
English: 
Hello, my name is Franky.
I work also with
an organization called The Zeitgeist
Movement as you already know.
I would like to
welcome everybody
from far and wide; everybody did come.
Thank you very much.
I would like to take this
opportunity to especially thank
the teams of The
Zeitgeist Movement.
Teams meaning the Linguistic Team,
the Web Team, the Technology Team,
the Activism Team and also
the Project Team that
coordinated this project.
The whole German chapter
did a great job
with establishing this
event within a month.
I would like to thank
everybody personally.
Good to see you here.
I think Peter Joseph doesn't
need any introduction.
I think everybody
here knows who he is.
So, short and
precise: thank you.

Chinese: 
嗨 我是小法 大家應該知道
我也和「時代精神運動」組織共事
歡迎大家遠道而來 非常感謝各位
歡迎大家遠道而來 非常感謝各位
我想藉這個機會特別感謝
時代精神運動的團隊
包括「語言翻譯團隊」「 網路團隊」「 技術團隊」
「行動團隊」還有協調本活動的「專案團隊」
「行動團隊」還有協調本活動的「專案團隊」
活動能在一個月內辦成要感謝
德國分部的出色表現
我個人在此感謝大家
很高興各位的到來
我想不需要再介紹 彼得‧約瑟夫
大家都知道他是誰
簡而言之:謝謝各位蒞臨

English: 
I hand the microphone
over to Peter.
[Sustained Applause]
You can turn this mic off since
I'm not going to use it.
Ah, so it's the other mic.
How's everybody doing? [Audience in unison]
- Good!
I really appreciate
you all being here.
I want to thank Franky
and the Berlin team
for moving so fast;
it's really phenomenal.
Having put on many events myself over
the years, it's not an easy task.
I'm always reminded when
I travel these days,
that The Zeitgeist Movement is truly a
global phenomenon at this stage, right?
No matter where any of
us end up on the planet,
you don't have to go very far to find
friends who share similar values
in this pursuit of
a better world.
The title of this talk
is "Economic Calculation

Chinese: 
我把麥克風交給彼得
(持久的掌聲)
你可以關掉麥克風 因為我沒有要用它
啊 原來是其它麥克風
大家都好嗎? (觀眾異口同聲) - 好!
非常感激各位到來
還有法蘭克和柏林團隊
行動這麼快 真的很驚人!
我這些年扛了許多活動 知道這不容易
我近來奔波各地常常想到
「時代精神運動」真的已成為全球性現象了 對吧?
無論我們走到地球的哪裡
不用尋萬里路 就能找到相同理念的朋友
一起追求更美好的世界
這次演講的題目是

English: 
in a Natural Law/Resource-Based
Economy (NLRBE)."
For the past five years or so
The Zeitgeist Movement has put out
quite a bit of educational media
with respect to its advocation,
and the learning curve
has been rather intense.
There's been a
tendency to generalize
with respect to how things
actually work technically.
This is the contents
of this presentation.
In Part I and two
I'm going to refine
the inherent flaws of the
current market model
regarding why we need to change
along with relaying
the vast prospects
we now have to solve
vast problems,
improve efficiency, and
generate a form of abundance
that could meet all human needs.
The active term which has gained
popularity in the last couple years
is called "post-scarcity,"
even though that word is a little
misleading semantically as I'll explain.
In Part III, I'll work to
show how this new society
generally works in its structure
and basic calculation.
I think most people on the planet
know that there is something
very wrong with the current
socioeconomic tradition.

Chinese: 
「自然法則/資源導向型經濟(NLRBE)裡的經濟計算」
在過去五年左右
時代精神運動已推出許多
關於其倡議的教育性媒體
學習曲線相當緊湊
此外研究實際運行的技術
還有一股普及化的趨勢
這是此次報告的內容
在第一第二部分 我會細述
目前市場模式的內在缺陷
以及我們為何需要改變
接著討論我們現在擁有的巨大潛能
能解決龐大的問題
提高效率 並創造富足來滿足
全人類的需求
近年來有個廣受歡迎的術語叫做
「後匱乏」
雖然這個詞還是有點誤導性語義 但我會解釋
在第三部分 我將努力展現這個新社會
就其結構和基​​本計算上 普遍是如何運作的
我想這星球上的多數人都知道
當前社會經濟的傳統有地方錯得離譜

Chinese: 
只是不知道怎麼思考解決方案
或者更準確地說 如何推導出解答
這些都弄清楚之前 我們很難深入探討
關於這一點 過幾個月會有一份更詳細的文檔
以紙本或下載的格式流通
不惜成本免費釋出
(表示這是非營利的)
本文檔會精簡定義時代精神運動
希望能在年初完成
其實也早該完成
這文檔叫《定義時代精神運動》
其功能是作為一種方向和參考指南
此文檔可能有超過一千個註解和來源
一旦完成 將推出一系列教育影片
大約20部份 來製作教材與實作指南
來幫助想學習傳達這些觀念的人
因為基本上我們在全球領域 都需要更多
能向大眾溝通的人 這是我正嘗試做的
這非常重要 而且我認為此運動的成敗

English: 
They just don't know how to
think about the solution,
or more accurately, how to
arrive at such solutions.
Until that is addressed, we're
not going to get very far.
On that note, in a number of
months, a rather substantial text
is going to be put into
circulation, available for free
and also in print
form or download form
at cost (it's a
non-profit expression).
This will be finished hopefully
by the first of the year
and will be the definitive
expression (in the condensed form)
of the Movement, something
that's been long overdue.
It's called "The Zeitgeist Movement
Defined" and it will serve as both
an orientation and
a reference guide.
It will have probably over a
thousand footnotes and sources.
Once finished, an educational
video series will be put out
in about 20 parts to produce the
material along with a workbook
to help people who want to learn how
to talk about these ideas because
we basically need more people
on an international level
to be able to communicate,
as I try to do.
It's a very important thing, and I
think the future of the Movement

Chinese: 
一部份在於 我們能否創造運作良好
且語言一致的國際教育機制
及實際的設計專案及其內部協作
第一部份:我們到底為何而來?
這種大規模變革－即此運動提倡的內容－真有必要嗎?
這種大規模變革－即此運動提倡的內容－真有必要嗎?
我們就不能修復改善
目前的經濟模式 維持貨幣 貿易 利潤 權力
資產等現有的總體架構就好嗎?
簡單來說:「絕對不能!」
我解釋一下
如果人們真的想要解決日益惡化的
公共衛生和眼前的環境危機
那目前的系統必須消失
不管你多想干預市場資本主義
或不干預它(看你支持哪派學說)
它都有嚴重的結構性缺陷
這點將總是保證或多或少

English: 
rests in part on our capacity
to create a well-oiled
international educational machine
with consistent language
coupled with real design projects
and their interworkings.
Part I: Why are we even here?
Is this type of
large-scale change-
what the Movement
advocates- really needed?
Can't we just work to fix
and improve the current
economic model, keeping the
general framework of money,
trade, profit, power,
property and the like?
The short answer is
a definitive "No,"
as I'm going to explain.
If there's any real interest
to solve the growing
public health and
environmental crises at hand
this system needs to go.
Market capitalism, no matter
how you wish to regulate it
or not regulate it, depending
on who you speak with,
contains severe structural flaws
which will always, to
one degree or another,

Chinese: 
會導致永恆的環境濫用和失衡
與漠視人權及腐蝕性的不平等
換句話說 環境與社會的失衡
及毫不永續的環境和文化型態
始終是市場經濟的固有本質 一直都是
現代資本主義與16世紀的差異
在於我們的科技能力急遽加速
並擴大市場進程
其表面後果是早期的原始資本主義
無法理解甚至始料未及的
換句話說 市場經濟的基本法則
本就有先天缺陷
那些缺陷的嚴重性就迫在眉睫
請容我稍加解釋
從環保的立場來看
市場觀點只將地球
視為供人開採的「庫存」 此外無它

English: 
perpetuate environmental
abuse and destabilization,
and human disregard and
caustic inequality.
Put another way, environmental
and social imbalance
and a basic lack of sustainability
both environmentally and culturally
is inherent to the market economy,
and it always has been.
The difference between capitalism
today and say, the 16th century
is that our technological
ability to rapidly accelerate
and amplify this market process
has brought to the surface consequences
which simply couldn't be understood
or even recognized during
those early primitive times.
In other words, the basic
principles of market economics
have always been
intrinsically flawed.
It has taken just this long for
the severity of those flaws
to come to fruition.
Let me explain a little bit.
From an environmental
standpoint,
market perception simply
cannot view the Earth
as anything but an inventory
for exploitation.

English: 
Why? Because the entire
existence of the market economy
has to do with keeping
money in circulation
at a rate which can keep as many
people employed as possible.
In other words, the world economy
is powered by constant consumption.
If consumption levels drop,
so does labor demand,
and so does the available purchasing
power of the general population
and hence, so does demand for goods
as money isn't there to buy them.
This cyclical consumption
is the lifeblood
of our economic existence.
The very idea of being
conservative or truly efficient
with the Earth's finite
resources in any way
is structurally
counterproductive
to this needed driving
force of consuming.
If you don't believe
that, ask yourself why
virtually every life support system
on this planet is in decline.
We have an ongoing loss of topsoil,
ever-depleting fresh water,
atmospheric and climate
destabilization,
a loss of oxygen-producing
plankton in the ocean

Chinese: 
為什麼? 因為市場經濟存在的意義
就在於維持貨幣/金錢流通
並盡量確保人人就業
換言之 世界經濟的驅動力就是不斷消費
一旦消費趨緩 勞力需求將隨之下滑
大眾的整體購買力也勢必衰減
對貨物的需求亦然 因為大家沒錢買東西
這種週期性的循環消費
就是現代經濟的命脈
用任何方式講究保育 實效
善用地球有限資源的理念
對必要的消費驅動力
都是結構上的阻礙
若不相信 請捫心自問為何
此行星上的生命維繫系統 幾乎都在衰退
表土持續流失、淡水空前耗竭
大氣和氣候失衡
海洋中的製氧浮游生物銳減

English: 
(which is critical to marine
and atmosphere ecology),
the ongoing depletion
of fish populations,
the reduction of rain
forests, and so forth.
In other words, an overall general
loss of critical biodiversity
is occurring and increasing.
For those not familiar with the
critical relevance of biodiversity,
billions of years of evolution
has created a vastly interdependent
biosphere of planetary systems.
Disturbing one system always
has an effect on many others.
This, of course, is
no new observation.
In 2002, 192 countries in
association with the United Nations
got together around something called "The
Convention on Biological Diversity."
They made a public commitment to
significantly reduce this loss by 2010.
And what changed eight years later?
Nothing.
In their official 2010
publication, they state:

Chinese: 
(這是海洋和大氣生態的關鍵要素)
魚群不斷枯竭
雨林的縮減等等
換言之 關鍵的生態多樣性 整體普遍減損的現象
正在發生且不斷惡化
若有些人不熟悉生態多樣性的重要性
當知數十億年的演化
才造就了行星生態圈的龐大共生系統
若其中一個系統受擾 則其它眾多必遭牽連
這當然不是新發現
在2002年 192個聯合國成員國
齊聚一堂並締結所謂「生物多樣性公約」
並公開承諾至2010年要大幅改善衰退的情形
八年之後呢? 啥都沒變
他們在2010年的官方出版品中宣稱:

English: 
"None of the 21 sub-targets
accompanying the overall target
of significantly reducing the
rate of biodiversity loss by 2010
can be said definitively to
have been achieved globally."
"Actions to promote biodiversity
receive a tiny fraction of funding
compared to infrastructure and
industrial developments."
(Hmm, I wonder why?)
"Moreover, biodiversity
considerations are often ignored
when such developments
are designed.
Most future scenarios project
continuing high levels of extinctions
and loss of habitats
throughout this century."
In a 2011 study published
which was in part
a response to an general call to
isolate and protect certain regions
to insure some security
of this biodiversity,
found that, even with millions of
square kilometers of land and ocean
currently under legal protection,
it has done very little
to slow the trend of decline.

Chinese: 
「至2010年 大幅改善生物多樣性衰減的
總體目標及其各項子目標
均未能在全球得以明確實現」
「促進生物多樣性所獲得的資金
僅佔基礎建設和產業開發的九牛一毛」
(嗯 怎麼會呢?) (反諷)
「此外 相關開發的規劃設計
也往往忽略生物多樣性
大多數的未來預測 皆主張本世紀
將延續大量的物種滅絕和棲地喪失」
2011年發佈的的一份研究
部份回應了 要求隔離並保護特定地區的呼聲
旨在保障當地的生物多樣性
該研究發現即使數百萬平方公里的土地和海洋
目前雖已受法令保護 但仍無法減緩
多樣性銳減的趨勢

English: 
They also made the following
highly troubling conclusion
combining this trend with the state
of our resource consumption:
"The excess use of the Earth's
resources or overshoot is possible
because resources can be harvested
faster than they can be replaced.
The cumulative overshoot
from the mid-1980's to 2002
resulted in an 'ecological debt'
that would require 2.5
planet Earths to pay.
In a business-as-usual scenario,
our demands on planet Earth
could mount to the productivity
of 27 planets by 2050."
And there's no shortage of other
corroborating studies that confirm,
to one degree or another, we are
indeed greatly overshooting
the annual production
capacity of the Earth,
coupled with pollution and
collateral destruction
caused by industrial
and consumer patterns.
Again, this kind of research has
been published for many decades now.

Chinese: 
他們還提出以下令人極為不安的結論
結合了這項趨勢及資源消耗的狀態:
「我們可能已過度或超標耗用地球資源
因為攫取資源的速度已快於再生週期
從1980年代中期到2002年間 所累積的過度濫用
導致了『生態債』
此債務需要2.5顆地球來償還
若一如往常 到了2050年 我們對地球的需求
將要多達27顆地球的產能才能滿足」
也多有鐵證如山的研究指出
我們或多或少 確實已嚴重過度使用
地球每年的生產能力
加上工業和消費模式
引發了各種汙染和間接破壞
同樣 這類研究已持續發表數十年

Chinese: 
但為何面對這些攀升的所有數據
我們仍似乎無法阻止 生命支持系統的耗竭
及過度濫用的趨勢?
是因為地球人口太多了嗎?
是因為我們就是天生沒路用?
還是缺乏自覺 控制不了行動?
不 問題出在全球性的傳統經濟還在運作
源自於16世紀前工業時代的「手工業思維」
其將消費和買賣等行為
定位為一切社會發展的核心驅動力
我想到的最佳比喻就是汽車的油門
燃料消耗越多 車速就越快
而購物就是我們世界的燃料
如果減緩消費 經濟成長就會變慢
於是人民失業 購買力下降
社會逐漸動盪等等
所以希望大家明白 目前的體系不獎勵、甚至不支持

English: 
Why is it that with all
this mounting data
we can't seem to curb
life support depletion
and our overshooting
consumption trends?
Is it because there are too
many people on the planet?
Is it because we're just
utterly incompetent
and have no conscious
control over our actions?
No. The problem is that we have a global
economic tradition still in place
rooted in 16th century pre-industrial
handicraft-oriented thought
that places the
act of consuming,
buying and selling as the core
driver of all social unfolding.
The best analogy I can think of is
to consider the gas pedal on a car:
the more consumption of
fuel, the faster it goes,
and buying things in
our world is the fuel.
If you slow down consumption,
economic growth slows,
people lose jobs,
purchasing power declines
and things become
destabilized and so forth.
So I hope it is clear that the system
simply does not reward or even support

Chinese: 
透過資源保育來實現環境永續性
其實 對地球有益或具實質效率的永續性
這種體系甚至一點都不會獎勵
這一點稍後再深入說明
反之 它獎勵的是服務、翻新和浪費:
如果問題越多、效率越差
(更別提人們越是不安、物質崇拜、
和貧困) 對產業就越有利
也就越能促進GDP和就業率成長
而不論我們可能真的會
在這過程中自我毀滅
我的朋友John McMurtry 是加拿大哲學家 稱這種狀態為:
「資本主義的癌症階段」
這套體系正在毀滅它的宿主:人類與地球
幾乎不知不覺 因為當今很少人真正了解
驅動市場的核心原則是多麼難以永續

English: 
environmental sustainability
in the form of conservation.
In fact, it doesn't even reward
sustainability in the form
of any kind of earthly
or physical efficiency
as I will talk more at
length of in a moment.
Instead, it rewards servicing,
turnover and waste:
the more problems and
inefficiencies we have,
not to mention the more
insecure, materialistic
and needy the population becomes,
the better it is for industry,
the better it is for GDP, the
better it is for employment,
regardless of the fact
that we may literally
be killing ourselves
in the process.
My friend John McMurtry, a philosopher
in Canada, refers to this state
as the "Cancer Stage
of Capitalism,"
a system which is now destroying
its host, us and the Earth,
almost unknowingly because very
few today really understand
how unsustainable the core driving
principles of the market really are.

