ted演讲 科技并没有改变爱为什么？五篇范文

第一篇：ted演讲 科技并没有改变爱为什么？

TED演讲

科技并没有改变爱，为什么？

演说者：Helen Fisher演说题目：科技并没有改变爱，为什么？在这个科技导向、互连的世界，我们发展出求爱新招及新规则，然而爱的本质却不曾改变，Helen 如是说。她在这场活力充沛、巨细靡遗的演讲中，以第一手资料解释：更快速度的连结反而产生步调更慢、更亲密的关系。

科技并没有改变爱，为什么？ 来自TED英语演说

00:00 19:13

I was recently traveling in the Highlandsof New Guinea, and I was talking with a man who had three wives.I asked him,'How many wives would you like to have?' And there was this longpause, and I thought to myself, 'Is he going to say five? Is he going tosay 10? Is he going to say 25?' And he leaned towards me and he whispered,'None.'最近，我正在新几内亚高地旅行我访谈了一位有三个老婆的人我问他：“你想要多少个老婆？”他停顿了很长时间我就想 “他会说5个？还是10个？或许是25个呢？“” 结果他靠过来 小声说道：“一个都不想要。”

Eighty-six percent of human societiespermit a man to have several wives: polygyny.But in the vast majority of thesecultures, only about five or ten percent of men actually do have several wives.Having several partners can be a toothache.In fact, co-wives can fight witheach other, sometimes they can even poison each other's children.And you'vegot to have a lot of cows, a lot of goats, a lot of money, a lot of land, inorder to build a harem.当今，86%的人类社会允许男人有好几个妻子：一夫多妻。但在大多数这些社会中，有多个妻子的男性仅达5%~10%。有多个伴侣可是件头疼的事。事实上，妻子们之间会产生争执，有时甚至会毒害对方的孩子。而且你必须得有很多的牛羊大量金钱和土地，才能建立起一个妻妾成群的闺房。

We are a pair-bonding species.Ninety-sevenpercent of mammals do not pair up to rear their young;human beings do.I'm notsuggesting that we're not--that we're necessarily sexually faithful to ourpartners.I've looked at adultery in 42 cultures, I understand, actually, someof the genetics of it, and some of the brain circuitry of it.It's very commonaround the world, but we are built to love.我们是双纽带的种群。97%的哺乳动物不用成双成对地抚育儿女，但人类却是这样的。我并不是建议人类在性方面无需忠诚彼此，但在研究了42种文化中的外遇行为之后，我明白了，其中有基因的原因，而有一些则是大脑回路的问题，整个世界都非常普遍，但爱是我们与生俱来的能力。

How is technology changing love? I'm goingto say almost not at all.I study the brain.I and my colleagues have put over100 people into a brain scanner--people who had just fallen happily in love,people who had just been rejected in love and people who are in love long-term.And it is possible to remain 'in love' long-term.科技改变了爱吗？我认为没有。我从事大脑研究，我和我的同事们对100多人进行了大脑扫描，包括那些刚刚陷入爱情的人、在爱情里受挫的人以及长期沉浸在爱之中的人。是的，长期处于热恋期是有可能的。

And I've long agomaintained that we've evolved three distinctly different brain systems formating and reproduction: sex drive, feelings of intense romantic love andfeelings of deep cosmic attachment to a long-term partner.And together, thesethree brain systems--with many other parts of the brain--orchestrate oursexual, our romantic and our family lives.很早之前我就说过人类在求爱和繁殖过程中进化出了三个截然不同的大脑系统：性驱动、感受浓烈的浪漫以及对长期伴侣深层的强烈的依赖感。这三种大脑系统和大脑中的其他部分结合起来，控制着人类性、爱情以及家庭生活。

But they lie way below the cortex, waybelow the limbic system where we feel our emotions, generate our emotions.Theylie in the most primitive parts of the brain, linked with energy, focus,craving, motivation, wanting and drive.In this case, the drive to win life'sgreatest prize: a mating partner.They evolved over 4.4 million years ago amongour first ancestors, and they're not going to change if you swipe left or righton Tinder.但它们深藏在皮层下，在边缘系统下，即人类感受情感发泄情绪的区域。它们位于大脑中最原始的位置，和能量、注意力、渴望度、动力、欲望及能动性相连。在这里便是为了赢得人生最大奖的动力：一位配偶。这些大脑系统早在440万年前就从人类最早的祖先中演化而来，而不管你怎么在Tinder（社交软件）上滑屏，它们都不会发生变化。

There's no question that technology ischanging the way we court: emailing, texting, emojis to express your emotions,sexting, 'liking' a photograph, selfies...We're seeing new rulesand taboos for how to court.But, you know--is this actually dramaticallychanging love? What about the late 1940s, when the automobile became verypopular and we suddenly had rolling bedrooms?可以肯定的一点是科技正在改变人类的求爱方式。电子邮件、短信、表达情感的符号、色情短信、给照片或自拍点赞...关于如何求爱有了新的规则和禁忌，但是，这真的彻底改变了爱吗？来看看上个世纪40年代，那时候汽车刚大行其道，顿时人们便有了“可移动卧室”。

How about the introduction of the birthcontrol pill? Unchained from the great threat of pregnancy and social ruin,women could finally express their primitive and primal sexuality.再来看看引进避孕药的时代，因为意外怀孕而导致人生从此惨淡的日子一去不复返。女性终于可以释放她们最原始的性本能。Even dating sites are not changing love.I'm Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com, I've been it for 11 years.I keeptelling them and they agree with me, that these are not dating sites, they areintroducing sites.就连征婚网站的出现都没有改变爱。我在Match.com作首席科学顾问已经11年了，我一直宣导，而工作人员也认同我的意见。即这并不是一个征婚网站，这是个介绍网站。

