文章 Articles

想人之所不能想

现代环境保护运动的先驱者之一,斯图尔特•布兰德在其新书中对当前正统的环保理论提出了异议,并同时提出了一些令人乍舌的观点。约翰•艾尔金顿撰文报道。

Article image

想象一下,你会相信卡尔·马克思倡导资本主义,甘地主张战争,罗马教皇成了无神论者等情况的发生吗?这就是我最喜爱的作家之一斯图尔特·布兰德的新作面世后可能遭遇的质疑。斯图尔特·布兰德的成名或许得益于他创办的《地球概览》系列杂志。该系列刊物是六十年代反主流文化的强有力的印记。最近,苹果电脑公司创始人之一的斯蒂芬·乔布斯将《地球概览》称为互联网的先驱。从1968年起,像我这样的人就将《地球概览》作为基本参考资料。这套刊物着重关注返土归田的先驱者、适用技术、可再生能源、自给自足、以及可持续发展等方面的问题,尽管在那个年代我们还没开始使用这些词汇。

因此,当人们发现布兰德竟然强烈支持在大多数环保主义者看来几乎是邪恶力量的加速城市化进程、紧急推广基因工程的应用、广泛使用核能技术、开发新型地质工程等项目时,他们所受到的巨大冲击是显而易见的。

但是,请千万不要曲解我的意思。我喜欢并尊重大多数环保主义者。事实上,50多年前,也就是1961年,我就已经是一名环保主义者了,并且为当时刚刚创建的世界自然基金会募集资金。那时,在许多人眼中,环保主义者是很另类的一个群体。而如今,我们面临着气候变化的挑战,如果你不是个环保人士,你就有被当做异类的风险。但是,正如斯图尔特·布兰德在他的新书《全球纪律》中所阐述的那样:要想达到那个全民皆为环保人士的程度“不仅仅对那些一直以来乐于把自己当做反环保主义者的人们来说是困难的;对于那些长期以来一直支持环保的人来说是更加艰难的。”

在大部分环保行动已经逐渐演变成为应对气候变化运动的今天,布兰德认为环保主义者“不再局限于保卫自然体系不受文明进程的侵袭;他们现在也是文明的守卫者。”气候变化给文明进程带来的挑战将迫使我们对目前还想象不到的情况进行思考并采取行动。

问题的关键是环境保护论从根本上说是一种意识形态,“而意识形态很难转变。”更有甚者,我们不是在简单地谈论一种意识形态的转变,而是一种结构上的转变,而这种转变非常罕见。其规模将波及全球,要经过几个世纪才能对其影响加以衡量,然而,它却关乎我们的现世文明。

布兰德认为,在联合国哥本哈根气候变化框架公约第15次缔约方会议上参与讨论制订全球策略的很多人都忽略了气候变化的关键特征。气候变化并不是沿着一条笔直的轨迹不间断地发展下去的。它的发展历程具有间断性的特点。比如,早些年,同样是布兰德创建的全球商务网(GBN)曾经就做出预测,北极冰层的融化将导致大量的淡水流入大西洋,并引发气候骤变。其结果就是,到2020年,欧洲很多地区的气候将变得如西伯利亚一样寒冷。

与其说我们面对的是一条条可以预知的气候变化轨迹,不如说我们所面临的是一个自身具有不稳定性的体系。这一体系的特征就是科学家们所谓的“正向反馈”。因此,比如说,随着具有高度反射功能的北极冰层的融化,取而代之的是幽蓝的海水。由于海水具有能量吸收的功能,因此导致地球暖化与冻土带释放甲烷等温室气体之间恶性循环速度的加快。随着气候变化进程的加速,布兰德认为,21世纪,人类将面临着越来越高的风险,死亡人数将高达数十亿,人类历史上将首次出现人口数量“因死亡而减少”的现象。

