TED英語(yǔ)演講：你為什么窮
貧窮的根源在哪里? 有的人在于性格問題，有的人在于教育缺失，也有的人源于工作......Rutger Bregman先生將和大家探討和分享他對(duì)貧窮的見解。下面是小編為大家收集關(guān)于TED英語(yǔ)演講：你為什么窮，歡迎借鑒參考。
你為什么窮
演講者：Rutger Bregman
I'd like to start with a simple question: Why do the poor make so many poor decisions? I know it's a harsh question, but take a look at the data. The poor borrow more, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthfully. Why?
我想用一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問題開始今天的話題，為什么窮人會(huì)做出這么差勁的決定，我知道這是個(gè)尖銳的問題，讓我們來看一下數(shù)據(jù)，窮人借錢更多，儲(chǔ)蓄更少，抽煙更多，飲酒更多，鍛煉更少，而且飲食更為不健康，這是為什么呢?
Well, the standard explanation was once summed up by the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. And she called poverty "a personality defect." A lack of character, basically.
標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的解釋是英國(guó)首相撒切爾夫人曾經(jīng)總結(jié)過的，她把貧窮稱之為“個(gè)性缺陷”，基本上就是缺乏某種個(gè)性。
Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt. But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher. Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible for their own mistakes. And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions. But the underlying assumption is the same: there's something wrong with them. If we could just change them, if we could just teach them how to live their lives, if they would only listen.
我相信在座各位可能不會(huì)有很多人這么大膽的說，但是‘窮人自身有問題’這個(gè)概念，不單是撒切爾夫人提出的，有人可能會(huì)認(rèn)為窮人應(yīng)該對(duì)自己犯的錯(cuò)負(fù)責(zé)，另一些人可能會(huì)說我們應(yīng)該幫他們做出更好的決定，但是這兩種觀點(diǎn)背后的假設(shè)都是一樣的，就是他們是有問題的，如果我們可以改造他們，如果我們可以教導(dǎo)他們?nèi)绾紊?，如果他們能聽從教?dǎo)的話。
And to be honest,this was what I thought for a long time. It was only a few years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper by a few American psychologists. They had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to India, for a fascinating study. And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers.You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent of their annual income all at once, right after the harvest. This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year and rich the other.
老實(shí)說，有很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間，我也是這么想的，幾年前，我才發(fā)現(xiàn)，我之前自以為對(duì)貧窮的所有了解都是錯(cuò)的。一次我無意中看到幾個(gè)美國(guó)心理學(xué)家的論文，才恍然大悟。為了一個(gè)異想天開的研究，他們不遠(yuǎn)萬里去到印度，他們用蔗糖農(nóng)民做了一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)。請(qǐng)大家了解這些農(nóng)民年收入的百分之六十是一次性獲得的，就在收割季之后，也就是說在一年中的一段時(shí)間，他們會(huì)比較貧困。
The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest. What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind. The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest. The effects of living in poverty, it turns out, correspond to losing 14 points of IQ. Now, to give you an idea, that's comparable to losing a night's sleep or the effects of alcoholism.
研究人員請(qǐng)他們?cè)谑崭钋昂蠓謩e做一次智商測(cè)試，他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)完全顛覆了我的三觀，在收割前農(nóng)民們的智商測(cè)試得分要低得多，結(jié)果顯示，生活貧困的影響會(huì)反映為智商測(cè)試得分平均低了14分，為了讓大家對(duì)這個(gè)分?jǐn)?shù)有個(gè)概念，這就相當(dāng)于失眠一整夜或酒精的影響。
A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir, a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study, was coming over to Holland, where I live. So we met up in Amsterdam to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty. And I can sum it up in just two words: scarcity mentality. It turns out that people behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. And what that thing is doesn't much matter --whether it's not enough time, money or food.
幾個(gè)月后，我聽說，普林斯頓大學(xué)教授以及本研究的作者之一，艾爾達(dá)·夏菲爾要來我住的荷蘭了，于是我們?cè)诎⒛匪固氐ひ娏嗣?，討論了他關(guān)于貧窮的革命性的新理論，我可以用兩個(gè)字總結(jié)，稀缺性心態(tài)，結(jié)果顯示，當(dāng)人們認(rèn)為某個(gè)東西稀缺的話，行為方式就會(huì)改變，這個(gè)東西是什么并不重要，有可能是時(shí)間金錢或食物。
You all know this feeling, when you've got too much to do, or when you've put off breaking for lunch and your blood sugar takes a dive. This narrows your focus to your immediate lack -- to the sandwich you've got to have now, the meeting that's starting in five minutes or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow. So the long-term perspective goes out the window.