When you sit down in a bar, in a coffee house, on a parkbench, your ancient brain snaps into action like a sleeping cat awakened, andyou smile and laugh and listen and parade the way our ancestors did 100,000years ago.We can give you various people--all the dating sites can--butthe only real algorithm is your own human brain.Technology is not going tochange that.当你走进酒吧、咖啡馆或坐在公园的长椅时，你的大脑会立即开始反应，就像一只沉睡的猫被唤醒一样。你开始微笑，大笑，试着倾听，用那些早在10万年前我们的祖先就使用的方式来炫耀。我们可以提供各式各样的对象，所有的征婚网站都可以，但唯一真实的算法却是你的大脑，科技改变不了这一点。Technology is also not going to change whoyou choose to love.I study the biology of personality, and I've come tobelieve that we've evolved four very broad styles of thinking and behaving,linked with the dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and estrogen systems.同样它也改变不了你的择偶对象。我研究生物心理学，我开始相信人类已经进化出了四个广义的思考及行为方式，和多巴胺、血清素、睾丸激素和雌激素系统相关联。

So Icreated a questionnaire directly from brain science to measure the degree towhich you express the traits--the constellation of traits--linked with eachof these four brain systems.I then put that questionnaire on various datingsites in 40 countries.Fourteen million or more people have now taken thequestionnaire, and I've been able to watch who's naturally drawn to whom.于是，基于脑科学原理，我设计了一份问卷用来衡量人们表达特征的程度——各种特征——与这四种大脑系统的关联性在40个国家的各种征婚网站上刊登了这份问卷。目前，已有1400多万人参与了问卷调查，我有幸可以观察那些天生相互吸引的人。

And as it turns out, those who were veryexpressive of the dopamine system tend to be curious, creative, spontaneous,energetic--I would imagine there's an awful lot of people like that in thisroom--they're drawn to people like themselves.Curious, creative people needpeople like themselves.People who are very expressive of the serotonin systemtend to be traditional, conventional, they follow the rules, they respectauthority, they tend to be religious--religiosity is in the serotonin system--and traditional people go for traditional people.In that way, similarityattracts.结果是那些多巴胺系统反应活跃的人更有好奇心，富有创意，自然率真，且精力充沛。我想现场在座肯定有很多人属于这一类型，他们通常被同类人所吸引。好奇且有创意的人需要和同类在一起。那些血清素系统反应活跃的人往往更加传统，遵循惯例与规则，尊重权威 他们通常笃信宗教 —宗教信仰正属于血清素系统— 传统派自然找传统派的人 如此一来，是同类相吸。In the other two cases, opposites attract.People very expressive ofthe testosterone system tend to be analytical, logical, direct, decisive, andthey go for their opposite: they go for somebody who's high estrogen, somebodywho's got very good verbal skills and people skills, who's very intuitive andwho's very nurturing and emotionally expressive.We have natural patterns ofmate choice.Modern technology is not going to change who we choose to love.而其他两种情况则完全相反，对立性才有吸引力。睾丸激素系统反应活跃的人通常善于分析、逻辑思维强、直接、果断，而他们寻找的是和他们对立的人，那些雌激素高的人，他们语言能力很强、善于处理人际关系、凭直觉行事且善于照顾他人，且直抒胸怀。人类择偶有自然模式，现代技术不会改变我们选择的对象。

But technology is producing one moderntrend that I find particularly important.It's associated with the concept ofparadox of choice.For millions of years, we lived in little hunting andgathering groups.You didn't have the opportunity to choose between 1,000people on a dating site.但科技正在制造一种当代潮流。我认为它尤为重要。它和选择悖论这一概念相关千万年来，人类都生活在小型狩猎及采集社会，那时的人没有机会在社交网站上千里挑一选择对象。

In fact, I've been studying this recently, and Iactually think there's some sort of sweet spot in the brain;I don't know whatit is, but apparently, from reading a lot of the data, we can embrace aboutfive to nine alternatives, and after that, you get into what academics call'cognitive overload,' and you don't choose any.事实上，从我最近对此的研究来看，我认为大脑中有某种“最佳状态点”。虽然我并不知道在哪儿，但从大量数据来看人类只能接受大概5~9个选项。在此之后，会变成某些学者称的“认知超载”。结果是不再做出选择。

So I've come to think that due to thiscognitive overload, we're ushering in a new form of courtship that I call'slow love.' I arrived at this during my work with Match.com.Everyyear for the last six years, we've done a study called 'Singles inAmerica.' We don't poll the Match population, we poll the Americanpopulation.We use 5,000-plus people, a representative sample of Americansbased on the US census.于是，我想正是由于这种认知超载我们引进了一种新型求爱方式，我称其为“慢慢爱”。这些都是我在 Match.com工作时总结出来的。过去六年中，我们做了一项研究名为“美国单身” 我们民调的对象不仅针对Match.com的会员，而是整个美国人口。我们调查了5000多人，这是基于美国统计局的代表性样本。We've got data now on over 30,000 people,and every single year, I see some of the same patterns.Every single year whenI ask the question, over 50 percent of people have had a one-night stand--notnecessarily last year, but in their lives--50 percent have had a friends withbenefits during the course of their lives, and over 50 percent have lived witha person long-term before marrying.目前已收集了超过3万人的数据。每年我都看到同样的模式，向他们提问的结果是超过50%的人有一夜情的经历，并不一定是上一年，而是他们一生中，在他们的有生之年50%的人曾经和朋友上过床。超过50%的人在婚前有过长期同居的经历。Americans think that this is reckless.Ihave doubted that for a long time;the patterns are too strong.There's got tobe some Darwinian explanation--Not that many people are crazy.美国人认为这是轻率的行为，但我一直不这么认为，毕竟这种模式太普遍，肯定有某种类似于达尔文生物进化的地方。总不会是那么多人都丧失了理智？

