Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen on the Nature and Causes of Progress (BONUS)

Hey, everyone, and welcome to the next in our series of discussions on the internet and technology and progress and some of the social issues that we face.

大家好，欢迎来到我们关于互联网、技术和进步以及我们面临的一些社会问题的系列讨论的下一个部分。

We’ve done a number of these this year focused on topics ranging from regulation to journalism to biomedical research.

今年我们做了一些这样的工作，重点关注从监管到新闻再到生物医学研究等主题。

And today what we’re gonna focus on a discussion on what progress is, how we might study it, what academic work is already going on in the space, and what we might think about to look at examples from the past to determine how we can make more progress for humanity going forward.

今天我们将重点讨论什么是进步，我们如何研究它，该领域已经开展了哪些学术工作，以及我们可能会考虑如何通过过去的例子来确定我们如何为人类未来取得更多进步。

Sure.

当然。

So I think one of the most important facts in the world and sort of the history of civilization today is that the rate of progress has not been constant, right?

所以我认为世界上最重要的事实之一以及当今文明史上最重要的事实之一是进步的速度并不是恒定的，对吧？

If you look at sort of what happened in the world say between 0 and 1700, 1800, thereabouts, at the rate of progress, by any major metric in terms of, you know, average income or average life expectancy or infant mortality, any of these measures, it was either constant or only improving at a very slow rate, right?

如果你看一下世界上发生的事情，比如说0到1700年、1800年左右，按照任何主要指标的进展速度，你知道，平均收入或平均预期寿命或婴儿死亡率，任何这些指标，它要么是恒定的，要么只是以非常缓慢的速度改善，对吗？

And then something happened, something changed around sort of 1700, 1750, you know, the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, the advent of something approximating modern science, and once that happened, so many things started to get better together.

然后发生了一些事情，在 1700 年、1750 年左右发生了一些变化，你知道，工业革命、启蒙运动、接近现代科学的东西的出现，一旦发生这种情况，很多事情就开始变得更好。

Incomes improved, life expectancies increased, we started to discover really fundamental knowledge about the world, we started to invent really important new technologies and these things, over the last couple of centuries, really diffused around the world, right?

收入提高了，预期寿命增加了，我们开始发现关于世界的真正基础知识，我们开始发明真正重要的新技术，而这些东西在过去的几个世纪里确实传播到了世界各地，对吗？

So that’s interesting and important, and the thing that has been a focus of both of ours for the past couple years is thinking about, well, we sort of transitioned from this regime where we weren’t making much progress to one where we had been making much more.

所以这很有趣也很重要，过去几年我们双方关注的焦点就是思考，我们从没有取得太大进展的体制转变为取得了更多进展的体制。

Is this the best we can do, right?

这是我们能做的最好的事情，对吗？

Or is there something that looks compared to status quo today, you know, so much better again that it’s sort of like a status quo before the Industrial Revolution.

或者有什么东西看起来比今天的现状要好得多，有点像工业革命前的现状。

And as you look around the world today, on the one hand, we see the tremendous importance of the progress that we are generating and that for example the number of people in extreme poverty has declined by more than a billion people since I was born.

当你环顾今天的世界时，一方面，我们看到我们正在取得的进步的巨大重要性，例如，自我出生以来，极端贫困人口数量已经减少了超过十亿。

It’s important to understand, I think, how much this is an invisible crisis.

我认为，重要的是要了解这在多大程度上是一场看不见的危机。

So if you have a growth rate that is 1 percentage point lower, over the course of a bit more than a century, you could have been three times richer with a higher growth rate.

因此，如果你的增长率低 1 个百分点，那么在一个多世纪的时间里，你的财富可能会在更高的增长率下增加三倍。

That would be something like the difference between the United States today and Mexico.

这就像今天的美国和墨西哥之间的区别。

So by having a lower rate of productivity growth, in no given year does it feel that bad, but two, three generations later, you’re much worse off, it’s harder to pay off your debts, harder to solve climate change, harder to address a whole host of problems.

因此，生产率增长率较低，在任何一年都不会让人感觉那么糟糕，但两、三代人之后，你的境况会更糟，更难偿还债务，更难解决气候变化，更难解决一系列问题。

Yeah, so before we kinda dive into how we can improve this, what do you say to the people who question whether all this progress is positive?

是的，所以在我们深入探讨如何改进这一点之前，您对那些质疑所有这些进展是否积极的人有什么想说的？

I mean, certainly as we make progress in one area, it creates issues in other areas, and that’s been a big topic that I focused on in my work at Facebook over the last few years and a lot of these challenge discussions.

我的意思是，当然，当我们在一个领域取得进展时，它会在其他领域产生问题，这是我过去几年在 Facebook 工作以及许多此类挑战讨论中关注的一个大话题。

But how does that fit into the overall framework of what you’re studying and this discipline here?

但这如何融入你正在学习的内容和这个学科的整体框架呢？

I don’t think economic growth is always a positive, but the world and America has serious problems.

我不认为经济增长总是积极的，但世界和美国都存在严重问题。

I would rather address those problems with more resources rather than fewer, whether it is paying off our debts, addressing climate change, fixing global poverty.

我宁愿用更多的资源而不是更少的资源来解决这些问题，无论是偿还债务、应对气候变化、解决全球贫困。

And knowledge matters too.

知识也很重要。

So there’s a recent paper by Ester Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee and they find if you give foreign aid combined with coaching, the rate of return to that intervention is maybe 100 to 400%.

Ester Duflo 和 Abhijit Banerjee 最近发表了一篇论文，他们发现如果将外援与教练相结合，干预的回报率可能是 100% 到 400%。

And that may or may not be true, but what I would like to see is a world where everyone is obsessing over that claim, over that debate, working very hard to figure out that it’s true, that should be on the front page.

这可能是真的，也可能不是真的，但我希望看到的是一个每个人都痴迷于这个主张、痴迷于这场辩论的世界，努力弄清楚它是真的，这应该出现在头版上。

People should be talking about it, calling up their siblings: “My goodness, I just read this, what are we gonna do?

人们应该谈论它，打电话给他们的兄弟姐妹：“天哪，我刚刚读到这篇文章，我们该怎么办？

Do you agree or not?”

你同意还是不同意？”

Yeah, and look, while again, I think it’s unequivocally the case that sort of certain kinds of progress in certain places to a certain extent can have harms and externalities and all the rest, and a really important part of progress is figuring out how do we mitigate those, how do we solve them and so on — I think climate change is probably kind of the foremost global example today.

是的，我认为，毫无疑问，某些地方的某些进步在某种程度上可能会带来危害和外部性以及其他所有方面，而进步的一个真正重要的部分是弄清楚我们如何减轻这些影响，如何解决它们等等——我认为气候变化可能是当今最重要的全球例子。

But I think it’s really important — or it is easy for us sitting here in the Bay Area in California to undervalue the prosperity and the kind of wealth we’ve been able to generate over the past couple hundred years.

但我认为这真的很重要——或者说，我们坐在加利福尼亚湾区很容易低估过去几百年来我们能够创造的繁荣和财富。

Since I was born, for example, global life expectancy has increased by about six years, and infant mortality has fallen by more than 50%.

例如，自从我出生以来，全球预期寿命增加了约六年，婴儿死亡率下降了 50% 以上。

Again, I mentioned the statistic of the number of people who have left extreme poverty.

我再次提到脱贫人口统计。

This is incredibly important, right?

这非常重要，对吧？

And so I think there’s — we’re not the first people to say it, but there is a moral imperative to this kind of progress, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that fact.