大家都知道這種感覺，如果你手上有太多事情要做，或是你吃午餐時(shí)間推遲了血糖水平急劇下降，這會(huì)讓你的注意力集中在最直接的缺乏上，一定要立刻吃到三明治，五分鐘后就要開的會(huì)或是明天必須付清的賬單，‘看的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)’此刻早已在九霄云外了。
You could compare it to a new computer that's running 10 heavy programs at once. It gets slower and slower, making errors. Eventually, it freezes -- not because it's a bad computer, but because it has too much to do at once. The poor have the same problem. They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb, but because they're living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions.
可以把這種情況比作一臺(tái)新電腦，同時(shí)運(yùn)行十個(gè)繁重的程序，電腦就會(huì)變的越來越慢，會(huì)出錯(cuò)，最終會(huì)死機(jī)，不是因?yàn)檫@臺(tái)電腦不好，而是因?yàn)樗淮涡砸幚硖鄡?nèi)容了。窮人的問題是一樣的，他們不是因?yàn)橛薮?做出了愚蠢的決定，而是因?yàn)樵谒麄兩畹哪欠N環(huán)境下，任何人都有可能做出愚蠢的決定。
So suddenly I understood why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work. Investments in education, for example, are often completely ineffective. Poverty is not a lack of knowledge. A recent analysis of 201 studies on the effectiveness of money-management training came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all.
因此我突然能夠理解，為什么現(xiàn)在很多扶貧項(xiàng)目都沒用，例如很多教育投入都是完全無效的，貧窮并不是缺少知識(shí)。最近一個(gè)關(guān)于財(cái)富管理訓(xùn)練有效性的201項(xiàng)研究的分析，得到了一個(gè)結(jié)論，即訓(xùn)練幾乎完全無效。
Now, don't get me wrong -- this is not to say the poor don't learn anything -- they can come out wiser for sure. But it's not enough. Or as Professor Shafir told me, "It's like teaching someone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea."
請(qǐng)不要誤會(huì)，不是說窮人什么也學(xué)不到，當(dāng)然，經(jīng)過訓(xùn)練后，他們會(huì)更明智，但這樣還不夠，或者就像夏菲爾教授跟我說的，“這就像教會(huì)人游泳，然后就把他們?nèi)赃M(jìn)驚濤駭浪的大海里”。
I still remember sitting there, perplexed. And it struck me that we could have figured this all out decades ago.I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans; they only had to measure the farmer's IQ, and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago. Actually, I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before.
我還記得當(dāng)時(shí)自己坐在那里，十分困惑，讓我備受打擊的是，我們?cè)驹趲资昵熬蛻?yīng)該想明白這件事，心理學(xué)家不需要做那些復(fù)雜的腦部掃描，只需要測(cè)評(píng)農(nóng)夫的智商，而智商測(cè)評(píng)早在一百多年前就有了，實(shí)際上，我發(fā)現(xiàn)自己以前就已經(jīng)看過關(guān)于貧窮的心理學(xué)。
George Orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived, experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s. "The essence of poverty," he wrote back then, is that it "annihilates the future." And he marveled at, quote, "How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level."
喬治﹒奧威爾是在世最偉大的作家之一，他在上世紀(jì)二十年代曾親身經(jīng)歷過貧窮，當(dāng)時(shí)他這樣寫道‘貧窮的本質(zhì)’在于他‘消滅了未來’，用他的話來說，他對(duì)下面這種事很驚訝，“一旦你的收入降到某個(gè)水平以下，人們就非常理所當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為，他們有權(quán)向你說教，為你祈禱”，直到今天，這段話仍能引起共鳴。當(dāng)然了，主要問題在于，怎么辦呢?
Now, those words are every bit as resonant today. The big question is, of course: What can be done? Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves. We could help the poor with their paperwork or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills. This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians, mostly because, well, they cost next to nothing. These solutions are, I think, a symbol of this erain which we so often treat the symptoms, but ignore the underlying cause.
現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家躍躍欲試幾個(gè)方案，我們可以幫窮人做文件工作，或者給他們發(fā)短信提醒他們付賬單，現(xiàn)在政治家很喜歡用這類方案，主要是因?yàn)槌杀編缀鯖]有。我認(rèn)為這些方案就是我們這個(gè)時(shí)代的一個(gè)標(biāo)志，也就是我們常常只管治標(biāo)，卻忽略了治本。
So I wonder: Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live? Or, going back to our computer analogy: Why keep tinkering around with the software when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead? At that point, Professor Shafir responded with a blank look. And after a few seconds, he said, "Oh, I get it. You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor to eradicate poverty. Uh, sure, that'd be great. But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics you've got in Amsterdam -- it doesn't exist in the States."