Chinese: 
而第二項結構上的本質性後果
就是市場資本主義 已由經驗證實
它的確會造成社會動盪
帶來不必要且不人道的不平等
並導致不必要的人類衝突
說到底 資本主義最真實的本色
是衝突和不平衡
我將世上的衝突分為兩類:
國家和階級
我不會費時探討國家間為何戰爭
因為時至今日 大家應該都能明顯看出
主權國家是一種貿易保護機構
替最強大的商業勢力賣命 並經常參與
最原始的競爭行為:系統性的大屠殺
只為了維持該國的經濟健全
和特定的商業利益 這些總是傷害了

English: 
The second structurally inherent
consequence I want to mention
is the fact that market
capitalism is indeed
empirically socially
destabilizing.
It creates unnecessary
and inhumane inequality,
along with resulting
unnecessary human conflict.
In fact, I would say
capitalism's most natural state
is conflict and imbalance.
I would categorize two forms
of conflict in the world:
national and class.
I'm not going to spend much time
on the causes of national warfare
as it should be fairly obvious
to most of us at his point.
Sovereign nations which are in
part protectionist institutions
for the most powerful forces
of business have often engaged
in the most primal act of
competition- systematic mass murder-
in order to preserve the economic
integrity of their national economies
and select business interests
which invariably comprise

English: 
the political constituency
of any given country.
All wars in history, while often
conveniently masked by various excuses,
have predominately been about
land, natural resources,
or geoeconomic strategy
on one level or another.
The state institution
has always been driven
by commercial and property interests,
existing as both a regulator
of the basic day-to-day
internal economic operations
in the form of legislation and as
a tool for power consolidation
and competitive advantage by
the most dominant industries
of the national or even, in fact
more importantly, global economy.
There are many people in the world that
still look at this causality in reverse.
In some economic views, state government
is deemed the central problem,
as opposed to the self-interest and
competitive, advantage-seeking ethos
inherent to market capitalism.
As the argument goes "If state power
was removed or reduced dramatically,

Chinese: 
任何國家中的政治選民
史上所有戰爭 雖然常由各種藉口輕易掩飾
但總是涉及土地、自然資源
或某種程度的地緣經濟戰略
國家制度的固有推手
始終都是商業和財產利益 一方面藉由法規
來監管基本的日常內部經濟運作
一方面用來鞏固權力和競爭優勢
而這都操控在最具競爭優勢的企業財團手中
其規模富可敵國 事實上更甚全球
但多數世人倒果為因看待此事
某些經濟觀點認為 國家政府是問題核心
而非自私、競爭逐利風氣至上的
市場資本主義其本質所致
這種論點主張「如果移除或大幅削弱國家權力

English: 
the market and society would be free
of most of its negative effects."
The problem with this
argument is that it forgets
that capitalism is just a
variation of a scarcity-driven
specialization and
property-based exchange system,
a system which actually goes back
millennia in one form or another.
Early settlements naturally needed
to protect themselves as resource
and land acquisition
moved forward over time.
Armies were created to protect resources
from invading forces and the like.
At the same time people
were working to engage
agriculture and handicraft,
and it revealed labor and exchange
value in a very primitive form.
Hence property value, in the
midst of this scarcity,
demanded regulation and laws,
not only to protect property,
but to protect commerce
and also avoid scams and
fraud in transactions.
This is the seed of the state!

Chinese: 
則市場和社會將可擺脫大部分負面影響」
這種論點的問題在於
它不懂資本主義只是由「匱乏」所驅動的
專業化系統和財產交易系統之變形
一個千年來實際上不斷突變的系統
早期聚落因為土地及資源積累
自然需要自保
建立軍隊來防止他方來掠奪資源等等
同時人們投入勞力
從事農業和手工業
自此揭開了非常原始的勞動及交易觀念
所以說財產在物資稀少的時代
需要法律監管
不僅保障財產 還要確保商業貿易過程
沒有詐欺和汙弊
這才是國家的起源!

English: 
The market is a game
and people can cheat.
You need regulation.
This is the basic problem.
The market also allows-
and here's the punchline-
that regulation to be
purchased by money.
Therefore, there is no
guaranteed integrity.
The state and the market
both battle each other
and compliment each other.
You will always have regulatory
power centers in a market economy.
The state and the
market are inseparable;
they go hand-in-hand.
Now, as an aside, people
often challenge this reality
with moral or ethical arguments,
which, I'm sorry to say, are
entirely culturally subjective.
In a world where
everything is for sale,
where the reward reinforcement,
the operant condition,
is directly tied to seeking
personal advantage and gain,
who is to say where the lines
should be drawn in that process?

Chinese: 
市場是遊戲 玩家會作弊
所以才需要監管
這就是根本的問題
重點來了:市場也容許
可以用金錢收買監管機制
因此沒有絕對的誠信
國家和市場既互相牽制
也相輔相成
市場經濟的核心永遠都是監管勢力
國家與市場不離不棄
難分難捨
附帶一提 人們常用倫理道德
來質疑這現實
但很抱歉 那完全是主觀的文化意識
在這萬物皆可賣
且獎勵特定行為、操作心理制約
來直接驅策個人追求勢利的世界
誰能確保道德界線該畫在哪裡?

English: 
This is why moral principles
without structural reinforcement
are useless.
In the end, the question isn't what
is morally right or morally wrong.
The question is what
works and what doesn't.
And sometimes it takes
a great deal of time
for the truth of such
patterns to materialize.
For example, most
people, rightly so, see
abject human slavery historically
as a morally wrong condition,
but let's dig deeper into the
characteristics and think more deeply.
I think it is much more productive to
recognize that slavery didn't work
in the sense that it was
culturally unsustainable.
Bigotry in all forms
is not just ugly,
it is culturally unsustainable
because it generates conflict.
I'm not aware of any
slave-owning society
that did not undergo
large slave rebellions.
It's unstable and again,
therefore, unsustainable.
Market capitalism is
on the same path.
There are more slaves
in the world today,

Chinese: 
這就是為何缺乏強制規範的道德原則
毫無作用的原因
到頭來 問題不在道德對錯
而在於什麼有效、什麼無效
人們也許要很久
才明白此種模式的具體真相
比方說多數人確實認為
歷史上悲慘的奴隸制度是道德錯誤
不過請再深入分析一下
我認為更有建設性許多的想法是「奴隸制行不通」
亦即意識到這在文化上不永續
任何偏執的文化不但醜陋
還會衍生衝突 所以無法永續
我沒聽過任何蓄奴社會
沒有奴隸大暴動的
一個體制一再不穩定 就不會永續
市場資本主義也如此
今日在市場經濟的範圍內

English: 
operating within the bounds
of the market economy,
than anytime in human history.
And I have little doubt that if we get
through this rough period of time
without destroying
ourselves by war,
uprisings or
ecological collapse,
people in the future will look back at
our world today with the same disgust
regarding our human-rights-violating
economic system
as we today look back upon the
period of abject human slavery.
Class Warfare.
This leads as well into the
subject of class warfare
and socioeconomic inequality.
The long history of so-called "socialist"
outcry has largely been about
this constant and inhumane
imbalance on one level or another.
A great deal of time has been spent
by many critics of capitalism,
describing how it is indeed
a system of exploitation,
which inherently separates a society
into stratified economic layers

Chinese: 
豢養的奴隸數量
是有史以來最多
假如我們撐過這段艱困期
沒有因戰爭、暴動、
或生態崩潰而自毀
那麼未來的人們在回顧今日時
也會鄙視這反人權的現代經濟體系
一如我們回顧淒慘不堪的蓄奴歲月
階級鬥爭
這也帶出階級鬥爭的議題
和社經地位不平等
所謂「社會主義者」  長久以來
都多少在抨擊這種不人道的持續失衡
長久以來對資本主義的批判
指出這種確實無誤的剝削體系
本來就會將社會分化為經濟上的階級

Chinese: 
形成高階宰制低階的結構
這是它的固有本質
如果各位不同意此現實
捫心自問為何過去的三百年來罷工不斷?
為何出現工會? 為何CEO賺的錢
總比一般員工多出好幾百倍?
為何1%的人口 坐擁全球46%的財富?
幾乎只有這批人 才稱得上是
真正的資產階級
市場固有的競爭本質 必然直接導致
邏輯上的不平等與階級分化
將個人劃分成小團體
互相競爭以求生存安全
市場是全然的利己主義
以獎勵孤立自保的動機體系為主
其預設人人須不斷強化財務安全
因為市場環境的本質就是「恐懼」、「貪婪」

English: 
with a higher class given dominance
over the lower, structurally.
It's structurally
built right in.
If you're one of those people that
doesn't agree with this reality,
ask yourself why there has been
one labor strike after another
in the past 300 years, why worker
unions even exist, why CEOs
often tend to make hundreds of times
more money than the common worker,
or why 46% of the world's
wealth is now owned by 1%,
which are almost exclusively
of what we could call
the capitalist ownership class.
Inequality and class separation
is a direct mathematical result
of the market's inherently
competitive orientation,
which divides individuals
in small groups
as they work to compete against each
other for survival and security.
It is entirely
individualistically oriented,
driven by a core incentive system based
around isolated self-preservation,
assuming the need to constantly
reinforce one's security financially
since the market climate (the environment)
gives no certainty whatsoever

English: 
of well-being in and of
itself: fear and greed.
The rich get richer because
the model favors them,
and the poor basically
stay the same
because the system works
against them by comparison.
It is structurally classed.
Those with more money have more options
and influence than those with less.
You are only as
free, as they say,
as your purchasing power
will allow you to be.
The credit system is
a perfect example.
Money is treated as nothing
more than a product
in the credit/banking system.
Money is sold by banks
via loans for profit
which comes in the
form of interest.
If you miss payments or
violate your contract,
often the interest rate, does what?
It goes up
because you are now considered
a higher risk consumer.
If you fail to meet that
interest or future payments,
you might default on the loan.
Your punishment is the ruining of
your credit rating or reputation
in the financial circles.

Chinese: 
讓你無法永保安康
這制度利於富者愈富
窮則難翻身
因為相較於富人 此制度壓迫窮人
這是預設的階級制度
富人較窮人有更多選擇和影響力
誠如他們所言
你的購買力決定你有多自由
信用制度就是絕佳例子
在信貸/銀行系統中
金錢只是被視為一種商品
銀行透過放貸收利息
藉此「賣錢」謀利
一旦你逾期支付或違約
利率會怎樣? 會升高
因為你現在被評為高風險消費者
如果你付不起該利息或未來的應付款項
你可能會拖欠貸款
你受到的懲罰會是信用評級破產
或名譽掃地

Chinese: 
一旦如此 你會更為週轉不順
因為經濟管道受阻
人們視此點為「理所當然」
殊不知這手段多陰險
迫使下層階級困於底層
因為這種內建的結構壓迫之力
讓他們毫無招架之力! 相關例子多不勝數
如果你資金不充裕 社會體制中的一切
都將與你為敵 而且你猜怎麼樣?
這些財務政策是根據利己主義的
市場邏輯制定
而非什麼政客或政府
更甭說今日放款收取的利息
甚至不存在於貨幣供給本身之中
這種制度性造成的社會壓迫
不可避免漸漸導致信用違約
使人在經濟絕望下

English: 
Once that happens, your financial
flexibility is even more stifled
as your economic
access is limited.
People see this as just
"the way things are"
but they don't realize
how insidious this is.
This pounds the lower
classes to stay low
for reasons and forces of coercion
that are built into the structure
that are beyond their control!
I could give many other examples.
Everything in this system works
against you if you're not affluent
in this society. And guess what?
These financial policies
were created by ...
self-interest-oriented
market logic,
not some politician
or some government.
I won't even go into the fact
that the interest charged
for the sale of money today doesn't
even exist in the money supply itself,
which creates a kind of
system-based social coercion
forcing in the inevitability
of credit default over time,
along with acts of economic
desperation such as

Chinese: 
被迫不情願變賣房產以滿足基本需求
或從事不喜歡的勞動工作
市場產生的絕望是種統治壓迫手法
讓人產生「自由市場」的普遍困惑
這在自由放任主義的社群中很常見
他們聲稱自由貿易完全是自願的
彷彿有可能在實證經驗中確實是這樣
所有貿易的決定來自影響力及壓力
或許只有坐擁金山銀山、
完全不用擔心基本生存的大富豪
才可能稱得上能從事自願的「自由」貿易
其餘99%的我們 只能在貿易或死亡中二選一
這種壓迫才是經驗證實的
但其實 真的沒必要這樣
這是我們新社會體制的宗旨
先不講這個 當你理解

English: 
selling property you rather would
not, to meet your basic needs
or taking labor positions
that you do not appreciate.
The market generates desperation
as its method of coercion.
This leads into another very
common "free market" confusion
I often see in the very popular
laissez-faire community.
They talk about free trade as
trade that is entirely voluntary
as though such a thing could ever
exist in an empirical sense.
All decisions to trade come
from influences and pressures.
Only perhaps the super rich,
who literally have no need
to worry about basic
survival due to their wealth
could possibly be said to engage in
the act of voluntary free trade.
For 99% of the world, we either
trade or we don't survive,
and that pressure is
empirically coercive.
And no, it doesn't
have to be that way,
which is the whole point
of this new social model.
So with all that aside, and
with this understanding

English: 
that wealth inequality is
inherent to capitalism itself
- you can't regulate it out -
the main issue I want to address
here has to do with what
class separation and social
inequality does to us
in the context of public health.
It isn't just a simple issue of
some having more than others,
and others suffering the
mere material inconvenience,
or pressure to engage in labor or
trade they'd rather not have to.
It goes way beyond that.
Socioeconomic
inequality is a poison,
a form of destabilizing
pollution
that affects people's psychological and
physiological health in profound ways,
while also very often accumulating
anger towards other groups,
and hence, that generation
of social instability.
The best term I know of that embodies
this issue is "structural violence."
If I put a gun to
someone's head,

Chinese: 
財富不均是資本主義自身的固有現象
法規監管也沒用
那接下來的重點就是
階級分化和社會不平等
對「公眾健康」的影響
問題不只是有些人資源較多
有些人苦於物質條件低落
或承受被迫勞動或貿易的壓力而已
嚴重性遠大於此
社會經濟不平等是一種毒藥
是引發動盪的汙染源
深刻影響大眾的身心健康
也常讓不同群體漸漸憤恨彼此
因而造就社會動盪的世代
我所知最能體現此問題的詞彙就是「結構暴力」
如果我拿槍對準某人的頭

Chinese: 
一個30歲的健全男性 然後開槍殺死他
假設一般人平均活84歲
你可以說這直接的暴力行為
直接奪走他潛在的54年壽命
然而 假設某人生而貧窮
而他的社會十分富足到
若能滿足他的基本需求 且在統計上可證明
不會損害任何人權益
結果他30歲死於心臟病
而該疾病經過統計 與社經地位低落
所承受的壓力和影響有關
則其少活54年的死亡 是一種暴力嗎?
答案是:「沒錯」
法律制度制約我們的思維
以為只有直接行為才是暴力
其實暴力是種過程
而不只是行為 且種類繁多
只有解決問題的根源才能防止問題產生

English: 
say a 30-year-old healthy male,
pull the trigger and kill him,
assuming an average life
expectancy of say 84,
you can argue that
possibly 54 years of life
was stolen from that person
in a direct act of violence.
However, if a person
is born into poverty
in the midst of an
abundant society
where it is statistically proven
that it would hurt no one
to facilitate meeting the
basic needs of that person,
and yet they die at the age
of 30 due to heart disease
which has been found to statistically
relate to those who endure
the stress and effects of
low socioeconomic status –
is that death, the removal of those
54 years again, an act of violence?
The answer is "yes, it is."
Our legal system has
conditioned us to think
that violence is a
direct behavioral act.
The truth is that
violence is a process,
not an act, and it
can take many forms.
You cannot separate any outcome from
the system by which it is oriented.

English: 
This is virtually absent
from the way people think
about cause-and-effect in
a socioeconomic system.
The effects of market
capitalism cannot be reduced-
or I should say cannot
be deduced- logically
from local or
reductionist examination.
[It's] like things are
working like a clock:
the market is a synergistic system,
the economy is a synergistic system,
and the behavior of the whole, meaning
large-scale social consequences
such as the perpetuation
of inequality or violence,
can only be assessed in
relationship to that whole.
This is why there has been
one big dichotomy between
what market theorists think is
supposed to happen in their world
and what is actually happening.
For example, there is no doubt
that poverty and social inequity
is and has been causing a vast
spectrum of public health problems,
both in the context of absolute
deprivation, which means not having
the money to simply meet up with
basic needs such as nutrition,

Chinese: 
人的思維很難想到
社經系統的因果關係
市場資本主義的影響無法節制
或邏輯上來說 無法從局部或節制的方向
去分析解決
好比時鐘
市場是一部分齒輪 經濟是一部分齒輪
時鐘的方向 也就是社會整體問題
例如長期不平等或暴力
只能透過與整體之間的關係來評估
所以才一直有這麼大的矛盾:
市場學者以為會發生的事
總與現實世界天差地別
例如貧窮和社會不平等
無疑一直廣泛導致各種程度的公眾健康問題
其中包括絕對貧窮 也就是徹底缺錢
連基本的營養需求都無法滿足

Chinese: 
還有相對貧窮
亦即在高度階級化的社會中
僅僅為了生存的社會心理壓力
導致的心理現象
最能明顯預測公眾衛生水平惡化的指標之一
現在找到的是社會不公義
及社會不平等的程度
若比較已開發國家其財富不平等的水準
各位會發現 越均富的國家越健康
反之較不健康
包括身、心方面的健康
和藥物濫用 、教育水準、 監獄人數、肥胖率
社會流動性、信任或社會資本、社群生活、暴力
青少年懷孕及兒童平均社會福利等方面
這些狀況在更為不平等的富國裡
明顯更糟
但你若試著縮減規模並分析個體

English: 
and in the context of
relative deprivation,
which is a psychological
phenomenon related to the stress-
the psychosocial stress-
of simply living
in a highly-stratified society.
One of the greatest predictors
of reduced public health
is now to be found
as social inequity,
social inequality.
If you compare developed nations
by the level of wealth inequality
you will find that those more equal
nations have much better health
than those with less equality.
This includes physical
health, mental health,
drug abuse, educational levels,
imprisonment, obesity,
social mobility, trust or social
capital, community life, violence,
teen pregnancies, and child
well-being on average.
These outcomes are
significantly worse
in more unequal rich countries.
Yet, if you tried to reduce
and analyze a single person

English: 
for any of these noted
public health factors,
you could never know for sure if
that person is actually a victim
of the psycho-stress or the absolute
or relative violence condition itself.
The causality can
only be understood
on the large scale,
probabilistically,
which is the importance
of statistical analysis.
So again, the market
can only be perceived
as a whole to gauge the
truth of its effects.
This is why our legal system
is so base and primitive.
That aside, I would like to detail a few
more examples of structural violence,
as it obviously takes
many more forms.
When we see 1.5 million children die
each year from diarrheal diseases-
an utterly preventable
problem that isn't resolved
due to a financial
limitation across the world,
we are seeing the murder of 1.5
[million] children by a system
that is so inefficient in
its process it cannot make

Chinese: 
來研究以上談到的公共衛生項目
你永遠分不出個案究竟是否真的是
心理壓力或絕對/間接的暴力條件的受害者
其中的因果關係
只能以機率概念大規模地去理解
這就是統計分析的重要性
再次強調 要了解市場帶來的真正後果
只能以整體的方式來觀察理解
這就是我們的法律體系為何太粗糙、原始的緣由
除此之外 我想詳述更多結構性暴力的例子
因為顯然有很多種形式
我們每年目睹150萬名兒童死於腹瀉疾病
這是原本完全能預防卻未解決的問題
只因世界各地金融貨幣體系的限制
致使我們正目睹 現有體制謀殺150萬名兒童
此體制的運作效率就是如此低

Chinese: 
低到無法提供某些地區適當的可得資源
就算資源已在那裡了
藥物成癮簡直是瘟疫
氾濫於全球社會 不僅帶來死亡
也衍生各種苦難 已發現是源於壓力
與缺乏支援的無助處境有關
會引發心理上的連鎖反應
從而藉助自我服藥來減緩痛苦的感覺
絕大部分的成癮模式研究
都指出其與生活不安定及壓力有關
都指出其與生活不安定及壓力有關
窮人最普遍的心理特徵是什麼?
是不安和卑微
甚至絕大多數已知的行為暴力
源自於一些前提條件
與因貧窮而導致的剝奪及虐待緊密相連
哈佛大學暴力研究中心前主任 James Gilligan博士
在監獄擔任幾十年的精神病醫師

English: 
the proper resources available
in certain regions,
even though that they are there.
Drug addiction, which
has become a plague
of modern society across the
world, not only causing death,
but also a spectrum of suffering, has
been found to have roots in stress.
It has to do with a lack
of support which creates
a psychological chain
reaction that leads to
fill your feelings of pain
with self-medication.
You will rarely find a study
on addiction patterns
that does not see a
direct correlation
to unstable life
conditions and stress.
What is perhaps poverty's most
dominant psychological feature?
Feelings of insecurity
and humility.
Even the vast majority of
behavioral violence as we know it
arises due to preconditions
which have been tied
to poverty-induced
deprivation and abuse.
Former head of the Study of Violence
at Harvard, Dr. James Gilligan,
was a prison psychiatrist
for many decades

English: 
analyzing the reasons for extreme
acts of murder and the like.
In virtually all cases, high levels
of deprivation, neglect, and abuse
occurred in the life history of the offenders.
And guess what?
Poverty is the single
best predictor
of child abuse and neglect.
In a US study, children
who lived in families
with an annual income
less than $15,000
are 22 times more likely
to be abused or neglected
than children living in families with
an annual income of $30,000 or more.
Aristotle said "Poverty is the
parent of revolution and crime."
Gandhi said "Poverty in the
worst form of violence."
The interesting thing
about all this is
is that we are all possible
victims of its effects,
for every time you hear
about an act of theft,
violence, murder, or the like,
chances are the origins of
that behavior were born
out of a preventable
form of deprivation.

