TED英文演講：越有錢的人越自私
一個(gè)被操縱的大富翁游戲能告訴我們的東西竟然有那么多!在這個(gè)有趣且發(fā)人深省的演講中，社會(huì)心理學(xué)家保羅-皮夫分享了他對(duì)于“人感到富有時(shí)如何表現(xiàn)”的研究結(jié)果(暗示：很壞)。在面對(duì)異常復(fù)雜、異常嚴(yán)峻的不平等問題的同時(shí)，我們也聽到了好的消息。下面是小編為大家收集關(guān)于TED英文演講：越有錢的人越自私，歡迎借鑒參考。
演講者：Paul Piff 保羅·皮夫
中英文演講稿
I want you to, for a moment, think aboutplaying a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill,talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has beenrendered irrelevant, because this game's been rigged, and you've got the upperhand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, andmore access to resources.
我想讓大家花一點(diǎn)時(shí)間，想象一下自己正在玩大富翁游戲，只不過在這個(gè)游戲里面，那些幫助你贏得游戲的因素，比如技巧，才能和運(yùn)氣，在此無關(guān)緊要，就像對(duì)于人生一樣，因?yàn)檫@個(gè)游戲被操縱了，而你已經(jīng)占了上風(fēng)，你有更多的錢，有更多在棋盤上移動(dòng)的機(jī)會(huì)，以及更多獲得資源的機(jī)會(huì)。
And as you think about that experience, I want you toask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in arigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that otherplayer?
在你想象這個(gè)經(jīng)歷的時(shí)候，我想讓大家問一下自己，一個(gè)被操縱的游戲里面，作為優(yōu)勢玩家的經(jīng)歷，會(huì)如何改變你思考自己和，對(duì)待對(duì)手的方式?
So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeleycampus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs ofstrangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one ofthe two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money;when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll bothdice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more.
在加州大學(xué)伯克利分校，我們做了一個(gè)試驗(yàn)，來研究這個(gè)問題，我們招募了100多對(duì)，陌生人到實(shí)驗(yàn)室，通過投擲硬幣的方式，隨機(jī)選定一對(duì)中的一個(gè)，作為這個(gè)游戲中占上風(fēng)的玩家，他們拿到了兩倍的錢，當(dāng)他們途徑起點(diǎn)的時(shí)候，他們拿到兩倍的工資，而且他們可以同時(shí)擲兩個(gè)骰子而不是一個(gè)，所以他們可以在棋盤上移動(dòng)更多。
And over the course of 15 minutes, wewatched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for thefirst time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You'll to have to pardonthe sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've providedsubtitles.
在接下來的15分鐘內(nèi)，我們通過隱藏的攝像頭觀察了現(xiàn)場情況，今天是第一次，我想和大家分享一下我們觀察到的，有的時(shí)候音質(zhì)可能不太好，還請(qǐng)大家原諒，因?yàn)楫吘故怯秒[藏的攝像頭，所以我們加上了字幕。
[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did youhave?
Poor Player: Just one.
RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.
RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know whythey gave me so much.
富玩家：你有多少張500塊?
窮玩家：就一張。
富玩家：真的嗎?!
窮玩家：是啊。
富玩家：我有三張。不知道為什么他們給了我那么多。
Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent toplayers that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than theother person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences,dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich playerstarted to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with thepiece as he went around.
保羅·皮夫：所以，玩家們很快就意識(shí)到，這個(gè)游戲明顯有點(diǎn)奇怪，一個(gè)玩家比另一個(gè)玩家，明顯有更多的錢，隨著游戲慢慢展開，我們觀察到兩個(gè)玩家，開始有一些，明顯不同的表現(xiàn)，富的玩家，在棋盤上移動(dòng)的聲音更大，移動(dòng)的時(shí)候，幾乎是在狠狠砸棋盤。
(Game piece smacks board)
We were more likely to see signs ofdominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the richplayers.
我們看到了富玩家們更多的，”霸主”信號(hào)、肢體動(dòng)作，權(quán)力的顯露，以及互相慶祝。
We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off tothe side. It's on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watchparticipants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzelsparticipants eat.
