東西的故事：字幕

【故事緣起】

Do you have one of these? I got a little obsessed with mine, in fact I got a little obsessed with all my stuff. Have you ever wondered where all the stuff we buy comes from and where it goes when we throw it out.? I couldn’t stop wondering about that. So I looked it up. And what the text books said is that our stuff simply moves along these stages: extraction to production to distribution to consumption to disposal. All together, it's called the materials economy.
你有這個東西嗎？我自己也是愛用者。事實上，我是不折不扣的戀物狂。你有沒有想過我們買的東西是從那裡來？在我們把它丟掉後，又葬身何處？我不得不認真的思考這個問題。因此，我就去找答案。根據教科書的說法，東西的一生可分成下列幾個階段，從原料開採--到產品製造--到分配行銷--到消費使用—到最後的廢棄處理，這些通通都稱為物質經濟。
Well, I looked into it a little bit more. In fact, I spent 10 years traveling the world tracking where our stuff comes from and where it goes.〔1〕 And you know what I found out? That is not the whole story. There's a lot missing from this explanation.
嗯，我曾經更深入地去探究這個系統。事實上，我花了十年的時間到世界各地旅遊，為的就是要追蹤東西的來源和去處。(1)你知道我發現了什麼？那就是圖片上顯示的並非所有的故事，其中還遺漏了很多真相。
For one thing, this system looks like it's fine. No problem. But the truth is it,s a system in crisis. And the reason it is in crisis is that it is a linear system and we live on a finite planet and you can not run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely.〔2〕
首先，這套系統看起來很不錯，沒有問題。事實上這套系統正處於危機之中，理由是這是個線性系統，而我們居住的地方是個有限的星球，你不能在有限的星球上無限期地運作線性的系統。(2)
Well, one of the most important things that is missing is people. Yes, people. People live and work all along this system. And some people in this system matter a little more than others; some have a little more say. Who are they?
好，這裡有一樣很重要的東西被遺漏了--人，是的，人。人的生活和工作與這套系統都有關係，可是在這系統裡的某些人，他們比一般人還要來得有影響力，講的話較有份量，他們是誰呢？
Well, let's start with the government. Now my friends〔3〕 tell me I should use a tank to symbolize the government and that's true in many countries and increasingly in our own, afterall more than 50% of our federal tax money is now going to the military〔4〕, but I'm using a person to symbolize the government because I hold true to the vision and values that governments should be of the people, by the people, for the people.
那麼，就先從政府說起。我的朋友(3)告訴我應該用坦克比喻成政府，對某些國家而言這是事實，對美國來說更是如此，畢竟，我們國家超過百分之五十的聯邦稅全用在軍事上。(4)這裡我用人來比喻政府，是因為我仍然確信政府存在的價值就是民有、民治和民享。
It's the government's job is to watch out for us, to take care of us. That's their job. 〔5〕
政府的工作就是照顧老百姓，關心老百姓，那是他們的職責。(5)
Then along came the corporation. Now, the reason the corporation looks bigger than the government is that the corporation is bigger than the government. Of the 100 largest economies on earth now, 51 are corporations.〔6〕As the corporations have grown in size and power, we’ve seen a little change in the government where they're a little more concerned in making sure everything is working out for those guys than for us.〔7〕
然而這套系統產生了財團，圖片中我把財團畫的比政府大，理由是財團勢力的確比政府大。目前地球上最大的一百個經濟體中，有五十一個是財團。(6)隨著財團的規模和勢力的成長，我們發現政府也有些改變，也就是說政府愈來愈在乎財團而不管老百姓的死活。(7)
OK, so let's see what else is missing from this picture.
好吧，讓我們再看看這張圖片還遺漏了什麼？