Chinese: 
他分析謀殺等極端行為的成因
在幾乎所有案例中 罪犯的人生歷程
都深受剝奪、漠視和虐待 猜猜怎麼樣?
「貧窮」是兒童受虐和受漠視的最佳預測指標
「貧窮」是兒童受虐和受漠視的最佳預測指標
美國一份研究指出 兒童若生長在
年收入低於1.5萬美元的家庭裡
則受虐或遭漠視的機率
比家庭裡年收入3萬美元以上的兒童多22倍
亞里斯多德說:「貧窮乃革命與犯罪之源」
甘地說:「貧窮是最惡質的暴力」
這一切的可笑之處在於
我們每個人都是貧窮效應的潛在受害者
因為每當各位聽到竊盜
暴力、謀殺等不幸消息
其行為成因很可能都源自於
可避免的剝削

Chinese: 
我說可避免是因為
當今在科學技術上 絕對無須讓任何人
活在貧窮和資源受剝奪的處境
解決社會不平衡的問題並非只是善行
更是維繫公共衛生的切實義務
就像確保水源不受汙染
我們才不會生病
沒人知道自己何時會受害於
這類資源受剝奪所滋生的暴力
這是一種報應
如同某些社會學者認為 現代恐怖主義
就是崛起於受欺凌的國家
像美國這樣的國家 去轟炸某座城鎮
該城鎮的居民失去一切 有人深受打擊
找不到任何情緒出口
只好採取最暴力的手段來報復
冷不防地 一顆炸彈就在你城市裡的咖啡廳爆炸
殺死你的手足
簡單講 若要製造暴力罪犯或黑道思維
只需讓他們在成長的環境裡 強化一種氛圍

English: 
I say preventable because today
there is absolutely no technical
reason for any human being
to live in poverty and
resource deprivation.
Solving social inequality is
not just a nice thing to do,
it is a true public
health imperative.
Just like making sure our
water isn't polluted,
so we don't get diseases.
And each of us have no idea when
we might be subjected to say,
the violence bred by
this deprivation.
It's a form of blowback.
Just like how some social
theorists think about the reasons
for modern terrorism
from abused countries.
A country like the United
States bombs some town;
the people in that town lose everything.
Certain people are deeply affected
and find no other
emotional recourse
but to act in the most violent
way that can in revenge.
The next thing you know, a bomb
explodes at a coffee shop in your city,
killing your sibling.
In short, if you want to produce a
violent criminal or gang mentality,
let them be raised in an environment
where they are reinforced

Chinese: 
就是社會毫不在乎他們
因此他們也無需在乎社會
資本主義的社會秩序
即以此為商標
也以此為核心特色
最後再岔個題:我感到特別有趣的是
現今絕大多數的民權或人權機構
現今絕大多數的民權或人權機構
不斷爭取更多種族、性別、信仰和政治平等
卻通常很少處理經濟不平等的根本問題
這是很有趣的矛盾 我個人堅信
隨著時代演進 經濟平等勢必成為
與性別及種族平等同樣重大的議題
其中滿足人類需求和促進優質生活
會變成人權議題 不再只是市場的權謀算計
也不再以社會達爾文主義為基礎

English: 
with the sense that society
doesn't care about them.
And hence they have no need
to care about society.
This is the trademark,
this is the core characteristic,
of the capitalist social order.
As a final aside before I move on,
I find it incredibly interesting
that the vast majority of the
civil rights institutions today,
or human rights
institutions today,
which still demand more race, gender,
creed and political equality,
tend to do very little to address
the roots of economic inequality.
It's a very interesting contradiction.
I'm firmly convinced
that as time moves forward,
economic equality will morph
into the same role as
gender and race equality,
where meeting human needs and
facilitating a high standard of living
will be an issue of human
rights, not market expedience,
and the social Darwinism
to which it is based.

English: 
Part II: Post-Scarcity.
I would like to spend
a moment clarifying
what an "Abundance Focused
Society" actually means
and give some tangible,
statistical extrapolations
to confirm this potential.
A Natural Law/Resource-Based
Economy is not a utopia.
The Zeitgeist Movement seeks a high,
relative, sustainable abundance
relieving the most relevant
forms of scarcity.
Many who hear such distinctions
immediately dismiss
such qualifications
as mere opinion.
The fact is, it's not opinion
when it comes to life support
or empirical human needs.
Relative sustainable abundance
means seeking more than enough to
meet all human needs and beyond
while keeping
ecological balance.
The most relevant forms of
scarcity means we differentiate
between scarcity as it
relates to human needs

Chinese: 
第二部分:後匱乏(不再匱乏的時代)
我要花點時間來澄清
到底什麼是「注重富足的社會」?
然後提出明確的統計推斷
來證實它的可能性
自然法則/資源導向型經濟不是烏托邦理論
「時代精神運動」追求高度相應的永續富足
來緩解最重大的匱乏現象
很多人聽到這種說法立刻不以為然
覺得只是純粹幻想
但事實上 當談到維生或實際人類需求
這不是什麼幻想
相應的永續富足
表示追求並滿足所有人類需求 甚至更多
同時保持生態平衡
而最重大的匱乏現象
表示要分清楚什麼是人類「需求」

Chinese: 
什麼是人類「欲求」
因為它們是不同的
很不幸 市場邏輯假裝兩者一致
市場無法劃分「需求」和「欲求」
造成生命盲目、價值觀混亂的根本
持續扭曲我們的文化
這種邏輯就是:如果有任何匱乏存在
無論任何形式或程度
那只需要錢及競爭性的市場 就能控制此問題
我再解釋清楚一點
我們一位全球演講組的成員 Matt Berkowitz
不久前和一位明星級奧地利經濟學派的經濟學家 進行電台訪問
當話題提到匱乏時 這位經濟學家回答:
「不是每個人都能享受豪華牛排和法拉利!」
這兩樣東西是他對「匱乏」的確切詮釋
也許他說的對 不是每個人
都能有自己的三架噴射機 停在有五百個房間的豪宅前庭

English: 
and scarcity as it
relates to human wants,
as they are not the same.
Unfortunately, market logic
pretends that they are.
The market cannot separate
needs from wants.
And this gets to the root of the
life-blind, value-system disorder
which continues to
distort our culture.
The logic goes like
this: If there exists
any form of scarcity of
anything on any level,
then we need money and the
competitive market to regulate it.
Let me explain this
a little bit more.
One of our international lecture
team members, Matt Berkowitz,
did a radio interview with a very popular
Austrian economist a little while back,
and when the subject of scarcity came
up this economist responded with
"Not everyone can have a
fancy steak or a Ferrari!"
This was his definitive view
of what scarcity means.
Now that may be true.
Not every human being
can have a 500-room mansion with
three jets parked in the front lawn,

Chinese: 
還有半個非洲大陸當後院
理論上 我們怎樣花言巧語
用「匱乏即缺奢華」來辯解
並支持競爭性市場的存在都沒問題
那到底人類需求為何? 是主觀的嗎?
人類需求是在
生理與心理的演化過程中塑造而來
如前所述 若未滿足這些實際上的人類需求
在統計上便導致可預測範圍的
生理、心理、及社會混亂
而另一方面 人類的匱乏是文化表現的形式
隨著時間進展 已發生翻天覆地的主觀變化
事實上揭示出某種恣意的本質
這並非說情緒上的感受一定不能是「匱乏」
而是這種強大的感受 反而開始擔起「需求」的角色

English: 
with half the continent of
Africa as his or her back yard.
In theory, we could
conjure up anything
and use such luxury-based
scarcity defenses
to support the existence
of the competitive market.
So what are human needs?
Are they subjective?
Human needs have been created
by the process of our physical
and psychological evolution.
Not meeting these virtually empirical
needs results, as noted before,
in a statistically predictable
destabilizing spectrum
of physical, mental
and social disorders.
Human wants, on the other hand,
are cultural manifestations
which have undergone enormous subjective
change over the course of time,
revealing in truth something
of an arbitrary nature.
This isn't to say neurotic
attachments can't be made to wants,
so much so that they start
to take the role of needs.

English: 
That's a phenomenon that occurs readily
in our materialistic society, in fact.
This is exactly why the previously
noted wealth-imbalance issues,
namely the
psychosocial-stress response
resulting from social
comparison, is what it is.
It's a part of our evolutionary
psychology in many ways.
But this is partly why more
unequal societies also
are the more unhealthy societies,
because we perpetuate it.
The Zeitgeist Movement is not promoting
an infinite universal abundance
of all things, which is clearly
impossible on a finite planet.
Rather, it promotes a "post-scarcity'"
or "abundance" worldview,
with an active recognition of the
natural limits of consumption
on the planet while
seeking equilibrium.
And what separates the world
today from the world of the past
is that our scientific and
technological capacity
has reached an accelerating
point of efficiency
where creating a high standard of
living for all the world's people
based on current cultural
preferences, in fact,

Chinese: 
在物慾橫流的社會 其實是一個自然的現象
這就是為何之前提到的財富失衡問題
即心理-社會壓力的反應
起因於人們在社會上的互相比較
這是我們演化心理學許多方面的一部分
但這也是為何 更不平等的社會
也更不健康的部份原因 因為我們承襲了不平等
時代精神運動「不是」促進任何事物的無限制富足
因為這在一個資源有限的星球上明顯不可能!
相對地 此運動推廣一個「後匱乏」或「富足」的世界觀
主動認知到 在此星球上
「消費」有其自然極限 同時尋求動態平衡
而區隔現今與以往世界的東西
是我們的科學和科技能力
已達到提升效率的加速點
而事實上 根據目前的文化偏好
為世上所有人創造高水準的生活

Chinese: 
目前在這些永續的界限之內是可能的
不需通過市場機制的毀滅性競爭需求
這點稱作「少費多用/以少做多(ephemeralization)」
此術語由工程師 巴克敏斯特·富勒所創造
其概念非常簡單
即達成任何既定任務所需的資源和能源數量
經過一段時間後會持續減少
然而達成該任務的效率會矛盾地增加
舉無線衛星通訊作例子
其使用在指數上越少的材料
反而比傳統的大規模銅線
更靈活和更有效
換句話說 我們正不斷以「更少」完成「更多」
此趨勢可見於所有產業發展的領域
從電腦處理或摩爾定律
再到人類知識或資訊科技的快速發展
而且不只是物質上的物品

English: 
is now possible within these
sustainable boundaries
without the destructive need to
compete through the market mechanism.
This is made by what has been
called "ephemeralization,"
a term coined by engineer R.
Buckminster Fuller,
and the recognition
is very simple.
The amount of resources and energy
needed to achieve any given task
has constantly
decreased over time,
while the efficiency of that task
has increased, paradoxically.
An example is wireless
satellite communication
which uses exponentially
less materials
than traditional
large-gauge copper wire
and is more versatile
and effective.
In other words, we are doing
more with less continually,
and this trend can be noticed in all
areas of industrial development
from computer processing
or Moore's Law
to the rapid acceleration of human
knowledge or information technology.
And it isn't just
physical goods.

English: 
It also applies to
processes or systems.
For example, the labor system,
via automation today,
shows the exact same pattern.
Industry has become more
productive with less people,
ever-increasing
machine performance,
with ever-decreasing energy and
material needs over time per operation.
As a brief tangent,
some might have noticed
I keep saying this phrase
"High Standard of Living.
" What does that mean?
Who is to say what a high
standard of living should be?
The answer to that question
is not "who," it is "what."
And "what" determines
our standard of living
is the current state of
technology in many ways,
and what is required to keep
social and environmental
sustainability on a finite planet.
That's basically the equation.
If we as a society wish to keep the
value of constant materialism,
growth, and consumption, promoting
the virtue of having infinite wants

Chinese: 
這點同時也應用在「過程」或「系統」中
例如透過現今的自動化 就勞動系統而言
也呈現相同的模式
工業領域人力減少 產能卻提高
機器效能突飛猛進
每次運作所需的能源與材料 則隨時間減少
打個岔 有些人可能已注意到
我一再複述的詞組:
「高水準生活」 這是什麼意思?
誰來決定什麼才是「高水準生活」?
答案不是「誰」 而是「什麼東西」
而決定生活水準的「什麼東西」
在許多方面 即是科技發展的現況
與所需的資源
以為了在資源有限的行星上 維持永續的社會與環境
這是一體的兩面
如果我們的社會堅守物質主義的價值
追求成長和消費 將無盡的欲望視為美德

Chinese: 
那麼還不如現在就自殺算了
我們若再繼續逾越實體資源的限度
大肆耗竭資源和失去生物多樣性
最終也是死路一條
請容我說清楚 這項新的經濟倡議
不僅點出市場本身已過時
畢竟新技術的強大效率是有目共睹
它更強調一項事實
即我們必須盡快脫離市場的思維模式
以免它造成更多傷害
再來談到「後匱乏」
我要以四大範疇詳述這項主題:
食物 水 能源和物質用品
請注意 關於食物、能源和水
在此只採取非常保守的評估
所使用的統計和測量樣本
僅限於已投入產業用途的現有方法
而非人們泛談的理論事物
我希望透過「系統理論」的脈絡
來擴大論述這項主題

English: 
then we might as well just
kill ourselves right now,
as that is going to be the end
result if we continue to push past
the limits of the physical world with
respect to our resource exploitation
and the loss of biodiversity.
So I want to make it very clear:
this new economic proposal
isn't just about seeing how the
market is obsolete per se,
given our new powerful awarenesses
of technical efficiency;
it is also about the
fact that we need
to get out of the market
paradigm as fast as we can
before it causes
even more damage.
OK, Post-Scarcity.
The four categories I want to
cover in detail regarding this
are food, water, energy,
and material goods.
Please note that for
food, energy, and water
this is actually a very
conservative assessment,
using statistics and
measures based only
on existing methods that have
been put into industrial use,
not theoretical things that
people talk about all the time.
And all I'm going to
do is scale this out,
applying a systems
theory context.

English: 
Food.
According to the United Nations, one
out of every eight people on Earth-
nearly one billion people- suffer
from chronic undernourishment.
Yet it is admitted that there
is enough food produced today
by traditional market
methods alone,
to provide everyone in the world with
at least 2,720 kilocalories per day
which is more then enough to
maintain basic health for most.
Therefore, just in
principle right now,
the existence of such a large-scale
number of chronically hungry people
reveals at a minimum that there
is something fundamentally wrong
with the global industrial
and economic process.
According to the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers,
"It is estimated that
30-50% of all food produced
never reaches a human stomach
and this figure does not reflect
the fact that large amounts
of land, energy, fertilizers,
and water have also been lost
in the production of foodstuffs
which simply end up as waste."

