|
本文源自《金融时报》 原文题目《冠状病毒之后的世界》 作者为尤瓦尔·赫拉利 他对目前各国没有统一行动的计划，反而各自为战、竞相关闭边疆的担忧。发人深省，激烈引荐。
Humankind is now facing a global crisis. Perhaps the biggest crisis of our generation. The decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks will probably shape the world for years to come. They will shape not just our healthcare systems but also our economy, politics and culture. We must act quickly and decisively. We should also take into account the long-term consequences of our actions. When choosing between alternatives, we should ask ourselves not only how to overcome the immediate threat, but also what kind of world we will inhabit once the storm passes. Yes, the storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world. 人类往常正面临全球危机。或许是我们这一代人最大的危机。各国政府在未来几周内做出的决议，可能会在未来数年内改动世界。它们不只将影响我们的医疗保健系统，还将影响我们的经济、政治和文化。我们必须疾速果断地采取行动，但还应思索到这些行动的长期结果。在不同计划之间做选择时，我们不只需问自己，如何抑止眼前的要挟，而且还要问问自己，风暴过后我们将寓居在什么样的世界上。是的，风暴将过去，人类将继续存在，我们大多数人仍将活着，但将生活在另一个世界中。 Many short-term emergency measures will become a fixture of life. That is the nature of emergencies. They fast-forward historical processes. Decisions that in normal times could take years of deliberation are passed in a matter of hours. Immature and even dangerous technologies are pressed into service, because the risks of doing nothing are bigger. Entire countries serve as guinea-pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when everybody works from home and communicates only at a distance? What happens when entire schools and universities go online? In normal times, governments, businesses and educational boards would never agree to conduct such experiments. But these aren't normal times. 许多短期的紧急措施将成为生活的一部分。这就是紧急措施的性质，它们加快了历史进程。通常状况下，可能需求破费数年时间中止审议的决议，往常几小时内即可经过。不成熟以至风险的技术投入运用，由于不采取任何行动的风险更大。整个国度都在大型社会实验中充任豚鼠。每个人都在家工作，并且仅远程交流时会发作什么？整个学校和大学都上网时会发作什么？通常状况下，政府、企业和学校永远不会同意中止此类实验。但往常不是正常时期。 In this time of crisis, we face two particularly important choices. The first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. 在危机时辰，我们面临两个特别重要的选择。第一个是在极权主义监视与公民赋权之间的选择。第二个问题是在民族主义孤立与全球团结之间的选择。
Ingram Pinn/Financial Times Under-the-skin surveillance In order to stop the epidemic, entire populations need to comply with certain guidelines. There are two main ways of achieving this. One method is for the government to monitor people, and punish those who break the rules. Today, for the first time in human history, technology makes it possible to monitor everyone all the time. Fifty years ago, the KGB couldn’t follow 240m Soviet citizens 24 hours a day, nor could the KGB hope to effectively process all the information gathered. The KGB relied on human agents and analysts, and it just couldn’t place a human agent to follow every citizen. Butnow governments can rely on ubiquitous sensors and powerful algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood spooks. 皮下监视 为了遏制这种盛行病，一切人都必须恪守某些准绳。有两种主要措施能够完成此目的。一种措施是政府监视人民，并惩罚违背规则的人。往常，人类历史上初次，技术能够不时监控每个人。五十年前，克格勃无法每天24小时追踪2.4亿苏联公民，也不可能有效处置搜集到的一切信息。克格勃依托人类特工和剖析师，不可能跟踪每个公民。但是往常，政府能够依托无处不在的传感器和强大的算法，完成这个目的。 In their battle against the coronavirus epidemic several governments have already deployed the new surveillance tools. By closely monitoring people’s smartphones, making use of hundreds of millions of face-recognising cameras, and obliging people to check and report their body temperature and medical condition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel recently authorised the Israel Security Agency to deploy surveillance technology normally reserved for battling terrorists to track coronavirus patients. When the relevant parliamentary subcommittee refused to authorise the measure, Netanyahu rammed it through with an “emergency decree”. You might argue that there is nothing new about all this. In recent years both governments and corporations have been using ever more sophisticated technologies to track, monitor and manipulate people. Yet if we are not careful, the epidemic might nevertheless mark an important watershed in the history of surveillance. Not only because it might normalise the deployment of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected them, but even more so because it signifies a dramatic transition from “over the skin” to “under the skin” surveillance. 