作为第一世界的一部分，你认为批评第三世界国家的发展进程是虚伪的吗？
Do you consider hypocritical to critique the development process of third world countries while being part of the first world?
译文简介
我在墨西哥、西班牙和美国生活过，我注意到，在欧洲和美国，环境运动的焦点相当集中在第三世界国家为拥有更好的生活标准而采取的行动上，比如在他们的房子里装电，或者吃饱饭。
正文翻译
Do you consider hypocritical to critique the development process of third world countries while being part of the first world?
作为第一世界的一部分，你认为批评第三世界国家的发展进程是虚伪的吗？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 3 )
收藏
Now, doing that requires natural resources, industry, etc, so it is obvious that will hit the environment.
But Europeans have destroyed the environment by decades, so as the Americans.
I cannot understand how they are angry about Brazil, China, India, and other developing countries industrializing… or telling them that they cannot increase their consumption of meat, oil, or coal, while keeping the air conditioning on all day, using single use plastics,sending all their garbage to The Phillipines, etc..
我在墨西哥、西班牙和美国生活过，我注意到，在欧洲和美国，环境运动的焦点相当集中在第三世界国家为拥有更好的生活标准而采取的行动上，比如在他们的房子里装电，或者吃饱饭。
这样做需要自然资源、工业等，所以很明显，这将对环境造成冲击。
但是欧洲人已经破坏了几十年的环境，美国人也一样。
我不明白他们怎么会对巴西、中国、印度和其他发展中国家的工业化感到愤怒......或者对他们说，他们不能增加肉类、石油或煤炭的消费，同时自己整天开着空调，使用一次性塑料，把所有的垃圾送到菲律宾，等等。
Unfortunately, climate change doesn’t really care if the carbon is being generated in the first or third world so everyone is going to have to switch. If that hinders growth in the developing world, the developed world should be heavily subsidizing replacements
不幸的是，气候变化本身并不真正关心碳是在第一世界还是第三世界产生的，所以每个人都不得不进行转换。如果这阻碍了发展中世界的增长，发达国家就应该大量补贴替代物。
Bingo. The developed world became developed with wealth stolen through colonialism and mass pollution. So justice demands the developed world help the rest of the world develop.
就是这样。发达国家通过殖民主义和大规模污染窃取的财富成为发达国家。因此，正义要求发达世界帮助世界其他地区发展。
Yeah but. Nature isn’t going to wait for Justice.
是的，但是。大自然不会等待正义的到来。
On the flip side when you’re just trying to survive and get by you don’t care about climate change. “Oh climate change? Maybe I’ll care if I had food, water and electricity”.
反过来说，当你只想着怎么生存和过日子的时候，你就不会关心什么气候变化了。"哦，气候变化？如果我有食物、水和电，也许我会关心"。
On the flip side of that though, the developing world tends to be more vulnerable to climate change than the developed world.
但从另一个角度看，发展中国家往往比发达国家更容易受到气候变化的影响。
Yes, doubly fucked. Means they can do even less for climate change as they’re actively trying to survive. This ones on developed countries to fix.
是的，祸不单行。这意味着他们可以为气候变化做得更少，因为他们首先要积极努力地生存下来。这些都是发达国家要解决的问题。
That depends on where you live. Peoples attitudes will change as things get worse.
这取决于你住的地方。人们的态度会随着情况的恶化而改变。
"Because of climate change there will bo no food, no water, no electricity"
"由于气候变化，以后将没有食物，没有水，没有电"
When you're worried about surviving through the end of the week you don't care about what happens in 50 years. You have more urgent priorities.
当你担心能不能活到本周末的时候，你就不会关心50年后会发生什么。你有更紧急的优先事项。
40% of people in Africa don’t have electricity today. They can’t lose that which they don’t have.
今天，非洲有40%的人没有电。他们不可能失去他们没有的东西。
The developed world became developed with wealth stolen through colonialism and mass pollution.
On the pollution part I'll agree, but otherwise a little simplistic although not without some truth. If it were all about colonialism then Spain should have been an economic hotshot. It was not. Meanwhile a bunch of countries got wealthy without, or with rather minor, colonialism.