And I stumbled, then, on a statistic thatreally came home to me.It was a very interesting academic article in which Ifound that 67 percent of singles in America today who are living long-term withsomebody, have not yet married because they are terrified of divorce.They'reterrified of the social, legal, emotional, economic consequences of divorce.So I came to realize that I don't think this is recklessness;I think it'scaution.结果我发现了一个震惊的数据，一篇极其有趣的学术文章发现67%的处于长期同居的美国未婚人士，之所以还未结婚是因为担心离婚。他们担心离婚后面对的社会、法律、情感以及经济后果。于是 我认识到这并不是轻率的行为，而是谨慎。Today's singles want to know every single thing about a partner beforethey wed.You learn a lot between the sheets, not only about how somebody makeslove, but whether they're kind, whether they can listen and at my age, whetherthey've got a sense of humor.如今，人们在结婚之前想对其伴侣的每一个细节了如指掌，同居能让人了解到许多事情，不仅是对方的床上功夫，而是对方是否善良、是否善于倾听以及到了我这个年纪所关心的，就是对方是否有幽默感。

And in an age where we have too manychoices, we have very little fear of pregnancy and disease and we've got nofeeling of shame for sex before marriage, I think people are taking their timeto love.当今社会人们有很多选择，很少为怀孕或疾病感到担忧。且对婚前性行为毫无愧疚感，在这种情况下人们选择爱得慢一些。

And actually, what's happening is, whatwe're seeing is a real expansion of the precommitment stage before you tie theknot.Where marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship, now it's thefinale.But the human brain--而真实情况是这其实是婚前准备阶段的实际延伸。从前，婚姻意味着一段感情的开始。而现在它意味着尾声，但人类大脑

The human brain always triumphs, andindeed, in the United States today, 86 percent of Americans will marry by age49.And even in cultures around the world where they're not marrying as often,they are settling down eventually with a long-term partner.人类大脑总是胜出者。如今，在美国 86%的美国人将在49岁结婚，即便在世界上结婚率不高的文化里，最终他们也会和长期伴侣安定下来。So it began to occur to me: during this longextension of the precommitment stage, if you can get rid of bad relationshipsbefore you marry, maybe we're going to see more happy marriages.So I did astudy of 1,100 married people in America--not on Match.com, of course--andI asked them a lot of questions.But one of the questions was, 'Would youre-marry the person you're currently married to?' And 81 percent said,'Yes.'于是我突然想到：在这个长期婚前准备期，如果你在婚前摆脱了一段糟糕的情感关系或许就会有更多美满的婚姻。于是，我研究了美国1100位已婚人士，当然不是在Match.com上。我问了很多问题其中一个是如果再给你一次机会，你还会选择和现在的伴侣结婚吗？ 81%的人说，会！In fact, the greatest change in modernromance and family life is not technology.It's not even slow love.It's actuallywomen piling into the job market in cultures around the world.For millions ofyears, our ancestors lived in little hunting and gathering groups.Womencommuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables.They came home with 60to 80 percent of the evening meal.The double-income family was the rule.Andwomen were regarded as just as economically, socially and sexually powerful asmen.事实上当今的情感和家庭生活最大的变化不是科技造成的，甚至也不是“慢慢爱”的结果。而是在全世界范围内大量女性进入职场的结果。几百万年以来我们的祖先都生活在小型捕猎采集社会，女性忙于采摘，餐桌上60%~80%的食物是由她们带回来的。双份收入家庭是一般法则，女性不论在经济、社会还是性方面都和男性具有同等的地位。

Then the environment changed some 10,000years ago, we began to settle down on the farm and both men and women becameobliged, really, to marry the right person, from the right background, from theright religion and from the right kin and social and political connections.Men's jobs became more important: they had to move the rocks, fell the trees,plow the land.They brought the produce to local markets, and came home withthe equivalent of money.然而大约1万年前社会发生了变化，人类开始以农耕为主，男女似乎有义务寻找合适的人结婚。对方必须有匹配的背景、宗教信仰、相称的家族、社会及政治关联。男性的工作变得更为重要，他们必须搬运大石、砍树、耕地，他们把农产品带到市场上卖换回来同等的钱。

Along with this, we see a rise of a host ofbeliefs: the belief of virginity at marriage, arranged marriages--strictlyarranged marriages--the belief that the man is the head of the household,that the wife's place is in the home and most important, honor thy husband, and'til death do us part.These are gone.They are going, and in many places, theyare gone.不仅如此，各种信仰开始传播。坚信婚前必须保持处女身包办婚姻（严格安排的婚姻）、坚信男性是一家之主女性就应该待在家里更重要的一点。女性一生一世必须尊夫所有这些都是过去式了，有些地方仍有这些现象，但大部分地区这些现象都不复存在了。

We are right now in a marriage revolution.We are shedding 10,000 years of our farming tradition and moving forwardtowards egalitarian relationships between the sexes--something I regard ashighly compatible with the ancient human spirit.我们正处于一场婚姻变革之中，我们摒弃了1万年前的农业传统，朝着两性平等的方向发展。我认为这和远古人类的精神相契合。