Chinese: 
食物
據聯合國統計 地球1/8人口 ─
近十億人 ─ 長期處於營養不良
但一般公認 單憑傳統的市場方法
就能滿足當今糧食需求
每天至少提供世上每人2720千卡
超出維持多數人基本健康的熱量
因此 單就原則上看來
長期饑餓的人口如此之多
至少顯示全球產業和經濟的進程
已徹底出了問題
「機械工程師學會」表示
「據估計 所有已生產食品的30-50％
未曾被人吃下肚
但此數據無法反映一項事實
即大量土地、能源、肥料和水也已浪費
最終都成為食品生產過程的垃圾」

English: 
While there is certainly an
imperative to consider the relevance
of these waste patterns, it
appears that the most effective
and practical means to overcome
this global deficiency entirely
is to update the system
of food production itself
with the most strategic
localization
in order to reduce the waste
caused by inefficiencies
in the current
global supply chain.
Perhaps the most promising of these
arrangements is something called
vertical farming which I
assume many are familiar with.
Vertical farming has been put
to test in a number of regions
with extremely promising results
regarding efficiency and conservation.
This method of abundant food
production will not only
use less resources per unit
output, causing less waste,
have a reduced
ecological footprint,
increase food quality
and the like,
it will also use less
surface of the planet,
uses less land area
than we're doing today.
It can even be done offshore-
it's that versatile-

Chinese: 
儘管我們必須考量這些浪費模式的相關影響
但若要徹底克服這項全球性的弊端
似乎最有效且務實的方法
就是更新食物生產系統本身
搭配最佳的在地化配置策略
才能減少目前全球供應鏈
所造成的浪費
或許目前最具前景的規劃
就是我想很多人都熟悉的「垂直農場」
「垂直農場」在許多地區已投入測試
在效率與保育方面的成效十分理想
這種生產大量糧食的方法
不僅能節省單位產量的所需資源、減少浪費、
降低生態足跡、
以及提升糧食品質等等
而且也耗用較少的地表空間
少於我們現今使用的土地面積
甚至可以離岸耕種 具備多方潛力

English: 
enabling types of food as well,
that certain climates and regions
simply couldn't produce
because it's enclosed.
A vertical farm system in
Singapore, for example,
custom built, a
transparent enclosure,
uses a closed loop
automated hydraulic system
to rotate the crops in
circles between sunlight
and organic nutrient treatment,
costing only about $3 a month in
electricity for each enclosure.
This system also has
reported to have 10 times
more productivity per square
foot than conventional farming,
again, using much less water,
labor, and fertilizer.
Students at Columbia
University in the US
determined that in order to feed
50,000 people, a 30-story farm
built on the size of a basic
city block would be needed,
which is about 6.4 acres.
If we extrapolate this in the context
of the city of Los Angeles, California
(where I'm coming from) with a
population of about 4 million,
with a total acreage
of about 318,000

Chinese: 
也能栽培各種作物 打破特定氣候和地區
就是無法生產的困境 因為是封閉式系統
以新加坡的垂直農耕系統為例
量身打造 透明外牆
採用閉環自動液壓系統
在陽光下循環旋轉作物
給予有機的營養調理
每單位的每月電費僅約3美元
本系統每平方英呎產量
據聞是傳統農法的十倍
水、勞力和肥料的用量則少得多
美國哥倫比亞大學學生發現
要餵飽5萬人口 需在一般城市街區範圍
建置一座30層樓的農場
相當於6.4英畝
若以相同方式衡量加州的洛杉磯市
(我的居住地) 當地人口約400萬
總面積約31.8萬英畝

Chinese: 
約需78座垂直農場來餵飽全城居民
但佔地僅為洛杉磯市土地總面積的約0.1%
就能養活所有市民
若將此計算範圍擴大到全地球
全球72億人口 大約需要
14.4萬座垂直農場提供糧食
等於約需92.1萬英畝的土地建置農場
而目前的傳統農耕用地
約佔全球38%的土地面積
而垂直農率的佔地
只需全球現有農地的約0.006%
就能滿足所需產量
且讓我們納入更多考量
用於農業的38%全球土地
許多是用來養殖牲畜
而不只是栽培農作物
所以假設我們只在
約40億英畝的現有作物耕地上

English: 
it would take roughly 78
structures to feed all residents.
This amounts to about 0.1% of the
total land area of Los Angeles,
to feed the entire population.
If we apply this
extrapolation to the Earth
and the human population of 7.2
billion, we end up needing about
144,000 vertical farms
to feed the whole world.
This amounts to about 921,000 acres
of land to place these farms
which, given about 38%
of the Earth's land
is currently being used for
traditional agriculture,
we find that we only
need about 0.006%
of the Earth's existing
agricultural land
to meet production requirements.
Let's be a little bit
more consistent.
Within that 38% land-use
statistic for agriculture,
much of that land is also used
for livestock cultivation,
not just crop cultivation.
So, if we were to
theoretically take
only the crop production
land currently being used,

English: 
which is about 4 billion acres,
replacing land-based cultivation
by dropping these 30-story vertical
farms side-by-side in theory,
the food output would be enough to
meet the nutritional needs to feed
34.4 trillion people.
Given that we only need to
feed about 9 billion by 2050,
we only need to harness about 0.02%
of this theoretical capacity, which
it could be argued, makes rather moot
any seemingly practical objections
common to the aforementioned
extrapolation.
In short, we have absolute
global food abundance potential.
Water.
According to the World Health
Organization about 2.6 billion people-
half of the developing world-
lack proper sanitation
and about 1.1 billion
people have no access
to any type of clean
drinking sources.
Due to ongoing
depletion, by 2025,

Chinese: 
排滿一座座30層樓的垂直農場 取代地面耕作
則其能夠產出的糧食數量
理論上可以滿足34.4兆人口的
營養需求
由於只需在2050年之前養活90億人
因此只需利用上述理論產能的0.02%
這可能讓之前一切貌似務實的反對意見
都顯得毫無實際意義
總之 全球糧食要富足絕對沒問題
水
世界衛生組織統計 約26億人口
─ 世界發展中地區的半數 ─ 衛生條件不足
大約11億人無法取得
任何乾淨的飲用水源
如此持續消耗到2025年

Chinese: 
據估將近20億人口
將生活在缺水為患的地區
而全球會有2/3人口
居住在水源緊缺的地區
原因? 當然是浪費和污染
但我不打算談論太多
細節、原因和預防 這些都不是重點
反之 仍只從技術能力的角度切入
考慮到現代的淨水和海水淡化系統
在宏觀產業上的規模
淨化
現今的全球人均用水量為每年1385立方公尺
所有產業活動都納入計算 例如農業用水
為達論證目的 先讓我們考量一下
全球年均淡水用量的淨化成本
既然全球平均為1385立方公尺

English: 
it is estimated that
almost 2 billion people
will live in areas plagued
by water scarcity
with 2/3 of the entire
world population living
in water-stressed areas.
The cause?
Obviously waste and pollution.
But I'm not going
to talk about that-
the details, causes and prevention;
that's not the point of this.
Rather, let's take again, a
technological capacity approach only,
considering modern purification
and modern desalination systems
on the macro-industrial scale.
Purification.
The average person today globally
uses about 1,385m³ of water per year.
This factors in all industrial
activity as well, such as agriculture.
For the sake of argument, let's
consider what it would take to purify
all the fresh water currently being
used in the world on average annually.
Given the global
average of 1,385m³

English: 
and a population of 7.2 billion,
we arrive at a total annual
use of about 10 trillion m³.
Using a New York State USA
UV-disinfection plant as a base measure,
which has an output capacity of roughly
3 billion cubic meters a year,
taking up about 3.7
acres of land,
we would need 3,327 plants
to purify all the water used by
the entire global population,
taking up about
12,000 acres of land.
Needless to say, there are many
other factors that come into play,
such as power needs, location, and the like.
That's fair enough.
However, this is a
minor inconvenience.
12,000 acres is
nothing compared to
the 36 billion acres of
land on the planet Earth.
To give this a more practical
example, the US military
alone has about 845,000
military bases
and buildings, I
should say, as well.

Chinese: 
再加上72億人口
則年均總用量就是10兆立方公尺
若以美國紐約州的紫外線消毒廠作為基準來衡量
其每年產能大約30億立方公尺
一座廠房佔地約3.7英畝
我們則需要3327座工廠
來淨化全球人類所需用水
用地約1.2萬英畝
不用說 還會有很多影響因素
如電力需求、地點等等 確實沒錯
但是這些都不構成主要影響
1.2萬英畝
相較於地球的360億英畝土地 根本微不足道
再舉個更實際的例子 光是美國軍隊
就有84.5萬座軍事基地
其中包括建築物

English: 
This has been reported to take up about
30 million acres of land globally.
Only 0.04% of that
land would be needed
to disinfect the total fresh
water use of the entire world
if that were even needed,
which of course it is not.
Desalination.
Let's run the same theoretical
extrapolation on desalination.
The most common method of desalination
used today is called reverse osmosis,
and according the International
Desalination Association,
it accounts for 60% of the
installed capacity globally.
There are a lot of other methods
that are emerging quite rapidly
with high levels of efficiency [which]
can move water much more quickly.
But I'm not going to talk about that.
I want to stay only
within the common
methods applied today.
But keep in mind that
everything I'm speaking of
has dramatic improvements
coming very soon.
There's an advanced
reversed osmosis
seawater desalinization
plant in Australia
that can produce about 150
million m³ of fresh water a year

Chinese: 
據聞在全球佔地3千萬英畝
只要將這些土地的0.04%
拿來消毒淡水 就足以供全球使用
何況我們當然還沒有這樣的需求
海水淡化
相同的推論也能套用在海水淡化
目前最常見的淡化方法稱為逆滲透
國際海水淡化協會表示
此技術的設備容量 佔全球60%
還有許多其它方法正迅速問世
不但效率高 運水速度也快得多
但我暫時不談這些
而只聚焦於目前普遍使用的方法
但請記住 我提及的一切技術
很快都即將出現大幅進步
澳洲就有一座先進的
逆滲透海水淡化廠
每年約可產出1.5億立方公尺的淡水

English: 
while occupying about 50 acres.
Given the total annual water
use of the world today,
- it's about 10 trillion
cubic meters again -
it would take about
60,000 plants to produce
current global water
usage in total.
Using the dimensions of that
plant, which is quite large,
such a feat would take about
18,000 miles of coast land,
or about 8.5% of the
world's coast land.
Obviously, that's not really ideal,
that's a lot of coast land,
but this exercise is
about proportion.
Clearly, we do not need to
desalinate all water used,
nor would we bypass the use
of purification processes
or ignore the vast reforms needed to
preserve efficiency and fresh water
or, equally as important, the reuse
schemes that are coming to fruition
where buildings are able to
use water in multiple ways
by recycling water that comes
from a sink into toilets,
and other mechanisms that unfortunately
go unused for the vast majority.
Let's do a slightly more practical
real life extrapolation,

Chinese: 
佔地大約50英畝
由於全球每年總用水量
大約為10兆立方公尺
故需要約6萬座淡化廠
來供應目前全球總用水量
這類廠房佔地頗大
如此的數目約需1.8萬英里的海岸線
相當於全球沿海地區的8.5%
耗用如此多海岸土地 顯然不算太理想
但重點在於比例
顯然並非所有用水皆需淡化
我們也不會略過淨化流程
也深知必須大幅改良以保持效率和淡水質量
同樣重要的是 重複利用水的方案也成效卓著
其中 建築物有多種用水方式
例如從水槽回收後沖洗馬桶等
可惜很多類似機制未獲普遍採用
讓我們稍微擴大到實際生活領域

English: 
combining only purification
and desalination
with actual regional
scarcity statistics.
On the continent of Africa,
roughly 345 million people
lack access to freshwater.
If we apply the noted global
average consumption rate
again of 1,385m³ a year,
seeking to provide each of those
345 million people that amount,
we would need about 480 billion
cubic meters produced annually.
If we divided this number in half
and use purification systems
for one section and
desalination for the other,
the desalination process
would need about 1.9%
or 494 miles of coastline for
desalination facilities,
and only about 296 acres of land
for purification facilities,
which is a minuscule fraction
of Africa's total land mass
of about 7 billion acres.
So, this is highly doable
even in this crude example.
In all cases, we would strategically
maximize purification processes

Chinese: 
只結合淨化和淡化兩種技術
再搭配區域的實際缺水數據來考量
在非洲大陸 大約有3.45億人
難以取得淡水
若將上述全球平均用水率
亦即每年1,385立方公尺
套用在非洲的3.45億人身上
每年則需生產約4,800億立方公尺的水
若均分這個數字 一半使用淨化系統
另一半使用淡化
則所需的淡化設施將佔用1.9%
或494英哩的海岸線
而淨化設施用地 僅需約296英畝
這是非洲70億英畝土地
總數量的九牛一毛
即使這粗略的例子 也證明其高度可行
無論如何 都要按策略大幅增進淨化技術

English: 
since it is clearly
more efficient
while using desalination
for the remaining demand.
In short, it's absurd for
anyone on this planet
to be going without freshwater,
not to mention, as an aside,
70% of all freshwater used today
is used in agriculture in our grossly
wasteful agricultural methods. 70%!
If we, for example, apply
again vertical farm systems
which have been noted to reduce water
by upwards of 80% in comparison,
we would see an
enormous freeing up
of this unnecessarily
scarce resource as well.
Moving on to Energy.
We live in one massive perpetual
motion machine known as the Universe.
The fact that we still use polluting
fossil fuel stores in the Earth
or the incredibly unstable
nuclear phenomenon
which gives very little
room for human fallibility
is truly frightening.
There are four main
large capacity

Chinese: 
因為它顯然更有效率
剩下的需求就交給海水淡化
總之 任何人在地球上
沒有淡水可用是荒謬的 順道一說 更別提
現今淡水用量的70%當中
都用於極浪費的農業方法 70%!
如果運用上述的垂直農場系統
其用水量已知可相對減少80%
我們就能釋放巨大潛能
確保水資源不虞匱乏
再來看到能源
我們生活在「宇宙」這台巨大的永動機之中
卻仍在地球使用充滿汙染的石化燃料及其貯藏量
或極度不穩定的核能
這種難容絲毫人為疏失的技術
這事實真的很嚇人
主要有四種高發電量的

English: 
"base-load," as they would
say, renewable energy means
which are currently most ideal
as per our current state of
technological application.
These are geothermal
plants, wind farms,
solar fields, and
water-based power.
Due to time I'm not going to
explain what these mediums are
as I assume most know.
I'm just going to run through
the abundance comparison.
Geothermal.
A 2006 MIT report on
geothermal found that
13,000 zettajoules of power are
currently available in the Earth
with the possibility of 2000
zettajoules being harvestable
with improved technology.
The total energy consumption of
all the countries on the planet
is only about half a
zettajoule a year.
This means literally thousands
of years of planetary power
could be harnessed in
this medium alone.
Geothermal energy also uses much
less land than other energy sources.
Over 30 years, a period of
time commonly used to compare
the life cycle impacts from
different power sources,

Chinese: 
所謂「基載」再生能源方式
就當前的技術應用狀態而言
是最理想的供電途徑
它們是地熱發電、風力發電、
太陽能發電和水力發電
由於時間關係 我不詳細予以說明
相信多數人都已知道 我只是分別進行
充裕程度的比較
地熱
2006年 麻省理工學院的研究發現
地球現有1.3萬皆焦耳(zj)功率的地熱能
並有2000皆焦耳尚待開發
只要技術改良即可
而全球各國的能源消耗總量
僅一年0.5皆焦耳
這表示單憑地熱 就足以供應
全地球數千年的能源
地熱能所需佔地 也遠少於其它能源
「30年」常作為時間單位 用來比較
不同發電來源的生命週期影響

Chinese: 
經發現 地熱設施每百萬度
平均使用404平方公尺的土地
而煤炭設施
則為每百萬度佔用3,632平方公尺
若以上述的平方公尺對照百萬度的比率
來比較地熱和煤炭的基本差異
我們會發現一座燃煤發電廠的用地
可抵約九座地熱發電廠的面積
而這還不包括目前用來開採煤礦的
廣大土地面積
也就是那些佈滿地表的巨坑
順帶一提 地熱的美好之處...
其實所有再生能源皆然:無論是開採
或者收集的地點 幾乎都等同於
處理與配送電力的地點
另一方面 烴化物能源的開採
及發電設施幾乎總在不同地點

English: 
it was found that a
geothermal facility
uses 404 m² of land
per gigawatt hour
while a coal facility
uses 3,632 m² per gigawatt hour.
If we were to do a basic
comparison of geothermal to coal
given this ratio of m² to GWh
we find that we could fit
about 9 geothermal plants
in the space of one coal plant.
And that isn't accounting
for the vast amount of land
that is currently used
for coal extraction-
you know, those huge holes
that we see in the earth.
By the way, the beauty of
geothermal, and in fact,
all of the renewables I'm going
to speak of, is that extraction
or the harnessing location is
almost always the exact same place
as processing for the power
distribution as well.
All hydrocarbon sources on the
other hand require both extraction
and power production facilities
almost always in separate locations,

Chinese: 
煉油廠有時也是如此
2013年 一座1000百萬瓦的發電廠
宣布在衣索比亞動工
我以此作為理論推衍的基準
若一座1000百萬瓦的地熱發電站 滿載全力運作
24小時全年無休
則每年可生產8700萬百萬瓦時的電力
而目前全球的年度用電量
約為1530億百萬瓦時 也就是大約需要
1.7萬座地熱發電廠來滿足全球用電量
目前全球有超過2,300座燃煤發電廠在運作
若使用上述廠房容積的比較結果
即約九座地熱電廠抵一座燃煤電廠
則理論上需要1940座燃煤電廠的空間

English: 
sometimes refineries as well,
in separate locations.
In 2013, it was announced that
a 1,000 megawatt power station
was to begin construction
in Ethiopia.
We're going to use this as a base,
theoretical for extrapolation.
If a 1000-megawatt geothermal power
station operated at full capacity
24 hours a day, 365 days a year,
it would produce 8.7
million MWh a year.
The world's current annual
energy usage is about
153 billion MWh a year, which would
mean it would take in abstraction
about 17,000 geothermal
plants to match global use.
There are over 2,300 coal power
plants in operation worldwide today.
Using the aforementioned
plant-sized capacity comparison
of about nine geothermal plants
fitting into one coal plant,
the space of 1,940 coal plants
would be needed in theory

English: 
to contain the 17,000
geothermal plants
or 84% of the total
in existence.
Also, given that coal
accounts for only 41%
of today's current
energy production,
this theoretical
extrapolation also shows
how in 84% of the current
space used by coal plants,
geothermal could supply 100%
of total global power supply.
Wind Farms.
It's been calculated that today
with existing turbine technology,
which is improving rapidly,
that Earth could produce
hundreds of trillions of watts
of power, many more times
than what the world
consumes, overall.
However, breaking this
down, using the 9,000 acre
Alta Wind Center in California
as a theoretical basis,
which has an active capacity
of 1,320 MW of power,
a theoretical annual output of
11 million MWh is possible.
This means 13,000

Chinese: 
來容納1.7萬座地熱電廠
亦即現有燃煤電廠空間的84%
另外 鑑於燃煤發電
只佔現今能源產量的41%
這項理論的推衍也顯示
現今燃煤發電廠84%的用地
可容納的地熱設施足以為全球100%供電
風電場
若以現有的風電渦輪機的技術計算
隨著效能突飛猛進 全球發電量
可高達數百兆瓦 整體而言
是全球用電量的好幾倍
進一步細算 若以加州9千英畝的
Alta風力中心當作理論前提
其有效產能為1320百萬瓦
則理論上每年可輸出 1.1千萬百萬瓦時的電力
因此需要1.3萬座