【原料開採】

We’ll start with extraction which is a fancy word for natural resource exploitation which is a fancy word for trashing the planet. What this looks like is we chop down trees, we blow up mountains to get the metals inside, we use up all the water and we wipe out the animals.
先從原料開採說起。所謂的原料開採，其實就是剝削自然資源、破壞地球生態。看看這裡，我們砍伐樹木、炸山挖礦、用光水源、和獵殺動物。
So here we are running up against our first limit. We’re running out of resources.〈8〉
在這裡我們正在快速消耗我們的第一個極限，也就是耗盡自然資源。(8)
We are using too much stuff. Now I know this can be hard to hear, but it’s the truth and we’ve gotta deal with it. In the past three decades alone, one-third of the planet’s natural resources base have been consumed.〈9〉 Gone.
我們消耗太多的東西，我知道這令人難以置信，但這是事實我們不得不面對它。在過去三十年來，我們就消耗了地球上三分之一的自然基本資源(9)──全用光了。
We are cutting and mining and hauling and trashing the place so fast that we’re undermining the planet’s very ability for people to live here.〈10〉
由於快速地濫砍、濫採、濫捕和濫丟的結果，我們已經危害了地球維持人類生存的能力。(10)
Where I live, in the United States, we have less than 4% of our original forests left.〈11〉 Forty percent of waterways have become undrinkable.〈12〉 And our problem is not just that we’re using too much stuff, but we’re using more than our share.
我所居住的美國，全國剩下不到百分之四的原始森林，(11)百分之四十的河川水道已變得不可飲用。(12)而且我們的問題不只是消耗太多的東西，還在於我們用的遠比我們應得的還要多。
We [The U.S.] has 5% of the world’s population but we’re consuming 30% of the world’s resources〈13〉 and creating 30% of the world’s waste.〈14〉
譬如美國占全世界人口的5％，卻消耗世界上30％的資源，(13)同時也製造了世界上30％的垃圾。(14)
If everybody consumed at U.S. rates, we would need 3 to 5 planets.〈15〉 And you know what? We’ve only got one.
假如每個人都按照美國人的消費速率，我們需要三到五個地球，(15)可是你知道嗎？我們只有一個地球。
So, my country’s response to this limitation is simply to go take someone else’s! This is the Third World, which—some would say—is another word for our stuff that somehow got on someone else’s land.〈16〉 So what does that look like?
然而我的國家對有限資源的回應是，只要到別的國家拿就有了。看這是第三世界，有些人會說它是我們東西的另一代名詞，言外之意就是要東西就想辦法到別的國家取回來，(16)那樣結局又如何？
The same thing: trashing the place.
同樣的戲碼不停地上演，就是：破壞土地。
75% of global fisheries now are fished at or beyond capacity.〈17〉
目前全球75％的漁場被過度捕撈。(17)
80% of the planet’s original forests are gone.〈18〉
全球80％的原始森林被砍伐殆盡。(18)
In the Amazon alone, we’re losing 2000 trees a minute. That is seven football fields a minute.〈19〉
光是在亞馬遜，我們每分鐘就失去兩千棵樹，也就是每分鐘失去七個足球場面積的森林。(19)
And what about the people who live here? Well. According to these guys, they don’t own these resources even if they’ve been living there for generations, they don’t own the means of production and they’re not buying a lot of stuff. And in this system, if you don’t own or buy a lot of stuff, you don’t have value.〈20〉
那麼當地居民又該怎麼辦？好的，根據這些胖子的看法，那些人並不擁有當地的資源，即使他們已住在那裡好幾代。他們沒有生產的能力，也沒有購買力，在這套系統裡，假如你沒有東西或買不起東西，你就是廢物一個。(20)