你可能会争辩说，这些并没有新意。近年来，政府和公司都在运用越来越先进的技术来跟踪、监视和支配人员。但是，假如我们不谨慎的话，往常的这种盛行病可能将是人类监控史上一个重要的分水岭。不只由于它能够使迄今为止拒绝运用大范围监视工具的国度，呈现监控正常化，而且更重要的是，它表明监控从"皮肤上"急剧转变为"皮肤下"。 Hitherto, when your finger touched the screen of your smartphone and clicked on a link, the government wanted to know what exactly your finger was clicking on. But with coronavirus, the focus of interest shifts. Now the government wants to know the temperature of your finger and the blood-pressure under its skin. 以前，当你的手指触摸智能手机的屏幕并单击链接时，政府想知道你的手指到底在单击什么。但是关于冠状病毒，政府关注的重点曾经转移，往常政府希望知道你的手指的温度及其皮肤下的血压。
Shutterstock.com The emergency pudding One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right? 紧急布丁 The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system. If you know, for example, that I clicked on a Fox News link rather than a CNN link, that can teach you something about my political views and perhaps even my personality. But if you can monitor what happens to my body temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate as I watch the video clip, you can learn what makes me laugh, what makes me cry, and what makes me really, really angry. 缺陷当然是，这种恐惧的新监视系统一旦具有合法性的结果。例如，假如你知道我单击的是 Fox News 的链接而不是 CNN 的链接，则能够提示你一些有关我的政治观念以至个性的信息。但是，假如你能够在我观看视频时监视我的体温、血压和心率变更，则能够了解使我发笑、使我哭泣以及使我真正十分生气的缘由。 It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough. The same technology that identifies coughs could also identify laughs. If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves, and they can then not just predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want — be it a product or a politician. Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica’s data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age. Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for. You could, of course, make the case for biometric surveillance as a temporary measure taken during a state of emergency. It would go away once the emergency is over. But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a new emergency lurking on the horizon. My home country of Israel, for example, declared a state of emergency during its 1948 War of Independence, which justified a range of temporary measures from press censorship and land confiscation to special regulations for making pudding (I kid you not). The War of Independence has long been won, but Israel never declared the emergency over, and has failed to abolish many of the “temporary” measures of 1948 (the emergency pudding decree was mercifully abolished in 2011). Even when infections from coronavirus are down to zero, some data-hungry governments could argue they needed to keep the biometric surveillance systems in place because they fear a second wave of coronavirus, or because there is a new Ebola strain evolving in central Africa, or because...you get the idea. A big battle has been raging in recent years over our privacy. The coronavirus crisis could be the battle’s tipping point. For when people are given a choice between privacy and health, they will usually choose health. 即便在冠状病毒的感染者降至零的状况下，一些盼望获取公民数据的政府也可能会说，由于惧怕第二次冠状病毒盛行，或者由于中部非洲正在呈现新的埃博拉病毒，他们需求坚持生物特征监测系统继续运转。由于......你懂的。近年来，在我们的隐私问题上，一场猛烈的战役不时在中止。冠状病毒危机可能是这场战役的转机点。由于当人们在隐私和健康之间做出选择时，他们通常会选择健康。