所以我不禁想，為什么我們不去改變窮人的生活環(huán)境呢?或者，再說回剛才講的電腦類比理論，既然增加內(nèi)存就能簡(jiǎn)單解決的問題，何必非要不停地修改軟件呢?在那當(dāng)下，夏菲爾教授的回答是茫然的眼神，過了幾秒鐘，他說，“我懂了，你是說你想直接給窮人錢來根除貧窮，當(dāng)然了，這樣倒是挺好。但我恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹得到的這種左翼政治思想在美國(guó)不存在呢”。
But is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea? I remembered reading about an old plan -- something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers. The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book, "Utopia," more than 500 years ago. And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right, from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King, to the economist Milton Friedman. And it's an incredibly simple idea: basic income guarantee.
可這真的是過時(shí)的左翼想法嗎?我記得曾經(jīng)看過一個(gè)老計(jì)劃，是歷史上頂尖的思想家曾經(jīng)提出來的，早在五百年前的哲學(xué)家托馬斯﹒莫爾，就率先在其著作《烏托邦》中提出了，這個(gè)理論的支持者左翼和右翼人士都有，從民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)家馬丁﹒路德﹒金到經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家米爾頓﹒弗里德曼，這是一個(gè)極其簡(jiǎn)單的理論：基本所得保障理論。
What it is? Well, that's easy. It's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs: food, shelter, education. It's completely unconditional, so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it, and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it. The basic income is not a favor, but a right. There's absolutely no stigma attached.
很簡(jiǎn)單，就是每個(gè)月能保證你基本需求的收入，食物、住所、教育，完全是無條件的，因此沒人會(huì)跟你說必須做到什么才能得到，沒人會(huì)跟你說，你必須用這個(gè)來做什么，基本收入不是恩惠而是權(quán)力，絕對(duì)沒有任何附加條件。
So as I learned about the true nature of poverty, I couldn't stop wondering: Is this the idea we've all been waiting for? Could it really be that simple? And in the three years that followed, I read everything I could find about basic income. I researched the dozens of experiments that have been conducted all over the globe, and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty. But then ... nearly everyone forgot about it.
在我了解了貧窮的真相以后，我不禁想知道，這是我們所有人一直在等待的理論嗎?真的會(huì)這么簡(jiǎn)單嗎?隨后三年，我把所有能找到的關(guān)于基本所得的資料都看了，研究了全球范圍內(nèi)所做的數(shù)十個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)，沒過多久，我就發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)小鎮(zhèn)的故事，這個(gè)小鎮(zhèn)做到了真的根除了貧窮，可是另一方面，幾乎所有人都忘了這個(gè)故事。
This story starts in Dauphin, Canada. In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income,ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. At the start of the experiment, an army of researchers descended on the town. For four years, all went well. But then a new government was voted into power, and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment.
故事發(fā)生在加拿大多芬，1974年這個(gè)小鎮(zhèn)里的每一個(gè)人，都得到了基本所得保障，確保了所有人都不會(huì)落入貧困線以下，在這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的最初，一隊(duì)研究人員來到小鎮(zhèn)，四年里一切順利，可是后來選出了一個(gè)新政府執(zhí)政，新任加拿大內(nèi)閣認(rèn)為這個(gè)昂貴的實(shí)驗(yàn)毫無意義。
So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results, the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes.Twenty-five years went by, and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor, found the records. For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis, and no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time: the experiment had been a resounding success.
因此最后竟然沒有資金來對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果進(jìn)行分析，于是研究人員把檔案用兩千個(gè)箱子收起來。二十五年過去后，加拿大一位教授伊芙琳﹒法爾熱，發(fā)現(xiàn)了這些記錄，她花了三年時(shí)間，把這些數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行了各種類型的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析，無論她怎么試，每一次的結(jié)果都是一樣的，這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)十分成功。
Evelyn Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer but also smarter and healthier. The school performance of kids improved substantially. The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent. Domestic violence incidents were down, as were mental health complaints. And people didn't quit their jobs. The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students -- who stayed in school longer. Similar results have since been found in countless other experiments around the globe, from the US to India.
