为何我们对某些威胁的应对优于其他（地球月特别重播）

这是一档iHeart播客节目。

This is an iHeart podcast.

大家好，我是肯德拉·阿达奇，我的节目《懒人天才播客》帮助你在重要的事情上成为天才，在不重要的事情上偷懒，而由你决定什么才是重要的。我不是来告诉你怎么做，而是给你一个新的视角。《懒人天才播客》的每一集都充满了富有同情心的时间管理技巧和允许你做对自己有意义的事情的许可。

Hey there. I'm Kendra Adachi, and my show, the lazy genius podcast, helps you be a genius about the things that matter and lazy about the things that don't, and you get to decide what matters. I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm here to give you a new way to see. Episodes of the lazy genius podcast are full of compassionate time management tips and permission slips to do what makes sense for you.

新节目每周一更新。请在免费的Odyssey应用或任何你获取播客的地方关注并收听《懒人天才播客》。

New episodes drop every Monday. Follow and listen to the lazy genius podcast on the free odyssey app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Pushkin。他给我们竖了个大拇指。好的，大拇指。所以像往常一样，我们让你先自我介绍一下。

Pushkin. He's giving us a thumbs up. Okay. Thumbs up. So as usual, we just have you start by introducing yourself.

嗨，我是丹·吉尔伯特。

Hi. I'm Dan Gilbert.

丹·吉尔伯特是幸福科学领域的巨擘。他是该领域最受尊敬的心理学家之一，也是解释人性中最令人困惑方面的绝对高手。这将大有帮助，因为我要问他的问题既令人困惑又严肃。随着四月份地球月的临近，我想重新分享去年发布的这集与丹的对话。几十年来，我们一直在应对与全球变暖相关的一系列灾难，肆虐的森林大火、毁灭性的飓风和退缩的冰川。

Dan Gilbert is a huge figure in happiness science. He's one of the field's most respected psychologists and an absolute whiz at explaining some of the most puzzling aspects of human nature. And that is going to be a big help because the question I have for him is as confounding as it is serious. With Earth Month coming up in April, I wanted to reshare this episode with Dan that we originally released last year. For decades, we've been dealing with a host of disasters related to global heating, raging forest fires, devastating hurricanes, and retreating glaciers.

听到这些事情让我们感觉非常糟糕。我们对未来和我们孩子的未来感到焦虑。我们对自己和他人让事情发展到如此地步感到焦虑，面对如此巨大的挑战，我们感到不知所措和相当无助。我想让丹帮我回答一个棘手的心理学问题。几十年来，我们一直在谈论全球变暖的灾难性危险，但人们仍在争论这是否是真正的危机，以及我们需要多迫切地采取行动来解决它，这有点奇怪，因为人类似乎应该很擅长应对危及生命的情况。

Hearing about these things makes us feel pretty terrible. We feel anxious about our future and that of our children. We get anxious with ourselves and others for letting things get this bad, and we feel overwhelmed and pretty helpless in the face of such a big challenge. I wanted Dan to help me answer a vexing psychological question. We've been talking about the catastrophic danger of global warming for several decades, but people are still debating whether it's a real crisis and how urgently we need to act to fix it, which is kinda weird because it seems like humans should be pretty good at dealing with life threatening situations.

我是说，我们已经经历了数百万年的进化。我们的大脑应该是惊人的威胁探测器。它们应该擅长察觉我们何时处于危险中并采取行动。那么为什么我们中这么多人似乎都在忽视一个足以毁灭整个星球的威胁呢？问题在于我们的大脑仅被构建来处理特定类型的威胁。

I mean, we've had millions of years of evolution. Our brains should be amazing threat detectors. They should be good at noting when we're in danger and taking action. Why then do so many of us seem to be ignoring a threat big enough to wipe out our entire planet? The action comes from the fact that our brains are built to deal only with certain kinds of threats.

如果一只剑齿虎从灌木丛中向你扑来，你会立即尽你所能应对那个威胁。但如果我告诉你，你可能应该改变饮食或使用牙线以减少几十年后出现健康问题的风险，你可能会犹豫不决。这就是为什么我们不擅长往401k账户存钱，有时也不愿将幸福实践融入日常生活。我们擅长处理紧急问题，但在处理其他重要问题上却不那么拿手。而当这些重要事情变得紧急且棘手时，我们最终会懊悔没有早点行动。

If a saber toothed tiger jumps out at you from a bush, you'd address that threat as best as you could right away. But if I tell you you should probably change your diet or flush your teeth to reduce the risk of health problems developing decades from now, you might dither. It's why we're bad at putting money into our four zero one k's and why we sometimes don't put in the work to make our happiness practices part of our daily lives. We're great at addressing the urgent problems, but we're not so hot when it comes to tackling other important ones. And when those important things do become urgent and messy, we wind up kicking ourselves for not acting sooner.

这就是为什么我如此兴奋能与哈佛大学教授丹·吉尔伯特交谈。他几十年来一直在思考这种思维偏见。他想知道为什么政府在协调应对气候变化方面似乎如此糟糕，尽管它们在恐怖袭击等事件后采取紧急行动时表现得非常出色。

And that's why I was so excited to talk with Harvard professor Dan Gilbert. He's been thinking about this mind bias for decades. He wondered why governments seem so bad at coordinating response to climate change even though they're really good at urgent action following events like terrorist attacks.

你知道，美国每个人对911事件都有反应，我们所有人的反应都是，这太可怕了，数千人丧生。但因为我是心理学家，我还有另一个反应，那就是为什么我们对那些在我国造成更多人死亡的事情，从气候变化到流感，却没有同样的关注？更多人因此丧生。那么为什么我们对某些事情如此关注，愿意牺牲从资源到个人自由的一切来对抗它，而对那些规模更大的威胁却无动于衷？这在我看来是个值得心理学解答的有趣问题。

You know, everybody in America had a reaction to nine eleven, and all of us had the reaction, this is terrible and thousands of people have died. But because I'm a psychologist, I also had another reaction, which is why are we not equally concerned about all things that have killed even more people in our country, ranging from climate change to the flu? Many more people have died. So why are we so concerned about one thing and willing to to sacrifice everything from resources to personal liberty to fight it, but these other threats that are even greater in magnitude arguably we're willing to do nothing about? That seemed to me a curious question that was ripe for a psychological answer.

你也直接将这个问题应用到了气候变化上。你会认为，如果我们知道真正的威胁——很多人声称他们知道——我们会感到恐慌并采取行动，但我们某种程度上并没有。所以对我来说，这在一定程度上解释了为什么从进化角度看会出现这种情况。

And you really applied that question directly to climate change too. You'd think that if we knew the real threat, which a lot of people say that they do, we'd be freaked out and we'd be acting, but we're kind of not. And so to me a little bit why evolutionarily this might be the case.