English: 
9,000-acre wind farms
would be needed to meet
total global demand
of 153 billion MWh.
This requires about 119
million acres of land
or 0.3% of the Earth's surface
to power the world
in abstraction.
However as some may
know, offshore wind
is typically much more
powerful than land-based.
According to the Assessment
of Offshore Wind Energy Resources
for the United States, a report:
4,150 gigawatts of potential
wind turbine technology-
turbine capacity- from
offshore wind resources
are available in the
United States alone.
Assuming this power capacity was
consistent for a whole year,
we end up with an energy conversion
of 36 billion MWh a year.
Given the United States in 2010
used 25.7 billion MWh,

Chinese: 
9千英畝大小的風電場
來滿足1530億百萬瓦時的全球用電需求量
這需要約1.19億英畝的土地
或0.3%的地表面積
來為全球供電(抽象而言)
但或許一些人知道 離岸風電
其效能通常遠高於陸基設施
一份報告評估了
美國離岸風力能源的產值:
光是美國潛在的風電渦輪機技術
單就離岸風電機的產能而言
就有4150百萬瓩之多
假設這與全年發電量一致
則每年可轉換360億百萬瓦時的電能
若以美國2010年的257億百萬瓦時用量計算
若以美國2010年的257億百萬瓦時用量計算

Chinese: 
那麼單憑離岸風力發電
就已超過全國總用量
多出大約106億百萬瓦時或41%
同理可證 以此全國發電量
去推論其它全球海岸線的發電潛力
再加上前述的陸基風電數據
很清楚我們能供給全球所需的數倍電力
單憑風力即可 而且相當實際
太陽能電場
若人類能擷取地球日照能量的0.1%
則可獲得的電力 將是目前人類
所有發電形式的6倍總耗電量
這種發電方式取決於技術
和輻射轉化率的高低
加州的Ivanpah太陽能發電系統
佔地3500英畝
據稱年發電量為100萬百萬瓦時

English: 
we find that offshore
wind harvesting alone
could exceed the national use
by about 10.6
billion MWh or 41%.
And axiomatically,
extrapolating this national
level of capacity to the rest
of the world's coast lines,
also taking into account the
aforementioned land-based statistics,
it is clear that we can power
the world many, many times over
with wind, and
quite practically.
Solar Fields.
If humanity could capture 0.1% of the
solar energy striking the Earth,
we would have access to
six times as much energy
we consume in all forms today.
The ability to harness this
power depends on technology
and how high the percentage
of radiation conversion is.
The Ivanpah Solar Electric
System in California:
it's a 3,500-acre field
with an annual stated generation
of about one million MWh.

English: 
If we were to extrapolate using
this as a theoretical basis,
it would take about 142,000 fields
or about 500 million acres of land
to theoretically meet
current global energy use.
That's about 1.5% of
total land on Earth.
Deserts cover about 1/3 of the
world or about 12 billion acres,
and they tend to be fairly
conducive to solar fields,
while often less conducive
to life support for people.
Given the roughly
500 million acres
theoretically needed to
power the world as noted,
only 4.1% of the world's
deserts would be needed
to contain these fields,
land that pretty much just
otherwise sits there.
Water-Based Power.
There are five dominant types of
water-based power: wave, tidal,
ocean current, osmotic,
ocean thermal, and water course.
Overall, the technology for
harnessing ocean in general

Chinese: 
以此為理論前提 可推算出
將需要14.2萬座發電場地或約5億英畝
以在理論上供給全球目前的用電
這相當於地表面積的1.5%
沙漠佔全球1/3面積 大約120億英畝
通常是太陽能發電的理想地點
但也較不利於人類生存
先前提到 理論上大約需要
5億英畝來為全球供電
這點僅需全球沙漠4.1%的面積
就能容納這些場地
這麼多土地若不利用 也只是閒置
水力發電
水力發電有五大類型:波浪、潮汐、
洋流、滲透壓、
海洋溫差與水道發電
總體而言 運用海洋能源的技術

Chinese: 
仍在萌芽初期 但潛力無窮
以傳統方式估計
也就是以既有發電方法為基準
而估算出的公認全球水力發電潛能
其中不含尚未應用的先進技術
則總計為每年約15萬千瓦小時
相當於目前全球用量的96%
也就是0.5皆焦耳
單憑這項媒介 就足以為全球供電
然而 在說明這些成長中的技術潛力之前
大家必須先考量到相關技術
和水力發電的發展程度極為初階
再看到近期的「洋流」發電技術發展
(洋流就是在海中運行的水流)
現在已可擷取遠低於以往的流速所產生的能源
據估計 單憑目前的洋流
若運用得當 理論上就能為全球供電

English: 
is in its infancy, but
the potential is vast.
And based on
traditional estimates
here is what the accepted
global potentials
have been estimated at
using existing methods;
we're not applying advanced technology
that's not in application yet.
This all figures up to be
about 150,000 TWh/year
or 96% of current global use
of the half of a zettajoule,
pretty much enough to power the world
in one medium alone if applied.
However to give a sense of
growing technological potential
(because I think this is important
considering how technology
and water-oriented power
is deeply in its infancy)
recent developments in 'ocean
current' harnessing technology
(the currents that go
underneath the ocean)
which can embrace much lower
speeds now than they used to,
it has estimated that ocean
current alone could now
theoretically power the entire
world if applied correctly.

English: 
So, let's recap.
Wind, solar, water and
geothermal have shown,
as large scale, base-load
renewable energy mediums,
that they are capable, individually,
of meeting or vastly exceeding
current annual global energy
consumption at this time.
And obviously a systems approach,
harmonizing an optimized fraction
of each of those renewables
strategically is the key
to achieving a global,
total energy abundance.
For example, it's not
inconceivable to imagine
a series of man-made
floating islands
off select coastlines which are
designed to harness, at once,
wind, solar, thermal difference,
wave, tidal and currents,
all at the same time and
in the same general area.
Such energy islands would then
pipe their harvest back to land
for storage and distribution.
It is only up to our design ingenuity
to figure things like this out.
Localization and Reuse.

Chinese: 
那麼 總結上述
風、日光、水和地熱
顯然都是大規模的基載再生能源媒介
單憑任一種 都能滿足或遠超過
目前每年全球能源的消耗量
很明顯 關鍵是以系統性的方式和最佳比例
來協調運用各種再生能源
才能充分實現全球能源富足
例如 我們可以想像
一系列的人造浮島
設置於選定的海岸線 設計成能同時利用
風、日光、溫差、波浪、潮汐和洋流
全部同時、同地進行
這些浮島可採集能源並輸送回陸地
以便儲存或配送
就看我們有無設計天分來開發這類技術
在地化與再利用

Chinese: 
我最後想談的能源因素
明確奠基於這種系統性的思維
它涉及在地化與再利用的方案
今日 我們對於在地化能源的利用
嚴重缺乏應有的關注
較小規模的再生方法
適用於單一結構或小區域
這點能透過相同的系統性邏輯來整合
而這些地區系統必要時 也能接回
大型基載系統 建立全面的混合媒介和整合網絡
現在有些太陽能系統就是如此
許多在地化系統 能夠直接汲取
周遭環境的能源 例如太陽能陣列、
小型集風系統、
在地化的地熱冷暖供應系統
有種建築的設計 甚至就是能夠
提供自然光並增進保暖/保冷效率
巴克敏斯特·富勒的穹頂結構很了不起
保存能源的實際效果也很好 這是同樣的道理
再來向外看到城市基礎設施

English: 
The final energy factor
I want to mention,
which builds upon this
systems-thinking explicitly,
has to do with localization
and re-use schemes.
Localized energy harnessing
isn't given a fraction
of the attention it needs today.
Smaller scale renewable methods
which are conducive to
single structures or small areas
find the same systems logic,
regarding combination.
These local systems could also, if
need be, connect back into the larger
base-load systems, creating a total,
mixed medium, integrated network
which happens sometimes
today with solar.
There are many localized systems
out there which can draw energy
from the immediate environment:
there's solar power arrays,
there's small wind
harvesting systems,
localized geothermal
heating and cooling
and even architectural design
that just simply makes
natural light and heat/cool
preservation more efficient.
Buckminster Fuller was great
with his dome structures
and how they actually contained
energy quite well. Same idea.
Extending outwards to
city infrastructure

English: 
we see the same wasted possible
efficiency almost everywhere.
A simple technology
called piezoelectric
is able to convert pressure and mechanical
energy directly into electricity.
It's an excellent example of an energy
reuse method with great potential.
Existing applications have
included power generation
by people simply walking on these
engineered floors and sidewalks,
streets which can generate power
as automobiles cross over them,
and train rail systems which
can also capture energy
from passing train
cars through pressure.
It has been suggested by
people who have studied this
that a stretch of road
less than one mile long,
four lanes wide, a highway,
and trafficked by about
1,000 vehicles per hour
can create about 0.4
Megawatt of power,
which is enough to
power 600 homes.
Now extrapolate that out to the bulk
of all the highways in the world;
you have a very, very powerful
regenerative energy source.

Chinese: 
現在幾乎隨處可見效率不彰的情況
一項名為「壓電」的簡單技術
可直接將壓力和機械能轉成電力
此絕佳例證 說明能源再利用的龐大潛力
現在甚至還有一種發電的應用
只要人們走在特製的地板或人行道即可
或是有車通過就能發電的道路
鐵路系統也能如此擷取能源
取自列車通過時所產生的壓力
有些專家學者主張
一條不到1英哩的路段
四線道的公路
每小時車流量1千部
如此就能產生0.4百萬瓦的電力
足夠為600戶家庭供電
若將此概念推廣到全球所有公路
就能獲得極為充沛的再生能源

English: 
Overall, if we think about the
enormous mechanical energy wasted
by vehicle transport modes and
high-traffic walking centers alone,
the potential of that possible
regenerated energy is quite substantial.
It's this systems-thinking
once again that is needed
in order to maintain
sustainability,
while also pursuing this
global energy abundance.
The final more complex
subject, energy aside,
will be the subject
of material abundance
and creating
life-supporting goods.
Unlike the prior, more simple
post-scarcity categories of food,
water and energy, the creation
of a broad material abundance
of all basic goods, which comprise
the current average, you could say,
of what is culturally considered a
'high standard of living' today
is substantially more
radical in its need
for industrial
revision and change.
As expressed before, the current
highly inefficient methods
we use in industrial design, production,
distribution and regeneration

Chinese: 
請想想看 光是各處繁忙的車潮和人流
所浪費的龐大機械能
就知道此類再生能源的潛力無限
再次強調 我們正是需要這種系統性思維
才能維持全球永續性
同時追求全球能源富足
除了能源 最後一項更複雜的主題
將是關於物資的富足
和維生必需品的製造
有別以往 更簡單的「後匱乏」式的富足類別
包括食物、水、能源和所有基本物資
若要達到當今文化所認知的
「高水準生活」的平均標準
本質上就必須更徹底地
修正並改變產業型態
如前所述 目前效率低落的方法
普遍用於工業設計、生產、配送和再生產

English: 
is one of the main reasons
we are in a constant state
of global resource overshoot
and destabilizing
biodiversity loss.
Also as noted prior, there
is no market incentive
for advanced states
of efficiency,
as efficiency always reduces
the amount of labor,
resources and service
needed for a given purpose;
and hence, reduces
monetary circulation.
I can't reinforce that enough.
Therefore, a new synergistic
systems-view of industry
focused explicitly on material
and labor efficiency,
along with an optimized strategy
for sustainability, is in order.
For the sake of time and as a lead-in
to the final section on calculation,
I'm going to focus on a few
principles or protocols
and how each protocol
assists efficiency
towards this
post-scarcity abundance.
Otherwise it would take an
enormous amount of time;
it's not as simple as the
prior extrapolations.
However, in this book that I mentioned
there will be a whole chapter

Chinese: 
正因如此 我們不斷反覆
濫採超用全球資源
並破壞生物多樣性
稍早也說到 效率的提升
不具有市場誘因
因為提高效率 就是針對特定目的
減少所需的人力、資源和服務
因而也會減少貨幣流通
這一點非常重要
因此 需要新的系統性協作產業觀點
明確聚焦於材料和勞動效率
並配合最佳的永續發展策略
由於時間緣故 我要聚焦在幾項原則和協議
來導入這場資源計算演講的最後一段討論
並提及每項協議如何促進效率
邁向後匱乏時代的富足
否則將會耗費長篇大論
並不像先前的推算那樣簡單
不過 我提及的這本書 有一整章

Chinese: 
詳盡地闡述了這項議題
(1) 使用權而非財產權
財產導向的社會 鼓勵大家去「擁有」
而不鼓勵「租賃」物品
或獲得所需的取用管道
我身為製片人 有時確實會租用物品
這比購買要划算和聰明多了
因為還有轉售的價值
普世鼓勵追求的「所有權」造成極大浪費
看看給定物品的實際使用時間就知道了
若能使物資確實便於取得且可人人共享
將讓更多人取得原本無法使用的物資
而且這些物資的所需生產 也能按比例減少
在自然法則/資源導向經濟之中
我們力求實現取用無虞 而非積累豐厚財產
後者必然導致浪費

English: 
dedicated to this issue
in great detail.
(1) Access, not property.
A property-based society
incentivizes the preference to own
a given product,
rather than rent,
or gain access to as needed.
I'm a filmmaker and while I do
rent some things occasionally,
it's much more cost-effective
and smart to buy things
because they have resale value.
This incentive of universal
ownership is incredibly wasteful
when we examine actual use
time of a given good.
Facilitating a means of access where
things can be literally shared
will allow many more to gain use
of goods they otherwise could not,
along with there being less production
of those goods in proportion.
In a Natural Law/Resource
Based Economy
we seek to create an access
abundance, not a property abundance
which is inherently wasteful.

Chinese: 
此外也一定要注意
「財產」不是一個實際的經驗概念
取用物資才是真正有實質影響的經驗
「財產」是一種保護主義者的詭計
取用物資才是人類社會的實況
「擁有」一台電腦的真實意涵
是必須獨自擁有
一整套製造電腦的技術流程
以及用於製程中的所有工具
還有這些工具的原理和概念
這實際上根本就不可能
而且還破壞了早期的勞動價值理論
(財產是古典經濟學家提出的概念)
其實沒有「財產」這種東西 只有取用和共享
任何社會制度都不例外
(2) 融入系統運作的回收機制
與直覺相反 其實在自然界
沒有所謂的「廢棄物」
不只生態圈在循環過程中
重複使用每樣事物

English: 
As an aside, it's also important
to note that property
is not an empirical concept.
Only access is
empirically valid.
Property is a protectionist
contrivance.
Access is the reality of the
social and human condition.
In order for you to truly
say "own" a computer,
you have to have had alone
come up with the entire technological
process that made that thing
along with the ideas
that comprise the tools
you might have used to
make that computer.
This is literally impossible
and is what destroys the
early labor theory of value
(property is stuff that's put
forward by classical economists).
There's no such thing as property.
There is only access and sharing,
no matter what social
system you employ.
(2) Designed-in Recycling
Contrary to our intuition, there
is no such thing as waste
in the natural world.
Not only from the standpoint
of the biosphere which reuses
everything in its process,

Chinese: 
週期表上的92種主要天然元素
更構成所有物質 而且取之不盡
人類很少考慮材料再生的重要性
與如何確保所有設計實務
都要將回收機制納入考量
事實上 有些人可能知道 這種回收的最高境界
終究會藉由奈米科技實現
奈米科技最終將能創造物品
從原子層面構築 用完再分解還原
回到幾乎沒有實體的起點
這是回收的終極形式 而且我們還不需用上
我並不主張此時甚至就需要奈米科技
儘管這就是我們目前正在做的事
這只是一項有效的參考原則
有助理解「再生」的重要性
現今的產業並不講求這方面的綜效
回收是一種事後思維 企業也依然故我
例如一味將化學顏料用作塗層材質的作法

English: 
the 92 main naturally occurring
elements in the periodic table
that comprise all matter
cannot be exhausted.
Humanity has given very little
consideration to the role
of material regeneration, and
how all of our design practices
must account for this recycling.
In fact, as some may know, the
highest state of this recycling
will eventually come in the
form of nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology will eventually
be able to create goods
from the atomic level up and
disassemble them right back down
to the almost virtual
starting point.
It is the ultimate form of recycling.
By the way, I'm not suggesting this.
I'm not suggesting that nanotechnology
is even needed at this time,
as though that that's what
we're doing right now.
It's just [that] this is a
great principle to reference
as far as regenerative
importance.
Today, industry has little sense
of synergy in this context.
Recycling is an afterthought.
Companies continue to do things
such as blindly coat materials with
chemical paints, and the like,

English: 
that distort the properties
of those materials,
making the materials
less salvageable,
or maybe completely unsalvageable,
to current recycling methods.
It happens all the time.
So long story short,
strategic recycling
just might be
the most core seed of a
continued abundance.
Every landfill on earth is
just a waste of potential.
Number 3: Strategic
conformation of good design
to the most conducive
and abundant materials known.
You will notice this efficiency
qualification in what I just said:
conducive and abundant.
Conducive means most appropriate
based on the material properties.
Abundant means you weigh
the value of conduciveness
against the value of how accessible
and low-impact the material is,
compared to other materials which
may be more or less conducive.
This is a synergistic
efficiency comparison.