所以我认为——我们不是第一个这么说的人，但这种进步有道义上的必要性，我们不应该忽视这一事实。

Yeah, I agree.

是的，我同意。

I just think it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of these things are not uniform and you know from running a company that when you look at averages it hides a lot of issues.

我只是认为重要的是要承认很多事情并不统一，而且你从经营一家公司的过程中知道，当你查看平均值时，它隐藏了很多问题。

Your example on the rates of poverty going down I think is an interesting one in this because what a lot of people don’t particularly wanna talk about these days is that most of the benefit of people coming out of poverty has happened in China, and in some places in the world poverty has actually increased.

我认为你关于贫困率下降的例子很有趣，因为现在很多人不太想谈论的是，人们摆脱贫困的大部分好处都发生在中国，而世界上一些地方的贫困实际上有所增加。

So I generally agree with the premise — and I think studying this stuff will generally help us to make more progress in those places.

所以我总体上同意这个前提——而且我认为研究这些东西通常会帮助我们在这些地方取得更多进展。

Yeah, and we should emphasize that, you know, when we sort of talk about the phenomenon of “progress,” you know, I think GDP or GDP per capita is a pretty good first approximation measure of it and it correlates strongly with many of the things we care about.

是的，我们应该强调一点，你知道，当我们谈论“进步”现象时，你知道，我认为 GDP 或人均 GDP 是一个很好的初步近似衡量标准，它与我们关心的许多事情密切相关。

But they’re definitely not the same thing.

但它们绝对不是同一件事。

I think an important question for anybody interested in this area to think about is, well, how should we define progress?

我认为对于任何对此领域感兴趣的人来说，一个重要的问题是，我们应该如何定义进步？

And what are the better and worse kinds of it.

以及其中更好和更坏的类型是什么。

Again, in GDP, we have a relatively effective metric we can use across countries, but there already is interesting work on what might better measures be, and I think that’s really important to study.

同样，在 GDP 中，我们有一个可以在各个国家使用的相对有效的指标，但已经有一些关于更好的衡量标准的有趣工作，我认为这非常值得研究。

Well, let’s say you want to improve the lot of people in West Virginia.

好吧，假设您想改善西弗吉尼亚州的人民生活。

One growth-enhancing way of doing that is to make it easier to build, say, in Washington D.C. and the Bay Area.

一种促进增长的方法是让华盛顿特区和湾区的建设变得更容易。

Right now, to move from West Virginia, say, to Menlo Park, it’s extraordinarily expensive.

现在，从西弗吉尼亚州搬到门洛帕克的费用非常昂贵。

You can’t just pick up and show up here and hope to get a job washing dishes the way one might have done in America 50 years ago.

你不能只是来到这里，希望能找到一份像 50 年前在美国那样洗碗的工作。

So by having more building, more economic growth, also more GDP, it would increase more opportunity.

因此，通过拥有更多的建筑、更多的经济增长以及更多的GDP，就会增加更多的机会。

So economic growth and opportunity — they do tend to be correlated, and sometimes the problem is we don’t have enough growth, not that we have too much.

因此，经济增长和机会——它们确实往往是相关的，有时问题是我们没有足够的增长，而不是我们有太多。

And look, not to hammer this point too strongly, but, you know, you did invite the two people who wrote the piece for our progress here —

看，不要过分强调这一点，但是，你知道，你确实邀请了为我们的进步撰写这篇文章的两个人——

Yeah, and I wanna spend most of the time actually talking about that.

是的，我想花大部分时间来讨论这个问题。

I just wanted to make sure that we hit that up front.

我只是想确保我们能提前实现这一目标。

One view of mine is that not enough philanthropy is long-term oriented.

我的一种观点是，没有足够的慈善事业以长期为导向。

In this regard, I’ve been influenced by your Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

在这方面，我受到了陈·扎克伯格倡议的影响。

And also in philanthropy, there are too many choke points that can say no, so foundations become their own bureaucracies.

同样在慈善事业中，有太多的瓶颈无法拒绝，因此基金会变成了自己的官僚机构。

They become very risk-averse.

他们变得非常厌恶风险。

Yeah.

是的。

I strongly agree that sort of there’s a lot of important work already happening across multiple disciplines that is relevant to these questions.

我强烈同意，与这些问题相关的多个学科已经开展了大量重要的工作。

Like the idea of there being “a new science of progress” — that was the headline placed on the article but not exactly what we’re saying.

就像存在“一门新的进步科学”的想法一样——这是这篇文章的标题，但并不完全是我们所说的。

What we’re arguing is that the work that’s already happening should be receiving more attention and there should be much more of us.

我们认为，已经发生的工作应该受到更多关注，我们的参与也应该更多。

And just to give a couple of quick examples: there’s strongly suggested evidence that we can teach management practices so people can run firms more effectively, right?

举几个简单的例子：有强有力的证据表明，我们可以教授管理实践，以便人们能够更有效地经营公司，对吗？

So there’s a couple of studies on this.

因此有一些关于此的研究。

There’s a good one from some folks at Stanford that did a randomized trial in India.

斯坦福大学的一些人在印度做了一项很好的随机试验。

And there’s a really neat one that came out last year from Michela Giorcelli looking at firms in Italy and showing that over 15 years after a management training program with some natural randomization, that those firms were employing more people, paying more wages, being more successful.

去年，Michela Giorcelli 发表了一项非常精彩的研究，该研究对意大利的公司进行了调查，结果显示，在进行了自然随机化的管理培训计划 15 年后，这些公司雇佣了更多的人，支付了更多的工资，取得了更大的成功。

And another randomized trial in Mexico conducted over the past couple years, again, 600 firms, ensuring that just teaching better management practices actually makes those companies much better off.

过去几年在墨西哥进行的另一项随机试验同样是在 600 家公司中进行，确保仅仅教授更好的管理实践实际上就能使这些公司的状况变得更好。

Yeah.

是的。

So let’s go deep on medical research here for a second, because this is an area that you wrote this paper about before about how the progress in the field might be slowing.

因此，让我们在这里深入讨论一下医学研究，因为这是您之前写过这篇论文的一个领域，内容是该领域的进展可能会放缓。

And like you mentioned, The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the philanthropy that I run with my wife, a big focus of it is on medical research and trying to — we have this aspirational goal that we wanna help build tools that can help scientists cure, prevent, or manage all diseases by the end of this century.

就像你提到的，陈·扎克伯格倡议，这是我和我妻子共同经营的慈善事业，它的一个重点是医学研究，并试图——我们有一个雄心勃勃的目标，我们希望帮助开发工具，帮助科学家在本世纪末治愈、预防或管理所有疾病。

And basically, the math of how you get there is, starting about 100 years ago there was really this uptick in medical research where we started doing randomized control experiments, treating it more like an experimental science.

基本上，从数学上讲，从大约 100 年前开始，医学研究确实有了很大的发展，我们开始进行随机对照实验，更像是一门实验科学。

Since around that time, the average life expectancy has increased by a quarter of a year every year, relatively linearly.

从那时起，平均预期寿命每年增加四分之一，相对线性。

There’s no guarantee, of course, that that continues, but if we’re able to have that continue, then that would imply that by the end of the century we will generally have had to have either cured, prevented, or been able to manage most if not all of the diseases that we’re aware of now.

当然，不能保证这种情况会持续下去，但如果我们能够继续这种情况，那就意味着到本世纪末，我们通常必须治愈、预防或能够控制大多数（如果不是全部）我们现在意识到的疾病。

So there’s some trend that suggests that this should be reasonable, and the approach that we’re taking in the work at CZI is largely about building tools to help compound the rate of science.