I'm not a Pollyanna;there's a great dealto cry about.I've studied divorce in 80 cultures, I've studied, as I say,adultery in many--there's a whole pile of problems.As William Butler Yeats,the poet, once said, 'Love is the crooked thing.' I would add,'Nobody gets out alive.'我不是一个盲目乐观的人，还有很多事情值得担忧。我研究了80种文化里的离婚行为、出轨行为还有许许多多的问题。正如诗人威廉·巴特勒·叶芝所说 “爱情是个狡猾的家伙” 我会再加一句，“没人能活着出来”。

We all have problems.But in fact, I thinkthe poet Randall Jarrell really sums it up best.He said, 'The dark,uneasy world of family life--where the greatest can fail, and the humblestsucceed.'每个人都有困扰，但我认为诗人兰德尔·贾雷尔总结的最好他说：在枯燥繁琐的家庭生活中强者不显其智，弱者反而取胜。But I will leave you with this: love andattachment will prevail, technology cannot change it.And I will conclude bysaying any understanding of human relationships must take into account one themost powerful determinants of human behavior: the unquenchable, adaptable andprimordial human drive to love.但我想说的是：爱和相互依赖会战胜一切，科技无法改变这一点。总结下来，便是任何对人类关系的诠释必须考虑到人类行为，最强大的决定因素是那难以抑制的极具适应性的最原始的爱的动力。

Kelly Stoetzel: Thank you so much for that,Helen.As you know, there's another speaker here with us that works in yoursame field.She comes at it from a different perspective.Esther Perel is apsychotherapist who works with couples.You study data, Esther studies thestories the couples tell her when they come to her for help.Let's have herjoin us on the stage.Esther?Kelly Stoetzel：感谢您的演讲。海伦，今天还有另一位演讲者，她和您在相同的领域里做研究，不过是从不同的视角来分析问题。诶斯特·佩雷斯从事情侣心理治疗师的工作，您研究数据，诶斯特研究那些向她寻求帮助的情侣们所诉说的故事。现在请她上台吧，有请诶斯特。

So Esther, when you were watching Helen'stalk, was there any part of it that resonated with you through the lens of yourown work that you'd like to comment on?诶斯特当您观看海伦演讲的时候是否有和您所做的工作产生共鸣的地方？您可以和我们说说嘛？

Esther Perel: It's interesting, because onthe one hand, the need for love is ubiquitous and universal.But the way welove--the meaning we make out of it--the rules that govern our relationships,I think, are changing fundamentally.Esther Perel：让我觉得有意思的地方是，一方面，人们对爱的需求无所不在，无所不及但人类爱的方式爱与被爱背后的意义，以及控制双方关系的规则正在发生根本性的改变。

We come from a model that, until now, wasprimarily regulated around duty and obligation, the needs of the collective andloyalty.And we have shifted it to a model of free choice and individualrights, and self-fulfillment and happiness.And so, that was the first thing Ithought, that the need doesn't change, but the context and the way we regulatethese relationships changes a lot.直到最近我们一直处于一种模式，即主要由责任和义务集体和忠诚主义支配的模式。而现在，我们转向了另一种模式即追崇自主选择、个人权利、自我实现与幸福的模式，这是我脑子里冒出的第一个想法，爱的需求没有改变，但大环境和人们处理情感关系的方式发生了很大的变化。

On the paradox of choice--you know, onthe one hand we relish the novelty and the playfulness, I think, to be able tohave so many options.And at the same time, as you talk about this cognitiveoverload, I see many, many people who...who dread the uncertainty andself-doubt that comes with this massa of choice, creating a case of'FOMO' and then leading us--FOMO, fear of missed opportunity, orfear of missing out--it's like, 'How do I know I have found 'the one'--the right one?'关于选择悖论我认为一方面我们追求多重选择给我们带来的新鲜感和趣味性，同时，就像你提到的“认知负荷” 我看到许多人对堆砌成堆的选项所带来的不确定性和不自信而感到担忧，从而制造出某种“害怕错过的恐惧症” 于是便引领我们--“FOMO”，表现为害怕机会流失，就好比“我怎么知道这个人就是我命中注定的那一个呢？”

So we've created what I call this thing of'stable ambiguity.' Stable ambiguity is when you are too afraid to bealone but also not really willing to engage in intimacy-building.It's a set oftactics that kind of prolong the uncertainty of a relationship but also theuncertainty of the breakup.与人建立亲密关系。这是一种策略，不仅会使这段关系的不确定性期延长，还能拖延分手的不确定性。

So, here on the internet you have three major ones.One is icing and simmering, which are great stalling tactics that offer a kindof holding pattern that emphasizes the undefined nature of a relationship butat the same time gives you enough of a comforting consistency and enough freedomof the undefined boundaries.网络上将其分为三个阶段：一是冰冻期和温吞水，这是很好的拖延战术，它使人们处于某种停滞状态。在这种状态下，强调情感关系中的不界定属性但同时能让你维持这段关系以及自由做出选择的空间。Yeah?对吗？

And then comes ghosting.And ghosting is,basically, you disappear from this massa of texts on the spot, and you don'thave to deal with the pain that you inflict on another, because you're makingit invisible even to yourself.接下来就到了“幽灵阶段”。“幽灵阶段”基本上是指你突然不再做出选择、不再应对你给对方带来的痛苦，因为你自己都掩耳盗铃。Yeah?说的对吗？

So I was thinking--these words came upfor me as I was listening to you, like how a vocabulary also creates a reality,and at the same time, that's my question to you: Do you think when the contextchanges, it still means that the nature of love remains the same?这种现象我称为“稳定的模棱两可”。指的是你害怕被剩下来孤独终老，但又不愿打开心扉。当我在听你演讲的时候我想到了这些，正如语言重现现实一样。与此同时，我也有个问题要问你：当环境发生变化时，你认为爱的本质还是一样的吗？

