2020年经济学人 开放不再,繁荣落幕(3)（在线收听）

The author is often amusing as well as illuminating. Genghis Khan was a vicious warlord, but his domestic policies “would today open him up to accusations of being a politically correct, latte-drinking virtue signaller”. The Mongols practised ethnic and religious tolerance, which is one reason why they were so effective. They promoted skilled fighters, engineers and administrators of all backgrounds. Of the 150,000-strong horde that invaded Europe in 1241, only around a third were ethnic Mongols.

作者写的故事经常妙趣横生，而且发人深省。成吉思汗是一位残酷的军阀式领袖，但是他实行的国内政策“在今天会使他被指责为政治正确、喝着拿铁的美德信号员”。蒙古人实行种族和宗教的宽容，这也是他们有效率的原因之一。他们提拔了很多娴熟的战士、工程师和管理人员，且不问出身。1241年入侵欧洲的15万大军中，只有大约三分之一是蒙古族。

Habsburg soldiers were surprised to find that one captured officer was a middle-aged literate Englishman, who had fled persecution for heresy at home and sought refuge among the more openminded Mongols. All regions have had rulers who tried to preserve stability by shutting out foreign influence. The key to thwarting them has often been for the ruled to vote with their feet. Early modern Europe was no more advanced than China, but power was more dispersed, so thinkers who offended one prince could simply move. Hobbes wrote “Leviathan” while in exile in Paris; Locke and Descartes went to Amsterdam. Their books could always be printed somewhere, and so were impossible to suppress.

哈布斯堡的士兵们惊讶地发现，有一名被俘军官是满腹学识的英国中年男子，他为躲避英国对宗教异端的迫害，而逃亡至更加开明的蒙古以寻求庇护。世界各地都会有统治者通过排斥外国势力来维护稳定。阻挠这些统治者的关键在于被统治者们要表示异议。早期的现代欧洲的先进程度比不上中国，但权力更加分散，因此得罪了一位王子的思想家可以轻易地活动。霍布斯在巴黎流亡期间写下了《利维坦》；洛克和笛卡尔则去了阿姆斯特丹。总有一些地方能够印刷他们创作的书，所以当时的欧洲无法打压他们。

Backlashes against openness are inevitable because they are rooted in human nature, Mr Norberg contends. Human brains evolved over millennia in which disruptive change often meant death; mutually beneficial exchanges with strangers were rare. If the past 300,000 years of history were compressed into a single day, it would not be until the final minute that steady material progress, fuelled by disruptive innovation, took off. Small wonder people’s instincts are so conservative. When threatened, they seek shelter within their tribe, which is why demagogues try to scare them. Fear wins elections.

诺伯格认为，人们对开放的抵制无可避免，因为抵制根植于人性。人类大脑经过了几千年的进化，破坏性的变化往往意味着死亡。陌生人之间很少会进行互惠互利的交流。如果将30万年的历史压缩在一天内，直到最后一刻，在颠覆性创新的推动下，稳步的物质进步才得以实现。难怪人的本能如此保守。人类会在威胁时寻求族群的庇护，这也是煽风点火的政客们试图恐吓他们的原因。通过恐惧使自己赢得选举。