Most of the extra wealth of the developed world was from unprecedented technological and scientific progress, which enabled greater wealth-creation potential than had ever existed before. Things aren't always zero-sum. Machines could now do what in the past would have required vast amounts of labor, if it had been possible at all.
Which, yes, did cause pollution, and continues to do so.
“发达国家是通过殖民主义和大规模污染窃取财富而成为发达国家的。”
关于污染的部分，我同意，但其他方面有点简单化了，虽然不是没有道理。如果这一切都是因为殖民主义，那么西班牙应该是一个经济大国。但事实并非如此。同时，一些国家在没有殖民主义的情况下，或者在相当小程度的殖民主义的情况下变得富裕起来。
发达国家的大部分额外财富来自前所未有的技术和科学进步，这使得创造财富的潜力比以前更大。事情并不总是零和的。机器现在可以做过去需要大量劳动力的事情，如果它有可能的话。
是的，这确实造成了污染，并将继续造成污染。
If it were all about colonialism then Spain should have been an economic hotshot.
Spain ended up forwarding most of its colonial wealth to pay its debts to banks in the rest of Europe, specifically in Germany and the Low Country. Which is why they were also part of colonialism.
Most of the extra wealth of the developed world was from unprecedented technological and scientific progress, which enabled greater wealth-creation potential than had ever existed before.
These technological improvements expanded the extracted labor value from colonies and was fed by colonial resources.
“如果这一切都是因为殖民主义，那么西班牙应该是一个经济大国。”
西班牙最后把大部分的殖民财富转交给了欧洲其他地方的银行，特别是德国和低地（尼德兰）的银行，来偿还债务。这就是为什么这些地方也是殖民主义的一部分。
“发达国家的大部分额外财富来自于前所未有的技术和科学进步，这使得创造财富的潜力比以前更大。”
这些技术改进扩大了从殖民地提取的劳动价值，并由殖民地的资源提供。
Where did Germany and the Low countries get the wealth to lend to Spain in the first place?
德国和低地国家首先从哪里得到财富来借给西班牙？
Stolen from Jewish residents, Poles, the Crusades, etc.
And I hope I don't need to explain this, but compounding interest means that loan debt can far exceed the principle.
从犹太居民、波兰人、十字军东征等地偷来的。
而且我希望我不需要解释这个，但复利意味着贷款债务可以远超你的想象。
The Low Countries were rich because they were Europe's great textile manufacturing center during the Middle Ages, as well as centers of commerce.
The Crusades were probably, on net, a money loser.
低地国家之所以富裕，是因为它们在中世纪时是欧洲最大的纺织品制造中心，也是商业中心。
十字军东征可能在净值上是一个纯损失。
I never said the low country's sole source of wealth was banking.
And the traditional crusades to the Levant were money sinks, but the Crusades in northern Europe were basically a century long excuse to raid, pillage, and enslave slavs and other questionably pagan Eastern Europeans.
我从未说过低等国家的唯一财富来源是银行业。
而传统的对黎凡特的十字军东征是金钱的沉淀，但北欧的十字军东征基本上是一个长达一个世纪用来袭击、掠夺和奴役斯拉夫和其他有问题的东欧异教徒的借口。
The developed world would happily do so, if the developing world could guarantee that the money won't disappear into officials pockets. But as Brazil, China and India stand right now...I have low hopes. As do most Western politicians.
如果发展中国家能保证这些钱不会消失在官员的口袋里，发达国家会很乐意这样做。但就目前巴西、中国和印度的情况来看......我觉得不乐观。大多数西方政治家也是如此。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The developed world would happily do so
The notion that the West would happily invest the trillions needed for the developing world's infrastructure without pollution, but are just too concerned about corruption is ridiculous.
“发达国家会很乐意这样做”
西方国家很乐意为发展中世界的基础设施投资数万亿的资金，只是因为过于担心腐败问题才没这么干，这种说法是很荒谬的。
The developed world would happily do so
The developed world is not a single entity and it's not Mr charity as a rule. If it helps out, it tends to do so with strings attached that favours it. The Paris accord demonstrates brutally well how some of the developed world reacts: several countries have tried to exit it (and some have!) Oh they use your argument as an excuse but it's an excuse first and foremost because they aren't necessarily interested in giving out that money without strings.