因此，有一些趋势表明这应该是合理的，而我们在 CZI 的工作中采取的方法主要是构建工具来帮助提高科学速度。

Here’s what worries me, and it should worry you too.

这就是我担心的事情，你也应该担心。

So as you mentioned, U.S. life expectancy is basically going up in linear fashion.

正如您提到的，美国人的预期寿命基本上呈线性增长。

But if you look at expenditures, we used to spend a few percentage points of GDP on healthcare, and now it’s about 18%.

但如果你看一下支出，我们过去在医疗保健上的支出占 GDP 的几个百分点，现在约为 18%。

So we’ve gone up to 18%, and we’re not even boosting the rate.

所以我们已经提高到了 18%，而且我们甚至没有提高这个比率。

I’m not saying it’s the fault of any one group of people, but something has gone wrong.

我并不是说这是任何一群人的错，但确实出了问题。

There’s some kind of last-mile problem.

存在某种最后一英里的问题。

You can turn to the newspapers and read all kinds of fantastic stories — new research, new ideas, new tools — but when the rubber hits the road, people living longer, we’re spending more and more and more for exactly the same returns.

你可以翻阅报纸，阅读各种奇妙的故事——新研究、新想法、新工具——但当橡胶上路时，人们的寿命更长，我们花越来越多的钱来获得完全相同的回报。

So if that trend continues — and you see a similar trend in many areas: crop yields, feeding the world, other areas — the question becomes, where does all the progress go?

因此，如果这种趋势持续下去——而且你在许多领域都看到了类似的趋势：农作物产量、养活世界、其他领域——问题就变成了，所有的进步都去哪儿了？

Yeah, and so what we wrote in this article a year ago about what’s going on in science — if you look at it by the most kind of microscopic measures, like the number of PhDs in the U.S, —actually if you take all the microscopic measures, they all have grown by about a factor between 50 and 100.

是的，所以我们一年前在这篇文章中写的关于科学界正在发生的事情——如果你用最微观的衡量标准来看待它，比如美国博士的数量——实际上，如果你采取所有微观衡量标准，它们都增长了大约 50 到 100 倍。

Number of PhDs, number of papers published every year, actual dollars into the science funding, and so on.

博士学位数量、每年发表的论文数量、科学经费的实际投入金额等等。

So in a very stylized way, if you look at the first half of the twentieth century as compared to the second half, there’s way more input in the second half of the century.

因此，以一种非常程式化的方式，如果你将二十世纪上半叶与下半叶进行比较，就会发现本世纪下半叶的投入要多得多。

And again, not by 50%, but by orders of magnitude.

再说一遍，不是 50%，而是几个数量级。

And so then I think the question for all of us would be, well, in which half of the century did we get more out in terms of useful scientific knowledge?

因此，我认为我们所有人面临的问题是，在这半个世纪中，我们在有用的科学知识方面获得了更多的知识？

And then whichever we think did better, to what degree?

然后我们认为哪一个做得更好，达到什么程度？

And again, this is a very difficult question to answer of how do you weigh scientific knowledge?

再说一遍，这是一个很难回答的问题：如何衡量科学知识？

And so you have to look at it, I think, into various applied contexts.

所以我认为你必须在各种应用环境中看待它。

Like life expectancy or semiconductors or, as Tyler mentioned, crop yields or whatever.

就像预期寿命或半导体，或者正如泰勒提到的，农作物产量或其他什么。

Top 1% if they do what?

Top 1% 如果他们做什么？

They’re about twice as likely to produce a top 1% paper by citation count.

他们发表引用次数排名前 1% 的论文的可能性大约是他们的两倍。

If they…

如果他们……

Oh, say, if they receive an HHMI grant.

哦，比如说，如果他们获得 HHMI 拨款。

Well, that might be correlation, not causation.

嗯，这可能是相关性，而不是因果关系。

Yeah, so he tries —

是的，所以他尝试——

They do get a lot of the best people.

他们确实拥有很多最优秀的人才。

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

是啊，是啊，是啊。

So he tries to control for that and use a reasonable methodology for it, but some of it could totally be that just a selection effect.

因此，他试图控制这一点并使用合理的方法，但其中一些完全可能只是选择效应。

So as an aside, if you’re watching this, Patrick collects these examples of of historical projects that went fast and that you can’t imagine how they went that fast.

顺便说一句，如果你正在观看这个，帕特里克收集了这些进展迅速的历史项目的例子，你无法想象它们是如何进展得这么快的。

So if you Google his website, he has like a whole list of these that I think is pretty interesting and compelling when you go through all of them.

因此，如果你用谷歌搜索他的网站，你会发现他有一个完整的列表，我认为当你浏览所有这些内容时，这些列表非常有趣且引人注目。

Yeah, I think it’s just important to understand how effectively we as a species can do things when we’re organized the right way.

是的，我认为了解我们作为一个物种在以正确的方式组织时能够如何有效地做事非常重要。

Humanity is pretty amazing.

人性真是太奇妙了。

And when possibilities are unlocked, when efficacy is enabled, we can do great things.

当可能性被释放、当功效被启用时，我们就能做出伟大的事情。

Sometimes it is a matter of actual will.

有时这是实际意愿的问题。

So for the last 40 years, getting around for almost all Americans, it is slower.

因此，在过去 40 年里，几乎所有美国人的出行速度都变慢了。

And before that, we had a period from 1800 say to 1970 when it got quicker and quicker and quicker.

在此之前，我们经历了从 1800 年到 1970 年的一段时期，它变得越来越快。

And now even flying in airplanes for most people is slower.

现在，对于大多数人来说，乘坐飞机的速度也变得更慢。

Traffic is worse.

交通状况更糟。

Those are solvable problems.

这些都是可以解决的问题。

Manhattan should have congestion pricing and a stiffer form of it than they’re likely to opt for.

曼哈顿应该实行拥堵收费，而且形式应该比他们可能选择的更严格。

So the notion that people have lost the ability to imagine a future much different and much better than what they know to me is one of the most worrying aspects of where we are now.

因此，人们已经失去了想象未来的能力，这个未来与他们所知道的截然不同、更好，这是我们现在所处的最令人担忧的方面之一。

Yeah, and quantitatively, I mean, if you look at the percentage of Americans who think that their kids’ lives will be better than theirs, that has been in monotonic decline — not strictly monotonic — but generally declining since World War II until, on an empirical basis, Americans are getting less hopeful about their futures, their kids’ futures, and that’s a really bad thing because it can be an auto-catalyzing process and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

是的，我的意思是，从数量上看，如果你看看认为自己孩子的生活会比自己更好的美国人的比例，你会发现这一比例一直在单调下降——不是严格单调——而是自二战以来普遍下降，直到根据经验，美国人对自己的未来、孩子的未来越来越不抱希望，这是一件非常糟糕的事情，因为它可能是一个自动催化过程和一个自我实现的预言。

And we’re supposed to be the most optimistic, forward-looking country.

我们应该是最乐观、最有远见的国家。

The data on France, how many people think their kids will be worse off — that’s much more worrying yet.

法国的数据显示，有多少人认为他们的孩子的情况会更糟——这更令人担忧。

And there may be a self-fulfilling prophecy to this.

这可能有一个自我实现的预言。

If you think the future won’t be so great, you’ll invest less, you won’t work as hard, you’ll contract your risk-taking.

