人類(lèi)的好運(yùn)也許到頭了

I was on a whistle-stop tour of five Dutch cities last week when I found myself thinking: this is peak humanity. No people anywhere have ever lived better. Most town centres were gorgeous, having avoided any destruction for centuries. Cyclists puttered past café terraces. The only hassle was torn-up streets, as perfectly good infrastructure was being renovated. The knee-jerk retort would be that I was watching out-of-touch elitists party while ordinary people sink. In fact, the historically egalitarian Netherlands has become still more equal in income distribution since the 1990s. Nor is the typical Dutch person uniquely blessed. Even in the extremely unequal US, median household income is a respectable $59,039.

前不久，我簡(jiǎn)短地游覽了荷蘭的五個(gè)城市，其間我不由得這樣想：我眼前的景象是人類(lèi)發(fā)展的巔峰。世界任何地方的人都未曾有過(guò)更美好的生活。大部分城鎮(zhèn)中心都引人入勝，這些地方幾百年來(lái)未遭破壞。悠閑的人們騎著自行車(chē)經(jīng)過(guò)露天咖啡座。唯一的麻煩就是路面被挖開(kāi)，因?yàn)槭姓?dāng)局要改造本來(lái)沒(méi)什么問(wèn)題的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。對(duì)此，有人會(huì)下意識(shí)地反駁稱(chēng)，我看到的是不接地氣的精英階層在享受，其實(shí)普通人的生活每況愈下。事實(shí)上，自20世紀(jì)90年代以來(lái)，歷來(lái)注重平等的荷蘭在收入分配上變得更加均等。而典型的荷蘭人并沒(méi)有受到特別的眷顧。即使在極不平等的美國(guó)，家庭收入的中值也有相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的59039美元。

Viewed historically, and contrary to popular belief, most westerners today live pretty well. We’ve had 72 years of peace and prosperity (also known as “elite failure”). However, as this month’s events suggest, our lucky run probably won’t last. I’m not going around with a sandwich board saying, “The end of the world is nigh”, but now’s a good moment to short human futures.

從歷史長(zhǎng)河的視角看，與流行觀念相反，如今大多數(shù)西方人的生活相當(dāng)滋潤(rùn)。我們已經(jīng)享受了72年的和平與繁榮(從有些人的嘴里說(shuō)出來(lái)就變成了“精英的失敗”)。然而，正如近期事件似乎表明的那樣，我們走運(yùn)的時(shí)期很可能不會(huì)持續(xù)太久了。我不會(huì)在自己的前胸后背掛著告示牌稱(chēng)，“世界末日就要來(lái)了”，但現(xiàn)在是“賣(mài)空”人類(lèi)未來(lái)的好時(shí)機(jī)。

Just looking at the threats we know of, the number of natural disasters has risen more than fourfold since 1970, says The Economist. The recent floods and hurricanes, from India to Houston, are the new normal. Climate change will worsen but, anyway, is only one of several burgeoning natural crises. The Stockholm Resilience Centre says we have also already crossed “core boundaries” on the biosphere: human-induced changes to ecosystems are now the fastest ever. That matters even to non-tree-huggers, because when one species goes extinct, others that depend on it follow. Ecosystems decay, some kinds of nutrition get scarce and humanity risks losing its “safe operating space”. But boring science doesn’t make news.

看看我們所知道的威脅吧，《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》(Economist)雜志稱(chēng)，自1970年以來(lái)，自然災(zāi)害的數(shù)量已增至原有水平的4倍多。從印度到休斯敦，近期的洪水與颶風(fēng)是新常態(tài)。氣候變化還將惡化，但無(wú)論如何，這還只是多個(gè)初生的自然危機(jī)之一。斯德哥爾摩社會(huì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)應(yīng)變及發(fā)展研究中心(Stockholm Resilience Centre)稱(chēng)，我們已經(jīng)越過(guò)了生物圈的“核心邊界”：人類(lèi)引發(fā)的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的變化，目前比以往任何時(shí)候都更快。這甚至對(duì)非環(huán)保人士也很重要，因?yàn)楫?dāng)一個(gè)物種滅絕后，其他依賴(lài)它生存的物種也會(huì)緊隨其后。生態(tài)系統(tǒng)衰退，一些營(yíng)養(yǎng)物質(zhì)變得稀缺，人類(lèi)也會(huì)面臨失去“安全操作空間”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。但枯燥的科學(xué)不會(huì)成為新聞。