【生產製造】

So, next, the materials move to “production“ and what happens there is we use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.
那麼，下一步就是把原料移到「生產」，看看我們如何利用能源將化學毒物與自然資源混在一起，以製成有毒的污染產品。
There are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in commerce today.〈21〉 Only a handful of these have even been tested for human health impacts and NONE of them have been tested for synergistic health impacts, that means when they interact with all the other chemicals we’re exposed to every day.〈22〉
今日市面上有超過十萬種合成化學品，(21)其中只有少數的化學物質作過對人體健康影響的測試，然而沒有一個曾測試過與其他化學物質混合後的協同健康效應，也就是說，當這些物質與我們每天都在暴露的化學物質交互作用後，對我們健康的影響。(22)
So, we don’t know the full impact of these toxics on our health and environment of all these toxic chemicals. But we do know one thing: Toxics in, Toxics Out. As long as we keep putting toxics into our production system, we are going to keep getting toxics in the stuff that we bring into our homes, our workplaces, and schools. And, duh, our bodies.〈23〉
所以，我們不知道所有這些毒物對我們健康與環境的完整影響。但我們很肯定的是：毒物進，毒物出。只要我們持續把毒物放進我們的生產系統中，我們就會持續不斷地將有毒的東西帶回家裡、帶回工作場所裡和學校裡，更糟糕的是，帶進我們的身體裡。(23)
Like BFRs, brominated flame retardants. They are a chemical that make things more fireproof but they are super toxic.〈24〉 They’re a neurotoxin—that means toxic to the brain. What are we even doing using a chemical like this?
例如BFRs，溴化阻燃劑，就是用來讓東西更耐火燒的化學品，它們可是超級毒物。(24)它們是一種神經毒素──意思就是這種毒素會毒害人腦。我們為何還要使用這樣的化學物質呢？
Yet we put them in our computers, our appliances, couches, mattresses, even some pillows. In fact, we take our pillows, we douse them in a neurotoxin and then we bring them home and put our heads on them for 8 hours a night to sleep. Now, I don’t know, but it seems to me that in this country with so much potential, we could think of a better way to stop our heads from catching on fire at night.
然而，我們仍然把這些毒素放到我們的電腦裡、器材裡、座椅裡、床墊裡，甚至枕頭裡。事實上，我們買的枕頭，有些是浸泡到神經毒素裡，我們買回家，每天晚上把頭放在枕頭上睡上八小時；現在我還不知道會對人體怎麼樣，但對我來說，既然我們的國家這麼厲害，應該能夠想出更好的辦法來避免我們的腦袋瓜子晚上被火燒吧？
These toxics build up in the food chain and concentrate in our bodies.
這些毒素會累積到食物鏈裡，然後濃縮在我們的身體裡。
Do you know what is the food at the top of the food chain with the highest levels of many toxic contaminants? Human breast milk.〈25〉
你知道是什麼食物位於食物鏈的最頂層，而含有最高濃度的眾多毒性污染物？是人類的母奶。(25)
That means that we have reached a point where the smallest members of our societies—our babies—are getting their highest lifetime dose of toxic chemicals from breastfeeding from their mothers.〈26〉 Is that not an incredible violation? Breastfeeding must be the most fundamental human act of nurturing; it should be sacred and safe. Now breastfeeding is still best and mothers should definitely keep breast-feeding,〈27〉 but we should protect it. They [government] should protect it. I thought they were looking out for us.
那就是說人類社會中最小的成員也中獎了，我們的嬰兒在他們的黃金時期就已經從母乳中吸進了他一生中劑量最高的化學毒素，(26)這是多麼可怕的入侵啊！餵母乳是人類最基本的餵養行為，它必須神聖又安全的。餵母乳仍然是最好的，媽媽們當然應該持續地餵母乳，(27)不過我們應該保護它，政府更應該負起保護責任，我認為政府更要為我們把關。
And of course, the people who bear the biggest brunt of these toxic chemicals are the factory workers〈28〉, many of whom are women of reproductive age.〈29〉 They’re working with reproductive toxics, carcinogens and more. Now, I ask you, what kind of woman of reproductive age would work in a job exposed to reproductive toxics, except one who had no other option?
當然，首當其衝的就是面對這化學毒素的工人，(28)其中占大多數的就是生育期的婦女，(29)她們正值生育期就要與這些生殖毒素、致癌物質等共舞。現在我問你，什麼樣的生育期婦女會在充斥著生殖毒素的場所中工作？當然就是那些毫無選擇的婦女。
And that is one of the “beauties” of this system. The erosion of local environments and economies here ensures a constant supply of people with no other option. Globally 200,000 people a day are moving from environments that have sustained them for generations, into cities〈30〉 many to live in slums, looking for work, no matter how toxic that work may be.〈31〉,〈32〉 So, you see, it is not just resources that are wasted along this system, but people too. Whole communities get wasted. 〈33〉
這難道不是這套系統的一種「美麗陷井」？它讓當地的環境和經濟受到腐蝕，使得那兒的人們別無選擇，只好持續進入這系統為其服務。全球每天約有二十萬人離開了已生養他們好幾世代的故土，而遷移到城市裡，(30)很多人都住在貧民窟裡，找工作，也不管工作多麼毒。(31),(32)所以你看到了吧，按照這套系統運作，不只資源被浪費了，人也被毀了，整個社區都被毀了。(33)
Yup, toxics in, toxics out. A lot of the toxics leave the factory as products, but even more leave as by-products, or pollution. And it’s a lot of pollution.〈34〉 In the U.S., industry admits to releasing over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year〈35〉 and it’s probably way more since that is only what they admit.
是的，毒物進，毒物出。很多的毒素隨著產品離開工廠，但是還有更多的毒素以副產物或污染的型式離開工廠，而這裡也有很多的污染。(34)在美國，工業界承認每年排放的化學毒素超過40億磅，(35)事實上他們可能排放更多，因為這只是他們承認的排放量。
So that’s another limit, because, yuck, who wants to look at and smell 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year?
所以這又是另一種極限，因為，噁，誰要看到或聞到每年40億磅的化學毒素呢？
So, what do they do? Move the dirty factories overseas.〈36〉 Pollute someone else’s land!
因此，他們做了什麼呢？把這些工廠移到海外去，(36)去污染別人的土地吧！
But surprise, a lot of that air pollution is coming right back at us, carried by wind currents.〈37〉
然而更驚人的是，那些大量的空氣污染又隨著風向直撲回來。(37)