嗯，你知道，几百年前，两位非常聪明的人帕斯卡和费马告诉我们应如何思考威胁。我们应该考虑它们的可能性，以及它们的严重程度。这两点决定了威胁是否真正值得我们关注。如果它极有可能发生且后果极其严重，那就采取行动。否则，就不必。

Well, you know, several 100 ago, two very smart guys named Pascal and Fermat told us how we ought to think about threats. We ought to think about their likelihood, and we ought to think about their magnitude. And those two things tell us whether a threat really warrants our attention. If it's really likely to happen and it's gonna be a very, very bad outcome, if it does, take action. If not, then don't.

这都很合乎逻辑，但并不太符合心理，因为人类并非为计算预期效用而进化。相反，我们进化是为了应对对我们生活在非洲大草原的祖先构成重大威胁的一小部分问题。不幸的是，气候变化不具备任何能触发人类大脑中这种威胁反应系统的特征。

That's all logical, but it's not very psychological because human beings were not evolved to compute expected utility, if you will. Rather, we were evolved to respond to a small set of threats that were really big problems for our ancestors living in the African Savannah. And, unfortunately, climate change has none of the features that trigger this threat response system in the human brain.

那么让我们来谈谈这四个特征中的一些。你提到的第一个特征是威胁必须具有某种能动性，必须涉及个体。

And so let's talk about some of those four features. The first one that you've talked about is that threats have to be kind of agentive. They have to involve individuals.

为什么我们

Why do we

如此在意来自人类的威胁？

really care about threats that come from people?

嗯，我们在意来自人类的一切，这是有充分理由的。对我们这样的动物而言，人类是奖赏与惩罚最重要的来源。我们是地球上最社会化的动物。所以难怪——而且理由充分——我们会非常在意他人的行为、想法和言论。话虽如此，气候变化并非一群手持棍棒的恶徒对我们的攻击，而这正是我们进化来应对的威胁类型。

Well, we care about everything that comes from people, and for good reason. People are the most significant source of rewards and punishments for an animal like us. We're the most social animal on planet Earth. So it's no wonder, and it's for good reason, that we care a lot about what other people do, what other people think, and what other people say. With that said, climate change is not an attack by a mean group of people who are running at us with sticks, and that's what we're evolved to respond to.

想想双子塔倒塌时发生了什么。我们因此入侵了一个国家，因为他们杀害了三千人。而每年因流感死亡的人数十倍于此，我们却听之任之，并不太在意。

I mean, look what happened when the Twin Towers came down. And we went and invaded a country because they had murdered three thousand people. Those three thousand people had died from the flu. And by the way, it's 10 times that who die from the flu every year. We just kind of along and don't worry too much about it.

这就是气候变化的悲剧——它没有具体的面孔，看起来像是非能动性的威胁。

So that's the tragedy of climate change is that it doesn't have a face. It seems like a non agentic threat.

它似乎也没有明确的意图。你在某篇文章中打趣说，如果气候变化是蓄意要杀死我们，那我们就会非常严肃对待。谈谈意图的力量及其对我们心理的影响吧。

It also seems to not have an intent. You made this quip in one of your articles that if climate change was trying to kill us, then we'd take we'd take it very seriously. You know, talk about the power of intent and why that matters for our psychology.

我们都知道，如果有人在街上不小心推了你一下，说‘哦，对不起，我绊倒了’，你根本不会感到惊慌。但如果他们说‘嘿，接招吧’

Well, we all know that if somebody, you know, pushes you in the street and goes, oh, excuse me. I tripped. You're not alarmed at all. But if they say, hey. Take that.

突然间，你会全力反击。你会报警，会还手，会大声喊叫。所以人们是否有意伤害我们，几乎比他们造成的伤害更重要。

Suddenly, you rise up with full force. You call the police. You hit them back. You start yelling. So whether people intend to harm us or not is almost more important than the harm they inflict.

我们几乎会原谅任何意外，而几乎会追究任何非意外的事情。气候变化不是故意的。实际上没有人试图让气候变暖，没有人试图融化极地冰盖。人们的行为导致了这些结果，但这与他们所进行的活动关系不大。

We'll forgive almost anything that's an accident, and we will prosecute almost anything that isn't. Climate change isn't. Nobody's actually trying to make the climate warmer. Nobody's trying to melt the polar ice caps. People are doing it as a result of their activity, but it's pretty incidental to the activities that they're performing.

你知道，从某种程度上说，这很遗憾。我们无法对此太过激动，因为背后并没有人怀有恶意。

You know, in a way, that's too bad. We can't get too excited about it because there's nobody who's meaning ill behind it.

我很喜欢我们的心理在这方面被绊住的样子。我记得有一项研究，神经科学家把人们放进扫描仪，这些人——受试者——会受到电击。电击分为随机的意外电击和有人故意在背后电击你。如果你观察大脑中的疼痛区域，当我们受到有意为之的电击时，实际上会感到更痛。我认为这在思考气候变化时非常有力，因为没有人故意造成气候变化，这使得我们在心理上对它几乎无动于衷。

And I love when our psychology gets really tripped up by this. I remember one study where you had neuroscientists putting people in a scanner, and these people were getting the subjects were getting shocked. And the shocks varied whether they were just kind of random accidental shocks that were happening or there was somebody sitting behind the thing who intended to shock you. And if you look at pain regions in the brain, we actually feel more pain when we're getting shocks that are intended, when somebody's trying to give them to us. And I think that's so powerful when we think about climate change because the fact that nobody's trying to do it makes it just kind of, like, water off a duck's back when we think about it psychologically.

是的。这没那么令人震惊，不是吗

Yeah. It's it's a little less shocking, isn't

？正是如此。所以你接下来谈到的是，我们的大脑倾向于对不道德的威胁做出强烈反应。这一点很有趣，因为从某些方面来看，你可以认为地球的破坏实际上是在造成伤害，但道德伤害的运作方式有些不同。谈谈道德伤害是如何运作的。

it? Exactly. And so the next kind of thing you've talked about, the fact that our brains tend to respond a lot to threats that are immoral. And this one's kind of interesting because, you know, in some ways, you could think that, you know, the destruction of a planet is actually causing harm, but moral harms tend to work a little bit differently. Talk a little bit about how moral harms work.

要知道，这与我们最初讨论的意图性和行为主体密切相关，因为道德伤害源自行为主体，但通过道德伤害——我想说的是更像侮辱而非实质伤害的行为。我们进化得对侮辱极为敏感，因为对我们荣誉、颜面的侮辱在某种意义上贬低或威胁着我们在社会阶层中的地位。因此，我们极度关注自身声誉：别人会如何看待我们？比如我偷走你的铅笔或剐蹭你的车，你可能不会太在意。

You know, this is very intertwined with the first thing we talked about with intentionality and agents because moral harms are harms from agents, but they are by moral harms, I guess I'm talking about things that are more like insults than injuries. And we are evolved to care a lot about insults because insults to our honor, insults to our face are in some sense reducing our or threats to reduce our place in a social hierarchy. And so we're very, very concerned with our reputations. What would people think of us? You know, I could probably steal your pencil or, you know, bump into your car and you wouldn't get too upset about it.

但如果我用脏话辱骂你的母亲，你会暴怒并攻击我。为什么？实际上并未造成实质伤害，对吧？但答案恰恰相反——这就是道德伤害。

But if I called your mother a dirty name, you would rise up viciously and attack me. Why? There's really no harm done, is there? Well, the answer is yes. It's a moral harm.