鉴于目前及未来可能的人口数量,如果气候开始失控的话,返土归田政策及可再生能源之类的技术将无法挽救人类。相反,布兰德坚持认为,我们必须摒弃一些旧的思维方式,真诚地采纳 一些具有变革性的解决方案。其中,他认为最重要的就是在世界范围内快速推进城市化进程。这一策略下,首当其冲的就是贫民区的居民。鉴于目前世界人口的一半居住在城市,因此,我们的目标应该是到本世纪中叶80%的人口居于城市。这么做的原因何在?那么,让我来解释一下。较之地广人稀的乡村居住模式,城市人口越集中,城市本身的资源效率也就越高。并且,随着农村地区居住人口的逐步减少,大自然重新收复失地,从而降低了温室气体排放。

然而, 更具争议的是布兰德关于基因工程(据他认为,基因工程能够创造出占地更少,所需杀虫剂更少,用水量更少的农作物),核能(其碳足迹要大大低于化石燃料发 电),以及地球工程(从能够在海洋上方制造人造云的造云船到巨大的太空镜,他们都能够将太阳辐射反射回太空)等问题所做出的结论。

布兰德对未来的构想中最为引人注目并不是提出的解决方案的性质,而是在他看来,政府、商界、金融市场、以及社会不得不接受的长期的时间跨度。“我们所面临的问题和解决方案具有长期性和多代性的特点,”他总结说,“想要完成我们必须完成的目标就需要勤奋和耐心并存。人类世世代代都将不断付出努力,缩小在气候动力学、生物动力学、以及社会动力学等方面存在的滞后性与预见性之间的巨大差距;以及与此同时,对于任何显而易见的解决方案,在将其转化为实际应用时,所必须经历的一系列长期反复地论证过程。”

令布兰德感到担忧的是,想要让环保主义者们发生改变并不是一蹴而就的事。因此,我们看到出现了一批他称之为“后-环保主义人士,环保附加人士,环保2.0,及非环保人士——谁知道呢?”最后不论哪一派人士在尽力完成我们所必须做的工作,他们都需要遵循下面的游戏规则:“针对那些确实需要解决的,然而却被忽视的问题找到简单地解决方案,再将这些解决方案以尽可能非正式的方式进行推广。从最初并不成熟的1.0版本开始,然后再快速地重复这一过程。”

随着环保运动的开始,情况确实如此。中国计划在未来的十年里修建的核反应堆的数量是世界其他地方的三倍多。这也许会唤起某些人对某个大国曾一度高速发展核产业的记忆。有关迪亚布洛峡谷核电站以及三哩岛核电站的争论曾经让美国左右为难,并由此产生了现代环境保护论。 历史还会再一次重演吗?


约翰·艾尔金顿SustainAbility飞鱼星组织联合创立者。

首页图片截取自斯图尔特·布兰德的《地球概览》(1969年秋季版)一书封面

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

需要重新考虑“佛教的经济学”

37年前英国的舒马赫提出了“佛教的经济学”,认为解决资源问题的唯一出路在于“欲望的降低”,看来,这个想法对现在还是有用的。奇怪的事情是,虽然大家都基本认同,可是佛教的经济学从来就没有在世界上风光过,相反,大家还在不断的摒弃佛教的经济学,大步向“掠夺经济学”迈进。工业革命以来的思路就是,通过技术进步来发掘人类的欲望的极限,通过制造一个或者两个甚至多个新问题来解决一个老问题。杜邦就是这样的例子,发明了氟利昂制冷剂,人们可以更舒服的生活;等到发现氟利昂破坏臭氧,OK,杜邦又发明另外一种制冷剂,虽然对臭氧层没破坏性,但是谁知道会不会有其它什么更厉害的副作用呢?反而,杜邦还被宣传为一个伟大的技术和创新公司,真是讽刺啊。这个意思就是说,我们确实需要一种新思路,但是布兰德的说法,特别是对城市化的推崇,我们不能盲从。年轻的韩寒都说了,“城市,让生活更糟糕”,我们怎么还能盼望什么城市化呢?最近还有人提出来,你看今年冬天这么冷,好多地方都是几十年未遇的严寒,怎么可能是全球变暖呢,明明是全球变冷嘛!反正,不管谁对谁错,到死也许我们都搞不清楚是冷还是热。可是这个说明什么呢?说明没有变化?总之,环境在变,可是人没有变:还是那么贪婪。