You study the brain and I study people'srelationships and stories, so I think it's everything you say, plus.But Idon't always know the degree to which a changing context...Does it at somepoint begin to change--If the meaning changes, does it change the need, or isthe need clear of the entire context?你研究大脑，而我研究情侣关系。我认可你的观点，但我不明白的是环境改变的程度——它是从某一点开始改变的呢？如果意义变了，需求是否也会改变呢？或需求本身不受整个大环境影响？ HF: Wow!Well--海伦：哇！

Well, I've got three points here, right?First of all, to your first one: there's no question that we've changed, thatwe now want a person to love, and for thousands of years, we had to marry theright person from the right background and right kin connection.And in fact,in my studies of 5,000 people every year, I ask them, 'What are youlooking for?' And every single year, over 97 percent say--海伦：好的，我分为三点来说首先，回答你第一个问题：人类变了，这一点毋庸置疑现在人们依然渴望爱情。而几千年来人们都遵从必须和来自匹配的背景和关联的人结婚，每年我对5000人进行调研，我问他们：“你想找什么样的人？” 每年超过97%的人会说。

海伦：是的。EP: The list grows--诶斯特：清单越来越长了吧？ HF: Well, no.The basic thing is over 97percent of people want somebody that respects them, somebody they can trust andconfide in, somebody who makes them laugh, somebody who makes enough time forthem and somebody who they find physically attractive.That never changes.Andthere's certainly--you know, there's two parts--海伦：呃，没有。超过97%的人都表示想找尊重自己、值得信任的、能交心的、能逗你笑的、花时间陪自己的以及长相看着顺眼的人。这几点从未改变过，大概有两部分--EP: But you know how I call that? That'snot what people used to say--诶斯特：你知道我怎么定义这种现象吗？过去人们并不是这样的择偶标准。HF: That's exactly right.EP: They said they wanted somebody withwhom they have companionship, economic support, children.We went from aproduction economy to a service economy.We did it in the larger culture, and we'redoing it in marriage.诶斯特：过去人们会说他们想找能够与自己作伴、提供经济支持、喜爱孩子的人，我们从生产经济转变为服务经济。在其他文化中我们已经这么做了，现在我们把它带到婚姻中。HF: Right, no question about it.But it'sinteresting, the millennials actually want to be very good parents, whereas thegeneration above them wants to have a very fine marriage but is not as focusedon being a good parent.You see all of these nuances.海伦：是的，这一点毫无疑问但有趣的是，如今千禧一代非常渴望成为合格的家长，而他们的上一代人希望有个美满的婚姻，但却不向他们一样专注于成为合格的家长，你可以看到这些细微的差别。

There's two basic parts of personality:there's your culture--everything you grew up to do and believe and say--andthere's your temperament.Basically, what I've been talking about is yourtemperament.And that temperament is certainly going to change with changingtimes and changing beliefs.人格有两个基本构成部分：你的文化、成长过程信仰和言行以及性格，我讨论的基本上都是性格。而性格一定会随着时间和信仰的改变而改变。

And in terms of the paradox of choice,there's no question about it that this is a pickle.There were millions ofyears where you found that sweet boy at the other side of the water hole, andyou went for it.就选择悖论而言这确实是个两难的境地。千百万年以来，如果人们在河边看到心动的对象，便会去争取。EP: Yes, but you--诶斯特：是的，但是--HF: I do want to say one more thing.Thebottom line is, in hunting and gathering societies, they tended to have two orthree partners during the course of their lives.They weren't square!And I'mnot suggesting that we do, but the bottom line is, we've always hadalternatives.Mankind is always--in fact, the brain is well-built to what wecall 'equilibrate,' to try and decide: Do I come, do I stay? Do I go,do I stay? What are the opportunities here? How do I handle this there? And soI think we're seeing another play-out of that now.海伦：还有一件事归根结底，在狩猎及采集社会中，人们一生中通常有2到3个伴侣他们并不是两两相对的。我当然不是建议我们也这么做，但重要的是我们始终可以做出其他选择。人类一直如此，实际上，人类大脑的构造是平衡对称的，去试探或下决心：来或走？去或留？留下来有什么样的机遇？怎么处理这件事？我想现在上演的正是大脑决策的另一出戏。

KS: Well, thank you both so much.I thinkyou're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight!KS：非常感谢两位。我想你今晚要和很多人共进晚餐了。

(Applause)Thank you, thank you.（掌声）谢谢！

第二篇：《科技改变生活》演讲

科技改变生活

亲爱的老师同学们，大家早上好，我是„„，今天我演讲的题目是《科技改变生活》。

工业化与信息化的发展，推动了科学技术的进步，而这些日新月异科学技术的，也越来越多地渗透到我们的生活和学习之中:通讯技术的发展，使沟通不再困难；网络技术的发展，让资源实现了全球性的共享；智能设备的发展，改变了人类的生活方式。我们每天都生活并享受在科技的成果中。生活无处不体现着科技的进步。

人类得益于科技，科技则源于创新。然而，创新并不是遥不可及的。当你欣喜若狂地解出一道数学题时，可否想到还有另一种解法？当你面对节约用水的传统对策时，可否想到还有更好的措施？生活用品、学习用具的小改进就是创造。创新就是这样一点点培养起来的。在科技中，往往一个小小的创新就能诞生一个新的伟大的发明。

“科学技术是第一生产力”，它是一个民族进步的灵魂，是国家兴旺发达的不竭动力。同学们，今后让我们努力学习科学知识，勤于观察，勇于探索，用创新点缀人生，让科技融入理想！

我的演讲完毕，谢谢大家！

第三篇：Photos-that-changed-the-world(改变世界的照片TED演讲)