它违背了你对公平、正义和正确的基本认知。所以我们会对道德伤害产生强烈反应。而气候变化不属于道德伤害，对吗？它虽会破坏空气水质、导致全球变暖，但并未侮辱我们，也没有攻击我们的宗教信仰。

It violates your sense of what's fair and just and right. So we respond to moral harms with great power, and climate change isn't a moral harm, is it? I mean, it's going to ruin our air and our water, and it's gonna make the world hot, but it's not insulting us. It's not attacking our religion.

但难以置信的是，我们对大量燃烧煤炭无动于衷，却因有人焚烧一面国旗而暴跳如雷。这时候我们的道德情绪反而彻底失控了。

I mean, but it's incredible, right, that we're not getting freaked out about burning so much coal, but we are getting freaked out about, say, burning a single flag when somebody does that. Now all of a sudden, our moral emotions are kind of going going nuts.

确实如此。这种反应很好理解，问题在于我们能否压制这种本能反应，像法国学者帕斯卡和费马那样说：焚烧国旗固然不雅。

So Yeah. They are, and it's easy to understand why we care so much about these things. And the question is whether we can subjugate this natural response and, you know, get on board with those two French guys, Pascal and Fermat, and say, you know what? Flag burning. It isn't very nice.

我们虽不赞同这种行为，但或许可以等拯救完地球后再来处理。

We don't much like it. But maybe we could worry about that tomorrow after we've saved the planet.

你提出的道德观点非常重要，这说明气候变化能引发恐惧，却无法激起公愤。而公愤似乎是促使我们采取行动的特殊情感驱动力。

Your moral point is really important because it suggests that climate change can make us scared, but it doesn't make us outraged. And it seems like outrage is a sort of special kind of emotion when it comes to causing us to take action.

确实如此，不是吗？我的意思是，你不需要花太多时间上网就能意识到，这是大多数人在X平台（前身为Twitter）等社交媒体上行为的基本驱动力。这关乎道德愤怒。偶尔我们会对环境灾难感到道德愤怒。如果埃克森公司让他们的油轮撞上冰山，导致数千加仑石油泄漏，企鹅因此死亡，我们都会群情激愤地质问：你们怎么能这么做？

It really is, isn't it? I mean, you don't have to spend too much time online to realize that it is the fundamental driver of most people's online behavior on platforms like X, formerly known as Twitter, and others. It's about moral outrage. Now we occasionally feel moral outrage about environmental disasters. If Exxon, you know, runs their tanker into an iceberg and, you know, thousands of gallons spill and penguins are dying, we all rise up and say, how can you do this?

你们必须清理干净。对吧？环境领域并非完全与道德领域绝缘。只是当我们听说冰川正在融化、海平面上升、气候变暖时，我们无法指向某个特定的行为主体，认为他们是在故意伤害或侮辱我们。因此，这不会像辱骂你母亲那样让我们的血压瞬间飙升。

You have to clean it up. Right? It's not like the domain of the environment is completely insulated from the moral domain. It's just that when we hear there are glaciers melting and the seas are rising and it's just getting warmer, we can't point to any particular agent who is doing this in order to harm us or insult us. And so it just doesn't get our blood pressure up in the same way that calling your mother a bad name does.

你的例子很棒，因为我认为它触及了第三个能激发我们思维的特征——即时性事件。你描述的埃克森灾难是石油正在喷涌而出，这是即刻发生的。这些即时威胁似乎特别能引发我们的强烈反应。你曾将大脑描述为一种‘躲避机器’。

And your example is great because I think it gets to the third feature that I think that gets our minds going, which is things that happen instantaneously. You know, the Exxon disaster you described is oil pouring out right now. It's happening immediately. And these immediate threats seem to be ones that also really kinda get us going. You've described the mind as a sort of get out of the way machine.

比如，详细说说你这句话的含义

Like, talk a little bit about what you mean

的

by

意思。

that.

我们非常擅长躲避，不是吗？如果我朝你扔东西，你会在意识到之前就低头闪躲。你的大脑对环境中即时出现的威胁反应极其迅速。而大多数环境威胁并非如此——当然偶尔也会有例外。

We're very good getting out of the way, aren't we? If I throw something at you, you will duck before you even know it's coming. Your brain responds so quickly to threats that appear immediately and instantly in your environment. Most environmental threats are not like that. I mean, occasionally, they are.

发生了石油泄漏。前一天，水还是干净的。第二天，就变脏了。但总的来说，地球的温度不会在明天就上升20度。它会以0.00001度的幅度上升，然后每天持续同样的增幅。

There's an oil spill. One day, the water was clean. The next day, it's dirty. But by and large, the temperature on Earth is not going to increase by 20 degrees tomorrow. It's going to increase by point o o o o o o one and then the same amount the next day.

我们都熟悉那个寓言：青蛙因为水温从室温缓慢升至沸点而始终不跳出水面。这恰似我们当前面对环境问题的写照。这些变化将是毁灭性的，但不会在明天或瞬间发生。变化将以我们能适应的速度发生，而人类是卓越的适应者。

We're all familiar with the frog that, you know, never jumps out of the water because the water is being heated from room temperature to boiling very slowly. That's not a bad parable for the place we are right now with regard to the environment. These changes are going to be devastating, but not tomorrow and not instantly. Things will change at the speed at which we can adapt to them, and we are remarkable adapters.

因此这些即时变化会迅速引起我们注意，但事实上我们确实具备些许关注未来的心智能力。不过你的大量研究揭示了人类在这方面多么糟糕——虽然这是我们这个物种很酷的能力，但这项功能仍处于测试版阶段。

And so these instant changes are ones that we notice quickly, but it is the case that we have minds that can pay a little bit of attention to the future. But a lot of your work has shown how bad we are at doing that. Like, it's this kind of cool thing that our species can do, but it's still a capacity that's a little bit in beta version.

从进化角度看，这是非常新颖的能力。它的局限性不足为奇。更该惊讶的是我们居然拥有这种能力，因为据我们所知，没有其他动物具备这种展望遥远未来并进行推理的能力。但即便如此，每天我们都看到人们未能合理运用这种能力——人们不为退休储蓄足够资金。

This is a remarkable evolutionarily speaking, it's a remarkably new capacity. We shouldn't be surprised that its reach is limited. I mean, we really should be surprised that we have it at all because as far as we know, no other animal does, at least nothing like our ability to look into the far future and reason about it. But with that said, every day we see people failing to use this capacity, at least as logic would have us. People don't save enough for retirement.

人们明知使用牙线能避免日后牙痛却不用，暴饮暴食时说'明天开始戒'。为什么？因为要为遥远未来的自己牺牲当下实在太难。气候变化问题...你看，我简直就是在描述这个现象。

People don't floss when they know that little act would save them a lot of dental pain down the road. People eat badly and say, I'll die it tomorrow. Why? Well, because it's kind of hard to take actions that are difficult today in the service of someone you're going to be in the far future. Climate change, you know, I I could have just been describing it.