Chinese: 
這往往會改變那些材料的屬性
導致難以用現行方法回收
甚至可能根本完全無法回收再利用
向來總是如此 簡而言之
「策略性回收」可能就是
永續富足的最核心要素
世上每座掩埋場 都只是在浪費潛在資源
(3) 以策略性的建構方式
和最具效益且富足的材料
來實現優質設計
重點在於我剛剛所強調的效率合理化
亦即效益與富足
「效益」意謂最適當的材料屬性
「富足」是依據物資的效益價值
來衡量它取用無虞的程度及材料帶來的最低影響
而且要和其它材料比較 是否更有效益或反之
這是一種協同效率的比較

Chinese: 
(不好意思 我說的可能有點複雜)
最佳例證大概就是住宅或家居建築
一般常用的木料、磚頭、螺絲和各種零件
所建造的房子效率極低
遠不如現代化的精簡預製組件或模組化材料
一間兩千平方英呎的傳統住宅 大概需要
40至50棵樹 大約一英畝地
相較之下 預製組件所建造的房子
是以環保的簡易聚合物、
水泥或其它輕鬆成形的方法製成
例如發展中的3D列印技術
這些新方法的碳足跡極少
遠低於濫伐全球森林的影響
住宅營建是當今全球最耗資源、
也最浪費的產業型態之一
大約40％用於建築的材料
最終都成了浪費

English: 
(I'm sorry if the language sounds
a little bit complicated.)
Probably the best example of this
is home or domicile construction.
The common use of wood, bricks,
screws and the vast array of parts
that is typical of a common house is
comparatively, vastly inefficient
to more modern, simplified
pre-fabrication or moldable materials.
A traditional 2000 square-foot
home requires about
40 to 50 trees, about an acre.
Compare that with houses that can be
created in prefabrication processes
with simple,
earth-friendly polymers,
concrete, or other
easily formable methods.
3D printing, for
example, is on pace.
These new approaches have a very
small footprint as compared to
our destruction of global forests
which continue, for wood.
Home construction today is one
of the most resource intensive
and wasteful industrial
mediums in the world,
with about 40% of all materials
collected for construction
ended up as waste in the end.

Chinese: 
(4) 勞力自動化的設計效益
這對很多人還很陌生
我們愈能服膺於快速、有效率的
現代化生產流程
顯然就愈能創造更多富足
只要閱讀關於製程的文獻
就知道勞動力傳統上分為三項範疇
那就是人工組裝、機械化和自動化
人工組裝意謂手工製造
機械化是指機器輔助勞工
而自動化表示完全沒有人力參與
試想你需要的椅子有三種設計方案
第一款精細複雜 只能手工打造
第二款較為精簡 多數零件可由機械生產
但仍需要手工組裝
第三款則是全自動化的單一製程

English: 
Number 4: Design conduciveness
for labor automation.
Now this is very
foreign to many.
The more we conform
to the current state
of rapid, efficient
production processes,
obviously, the more
abundance we can create.
If you read texts on
manufacturing processes,
they typically divide labor
into three categories.
There's human assembly, there's
mechanization and there's automation.
Human assembly means handmade,
mechanization means machines
assist the laborer,
and automation means
no human action.
Imagine if you needed a chair
and there were three designs.
The first is elaborate and complex,
and could only be done by hand.
The second is more streamlined
where its parts could be made
mostly by machines, but would
need to be assembled by hand.
The third chair is produced by
one process, fully automated.

Chinese: 
就這項新方法的理論而言
最後一款椅子才是設計目標
也就是以極少的人力 來有效降低
自動化製程的複雜度
試想一間工廠不只能生產汽車
還能製造幾乎任何工業產品
並使用相同的基本材料
這是非常可行的
而且會大幅增加產量
換句話說 這是生產工具的最佳化
補充一點 許多人看到這類事物
會覺得在未來將喪失多樣性
一定是冰冷、單調 大家都一模一樣
不會的 這只是彰顯生產效率的一項範例
自動化的效益並不意味千篇一律的設計
因為當前的自動化技術 已經帶來
難以置信且突飛猛進的豐富變化
有許多能夠自行改裝的模組化機器人
可以創造大量的變化

English: 
The latter chair design
would be the design goal
in theory of this new approach.
What this would do is reduce the
complexity of the automation process
with little to no human labor.
Imagine a production plant
that not only produces cars,
it can produce virtually any
kind of industrial product
comprised of the same
basic shared materials.
This is very feasible.
This would increase
output substantially.
In other words, we are optimizing
the means of production.
And as an aside, many
who see stuff like this
think that this means there's not going
to be any variety in the future,
that it's just going to be cold and
uniform and everyone gets the same thing.
No. I'm just using this as an example
to make an efficiency point.
Being conducive to automation does
not mean universal uniformity
of design because the incredible
amount of variance possible
in our current automation technology
is amazing and accelerating.
Modular robotics, there's many
different self-changing machines
that can create a great
amount of variance.

English: 
All this means is the existing
processes in their current state
should be respected
to ease production.
Don't confuse this with the idea that
everyone just gets the same everything.
What they get is the same basic
sustainability principles,
which come in many different forms,
if you can understand that.
These four parameters set in motion,
along with the basic intent
to assist the trend of
ephemeralization on all levels,
there is little doubt
that every human being
could have a very high
standard of living.
It is simply about converting
all of the inefficiency we have
straight into productivity,
strategically.
I will conclude this section by noting that R.
Buckminster Fuller
is probably the only human
being that has ever attempted
to account and quantify the state
of resources and their potential
within the past hundred
years and, while primitive,
he was able to arrive at the
following conclusion in 1969:

Chinese: 
正因如此 現有技術的發展應獲得尊重
以讓生產過程更輕鬆
這並不是「人人所得皆同」的概念
相同的是基本的永續發展原則
只是有許多不同形式 請務必理解這一點
上述四項要素的實踐 以及在各個層面
推行少費多用/以少做多(ephemeralization)的基本意圖
就勢必能讓每個人
都享有極高的生活水準
這純粹只是將原本的低落效率
策略性轉化為生產力而已
我想以巴克敏斯特·富勒來為本節作結
他可能是百年來 史上唯一一位
嘗試解釋並量化各種資源的狀態及潛力
儘管統計數據相當原始
他早在1969年就得出以下結論:

Chinese: 
「人類在一戰期間 就實現了密集的機械化
工業有產階級佔全球人口的比例
至1919年共上升了6%之多
這是歷史上的鉅變
到二戰時 20%的全體人類
成為工業有產階級
這項比例 至今已來到全人類的40%
若將目前資源效能的整體效率
提升至極為可行的12%以上
(全面平均地將使用效率提升12％)
就足以滿足全人類所需」
資訊科技自1969年起 呈現指數成長
加上當今的應用科技
以及進步的綜效觀念
我想技術水準 早已遠遠超過
富勒所主張的12%效率成長需求
當今的問題在於適當地合乎產業效益

English: 
"Man developed such intense
mechanization in World War I
that the percentage of total world
population that were industrial 'haves'
rose by 1919 to
the figure of 6%.
This was an abrupt
change in history.
By the time of World War
II, 20% of all humanity
had become industrial 'haves.'
At the present moment the proportion
of 'haves' is at 40% of humanity.
If we up the performances of
resources from the present level
to a highly feasible overall
efficiency of 12% more
(increasing by 12%, our use,
holistically, on average)
all humanity can
be provided for."
The exponential increase in
information technology since 1969,
along with the applied
technology and advanced
synergetic understandings
we have today,
I suspect, now far exceeds-...
we are way beyond the 12% efficiency
increase that he saw as needed.
The problem now is conforming to
industrial conduciveness appropriately

Chinese: 
這一點目前尚未做到
這讓我們進入第三部分:經濟組織和計算
如果你好奇我為何大費周章
說明上述的「後匱乏」論點
以及市場資本主義固有的兩項核心問題:
社會失衡和環境失衡
那是因為這項模型涉及的經濟要素
必須有上述觀念才能理解來龍去脈
自然法則/資源導向型經濟
不只是人類生產力提升帶來的進步成果
彷彿我們只是從市場機制中
逐步演化至今這樣
不是的 目前這套系統極需廢除
請務必再次瞭解這一點
它事實上必須納入
這種新經濟模式的激勵機制:
從歷史的觀點來看 若不如此做出調整
我們就會退化到當前這種
極度不穩定的時代

English: 
which is currently not done.
This leads us to Part III: Economic
Organization and Calculation.
If you're wondering why
I spent so much time
on the prior points
of post-scarcity
and those two core problems
inherent to market capitalism-
social imbalance and
environmental imbalance-
it's because you cannot understand
the logic of the economic factors
involved in this model without
those prior awarenesses.
A Natural Law/Resource Based Economy
is not just a progressive outgrowth
of our increased capacity to
be productive as a species,
as though we would just gradually
evolve out of the market system
step-by-step into this approach.
No. The dire need for
this system's removal
needs to be realized once again.
It has to become
a part, in fact,
of the incentive structure
of the new model:
the historical understanding that
if we do not adjust in this way
we will revert right back into
this highly unstable period
we are in right now.

Chinese: 
經濟模型是一種理論建構
它呈現一組變數或函數的成分及過程
並描述其間的邏輯關係
基本定義
學過傳統或市場型經濟建模的人
就知道要花很多時間在價格趨勢、
行為模式、實用功能、
通貨膨脹以及匯率波動等
極少人會提到公共或生態健康等議題
為什麼? 因為市場無視於真實生命
脫離了維生所需和永續發展的科學
市場經濟只是代理系統
構想新經濟的最佳方式有別於傳統觀念
它是一種先進的生產模式
是以民主方式實施的分配和管理系統
一種公眾參與式的經濟型態

English: 
An economic model is a
theoretical construct
representing component processes by
a set of variables or functions,
describing the logical
relationships between them.
Basic definition.
If anyone has studied traditional
or market-based economic modeling,
a great deal of time is often spent
on things such as price trends,
behavioral patterns,
utilitarianistic functions,
inflation, currency
fluctuations and so forth.
Rarely, if ever, is anything said
about public or ecological health.
Why? Because the market
is, again, life-blind
and decoupled from the science of
life support and sustainability.
It is simply a proxy system.
The best way to think about this economy
is not in the traditional terms,
but rather as an
advanced production,
distribution and management system
which is democratically engaged
by the public through a kind
of participatory economics

English: 
that facilitates input processes,
such as design proposals
and demand assessment, while
filtering all actions
through what we will call sustainability
and efficiency protocols.
These are the basic rules
of industrial action
set by natural law,
not human opinion.
As noted prior, neither of these
interests are structurally inherent
in the capitalist model, and it is
clear that humanity needs a model
that has this type of stuff built
right into it for consideration.
Structural System Goals.
All economic systems
have structural goals
which may not be
readily apparent.
Market capitalism's structural
goal, as described, is growth
and maintaining rates of consumption
high enough to keep people employed
at any given time, and employment
requires also a culture of real

Chinese: 
能夠促進集思廣益 像是設計提案
和需求評估 同時透過永續性規範
和效率規範來篩選所有措施
這些是產業活動的基本規則
依據的是自然法則 而非人為意見
先前提到 這些利益在本質結構上
完全不屬於資本主義 而人類需要的經濟模型
顯然必須將這類事物納入考量
結構體系的目標
舉凡所有經濟系統 都有結構性目標
儘管並非顯而易見
而市場資本主義的結構性目標 如前所述就是成長
並維持足夠的高消費率 以讓人們保有穩定的就業
而就業又需要一種文化來維持

English: 
or perceived inefficiency, and that
essentially means the preservation
of scarcity in one form or another.
That is its structural goal.
And good luck getting a market
economist to admit to that.
This model [NLRBE] goal is to
optimize technical efficiency
and create the highest level
of abundance we possibly can
within the bounds of
earthly sustainability,
seeking to meet human
needs directly.
System Overview.
One of the great myths of this model
is that it's centrally planned;
I'm sure many of us
have heard this.
What this means based on historical
precedent is that it is assumed
that an elite group of people basically
will make the economic decisions
for a society.
No. This model is a collaborative
design system: CDS.
Not centrally planned.
It is based entirely
upon public interaction

Chinese: 
體現了真正或感知到的低效率 這其實就是設法保持
某種形式的匱乏 而這就是其結構性目標
要讓市場經濟學家承認這一點不容易
這項NLRBE模型的目標 則是最優化技術效率
並竭盡所能實現最高程度的富足
在地球的永續性限度內
尋求直接滿足人類的需求
體系總覽
「中央計畫經濟」是對於此模式的一大迷思
我相信很多人聽過這種說法
這種依循歷史前例的觀點
預設了一個社會的經濟決策是交由精英集團
來決定
非也 這個模式是「協同設計系統(collaborative design system，CDS)」
並非中央計畫
它完全奠基於大眾的公共互動

English: 
facilitated by programmed,
open-source systems
that enable a constant
dynamic feedback flow
that can literally allow the
input of the public on any
given industrial matter
whether personal or social.
Now a common question, when
you bring that up they say
"Well, who programs
this system?"
The answer is:
Everyone and no one.
The tangible rules of the
laws of nature as they apply
to environmental sustainability
and engineering efficiency
is a completely objective
frame of reference.
The nuances may change to
some degree over time,
but the general
principles remain.
Over time, the logic of such an
approach will also become more rigid
because we learn more as we
perfect our understandings,
and hence, less room
for subjectivity
in certain areas that
might have had it prior.
Again I'll be describing
this more so in a moment.
Also the programs themselves will be
available in an open source platform
for public input and review,
absolutely transparent.
And if someone noticed a problem

Chinese: 
受益於預先規劃的開源系統
能夠促進持續而踴躍的動態回饋
實質上可以廣納公眾意見
來處理個人或社會的產業事務
對於這種觀點 人們常會質疑:
「那該由誰來編碼設計系統?」
答案是:誰都可以 但也誰都不是
它們採行自然法則的具體規則
應用至環境永續性和工程效率上
依循完全客觀的參考架構
細微之處可能會隨時間約略改變
但一般原則維持不變
假以時日 這項方法的邏輯也將更為嚴謹
因為隨著理解逐漸完善 我們會學得更多
因此也更不受限於主觀見解
如同某些領域過去那樣
我稍後會深入說明這一點
系統程式本身也將透過開源平台供應
開放公眾來建議和審查 絕對透明
若有人發現出問題

English: 
or unapplied optimization strategy,
which will probably be the case,
it is evaluated and
tested by the community
kind of like a Wikipedia
for calculation,
except much less
subjective than Wikipedia,
without the moody
administrators.
Another traditional confusion
surrounds the concept
which has become to many
the defining difference
between capitalism
and everything else.
And it has to do with whether
the means of production
is privately owned or not.
This is replete throughout
tons of traditional
literary treatments on
capitalism when they describe
how it's the ultimate manifestation
of human behavior, of society.
If you don't know what this
means, the means of production
refers to the non-human assets that
create goods such as machines,
tools, factories,
offices and the like.
In capitalism, the means
of production is owned
by the capitalist by historical
definition, hence the origin of the term.

Chinese: 
或有未使用上的最優化策略(很可能如此)
就由社群共同評估並測試
有點像維基百科式的計算
只是主觀程度比維基百科低得多
它沒有情緒化的管理員
這項概念長久以來還有另一項誤解
許多人將其視為資本主義
與其它體系之間的根本差異
關鍵之處就在於生產要素
是否由私人持有
有很多論述資本主義的傳統文獻
都抱持著這樣的觀點
強調這是人類行為與社會的終極體現
為各位說明一下 所謂的生產要素
泛指非人類資產 用來製造機器、
工具、工廠、辦公室等物件
資本主義定義中的生產要素
向來由資本家持有 這也是此詞的由來

English: 
I bring this up because there's been
an ongoing argument for a century
that any system which does not
have its means of production owned
as a form of private property is just not
going to be as economically efficient
as one that has or maybe
not even efficient at all.
This, as the argument goes, is
because of the need for price:
the price mechanism.
Price, which has a fluid ability
to exchange value amongst
virtually any type of good
due to its indivisibility of value,
creates indeed a feedback mechanism
that connects the entire market
system in a certain narrow way.
Price is a way to allocate scarce
resources amongst competing interests.
Price, property and money
translate, in short,
subjective demand preferences into
semi-objective exchange values.
I say "semi" because it is a
culturally relative measure only,
absent most every factor that gives
true technical consideration

Chinese: 
我提到此事 是因為百年來都有一項論點
主張生產要素若不是私有財產
就會落得經濟效益不彰 必定不如私有資本
甚至毫無效率可言
結果會這樣是因為對價格的需求:
所謂的價格機制
價格有一種流動能力
來交換幾乎任何商品的價值
由於它與價值不可分割 實而衍生了反饋機制
以某種狹隘的方式 連結整個市場體系
價格是利益互競時 分配稀少資源的方式
簡而言之 價格、財產和金錢
將主觀需求轉換為「半客觀」的交換價值
我說「半」 因為這只是基於文化的相對衡量方式
對於任何材料或物品 幾乎都缺乏

English: 
to a given material or good.
It has nothing to do with what
the materials or goods are;
it's just a mechanism.
Perhaps the only real
technical data, in fact,
that price embraces very crudely
relates to resource
scarcity and labor energy.
Resource scarcity
and labor energy.
You can basically
find that in price.
So in this context the
question becomes:
Is it possible to create
a system that can
equally, if not
more efficiently,
facilitate feedback with respect
to consumer preference, demand,
labor value and resource
or component scarcity
without the price system, subjective
property values or exchange?
And, of course, there is.
The trick is to completely
eliminate exchange
and create a direct
control and feedback link
between the consumer and the
means of production itself.
The consumer becomes part
of the means of production

Chinese: 
實質的技術考量
是什麼材料或商品並不重要
它只是一個機制
事實上 或許價格會粗略地涉及到的
唯一真正的技術性數據
與資源匱乏與勞動能源有關
資源匱乏與勞動能源
其實從價格就看得出來
在這種情況下 真正的問題在於
可否建立一個系統
即使效率沒有比較好
也能均衡回饋消費者的偏好和需求
以及勞動價值、資源或素材的匱乏
而無需價格體系、主觀財產價值或交易?
當然可以有這種系統
關鍵在於徹底消除交易
並建立直接的控制和反饋連結
在消費者和生產要素之間發揮作用
消費者成為生產要素的一部份環節

English: 
and the "industrial complex"
becomes nothing more than a tool
that is accessed by the
public to generate goods.
In fact as alluded to
prior, the same system
can be used for just about
any societal calculation,
virtually eliminating the
state government, in fact,
and politics as we know it.
It is a participatory
decision-making process.
As an aside, as far as the fact
that there will indeed always
be scarcity of something
in the world,
which is the very basis of existence
of price, market and money,
human beings can again either
understand the dire need
to exist in a steady-state
relationship with nature
and the global human
species for cultural
and environmental
sustainability, or not.
We can either continue down
the same path we are now
or become more aware, responsible
to the world and to each other,
seeking post-scarcity and using
natural law rules of sustainability

Chinese: 
而「產業複合體」就只不過是個工具
開放給公眾取用來生產物品
先前已經提到 同一個系統
幾乎可用於任何一種社會計算
所以實際上不再需要國家政府
和現在所謂的「政治」
這是一種參與式的決策流程
順帶一提 世上總是難免
會有稀少匱乏的事物
這就是價格、市場和金錢存在的根本基礎
人類必須再次體認到
自己極需與大自然和全球人類
培養穩定的共存關係
否則將無永續的文化和環境
我們可以走現在的同一條老路
或更加覺醒 對世界和彼此負責
致力實現富足(後匱乏) 遵循永續與效率的自然法則

English: 
and efficiency to decide how to best
allocate our raw materials, or not.
But I think the former is
the most intelligent path.
I state that because again,
this resource argument
always comes down to the abstractions ...
of scarcity.
It never qualifies what scarcity
is in certain contexts.
It doesn't separate scarcity
and that's its fatal flaw,
between human needs
and human wants.
Also, I want to point
out another fallacy,
which of this private ownership
of the means of production,
a fallacy of this broad
concept is its culture lag!
Today we are seeing a
merger of capital goods,
consumer goods and labor power.
Machines are taking
over human labor power,
becoming capital goods,
while also reducing in size
to become consumer goods.
I'm sure almost everyone in this
room has a home paper printer.
When you send a file to
print from your computer,

Chinese: 
來決定原物料的最佳分配方式
我想這才是最有智慧的坦途
我再次這樣說是因為 既有關於資源的論點
總是只觸及到抽象的「匱乏」
但永遠無法界定特定脈絡下的匱乏為何物
其致命傷在於無法區分
匱乏是出自人類「需求」或「欲求」
另外還有一項謬誤
就是生產要素的私有制
這項廣泛存在的概念錯在跟不上時代!
如今資本財、消費品和勞動力
不斷在合併
機器正在取代人力
因而成為資本財 同時日益小巧
從而變成消費品
我肯定在座的各位 幾乎都有一台家用印表機
每當你從電腦傳送檔案到印表機

English: 
you are in control of a mini-version
of a means of production.
What about 3D printers?
In some cities today there
are now 3D printing labs
which people can send their design
to print, in physical form.
The model I'm going to
describe is a similar idea.
The next step is the creation
of a strategically automated
industrial complex
localized as much as possible
which is designed to produce,
through automated means,
the average of everything any given
region has found demand for.
Think about it: on-demand
production on a mass scale.
Consider for a moment
how much storage space,
transport energy
and overrun waste
is immediately eliminated
by this approach.
I think the days of large,
wasteful mass producing economies
of scale are coming to an end,
well, if we want them to.
This type of thinking:
true economic calculation,
by the most technical sense of the
term, I can't reiterate that enough.