“发达国家会很乐意这样做”
发达国家不是一个单一的实体，它不是大家喜闻乐见的慈善先生。如果它提供帮助，它往往会附带有利于自己的条件。巴黎协议残酷地展示了一些发达国家的反应：一些国家试图退出巴黎协议（一些国家已经退出了！）哦，他们用你的论点作为借口，但这首先是一个借口，最重要的是他们不一定对无条件地提供这些钱感兴趣。
The develop world can't even fix covid maybe start with That one first then talk the talk
发达国家甚至无法解决新冠问题，也许先从这个开始，然后再谈环境。
Unfortunately, its the developed world that put in place most of those corrupt regimes. Then when dictators and corrupt officials pocket IMF loans, we hold their people accountable instead, perpetuating a system that keeps them poor while we collect what is essentially infinite debt.
不幸的是，是发达国家建立了大多数的腐败政权。然后，当独裁者和腐败官员将国际货币基金组织的贷款收入囊中时，我们反而要求他们的人民负责，让一个使他们保持贫穷的体系长期存在，而我们则收取本质上是无限的债务。
Which of these countries have you personally visited?
这些国家中哪些是你亲自访问过的？
You don't need to personally visit to know that Modi and Bolsonaro are crooked.
你不需要亲自去看就知道莫迪和博尔索纳罗是骗子。
lol... funny. What do you know about Modi or Bolsonaro other than propaganda you read in your biased media?
No wonder the developed world is suffering. Unlike in the past, a lot of knowledge is propaganda fed by someone. None of you care to explore and find facts for yourself.
呵呵...有趣。除了你在有偏见的媒体上读到的宣传，你对莫迪或博尔索纳罗有什么了解？
难怪发达世界正在遭受痛苦。与过去不同的是，现在的很多信息都是由某人提供的宣传。你们都不愿意自己去探索和寻找事实。
Industrialization is what caused colonialism not the other way around. Justice doesn't demand anything, we are helping the third world because we have excess and their improvement in these areas helps us in a round about way. If our global trade system breaks apart we will be back to colonialism in a heartbeat.
工业化是造成殖民主义的原因，而不是反过来。正义并不要求什么，我们帮助第三世界是因为我们有多余的东西，而他们在这些方面的改善对我们有一定的帮助。如果我们的全球贸易体系瓦解，我们将在瞬间回到殖民主义。
The industrial revolution came almost 3 centuries after colonialism began.
And we are still in colonialism, we just use the cover of the free market and NGO's rather than literally planting our flags everywhere.
工业革命是在殖民主义开始后的近3个世纪才发生。
而我们仍然处于殖民主义，我们只是利用自由市场和非政府组织的掩护，而不是真的到处插旗子。
Modern Western colonialism, you mean. Colonialism had been around a fair bit longer ago than that, think ancient times.
But...a lot of colonialism really was the result of the industrial revolution, which gave the Western powers an almost insurmountable advantage in military capability. You had empires in the Americas and a few other places prior to industrialization, but the unchallenged Western world domination that basically took over everywhere after the later 1700s was a result of industrialization and technological innovation. It's what enabled a modest-sized island nation on the other side of the planet to easily humiliate Asia's greatest empire.
你是说现代西方殖民主义。想想远古时代，殖民主义的存在时间要长得多。
但是……很多殖民主义确实是工业革命的结果，工业革命给了西方列强在军事能力上几乎不可逾越的优势。在工业化之前，美洲和其他几个地方存在几个帝国，但在17世纪晚期之后，西方对世界的统治基本上是无可动摇的，这也是工业化和技术革新的结果。这使得地球另一端的一个中等规模的岛国能够轻而易举地羞辱亚洲最大的帝国。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
If that hinders growth in the developing world, the developed world should be heavily subsidizing replacements
And if the developed world refuses to help subsidize replacements and assist developing countries in their transitions, they have no right to speak on said countries using the tried-and-true, carbon-heavy practices.
“如果这阻碍了发展中世界的增长，发达国家应该大量补贴替代物”
如果发达国家拒绝帮助补贴替代品并协助发展中国家进行转型，他们就没有权利对上述国家使用久经考验的高碳做法发表意见。
Developed world has thrown money around before, such as paying Brazil to protect the rainforest. Brazil took it and turned a blind eye to illegal logging. Bolsonaro flat out refused the money and encouraged more destruction.