【分配行銷】

So, what happens after all these resources are turned into products? Well, it moves here, for distribution. Now distribution means “selling all this toxic contaminated junk as quickly as possible.” The goal here is to keep the prices down, keep the people buying and keep the inventory moving.
那麼，在這些資源變成商品後，又發生了什麼事呢？好的，箭頭移到這裡，那就是分配行銷。這裡所說的分配行銷，是指「儘快地把這些有毒污染垃圾全部賣光。」這裡的目標就是壓低產品的價格，持續人們的購買力和維持貨物的流通。
How do they keep the prices down? Well, they don’t pay the store workers very much〈38〉 and skimp on health insurance every time they can. It’s all about externalizing the costs.〈39〉 What that means is the real costs of making stuff aren’t captured in the price. In other words, we aren’t really paying for the stuff we buy.
他們如何壓低價格呢？嗯，他們付店員很低的薪資，(38)而且每次都儘可能縮減健保費，這些統稱為成本外部化，(39)意思就是製造產品的真正成本並沒有包括在價格裡。換句話說，我們並沒有付出真正的代價來買這些東西。
I was thinking about this the other day. I was walking to work and I wanted to listen to the news so I popped into this Radio Shack to buy a radio. I found this cute little green radio for 4 dollars and 99 cents. I was standing there in line to buy this radio and I wondering how $4.99 could possibly capture the costs of making this radio and getting it to my hands. The metal was probably mined in South Africa, the petroleum was probably drilled in Iraq, the plastics were probably produced in China, and maybe the whole thing was assembled by some 15 year old in a maquiladora〈40〉 in Mexico. $4.99 wouldn’t even pay the rent for the shelf space it occupied until I came along, let alone part of the staff guy’s salary that helped me pick it out, or the multiple ocean cruises and truck rides pieces of this radio went on. That’s how I realized, I didn’t pay for the radio.
最近我在思考這個問題。我走路去上班時，正好也想聽聽新聞，於是我就衝進一家叫做Radio Shack的電子連鎖店，想買一台收音機，我發現這台小巧又可愛的綠色收音機只要美金四塊九毛九。當我正要排隊付錢時，我在想四塊九毛九怎麼夠付這台收音機的製造成本和運輸費，然後再賣到我手上？金屬可能是在南非的礦山裡挖的，石油可能是在伊拉克的油田裡鑽的，塑膠可能是在中國製造的，而整台機組可能是墨西哥血汗工廠(40)裡的15歲童工組裝而成的。四塊九毛九甚至連付上架空間的租金也不夠，更別談支付幫我把這東西挑出來的店員薪水，或是跨過好幾個海洋的運費，還有卡車載運費。我終於明白，我並沒有付出真正的代價。
So, who did pay?
那麼，是誰付出了代價？
Well. these people paid with the loss of their natural resource base. These people paid with the loss of their clean air, with increasing asthma and cancer rates. Kids in the Congo paid with their future—30% of the kids in parts of the Congo now have had to drop out of school to mine coltan,〈41〉 a metal we need for our disposable electronics. These people even paid, by having to cover their own health insurance.〈42〉 All along this system, people pitched in so I could get this radio for $4.99. And none of these contributions are recorded in any accounts book. That is what I mean by the company owners externalize the true costs of production.
沒錯，就是這些失去自然資源基礎的人買單的，這些人失去了乾淨的空氣，氣喘和癌症的罹患率也因而大增。剛果的小孩付出他們的未來，剛果的某些地區有30％的小孩必須輟學去挖鈳鉭鐵礦，(41)這種金屬就是用來做廉價的可拋式電子產品。這些人付出的代價不只如此，他們還得給付自己的健保費。(42)按照這套系統一路下來，由於這些人的貢獻，我才能花四塊九毛九買到這台收音機。然而這些貢獻卻沒有算在這東西的帳簿裡，這就是我說的，公司老闆把產品的真實成本外部化了。

