I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas ineconomics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in thesciences.
我在哈佛学到了很多经济学和政治学的新思想。我也了解了很多科学上的新进展。
But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how thosediscoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strongpublic education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity – reducinginequity is the highest human achievement.
但是,人类最大的进步并不来自于这些发现,而是来自于那些有助于减少人类不平等的发现。不管通过何种手段——民主制度、健全的公共教育体系、高质量的医疗保健、还是广泛的经济机会——减少不平等始终是人类最大的成就。
I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out ofeducational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about themillions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developingcountries.
我离开校园的时候,根本不知道在这个国家里,有几百万的年轻人无法获得接受教育的机会。我也不知道,发展中国家里有无数的人们生活在无法形容的贫穷和疾病之中。
It took me decades to find out.
我花了几十年才明白了这些事情。
You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about theworld’s inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, Ihope you’ve had a chance to think about how – in this age of acceleratingtechnology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve them.
在座的各位同学,你们是在与我不同的时代来到哈佛的。你们比以前的学生,更多地了解世界是怎样的不平等。在你们的哈佛求学过程中,我希望你们已经思考过一个问题,那就是在这个新技术加速发展的时代,我们怎样最终应对这种不平等,以及我们怎样来解决这个问题。
Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and afew dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that timeand money Where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improvinglives. Where would you spend it?
为了讨论的方便,请想象一下,假如你每个星期可以捐献一些时间、每个月可以捐献一些钱——你希望这些时间和金钱,可以用到对拯救生命和改善人类生活有最大作用的地方。你会选择什么地方?
For Melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most goodfor the greatest number with the resources we have.
对Melinda(注:盖茨的妻子)和我来说,这也是我们面临的问题:我们如何能将我们拥有的资源发挥出最大的作用。
During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article aboutthe millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries Fromdiseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles, malaria,pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even heard of,rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the United States.
在讨论过程中,Melinda和我读到了一篇文章,里面说在那些贫穷的国家,每年有数百万的儿童死于那些在美国早已不成问题的疾病。麻疹、疟疾、肺炎、乙型肝炎、黄热病、还有一种以前我从未听说过的轮状病毒,这些疾病每年导致50万儿童死亡,但是在美国一例死亡病例也没有。
We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dyingand they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover anddeliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, therewere interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.
我们被震惊了。我们想,如果几百万儿童正在死亡线上挣扎,而且他们是可以被挽救的,那么世界理应将用药物拯救他们作为头等大事。但是事实并非如此。那些价格还不到一美元的救命的药剂,并没有送到他们的手中。
If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn thatsome lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves:“This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of ourgiving.”
如果你相信每个生命都是平等的,那么当你发现某些生命被挽救了,而另一些生命被放弃了,你会感到无法接受。我们对自己说:“事情不可能如此。如果这是真的,那么它理应是我们努力的头等大事。”
So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “Howcould the world let these children die?” 所以,我们用任何人都会想到的方式开始工作。我们问:“这个世界怎么可以眼睁睁看着这些孩子死去?”
The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives ofthese children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children diedbecause their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voicein the system.
答案很简单,也很令人难堪。在市场经济中,拯救儿童是一项没有利润的工作,政府也不会提供补助。这些儿童之所以会死亡,是因为他们的父母在经济上没有实力,在政治上没有能力发出声音。
But you and I have both.
但是,你们和我在经济上有实力,在政治上能够发出声音。 |