如果你认为未来不会那么美好，你就会减少投资，你不会那么努力工作，你就会减少冒险。

And you end up with a social and economic malaise.

最终你会陷入社会和经济困境。

And, indeed, you see falling rates of economic growth in most of the Western world.

事实上，大多数西方世界的经济增长率都在下降。

So I’m curious how you would think about going about and studying these organizational changes.

所以我很好奇你会如何考虑和研究这些组织变革。

Going back to biomedical science, for example, just because this is an area we do a lot of work in.

例如，回到生物医学科学，因为这是我们做了大量工作的领域。

The woman who runs CZI Science Initiative, Cori Bargmann, she’s a very renowned scientist, and she has this theory that a lot of the granting process that NIH does — but also HHMI — it basically encourages very individualistic work, right?

CZI 科学计划的负责人科里·巴格曼 (Cori Bargmann) 是一位非常著名的科学家，她有这样的理论：美国国立卫生研究院 (NIH) 以及 HHMI 所做的许多资助过程基本上都鼓励非常个人主义的工作，对吗？

You give people grants, they work on their own, you’re not incentivizing people to work together.

你给人们补助，他们自己工作，你没有激励人们一起工作。

People actually want to work together, they want to coordinate.

人们实际上想要一起工作，他们想要协调。

And when I was talking about the Human Cell Atlas, a lot of the issue there that needed to get dealt with was that a lot of people were working on cell atlases for different parts of the body, the liver cell atlas, whatever.

当我谈论人类细胞图谱时，需要解决的很多问题是很多人正在研究身体不同部位的细胞图谱，肝细胞图谱等等。

But they were all in different data types and formats, so that way you couldn’t compile a holistic thing.

但它们的数据类型和格式都不同，因此您无法编译出一个整体的东西。

So a lot of what she did and the work of CZI was basically helping to coordinate.

所以她所做的很多事情和CZI的工作基本上都是在帮助协调。

That way when these grants were given, everything — like the teams worked together, the data types were similar, so that way it all added up to a bigger thing.

这样，当给予这些资助时，一切——就像团队一起工作一样，数据类型是相似的，这样所有的东西加起来就变成了一个更大的事情。

And that certainly seems like one of many theories that one could have for how you could organize this stuff better.

这当然看起来像是人们可以拥有的关于如何更好地组织这些东西的众多理论之一。

It’s striking to me, if you look at American universities, the list of the top places in 1920 and the list today — it’s completely the same, except we’ve added on California.

让我惊讶的是，如果你看看美国的大学，1920 年的排名和今天的排名完全一样，除了我们增加了加州。

Otherwise, no change.

否则，没有变化。

Top 50 universities — if you look at —

排名前 50 的大学——如果你看看——

It’s very different for companies.

对于公司来说这是非常不同的。

Of course, even from 1980, it’s —

当然，即使从 1980 年开始，也是——

Decade over decade, the list of the top ten companies by market cap almost completely turns over.

十几年来，市值排名前十的公司名单几乎全部翻转。

Yes.

是的。

Procedures for tenure in the top 50 research universities — almost exactly the same.

排名前 50 的研究型大学的终身教职程序几乎完全相同。

Whatever you think of those, there’s something gone wrong in the sector.

不管你怎么看，这个行业确实出了问题。

There’s not enough experimentation with how you reward people.

对于如何奖励人们还没有进行足够的实验。

More schools should experiment with a different tenure or reward people more on the basis of practical impact.

更多的学校应该尝试不同的任期，或者根据实际影响给予更多的奖励。

And again, you might object to any particular solution, but the extent to which experimentation has died at the institutional level, to me, is striking.

再说一次，你可能会反对任何特定的解决方案，但对我来说，实验在制度层面上的消亡程度是惊人的。

And to underscore that point, if you look at the top 25 universities in the world today or the kinds of ranking, there’s lots of them.

为了强调这一点，如果你看看当今世界排名前 25 的大学或各种排名，就会发现有很多这样的大学。

Seven of the top 25 are American universities that were started in a single 30-year period between 1861 and 1891.

排名前 25 名的大学中有 7 所是在 1861 年至 1891 年 30 年间创办的美国大学。

And if you look at where those universities come from and what were the people behind them thinking, they were very deliberately and specifically reform-minded.

如果你看看这些大学的起源以及它们背后的人在想什么，就会发现它们非常有意识且具有明确的改革意识。

And progress-minded.

并且有进取心。

Absolutely.

绝对地。

They thought well, obviously, academic institutions exist.

他们认为，学术机构显然是存在的。

Harvard, Yale, and so on were already around.

哈佛大学、耶鲁大学等已经存在。

But they saw the success of German research university model, they saw the possibilities of the U.S., and they saw at least what they thought was required for the future.

但他们看到了德国研究型大学模式的成功，他们看到了美国的可能性，他们至少看到了他们认为未来需要的东西。

And they very deliberately decided, “We will try something different.” And again, that yielded now seven of the top 25 universities today.

他们非常慎重地决定，“我们将尝试一些不同的东西。”再次，今天排名前 25 的大学中，有 7 所是这样产生的。

So I think it strongly empirically underscores the value of the experimentation you’re talking about.

所以我认为它从经验上强烈强调了你所谈论的实验的价值。

And, I fully agree.

而且，我完全同意。

I think we should be historically informed but ultimately, a certain amount of commitment, decision, and just willingness to experiment is going to be required.

我认为我们应该了解历史，但最终需要一定程度的承诺、决定和实验意愿。

I would say this.

我会这么说。

I’m sitting here with two university dropouts.

我和两个大学辍学生坐在这里。

That’s notable to me.

这对我来说很值得注意。

The Bay Area is our modern Vienna.

湾区就是我们现代的维也纳。

Bravo to the Bay Area.

湾区太棒了。

But we’re not working nearly hard enough to build other new Viennas and other places.

但我们的工作还不够努力，无法建造其他新的维也纳和其他地方。

And I don’t really think it’s quite Manhattan anymore.

我真的不认为这里不再是曼哈顿了。

It’s a wonderful city and amazing place to go, but it is not a world leader for ideas in the way in it was, say, in the 1920s through the 1980s.

这是一座美妙的城市，也是一个令人惊叹的旅游胜地，但它并不像 20 世纪 20 年代到 80 年代那样成为世界思想领袖。

People study this, right?

人们研究这个，对吗？

I mean, so what would have been the main things that people have learned so far from studying Vienna or Edinburgh?

我的意思是，到目前为止，人们从维也纳或爱丁堡的研究中学到的主要东西是什么？

Well, I don’t think there’s a rich literature of lessons from those places.

嗯，我不认为这些地方有丰富的经验教训。

Obviously, lots has been written about them.

显然，有很多关于它们的文章。

There are great historical accounts.

有很多伟大的历史记载。

I’ve enjoyed reading them.

我很喜欢读它们。

But it’s an intrinsically very difficult thing to do to figure out which things causally mattered.

但要弄清楚哪些事情具有因果关系本质上是一件非常困难的事情。

And these things, there’s a certain degree to which they might be over-determined.

而这些事情，在某种程度上可能是被过度决定的。

And so I think it’s very hard.

所以我认为这非常困难。

You don’t have counterfactuals.

你没有反事实。

Obviously, you can’t run trials, and so I think it is a very difficult question to answer.

显然，你不能进行试验，所以我认为这是一个很难回答的问题。

And I think for understandable reasons, people studying these questions are reluctant to take definitive stances that “this is what mattered” in 1900 Vienna.