The developed world would help if the developing world's leaders could prove they won't pocket the cash and build more coal mines.
发达国家以前也扔过钱，比如给巴西钱让它保护雨林。巴西拿着钱，对非法砍伐视而不见。博尔索纳罗断然拒绝了这笔钱，并鼓励更多的破坏。
如果发展中国家的领导人能够证明他们不会把钱装进口袋并建造更多的煤矿，发达国家就会提供帮助。
What? Developed countries can't even supply themselves with natural gas, how are they going to get the developing world off coal?
什么？发达国家连自己的天然气都供应不了，他们怎么能让发展中国家摆脱煤炭？
That’s a choice that developed countries are making not out of necessity but convenience
这是发达国家的选择，不是出于需要，而是出于方便。
Or just easier that first world countries focus on their own business and invest in cleaner energy. They haven’t made the switch themselves so it’s unfair to expect third word countries to do it on their behalf
或者说，第一世界国家应该专注于自己的事情并投资于清洁能源。他们自己都还没有做出改变，所以期望第三世界国家代表他们做这件事是不公平的。
It is true that the western world has destroyed a lot in the name of progress, and a brunt of environmental damages is on us.
The thing however is: While it is true that the third world needs necessary investments in infrastructure and industry, there is no necessity to go down the same path of industrialization as we did. While we are still in a transitional phase to get off on our "addiction" of harmful practices, a good part of the technolgoies to have a more eco friendly system are there, so that, if the west helps with financing the development, the third world can basically skip a majority of these hazardous methods we used in the past.
And the necessity for that is not only in the benefit for the West, but even more so for these third world nations. While the climat change will hit hard Europe and the US, who majorly lived until now in moderate climates, the damage it will cause to the third world will be serious to life threatening. Especially in Africa, we see the danger that large parts of the nations will become uninhabitable, meaning that especially these nations should have the highest interest not to accelerate the climate change.
The Western world especially needs to do their part in sharing the wealth we created using these harmful industries, in order to allow the third world to skip that phase of development not only for our good, but for their good as well.
诚然，西方世界以进步的名义破坏了很多东西，环境破坏首当其冲的就是我们。
但问题是。虽然第三世界确实需要对基础设施和工业进行必要的投资，但没有必要像我们一样走工业化的道路。虽然我们仍然处于一个过渡阶段，以摆脱我们对有害做法的"瘾"，但有很大一部分技术可以建立一个更加生态友好的系统，因此，如果西方帮助资助发展，第三世界基本上可以跳过我们过去使用过的大部分有害的方法。
这样做的必要性不仅是对西方国家有利，而且对这些第三世界国家更有利。虽然气候变化将严重打击欧洲和美国，但他们到目前为止主要生活在温和的气候中，而它对第三世界造成的损害将严重威胁到生命。特别是在非洲，我们看到国家的大部分地区将变得不适合居住，这意味着，尤其是这些国家的最大利益应该是不要加速气候变化的发生。
西方世界需要在分享我们使用这些有害工业所创造的财富方面尽到自己的责任，以便让第三世界跳过这个发展阶段，不仅是为了我们的利益，也是为了他们的利益。
It's really dependent on the situation. Rather than using a third world country, let's look at China. They're currently improving their manufacturing abilities and their economy at the cost of the environment. They're putting out a lot of pollution, and they've done it in a very short time. America did a similar thing on a smaller scale, but the big difference is, China has access to information we didn't. It's okay to criticize them for not doing more when they have both the knowledge and the resources to do so.
On the other hand, China's position is that, while they may be heavily polluting right now, every established superpower had to go through the same phase when they were a younger country. China's industrialization phase has lasted for a much shorter time. Furthermore, established economic superpowers look at China as competition, and have been using energy supremacy as a way to suppress China's economy. It's not okay to criticize China for that situation, they did nothing to cause that problem.
On the other hand, China is now doing the same thing to many of their neighbors. They're also starting to outsource a lot of their filthier industries to other countries, so that the pollution doesn't make it back to China. That's obviously something you can criticize China for.
