英文演讲-我们该选择死亡吗？

英文演讲:我们该选择死亡吗？

shall we choose death?

bertrand russell december 30, 1954 i am speaking not as a briton, not as a european, not as a member of a western democracy, but as a human being, a member of the species man, whose continued existence is in doubt. the world is full of conflicts: jews and arabs; indians and pakistanis; white men and negroes in africa; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between communism and anticommunism. almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but i want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings for the moment and consider yourself only as a member of a biological species which has had a remarkable history and whose disappearance none of us can desire. i shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. all, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it. we have to learn to think in a new way. we have to learn to ask ourselves not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps. the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all sides? the general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with hydrogen bombs. the general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. it is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old and that, while one atomic bomb could obliterate hiroshima, one hydrogen bomb could obliterate the largest cities such as london, new york, and moscow. no

doubt in a hydrogen-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. but this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. if everybody in london, new york, and moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. but we now know, especially since the bikini test, that hydrogen bombs can gradually spread destruction over a much wider area than had been supposed. it is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 25,000 times as powerful as that which destroyed hiroshima. such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radioactive particles into the upper air. they sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. it was this dust which infected the japanese fishermen and their catch of fish although they were outside what american experts believed to be the danger zone. no one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with hydrogen bombs is quite likely to put an end to the human race. it is feared that if many hydrogen bombs are used there will be universal death - sudden only for a fortunate minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration... here, then, is the problem which i present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: shall we put an end to the human race1 or shall mankind renounce war? people will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. the abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. but what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term 'mankind' feels vague and abstract. people scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity' and so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern

weapons are prohibited. i am afraid this hope is illusory. whatever agreements not to use hydrogen bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture hydrogen bombs as soon as war broke out, for if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious... as geological time is reckoned, man has so far existed only for a very short period one million years at the most. what he has achieved, especially during the last 6,000 years, is something utterly new in the history of the cosmos, so far at least as we are acquainted with it. for countless ages the sun rose and set, the moon waxed and waned, the stars shone in the night, but it was only with the coming of man that these things were understood. in the great world of astronomy and in the little world of the atom, man has unveiled secrets which might have been thought undiscoverable. in art and literature and religion, some men have shown a sublimity of feeling which makes the species worth preserving. is all this to end in trivial horror because so few are able to think of man rather than of this or that group of men? is our race so destitute of wisdom, so incapable of impartial love, so blind even to the simplest dictates of self-preservation, that the last proof of its silly cleverness is to be the extermination of all life on our planet? - for it will be not only men who will perish, but also the animals, whom no one can accuse of communism or anticommunism. i cannot believe that this is to be the end. i would have men forget their quarrels for a moment and reflect that, if they will allow themselves to survive, there is every reason to expect the triumphs of the future to exceed immeasurably the triumphs of the past. there lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. shall we, instead, choose death, because we