We need to re-think 'Buddhist economics'

37 years ago the Englishman Schumacher proposed 'Buddhist economics', believing that the only way of solving our natural resource problem was the 'lessening of desire', and it seems that this way of thinking is still of use today. The strange thing is that although everyone basically identifies with this, Buddhist economics has not yet made it to the world stage, on the contrary, not only has everyone continuously rejected Buddhist economics, they have taken steps toward 'Loot economics'. Our thinking has been this way since the industrial revolution, and technological advances have unearthed the limits of humanities desires, so we have created one or two, even numerous new problems in the effort of solving an old one. DuPont is such an example, they invented freon refrigeration, making people's lives more comfortable; when they discovered that freon destroys the ozone layer, DuPont invented another method of refrigeration, which didn't have a devastating effect on the ozone layer, but who knows what other harmful side effects it may have? Despite this, DuPont is proclaimed as a great technological and innovative company, which really is ironic. What this means is that we actually need a new way of thinking, as Brand says, especially in relation to the high praise of urbanisation, we should not follow blindly. The young Hanhan all say 'cities make life terrible', so how can we still yearn for urbanisation? Recently there have still been people proposing it, now if you look at this years winter being so cold, many places had not seen such extreme cold in several decades, how likely is global warming if clearly the world it turning colder! One way or another, no matter who is right or wrong, perhaps we are all confused whether it's hot or cold. But what does this tell us? Does it tell us that there is no change going on? In any case, our environment is changing, but people are not changing: they are still greedy.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

非常时刻,非常办法

这个冬天很冷,可明白人都知道,气候变暖已经到了非常时刻。人类好像坐在泰坦尼克号上,高速撞向冰山,尽管都看到了冰山,谁也不愿让自己的发动机减速,所以COP15闹剧收场。
与其就这么撞上冰山,非常时刻,自然让人想到了非常办法,如急转弯。布兰德的非常手段在这时是值得推敲。只是这些非常手段可能带来非常风险,太急的转弯也免不了船翻人亡。
现在核电依赖的廉价铀矿也是有限资源;基因工程造成粮食作物的单一性,垄断性,对化肥和杀虫剂的依赖性,而引起的粮食安全问题;几种地球工程方案暂时看起来像饮鸩止渴。
感到欣慰的是布兰德显然意识到这些方案可能只是不成熟的版本1.0。让我们共同努力让版本2.0尽快到来。当然,最好的愿望是各国共同强减排,在撞上冰山前,减速,换航道。

Extremely timely, extremely useful

This winter has been very cold, people who are aware of this can understand, that global warming has already arrived and is imminent. It seems as if humanity is sitting on the Titanic, and is heading for a full speed collision with an iceberg, even though we can all see the iceberg, nobody is willing to slow down their engine, and this is why COP15 ended up as a farce.
They would rather hit an iceberg, which is imminent, and naturally people believe that there will be a solution, such as a radical change. Brand's extreme measures are worth considering at such a time. It is only that these extreme measures may bring with them extreme risks, yet even the sharpest turn will not be able to avoid the boat overturning and the loss of human life.
Currently nuclear power relies on the low price of uranium which is also a finite resource; genetically modified food is singular and monopolizing in nature, and reliance on chemical fertilizer and pesticides and attracts the issue of food security; several types of geo-engineering programs are only short-term solutions and do not consider consequences.
What is gratifying about this is that Brand shows that he has realised that these programs will only be initial incomplete versions. And will make us come together in an effort to bring about a second version as quickly as possible. Of course, our greatest hope is that each country will work together to strongly reduce emissions, and that before we collide with the iceberg, that we slow down and change the course of the boat.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

给予妇女权利和降低消耗如何?