IFP Editorial Staff The soap police Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the problem. Because this is a false choice. We can and should enjoy both privacy and health. We can choose to protect our health and stop the coronavirus epidemic not by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes, but rather by empowering citizens. In recent weeks, some of the most successful efforts to contain the coronavirus epidemic were orchestrated by South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. While these countries have made some use of tracking applications, they have relied far more on extensive testing, on honest reporting, and on the willing co-operation of a well-informed public. 肥皂警察 实践上，请求人们在隐私和健康之间中止选择是问题的基本所在。由于这是一个错误的选择。我们能够并且应该同时享用隐私和健康。我们能够选择维护我们的健康的同时，阻止冠状病毒盛行，而不是经过树立极权主义的监视制度，我们也能够选择增强公民的权益。最近几周，亚洲一些国度和地域精心实施了一些最胜利的遏制冠状病毒盛行的措施，它们固然运用了跟踪应用程序，但更多地依赖于普遍的测试、诚实的讲演以及有见识的公众的自愿协作。 Centralised monitoring and harsh punishments aren’t the only way to make people comply with beneficial guidelines. When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over ther shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population. 集中监控和严厉惩罚并不是使人们恪守有益规则的独一措施。当人们被告知科学事实，并且人们信任公共当局通知他们这些事实时，即便没有"老大哥"看着他们的肩膀，公民也能够做正确的事情。一个有上进心和学问广博的人群通常比受过锻炼的无知人群要强大得多。 Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap. This has been one of the greatest advances ever in human hygiene. This simple action saves millions of lives every year. While we take it for granted, it was only in the 19th century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands with soap. Previously, even doctors and nurses proceeded from one surgical operation to the next without washing their hands. Today billions of people daily wash their hands, not because they are afraid of the soap police, but rather because they understand the facts. I wash my hands with soap because I have heard of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these tiny organisms cause diseases, and I know that soap can remove them. 肥皂洗手就是一个例子，这是人类卫生学上最巨大的进步之一。这个简单的动作每年能够挽救数百万的生命。固然我们以为这是理所当然的，但直到19世纪，科学家才发现用肥皂洗手的重要性。以前，即便是医生和护士，也无需洗手就从一台外科手术转到另一台外科手术。今天，数十亿人每天洗手，不是由于他们惧怕警察正在监控，而是由于他们了解事实。我用肥皂洗手是由于我听说过病毒和细菌，我知道这些微小的生物会惹起疾病，并且我知道肥皂能够肃清它们。
https://www.easternshoredoctors.com.au/news/coronavirus-what-should-you-do But to achieve such a level of compliance and co-operation, you need trust. People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media. Over the past few years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately undermined trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. Now these same irresponsible politicians might be tempted to take the high road to authoritarianism, arguing that you just cannot trust the public to do the right thing. 但是要抵达这种合规与协作水平，你需求信任。人们需求信任科学、信任公共权威以及信任媒体。在过去的几年中，不担任任的政治家故意破坏了对科学、公共当局和媒体的信任。往常，这些同样不担任任的政治家可能会倾向于走专制主义的道路，争辩说我们不能信任公众会做正确的事。通常，曾经腐蚀了多年的信任不能在一夜之间重建。 Normally, trust that has been eroded for years cannot be rebuilt overnight. But these are not normal times. In a moment of crisis, minds too can change quickly. You can have bitter arguments with your siblings for years, but when some emergency occurs, you suddenly discover a hidden reservoir of trust and amity, and you rush to help one another. Instead of building a surveillance regime, it is not too late to rebuild people’s trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. We should definitely make use of new technologies too, but these technologies should empower citizens. I am all in favour of monitoring my body temperature and blood pressure, but that data should not be used to create an all-powerful government. Rather, that data should enable me to make more informed personal choices, and also to hold government accountable for its decisions. 但往常不是正常时期，在危机时辰，思想也会疾速变更。