所以我应该花大价钱更换所有灯泡，只为有朝一日惠及他人？这对大多数人来说太难做到了。

So I should go spend a lot of money changing all my light bulbs because maybe someday that will help someone who isn't me. That's pretty hard for most people to do.

另一个难题是人们难以应对非即时性的威胁，就像你提到的缓慢变化。这似乎与我们常讨论的另一种幸福偏见相关——我们会逐渐适应现状。因为这些变化太缓慢，不像温度骤变那样引人注意，它们悄然发生。这正是影响我们幸福的更大问题的一部分，即适应性心理。

Another thing that's hard for people to do is to deal with these threats when they're not instantaneous, when they're not happening really quickly, as you mentioned. And this seems to be kind of related to a different happiness bias that we've talked a lot on this podcast, right, that we kinda get used to stuff over time. Because these changes are happening so slowly, it's not the kind of thing where the temperature changes so quickly and I tend to notice it. It tends to kinda go under the radar. And this is part and parcel of a bigger kind of problem for our happiness, right, this idea adaptation.

请告诉我什么是适应，以及为什么它如此成问题。

Tell tell me what adaptation is and why it's so problematic.

当然，人们确实会习惯事物，但他们适应的能力远超自己的预期。我们是世界级的习惯与适应冠军，这通常非常有益。这意味着当生活中发生坏事时，比如失去肢体功能、婚姻状况从已婚变为离婚，或是日常遭遇的任何寻常命运打击，我们都能接受新常态，基本上过得不错。但这种非凡的适应能力也可能成为敌人，因为它让我们对那些缓慢发生、足以让我们习惯的坏事不再做出反应。我的孙辈们觉得河流或小溪边立着‘禁止游泳’的牌子没什么奇怪的。

Well, people do get used to things, of course, but they get used to them much better than they themselves predict. We are world champion habituators and adapters, and that's usually really good. That means when bad things happen in our lives, you know, we lose the use of a limb or our relationship status changes from married to divorced or any of the normal slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that befall people every day, we get on board with the new program, and we basically do just fine. But this remarkable ability to adapt can also be our enemy because it makes us not react to bad things that happen slowly enough for us to get used to them. My grandchildren don't think there's anything odd about a river or a stream that has a sign that says don't swim.

我小时候，这简直像科幻故事。一条不能游泳的溪流或河流？水怎么了？美国的水质就是每天变差一点点，而我逐渐习惯了。

When I was a kid, that would have been a science fiction story. A stream or a river in which you can't swim? What happened to the water? Well, what happened to the water in America is it got more polluted a little bit every day. I got used to it.

现在整个世代出生的人从未见过其他情形。如果明天被告知永远不能出门，我们会怎样？我们会暴动，会选举新政府，会用尽一切方式抗议。

Whole generations are now being born who've never seen anything else. If tomorrow we were all told we could never go outside our homes again, what would we do? I mean, we we would riot. We would elect a new government. We would protest in every possible way.

但我敢保证，如果必须待在室内的天数从明年零天增加到一天，后年两天，365年后，人们会觉得永远不能出门毫不奇怪。

But I assure you that if the number of days you have to stay indoors increases from zero to one next year to two the following year, in three hundred and sixty five years, people will not think it's strange that nobody ever can go outdoors.

我认为我们对更快发生的变化也会表现出适应。记得今年我第一次注意到东海岸的天空变得雾蒙蒙的——我住在那里，加拿大正发生许多火灾。第一天雾霾严重时，我和丈夫出门还感叹‘哇，好大的雾’。

I think we even show this adaptation for things that happen even a little bit more quickly. I remember this year was the first year that I started noticing, you know, the skies were looking hazy because on the East Coast where I live, there's so many fires happening in Canada. I think the first day was really hazy. You know, I remember my husband and I going outside and be like, wow. It's so hazy.

但第三天、第四天，我突然就觉得‘嗯，又起雾了’，不再评论了。所以即使是这些感觉稍快的变化，我们似乎也不太会注意到。

But day three, day four, all of a sudden, I'm like, yep. It's just hazy again. I've sort of stopped remarking about it. So even some of these changes that feel like they're happening a little bit faster are ones that we don't seem to notice that much.

我们似乎并未察觉，更重要的是，我们也没有提出反对。当然，我们不反对的一个原因在于，这不仅仅关乎我们个人。如果只有你一个人无法外出，你可能会组织抗议活动，写信给参议员。但问题是所有人都如此，而且他们也都足不出户。

We don't seem to notice, and we more importantly, we don't object. And one reason we don't object, of course, is because it's not just us. If you were the only person who couldn't go outside, you'd be forming an action group. You'd be writing to your senators. But it's everybody else too, and none of them are going out.

要知道，我们认为的常态就是大多数人的行为模式——这对多数人而言就是常态的定义。因此只要大多数人无法饮用自来水、难以自由呼吸空气、无法在密苏里州以南地区生活，问题就会持续。另一个关键问题是，即便有人意识到‘天啊这太糟了，我必须采取行动’，大多数人却根本不知道该做什么。

And, you know, what we think is normal is what everybody is doing. That's the definition of normal for most people. So as long as most people can't drink the water, can't easily breathe the air, as long as most people can't live South Of Missouri anymore, Now the other problem, of course, is even if people thought, darn, this is really bad. I need to do something. Most people don't know what they could do.

人们明白气候变化威胁之巨大，单凭个人今日所为难以产生实质影响，这需要集体行动才能解决。

They understand that climate change is far too big a threat for anything they do today to make a bit of difference. It requires mass action.

还有大量证据表明，我们的行为——即便

There's also lots of evidence that our actions, even

我们常常认为这些行为

though we often think of

是孤立发生的，实则不然。比如我安装太阳能板，就会对隔壁邻居产生微妙的心理影响。这种效应实际上可能促使个体行动转化为集体行动。

them as happening in isolation, they don't. You know? So if I put solar panels up, that has an interesting effect on your psychology if you live next door to me. You know? So talk about how that effect might actually allow for collective action out of individual action.

你说得非常对——个人行动会直接作用于问题本身。当你在屋顶安装太阳能板，确实会以极小幅度降低城市用电量。更重要的是树立了范例。正如之前所说，人类通过观察周围行为来定义常态。当社区开始普及太阳能板时，这就突然变成了明智之选。

Well, you're making a great point, which is that your action has direct effects on problems. So you put solar panels on your house, and you have actually reduced the electrical usage in your city by an extremely small amount. We've also created an example. As we mentioned earlier, human beings define normal by what they see done around them. And once solar panels are going up in the neighborhood, it suddenly seems like a thing a reasonable person could do.

因此存在这些连锁效应。做正确的事会产生间接影响。

So there are these cascading effects. There are indirect effects of doing the right thing.

人类心理学最让我着迷的一点就是它的复杂性。我们有许多顽固的偏见，阻碍我们去做那些直接有益于自身和地球的事。但也有一些偏见可以被我们善加利用，比如丹提到的例子——人们会效仿邻居的环保习惯。那么还有哪些心理技巧能帮助我们更有效地应对气候变化？丹将在休息后为我们详细讲解。

One of the things I love about human psychology is just how complicated it is. We have so many stubborn biases that prevent us from doing stuff that will directly benefit us and our planet. But there are also other biases that we can harness for good, like Dan's example of us wanting to emulate the environmental habits of our neighbors. So what other psychological hacks might help us deal more effectively with climate change? Dan will tell us more after the break.