【消費使用】

And that brings us to the golden arrow of consumption.
接下來讓我們來看消費這個火車頭。
This is the heart of the system, the engine that drives it. It is so important [to propping up this whole flawed system] that protecting this arrow is a top priority for both these guys.
消費是這套系統的核心，是驅動的引擎。保護這個火車頭，對這些胖子而言，是首要之務，因為消費對維持這個爛系統來說，太重要了。
That is why, after 9/11, when our country was in shock, President Bush could have suggested any number of appropriate things: to grieve, to pray, to hope. NO. He said to shop.〈43〉 TO SHOP?!
這也就是為什麼，911之後，當美國受到震嚇時，布希總統原可建議很多適當的事情來安撫民心：像是表達哀慟、祈禱、與盼望，但這些他都沒說，他只告訴人們說「去買東西吧。」(43)買東西？！
We have become a nation of consumers. Our primary identity has become that of consumer, not mothers, teachers, farmers, but consumers. The primary way that our value is measured and demonstrated is by how much we contribute to this arrow, how much we consume. And do we!
我們已成為一個消費王國，現在消費者已成為我們最主要的身份，而非大家所熟悉的母親、老師或是農夫，而是消費者。現在，這個社會衡量我們有多少價值，證明我們有多少價值的主要方式，是看我們為這個火車頭帶來多少動力，看我們消費了多少；而我們自己竟然也是如此做。
We shop and shop and shop. Keep the materials flowing.
我們不停地買東西呀、買東西、買東西！只是為了維持貨物流通。
And flow they do!
而地球資源也確實不停地被消耗著。
Guess what percentage of total material flow through this system is still in product or use 6 months after their sale in North America. Fifty percent? Twenty? NO. One percent.〈44〉 One! In other words, 99 percent of the stuff we harvest, mine, process, transport—99 percent of the stuff we run through this system is trashed within 6 months. Now how can we run a planet with that rate of materials throughput?
猜猜看，在產品於北美洲售出半年後，為了讓我們擁有這些產品而透過這系統投入的物質總量，還有多少比例留在產品中或在使用中？百分之五十？二十？都不是，只剩百分之一而已，百分之一！(44)換句話說，我們所開採、加工處理、和運輸的物質，我們用來運作這套系統的東西，有百分之九十九在產品售出後6個月時，早已成為垃圾。我們怎麼可能用這種物質產出率來經營地球呢？
It wasn’t always like this. The average U.S. person now consumes twice as much as they did 50 years ago.〈45〉 Ask your grandma. In her day, stewardship and resourcefulness and thrift were valued. So, how did this happen?
我們並不是一直都這樣的。目前美國人的平均消費是五十年前的兩倍。(45)問問你的老祖母，在她的年代裡，愛物惜物和節約簡樸都是被珍惜的價值。那麼，這到底是如何發生的呢？
Well, it didn’t just happen. It was designed.
這不是就這麼發生的，而是被設計過。
Shortly after the World War 2, these guys were figuring out how to ramp up the [U.S.] economy. Retailing analyst Victor Lebow articulated the solution that has become the norm for the whole system. He said: “Our enormously productive economy...demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption...we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.”〈46〉
二次世界大戰之後不久，這些胖子就在算計如何榨取美國的經濟。零售商分析專家維克多‧李博提出了明確的解決之道，他的辦法後來也成為這套系統的基準。他說：「我們龐大的生產經濟體…..需要讓消費成為我們的生活模式，也就是把購買和使用物品轉換成一種習慣，在消費中達到精神滿足和自我滿足… 我們需要以一直在加快的速率，消費、燃燒、更換和拋棄東西。」(46)
And President Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisors Chairman said that “The American economy’s ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods.”
美國總統艾森豪的經濟顧問委員會主席曾說過：「美國經濟的最終目的是製造更多的消費產品。」
MORE CONSUMER GOODS??? Our [economy’s] ultimate purpose?
更多的消費產品？？？
Not provide health care, or education, or safe transportation, or sustainability or justice? Consumer goods?〈47〉
我們「經濟」的最終目的？不是提供健康照護、教育、或是安全的交通運輸、或是永續、或正義？而是提供消費產品？(47)
How did they get us to jump on board this program so enthusiastically?
他們如何讓我們這麼熱切地搭上這班消費列車呢？