我认为出于可以理解的原因，研究这些问题的人们不愿意采取明确的立场，认为“这就是 1900 年维也纳最重要的事情”。

But one lesson I would say — the Scottish islands, people moved to Edinburgh, right?

但我要说的一个教训是——苏格兰群岛上的人们搬到了爱丁堡，对吗？

Vienna, you have Jews coming in from the Pale of Settlement.

维也纳，有来自定居点的犹太人。

The Bay Area, people coming from all over the world, and indeed, you are from Ireland.

湾区，来自世界各地的人们，事实上，你来自爱尔兰。

So immigration — immigration is not a guarantee of things going well.

所以移民——移民并不能保证一切顺利。

But the bringing together of different ideas and cultures and the new clash of opposing perspectives has been correlated with a lot of these Viennas in the world history.

但不同思想和文化的汇集以及对立观点的新冲突与世界历史上的许多维也纳有关。

Very true, although I’m pretty sure that in the 1900s, Paris had more foreigners than Vienna.

确实如此，尽管我很确定在 1900 年代，巴黎的外国人比维也纳还多。

I think it was like 2% in Vienna, so —

我想维也纳的比例大概是 2%，所以——

If you go from the Scottish islands to Edinburgh in 1740, that’s a huge difference.

如果你在 1740 年从苏格兰群岛去爱丁堡，那就是一个巨大的差异。

It’s a bigger difference than maybe Mexico to Los Angeles today.

这可能比今天的墨西哥和洛杉矶的差异更大。

So if you’re thinking about what work to fund in terms of studying historical progress, what’s your framework for figuring out where to even begin studying?

因此，如果您正在考虑在研究历史进展方面需要资助哪些工作，那么您确定从哪里开始研究的框架是什么？

Because I mean, what you’re talking about here is basically studying the economic and scientific result of immigration, which is obviously a massively socially important debate that’s at the center of a lot of political debates and has been for a long time.

因为我的意思是，你在这里谈论的基本上是研究移民的经济和科学结果，这显然是一个具有重大社会意义的辩论，长期以来一直是许多政治辩论的中心。

So from one perspective, it’s surprising that it wouldn’t have been studied in more detail to understand the impact of it.

因此，从一个角度来看，令人惊讶的是，没有对其进行更详细的研究以了解其影响。

But that’s very different from the biomedical science-type stuff that we were talking about a second ago.

但这与我们刚才讨论的生物医学科学类型的东西非常不同。

Do you have a framework in your head for how would think about or prioritize study in different areas, or is it mostly just about finding really sharp people who have new ideas and funding them to do different kinds or work?

你的头脑中是否有一个框架来思考或优先考虑不同领域的学习，或者主要是寻找有新想法的真正敏锐的人并资助他们做不同的种类或工作？

How do you think about that overall?

总体而言您对此有何看法？

People who are curious.

充满好奇心的人。

People who have bold ambitions.

有远大抱负的人。

People who have what I call stamina — they just don’t even stop.

那些拥有我所说的耐力的人——他们根本就不会停下来。

People who are working in productive small groups that maybe through WhatsApp, in fact, or it could be their next door neighbors, their colleagues at a university.

事实上，那些在富有成效的小团体中工作的人们可能通过 WhatsApp 进行工作，也可能是他们的隔壁邻居、大学同事。

When those, say, four items come together, then I think you have possibly what is a very good funding decision, and I would take a lot of chances on those people, not worry too much about the micromanaging, and let talent rip and let groups form and see what happens.

当这四个项目结合在一起时，我认为你可能会做出一个非常好的资助决策，我会在这些人身上冒很多机会，不要太担心微观管理，让人才发挥作用，让团队形成，看看会发生什么。

Got it.

知道了。

So it’s very much like entrepreneurship in that way.

所以这很像创业精神。

You’re betting on the person more than the idea —

你对人的赌注比对想法的赌注更多——

But also the vision, right?

但也有愿景，对吧？

There has to be a vision, and there are plenty of successful entrepreneurs who are not curious.

必须有远见，有很多成功的企业家并不好奇。

So for intellectual progress, to really put curiosity very highly is part of my philosophy.

因此，为了智力的进步，真正高度重视好奇心是我的哲学的一部分。

On the one hand, not only do we acknowledge that an immense amount of very important insightful work has already been created, and it’s that work that has to a large degree inspired both of our viewpoints.

一方面，我们不仅承认大量非常重要、富有洞察力的工作已经被创造出来，而且正是这些工作在很大程度上激发了我们的观点。

For example, the paper Tyler mentioned about declining research productivity in semiconductors, crop yields and a couple of other fields, that was done fairly close to here and that is work squarely relevant to these questions that I think is really important and we may not be here in the same way without it.

例如，泰勒的论文提到了半导体、农作物产量和其他几个领域的研究生产力下降，这篇论文是在离这里相当近的地方完成的，这项工作与我认为非常重要的这些问题直接相关，如果没有它，我们可能不会以同样的方式在这里。

Yeah, interesting.

是的，有趣。

So you were talking a minute ago about the explosion in costs in healthcare.

所以你一分钟前谈论了医疗保健成本的爆炸式增长。

And right now, I think one of the defining aspects of the moment that we’re in is a lot of the basic costs of living for a lot of people have just increased a lot.

现在，我认为我们所处时刻的决定性方面之一是很多人的基本生活成本刚刚增加了很多。

The story that we tell about our society is that you have technology and you have competition and it drives down prices.

我们讲述的关于我们社会的故事是，你拥有技术，你有竞争，它会压低价格。

So if you bought a ten-year-old TV today it would cost 5% of what it cost ten years ago.

因此，如果您今天购买一台使用了 10 年的电视，其价格将是 10 年前的 5%。

So clearly, the value and efficiency has increased a lot there.

很明显，那里的价值和效率增加了很多。

But then in things that matter so much like healthcare, education, rent — those things have generally just increased, right?

但在医疗保健、教育、租金等非常重要的事情上，这些事情通常只是增加，对吗？

And the normal dynamics that you’d be hoping would play out aren’t.

而你希望的正常动态却没有发生。

And to some degree, for the quality of life for a lot of people, the increases in those costs may even be dwarfing all the other advances in everything else.

在某种程度上，为了提高很多人的生活质量，这些成本的增加甚至可能使其他方面的所有其他进步相形见绌。

Sure.

当然。

Absolutely.

绝对地。

So do you think that those things are all related?

那么你认为这些事情都是相关的吗？

I think you used the phrase “cost disease”when referring to the cost explosion of things like healthcare and education, student debt, and rent.

我认为您在提到医疗保健和教育、学生债务和租金等成本爆炸时使用了“成本疾病”这个词。

Do you think that’s a different type of problem, or do you think that is fundamentally related to the rate of progress in biomedicine, as an example?

您认为这是一个不同类型的问题吗？或者您认为这与生物医学的进步速度有根本相关吗？例如？

I think there are common features to these problems, though each one is different.

我认为这些问题虽然各有不同，但都有共同特征。

Restrictions on entry is one, highly bureaucratized institutions.

入境限制是一种高度官僚化的制度。

Sometimes a lot of third party payment — which may be required in the case of catastrophic healthcare, but it nonetheless has distorting effects.

有时，在灾难性医疗保健的情况下可能需要大量第三方付款，但它仍然会产生扭曲效应。

Areas where people have very strong moral feelings I think we often make worse decisions about.

我认为，在人们有强烈道德情感的领域，我们经常会做出更糟糕的决定。

We’re not analytical enough.

我们的分析能力还不够。

And you put all of those together.