究竟什么才是美好生活？是幸福、目标、爱情、健康还是财富？在追求完满人生的过程中，什么才是真正重要的？这些正是获奖作家、创始人和访谈人乔纳森·菲尔兹在其顶级播客《美好生活计划》中向嘉宾们提出的问题。每周，乔纳森都会与亚当·格兰特、格雷琴·鲁宾、安吉拉·达克沃思等数百位知名思想家和实践者展开对话。

What does it even mean to live a good life? Is it about happiness, purpose, love, health, or wealth? What really matters in the pursuit of a well lived life? These are the questions award winning author, founder, and interviewer Jonathan Fields asks his guests on the top ranked Good Life Project podcast. Every week, Jonathan sits down with renowned thinkers and doers, people like Adam Grant, Gretchen Rubin, Angela Duckworth, and hundreds more.

现在就开始收听吧。在您喜爱的播客应用中搜索《美好生活计划》。可悲的是，气候变化并非人类擅长应对的威胁类型。面对突发危险或蓄意伤害我们的恶人时，我们会立即采取行动。哈佛心理学家丹·吉尔伯特指出，如果我们认为个人行为能真正影响问题解决，我们也更可能行动起来。

Start listening now. Look for Good Life Project on your favorite podcast app. Tragically, climate change isn't the kind of threat humans are good at dealing with. We swing into action if we're put in danger by something sudden or by some cruel person out to harm us. And Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says we're also more likely to take action if we think our individual behaviors will have a real effect on the problem.

遗憾的是，面对全球变暖这样宏大的议题，我们往往感觉个人力量微不足道。

Unfortunately, we don't always feel like that's the case with an issue as huge as global heating.

我要为下次航班的碳足迹买单吗？好吧，这或许不错。但无论我是否这么做，都难以想象这个世界会感受到我微薄行动的影响。

Do I pay for offsetting the carbon on my next airplane ride? Okay. I guess that would be good, but surely, if I do that or don't, I can't imagine that the world will feel the effects of my tiny little action.

但请不要绝望——只要以正确方式呈现问题，我们思维中的偏见机制就能在眨眼间被调动来解决环境问题。

But don't despair because our mind's biases can be harnessed to help solve environmental problems in the blink of an eye, provided those problems are framed in the right way.

鲍勃·恰尔迪尼和他的团队曾进行过一项精彩的研究。他们试图找出是否能在酒店房间放置告示牌，让入住者更倾向于重复使用浴巾。显然，仅仅因为免费服务就每天让人清洗毛巾对环境相当不利。如果能促使酒店客人像在家那样连续使用毛巾几天，这对环境大有裨益。恰尔迪尼团队尝试了多种方法。

There was a wonderful study by Bob Cialdini and his group. They just tried to find out if they could put signs in hotel rooms that would make the person who checked into that room a little more likely to reuse their bath towels. Evidently, having somebody wash your towel every day just because they will and it's free is pretty bad for the environment. So if you can get hotel guests to use their towels for a couple of days as they probably do at home, it's a great thing for the environment. Will Cialdini and his team tried a number of things.

你可以威胁人们，可以哄劝人们，也可以奖励人们。但他们在房间里放置的最有效的告示牌上只写了一句话：'本房间大多数客人会重复使用毛巾'。人类天生想要随大流。

You can threaten people. You can cajole people. You can reward people. But the single most effective sign that they put in the room was the one that simply said, most of the guests who stay in this room reuse their towels. Human beings want to be like most people.

如果所有人都在做某件事，那很可能就是正确的，所以我也应该效仿。他们巧妙利用了这种心理机制，效果显著。如今我们多数人收到的电费账单上也有类似设计——附有与邻居用电量对比的小图表。十五年前没人这么做，但萨克拉门托市政公用事业区首创后，人们突然开始感到难为情。

If everyone's doing it, it's probably the right thing, so I should do it too. And they played on this little piece of psychology to great effect. You see the same thing most of us now when we get an electric bill. It includes some little graph that shows us how much electricity we're using compared to our neighbors. Nobody did this fifteen years ago, but the Sacramento municipal utility district, I believe, was the first to try this, and suddenly people were embarrassed.

'我的用电量太高了！为什么？看看别人用得多节省。'我也想和他们一样。这是我们可以为世界福祉推动的杠杆，无论是应对气候变化还是其他问题。

I'm using way too much electricity. Why? Because look how little other people are using. I wanna be like them. So this is a lever we can push for the good of the world, but whether it comes to climate change or anything else.

1980年代我住在德克萨斯时，当地存在严重的垃圾问题。研究表明，高速公路上的垃圾多由18至32岁男性从皮卡车窗抛出。政府某位深藏不露的官员——在我看来值得诺贝尔奖——想到针对这个群体设计标语，于是诞生了如今著名的'别惹德州'。四个精准定位的词汇使垃圾量减少72%。某种程度上，这个标语创作者利用了偏见心理：这些乱扔垃圾者是怀有强烈州自豪感的年轻男性，不愿被任何人小觑。

When I lived in Texas in the the nineteen eighties, there was a massive litter problem, and studies showed that a lot of highway litter was being thrown out of the windows of pickup trucks by men between the ages of 18 and 32. And somebody somewhere deep in the bowels of government, somebody who deserves a Nobel Prize in my opinion, had the idea of coming up with a slogan that would appeal to this particular demographic, and it was now the now famous don't mess with Texas. 72% reduction in litter due to four really well placed words. Now in some sense, the person who came up with those four words was appealing to a bias. They were appealing to the fact that the literers were young men with great pride in their state who didn't wanna be messed with in any way.

其中带有某种男子气概元素，这条信息就是为吸引这类人群而精心设计的。我认为这是'以小博大'的绝佳范例。

There was kind of a macho element, and this message was crafted so that it appealed to these people. I just think it's a masterful example of how you can do very, very small things to make a very big difference.

这些细微举措之所以有力，部分原因在于它们触动了我们的道德禁忌。它们让人们将乱扔垃圾视为可耻行为，而非仅仅是恼人或肮脏的举动，这某种程度上激发了我们的道德情感。

And those small things were powerful in part because they played on this idea of our moral violations. They caused people to see litter as outrageous rather than just kind of annoying or dirty. It kinda played into our moral emotions.

他们确实这么做了。所以从皮卡车窗扔东西不仅是道德违规，更是某人对道德的践踏。有人正在挑衅德克萨斯。我们可不能坐视不管，对吧？

They did indeed. So throwing something out the window of a pickup truck is not only a moral violation, but it's a moral violation by somebody. Somebody somebody is messing with Texas. Well, we can't let that happen, can we?