Well, two of their most effective strategies are planned obsolescence〈48〉 and perceived obsolescence.〈49〉
嗯，他們最有效的兩項策略是計劃過時(48)和認知過時(49)。
Planned obsolescence is another word for “designed for the dump.”〈50〉 It means they actually make stuff that is designed to be useless as quickly as possible so we will chuck it and go buy a new one. It’s obvious with stuff like plastic bags and coffee cups, but now it’s even big stuff: mops, DVDs, cameras, barbeques even〈51〉, everything!
計劃過時另一種說法就是「為丟棄而設計」(50)；也就是讓東西儘快變成沒有用的廢物，所以我們會把它丟棄，然後再買另一個新的廢物。很明顯的東西像是塑膠袋和咖啡杯，現在連更重要的東西也如此：如拖把啊、DVD、照相機、甚至是烤肉架(51)，每樣東西都這樣。
Even computers. Have you noticed that when you buy a computer now, the technology is changing so fast that within a couple years, it’s [your new computer] actually an impediment to communication. I was curious about this so I opened up a big desk top computer to see what was inside.〈52〉 And I found out that the piece that changes each year is just a tiny little piece in the corner. But you can’t just change that one piece, because each new version is a different shape, so you gotta chuck the whole thing and buy a new one.
連電腦也是。你有沒有注意到現在當你買一台新電腦時，由於科技日新月異，只要一兩年的時間，你的新電腦馬上就礙手礙腳了。我對此很好奇，所以我把電腦蓋打開看看裡面到底是什麼？(52)我發現每年改變的東西是藏在角落裡的一小塊東西。但是你不能單單換那塊東西，因為每種新版本都有不同的形狀，你必須把整台電腦丟棄，然後再買一台新的。
So, I was reading quotes from industrial design journals from the 1950s when planned obsolescence was really catching on. These designers are so open about it. They actually discuss how fast they can make stuff break and still leaves the consumer with enough faith in the product to go buy anther one.〈53〉 It was so intentional.
的確，我曾讀過一篇文章，引用了1950年代計劃過時流行時的工業設計期刊。這些設計師是如此地公開露骨，他們真的在討論如何讓東西快速地壞掉，並且讓消費者仍然對產品有信心，然後再去買另一種東西，(53)這樣的意圖再明顯不過了。
But stuff can not break fast enough to keep this arrow afloat, so there’s also “perceived obsolescence.” Now perceived obsolescence convinces us to throw away stuff that is still perfectly useful.
然而東西損毀的速度仍不足以讓這消費火車頭飛奔，所以還要搭配「認知過時」。所謂「認知過時」，是要說服我們把完好無缺仍可使用的東西丟棄不用。
How do they do that? Well, they change the way the stuff looks〈54〉 so if you bought your stuff a couple years ago, everyone can tell that you haven’t contributed to this arrow recently and since the way we demonstrate our value is by contributing to this arrow, it can be embarrassing.
他們是怎麼辦到的呢？好的，他們先改變東西的外觀，(54)假如你一兩年前買的東西到現在還在使用的話，每個人都可分辨出你最近還沒去買新的，而由於我們證明自己價值的方式就是靠消費，因此如果沒有去買新的跟上流行，會是很丟臉的事。
[I know.] I’ve have had the same fat white computer monitor on my desk for 5 years. My co-worker just got a new computer. She has a flat shiny sleek flat screen monitor. It matches her computer, it matches her phone, even her pen stand. [It looks cool.] She looks like she is driving in space ship central and I, I look like I have a washing machine on my desk.
【我知道。】比如我的桌上還擺著一台用了五年白色胖嘟嘟的電腦螢幕，而我的同事剛買了一台新電腦，她的螢幕就是那種扁平閃閃發亮的型式，和她的電腦主機、電話，甚至連筆筒也很速配。【看起來簡直是酷斃了！】她看起來就像在航太中心駕駛太空船一樣，而我的看起來就像桌上擺了一台洗衣機。
Fashion is another prime example of this. Have you ever wondered why women’s shoe heels go from fat one year to skinny the next to fat to skinny? It is not because there is some debate about which heel structure is the most healthy for women’s feet. It’s because wearing fat heels in a skinny heel year shows everyone that you haven’t contributed to that arrow recently so you’re not as valuable as that skinny heeled person next to you or, more likely, in some ad. It’s to keep buying new shoes.