我們?cè)谂赃叿帕艘煌虢符}卷餅，就在右下角，這使得我們可以觀察玩家吃椒鹽卷餅的行為，我們就是看看玩家吃了多少椒鹽卷餅。
[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?
PP: I don't know.
富玩家：這些椒鹽卷餅有什么貓膩么?
窮玩家：不知道啊。
Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people areon to us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the firstplace. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels thereas a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems toinevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.
保羅·皮夫：好吧，不出所料，大家覺得有問題。起先他們好奇那一碗椒鹽卷餅，為什么會(huì)在那里，就像你剛才看到的，其中一個(gè)甚至問：這碗椒鹽卷餅有什么貓膩么?但盡管如此，整個(gè)現(xiàn)場的主導(dǎo)形勢還是不可避免，那些富的玩家開始吃更多的椒鹽卷餅。
[Video] RP: I love pretzels.
富玩家：我愛椒鹽卷餅
Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one ofthe really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emergewas that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the otherperson -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players,and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely toshowcase how well they're doing.
保羅·皮夫：游戲繼續(xù)進(jìn)行，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)很明顯的，有趣現(xiàn)象，就是富玩家，開始對(duì)另一個(gè)玩家表現(xiàn)得不友好，對(duì)那些可憐玩家的貧窮困境，越來越不敏感，開始越來越頻繁的炫富，開始越來越頻繁的炫富，更喜歡展示他們正在做的一切。
[Video] RP: I have money ...
I have money for everything.
PP: How much is that?
RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going tolose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so muchmoney, it takes me forever.
富玩家：我什么都買得起，
窮玩家：你有多少錢?
富玩家：你還欠我24塊，你很快就要輸光了，我要買它，我太多錢了，那么多花都花不完的錢。
RP 2: I'm going to buy out this wholeboard.
RP 3: You're going to run out of moneysoon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.
富玩家2：我要把整個(gè)棋盤都買下來，
富玩家3：你很快就要沒錢了，我已經(jīng)差不多不可戰(zhàn)勝了
Paul Piff: And here's what I think wasreally, really interesting: it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we askedthe players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the richplayers talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game ofMonopoly ...They talked about what they'd done to buythose different properties and earn their success in the game.
保羅-皮夫：下面是我覺得，一個(gè)非常非常有意思的現(xiàn)象，在15分鐘要結(jié)束的時(shí)候，我們請(qǐng)玩家談?wù)撍麄冊(cè)谟螒蛑械慕?jīng)歷，當(dāng)富玩家談?wù)?，他們?cè)谶@個(gè)被操縱的游戲里面，為什么必勝的時(shí)候。
And they became far less attuned to allthose different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin --that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place.And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense ofadvantage.
他們提到了自己，為了買到不同地產(chǎn)，和贏得游戲所做的努力，而他們忽略了，這個(gè)游戲一開始的不同形勢，也就是投擲硬幣，隨機(jī)決定了他們，哪一個(gè)獲得優(yōu)勢，而這對(duì)我們理解大腦如何看待優(yōu)勢，提供了非常好的啟發(fā)。
Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as ametaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein somepeople have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't;they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access tovalued resources.
我們可以用這個(gè)大富翁的游戲作比喻，來理解我們的社會(huì)以及社會(huì)分層，也就是有的人，有大量的財(cái)富和地位，而很多人沒有，他們僅有很少的財(cái)富和地位，以及很少獲得寶貴資源的機(jī)會(huì)。
And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years havebeen doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we'vebeen finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across thiscountry is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings ofcompassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, ofdeservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase.
我和我的同事在過去的7年里一直在做的，就是研究這些不同層次的影響，全國范圍內(nèi)的，大量研究都表明，當(dāng)一個(gè)人的財(cái)富增加時(shí)，他們的同情心和同理心下降，而他們的優(yōu)越感增加，也更注重個(gè)人利益。
In surveys, we've found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralizegreed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral.Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of thisideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications,and end with what might be done.