It’s conventional at this point to call for “sustainability” but, frankly, it isn’t going to happen. Humanity almost certainly won’t go green on time. The Paris accord — even if it holds — isn’t nearly enough. Recall the “iron law of climate politics”, formulated by Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado: in any choice between pursuing economic growth or cutting emissions, growth wins. Sure, renewable energy is the future but we will also burn all remaining fossil fuels. The Dutch have protected themselves from floods but Houston and Dhaka won’t.

講到這里，依照慣例我們要呼吁“可持續(xù)發(fā)展”，但坦白講，這不會(huì)發(fā)生。人類(lèi)幾乎肯定不會(huì)及時(shí)做到環(huán)保?！栋屠鑵f(xié)定》——即使得到遵守——也遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠?；叵胍幌驴屏_拉多大學(xué)(University of Colorado)政治科學(xué)家小羅杰•皮爾克(Roger Pielke Jr)得出的“氣候政治的鐵律”：在追求經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)還是減少排放的任何選擇上，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)總是勝出。沒(méi)錯(cuò)，可再生能源是未來(lái)，但我們?nèi)詫⑷紵惺Ｓ嗟幕剂稀：商m已經(jīng)讓自己免受洪災(zāi)之害，但休斯敦和達(dá)卡并不會(huì)。

Meanwhile, by 2050 we will probably have added nearly three billion humans, mostly in poor, hot countries. For comparison: in 1960 the entire global population was just three billion. Dutch geographer Ewald Engelen quotes an estimate that “we’ll need more food in the next 40 years than all harvests in history combined”. We may well produce it but it won’t reach most Malians or Ethiopians, so more of them will head north.

與此同時(shí)，到2050年，世界人口還將增加近30億，其中大部分將是在貧窮和炎熱的國(guó)家。對(duì)比一下：1960年全球人口只有30億。荷蘭地理學(xué)家埃瓦爾德•恩格倫(Ewald Engelen)引用一個(gè)估算稱(chēng)，“未來(lái)40年我們需要的食物將比歷史上全部收成的總和還要多。”我們很可能生產(chǎn)得出這么多食物，但這些食物分配不到馬里人和埃塞俄比亞人手里，因此他們中會(huì)有更多人涌向北方。

Our best bet to cool the planet may well be the “nuclear winter” that’s hypothesised to follow nuclear war. Last week we belatedly discovered that Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov had died. He’s the man who decided in 1983 not to launch nuclear missiles despite an alarm showing (wrongly) that the US had just attacked. Petrov later told the BBC it was lucky that he, with his civilian education, happened to be on shift. His colleagues, he explained, were “all professional soldiers” trained to obey orders.

為地球降溫的最好方式，很可能是科學(xué)家所假設(shè)的核戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之后的“核冬天”。最近我們得知，前蘇聯(lián)軍官斯坦尼斯拉夫•彼得羅夫(Stanislav Petrov)已經(jīng)在今年早些時(shí)候去世了。1983年，是他決定不發(fā)射核導(dǎo)彈，盡管一個(gè)警報(bào)(錯(cuò)誤地)表明美國(guó)已發(fā)動(dòng)攻擊。彼得羅夫后來(lái)告訴英國(guó)廣播公司(BBC)，幸運(yùn)的是當(dāng)時(shí)碰巧由受過(guò)文職教育的他值班。他解釋道，他的同事們都是以服從命令為天職的“職業(yè)軍人”。

In fact, Petrov was just one of several officials who saved the world from nuclear war, says Dan Plesch of London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies. “We are only still here because human beings on a number of recorded occasions refused to follow nuclear alert and launch procedures.” And those are just the occasions we found out about. People worry about Donald Trump’s little fingers on the button (quite possibly for eight years) but, in fact, these decisions are often made in minutes by Dilberts in cubicles.