然后你把所有这些放在一起。

But I would stress, say healthcare — if you go to Singapore, healthcare there, I think it’s about 4% of GDP.

但我要强调的是，医疗保健——如果你去新加坡，那里的医疗保健，我认为大约占 GDP 的 4%。

They have slightly higher life expectancy than we do.

他们的预期寿命比我们略高。

Their system is by no means perfect.

他们的系统绝不是完美的。

But we can see, though comparative analysis, there are ways of doing this better.

但我们可以看到，通过比较分析，还是有办法做得更好的。

The NIMBY problem, cost of living, getting an apartment.

邻避问题、生活成本、买公寓。

In Japan, it is mostly solved because building in Japan tends to be regulated at higher levels than the city or the county, so more gets built.

在日本，这个问题大部分已经得到解决，因为日本的建筑往往受到比市或县更高的监管，因此建造了更多建筑。

Living in Japan is cheaper, the cost of renting an apartment.

在日本生活比较便宜，租房的费用也比较便宜。

So often we know the answers.

我们常常知道答案。

We shy away from really focusing on a concerted effort to get to doing them in this country.

我们回避真正集中精力在这个国家共同努力来实现这些目标。

Yeah, and agree with all of that, and I would just underscore the entry costs aspect.

是的，我同意所有这些，我只想强调进入成本方面。

And the entry costs aren’t always — they take different forms, right?

而且进入成本并不总是如此——它们有不同的形式，对吧？

And empirically the entry costs of forming a new university are really high, but that’s not because there’s a kind of formal toll you have to pay.

从经验来看，组建一所新大学的进入成本确实很高，但这并不是因为你必须支付某种正式的费用。

It’s not like zoning where there are deliberate, specific legal restrictions that prohibit you from doing so.

这不像分区，有故意的、具体的法律限制禁止你这样做。

But just as a practical matter: sociologically, institutionally, accreditation dynamics, who knows, it’s apparently almost impossibly difficult to create a successful new university today.

但正如一个实际问题一样：从社会学、制度、认证动态来看，谁知道呢，今天创建一所成功的新大学显然几乎不可能困难。

And so I think answering the cost disease question is one of the most important set of subcomponents in this broader question of what is it that enables our progress.

因此，我认为回答成本病问题是这个更广泛的问题中最重要的组成部分之一，即是什么使我们取得进步。

And at an overarching level, it’s just surprising to me that we don’t have more definitive and clear answers there.

在总体层面上，令我惊讶的是我们没有更明确和明确的答案。

Alex Tabarrok, a colleague of Tyler —

亚历克斯·塔巴罗克 (Alex Tabarrok)，泰勒的同事 —

Wrote a long paper on cost disease.

写了一篇关于成本病的长论文。

Exactly, last summer.

没错，去年夏天。

And there are other papers also analyzing the question, but it’s a surprisingly sparse literature.

还有其他论文也在分析这个问题，但文献数量却出奇地少。

Alex’s list of citations was not that long.

亚历克斯的引用列表并没有那么长。

And he had some suggestions as to what the underlying etiology might be — maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong — but again, to your point, it’s one of the most pressing questions for American society, for global society in 2019.

他对潜在病因可能是什么提出了一些建议——也许他是对的，也许他是错的——但同样，就你的观点而言，这是 2019 年美国社会和全球社会最紧迫的问题之一。

We really have to know what’s happening.

我们确实必须知道发生了什么。

And to return to something Tyler said earlier, part of our hope — it’s not to promote any specific solution, any specific aspect of it, but rather that even though this is not what’s focally central in the headlines today, it should be.

回到泰勒之前所说的，我们希望的一部分——并不是要提倡任何具体的解决方案、它的任何具体方面，而是即使这不是今天头条新闻的焦点，但它应该是。

As we think about what the world is gonna look like in 50 years or 100 years, it, plausibly more than anything else, is going to determine the shape of that.

当我们思考 50 年或 100 年后世界会是什么样子时，它似乎比其他任何东西都更能决定世界的形态。

As an entrepreneur, what is it you find most striking about America’s dysfunctional economic sectors?

作为一名企业家，您认为美国功能失调的经济部门最引人注目的是什么？

Because you intersect with them all the time, right?

因为你一直和他们有交集，对吗？

Yeah, I mean, I would want to see this get studied more.

是的，我的意思是，我希望看到对此进行更多研究。

There are just so many different factors, and I think part of it what is a little bit confusing is that the things that are making healthcare so expensive — they may have some fundamental link to the things that make college tuition so expensive.

有很多不同的因素，我认为其中有点令人困惑的是，导致医疗保健如此昂贵的因素——它们可能与大学学费如此昂贵的因素有一些基本的联系。

But on its surface it seems like there are also more proximate causes that are quite different.

但从表面上看，似乎还有更多截然不同的近因。

So with college tuition, the fact that it’s really expensive, so then we do more to subsidize the cost of it, and then by doing so, we’re not providing any pressure on colleges to make it more efficient, and then the cost just goes up further is a pretty different dynamic than what’s going on with healthcare where basically Americans want to know that if someone in their family gets sick, they’re going to be able to get every treatment possible, which ends up — I’m sure you’ve seen all the stats on this, — that half of the healthcare costs someone incurs is during the last six months of their life.

因此，对于大学学费来说，事实上它非常昂贵，所以我们会采取更多措施来补贴它的成本，然后通过这样做，我们不会向大学施加任何压力，以提高其效率，然后成本进一步上升，这与医疗保健的情况截然不同，基本上美国人想知道，如果他们的家人生病了，他们将能够得到一切可能的治疗，最终 - 我相信你已经看到了所有的统计数据这——一个人承担的医疗费用的一半是在他们生命的最后六个月期间发生的。

And that’s, I guess, part of what you’re saying is an American moral value, which is that we believe that you should do everything you can to help someone who’s sick, whereas in a lot of other countries — I don’t know what Singapore’s situation is — but a lot of the ones that are often cited as more efficient healthcare systems don’t have that approach.

我想，你所说的部分内容是美国的道德价值观，即我们相信你应该尽你所能来帮助病人，而在许多其他国家——我不知道新加坡的情况如何——但很多经常被认为是更高效的医疗保健系统的国家却没有这种方法。

They say, okay, if someone in your family has this form of cancer, we’ll do these two treatments, and then we’re done.

他们说，好吧，如果你家里有人患有这种癌症，我们将进行这两种治疗，然后就完成了。

And part of that is because they may not be able to incur the level of debt as a country that the U.S. can, so they may just have to make that tradeoff.

部分原因是他们可能无法承担美国那样的债务水平，因此他们可能不得不做出这种权衡。

On cost disease in particular.

特别是关于成本疾病。

Yeah, why do you think more people aren’t studying this?

是的，你认为为什么更多的人不研究这个？

I mean given that this is just such a central thing in the lives of most people, right, I mean, the cost of living in the city has gone up so much.

我的意思是，鉴于这是大多数人生活中如此重要的事情，对，我的意思是，城市的生活成本已经上涨了很多。

We have a whole generation of students — I think the total student debt is now almost $2 trillion, right?

我们有整整一代学生——我认为学生债务总额现在接近 2 万亿美元，对吗？

I think it was $1.7 trillion the last stat that I saw.

我认为我看到的最后一个统计数据是 1.7 万亿美元。

And of course healthcare is — the number of people in the country who are one issue away from being bankrupt is just staggering.

当然，医疗保健也是——这个国家距离破产仅一步之遥的人数令人震惊。

So what’s preventing people from studying this?