流行又是另一個活生生的例子。你有沒有想過女人的鞋跟為何一年流行矮跟另一年又流行高跟？這不是因為有人在爭論那一種鞋跟構造對女人的腳部最健康，而是因為在高跟鞋流行年代穿矮跟的話，會顯得你很跟不上時代，對消費這火車頭還沒有貢獻。因此，你站在穿高跟鞋人的旁邊，或與廣告中的亮麗女主角相比，就會變得老土；這都是為了讓人們持續不斷地去買新鞋子。
Advertisements, and media in general, plays a big role in this.
一般而言，廣告和媒體，在這裡扮演很重要的角色。
Each of us in the U.S. is targeted with more than 3,000 advertisements a day.〈55〉
居住在美國的人，每天會被超過三千個廣告轟炸。(55)
We each see more advertisements in one year than a people 50 years ago saw in a lifetime.〈56〉 And if you think about it, what is the point of an ad except to make us unhappy with what we have. So, 3,000 times a day, we’re told that our hair is wrong, our skin is wrong, clothes are wrong, our furniture is wrong, our cars are wrong, we are wrong but that it can all be made right if we just go shopping.〈57〉
我們一年所看的廣告比五十年前的美國人一輩子所看的廣告還要多。(56)假如你仔細的想想，廣告的用意就是讓我們覺得對目前所擁有的很不滿意。因此，一天三千次的轟炸，一下子髮型不對勁，一下子皮膚不夠光滑，一下子服裝不夠時髦，一下子家俱不夠氣派，連車子也越看越不順眼。渾身上下全不對勁，唯一對勁的就是去買東西。(57)
Media also helps by hiding all of this and all of this, so the only part of the materials economy we see is the shopping. The extraction, production and disposal all happens outside our field of vision.
媒體也協助隱瞞這些真相，所以我們只看見一小部分的物質經濟，那就是買東西；至於原料開採、產品製造和廢棄處理等所有的過程，我們全都看不到。
So, in the U.S. we have more stuff than ever before, but polls show that our national happiness is actually declining. Our national happiness peaked sometime in the 1950s,〈58〉 the same time as this consumption mania exploded. Hmmm. Interesting coincidence.
所以，在美國，我們所擁有的東西之多，是前所未見；但是民調顯示人民快樂的程度卻一直下滑。我們人民最快樂的時刻是在1950年代的某個時期，(58)同時也是消費狂熱爆發的時刻。嗯，這真是蠻有趣的巧合啊！
I think I know why. We have more stuff but we have less time for the things that really make us happy:family, friends, leisure time.〈59〉 We’re working harder than ever.〈60〉 Some analysts say that we have less leisure time now than in Feudal Society.〈61〉
我想我知道為什麼。雖然我們擁有了更多東西，但是我們享受快樂的時間卻減少了：像是與家人、朋友在一起的時間，以及休閒的時間。(59)我們比以前更加賣力工作，(60)有分析家表示，我們目前所擁有的休閒時間，比封建時期的還要少。(61)
And do you know what the two main activities are that we do with the scant leisure time we have? Watch TV〈62〉 and shop.〈63〉 In the U.S., we spend 3—4 times as many hours shopping as our counterparts in Europe do.〈64〉
你知道我們最主要的兩項休閒活動是什麼呢？我們把所剩無幾的休閒時間拿來做什麼？那就是看電視(62)和買東西(63)。美國人花在買東西的時間，是歐洲人的三到四倍。(64)
So we are in this ridiculous situation where we go to work, maybe two jobs even, and we come home and we’re exhausted so we plop down on our new couch and watch TV and the commercials tell us “YOU SUCK” so gotta go to the mall to buy something to feel better, then we gotta go to work more to pay for the stuff we just bought so we come home and we’re more tired so you sit down and watch more T.V. and it tells you to go to the mall again and we’re on this crazy work-watch-spend treadmill and we could just stop.〈65〉
因此我們就在這種荒謬的情況下工作賺錢，有時還得兼兩份工作才行，我們回到家之後已經累到半死，撲通一聲就躺在沙發上看電視，廣告告訴我們「你爛死了」，所以快去商場裡買東西讓自己快活些吧！所以呀，我們又得拼命賺錢買東西。當我們回到家時又累得半死，一坐下來看更多的電視，然後廣告又告訴你再到商場花錢買東西吧！因此，我們就陷入這種瘋狂單調的循環裡：工作賺錢--看電視--花錢買東西，真是夠了！(65)