Photos that changed the world Good moring,everyone.My name is Xiehonglan,I come from Fuzhou, the capital city of Fujian province.It faces the island of Taiwan,off the China coast.This area nurtures many eminent scholars and politicians of the Chinese contemporary history,such as Yanfu,BinXing and Lin Zexu.I love my city.I graduated from Nankai University.Today my topic is Photos that changed the world To start with, I want to ask a question.Do you believe images can change the world? However, the truth is that we know that the images themselves don’t change the world, but we are also aware that, since the beginning of photography, images have provoked reactions in people, and those reactions have caused change to happen.So let’s begin with a group of images, they are so well-known, you might even recognize them in a different form.But I think we are looking for something more.We are looking for images that shine an uncompromising light on crucial issues, images that transcend borders, that transcend religions, images that provoke us to step up and do something.In other words, to act.Well, this image, you have all seen.It changed our view of the physical world.We have never seen our planet from this perspective before.Many people credit a lot of the birth of the environmental movement to our seeing the planet like this for the first time, its smallness, its fragility.40 years later, this groupare aware of the destructive power that our species can wield over our environment.These images taken by Brent Stirton in the Congo, these gorillas were murdered, some would even say crucified, and unsurprisingly, they sparked international outrage.Now, images have power to shed light of understanding on suspicion, ignorance, and in particularthe issue of HIV/AIDS.In the 1980s, people avoided talking about the disease.A simple act, in 1987, of the most famous woman in the world, the Princess of Wales, touching an HIV/AIDS infected baby, did a great deal, especially in Europe, to stop that.She, better than most, knew the power of an image.So when we are confronted by a powerful image, we all have a choice.We can look away, or we can address the image.Thankfully, when these photos appeared in the Guardian in 1998, they put a lot of focus and attention, and in the end, a lot of money, towards the Sudan famine relief efforts.Did the images change the world? No, but they had a major impact.Ansel Adams said, “you don’t take a photograph, you make it.” In my view, it’s not the photographer who makes the photo, it’s you.We bring to each image, our own values, our own belief systems, and as a result of that, the image resonates with us.

第四篇：TED演讲

绿色未来（A Greener Future?）

大家好，我是Zach。从本周开始，我们将开展“TED演讲主题介绍”系列，陆续为大家介绍TED演讲的各类主题，方便大家更快地找到自己喜欢的TED演讲。众所周知，TED刚刚创办时的焦点是集中在Technology（科技）, Entertainment（娱乐）和Design（设计）三方面。但随着TED的成长和知名度的增加，TED演讲所涵盖的行业也越来越广泛。为了确保读者们不会在大量的演讲中迷失了方向，TED网站贴心地将所有的演讲分门别类，归纳到不同的主题中，既方便读者们针对自己感兴趣的内容有选择地观看演讲，也便于大家观看和某一演讲相关的其他内容。

本系列的目的就是逐步地将已翻译好的主题简介带给大家，并为大家推荐相关主题下的已翻译演讲、待翻译演讲和待校对演讲。

本周为大家介绍的主题是–A Greener Future? 绿色未来

该主题在TED的网址是:

在TEDtoChina的网址是:

http:///themes/a_greener_future/

◎ 主题简介

关于环境的辩论通常被定性为经济发展和保护地球这两种势力间的较量。然而，大多数TED演讲者坚持鱼和熊掌可以兼得的观点——只要我们在处理环境问题时足够聪明。

阿尔·戈尔作为宣传气候危机的领军人，坚持人类可以通过细微处的改进以在避免灾难的同时保持经济的活跃发展。建筑师威廉·麦克多纳向人们展现了伟大设计的力量，它作用在整个文明体系上，而不仅仅是针对局部领域，并能持久地担负起丰富的未来。马约拉·卡特谈及了她为曾陷入腐化的的纽约南布隆克斯区带来绿色生机的工程。

爱德华·伯汀斯基关于环境损害和经济发展的异常精致的摄影作品记录了人类发展从未停滞的脚步。而生物学家爱德华·奥斯伯·威尔森向我们分享了他最大的心愿——人类社会团结起来保护地球上的生命。

◎ 演讲者推荐

阿尔·戈尔(Al Gore)：美国政治人物，曾于1993年至2001年间在比尔·克林顿掌政时担任美国第四十五任副总统。其后升为一名国际上著名的环境学家，由

于在环球气候变化与环境问题上的贡献受到国际的肯定，因而与政府间气候变化专门委员会共同获得2007诺贝尔和平奖。

珍·古道尔(Jane Goodall)：英国生物学家、动物行为学家和著名动物保育人士。珍·古道尔长期致力于黑猩猩的野外研究，并取得丰硕成果。她的工作纠正了许多学术界对黑猩猩这一物种长期以来的错误认识，揭示了许多黑猩猩社群中鲜为人知的秘密。除了对黑猩猩的研究，珍·古道尔还热心投身于环境教育和公益事业，由她创建并管理的珍·古道尔研究会（国际珍古道尔协会）是著名民间动物保育机构，在促进黑猩猩保育、推广动物福利、推进环境和人道主义教育等领域进行了很多卓有成效的工作，由珍·古道尔研究会创立的根与芽是目前全球最活跃的面向青年的环境教育计划之一。由于珍·古道尔在黑猩猩研究和环境教育等领域的杰出贡献，她在 1995年获英国女王伊丽莎白二世荣封为皇家女爵士，在2002年获颁联合国和平使者。