cannot forget our quarrels? i appeal, as a human being to human beings: remember your humanity, and forget the rest. if you can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot, nothing lies before you but universal death. 我们该挑选死亡吗？ 伯特兰·罗素 1954年12月30日 我别是作为一具英国人、一具欧洲人、一具西方民主国家的一员，而是作为一具人，作为别知是否还能生存下去的人类的一员在说演。世界充满了争斗：犹太人和阿拉伯人；印度人和巴勒斯坦人；非洲的白人和黑人；以及使所有的小冲突都相形见绌的共产主义和反共产主义之间的大搏斗。 已经每个有政治意识的人都对这类咨询题怀有强烈的感觉；但是我希翼你们，假如你们可以的话，把这份感觉暂搁一边，并把自己只看作一种具有非凡历史、谁也别希翼它灭亡的生物的一员。可能会迎合一群人而冷降另一群人的词语，我将努力一具字都别说。所有的人，别分彼此，都处在惊险之中；假如大伙儿都看到了这种惊险，那么就有希翼联合起来避开它。我们必须学习新的思想办法。我们必须学习别自咨询能采取什么措施来使我们所喜欢的人群获得军事上的胜利，因为别再有如此的措施。我们必须自咨询的咨询题是：能采取什么措施来幸免必定会给各方造成灾害的军事比赛？ 一般群众，甚至许多当权人士，别清晰一场氢弹战所包含的会是什么。一般群众照旧弯弯曲曲从都市的毁灭上考虑咨询题。别言而喻，新炸弹比旧炸弹更具威力——一颗原弹能毁灭广岛，而一颗氢弹能毁灭像伦敦、纽约和菲斯科如此的大城市。毫无疑咨询，一场氢弹战将会毁灭大都市。但这不过世界必须面对的小灾害中的一具。如果化敦人、纽约人和莫斯科人都灭绝了，世界可能要经过几个世纪才干从这场灾害中恢复过来。而我们如今，尤其是从比基尼核试验以来很清晰：氢弹可以逐渐把破坏力扩散到一具比预料要广阔得多的地区。据特别权威的人士说，如今可以创造出一种炸弹，其威力比毁灭广岛的炸弹大2.5万倍。这种炸弹假如在近地或水下爆炸，会把放射性微粒送入高层大气。这些微粒逐渐落降，呈有毒灰尘或毒雨的状态到达地球表面。正是这种灰尘使日本渔民和他们所捕获的鱼受到了感染，虽然他们并别在美国专家所确认的惊险区之内。没有人知道这种致命的放射性微粒如何会传播得这么广，但是那个领域的最高权威一致表示：一场氢弹战已经算是灭绝人类的代名词。假如许多氢弹被使用，

死神估计就会落临全球——惟独少数幸运者才会忽然死亡，大多数人却须忍受疾病和解体的慢性折磨…… 这个地方，我要向你提起一具直率的、令人别快而又无法回避的咨询题：我们该泯灭人类，依然人类该抛弃战争？人们别愿面对那个抉择，因为泯灭战争太难了。泯灭战争要求限制国家主权，这令人反感。但是“人类”那个特意名词给人们的感受是含糊、抽象的，它可能比任何其他东西都更容易影响认识这种形势。人们几乎没实用自己的想象力去认识这种惊险别仅指向他们所模含糊糊理解的人类，而且指向他们自己和他们的子子孙孙。于是他们相信只要禁止使用现代武器，也许能够允许战争下去。估计那个愿望不过幻想。任何别使用氢弹的协定是在和平阶段达成的，在战争阶段这种协定就被认为是没有约束力的，一旦战争爆发，双方就会着手创造氢弹，因为假如一方创造氢弹而另一方别造的话，造氢弹的一方必定会取胜…… 按照地质年代来计算，人类到目前为止只存在了一具极短的阶段——最多100万年。在至少就我们所了解的宇宙而言，人类在特别是最近6000年里所达到的认识，在宇宙史上是一些全新的东西。太阳升升降降，月亮盈盈亏亏，夜空星光闪耀，无数岁月就如此过去了，不过到人类浮现未来，这些才被理解。在天文学的宏观世界和原子的微观世界，人类揭示了原先可能认为无法提示的隐秘。在艺术、文学和宗教领域里，一些人显示了一种崇高的感情，它使人们知道得人类是值得保全的。竟然因为很少有人能思考整个人类多于那个或这个人群，这一切就会在毫无价值的恐惧行动中结束吗？人类是否这样缺少智慧，这样缺少无私的爱，这样盲目，甚至连自我保存的最简单命令都听别见，以致要用灭绝地球上的所有生命来最后证明它那缺乏理智的小聪慧？——因为别驻人会被泯灭，而且动物也会被泯灭，没有人能指责它们是共产主义或反共产主义。 我无法相信结局会是如此。人们假如想让自己生存下去，他们就应临时忘掉争执，进行反省，人们有千万条理由期待以后的成就极大地超过以往的成就，假如让我们挑选，那么擂在我们面前的有幸福、知识和智慧的持续增长。我们能因为无法忘掉争执而舍此去挑选死亡吗？作为一具人，我向所有的人呼吁：记住你们的人性，忘掉其余的一切。假如你们能如此做，通向一具新的天堂的路就畅通无阻；假如你们做别到这一点，摆在你们面前的就惟独全世界的毁灭。