Chinese: 
你就是在操控一台「迷你版」的生產要素
那麼3D列印機呢?
今日有些城市 已出現3D列印實驗室
人們可以把設計直接印成實體
我將要說明的模式就是類似觀念
接下來是建立一套具策略性的
自動化產業複合體
必須要盡量在地化
其設計在於透過自動化生產
來均衡滿足每個給定區域的物資需求
這就好比大規模的「隨需生產」
想想看採行這種方式
可以馬上避免多少儲存空間、
運輸能源和超用資源的各種浪費
我想大規模而浪費的大量生產經濟時代
已走到窮途末路 只要我們想如此做的話
用最技術性的詞彙來說 這種真正的
「經濟計算」模式 是我一再強調的重要觀念

Chinese: 
這種計算講求儘可能的技術效率和審慎衡量
雖然似乎矛盾 卻也最能夠
促進物資富足的世界 並滿足超過全人類所需
架構和流程
接下來說明三項流程
(1) 協同設計界面和產業藍圖
(2) 資源管理、反饋和價值
及(3) 永續性和宏觀計算的一般原則
協同設計界面其實是新的市場
而且是點子市場
任何生產意向 都由此系統起步
可以單獨從事 也能團隊合作
就像和朋友合夥做生意一樣
這種生意模式任何人都能參與
不但開源 並且開放取用
任何相同專業或願意貢獻的人
都能對你的意見提出指教

English: 
We are calculating to be as technically
efficient and conservative
as possible which again, almost
paradoxically, is what will facilitate
a global access abundance to
meet all human needs and beyond.
Structure and Processes.
I'm going to walk through
the following 3 processes:
(1) the collaborative design
interface and industrial schematic,
(2) resource management,
feedback and value
and (3) general principles of
sustainability and the macro-calculation.
The collaborative design interface
is essentially the new market;
it's a market of ideas.
This system is the first step
in any production interest.
It can be engaged by a single
person; it can be engaged by a team
if you have friends and you want
to put it together, sort of like
how businesses think; it can
be engaged by everyone.
It is open source
and open access,
and your concept is open to
input from anyone interested
in that good genre or anyone that's
online that cares to contribute.

Chinese: 
誠如我說 這很明顯像是一個網站
同樣地 所有的最終決策
和所投入的全部生產資材
儘管理論上隨時都在調整
但若作者同意的話 則經核定的項目
會放在數位資料庫 讓所有人都能取用成品
有點像商品目錄
只不過是以數位方式提供
一切生產工作所需的資訊
這是評估需求的方式
這種機制會直接回饋
當然不像時下的廣告行銷
和單向度的消費品推銷系統
通常是由企業告訴你該買什麼
利用價格來驅策大眾盲從流行
獨厚特定商品組成或功能
如果消費者不喜歡某物 就不再生產
藉此剔除供需鏈
但這裡提倡的系統剛好相反
全體社群都可以提出點子

English: 
Obviously it comes in the form
of a website, as I stated;
and likewise, whatever
exists as a final decision,
whatever is put into production,
even though in theory
everything will be under
modification at all times,
but what has been approved, if
you will, is digitally stored
in a database which makes that
good available to everyone.
Sort of like a goods catalog,
except it contains all of
the information digitally
that is required
to produce them.
This is how demand is assessed.
It's feedback and
it's immediate.
Instead, of course,
of advertising
and the unidirectional consumer
good proposal system, which it is,
that we have today where corporations
basically tell you what you should buy
with the public generally
going with the flow,
favoring one good component
or feature, using price,
if they don't like something then
clearly they won't produce it anymore
to weed out supply and demand.
This system works
the opposite way.
The entire community has the
option of presenting ideas

English: 
for everyone to see and
weigh in on and build upon.
Whatever isn't of interest simply
won't be executed to begin with.
There's no testing here such as
you would see with marketing,
which is incredibly wasteful.
It's as simple as that.
The actual mechanism of proposal
will come in the form of an
interactive design interface
such as we see with computer-aided
design, or CAD as it's called,
or more specifically
computer-aided engineering
which is a more complicated
synergistic process.
As an aside, some see computer-aided
design programs as they exist
as having an enormous
learning curve, and they do.
But just as the first computers
were very difficult
code-based interfaces
which were later replaced
by small little programs
in the form of graphic icons
that we're all so familiar with
the future CAD-type programs could
be oriented in the exact same way
to make them more user-friendly.
Obviously, not everyone
has to engage in design.

Chinese: 
供大家檢視、指教和改善
若未引起興趣 人們一開始就不會投入心力
沒有市場測試之類的行銷策略
那根本就是極其浪費的活動 如此而已
實際的提案機制
將具有互動式的設計界面
如同所謂的「電腦輔助設計」 簡稱CAD
或是更專門的電腦輔助工程
這則是更複雜的協同流程
此外 有人認為電腦輔助設計程式
學起來很困難 這的確是不容易
但就像第一台電腦
有著極為困難的程式碼介面
後來被小巧的程式取代
變成大家現在都熟悉的圖示介面
未來的CAD程式 能以同樣的方式發展
變得更簡單易用
當然 不是每人非得參與設計不可

English: 
Some people, like most people today,
appreciate what's been created prior.
They absorb and they use what
other people have come up with.
So there's a diminishing law of returns
in a lot of ways, if you will.
Not everyone has to get in there
and has some role to do this.
But many will and many
will enjoy the process.
And you can customize things as
you go which is a great point.
There's minor things that can happen
with a product that someone doesn't know
anything about, but maybe they just
want to change the color and that's it.
Obviously, that doesn't
take a lot of education.
More importantly,
technically speaking,
the beauty of these design and
engineering programs today
is that they incorporate
advanced physics
and other real-world,
natural-law properties.
So a good isn't just viewable
in a static 3D model.
It can be tested, right
there, digitally.
And while some testing capacity
might be limited today,
it's simply a matter of focus
to perfect such digital means.
For example, in the automotive industry,
long before new ideas are built,
they run them through similar
digital testing processes,

Chinese: 
有些人會像今天大多數人一樣 感激前人的努力創造
他們會吸收並利用別人的成果
所以許多方面都會展現報酬遞減法則
不是每個使用者都需參與生產
但是很多人會幫忙 並且享受過程
能客製專屬的物品就是一大誘因
產品背後的原理可能艱澀冷僻
但人們可能只是想換個顏色罷了
顯然 這不需要很多的教育
更重要的是 就技術而言
今日這些設計和工程程式的優點
在於其應用融合了先進的物理學
和其它真實的自然法則屬性
所以一件物品不僅可透過靜態3D模型檢視
還能當場進行數位化測試
儘管目前的測試能力或許有限
但這類數位工具將會日臻完善
例如汽車產業 在新產品概念成形之前
會先跑過類似的數位測試流程

English: 
and there's no reason to believe
that we will not eventually be
able to digitally represent
and imitate and set in motion virtually
all known laws of nature in time,
and being able to apply
them to different contexts.
Similarly, and this is critical,
this design that's proposed
in this system is filtered
through a series of sustainability
and efficiency protocols
which relate to not only the
state of the natural world
but also the total
industrial system,
in as far as what is compatible.
Processes of evaluation and suggestion
would include the following:
strategically
maximized durability,
adaptability,
standardization of
genre components,
strategically integrated recycling
conduciveness, as I mentioned before,
and strategically conducive
designs themselves,
making them conducive
for labor automation.

Chinese: 
而且也沒有理由不去相信
我們最後能用數位方式呈現、
模仿並運作所有已知的自然法則
並能將其應用於不同的情境
同樣重要的是
在這種系統中的設計提案
都透過永續性和效率協定的篩選
其不僅關涉自然界的狀態
也考量到整個產業體系
力求達成最相容的方案
評估和建議的流程如下:
具策略地實現極致的耐久性、
適應性、
類型元件標準化、
策略性整合的回收效益 一如前述
以及策略性的效益設計本身
來促進自動化勞動的效能

Chinese: 
我將簡要地逐一介紹這些面向
耐久性就是盡量將物品造得強韌持久
所使用的材料 若相對需要可能的替代品
則因匱乏的程度或其它因素
將由設計系統依具體情況
以動態方式自動計算 力求達到最高效益
並實現最佳的耐久性標準
適應性
這意味著元件替換的靈活性
已達到了最高境界
大家看過這款「Phonebloks」嗎?
很好!
這類物品的零組件 若有瑕疵或過期
都能透過這項設計
隨時輕鬆替換
以最大程度延長產品壽命
類型元件的標準化
所有新設計都要符合既有元件的規格
或經由更新程序來汰換掉

English: 
I'm going to go through
these, each quickly.
Durability just means to make the good as
strong and as long-lasting as relevant,
the materials utilized comparatively
assuming possible substitutions
due to levels of scarcity
or other factors
would be dynamically calculated
likely automatically, in
fact, by the design system
to be most conducive to an
optimized durability standard.
Adaptability.
This means that the highest
state of flexibility
for replacing component
parts is made.
Has anyone seen this thing
called "phonebloks?"
Brilliant.
In the event a component part
of this good becomes defective
or out-of-date, whenever
possible the design facilitates
that such components
are easily replaced
to maximize full
product life span.
Standardization of
genre components.
All new designs either conform to
or replace, if they're updated,
existing components which are
either already in existence

Chinese: 
效率已相對降低的過期零組件
很多人不知道 Eli Whitney 在1801年
成為第一個真正實行標準化生產的人
他做的是鳥銃 當時多為手工製造
各把鳥銃的規格互不相容
所以一有零件壞掉 就很難找到替換品
他的創舉就是用工具量產零件
並全面展開整個標準化的作業流程
也使美軍現在得以購買大量、
可互換且更永續的鳥銃零件
儘管它們是殺人武器
這一點是軍隊的特別之處
想想看 軍隊是世上最有效率的系統之一
因為這方面沒有市場經濟
若真想知道工業效率的發源地
建議你去軍隊看看 儘管我完全厭惡
但必須承認 它的運作效率最高
無論如何 這項原理不僅適用於特定產品

English: 
or outdated due to a comparative
lack of efficiency.
Many don't know this, but a
man named Eli Whitney in 1801
was the first to really apply
standardization in production.
He made muskets and back
then they were handmade,
and they were not interchangeable,
so the musket parts,
if anything broke, you couldn't
take a part from something else.
He was the first to actually
make the tools to do this,
and he basically started the
entire process of standardization,
and the US military was now able
to buy huge things of muskets
and interchanged them and,
much more sustainable,
even though they
were killing people.
Which is interesting for the military
because if you think about it,
the military is one of the most
efficient systems on the planet
because it's absent
the market economy.
If you really want to look to where
industrial efficiency was born,
as much as I dislike it, the
military is where it becomes,
where it's been harnessed
the most, excuse me.
Anyway, this logic not only
applies to a given product,

Chinese: 
也適用於整個物品類型:這就是標準化
順帶一提 市場經濟絕無這種效率
因為它基於競爭 以所謂「獨家技術」
來排除掉所有的協作效率 ─ 沒人要這種東西
沒人想這樣共享一切
否則大家不必非買原廠零件不可
而是可以尋求其它供應來源
透過不同的方式各取所需
回收的效益
如同前述 這表示任何設計都必須符合
既有的可再生能力之狀態
必須預測任何物品的劣化毀壞時間
並考慮最佳化的方式
且合乎勞力自動化的效益
也就是直接考量到
現行最佳化的 自動化生產模式
尋求優化整個過程
抱歉 進一步完善設計提案
為現行生產狀態實現最佳效益

English: 
it's applied to the entire
good genre: standardization.
By the way, this efficiency will
never happen in a market economy
with its basis in competition,
as proprietary technology
removes all such collaborative efficiency.
No one wants that.
No one wants to share
everything like that.
Otherwise, people wouldn't have a
need to go back to the root company
and buy the part; they
would go somewhere else
where they'd have access
to it through other means.
Recycling conduciveness.
As noted before, this means
every design must conform
to the current state of
regenerative possibility.
The breakdown of any
good must be anticipated
and allowed for in the
most optimized way,
and made conducive for
labor automation.
This means that the current
state of optimized
automated production is
directly taken into account
seeking to refine the process-
excuse me- seeking to refine
the design that's submitted
to be most conducive to the
current state of production

English: 
with the least amount of
human labor or monitoring.
We seek to simplify the way materials
and production means are used
so that the maximum number
of goods can be produced
with the least variation of
materials and production equipment.
It's a very important point.
These five factors will be
what we can call in total
the optimized design-efficiency
function, if you want to be technical.
Keep this in mind as I'm going to
return to all of this in a moment.
Moving on to the industrial
complex, the layout.
This means that the network of
facilities, which are directly connected
to the design and the database
system I have just described.
Servers, production, distribution,
recycling is basically it.
Also, we'd need to relate the
current state of resources,
critically important, as per the
global resource management network,
another tier, which I'm going
to also describe in a moment.
Production- this means of
course actual manufacturing-

Chinese: 
且動用最少量的人力或監控
我們力求精簡物資和生產要素的使用
以期生產最大量的物品
並盡量避免材料和生產設備的異動
這一點非常重要
這五項要素 就技術上來說
可統稱為「設計及效率最佳化功能」
請記住這一點 稍後會再說明
先看到產業複合體 所謂的「佈局配置」
亦即稍早提到的設施網絡
它直接連到我剛描述的設計及資料庫系統
伺服器、生產、分配和回收都是靠它
此外我們必須依循全球資源管理網絡
使現存資源互通有無 這一點很重要
而且屬於不同層次 我稍後也會再談
生產 也就是實際的製程

English: 
would evolve, as expressed
before, as automated factories
which are increasingly
able to produce more
with less material inputs and
less machines: ephemeralization.
If we were to consciously design out
unnecessary levels of complexity,
we can further this
efficiency trend greatly
with an ever-lower environmental
impact and resource use
while maximizing, again, our
abundance-producing potential.
The number of
production facilities,
whether homogeneous or heterogeneous,
as they would be called,
would be strategically
distributed topographically
based around population
statistics, very simple stuff.
It's no different than how
grocery stores work today
where they try to average
distances as best they can
between pockets of people
and neighborhoods.
You could call this the
'Proximity Strategy'
which I'll mention
again in a moment.
Distribution.
This can either be directly
from the production facility
as in the case of on-demand
custom one-off production,
or it can be sent to a
distribution library

Chinese: 
如同前述 會隨自動化廠房與時俱進
能日益以更少的材料輸入和機具
達成的更高產量：此即「少費多用/以少做多」
若我們用心設計 排除無謂的複雜性
就能大幅促進效率化的趨勢
徹底減少環境衝擊和資源消耗
再次強調 能同時實現創造富足的能力
生產設施的數量
無論所謂「同質」或「異質」
都依地理區位進行策略分配
根據人口統計等資料 簡單明瞭
就像現在的雜貨超商運作一樣
它們總以最均衡的距離設點
這取決於人口和聚落的分佈情況
可以稱之為「鄰近策略」
我稍後還會再提到
分配
若為了隨需訂製的一次性產品
可從生產設施直接配送
其它則配送至資源庫

Chinese: 
以供公眾全體存取
端視當地需求情況而定
資源庫系統提供所需物品
某些物品適合採取少量需求
和客製生產的模式 有些則不然
食物是必須大量生產的顯著例子
而量身設計的個人傢具
一旦完成後 則由製造設施直接出貨
我預期這種隨需製程
將如量產模式一般普及
且將成為一大優勢
如前所述 隨需生產更有效率
因為將按照實際需求運用資源
而非現行的批次量產模式
資源集散中心
庫存物的取用 可透過動態的直接回饋機制
在生產、分配和需求間達到均衡
如果這不好理解 只要想想

English: 
for public access en masse,
based on demand interest
in that region.
The library system is where
goods can be obtained.
Some goods can be
conducive to low demand
and custom production
and some will not be.
Food is an easy example of a
mass production necessity,
while a personal tailored
piece of furniture
would come directly from the
manufacturing facility once created.
I suspect that this
on-demand process,
which will likely become equally
as utilized as mass production,
will be an enormous advantage.
As noted, on-demand
production is more efficient
since the resources are going to be
utilized for the exact-use demand,
as opposed to the block
things that we do today.
Distribution Library.
Inventory is accessed in a
dynamic direct feedback link
between production,
distribution and demand.
If that doesn't make sense to you,
all you have to think about is

Chinese: 
如今各大主要商業集散中心的
庫存核算和追蹤作業如何作業即可
而這類模式當然有經過調整
我們已經在做類似的事
無論物品如何歸類
無論客製與否、送到資源庫或直接給使用者
都仍是「取用制」(而非交易制)
因此使用者可以隨時
將客製物品退回重做
如同一個人向圖書館借還書那樣簡單
誠如前述 物品已預先優化
(所有物品均預先優化以利回收)
回收設施通常也直接建於
生產設施或類似場所之內
取決於需要多少設施來滿足各種需求
所以也不會有垃圾 無論物品是電話
沙發、電腦、夾克或書本
一切都回到源頭 直接重做
理想的話可以實現零廢棄物經濟

English: 
how inventory accounting
and tracking works
in any major commercial
distribution center today
with, of course, a few
adjustments made in this model.
We're already doing this
type of stuff already.
Regardless of where the
good is classified to go,
whether it's custom or not,
libraries or to the direct user,
this is still an access system.
In other words, at any time
the user of the custom good
can return the item
for reprocessing,
just as the person who obtained something
from the library can, as well.
Since, as noted, the good
has been pre-optimized
(all goods are pre-optimized
for conducive recycling)
odds are the recycling facility
is actually built directly in
to the production facility or the
genre of production facility,
depending on how many facilities you
need to create the variety of demand.
So again, there's no trash
here: whether it's a phone,
a couch, a computer,
a jacket, a book,
everything goes back to where it came
back from, for direct reprocessing.
Ideally this is a
zero-waste economy.