【廢棄處理】

So in the end, what happens to all the stuff we buy anyway? At this rate of consumption, it can’t fit into our houses even though the average U.S. house size has doubled in this country since the 1970s.〈66〉
最後，我們也想知道所買的東西到底到那裡去了？按照這種消費的速率，即使自1970年代迄今，美國人的房子大小已增為兩倍，但一般美國的房子還是容納不下這麼多的東西。(66)
It all goes out in the garbage. And that brings us to disposal. This is the part of the materials economy we all know the most because we have to haul the junk out to the curb ourselves. Each of us in the United States makes 4 1/2 pounds of garbage a day.〈67〉 That is twice what we each made thirty years ago.〈68〉
這些東西全丟到垃圾堆裡去了。現在言歸正傳來談談廢棄處理，這也是物質經濟裡最被人熟知的一部份，因為所有的人都必須自己丟垃圾。美國人每天製造了4.5磅的垃圾，(67)這是三十年前的兩倍。(68)
All of this garbage [stuff we bought] either gets dumped in a landfill, which is just a big hole in the ground, or if you’re really unlucky, first it’s burned in an incinerator and then dumped in a landfill. Either way, both pollute the air, land, water and, don’t forget, change the climate.〈69〉
所有的垃圾【也就是我們所買的東西】，不是挖個大洞倒進掩埋場裡，就是假如你很倒楣的話，首先會把垃圾放進焚化爐裡燒，然後再倒入掩埋場裡。不管那一種方式都會污染空氣、土壤和水源，不要忘了，還會改變氣候。(69)
Incineration is really bad.〈70〉 Remember those toxics back in the production stage? Burning the garbage releases the toxics up into the air. Even worse, it actually makes new super toxics.〈71〉 Like dioxin.〈72〉
焚化爐真的很爛。(70)不要忘了那些毒物又會回到生產的階段！焚燒垃圾會釋放毒物到空氣中，更糟糕的是，它會產生超級毒物，(71)像是戴奧辛。(72)
Dioxin is the most toxic man made substance known to science.〈73〉 And incinerators are the number one source of dioxin.〈74〉 That means that we could stop the number one source of the most toxic man-made substance known just by stopping burning the trash. We could stop it today.
戴奧辛是目前科學上已知的最毒的人造物質，(73)而焚化爐又是製造戴奧辛的罪魁禍首。(74)那就是說只要我們能停止焚燒垃圾，就可以阻止這個世紀之毒的最大來源，我們今天就能停止不再製造這世紀之毒。
Now some companies don’t want to deal with building landfills and incinerators here, so they just export the disposal too.〈75〉
目前有些公司不想在當地建立掩埋場和焚化爐，因此他們就只好把廢棄物往國外送。(75)
What about recycling? Does recycling help? Yes, recycling helps. Recycling reduces the garbage at this end and it reduces the pressure to mine and harvest new stuff at this end.76 Yes, Yes, Yes, we should all recycle.〈77〉 But recycling is not enough. Recycling will never be enough. For a couple reasons.
那回收呢？回收真的有效嗎？廢話，當然有效。回收能降低垃圾量以及緩和開礦與製造新產品的壓力。(76)是的，是的，是的，我們全都要回收，(77)可惜光靠回收還不夠。回收永遠嫌不夠，理由有兩種：
First, the waste coming out of our houses is just the tip of the iceberg. For every one garbage can of waste you put out on the curb, 70 garbage cans of waste were made upstream just to make the junk in that one garbage can you put out on the curb.〈78〉 So even if we could recycle 100 percent of the waste coming out of our households, it doesn’t get to the core of the problem.
首先，來自家庭的廢棄物只是冰山一角。因為你每製造一桶垃圾，就表示有70桶垃圾早已在上游製造階段產生，在製造被你丟到垃圾桶中的產品時產生。(78)所以說即使我們可以百分之百將家庭垃圾回收，也不能深入問題的核心。
Also much of the garbage can’t be recycled, either because it contains too many toxics or it is actually designed NOT to be recyclable in the first place. Like those juice packs with layers of metal and paper and plastic all smooshed together. You can never separate those for true recycling.〈79〉
其次，有很多的垃圾根本不能回收，不是含有太多的有毒物質，就是有些產品在一開始時就被設計成不可回收。例如果汁盒包裝就是將金屬、紙張和塑膠層層黏在一塊，你根本不能將它們分開而做到真正的回收。(79)
So you see, it is a system in crisis. All along the way, we are bumping up against a lot of limits. From changing climate to declining happiness, it’s just not working.
所以你看，這系統正處於危機之中。從頭到尾我們都與很多的極限互相砥觸，從氣候的變遷到失去快樂，這是死路一條行不通的。
But the good thing about such an all pervasive problem is that there are so many points of intervention. There are people working here on saving forests and here on clean production.〈80〉 People working on labor rights and fair trade and conscious consuming and blocking landfills and incinerators and, very importantly, on taking back our government so it is really is by the people for the people.
雖然這系統所帶來的問題是如此的龐大而無孔不入，但也有很多切入點讓我們來投入：已經有人為保護森林來奮鬥，有人為清潔生產而努力(80)；還有些人投入勞工權力、公平貿易、消費意識和阻擋掩埋場和焚化爐興建的行列；尤其重要的是，把我們的政府找回來，讓政府真正的回歸於為民所治和為民所享的境界。
All this work is critically important but things are really gonna start moving when we see the connections, when we see the big picture. When people along this system get united, we can reclaim and transform this linear system into something new, a system that doesn’t waste resources or people.
這些工作都很重要，但只有當我們看到問題的關聯，看到問題的全貌，才能真正開始解決問題。當這系統各個岡位上的人團結起來，我們就能降服這系統，把這個線性系統，改造成一個不會浪費資源和人力的新系統。

【故事緣起】

【原料開採】

【生產製造】

【分配行銷】

【消費使用】

【廢棄處理】

【另一條路】