这似乎成为气候变化活动人士越来越常用的策略。虽然不清楚哈佛的具体情况，但我们校园里许多气候活动家正在公开指责校长，声称由于耶鲁投资化石燃料，校长彼得·沙洛维就是问题的根源。请谈谈这种策略如何激活了人们的心理，可能比常规手段更能引发强烈反应。

And this seems to be a strategy that climate change activists are using a little bit more often. I'm not sure what's happening at Harvard, but a lot of our climate activists on campus are calling out the president and saying because Yale is investing in fossil fuels, you, you know, president Peter Salovey, are causing this problem. And so talk about how this is activating our psychology in a way that might get people to sort of respond more than the normal techniques.

我认为如果能找到问题的具体责任人，确实有可能激发更强烈的民愤。但我不确定目前是否奏效——指名道姓埃克森美孚CEO未必比单纯谴责公司更让人愤怒。我理解这种'找人担责'背后的心理学动机...

Well, I do think that if you can find a face for the problem, you have some chance of getting people more riled up about it. But I'm not sure it's worked so far. I'm not sure naming the CEO of Exxon makes people any more angry at Exxon than it just being a company they feel angry about. I I understand the psychology behind the attempt. Let's blame somebody.

如果能让大家针对某个特定人物发怒，或许就会采取行动。也许有数据证明有效，但在我看来并非如此。现在的情况更像是他们在高喊某个名字，强行归咎责任。我猜多数公众并不认为除掉这个'反派'就能让一切恢复正常。

If we can get everybody upset at this particular guy, then they'll take action. Maybe there are data out there showing they have, but it sure doesn't look like it to me. It just sounds like they're chanting a name and they're holding somebody liable for the problems. My guess is most of the public thinks this person isn't the evil actor who if only we could assassinate them, everything would go back to normal.

美好生活的真谛是什么？是幸福、目标、爱情、健康还是财富？在追寻充实人生的道路上，什么才是真正重要的？这些正是获奖作家、创始人兼访谈人乔纳森·菲尔德在其顶级播客《美好生活计划》中向嘉宾们提出的问题。每周，乔纳森都会与亚当·格兰特、格雷琴·鲁宾、安吉拉·达克沃斯等数百位杰出思想家和实践者展开对话。

What does it even mean to live a good life? Is it about happiness, purpose, love, health, or wealth? What really matters in the pursuit of a well lived life? These are the questions award winning author, founder, and interviewer Jonathan Fields asks his guests on the top ranked Good Life Project podcast. Every week, Jonathan sits down with renowned thinkers and doers, people like Adam Grant, Gretchen Rubin, Angela Duckworth, and hundreds more.

立即收听《美好生活计划》，在您喜爱的播客平台搜索即可订阅。

Start listening now. Look for Good Life Project on your favorite podcast app.

另一个我们可以推动的认知是：气候变化正变得更为紧迫。尽管这很遗憾，但自从你开始讨论这个话题以来，由于愈发频繁的野火、风暴等灾害，人们确实越来越感受到问题的迫近。你早在二十年前就开始呼吁，不知道...

Another lever we can push is starting to recognize that climate change is a little bit more immediate, which for better or for worse, since you actually started talking about this, we have started recognizing just because the problem has felt more immediate. There's more fires. There's more terrible storms and so on. So you first started talking about this almost twenty years ago. I don't know.

这让你有什么感受？比如，关于这些偏见，我们早就知道它们的存在，却迟迟未采取行动。

What does that make you feel? Like, with these bi we've known about these biases for a while, but we haven't taken action.

确实，二十年前我就告诉人们，我们之所以不作为，部分原因是尚未目睹气候变化的恶果。如今这些后果已至——天气热得无法出门、凤凰城航班无法降落、水资源枯竭、飓风肆虐，皆因气候变化。终于，灾难降临了，我们也开始重视了。

Well, yeah, twenty years ago, I was telling people, you know, one of the reasons we're not doing anything is we don't see the effects of climate change yet. Well, they're here. They've arrived. And I do think there's been an uptick in response to it because suddenly people are going, the reason it's too hot for me to go outside, the reason planes can't land in Phoenix today, the reason we're running out of water, the reason the hurricanes have gotten worse is climate change. So finally, the damage is arriving, and we are paying more attention.

问题在于这类威胁本应在其降临前就应对。如今为时已晚，我们需要付出比二十年前更大的努力，却只能收获更微小的成效。但危机已至，多数人已认清并接受现实。记得吗？二十年前民主党内还有一派坚称气候变化是子虚乌有。

The problem is this was the kind of threat you needed to respond to before it arrived. Once it has arrived, it's too late. We need a much bigger response to get much less of an outcome today than we did twenty years ago. But it is upon us, and I think most people see it and recognize it and now accept it. Remember, twenty years ago, we had an entire wing of in our democracy saying there is no such thing as climate change.

他们说全球没有变暖，即便有也是天意，与资源消耗无关。这二十年来，我们一直在与否认事实的人抗争，更遑论探讨应对之策。如今这些人终成少数派，共和党内部也不例外。

It isn't getting warmer. And if it is, it's only an act of God. It has nothing to do with our use of resources. So twenty years, we've been fighting against people who didn't even want to acknowledge it was happening, much less ask the question about what should we do about it. I think those people are finally in a minority, even the Republican Party.

大多数共和党人已承认气候变化存在，也认同应该采取行动，争议仅在于具体措施。

Most Republicans are saying, yes. The climate is changing. Yes. We probably should do something about it. And the discussion is only about what does something mean.

我认为探讨具体措施正关联到你研究的另一重点——人类大脑能构想不同未来。我们常将气候未来描绘得黯淡无光：海平面上升、曼哈顿下城被淹...但能否谈谈构想积极未来的可能性？这对气候行动有何助益？

And I think this figuring out what something means actually gets back to another part of your work that I think is so relevant for the climate discussion, which is this idea that we have these brains that can imagine different futures. A lot of times when we imagine the climate future, we imagine the doom and gloom version of it. Right? You know, the seas are gonna rise, and Lower Manhattan's gonna be flooded, and all these terrible things are gonna happen. But talk about the possibility of imagining positive futures and what that might do to kind of help our our actions on climate change.

人类对胡萝卜和大棒都有反应。长期研究表明大棒效应更直接强烈，但若人们不知如何躲避大棒，效果有限。耶鲁教授欧文·贾尼斯早年的社会心理学研究显示：恐惧信息需配套明确解决方案才有效。若只渲染恶化现状却不给具体改善方案，人们会充耳不闻。因此胡萝卜策略至关重要——当然不是鼓吹'气候变化好处'这种伪乐观，而是提供切实可行的积极愿景。

Well, human beings respond to carrots and they respond to sticks, and we've known for a very long time that the response to sticks is more immediate and stronger, but it's not very effective if people don't know what to do to avoid getting hit with the stick. There's very old work in social psychology by a a Yale professor, in fact, named Irv Janus, who showed that fear messages can be effective if they're accompanied by a clear indicator of what you do to avoid being afraid. But if you just tell people it's all bad and it's getting worse and you can't tell them exactly what they should do to make it better, they basically tune out. So carrots are very effective in this regard, and we do need carrots and we have them. But they're not carrots like, let's look on the bright side of climate change.