事實(shí)上，據(jù)倫敦大學(xué)亞非學(xué)院(SOAS)的丹•普勒斯(Dan Plesch)介紹，彼得羅夫只是讓世界免于核戰(zhàn)災(zāi)難的幾位官員之一。“我們之所以還好好活著，是因?yàn)樵谳d入史冊(cè)的好幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻，有人拒絕執(zhí)行核預(yù)警和發(fā)射程序。”而這些還只是我們了解到的事例。人們擔(dān)心唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的小小手指懸在核按鈕上(很可能要為此提心吊膽整整8年)，但實(shí)際上，這些決定是由坐在小隔間里的呆伯特(Dilbert)們?cè)趲追昼妰?nèi)做出的。

The US statesman Dean Acheson, looking back on the Cuban crisis of 1962, once said the only reason it didn’t end in nuclear war was “plain dumb luck”. That has become a broadly shared scholarly view, says Benoît Pelopidas of Sciences Po in Paris.

美國(guó)前國(guó)務(wù)卿、政治家迪安•艾奇遜(Dean Acheson)在回顧1962年古巴危機(jī)時(shí)曾說(shuō)過(guò)，那場(chǎng)危機(jī)沒(méi)有升級(jí)為核戰(zhàn)是走了“狗屎運(yùn)”。巴黎政治大學(xué)(Sciences Po)的伯努瓦•派洛皮德(Benoît Pelopidas)說(shuō)，這一觀點(diǎn)如今已得到學(xué)術(shù)界的廣泛認(rèn)同。

Now there are more nuclear states than ever, almost all building up their arsenals, including adding “mini-nukes”. Plesch remarks: “The idea that someone can say, ‘Here’s a nuclear weapon that is only 300 tons of TNT equivalent’ produces certain temptations.”

如今擁有核武器的國(guó)家多得空前，這些國(guó)家?guī)缀醵荚跀U(kuò)建自己的核武庫(kù)，包括增加“戰(zhàn)術(shù)核武器”。倫敦亞非學(xué)院的普勒斯稱(chēng)：“有人可能會(huì)說(shuō)‘這種核武器的威力只相當(dāng)于300噸TNT’——這種想法會(huì)產(chǎn)生一定的誘惑。”

Taunting a vain, temperamental, nuclear-armed ruler isn’t what they teach you in hostage negotiations 101, but it’s what North Korea’s president Kim Jong Un is now doing. Given the participants, this stand-off is probably more dangerous than the Cuban crisis. It could climax fast. US intelligence thinks Kim will be able to hit Los Angeles with nukes within months. And if Trump pulls out of the Iranian nuclear deal by October 15, the Iranian-Saudi-Israeli nuclear race could run concurrently. None of this necessarily means Armageddon, says Plesch. You could see millions killed in the Koreas while Brits bicker on about Brexit. Still, the present may well be remembered as a doomed golden age. Future historians trawling through the remains of our civilisation (mostly Facebook posts) will wonder why we spent it so angry.

挑釁一個(gè)自負(fù)、喜怒無(wú)常而又擁有核武器的統(tǒng)治者，并不符合人質(zhì)談判的基本原則，但這正是朝鮮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人金正恩(Kim Jong Un)目前在做的。鑒于涉及到的各方，目前的對(duì)峙很可能比古巴危機(jī)更危險(xiǎn)。它可能快速達(dá)到高潮。美國(guó)情報(bào)部門(mén)認(rèn)為，金正恩在數(shù)月內(nèi)就能具備用核武器打擊洛杉磯的實(shí)力。而且，如果特朗普在10月15日退出伊朗核協(xié)議，伊朗、沙特及以色列之間的核競(jìng)賽將同時(shí)展開(kāi)。普勒斯說(shuō)，這些未必意味著世界末日。你也許會(huì)看到朝鮮和韓國(guó)有數(shù)百萬(wàn)人被殺，而英國(guó)人還在為退歐爭(zhēng)吵。話雖如此，當(dāng)下很可能被未來(lái)世代銘記為一個(gè)注定倒霉的黃金時(shí)期。未來(lái)那些翻閱我們文明遺跡(絕大多數(shù)是Facebook上的帖子)的歷史學(xué)家們將會(huì)納悶：我們?yōu)槭裁丛谂鹬卸热?