更简单、廉价、有效以及降低风险的方法将是:
(1) 改变消费模式——这个文章选择忽略的选项(不可持续的消费模式造成了现有的问题);
(2) 促进计划生育(对世界银行和大部分双边捐助者说是一个禁忌)和对妇女的教育(但会引起男人的恐慌)。

What about empowering women and reducing consumption

But even more simple, cheap, effective and less risky would be to:
(1) change consumption patterns - an option which the article chooses to ignore (it is unsustainable forms of consumption which are causing the problem); and
(2) promote family planning (a taboo in the World Bank and most bilateral donors) and the education of women (but this is feared by men).

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

人类值得做的事仅三四件

斯图尔特.布兰德先生的新书<全球纪律>看来确实是实用主义者的宣言.人类值得做的事仅三四件而已.减人,栽树,东西方文明清理(尤其是颠覆西方文明)以及人类伦理道德的重建.
                 王健

The things that humanity does are only worth three or four cows

Stewart Brand's new book 'Whole Earth Discipline' is a true manifesto of pragmatism. The things that humanity does are only worth three or four cows. Less people, planting trees, cleaning up Eastern and Western civilization (especially the subversion of Western civilization) and the reconstruction of human ethics and morals.
Wang Jian

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

够激进的

这么多人站在地球上,人类恐怕永远也回不去不加改造的自然了。只有头也不回的扎进技术革命里去,才能供养这么多饥饿的同胞吧?

Radical enough

There are so many people on this earth, that we will not be able to return to a state of unspoiled nature. Only if we completely devote ourselves to technological revolution can we feed our many starving compatriots.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

要进步不要革命

我们要的是进步,不是革命。世界上发生革命最多的国家在哪儿?那些记忆够惨痛的了。
我们忘记了一件事情,那就是,我们想当然的认为随着时间的流逝,我们在不断“进步”。我们认为今天的人有了空调,肯定比秦始皇舒服;我们认为有了互联网,肯定比韩信厉害。事实是,恰恰相反。

We want progress but not revolution

What we want is progress, not revolution. In which country have the most revolutions taken place? Those memories are bitter enough.
We forget one important thing, which is that our held beliefs follow the passage of time, we are unceasingly 'progressing'. We believe that because people nowadays have air-conditioning, that are lives are certainly more comfortable than that of the first emperor; we believe that since we have the internet, that our lives are better than during the time of Han Xin. The truth is, that it is actually the other way around.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

佛教是人类精神的最高境界

如果大家都不杀生,哪还有战争?
如果大家都不淫欲,哪还需要计生?
如果大家都不偷盗,哪还会有贪腐?
如果大家都不妄语,哪还敢假大空?
如果大家都不饮酒,还有多少公款吃喝?

Buddhism is the highest ideal of human spirit

How could the war happen if no people kill lives?
Why need the oligogenics if no people indulge lust?
How could the corruptions exist if no people steal?
How dare the windy speeches ever stand if no people talk nonsense?
How could the banquet at public expenses be popular if no people drink?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

假如布兰登是中国的专家

布兰登是谁,我不知道,大多数国人也不知道。假设他是中国人,供职于某个大学或者研究所,想必这番言论必定会发给他带来全国性名声,在已有的“专家”后边,可以再套上“权威”或者“开拓者”之类的名头。换句话说,咱们中国现在还没有这样的人呢。如果他是中国专家,那么想必我们都说不过他,或者你连说的机会都没有。