你将能在佛蒙特州扬帆起航。这难道不美妙吗？不。不。不。

You'll be able to sail in Vermont. Won't that be wonderful? No. No. No.

我认为这些信息本质上是经济性的，它们现在响亮而清晰地传达出：我们做这些事情不一定是为解决某个问题，而是因为这将创造就业机会，催生充满活力的新经济。看看我们能在电动汽车领域实现的成就——我认为通过向人们展示这个我们试图创建的新世界中蕴藏的诱人机遇，而非仅仅恐吓他们不行动的后果，实际上是促使人们做正确选择的有效方式。

The messages I think are actually economic, and they're messages that are now coming through loud and clear that we're not doing these things necessarily to solve a problem. We're doing it because it's gonna create jobs. It's gonna create a vibrant new economy. Look at, you know, what we're gonna be able to do with electric cars. I think that's actually a very effective way to get people to do the right thing by showing them how attractive the opportunities are in this new world we're trying to create rather than just scaring them about how bad it is if they don't do it.

当我们思考应对气候变化需要采取的行动时，我认为这里又暴露了我们的认知偏差。因为当我试图模拟自己为缓解气候问题做出某些牺牲时的感受时，有时会高估这些行为带来的痛苦。比如我现在没有电动车，从社会比较的角度看确实有些尴尬。

When we think about the kinds of actions we need to take to fix climate change, I think this is another spot where our biases mess us up. Because when I try to simulate how I'll feel, you know, making the sorts of sacrifices that might be required to kind of fix climate, I can sometimes think that those things are gonna hurt me much more than they could. Right? I simulate I don't have an EV right now. Very embarrassing, you know, from the sort of social comparison thing.

但当我模拟购买电动车的情景时，又会觉得：'哦，要找地方充电或规划充电站路线多麻烦啊'。可实际上操作起来可能没想象中糟糕。这让我想到你深入研究过的另一种偏差——情感预测偏差。能否解释下这个概念？以及为何转向更可持续的行为可能没我们预想的那么痛苦？

But when I simulate getting an EV, I'm like, oh, that's gonna be a pain to figure out where I'm gonna plug it in or kind of mapping out my drive so I can find charger. But in practice, when I actually do that, it might not be as bad as we think. This gets back to another bias that I know you've studied in detail, this bias of affective forecasting. You know, explain what affective forecasting is and why changing our behavior to be a little bit more sustainable might not be as bad as we think.

情感预测偏差这个术语听起来复杂，其实就是预测未来什么会让你快乐、能持续多久，即对利弊的事前判断。你说得对，人们在这方面常犯错。你预想购买电动车会很麻烦，充电会困难——这些部分可能是对的。但你同时忽略了其他方面。

Well, affective forecasting is just a mouthful of words that means looking into the future and figuring out what'll make you happy, if it'll make you happy, how long that happiness will last. It's just a prediction about what will be good and what will be bad for you. And you're right that people make errors when they try to do that kind of work. And you're imagining that getting an EV will be very difficult, that plugging in will be hard, and you're probably right about some of those things. But you're also failing to imagine a number of things.

你没想到每次驾车出行时，向其他司机展示你对气候问题的认真态度会带来多棒的感觉，诸如此类。你会设想到某些方面，但总会遗漏其他。所以想象力并非判断未来感受的可靠指南。那么当想象力靠不住时该怎么办？有个简单方法：观察已购车人群的真实感受。

You're failing to imagine how good you're gonna feel every time you get in it, drive down the street, and show all those other drivers that you mean business when it comes to climate change, on and on and on. You'll imagine some of the things about this, but you'll fail to imagine others. So your imagination turns out not to be a great guide as to how good you will feel. Well, what should you do instead if you if your imagination is going to not serve you well? Well, one easy way to find out how you'll feel if you buy an EV is to see how people who have already done it actually do feel.

你会发现特斯拉车主是地球上满意度最高的人群之一。他们热爱自己的车，也满意当初的购买决定。有什么理由认为你不会成为他们中的一员呢？

And what you'll find is that Tesla owners are among the most satisfied humans on earth. They love their cars, and they love having bought them. Is there any reason you don't think you would join their ranks?

有趣的是，我昨天在一个晚宴上刚和一位电动汽车车主聊过，他对自己的电动车简直推崇备至，不停地说，天哪，它太方便了，太有趣了，而且比想象中快得多。这确实是一个通过亲身经历获取见证的典型案例——作为电动车主的亲身经历，远比我能模拟出的任何体验更有说服力。

It's funny. I just had a conversation at a dinner party yesterday with an an EV owner who is evangelical about their EV, and they're like, oh my gosh. It's so easy, and it's so fun, and it's so much faster than you think. And it really was one of these cases of getting testimony. That person's testimony as an owner of an EV is so much better than my simulation is ever gonna be about what it's like.

毫无疑问，他人的经验能帮助你做出更准确的预测，但我们也知道人们并不那么信任它。人们过分依赖自己的想象，却低估他人经验的价值，因为他们会说：是啊，但那是弗雷德。我不是弗雷德。弗雷德和我不一样。实际上，在大多数方面，弗雷德和你并没有什么不同。

There's no doubt it's better in helping you make an accurate forecast, but we also know people don't trust it as much. People place undue stock in their own imaginations, and they don't properly value the experiences of others because they say, yeah, but that's Fred. I'm not Fred. Fred is different than I am. Actually, in most ways, Fred isn't different than you are.

人类之间的相似度远超他们的预期。人们有种独特性的错觉，认为别人不可能预知自己的未来。但事实是，如果每个当律师的人都过得很痛苦，那你几乎肯定也会成为个痛苦的律师。

Human beings are much more alike than they expect. They have an illusion of uniqueness that makes them think that there's no way anybody else can tell me about my future. Yes. Actually, if everybody who's a lawyer is miserable, you're almost surely gonna be a miserable lawyer too.

所以为了促进更好的气候行为，我们能做的最后一件事就是认识到什么能帮助我们启动这种未来规划。正如你提到的，我们可以模拟未来，但这相当困难；我们可以为退休储蓄，但这也不容易。谈谈那些能帮助我们启动未来规划的事情，以及我们如何利用类似的方法来应对气候变化。

So the last thing we can do to try to promote better climate behaviors is to recognize what helps us get that sort of future planning going a little bit. Because as you've mentioned, like, we can simulate the future, but it's kinda hard. We can save for retirement, but it's hard. Talk about the things that help us get our future planning going and how we might be able to harness those same kinds of things to help with climate change.

我认为有两条路径可选。一条是像你我这样的心理学家容易选择的——思考如何让普通人在日常生活中采取不同行动。但事实是，所有这些个人行为的改变加起来影响有限，而且大多数人不会去做。我记得阿尔·戈尔说过，如果你真的关心气候，与其更换灯泡或纠结碳补偿，不如去投票。真正要改变的是人们所处的系统，而不是要求个体违背本性去做出微小改变。

You know, I think there are two paths that we can take. One is the path that most psychologists like you and me are tempted to take, which is to think about the things we could do to get everyday people to take different actions in their everyday lives. But the fact is that all of that is not going to add up to a lot, and most people aren't going to do it. And I think it was Al Gore who said if you really care about the climate, instead of changing your light bulbs or worrying about carbon offsets, you should vote. I mean, if you really want to make change, you make change to the system in which people function rather than asking individuals to please defy their own nature and act a little bit differently.

