作)方式。錯(cuò)誤的理論能創(chuàng)造出(與之相適應(yīng)的)狀況，最終自圓其說， 工作只是其中一個(gè)例子。
It is not true that you "just can't get good help anymore." It is true that you "can't get good help anymore" when you give people work to do that is demeaning and soulless. And interestingly enough, Adam Smith — the same guy who gave us this incredible invention of mass production, and division of labor — understood this. He said, of people who worked in assembly lines, of men who worked in assembly lines, he says: "He generally becomes as stupid as it is possible for a human being to become."
但我不認(rèn)為我們“已經(jīng)走投無路了”。我認(rèn)為，只有當(dāng)人們被迫從事缺乏尊嚴(yán)又單調(diào)乏味的工作時(shí)，才真是“已經(jīng)走投無路了”。有趣的是，亞當(dāng)·史密斯——正是這個(gè)為我們發(fā)明了大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)和勞動(dòng)分工的人——理解這一點(diǎn)。他形容那些在生產(chǎn)線上工作的，進(jìn)行流水作業(yè)的人，他說： “他能變得要多愚蠢有多愚蠢。”
Now, notice the word here is "become." "He generally becomes as stupid as it is possible for a human being to become." Whether he intended it or not, what Adam Smith was telling us there, is that the very shape of the institution within which people work creates people who are fitted to the demands of that institution and deprives people of the opportunity to derive the kinds of satisfactions from their work that we take for granted.
大家注意他用的詞是“變”。“他能變得要多愚蠢有多愚蠢。”不管是否是有意的，亞當(dāng)·史密斯告訴我們的就是，正是這種工作體制創(chuàng)造出適合這一體制需求的人們，并且讓人們沒有辦法 從工作中獲得滿足感，而獲得滿足感本應(yīng)是理所當(dāng)然的。
The thing about science — natural science — is that we can spin fantastic theories about the cosmos,and have complete confidence that the cosmos is completely indifferent to our theories. It's going to work the same damn way no matter what theories we have about the cosmos. But we do have to worry about the theories we have of human nature, because human nature will be changed by the theories we have that are designed to explain and help us understand human beings.
科學(xué)的好處——我是指自然科學(xué)——在于我們能創(chuàng)造關(guān)于宇宙的奇妙理論，而且還完全不必?fù)?dān)心宇宙會(huì)因我們的理論產(chǎn)生變化。不管我們?nèi)绾谓忉層钪妫€是會(huì)照常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)下去。但關(guān)于人類本性的理論，我們就要十分謹(jǐn)慎了，因?yàn)槟切┰居脕斫沂救诵?，幫助我們理解人性的理論，是?huì)反過來改變?nèi)诵缘摹?/p>
The distinguished anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, said, years ago, that human beings are the "unfinished animals." And what he meant by that was that it is only human nature to have a human nature that is very much the product of the society in which people live. That human nature, that is to say our human nature,is much more created than it is discovered. We design human nature by designing the institutions within which people live and work.
著名的人類學(xué)家克利福德·格爾茨多年前說過，人類是“未塑造好的動(dòng)物。”他的意思是，只有人性，只有人類的人性正是人類所生活的社會(huì)的產(chǎn)物。這種人性，也就是說我們的人性，與其說是被發(fā)現(xiàn)的，不如說是被創(chuàng)造的。人性是由我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)的，我們通過設(shè)計(jì)人類生活和工作的機(jī)制來設(shè)計(jì)人性。
And so you people — pretty much the closest I ever get to being with masters of the universe — you people should be asking yourself a question, as you go back home to run your organizations. Just what kind of human nature do you want to help design?
所以在座的各位——你們差不多是宇宙中我能遇見的最聰明的一群人——當(dāng)你們回去繼續(xù)當(dāng)老板時(shí)，你們應(yīng)該問自己一個(gè)問題。那就是，你們想要設(shè)計(jì)出什么樣的人性?
Thank you.(Applause)
謝謝。(掌聲)
相關(guān)文章：