在調(diào)查中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，富有的人更可能，把貪婪定義為好的，把對(duì)個(gè)人利益的追求，定義為有利的，道德的，今天我想談的就是，這種個(gè)人利益思維的影響，談?wù)劄槭裁次覀儜?yīng)該關(guān)注這些影響，以及我們能做些什么。
Some of the first studies that we ran inthis area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call"pro-social behavior." And we were really interested in who's morelikely to offer help to another person: someone who's rich or someone who'spoor. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the communityinto the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars.
我們?cè)谶@一領(lǐng)域最初做的一些研究，觀察了助人行為，社會(huì)心理學(xué)家稱之為，親社會(huì)行為，我們很想知道什么人更傾向于，給其他人提供幫助，富人還是窮人，其中一個(gè)研究，我們把一個(gè)社區(qū)的富人和窮人，都帶到了實(shí)驗(yàn)室，給了每個(gè)人10美元。
We told theparticipants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they couldshare a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who's totallyanonymous. They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them.And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000,sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money tothe stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.
我們告訴他們，他們可以把這10塊錢給自己用，也可以把其中一部分拿出來分享，如果他們?cè)敢獾脑挘粋€(gè)陌生人分享，一個(gè)永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)再相遇的陌生人，我們觀察人們給了多少，那些年收入為25000，甚至低于15000美元的人，和那些年收入為15萬，甚至20萬的人比起來，多給了44%，多給了44%。
We've had people play games to see who'smore or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. Inone of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over acertain score were impossible -- You couldn't get above 12 in this game, andyet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game toearn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times asmuch.
我們還讓人們玩游戲，看看什么人更可能，為了贏得一個(gè)獎(jiǎng)品而作弊，其中一個(gè)游戲，我們其實(shí)操縱了電腦，使得某些數(shù)字，不可能出現(xiàn)，這個(gè)游戲里面，你不可能超過12，然而，越富有的人，越有可能在這個(gè)游戲中作弊，去爭取那個(gè)最終能夠贏取50美元現(xiàn)金的分?jǐn)?shù)，可能性甚至高達(dá)3到4倍。
We ran another study where we looked atwhether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitlyidentified as being reserved for children --I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds likeI'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is forchildren participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. Thisis for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took.Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants whofelt poor.
我們還做了另一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)，觀察人們是否會(huì)，從糖罐里面拿糖，糖罐上清楚地寫著：給小朋友預(yù)留……，我是認(rèn)真的，我知道這聽上去像我在講笑話，我們明確地告訴了參與者，這一罐糖是給隔壁發(fā)展中心的，小朋友準(zhǔn)備的，他們?cè)趯?shí)驗(yàn)中，這是給他們的，然后我們觀察這些參與者拿了多少糖果，那些感覺富有的參與者，比那些感覺貧窮的參與者，多拿了兩倍的糖果。
We've even studied cars. Not just any cars,but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined tobreak the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stopfor a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk.
我們還研究了汽車，不只是汽車，而是不同類型汽車的司機(jī)，誰更傾向于做一些違法的事情，其中一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)，我們觀察了，司機(jī)在碰到行人(我們安排的)過馬路時(shí)的，停車行為。
Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law tostop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how wedid it. That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. Heapproaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion,it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.
在加州，大家都知道，因?yàn)槲蚁嘈盼覀兌加羞@樣做，法律規(guī)定碰到行人要過馬路，我們必須停車，下面我告訴大家我們是怎樣做的，左側(cè)是我們的研究人員，裝作一個(gè)行人，他正要過馬路，這時(shí)候紅色的卡車停了下來，當(dāng)然這是在加州，很快一輛巴士呼嘯而過，差點(diǎn)要撞倒我們的行人。
Now here's an example of a more expensivecar, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this forhundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't.What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...the drivers' tendencies to break the lawincreased as well.
這是一輛比較貴的車，一輛普銳斯開過來，一輛寶馬車也一樣，幾天內(nèi)，我們測試了幾百輛車，記錄誰停了誰沒有停，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，隨著車價(jià)的增加，司機(jī)違法的傾向，也增加了，而在我們的廉價(jià)車系里。
None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our leastexpensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in ourmost expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies, findingthat wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorseunethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, takingbribes, lying to customers.