伊芙琳﹒法爾熱發(fā)現(xiàn)，多芬的人民不僅變得更為富有，還更加聰明和健康，孩子在學(xué)校的成績(jī)大幅提高，住院率則下降了百分之八點(diǎn)五，家庭暴力事件下降，心理健康投訴也下降了，而且人們并沒有辭掉工作，唯一稍微減少了一點(diǎn)勞動(dòng)的是初為人母的女性和學(xué)生，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)趯W(xué)校里待的時(shí)間更多了。之后，全球范圍內(nèi)，無數(shù)的實(shí)驗(yàn)都得到了類似的結(jié)果，從美國(guó)到印度。
So ... here's what I've learned. When it comes to poverty, we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best.We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor, to people we have never met. And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats when we could simply hand over their salaries to the poor they're supposed to help.
所以我了解到，當(dāng)說到貧窮問題時(shí)，我們這些富人應(yīng)該停止假裝自己最懂，我們應(yīng)該停止給那些我們從沒見過的窮人送鞋子和玩具，我們應(yīng)該消除慣有的家長(zhǎng)式官僚主義作風(fēng)，我們可以直接把他們的薪水轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)給他們本該幫助的窮人。
Because, I mean, the great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need. Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers, like George Orwell, are now withering away in scarcity. Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all.
因?yàn)榻疱X最大的好處就是讓人們能買自己需要的東西，而不是那些自以為是的專家認(rèn)為他們需要的東西。想想看，有多少杰出的科學(xué)家企業(yè)家以及像喬治﹒奧威爾那樣的作家，現(xiàn)在正因稀缺而消失。想想看，如果我們能一次性永久根除貧窮，那么我們能釋放出多少能量和才智。
I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people. And we can't afford not to do it, because poverty is hugely expensive. Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example. It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year, in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates, and more crime. Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.
我認(rèn)為基本所得 對(duì)人們所起的作用就像風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資，而我們承受不起不這樣做的后果，因?yàn)樨毟F非常昂貴，就比如說美國(guó)因?yàn)樨毨和a(chǎn)生的費(fèi)用吧，由于不斷增加的醫(yī)療費(fèi)用、輟學(xué)率以及犯罪率，每年預(yù)計(jì)要在這上面花費(fèi)五千億美金，這是人類潛能驚人的浪費(fèi)。
But let's talk about the elephant in the room. How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee? Well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think. What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax.This means that your income is topped up as soon as you fall below the poverty line. And in that scenario,according to our economists' best estimates, for a net cost of 175 billion -- a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP -- you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line. You could actually eradicate poverty. Now, that should be our goal.
再來說說那個(gè)顯而易見的問題吧，我們?nèi)绾呜?fù)擔(dān)基本所得保障呢?其實(shí)費(fèi)用可能比大家想象的要低得多，多芬采取的措施是實(shí)行負(fù)所得稅，也就是說，一旦你落入貧困線以下，就補(bǔ)充你的收入，如果實(shí)行這樣的措施，根據(jù)我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家“最好的預(yù)估”，凈成本為一千七百五十億美元，僅為美國(guó)軍費(fèi)支出的四分之一，GDP的百分之一，就能把所有貧困的美國(guó)人拉到貧困線以上，可以真正地根除貧窮。這應(yīng)該是我們的目標(biāo)。
The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past. I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas, and basic income is so much more than just another policy. It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is. And in that sense, it will not only free the poor, but also the rest of us.
思想局限只做小小推動(dòng)的時(shí)代已經(jīng)過去了，我堅(jiān)信這個(gè)時(shí)代要引來徹底的新思路，基本所得不僅僅是一項(xiàng)政策，更是對(duì)工作真正的意義的全新思考。從這個(gè)意義上來說，它不僅能解放窮人，還能解放其他人。
Nowadays, millions of people feel that their jobs have little meaning or significance. A recent poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job. And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist. It's like Brad Pitt says in "Fight Club," "Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."
如今數(shù)百萬人覺得自己的工作毫無意義，最近有一項(xiàng)對(duì)142個(gè)國(guó)家二十三萬名雇員的調(diào)研顯示，僅有百分之十三的員工真心喜歡自己的工作，另一項(xiàng)調(diào)研發(fā)現(xiàn)有百分之三十七的英國(guó)工人認(rèn)為他們所做的工作毫無存在的必要。就像布拉德﹒皮特在《搏擊俱樂部》里說的“我們常做討厭的工作，然后賺錢買不需要的東西”。
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen and the care workers here. If they stopped working, we'd be in trouble. I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excellent résumés who earn their money doing ... strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation in the network society.