（演讲者简介来自维基百科）

◎ 部分已翻译演讲（简体中文）推荐：

1.阿尔·戈尔关于避免气候危机的演讲

“此次演讲流露出的幽默感和人道主义跟在他的纪录电影”难以忽视的真相“如出一辙，戈尔阐明了15种应对气候危机立马有效的方法而且简单易行，从购买混合动力产品到发明新产品替代碳排放产品，使“全球温室效应”更加深入人心。”

2.阿力克斯·史蒂芬看望可持续发展的未来

“阿力克斯·史蒂芬是“改变世界”（Worldchanging.com）网站的创建人，他在这个演讲中指出，减低人类生态足迹在当下之意义尤为巨大，原因在于西方那一套生活方式将不能推广到发展中国家，因为那样将消耗大量的资源。(因为西方的那一套生活方式正逐步推广到发展中国家，进一步加剧着资源的大量消耗。)”

3.Willie Smits 修复雨林

透过复杂的生态学，生物学家Willie Smits发掘一个重新植林的快捷方式，在婆罗洲救回了许多栖息于当地的红毛猩猩，进而创造出一个得以修复脆弱生态系统的蓝图。

4.William McDonough 谈「从摇篮到摇篮」理念

致力于环保的建筑师兼设计师 William McDonough 问，如果设计师心系所有子孙、所有物种、直到永远，我们的建筑及产品会是什么样子？

5.查尔斯·摩尔：塑料充斥的海洋

查尔斯·摩尔船长是Algalita海洋研究基金会的创始人，他第一次发现了大太平洋垃圾带——一片无边无际漂浮着塑料垃圾的海域。现在，他为我们讲述大海面临的日益严重的塑料碎片污染问题。

◎ 待校对演讲（简体中文）推荐

1.Carl Honore praises slowness

“Journalist Carl Honore believes the Western world’s emphasis on speed erodes health, productivity and quality of life.But there’s a backlash brewing, as everyday people start putting the brakes on their all-too-modern lives.”

2.Kamal Meattle on how to grow fresh air

Researcher Kamal Meattle shows how an arrangement of three common houseplants, used in specific spots in a home or office building, can result in measurably cleaner indoor air.以上就是这个星期的TED主题介绍。希望大家能从上面的演讲中有所收获。大家也可以点击这里的网址来查看所有该主题下演讲的翻译进度（简体中文和繁体中文）。

如果大家对此专栏有何建议的话，欢迎大家在下面留言，或是电邮至OTP at TEDtoChina dot com

我们下期再见。

第五篇：Ted演讲

Ralph Langner谈21世纪电子武器Stuxnet揭密

关于这场演讲

Stuxnet计算机蠕虫于2010年首次被发现，带来了令人费解的谜团。除了它不寻常且高度复杂的编码以外，还隐藏着一个更令人不安的谜团：它的攻击目标。Ralph Langner及其团队协助破解Stuxnet编码，找出这个数字弹头的最终攻击目标－以及其幕后源头。经使用计算机数字鉴识方法深入检视后，他解释了其运作原理。

关于Ralph Langner

Ralph Langner是德国控制系统的安全顾问。他对Stuxnet恶意软件的分析受到全球瞩目。

为什么要听他演讲

Ralph Langner为独立网络安全公司Langner的领导者，专营控制系统－监控和调控其它设备的电子装置，如生产设备。这些装置与运作我们城市和国家的基础设施有密切关系，这使它们逐渐成为一场新兴且具高度复杂型态的电子战争攻击目标。自2010年起，当Stuxnet计算机蠕虫首次现身时，Langner坚决地投身于这个战场。

身为致力于译码这个神秘程序的一份子，Langner和他的团队分析Stuxnet的数据结构，并找出他认为其最终的攻击目标：运行于核工厂离心机的控制系统软件－特别是伊朗的核工厂。Langner进一步分析，发现Stuxnet可能的幕后源头，并于TED2011演讲中透露这个秘密。

Ralph Langner的英语网上资料

网站：Langner

[TED科技‧娱乐‧设计]

已有中译字幕的TED影片目录（繁体）（简体）。请注意繁简目录是不一样的。

Ralph Langner谈21世纪电子武器Stuxnet揭密

Stuxnet计算机蠕虫背后的想法其实很简单，我们不希望伊朗造出原子弹，他们发展核武器的主要资产是纳坦兹的浓缩铀工厂，你们看到的灰色方块是实时控制系统，现在，如果我们设法破坏控制速度和阀门的驱动系统，我们事实上可以使离心机产生很多问题。这些灰色方块无法执行Windows软件，两者是完全不同的技术，但如果我们设法将一个有效的Windows病毒放进一台笔记本电脑里，由一位机械工程师操作，设定这个灰色方块，那么我们就可以着手进行了，这就是Stuxnet大致背景。

因此，我们从Windows释放程序开始，让病毒载体进入灰色方块中，破坏离心机，延迟伊朗的核计划，任务完成，很简单，对吧？我想说明我们是如何发现这个的，当我们在半年前开始研究Stuxnet时，对这个东西的攻击目标一无所知，唯一了解的是它在Windows的部份非常、非常复杂，释放程序部份使用多个零日漏洞，它似乎想要做些什么，用这些灰色方块，这些实时控制系统，因此，这引起我们的注意，我们开始了一个实验计划，我们用Stuxnet感染我们的系统并审视结果，然后一些非常有趣的事发生了。Stuxnet表现得像只白老鼠，不喜欢我们的奶酪，闻一闻，但不想吃。这根本没道里。之后，我们用不同口味的奶酪进行实验，我意识到，哦，这是一个直接攻击，完全直接的。释放程序在这些灰