多年以来，你的兄弟姐妹之间可能会发作猛烈的争持，但是当发作紧急状况时，你忽然发现了躲藏的信任和友善，并急于相互辅佐。要树立人们对科学、公共当局和媒体的信任，而不是树立一个监视制度，往常并不为时已晚。我们当然也应该应用新技术，但是这些技术应该赋予公民权益。 我完整同意监控自己的体温和血压，但不应该运用这些数据来创建一个功用强大的政府。相反，这些数据应该使我能够做出更明智的个人选择。 If I could track my own medical condition 24 hours a day, I would learn not only whether I have become a health hazard to other people, but also which habits contribute to my health. And if I could access and analyse reliable statistics on the spread of coronavirus, I would be able to judge whether the government is telling me the truth and whether it is adopting the right policies to combat the epidemic. Whenever people talk about surveillance, remember that the same surveillance technology can usually be used not only by governments to monitor individuals — but also by individuals to monitor governments. 假如我能够一天24小时追踪自己的病情，我不只会了解自己能否对他人构成健康危害，而且还会了解哪些习气对我的健康有所辅佐。而且，假如我能够访问和剖析有关冠状病毒传播的牢靠统计数据，我将能够判别政府能否在通知我真相，以及它能否在采取正确的政策来对立盛行病。每当人们谈论监视时，请记住，相同的监视技术通常不只能够由政府用于监视个人，而且能够由个人用于监视政府。 The coronavirus epidemic is thus a major test of citizenship. In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians. If we fail to make the right choice, we might find ourselves signing away our most precious freedoms, thinking that this is the only way to safeguard our health. 因而，冠状病毒的盛行是对公民身份的主要考验。在未来的日子里，我们每个人都应该选择信任科学数据和医疗保健专家，而不是置信毫无依据的阴谋论和自私自利的政治家。假如我们未能做出正确的选择，我们可能会发现自己放弃了我们最可贵的自由，置信只需听任政府监控才是维护我们健康的独一途径。
Illustration: Andrzej Krauze/The Guardian We need a global plan The second important choice we confront is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. Both the epidemic itself and the resulting economic crisis are global problems. They can be solved effectively only by global co-operation. 我们需求一项全球计划 我们面临的第二个重要选择是在民族主义孤立与全球团结之间做选择。盛行病自身和由此产生的经济危机都是全球性问题，只需全球协作才干有效处置这些问题。 First and foremost, in order to defeat the virus we need to share information globally. That’s the big advantage of humans over viruses. A coronavirus in China and a coronavirus in the US cannot swap tips about how to infect humans. But China can teach the US many valuable lessons about coronavirus and how to deal with it. What an Italian doctor discovers in Milan in the early morning might well save lives in Tehran by evening. When the UK government hesitates between several policies, it can get advice from the Koreans who have already faced a similar dilemma a month ago. But for this to happen, we need a spirit of global co-operation and trust. 首先，为了打败病毒，我们需求在全球范围内共享信息。这是人类相关于病毒的最大优势。中国能够向美国传授许多有关冠状病毒及其应对措施的可贵阅历，一位意大利医生清晨在米兰发现的东西很可能晚上在德黑兰挽救生命。当英国政府对几项政策犹疑不决时，它能够从一个月前曾经面临相似困境的韩国人那里取得倡议。但是，要做到这一点，我们需求一种全球协作与信任的肉体。 Countries should be willing to share information openly and humbly seek advice, and should be able to trust the data and the insights they receive. We also need a global effort to produce and distribute medical equipment, most notably testing kits and respiratory machines. Instead of every country trying to do it locally and hoarding whatever equipment it can get, a co-ordinated global effort could greatly accelerate production and make sure life-saving equipment is distributed more fairly. Just as countries nationalise key industries during a war, the human war against coronavirus may require us to “humanise” the crucial production lines. A rich country with few coronavirus cases should be willing to send precious equipment to a poorer country with many cases, trusting that if and when it subsequently needs help, other countries will come to its assistance. 各国应该愿意公开地分享信息，谦逊地寻求倡议，并且应该信任所收到的数据和见解。我们还需求全球范围内的努力来消费和分销医疗设备，特别是测试套件和呼吸机。与其每个国度都尝试在本地中止消费并囤积任何设备，不如在全球范围内谐和分歧地努力，就能够大大加快消费速度，并确保能够更公平地分配救生设备。正如各国在战争中将关键产业国有化一样，人类与冠状病毒的战争可能会请求我们将关键的消费线"世界化"。较少冠状病毒病例的富有国度，应该愿意向较多病例的较贫穷国度提供可贵的设备，并置信假如以后需求辅佐，别的国度也会同样辅佐自己。 