English: 
Resource Management,
Feedback and Value.
The computer-aided and
engineering design process
obviously does not
exist in a vacuum.
Processing demands input from the
natural resources that we have.
So connected to this design
process, literally built into the
optimized design-efficiency
function noted prior,
is dynamic feedback from an
Earth-wide accounting system
which gives data about
all relevant resources
which pertain to
all productions.
Today, most major industries
keep periodic data
of their genre materials as
far as how much they have,
but clearly it's
difficult to ascertain
due to the nature of corporate
secrets and the like.
But it's still done.
To whatever degree ...
technically possible this is,
all resources are
tracked and monitored,
and in as close to real
time ideally as possible.
Why? Mainly because we need
to maintain equilibrium
with the Earth's regenerative
processes at all times

Chinese: 
資源管理、回饋和價值
電腦輔助和工程設計的流程
當然並非無中生有
加工作業需要投入現有的天然資源
所以這項設計流程實質上內建至
上述提及的「設計效率最佳化」功能
並由全球範圍內的核算系統動態產生回饋
針對全部生產所需的資源
提供相關數據資料
現在多數大型產業會定期統計
各類材料的存量數據
但因商業機密等緣故
而難以得知確切資訊
但確實有紀錄
無論技術可行性如何
理想上應盡量以最即時的方式
來追蹤並監測所有資源
為什麼? 主要是因為我們必須隨時
與地球的再生過程保持均衡

English: 
while also, as noted before,
work to strategically maximize
our use of the most
abundant materials
while minimizing anything
with emerging scarcity.
Value.
As far as value, the
two dominant measures,
which will undergo constant
dynamic recalculation
through feedback as
industry unfolds,
[are] scarcity and
labor complexity.
Scarcity value without
a market system
could be assigned a numerical
value, say one to 100.
One would denote the
most severe scarcity
with respect to the current rate
of use, and 100 the least severe.
50 would mark the
steady-state dividing line.
For example, if the use
of wood lumber passes
below the steady
state level of 50,
which would mean consumption is
currently surpassing the Earth's
natural regeneration
rate, this would trigger
a counter-move of some kind,
such as the process of
material substitution,
hence the replacement for wood
in any given future productions,

Chinese: 
同時也以上述方式研擬策略
善加利用最充裕的物資
並徹底排除出現匱乏的可能性
價值
價值的兩項主要衡量標準
是透過產業發展回饋機制
持續動態重估而得的
即匱乏程度和勞力複雜度
非市場機制的匱乏價值
可藉由數值表示 例如1至100
「1」是就現行使用率而言
最匱乏的程度 而「100」代表最不嚴重
「50」即為穩態分界線
例如木材用量若超過了
「50」的穩態標準
就表示其用量 目前已超過地球資源的
自然再生速率 而這將引發
某類反制措施
例如更換材料
在任何的未來生產中 以其它素材來取代木料

English: 
finding alternatives.
And of course, if you are a free
market mindset listening to this,
you are likely going to object at
this point by saying "Without price,
how can you compare value of one
material to another or many materials?"
Simple: you organize genres or
groups of similar-use materials
and quantify, as best you can,
their related properties
and degree of efficiency
for a given purpose,
and then you apply a general
numerical value spectrum
to those relationships, as well.
For example, there are
a spectrum of metals
which have different efficiencies
for electrical conductivity.
These efficiencies
can be quantified,
and if they can be quantified,
they can be compared.
So if copper goes below the 50
median value regarding its scarcity,
calculations are triggered
by the management program
to compare the state of other
conducive materials in its database,
compare their scarcity level
and their efficiency,

Chinese: 
亦即找尋替代品
當然 若你是自由市場的信徒
可能會提出以下的反對:「少了價格
要如何比較不同或許多材料之間的價值?」
很簡單:將用途相似的材料分門別類
並盡可能針對特定用途
量化其相關屬性和效率程度
再以通用的數值分佈圖
來解析彼此的差異
例如金屬的導電效率
就有不同的效率數值分佈
這些效率都可以量化
若可以量化 就能對照比較
例如銅料匱乏度一旦低於50分界值
管理程式就會開始計算
並比較資料庫中其它導電材料的狀態
比較其匱乏程度和效率

English: 
preparing for substitution,
and that kind of information
goes right back to the designer.
Naturally, this type of reasoning might
indeed get extremely complicated
as again: numerous resources and
numerous efficiencies and purposes
which is exactly why it is
calculated by a machine, not people.
And it's also why it completely blows
the price system out of the water
when it comes to true resource
awareness and intelligent management.
Labor Complexity.
This simply means estimating the
complexity of a given production.
Complexity, in the context of
an automated-oriented industry,
can be quantified by
defining and comparing
the number of process
stages, if you will.
Any given good production
can be foreshadowed
as to how many of these stages
of production it will take.
It can then be compared to
other good productions,
ideally in the same genre, for
a quantifiable assessment.
The units of measurement are
the stages, in other words.

Chinese: 
並準備替換 而相關資訊
會直接回報給設計者
當然 這類推算可能確實極為複雜
因為會涉及諸多資源、效率和用途
因此必須由機器計算 而非人類
而這也讓價格體系顯得一無是處
這才是真正明智的資源管理方式及認知
勞力複雜度
意思是說估算特定生產流程的複雜程度
在自動化的產業程序中
可藉由定義並比較處理階段的數量
來量化製程的複雜度
如此可以估計任何物品的生產
會需要多少的製程階段
也可與其它物品製程(同類為佳)
相互對照以進行量化評估
換言之 衡量單位就是「階段」

Chinese: 
例如可在3分鐘內 以單一製程
用簡單聚合物做成的椅子
勞力複雜度就低於冗長的生產鏈中
以複合材料製造的椅子
如果一項製程太複雜或太沒效率
以致於不合乎生產條件
或者效率遠低於既有的類似設計
則這種設計與其它的參數
會一併被標記並重新評估
同樣 這一切都來自設計介面的回饋機制
我們完全有理由設想AI(人工智慧)
進展到一定程度
將不僅可以回饋反映問題
還能透過設計界面
提出可理解的建議或替代方案
[宏觀]計算
現在來歸納上述的想法
請大家再忍耐一下

English: 
For example, a chair that can
be molded in three minutes
from simple polymers in one
process will have a lower
labor complexity value than a chair
which requires automated assembly
down a more tedious production
chain with mixed materials.
In the event a given process
value is too complex
or inefficient in terms of what is
currently possible in production,
or too inefficient by comparison
to an already existing design
of a similar nature as well, the
design, along with other parameters,
would be flagged and
would be re-evaluated.
And again, all of this comes from
feedback from the design interface;
and there's no reason to assume
that with ongoing advancement
in AI (artificial intelligence),
we wouldn't be able to feedback not
only the highlight of the problem
but would also create
suggestions or substitutions
for you to understand
in the interface.
[Macro]-Calculation.
Let's put some of this
reasoning together.
I hope everyone
can bear with me.

English: 
If we were to look
at good design
in the broadest possible way with
respect to industrial unfolding,
we would end up with about
four functions or processes
each relating to the four dominant,
linear stages of design,
production, distribution
and recycling.
The following propositions should be
obvious enough as a rule structure.
All product designs must adapt
to optimized design efficiency.
They must all adapt to optimized
production efficiency.
They must adapt to optimized
distribution efficiency,
and they must adapt to optimized
recycling efficiency.
Seems redundant, but this is
how we have to think about it.
Here is a linear block schematic and
the symbolic logic representation
which embodies the
subprocesses or functions
I'm now going to very
generally break down.
Process 1: The Design.
Optimized Design Efficiency.
A product design must meet
or adapt to criteria set
by what we have called the
current efficiency standards.

Chinese: 
若基於產業發展的觀點
來檢視最廣義的「優質設計」
將可歸納出4項功能或流程
其各別涉及4項主要的線性階段:設計、
生產、分配和回收
以下命題顯然可作為一套規則架構
所有產品設計 必須合乎最佳化的設計效率
它們全部必須合乎最佳化的生產效率
它們必須合乎最佳化的分配效率
並且必須合乎最佳化的回收效率
複述似乎累贅 但我們必須如此設想
這是線性示意圖和符號邏輯表述式
具體呈現各項子流程和功能
接下來是非常籠統的解析
流程一:設計
最佳化的設計效率
任何產品設計 皆須合乎
所謂的現行效率標準

Chinese: 
效率流程可再分為5項評估子流程
如同稍早提到的:
耐久性、適應性、標準化
回收效益、最大化的自動化效益
這些變項和邏輯關聯的進一步解析
當然也可以透過數理符號來進行
但是並不利於這一類的簡報
因為我們會迷失在瑣碎的細節裡
但這些東西的更多細節會有更深入的發展
並且一如上述 將免費開放使用
我接著會盡力闡述一般性的效率流程
最後 透過這一套設計效率流程
我們終將得到頂端的設計函數
只是看一下 我會把全部函數的意義列在最後
接著來到第二段過程:生產效率

English: 
This efficiency process has
five evaluative subprocesses,
as noted before earlier
in the presentation:
durability, adaptability,
standardization,
recycling conduciveness, maximized
automation conduciveness.
Further breakdown of these
variables and logical associations
can be figuratively made
as well, of course,
which I don't think is conducive
for this type of presentation
because we're going to get lost
in ever- reductionist minutia.
But for more detail this stuff will
be developed much more and be put
into this text as I've just described
which will be available for free.
I'm going to try to do my best to give
the general efficiency process here.
In the end, when it comes to this
Design Efficiency process set,
we end up with this design
function at the top.
Just to see it, I'll list all of
the function meanings at the end.
We move on to process 2:
Production Efficiency.

English: 
In short, this is
the digital filter
that moves design to one of two
production facility types.
One for high demand
or mass goods
and one for low demand
or custom goods.
The first uses fixed automation,
meaning unvaried production
ideal for high demand,
and the second:
flexible automation
which can do a variety of things,
but usually in shorter runs.
This is a distinction
that's commonly made
in traditional
manufacturing terms.
This structure assumes only
two types of facilities.
Obviously there could be more,
based on the production factors.
But if the design rules in
the process are respected,
as expressed before, there
shouldn't be much variety.
Over time things get
simpler and simpler.
So to state this, I'm just going
to run through it for those that
like to hear things
spelled out like this.
All product designs
are filtered by a
demand class
determination: process D;
the demand class determination
process filters

Chinese: 
簡單地說 這套數位篩選機制
將設計移至兩類生產設施的其中之一
一類處理的是高度需求或量產的物品
另一類處理低度需求或客製物品
前者採用固定的自動化程序
亦即生產模式不變 以利因應高度需求
第二類則是彈性自動化
應用領域廣泛 但作業週期更短暫
這種區分經常出現在
傳統製造業領域
這項結構只有預設這兩類設施
顯然還可以有更多 端視生產因素而定
但如果我們在過程中遵守設計原則
那麼如上所述 就不該有太多變異
事物會隨著時間逐漸簡化
說這麼多 只是為了清楚地說明
好讓需要的人充分理解
所有產品設計是依照
需求類別判斷來篩選:「流程 D」
需求類別判斷流程的篩選標準

English: 
based on the standards set for
low demand or high demand.
All low consumer
demand product designs
are to be manufactured by the
flexible automation process,
all high consumer
demand product designs
are manufactured by the
fixed automation process.
Also both the manufacturing
of low consumer demand
and high consumer
demand product designs
will be regionally allocated
as per the proximity strategy
of the manufacturing facility.
This simply means
you keep things as close to you as
possible, as close to the average
of any given demand as far as what
type of facility you're using.
And this will change over
time as populations change,
so you keep updating.
Process 3.
Once process 2 is finished, the
product design is now a product
and it moves towards optimized
distribution efficiency.
In short, all products are
allocated based on the prior
demand class determination
as noted before,
so low consumer demand products
follow a direct distribution process,

Chinese: 
取決於需求高低的不同
所有低消費需求的產品設計
將以彈性的自動化流程來製造
所有高消費需求的產品設計
將以固定的自動化流程來製造
而且無論消費需求的高低
產品設計的製造作業
都會依照製造設施的鄰近策略
來作區域性的分配 也就是說
製程地點越近越好 任何需求盡量均衡配置
並端視你所採用的設施類型而定
這將會逐漸隨著人口變化而不同
所以要不斷更新
流程3
流程2結束後 產品設計已成為實際產品
並逐步實現最佳化的分配效率
簡而言之 所有產品的分配
基於前述的需求類別判斷結果
因此低度消費需求的產品 採取直接配送流程

English: 
high consumer demands follow
the mass distribution process
which would likely be the
libraries in that case.
Both low consumer demand and high
consumer demand products will be
regionally allocated per the
proximity strategy, as noted before.
And process 4, very simple, the
product undergoes its life span.
Ideally it's been updated and
adapted; ideally it's been used
to the highest degree and made as advanced
as it could within its life cycle.
Once it's done it becomes void
and moves on to process 4
which is simply optimized
recycling efficiency.
All voided products will
follow a regenerative protocol
which is a subprocess that
clearly I'm not going to go into
because it's deeply complicated
and is the role of engineers
to develop over time.
This is just a simple
macro representation;
again these subvariables or subprocesses
go on to quite a large degree.
Keeping all of this in mind, again,
a lot of this will be in the text
and hopefully others, I
think, can see this stuff,
that are fluent with this
type of thinking, and hone in

Chinese: 
高度消費需求產品 則採取大量配送流程
可能會在資源庫進行集散調度
同樣地 無論低度或高度消費需求的產品
如前所述 也會依照鄰近策略來進行區域性的分配
再來是流程4 很簡單:產品經歷它的生命週期
它應當在生命週期之內經過更新、調適
達到最高程度的利用及最先進的狀態
生命週期結束後就廢棄 並進入第4項流程
也就是最佳化回收效率的階段
所有廢棄產品 將依照資源再生協定
這項子流程我不深入探討
因為它太複雜了
必須交由工程師隨時間去逐步開發
現在只是簡單大略的介紹
其實這些子變量或子流程都非常複雜
請謹記上述的說明 很多都收錄在書裡
希望其他擅長這類思維的人
也能看到這些資料並深入瞭解

English: 
and perfect these equations
and relationships.
What I tried to do here
is to give a broad sense
of how this type
of thing unfolds.
As a concluding statement,
more or less, the way
this extrapolation of
sustainability and efficiency-
it's really quite a
simple logical thing.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist
to see how things work on this level.
Creating a real program
that can factor in
what are hundreds if not thousands
of subprocesses in algorithmic form,
as they pertain to such an
economic complex is indeed
a massive project in and of itself,
but it's more of a tedious project.
You don't need to be a genius
to figure this stuff out.
I think this is an excellent
think-tank program
for anyone out there that's
interested in projects.
I have a number of little projects
that I'm trying to get going
when I have time; one is simply
called The Global Redesign Institute,
which is a macroeconomic
approach to redesign
the entire surface of
the planet, basically.
And in this other programming concept,
we create an open-source platform
where people can begin to
engineer this very program
that I'm describing.
That's it. I was going to make
a conclusion to this talk

Chinese: 
進而完善這些等式和關係
我現在只是給出廣義的觀念
來說明這類事情的發展
歸納上述的說明 大致的結論就是
這種永續性和效率的推衍方式
真的很簡單而且合乎邏輯
不用高深學問 也能看出基本的運作原理
設計出一套真實的程式
以演算法的形式納入成百上千的子流程
來處理相關的複雜經濟系統
這類計畫不但龐大 更令人厭煩
不必是天才也能搞懂這一點
但我覺得這是一個絕佳的智庫方案
任何對此專案有興趣的人都能參加
例如 我在找時間推動一些小型專案
其中有一項就叫「全球再設計機構」
基本上是以總體經濟的角度
來重新設計整個地球文明
至於其它的編程概念 我們創建了開源平台
可讓大家開始設計 我所介紹的
這套程式
今天就到這邊 我本來還要做個總結

Chinese: 
但是已經講得太久了
我只希望以上能讓各位更深入瞭解這套模式
和它的運作方式 謝謝大家
[掌聲]

English: 
but it was already way too long.
So I just hope this gives a deeper
understanding of the model,
how it could work and
thank you for listening.
[Applause]