請(qǐng)不要誤會(huì)，我在這里說的不是教師、清潔工還有護(hù)工，如果他們不再工作，我們就麻煩了，我說是那些簡(jiǎn)歷很好看從事著高收入職業(yè)的人，他們賺錢是靠在關(guān)系網(wǎng)社會(huì)中在集思廣益討論破壞性共創(chuàng)的附件價(jià)值時(shí)，舉辦策略性交易點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)會(huì)議或之類的事情。
Or something like that. Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting, simply because we tell our kids they'll have to "earn a living." Or think of what a math whiz working at Facebook lamented a few years ago:"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."
再次想想看我們浪費(fèi)了多少才能，僅僅因?yàn)槲覀兏⒆觽冋f他們將必須‘討生活’，或是想想幾年前一個(gè)在臉書工作的數(shù)學(xué)天才的哀嘆，“我這一代最優(yōu)秀的頭腦都在考慮讓人們?nèi)绾吸c(diǎn)擊廣告”。
I'm a historian. And if history teaches us anything, it is that things could be different. There is nothing inevitable about the way we structured our society and economy right now. Ideas can and do change the world. And I think that especially in the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot stick to the status quo -- that we need new ideas.
我是個(gè)歷史學(xué)家，如果說歷史教會(huì)了我們什么，那就是事情是可以改變的。如今我們構(gòu)建社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)的方式，沒有什么是必然的，思想可以而且依然改變了世界。我認(rèn)為，特別是在過去幾年，情況已經(jīng)十分清楚了，我們不能在現(xiàn)狀里固步自封，我們需要新思想。
I know that many of you may feel pessimistic about a future of rising inequality, xenophobia and climate change. But it's not enough to know what we're against. We also need to be for something. Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a nightmare."He had a dream.(Applause)
我們知道很多人可能會(huì)感到悲觀，認(rèn)為未來不平等會(huì)加劇，排外和氣候變化會(huì)更為惡劣，但只是了解我們面臨的困難是不夠的，我們還需要做好準(zhǔn)備，馬丁﹒路德﹒金說的可不是“我有個(gè)噩夢(mèng)”，他有個(gè)夢(mèng)想。
So ... here's my dream: I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job but for a life well-lived. I believe in a future where an existence without poverty is not a privilege but a right we all deserve. So here we are. Here we are. We've got the research, we've got the evidence and we've got the means.
所以，這就是我的夢(mèng)想，我相信未來你的工作價(jià)值不再由薪水所決定，而是由你傳播出去的快樂和你所賦予的意義所決定，我相信未來教育的意義不再是培養(yǎng)你去做無用的工作而是培養(yǎng)你度過美好的人生，我相信未來沒有貧困的生活不再是一種特權(quán)，而是所有人都享有的權(quán)利。
Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income, and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty, we all need to change our worldview, because poverty is not a lack of character. Poverty is a lack of cash.
在這里，我們有了研究有了證據(jù)，我們還有了方法，在托馬斯﹒莫爾第一次寫了基本所得的五百多年后，在喬治﹒奧威爾發(fā)現(xiàn)了貧窮的真相的一百多年后，我們都需要改變自己的世界觀，因?yàn)樨毟F不是缺少性格，貧窮是缺錢。
Thank you.
謝謝!
《你為什么窮》觀后感
“我救了19條生命，可有誰(shuí)來救救我的命------”一個(gè)農(nóng)民在死前躺在病床上不斷喃喃的重復(fù)這句話。這個(gè)農(nóng)民叫金有樹，是重慶一個(gè)普通的人，幾年前因跳水救了19名落水者而留下了病根。面對(duì)巨額的醫(yī)療費(fèi)用，他不斷地向親朋好友借債------可還是沒有足夠的費(fèi)用，只得向政府申請(qǐng)救助款，可是卻毫無回應(yīng)。最終，自己只得在無奈中結(jié)束了生命。這是一個(gè)救人英雄的悲哀，更是一貧困農(nóng)民的悲哀。
我想，如果金有樹不是一個(gè)貧窮的農(nóng)民，而是一位官員、一名警察，那幫政府官員可能，不，是肯定會(huì)在第一時(shí)間給他救助款，還會(huì)大肆地宣傳他的英雄事跡。
可惜他什么也不是，至少在那幫官員眼中，他只是一個(gè)卑微的、毫無價(jià)值的普通農(nóng)民。金有樹之死，一個(gè)英雄的死，這是一種社會(huì)良知的死。
有誰(shuí)知道，有一種悲哀叫貧困?在這漫漫的社會(huì)道路上，我們還有許多事要做。我們要多為貧困人民想想，我們不僅要用錢物去援助他們，更應(yīng)讓整個(gè)社會(huì)來關(guān)注他們，讓他們擺脫這種“貧窮的悲哀”。
相關(guān)文章：