那么是什么阻止人们研究这个呢？

Tyler’s the economist.

泰勒是经济学家。

In academia I wouldn’t say anything’s preventing them.

在学术界，我不会说有什么可以阻止他们。

The incentive is to build a brick and to build a brick that can survive scrutiny by referees.

其动机是建造一块砖，并建造一块能够经受裁判审查的砖。

The incentive is not to build a building, in most cases.

在大多数情况下，动机并不是建造一座建筑物。

Biomedicine actually is often different.

生物医学实际上常常是不同的。

But in the social sciences there’s so many bricks out there and so people want to say, oh, we’re already studying this.

但在社会科学领域，有太多的障碍，所以人们想说，哦，我们已经在研究这个了。

It’s correct, the bricks are there in the millions.

是的，砖块有数以百万计。

But the bricks and the buildings are a different thing.

但砖块和建筑物是不同的东西。

Go for it.

大胆试试吧。

What is it you would most like to see from academics?

您最希望从学术界看到什么？

And I don’t mean research on social media.

我指的不是对社交媒体的研究。

I mean America, the world.

我指的是美国，全世界。

What do you want?

你想要什么？

Although I would like more research on social media.

尽管我想对社交媒体进行更多研究。

Absolutely.

绝对地。

That’s fine.

没关系。

No, look, I think these issues on exploding costs and why the systems aren’t working the way that they’re supposed to for people is probably one of the most pressing questions.

不，你看，我认为这些关于成本爆炸性增长的问题以及为什么系统没有按照人们应有的方式工作可能是最紧迫的问题之一。

And when I think about our work over the next decade, it’s like what are we going do that’s will fundamentally make people’s lives better?

当我思考未来十年我们的工作时，我们会做什么才能从根本上改善人们的生活？

There’s a lot that we can do.

我们可以做很多事情。

But if these problems continue at the rate that they’re going at, it’s actually quite hard for me to imagine how we could do enough good to overcome the increase in costs that people are incurring at things that are so fundamental.

但如果这些问题以目前的速度持续下去，我实际上很难想象我们如何才能做得足够好，以克服人们在如此重要的事情上所付出的成本增加。

So we’re working on them in somewhat different ways.

所以我们正在以不同的方式研究它们。

But I think healthcare is difficult because it is so inherently political because it touches on moral values.

但我认为医疗保健很困难，因为它本质上是政治性的，因为它涉及道德价值观。

If you wanna have a difference in approach of how we treat the last six months of people’s lives, that’s something that’s more of a democratic question than a technocratic one, I think.

如果你想改变我们对待人们生命最后六个月的方式，我认为这更多的是一个民主问题，而不是一个技术官僚问题。

People need to be able to support that.

人们需要能够支持这一点。

So I don’t personally feel like that’s an area that I’m gonna have a huge impact.

所以我个人并不认为这是一个我会产生巨大影响的领域。

A lot of people are focused on that.

很多人都关注这一点。

But the area that I do think we can make a big impact is on long-term science research.

但我确实认为我们可以产生重大影响的领域是长期科学研究。

So if you can just make it more efficient to cure, prevent, or manage diseases, then that over the long-term should really be the answer for bringing healthcare costs in line, not in the next ten years, but maybe in over the next 50 years.

因此，如果你能够更有效地治疗、预防或管理疾病，那么从长远来看，这确实应该是控制医疗成本的答案，不是在未来十年，而是在未来 50 年。

I’d like to see a solution before that, so I’d love to see more studying of the healthcare part of this.

我希望在此之前看到一个解决方案，所以我希望看到更多关于医疗保健部分的研究。

But on the science side, I’m quite optimistic about that.

但在科学方面，我对此相当乐观。

Three three quick points on that.

对此，我要快速说三三点。

One is, I think these questions are often a little bit — like the cost of disease question, I think one of the reasons it’s difficult to study is because you have to take this very macroscopic and potentially this very microscopic view.

一是，我认为这些问题通常有点像疾病成本问题，我认为难以研究的原因之一是因为你必须采取非常宏观和可能非常微观的观点。

And so say, for example in science, if it were the case that the administrative burden on scientists had increased by say two-thirds over the last 40 years.

以科学为例，如果科学家的行政负担在过去 40 年里增加了三分之二的话。

I’m not saying it has and not saying that even if it has that is, in fact, the cause of any kind of slowdown.

我并不是说它已经发生了，也不是说即使它发生了，事实上，这也是任何经济放缓的原因。

But if it had, that might be quite difficult to observe because it can come in the form of, well, it takes twice as long on average for things to be approved and the forms are longer and you’re interrupted more.

但如果确实如此，那可能很难观察到，因为它的形式可能是，嗯，批准事情平均需要两倍的时间，而且表格更长，你被打断的次数也更多。

And so actually specifically diagnosing that causal pathways can really be quite tricky, and I think that generalizes a lot of the fields.

因此，实际上具体诊断因果路径确实非常棘手，我认为这概括了很多领域。

Secondly, to your point about technology solving the agglomeration imperative of cities, I think that could be true, although, you know, here we are in person.

其次，对于你关于技术解决城市集聚势在必行的观点，我认为这可能是真的，尽管你知道，我们亲自在这里。

Others are watching —

其他人正在观看——

Yeah, the people are watching wherever else.

是的，人们在其他地方观看。

Very fair.

非常公平。

But even if technology solved that, I guess my worry would be that the socio-institutional dynamics that have ruined cities or made them less effective or whatever, probably also generalized and applied to other domains.

但即使技术解决了这个问题，我想我担心的是，破坏城市或降低城市效率或其他什么的社会制度动态可能也会普遍化并应用于其他领域。

And so we’re going to suffer the costs of those same phenomena elsewhere.

因此，我们将在其他地方遭受同样现象的代价。

Oh, yeah.

哦，是的。

And what do you wanna ask Mark?

你想问马克什么？

What have you learned from doing CZI?

您从 CZI 中学到了什么？

You launched it five years ago?

你是五年前推出的吗？

Four years ago.

四年前。

Okay, yeah.

好吧，是的。

How will the next four years be different to the first four?

未来四年与前四年有何不同？

Well, so one of the things that we struggle with here that these are such a long-term projects.

好吧，我们在这里遇到的困难之一是这些是一个长期项目。

So we talked a lot about the scientific research.

所以我们谈论了很多关于科学研究的事情。

We’re also doing a bunch of work with education to build tools for teachers to do more project-based learning, more personalized learning for kids.

我们还在教育领域做了大量工作，为教师构建工具，以便为孩子们进行更多基于项目的学习、更个性化的学习。

But basically make it so that teachers have tools to do the work that they want to do, like mentoring students and not just having to lecture and have everyone learn at the same pace.

但基本上要让教师拥有工具来完成他们想做的工作，比如指导学生，而不仅仅是讲课并让每个人都以相同的速度学习。

We’re making progress in all of these areas.

我们在所有这些领域都取得了进展。

Yeah, tool building is not really subsidized or supported that well.

是的，工具构建并没有得到很好的补贴或支持。

Yeah if you want to have a team of ongoing software engineers, you’re going to want an effort that’s going on for a while and that’s more than a couple of people.

是的，如果你想拥有一支由持续不断的软件工程师组成的团队，你就需要持续一段时间的努力，而且这不仅仅是几个人的努力。

So kind of thing, I think, there’s a real niche that no one is doing that stuff at the scale it needs to get done.

我认为，这样的事情存在一个真正的利基市场，那就是没有人以需要完成的规模来做这些事情。

So just pushing on both of things.