沒有一輛車，做出違法行為，而在我們的昂貴車系里，有接近50%的車，都違法了，我們還做了其它研究并發(fā)現(xiàn)，越有錢的人越有可能在談判中說謊，贊同工作中的不道德行為，比如從收銀臺(tái)偷現(xiàn)金，受賄，忽悠顧客等。
Now, I don't mean to suggest that it's onlywealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, Ithink that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle withthese competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above theinterests of other people.
我并不是說，只是有錢人，會(huì)表現(xiàn)出類似的行為，完全不是。事實(shí)上，我覺得我們每個(gè)人，在我們?nèi)粘５姆址置朊胫?，都要跟這些動(dòng)機(jī)作斗爭，什么時(shí)候以及是否把我們的利益置于，他人的利益之上。
And that's understandable, because the Americandream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed andprosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard.
這很容易理解，因?yàn)槊绹鴫舾嬖V我們，每個(gè)人都有同等的機(jī)會(huì)，可以成功、發(fā)達(dá)，只要我們足夠努力。
And a piece of that meansthat sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests andwell-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that thewealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personalsuccess, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others aroundyou.
而這也意味著有的時(shí)候，你需要把自己的利益，置于你周邊人的利益和幸福之上，但是我們的發(fā)現(xiàn)是，你越有錢，則越有可能，去追求一種個(gè)人的成功，個(gè)人的成果和成就，這可能是建立在對(duì)旁人的損害之上。
Here I've plotted for you the meanhousehold income received by each fifth and top five percent of the populationover the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the differentquintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's notdifficult to discern that there are differences.
這里我為大家畫出了，在過去20年里，每個(gè)1/5和最高5%人口的平均家庭收入，1993年，每個(gè)1/5之間的收入差異，還是相當(dāng)大的，我們不難看出其中的差別。
But over the last 20 years,that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those atthe top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population ownclose to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.
但是在過去的20年里面，這種巨大差異最終成為了，頂層人群與其他所有人之間的鴻溝，事實(shí)是，頂層20%的人口，擁有整個(gè)國家接近90%的財(cái)富。
We're at unprecedented levels of economicinequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasinglyconcentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the Americandream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us.
我們正在經(jīng)歷史無前例的，經(jīng)濟(jì)上的不平等，而這不僅意味著財(cái)富，更多地聚集在為數(shù)很少的一群人手里，還意味著美國夢，對(duì)越來越多的人來說，都變得越來越遙遠(yuǎn)。
And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, themore entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are toprioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and bewilling to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there's no reasonto think that those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason tothink that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if thingsjust stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.
如果事實(shí)果真如我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的那樣，你越有錢，就越發(fā)覺得這些財(cái)富是你應(yīng)得的，越會(huì)把自己的利益，置于他人的利益之上，越會(huì)做那些利己的事情，那么沒有理由可以相信，這個(gè)現(xiàn)狀會(huì)有所改變，事實(shí)上，我們有更多的理由認(rèn)為，情況會(huì)變得更糟糕，這是在接下來的20年內(nèi)，保持和原來一樣、相同線性速率的情況。
Now inequality -- economic inequality -- issomething we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those atthe bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups withlots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom,everyone.
不平等，經(jīng)濟(jì)上的不平等，是我們每個(gè)人都要關(guān)心的問題，不僅是因?yàn)樯鐣?huì)底層的人，不僅是因?yàn)樯鐣?huì)底層的人，而是因?yàn)榻?jīng)濟(jì)不平等，會(huì)讓個(gè)人和集體都變得糟糕，不僅僅是底層的人，是每一個(gè)人。
There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labsall over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined aseconomic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about,physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up.
有很多來自世界各地頂級(jí)實(shí)驗(yàn)室的，非常有說服力的研究，展示了日益增加的經(jīng)濟(jì)不平等，造成的影響范圍，造成的影響范圍，社會(huì)流動(dòng)性，那些我們非常關(guān)心的東西，如身體健康、社會(huì)信任，都會(huì)隨著不平等的增加而削弱，同樣的，社會(huì)中消極的東西。
Similarly,negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, andviolence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequalityincreases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but thatresound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience theseoutcomes.
