During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases 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.

在討論過程中，Melinda和我讀到了一篇文章，里面說在那些貧窮的國(guó)家，每年有數(shù)百萬(wàn)的兒童死于那些在美國(guó)早已不成問題的疾病。麻疹、瘧疾、肺 炎、乙型肝炎、黃熱病、還有一種以前我從未聽說過的輪狀病毒，這些疾病每年導(dǎo)致50萬(wàn)兒童死亡，但是在美國(guó)一例死亡病例也沒有。

We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.

我們被震驚了。我們想，如果幾百萬(wàn)兒童正在死亡線上掙扎，而且他們是可以被挽救的，那么世界理應(yīng)將用藥物拯救他們作為頭等大事。但是事實(shí)并非如此。那些價(jià)格還不到一美元的救命的藥劑，并沒有送到他們的手中。

If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some 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 our giving."

如果你相信每個(gè)生命都是平等的，那么當(dāng)你發(fā)現(xiàn)某些生命被挽救了，而另一些生命被放棄了，你會(huì)感到無法接受。我們對(duì)自己說：“事情不可能如此。如果這是真的，那么它理應(yīng)是我們努力的頭等大事。”

So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: "How could the world let these children die?"

所以，我們用任何人都會(huì)想到的方式開始工作。我們問：“這個(gè)世界怎么可以眼睜睜看著這些孩子死去？”

The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.

答案很簡(jiǎn)單，也很令人難堪。在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)中，拯救兒童是一項(xiàng)沒有利潤(rùn)的工作，政府也不會(huì)提供補(bǔ)助。這些兒童之所以會(huì)死亡，是因?yàn)樗麄兊母改冈诮?jīng)濟(jì)上沒有實(shí)力，在政治上沒有能力發(fā)出聲音。

But you and I have both.

但是，你們和我在經(jīng)濟(jì)上有實(shí)力，在政治上能夠發(fā)出聲音。

We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.

我們可以讓市場(chǎng)更好地為窮人服務(wù)，如果我們能夠設(shè)計(jì)出一種更有創(chuàng)新性的資本主義制度——如果我們可以改變市場(chǎng)，讓更多的人可以獲得利潤(rùn)，或者至少可 以維持生活——那么，這就可以幫到那些正在極端不平等的狀況中受苦的人們。我們還可以向全世界的政府施壓，要求他們將納稅人的錢，花到更符合納稅人價(jià)值觀 的地方。

If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.

如果我們能夠找到這樣一種方法，既可以幫到窮人，又可以為商人帶來利潤(rùn)，為政治家?guī)磉x票，那么我們就找到了一種減少世界性不平等的可持續(xù)的發(fā)展道路。這個(gè)任務(wù)是無限的。它不可能被完全完成，但是任何自覺地解決這個(gè)問題的嘗試，都將會(huì)改變這個(gè)世界。

I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: "Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care." I completely disagree.

在這個(gè)問題上，我是樂觀的。但是，我也遇到過那些感到絕望的懷疑主義者。他們說：“不平等從人類誕生的第一天就存在，到人類滅亡的最后一天也將存在。——因?yàn)槿祟悓?duì)這個(gè)問題根本不在乎。”我完全不能同意這種觀點(diǎn)。

I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.

我相信，問題不是我們不在乎，而是我們不知道怎么做。

All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.

此刻在這個(gè)院子里的所有人，生命中總有這樣或那樣的時(shí)刻，目睹人類的悲劇，感到萬(wàn)分傷心。但是我們什么也沒做，并非我們無動(dòng)于衷，而是因?yàn)槲覀儾恢雷鍪裁春驮趺醋?。如果我們知道如何做是有效的，那么我們就?huì)采取行動(dòng)。

The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.

改變世界的阻礙，并非人類的冷漠，而是世界實(shí)在太復(fù)雜。

To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.

為了將關(guān)心轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樾袆?dòng)，我們需要找到問題，發(fā)現(xiàn)解決辦法的方法，評(píng)估后果。但是世界的復(fù)雜性使得所有這些步驟都難于做到。

Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.

即使有了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)和24小時(shí)直播的新聞臺(tái)，讓人們真正發(fā)現(xiàn)問題所在，仍然十分困難。當(dāng)一架飛機(jī)墜毀了，官員們會(huì)立刻召開新聞發(fā)布會(huì)，他們承諾進(jìn)行調(diào)查、找到原因、防止將來再次發(fā)生類似事故。

But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: "Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent."

但是如果那些官員敢說真話，他們就會(huì)說：“在今天這一天，全世界所有可以避免的死亡之中，只有0.5%的死者來自于這次空難。我們決心盡一切努力，調(diào)查這個(gè)0.5%的死亡原因。”

The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.

顯然，更重要的問題不是這次空難，而是其他幾百萬(wàn)可以預(yù)防的死亡事件。