所以只是推动这两件事。

Yeah, and there’s uniform agreement on that particular point with every biomedical scientist that I speak with.

是的，与我交谈过的每一位生物医学科学家都在这一点上达成了一致。

Tool-building is under-supported.

工具构建缺乏支持。

Yeah, so I don’t know.

是的，所以我不知道。

From a meta point I’m a little wary of concluding which things have worked and not worked well yet.

从元角度来看，我对断定哪些事情有效、哪些事情尚未有效的结论有些谨慎。

I mean, certainly not everything we’re gonna do is gonna work —

我的意思是，当然不是我们要做的一切都会奏效——

Four years — it’s too early to say.

四年——现在说还为时过早。

Yeah, but it’s certainly interesting.

是的，但这确实很有趣。

And what I try to push the teams to do is make sure that the work that we’re doing are things that clearly would not have happened otherwise.

我试图推动团队做的是确保我们正在做的工作是否则显然不会发生的事情。

Where I think, especially in a lot of these fields — in philanthropy, I think there are a lot of potential issues where it’s easy to give money to something and feel like you’re doing good because you probably are doing some good but lack the discipline to say, “am I doing the most good that I can?” And I think we have a responsibility to do that.

我认为，特别是在很多这样的领域——在慈善事业中，我认为存在很多潜在的问题，人们很容易把钱捐给某件事，并感觉自己做得很好，因为你可能做了一些好事，但缺乏纪律说：“我是否尽了最大的努力？”我认为我们有责任这样做。

So like the criminal justice work, education, biomedical — what’s the underlying view or insider experience of yours that’s the common element behind those areas?

那么，就像刑事司法工作、教育、生物医学一样——您的基本观点或内部经验是什么，这是这些领域背后的共同要素？

Like, how do we boil down Mark Zuckerberg philanthropy to a smaller number of dimensions?

比如，我们如何将马克·扎克伯格的慈善事业归结为较小的维度？

Well, first of all, it’s not just me.

好吧，首先，这不仅仅是我。

I do it with my wife.

我和我的妻子一起做。

Oh sorry, my apologies, yes.

哦，抱歉，抱歉，是的。

She’s an important element to this because she is a teacher.

她是其中的一个重要因素，因为她是一名老师。

She’s building a school.

她正在建造一所学校。

I mean, she spends a lot of time over there.

我的意思是，她在那里度过了很多时间。

She is a doctor, so if you’re looking at the education in health aspects, the domain expertise is more hers than mine.

她是一名医生，所以如果你关注健康方面的教育，你会发现她的领域专业知识比我的更多。

And she is quite compelling and insightful on some of the things that need to get done there.

她对一些需要在那里完成的事情非常有说服力和富有洞察力。

Well, I think there is a very important complementarity where for any of these really important questions about how should science be organized, or which kinds of policies generate the most economic growth, or how one should support the diffusion of innovation, or whatever — I don’t think there exists definitive data on that question.

嗯，我认为，对于任何这些真正重要的问题，比如科学应该如何组织，或者哪种政策能够产生最大的经济增长，或者应该如何支持创新的传播，或者诸如此类的问题，我认为存在一个非常重要的互补性——我认为在这个问题上没有明确的数据。

I don’t think by just going deep into the literature you’re going come up with clear answers that one can feel confident in going and executing it or implementing.

我不认为仅仅通过深入研究文献就能得出明确的答案，让人们有信心去执行或实施它。

I think of the data, such that it exists, and the exiting findings as food for hypothesis-generation.

我认为数据是存在的，现有的发现可以作为假设生成的依据。

Yeah, interesting.

是的，有趣。

So I’m curious to push further on one question.

所以我很想进一步探讨一个问题。

You asked me what I would want to be studying: why don’t you think people are studying the cost questions as much as it seems like they should be?

你问我想研究什么：你认为人们为什么不像看起来应该那样多地研究成本问题？

If these are as big a questions for society, and it certainly seems like they’re issues that most people have — what are the structural barriers that are preventing the top people in these fields from deciding to go study it?

如果这些对社会来说是一个大问题，而且看起来确实是大多数人都面临的问题，那么阻止这些领域的顶尖人士决定去研究它的结构性障碍是什么？

Is it that the fields don’t line up with it?

是不是字段与它不对齐？

Is it that there’s not funding for it?

难道是没有资金支持吗？

Is it too hard in certain ways?

在某些方面是不是太难了？

Like, what are the dynamics that are going on here?

比如，这里正在发生什么动态？

There are many big questions.

有很多大问题。

It’s hard to study them.

研究它们很难。

So at the end, you have quite a speculative answer or set of hypothesis.

所以最后，你得到了一个相当推测性的答案或一组假设。

So the world as a whole isn’t sure what to make of that.

所以整个世界都不确定该怎么做。

Is it a real contribution?

这是真正的贡献吗？

So the private return to you as a researcher maybe is unclear.

因此，作为一名研究人员，你的私人回报可能还不清楚。

So you tend to get very famous people who are quite well established looking at really big ideas maybe a bit later in their career.

因此，你往往会遇到非常有名的人，他们在职业生涯的后期可能会考虑真正伟大的想法。

And I’m not saying that’s bad work, but it’s not necessarily cutting-edge either.

我并不是说这是不好的工作，但它也不一定是前沿的。

And they spent their whole lives being famous, and they’re not necessarily in a position to actually make the breakthrough.

他们一生都在出名，但不一定能够真正取得突破。

And then younger people, their incentive is to first get established and do something that is quite defensible.

然后是年轻人，他们的动机是首先站稳脚跟，做一些站得住脚的事情。

So how does one go about changing that?

那么如何改变这一现状呢？

So if you’re trying to create a network of people who feel like they have an incentive to study this because it’s gonna be good for their career, and they have a network of supportive people who might be reviewing the grants or the work that they’re doing and also think that this is important work to be done — how do you go about establishing that?

因此，如果你试图建立一个人际网络，让他们觉得自己有动力去研究这个问题，因为这对他们的职业生涯有好处，并且他们有一个由支持性的人组成的网络，这些人可能正在审查拨款或他们正在做的工作，并且认为这是一项需要完成的重要工作——你如何着手建立这个网络？

I can selfishly say that at George Mason, virtually all of our students have very directly studied these questions, and we funded a lot of them to go live other distant, strange, possibly poor places.

我可以自私地说，在乔治梅森大学，几乎我们所有的学生都非常直接地研究了这些问题，我们资助他们中的很多人去其他遥远、陌生、可能贫穷的地方生活。

Other departments may have more money than we do.

其他部门可能比我们有钱。

It can be done, because we’ve done it at George Mason.

这是可以做到的，因为我们在乔治梅森大学已经做到了。

So I think again it’s a question of the will and just the ability and desire to imagine that things could be quite different in a sense that I think was more common in the America, say, of 1958 or JFK’s decision to put a man on the moon than you see actually in 2019.

因此，我再次认为，这是一个意志问题，只是想象事情可能会完全不同的能力和愿望的问题，我认为这种情况在美国更为常见，例如 1958 年或肯尼迪决定将人类送上月球，而不是你在 2019 年实际看到的情况。

All right, is that a good place to wrap?

好吧，那是个包裹的好地方吗？

Fine by me.

对我来说很好。

All right.

好的。

Well, thank you, guys.

嗯，谢谢你们，伙计们。

This has been a great conversation.

这是一次很棒的谈话。

Thank you.

谢谢。

Thank you, Mark, Patrick.

谢谢你，马克，帕特里克。