人類的好運也許到頭了

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，我簡短地游覽了荷蘭的五個城市，其間我不由得這樣想：我眼前的景象是人類發(fā)展的巔峰。世界任何地方的人都未曾有過更美好的生活。大部分城鎮(zhèn)中心都引人入勝，這些地方幾百年來未遭破壞。悠閑的人們騎著自行車經過露天咖啡座。唯一的麻煩就是路面被挖開，因為市政當局要改造本來沒什么問題的基礎設施。對此，有人會下意識地反駁稱，我看到的是不接地氣的精英階層在享受，其實普通人的生活每況愈下。事實上，自20世紀90年代以來，歷來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有受到特別的眷顧。即使在極不平等的美國，家庭收入的中值也有相當不錯的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.

從歷史長河的視角看，與流行觀念相反，如今大多數西方人的生活相當滋潤。我們已經享受了72年的和平與繁榮(從有些人的嘴里說出來就變成了“精英的失敗”)。然而，正如近期事件似乎表明的那樣，我們走運的時期很可能不會持續(xù)太久了。我不會在自己的前胸后背掛著告示牌稱，“世界末日就要來了”，但現在是“賣空”人類未來的好時機。

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，《經濟學人》(Economist)雜志稱，自1970年以來，自然災害的數量已增至原有水平的4倍多。從印度到休斯敦，近期的洪水與颶風是新常態(tài)。氣候變化還將惡化，但無論如何，這還只是多個初生的自然危機之一。斯德哥爾摩社會生態(tài)系統(tǒng)應變及發(fā)展研究中心(Stockholm Resilience Centre)稱，我們已經越過了生物圈的“核心邊界”：人類引發(fā)的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的變化，目前比以往任何時候都更快。這甚至對非環(huán)保人士也很重要，因為當一個物種滅絕后，其他依賴它生存的物種也會緊隨其后。生態(tài)系統(tǒng)衰退，一些營養(yǎng)物質變得稀缺，人類也會面臨失去“安全操作空間”的風險。但枯燥的科學不會成為新聞。

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，這不會發(fā)生。人類幾乎肯定不會及時做到環(huán)保。《巴黎協(xié)定》——即使得到遵守——也遠遠不夠。回想一下科羅拉多大學(University of Colorado)政治科學家小羅杰•皮爾克(Roger Pielke Jr)得出的“氣候政治的鐵律”：在追求經濟增長還是減少排放的任何選擇上，經濟增長總是勝出。沒錯，可再生能源是未來，但我們仍將燃燒所有剩余的化石燃料。荷蘭已經讓自己免受洪災之害，但休斯敦和達卡并不會。

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，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家。對比一下：1960年全球人口只有30億。荷蘭地理學家埃瓦爾德•恩格倫(Ewald Engelen)引用一個估算稱，“未來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，很可能是科學家所假設的核戰(zhàn)爭之后的“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)已經在今年早些時候去世了。1983年，是他決定不發(fā)射核導彈，盡管一個警報(錯誤地)表明美國已發(fā)動攻擊。彼得羅夫后來告訴英國廣播公司(BBC)，幸運的是當時碰巧由受過文職教育的他值班。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.

事實上，據倫敦大學亞非學院(SOAS)的丹•普勒斯(Dan Plesch)介紹，彼得羅夫只是讓世界免于核戰(zhàn)災難的幾位官員之一。“我們之所以還好好活著，是因為在載入史冊的好幾個關鍵時刻，有人拒絕執(zhí)行核預警和發(fā)射程序。”而這些還只是我們了解到的事例。人們擔心唐納德•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)，但實際上，這些決定是由坐在小隔間里的呆伯特(Dilbert)們在幾分鐘內做出的。

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.

美國前國務卿、政治家迪安•艾奇遜(Dean Acheson)在回顧1962年古巴危機時曾說過，那場危機沒有升級為核戰(zhàn)是走了“狗屎運”。巴黎政治大學(Sciences Po)的伯努瓦•派洛皮德(Benoît Pelopidas)說，這一觀點如今已得到學術界的廣泛認同。

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家多得空前，這些國家?guī)缀醵荚跀U建自己的核武庫，包括增加“戰(zhàn)術核武器”。倫敦亞非學院的普勒斯稱：“有人可能會說‘這種核武器的威力只相當于300噸TNT’——這種想法會產生一定的誘惑。”

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.

挑釁一個自負、喜怒無常而又擁有核武器的統(tǒng)治者，并不符合人質談判的基本原則，但這正是朝鮮領導人金正恩(Kim Jong Un)目前在做的。鑒于涉及到的各方，目前的對峙很可能比古巴危機更危險。它可能快速達到高潮。美國情報部門認為，金正恩在數月內就能具備用核武器打擊洛杉磯的實力。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賽將同時展開。普勒斯說，這些未必意味著世界末日。你也許會看到朝鮮和韓國有數百萬人被殺，而英國人還在為退歐爭吵。話雖如此，當下很可能被未來世代銘記為一個注定倒霉的黃金時期。未來那些翻閱我們文明遺跡(絕大多數是Facebook上的帖子)的歷史學家們將會納悶：我們?yōu)槭裁丛谂鹬卸热?