退休储蓄就是个很好的例子。如果我们只是哄骗、说服、引诱或娱乐人们去为退休储蓄，美国根本没人会这么做。就像他们不会用牙线一样。我们不会主动做这些事，但我们已经成功将退休储蓄制度化了。

Retirement savings is a great example. If we were to just cajole people, convince them, tempt them, amuse them into saving for retirement, no one in America would be doing it. Right? Just like they don't floss. We wouldn't do those things, but we've managed to institutionalize retirement savings.

现在你的雇主会对你说：我会从你薪水中扣除一部分，为你存起来养老，因为我知道你靠自己根本做不到。结果就是，现在很多美国人都有了退休储蓄。你的同事凯利·布朗内尔曾告诉我：如果你想让人吃得健康，可以尝试百万种方法，但几乎都没用。

So now your employer says to you, I will be withholding some of your salary. I will be putting it away for you for retirement because I know you are just too flawed to do it on your own. And as a result, a lot of Americans now have retirement savings. One of your colleagues, Kelly Brownell, once told me, he said, you know, if you wanna get people to eat better, you can try a million different things. Almost none of them work.

但你能做的最好的事，就是确保他们居住地一英里范围内有售卖农产品的杂货店。我认为气候变化问题同样如此。我们必须停止对人们说，换灯泡是你的责任，这样就能解决问题。不。

But the best thing you can do is make sure there's a grocery store that has produce within one mile of their home. I think the same thing is true for climate change. We have to stop saying to people, it's on you to change your light bulb. That's gonna fix the problem. No.

我们必须停止使用化石燃料。有许多人在经济上深度依赖确保我们继续使用化石燃料。你需要投票选出一个敢于对他们说不的政府。在此之前，其他所有努力都只是边缘修补。所以作为心理学家我很遗憾地说，解决这个问题需要的心理学知识远不如政治行动多。

We have to stop using fossil fuels. There are a lot of people who are deeply economically invested in making sure we keep using fossil fuels. You have to vote for a government that will tell them no. Until we do that, everything else is just working around the margins. So I'm sorry to say as a psychologist that I think there's a lot less psychology to fixing this problem than there is just politics.

但我认为这其实源于对我们心理的理解。有些事我们可以通过自身心理调节实现，未必需要太多政府干预。比如看到有人焚烧国旗时，不需要政客提醒我们该愤怒。但对于那些无法触发我们进化偏好的事情，我们确实需要制度干预——这种认知本身就来自心理学。

But I think it actually comes from understanding our psychology. There's things we can do with our own psychology that might not require as much government intervention. Like, you know, if somebody burns a flag, we don't need a politician to tell us, like, hey. Get upset about that. But with these things that don't activate our evolutionary biases, we do need the system, and that that is coming from psychology.

这正是通过理解心理机制，来辨别何时需要外力协助，何时可以自主应对。

That's understanding our psychology to know when we need help and when we don't.

好吧，我欣赏你给予我们的肯定。即便名不副实，我也欣然接受。你说得对，归根结底都是心理学。

Well, I like the fact that you have given us credit for something. Even if we don't deserve it, I'll take it. You're right. It's all psychology.

那我就不客气了。

I'll take it.

话虽如此，我并非否认改变个人行为的重要性——让他们减少问题恶化，更多参与解决。这方面确实大有可为。我认为政府改变国家行为或许能发挥最大作用。但无论如何，任何能促使人类采取有益气候行动的措施我都支持。

With that said, so I don't I don't want to seem like I'm saying there's no room for changing the behavior of individuals so that they contribute less to the problem and more to the solution. There is. I think there's a a large role. Maybe even the largest role is for government to change the behavior of nations. But with that said, I'm all for anything that gets human beings to do what is better for the climate.

我认为心理学家的作用就是提供一系列技巧，帮助至少一部分人在日常生活中有所改善。关于气候变化的好消息是，没多少人会反对解决这个问题。没人会说‘不，我不想解决这个问题，我觉得现状棒极了’这样的话。

And I think psychologists are there to help you with a whole host of tricks that can get at least some percentage of individuals to do better in their everyday lives. I mean, here's the good news about climate change. There aren't many people who are going, no. I don't wanna fix this problem. I really think it's great.

总不会有人庆幸加州野火更频繁，或是亚利桑那州居民将无水可饮吧？我们绝大多数人其实站在同一战线，现在只需要探讨如何解决问题。想想其他社会议题，我们往往还在争论问题是否存在或问题本质，但气候变化议题上我们已达成共识，接下来只需共同落实解决方案。

I'm so glad there are more wildfires in California and that Arizonans won't have water to drink. Right? We're kind of all, almost all of us at least, almost all of us are on the same side of this problem, and we're only talking about how do we solve it. If you think of the most of the problems that face us, we're arguing about whether there is a problem and what the problem is. We all agree about all of this now, and we just have to get on board with what we're gonna do to solve it.

这至少让我们占据了先发优势。

I think that gives us at least a good head start.

刚才重播的是我与丹·吉尔伯特的对话。在这个地球月，希望你能思考如何为应对地球危机尽绵薄之力。每个微小行动都是迈向正确方向的一步。3月20日世界幸福日特别节目中，我将提前揭晓《世界幸福报告》评选出的全球最幸福国家，并分享一个能让您与亲友幸福感倍增的简单生活调整。

That was a second chance to hear my conversation with Dan Gilbert. This Earth month, I hope you have time to think about the small ways you can contribute to taking on the big problems facing our planet. Every little step leads us in the right direction. We'll be back for a special show on March 20 celebrating World Happiness Day. I've even been given early access to the World Happiness Report, So I'll be announcing which country has been declared the happiest on Earth, and I'll tell you about a really simple change you can make to your life that will make you, your family, and your friends so much happier.

这些内容都将在下期《幸福实验室》节目中呈现，我是主持人劳瑞·桑托斯博士。

All that next time on The Happiness Lab with me, doctor Laurie Santos.

在他的播客《追逐生命》中

On his podcast, Chasing Life

我是桑杰·古普塔医生。

I'm doctor Sanjay Gupta.

CNN首席医疗记者为您揭秘地球上最幸福、最健康人群的秘诀，助您活出最佳人生。

CNN's chief medical correspondent brings you the secrets of the happiest and healthiest people on the planet so that you can live your best life.

是否有些人天生就比别人更幸福？他们可能在做些什么我们其他人没做的事？

Are some people just born happier than others? And what might they be doing that the rest of us aren't?

在Apple、Spotify、iHeart播客、Amazon Music或任何您获取播客的平台，跟随Sanjay Gupta医生追寻《追逐生命》系列节目。

Follow chasing life with doctor Sanjay Gupta on Apple, Spotify, iHeart podcast, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

这是iHeart播客节目。

This is an iHeart Podcast.