Amory lovins(他的中文名叫做卢安武)是我的偶像,我很崇拜他。他批评布兰登的文章我也看过,我同意他的批评的绝大部分( 一部分原因是我还不很理解这个复杂的核电问题),但是我始终有个问题想不通。卢安武,以及麻省理工学院的研究,都表明,核能的一个大问题就是成本,另外一个可能不是“问题”的“问题”可能是核废料的处理。前一个问题在美国确实是这样,在法国阿海法公司建设的芬兰的最新的反应堆的延期以及远超预算,也是事实。但是在中国,印度,韩国等等正在“复兴”核电的国家,特别是在中国,大家都知道成本不是个问题,卢安武也很清楚,还对我们国家秦山核电的建设进行了研究。因为我们恰好是属于由中央政府投资核电的性质,不是依靠资本市场。估计,私人资本想进来,国家还不一定让你进来呢,正好和美国以及其它西方国家的情况相反。你想你想看,中国未来的核电建设目标是达到装机容量大约1亿千瓦,需要1百个百万级的反应堆是个什么概念,更何况看来现在是没办法阻止核电在中国的复兴和大发展了。如果对占据了世界这么大的新市场的中国无能为力,否认核能好像没有什么特别的意义。但是,我要申明,我不赞成核能的立场还是一贯的。
另外一个问题是,虽然核废料的处理是个问题,这个确实是对人类“持续发展”的绝大的讽刺,但是,当我想到世界上还有这么多在役的核弹头,核武器,我还是觉得很泄气,我们那这些杀人武器怎么办?现在不杀人,将来也要杀人,让我们绝子绝孙只是时间的问题。从这个角度来看,布兰登赞同核电就赞同吧,这个问题确实超出了我们的讨论的范围,至少在中国是个死胡同。

If Brand is a China expert...

Who is Brand, I don't know him, most Chinese people also don't know him. If he was a Chinese person, if he served at a university or research institute, the issuing of these remarks certainly would have brought him national fame, following the 'experts' we already have, he may be placed among the likes of 'authority' or 'pioneer'. In other words, we currently do not have such a person in China. If he is a China expert, then we certainly have not spoken of him, or you have not had the opporunity of even speaking of him.

Amory Lovins (his Chinese name is 卢安武) is my idol, I worship him a lot. I have read his criticism of Brand's article and I largely agree with his criticism (part of the reason is that I do not yet completely understand the complicated issue of nuclear energy), yet I am still left with a question which I cannot fully understand. Lovins and the research of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology both state that a large problem with nuclear power is the cost, and another problem, which may not actually be termed a 'problem', is the management of nuclear waste. In the United States this has certainly been an issue. The extended and overstretched budget of the most recent reactor built in Finland by French company Areva is also fact. But in China, India, Korea etc. - countries that are currently undergoing a nuclear energy 'revival' - especially in China, we all know that cost is not an issue. Lovins is also really clear on this, and is doing research into the building of our countries' Qinshan nuclear power station. Fortunately the nature of our nuclear power is dependent on investment from central government, and not dependent on capitalist markets. It is estimated that even if a private investor would like to come in on the arrangement, the state may not necessarily allow this, this is in contrast to the situation in the United States and other Western countries. If you think about it, the target of China's future nuclear construction is to reach an installed capacity of ca. 100 million kilowatts, this would require one hundred million nuclear reactors - what a concept - and at present it seems that there is no way of halting the revival and large-scale development of nucelar power in China. If China has no way of making an impression on such a large international market, then does this not negate the special meaning of nuclear power?! However, I would like to declare that I do not approve the stance of nuclear power is consistent.
Another problem is that while the management of nuclear waste is an issue, it really is ironic in the face of humanity's 'sustainable development'. However, when I think of how many nuclear war heads and nuclear weapons there are in the world, this makes me very angry, what should we do with these weapons that kill people? Currently they do not kill people, in the future they could kill people, it is only a matter of time until our children and grandchildren disappear. From this point of view, Brand's approval of nucelar power is still approval, but this issue really oversteps the boundaries of our discussion, at least in China it is a dead end.