关注回复关键字“福利”，免费送你优质英文有声读物！
英语专业八级考试(TEM-8)的选材主要来自英美报刊杂志、广播电台或网站。其中一个包括：TED演讲，2018和2016年专八听力讲座(Mini-lecture)就来自TED演讲。建议大家平时多看多听TED演讲。
演讲者：Soraya Field Fiorio
演讲题目: The infamous overpopulation bet: Simon vs. Ehrlich
In 1980, two American professors bet $1,000 on a question with stakes that couldn’t be higher: would the earth run out of resources to sustain a growing human population?
1980年，两位美国教授在一个问题上下了1000美元的赌注，这个问题的赌注再高不过了：地球是否会耗尽资源来维持不断增长的人口？
One of them was Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the bestselling 1968 book, “The Population Bomb.” The global population had grown rapidly since World War II, and Ehrlich predicted that millions would starve to death as the population increased faster than the food supply.
其中之一是斯坦福大学生物学家保罗·埃利希（Paul Ehrlich），他写了1968年的畅销书《人口炸弹》（the Population Bomb）。自第二次世界大战以来，全球人口增长迅速，埃利希预测，随着人口增长快于粮食供应，数百万人将饿死。
He drew from the ideas of 18th century economist Thomas Malthus and related work from the 20th century. Malthus had posited that population growth, if unchecked over time, would always outpace food supply.
他借鉴了18世纪经济学家托马斯·马尔萨斯的思想和20世纪的相关著作。马尔萨斯认为，如果长期不加以控制，人口增长将永远超过粮食供应。
Through the 1970s, it seemed like Ehrlich was right: famines, pollution, and political unrest had many concerned that humanity was on the brink of such a crisis, and some governments considered and even implemented policies to limit population growth.
在20世纪70年代，埃利希似乎是对的：饥荒、污染和政治动荡让许多人担心人类正处于这样一场危机的边缘，一些政府考虑甚至实施了限制人口增长的政策。
Betting against Ehrlich was Julian Simon, a professor of business and economics. He analyzed historic data from around the world, and found no correlation between a growing population and a decrease in standards of living— in fact, he found the opposite.
商业和经济学教授朱利安·西蒙打赌反对埃利希。他分析了世界各地的历史数据，发现人口增长与生活水平下降之间没有相关性——事实上，他发现了相反的结果。
He argued that Ehrlich’s work, and that of Malthus before him, was based on theoretical calculations, while the real-world data told a different story. But then, he departed from the data himself, claiming human ingenuity would always find alternatives to compensate for diminishing resources. If that seems overly optimistic to you, well, you're not alone. Ehrlich and other experts found Simon’s claims preposterous.
他认为，埃利希的工作，以及他之前的马尔萨斯的工作，都是基于理论计算，而现实世界的数据则说明了不同的情况。但随后，他自己也抛开了数据，声称人类的创造力总能找到替代品来补偿不断减少的资源。如果这对你来说过于乐观，那么，你并不孤单。埃利希和其他专家发现西蒙的说法荒谬可笑。
In June 1980, Simon wrote a scathing article for Science Magazine that incited a heated debate of published articles between the two men. Simon said he should have placed a wager against Ehrlich years before, when Ehrlich ventured that, “England would not exist in the year 2000.”
1980年6月，西蒙为《科学》杂志写了一篇严厉的文章，引发了两人对已发表文章的激烈辩论。西蒙说他应该在几年前和埃利希打赌，当时埃利希冒险说，“英格兰在2000年将不存在。”
Later that year, Simon called Ehrlich a false prophet and challenged him to a bet. Their feud also touched on the debate about whether to prioritize environmental protections or economic growth, a key issue in the American presidential race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
那年晚些时候，西蒙称埃利希为假先知，并向他挑战打赌。他们的不和还涉及到关于是否优先考虑环境保护还是经济增长的辩论，这是吉米·卡特和罗纳德·里根总统竞选中的一个关键问题。
After some debate, they set the final terms: $200 on the price of each of five metals. If the price of the metal decreased or held steady over the next decade, Simon won. If the price increased, Ehrlich won.
经过一番辩论后，他们确定了最终条件：五种金属的价格各为200美元。如果金属价格在未来十年内下降或保持稳定，西蒙获胜。如果价格上涨，埃利希获胜。
Wait, what? Weren’t we talking about overpopulation and famine? What could the price of metals possibly have to do with that?
等等，什么？我们不是在谈论人口过剩和饥荒吗？金属价格可能与此有什么关系？
Well, the reality is that the price of metals may not have been the best choice— many factors impact these prices that have nothing to do with overpopulation. But their reasoning was as follows: metals are finite natural resources used in all sorts of manufacturing. Ehrlich believed a growing population would consume such finite resources, and scarcity would drive the prices up.
事实上，金属价格可能不是最佳选择——许多因素影响这些价格，而这些因素与人口过剩无关。但他们的理由如下：金属是用于各种制造业的有限自然资源。埃利希认为，不断增长的人口将消耗如此有限的资源，而稀缺将推高价格。
Simon thought humanity would find substitutes for the metals, and the prices would stay stable or even decrease.
西蒙认为人类会找到金属的替代品，价格会保持稳定甚至下降。
So, what happened? The world population continued to increase over the next 10 years, but the price of all five metals decreased, making Simon the clear winner of a bet that may not have been a great proxy for the question they were debating, anyway.
那么，发生了什么？在接下来的10年里，世界人口继续增加，但所有五种金属的价格都下降了，这使得西蒙显然成为了一场赌博的赢家，而这场赌博可能并不能很好地代表他们正在辩论的问题。
As for the question itself, today, their focus on overpopulation represent a snapshot of history. Our understanding of what causes starvation and famine has progressed: we have the resources to support a growing human population, but we’re currently failing to distribute those resources equitably, and changing that should be our priority.
至于问题本身，今天，他们对人口过剩的关注代表了历史的一个快照。我们对造成饥饿和饥荒的原因的理解有所进展：我们有资源支持不断增长的人口，但我们目前未能公平分配这些资源，改变这一点应该是我们的优先事项。
And we no longer see population size as a primary cause of environmental degradation and climate change, or limiting population growth as a viable solution to these problems. Rather, experts largely agree that our focus should be on replacing unsustainable technologies and practices with sustainable ones, and that economic growth and environmental protections don’t have to be at odds.
我们不再将人口规模视为环境退化和气候变化的主要原因，也不再将限制人口增长视为解决这些问题的可行办法。相反，专家们大体上同意，我们的重点应该是用可持续的技术和实践来取代不可持续的技术和实践，经济增长和环境保护不必相互矛盾。
In October 1990, Julian Simon received a check from Paul Ehrlich. There was no note.
1990年10月，朱利安·西蒙收到保罗·埃利希的支票。没有纸条。
Remark：一切权益归TED所有，更多TED相关信息可至官网www.ted.com查询！
声明：除特别注明原创授权转载文章外，其他文章均为转载，版权归原作者或平台所有。如有侵权，请后台联系，告知删除，谢谢
TED学院合集
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
热门跟贴