We might consider a similar global effort to pool medical personnel. Countries currently less affected could send medical staff to the worst-hit regions of the world, both in order to help them in their hour of need, and in order to gain valuable experience. If later on the focus of the epidemic shifts, help could start flowing in the opposite direction. 我们可能会思索采取相似的全球努力来召集医务人员。当前受影响较小的国度能够派遣医务人员到世界上受灾最严重的地域，以辅佐他们，并取得可贵的阅历。假如未来盛行病的发病重点转移了，辅佐就会开端朝相反的方向活动。 Global co-operation is vitally needed on the economic front too. Given the global nature of the economy and of supply chains, if each government does its own thing in complete disregard of the others, the result will be chaos and a deepening crisis. We need a global plan of action, and we need it fast. 经济方面也十分需求全球协作。思索到经济和供给链的全球性，假如每个政府在完整不顾其他政府的状况下做自己的事情，结果将是紊乱和危机加深。我们需求一项全球行动计划，而且要快速行动。 Another requirement is reaching a global agreement on travel. Suspending all international travel for months will cause tremendous hardships, and hamper the war against coronavirus. Countries need to co-operate in order to allow at least a trickle of essential travellers to continue crossing borders: scientists, doctors, journalists, politicians, businesspeople. This can be done by reaching a global agreement on the pre-screening of travellers by their home country. If you know that only carefully screened travellers were allowed on a plane, you would be more willing to accept them into your country. 另一个请求是达成全球旅游协议。一切国际旅游暂停数月之久，将构成庞大的艰难，并障碍与冠状病毒的战争。各国需求中止协作，以便至少允许一小撮重要的旅客继续过境：科学家，医生，记者，政治人物，商人。这能够经过对旅游者在本国中止的预检查达成全球协议来完成。假如你知道只需经过严厉检查的旅客才能够乘坐飞机，那么你会更愿意接受他们进入你的国度。 Unfortunately, at present countries hardly do any of these things. A collective paralysis has gripped the international community. There seem to be no adults in the room. One would have expected to see already weeks ago an emergency meeting of global leaders to come up with a common plan of action. The G7 leaders managed to organise a videoconference only this week, and it did not result in any such plan. 不幸的是，目前各国简直没有做任何这些事情。国际社会堕入了集体瘫痪。房间里似乎没有大人。人们原本希望在几周前看到全球指导人紧急会议，以制定一项共同的行动计划。七国集团指导人仅在本周组织了一次电视会议，但并未制定任何此类计划。 In previous global crises — such as the 2008 financial crisis and the 2014 Ebola epidemic — the US assumed the role of global leader. But the current US administration has abdicated the job of leader. It has made it very clear that it cares about the greatness of America far more than about the future of humanity. 在先前的全球危机（例如2008年金融危机和2014年埃博拉疫情）中，美国担当了全球指导者的角色。 但是现任美国政府曾经放弃了指导人的职务。它曾经十分分明地表明，它更关怀美国的巨大而不是关怀人类的未来。这个政府以至放弃了它最密切的盟友。 当它遏止一切来自欧盟的旅游时，它都没想到要事前通知欧盟，更不用说与欧盟商榷这一严厉措施了。据称，美国曾向一家德国制药公司出价10亿美圆，置办了新的 Covid-19 疫苗的垄断权，这使德国感到震惊。即便美国现任政府最终改动了立场，并提出了一项全球行动计划，也很少有人会跟随一个从不承担义务，从不招认错误，并将一切义务归咎于他人，荣誉归咎于自己的指导人。 If the void left by the US isn’t filled by other countries, not only will it be much harder to stop the current epidemic, but its legacy will continue to poison international relations for years to come. Yet every crisis is also an opportunity. We must hope that the current epidemic will help humankind realise the acute danger posed by global disunity. 假如美国留下的空白没有其他国度填补，那么阻止当前的盛行不只愈加艰难，而且这种空白将在未来几年继续毒害国际关系。但是，每次危机也是一个机遇。我们必须希望，当前的盛行病将辅佐人类认识到全球不团结带来的严重风险。 Humanity needs to make a choice. Will we travel down the route of disunity, or will we adopt the path of global solidarity? If we choose disunity, this will not only prolong the crisis, but will probably result in even worse catastrophes in the future. If we choose global solidarity, it will be a victory not only against the coronavirus, but against all future epidemics and crises that might assail humankind in the 21st century. 人类需求做出选择。我们是走全球团结的道路，还是继续各据一方？假如我们选择不团结，这不只会延长危机，而且未来可能会招致更严重的灾难。假如我们选择全球团结，这将不只是对立冠状病毒的胜利，也是抗击可能在21世纪攻击人类的一切未来盛行病和危机的胜利。 |