色方块中有效的潜伏着，如果它发现了一个特定程序组态，甚至是它正试图感染的程序，它都会确实针对这个目标执行，如果没发现，Stuxnet就不起作用。

所以这真的引起了我的注意，我们开始进行这方面的工作，几乎日以继夜，因为我想，好吧，我们不知道它的目标是什么，很可能的，比方说美国的发电厂，或德国的化工厂，所以我们最好尽快找出目标。因此，我们抽出攻击代码并进行反编译，我们发现它的结构由两个数字炸弹组成，一个较小、一个较大。我们也看到，这是非常专业的设计，由显然知道所有内幕信息的人编写，他们知道所有必需攻击的位和字节，搞不好他们还知道控制员的鞋子尺寸，因此他们什么都知道。

如果你曾听过Stuxnet的释放程序，是复杂、高科技的，让我跟你们说明一下。病毒本身是很高科技没错，比我们曾见过的任何编码都高深，这是这个实际攻击代码的样本，我们谈论的是大概15,000行的代码，看起来很像旧式的汇编语言。我想告诉你们的是，我们如何能够理解这段代码，所以，我们首先要寻找的是系统的函数调用，因为我们知道它们的作用是什么。

然后，我们寻找时间控制器和数据结构，试图将其与真实世界连结起来，寻找现实世界中的潜在目标，因此我们必需进行目标推测，以便确认或排除。为了找到推测目标，我们想到，它必定具有绝对破坏性，必定是一个高价值目标，最可能设置在伊朗，因为这是大部份感染发生的地点。在这区域内你不会找到几千个目标，基本上范围可以缩小为布什尔核电厂及纳坦兹浓缩铀工厂。

所以我告诉我的助手，“列出我们客户中所有离心机和核电厂专家的名单”，我打电话给他们，听取他们的意见，努力用我们在代码和数据中的发现与他们的专业知识做对照。这很有效，因此，我们找出了这个小数字弹头与转子控制的关联，转子是离心机内部的运转零件，就是你们看到的这个黑色物体，如果控制这个转子的速度，事实上你就能使转子损坏，甚至最后使离心机爆炸。我们也看到了这次攻击的目标，实际上进行的相当缓慢、低调，显然为了达成目标，快把维修工程师逼疯了，因为他们无法迅速找出答案。

这个大数字弹头－我们做过尝试，非常仔细检查数据和数据结构，因此，例如数字164在这些代码中确实很突出，你不能忽视它。我开始研究科学文献，这些离心机如何在纳坦兹组建，并找出它们的结构，就是所谓的层级。每个层级由164台离心机组成，这就说的通了，与我们的结果匹配。

而它甚至更有帮助。这些在伊朗的离心机细分为15种所谓的等级，你猜我们在攻击代码中发现什么？一个几乎相同的结构。所以，同样的，这与结果完美匹配，就我们所寻找的东西来说，这给了我们相当大的信心。别误解我的意思，不是像这样弹指之间，为了获致这些成果，历经几星期相当艰苦的奋斗，我们常常走进死胡同，必需重新来过。

总之，我们找到了这两个数字弹头，实际上是针对同一个目标，但从不同角度。小弹头对准一个层级，让转子加速旋转然后急遽减速，而大弹头影响六个层级并操纵阀门，总之，我们非常有信心，我们已经确认目标是什么，是纳坦兹，就只有纳坦兹。因此，我们不必担心其它目标可能被Stuxnet攻击。

我们看到一些非常酷的东西，真的让我印象深刻。下方是灰色方块，顶端你们看到的是离心机，这些东西所做的是拦截来自传感器的输入值，例如，来自压力传感器和振动传感器的，它提供正常代码，在攻击中依然执行，用的是假的输入数

据。事实上，这个假的输入数据是Stuxnet事先录制的，因此，这就像来自好莱坞电影的抢劫过程中，监视器被放入预录的影片，酷吧？

这里的想法显然不仅是愚弄控制室中的操作者，实际上更加危险且更具攻击性，这个想法是规避数字安全系统。我们需要数字安全系统，当一位人类操作员的行动不够快时，因此，例如在一座核电厂中，当一台大蒸汽涡轮机严重超速时，你必须在一毫秒内打开泄压阀。显然，一位人类操作员办不到，因此，这就是我们需要使用数字安全系统之处。当它们被破坏，真正糟糕的事就会发生了，你的工厂会爆炸，无论你的操作员或安全系统都无法注意到这一点，这很可怕。

但还会更糟。我要说的这些相当重要，想想看，这种攻击是一般性的，它没什么特定性，对离心机来说，还有浓缩铀，因此，它也会作用于，例如一座核电厂或一座汽车工厂，它是通用的，你不需要－身为攻击者，你不需要藉由USB装置传递这个病毒载体，如我们在Stuxnet例子中看到的，你也可以使用传统的蠕虫病毒技术的来散播，尽可能传播四方。如果你这么做，最终它会变成具大规模破坏性的网络武器，这是我们必然会面临的后果。所以，不幸的是，这种攻击最大量的目标并不是在中东，而是在美国、欧洲和日本。因此，所有这些绿色区域就是遭受最多攻击的目标，我们必须面对这个后果，我们最好现在开始做准备。

谢谢。

（掌声）

Chris Anderson：我有个问题，Ralph，这件事已广为人知，人们认为摩萨德（以色列情报机构）是幕后的主要推手，你也这么认为吗？

Ralph Langner：好，你真的想知道吗？

Chris Anderson：是啊!

Ralph Langner：好，我的看法是，摩萨德有参与，但以色列并非领导势力。因此，背后的主导力量是网络超级大国，只有一个，就是美国。幸好、幸好，因为如果不是这样，我们的问题可能更大。

CA：谢谢你吓坏了美国人，谢谢Ralph。