同樣的，社會(huì)中消極的東西，比如肥胖、暴力，徒刑和懲罰，都會(huì)隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)不平等的增加而加劇，而這些后果，不是少數(shù)人所經(jīng)歷的，而是會(huì)影響社會(huì)的各個(gè)階層，即使是在頂層的人也要遭受這些后果。
So what do we do? This cascade ofself-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like somethingthat's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainlynothing we as individuals could do.
那我們?cè)撛趺崔k呢?，這些帶有延續(xù)性的，有害的消極影響，看上去像是什么東西失控了，而我們無能為力，特別是作為個(gè)人更是無能為力。
But in fact, we've been finding in our ownlaboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes topeople's values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels ofegalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits ofcooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to bejust as egalitarian as poor people.
但是事實(shí)上，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在我們自己的實(shí)驗(yàn)室研究中，小小的心理干預(yù)，價(jià)值觀的小小改變，某些特定的微小暗示，就可以將平等和同理心恢復(fù)，比如，提醒人們，合作的好處，或者社區(qū)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)，就能夠讓富人和窮人一樣關(guān)注平等，就能夠讓富人和窮人一樣關(guān)注平等。
In one study, we had people watch a briefvideo, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminderof the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, welooked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a strangerpresented to them in the lab, who was in distress.
其中一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)中，我們讓參與者看一短片，46秒，關(guān)于兒童貧困，以此提醒大家周圍人的需要，以此提醒大家周圍人的需要，看過這個(gè)視頻后，我們觀察了他們，為實(shí)驗(yàn)中一個(gè)壓抑的陌生人，提供幫助的積極性。
After watching this video,an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to helpout this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that thesedifferences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slightchanges in people's values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps ofempathy.
看完這個(gè)視頻一個(gè)小時(shí)后，富人變得和窮人一樣大方，他們?cè)敢饣〞r(shí)間幫助別人，幫助那些陌生人，這意味著這些差別不是，與生俱來或一成不變的，它們很容易改變，只需要價(jià)值觀的微小變化，同情心的一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)推動(dòng)，和同理心的輕微觸碰。
And beyond the walls of our lab, we're evenbeginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation'swealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about theproblem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, andtalked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity's greatestadvances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are appliedto reduce inequity." And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes tocharity.
在實(shí)驗(yàn)室之外，我們也開始看到社會(huì)上的改變，比爾-蓋茨，我們國家的富豪之一，在哈佛的開學(xué)典禮演講中，說到這個(gè)社會(huì)所面臨的問題，他說不平等是我們目前面臨的最嚴(yán)峻挑戰(zhàn)，他談?wù)摿宋覀儜?yīng)該如何戰(zhàn)勝它，他說：“人類最偉大的進(jìn)步”，“不在于它的各種發(fā)現(xiàn)”“而在于如何將這些發(fā)現(xiàn)”，用于削弱不平等”，還有捐贈(zèng)承諾，我們國家100多個(gè)，最富有的人，正在承諾將他們一半的財(cái)產(chǎn)捐贈(zèng)給慈善事業(yè)。
And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like"We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or"Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of thepopulation, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy,are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that's what'smost striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economicresources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes insocial values and changes in people's behavior that work against their owneconomic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.
還有很多草根運(yùn)動(dòng)的出現(xiàn)，比如“我們是那百分之一”，“資源一代”，“共同的財(cái)富”等，在這些組織中，那些最有優(yōu)勢的成員，那些1%的人，和其他有錢的人，其中有成人有青少年，這是最讓我震驚的，他們正在利用自己的優(yōu)勢，他們正在利用自己的優(yōu)勢，利用自己的經(jīng)濟(jì)資源，與不平等抗?fàn)?，通過倡導(dǎo)社會(huì)政策，社會(huì)價(jià)值的改變，人類行為的改變，這有悖于他們自身的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益，但卻會(huì)最終重建美國夢!
Thank you.(Applause)
謝謝!
相關(guān)文章：