Back in America again, we're basically doing this same thing right now. We're criticizing China's energy and pollutant policies, but we're still buying the products of their processes. Hard to blame China for the same thing we're doing.
And you can go back and forth all day. None of these situations occurs in a vacuum and they all have several layers on every side. The most important part is that we continue to combat climate change here (passing regulations preventing the worst pollutants from being used, forcing corporations to clean up their own waste instead of dumping/selling it, and replacing worthless recycling efforts with efforts to educate the public about the true environmental cost of products), and that will put us in a much better position to help other countries in the future. It would be much easier to pressure other countries into preventing pollution if we were willing to share the improved tech we develop here.
这真的要看情况。与其概括性地用“第三世界国家”，不如看看中国。他们目前正在以环境为代价改善他们的制造能力和经济。他们正在放出大量的污染，而且他们是在很短的时间内做到的。美国在较小的规模上做了类似的事情，但最大的区别是，中国有机会获得我们没有的信息。当他们既有知识又有资源时，批评他们没有做更多的事情是可以的。
另一方面，中国的立场是，虽然他们现在可能有严重的污染，但每一个成熟的超级大国在他们还是一个年轻的国家时都必须经历同样的阶段。中国的工业化阶段所持续的时间要短得多。此外，老牌经济超级大国将中国视为竞争对手，并一直将能源优势作为压制中国经济的一种方式。为现在这种情况批评中国是不可以的，他们没有做任何事情来造成现在这个问题。
另一方面，中国现在正在对许多邻国做同样的事情。他们也开始把很多肮脏的行业外包给其他国家，这样污染就不会回到中国来了。这显然是你可以批评中国的事情。
再回到美国，我们现在基本上在做同样的事情。我们批评中国的能源和污染物政策，但我们仍然在购买他们的产品。以我们正在做的事情，我们很难去责备中国。
你的立场可以来回跳动。这些情况都不是在真空中发生的，它们的每一面都有几层含义。最重要的部分是我们要继续应对气候变化（通过法规防止使用最严重的污染物，迫使企业清理自己的废物而不是倾倒/出售，并用努力教育公众了解产品的真正环境成本来取代毫无价值的回收工作），这将使我们在未来能够更好地帮助其他国家。如果我们愿意分享我们开发的改进技术，那么向其他国家施压以防止污染会容易得多。
The central government in China is very concerned about climate change and air pollution and wants to become clean carbon neutral economy. They have to worry about feeding a billion people and the economic and human impact of climate change on a population the size of China's.
Local gov in China wants their town to be the latest boom town with the skyrocketing growth that sucks in investment. So they need to grow their electrical capacity fast and they go all in on permitting what is cheapest, which is dirty coal.
And I agree. If we aren't changing and being greener at home then we can't ask anyone else to do that on our behalf. We have to act if we want others to do the same. And others not doing the same already is not an excuse for us to fail to take leadership.
中国政府非常关注气候变化和空气污染，希望成为清洁的碳中和经济。他们必须担心养活十亿人，以及气候变化对中国这样的人口规模的经济和人类影响。
中国的地方政府希望他们的城镇成为最新的繁荣城镇，并以飞速的增长来吸引投资。因此，他们需要快速增长他们的电力容量，他们全力以赴，使用最便宜的东西，也就是脏煤。
我也同意。如果我们不改变，不在自己家里变得更环保，那么我们就不能要求别人代表我们这样做。如果我们希望其他人也这样做，我们就必须采取行动。其他人没有做同样的事情，并不是我们不能发挥领导作用的借口。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
China is doing way more than America regarding climate change lol. Considering how much of the world’s products are being manufactured in China compared to America.
在气候变化方面，中国做得比美国多得多。考虑到与美国相比，世界上有多少产品是在中国制造的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
On the one hand, we 1000% need to be more collaborative than punitive in helping the third world develop sustainably, both as 'reparations' for the colonial era and for the collective sake of the planet.
On the other, countries like China are obxtively following a disastrous environmental policy with consequences that won't remain in their borders. The (completely legal) gutting of the Amazon in Brazil, for example, disrupts not just local ecosystems, but also global medical and ecological research, natural carbon sinks, and atmospheric patterns including raincloud formation over North America.
At the core is a critique of right wing governments and global capitalism, which the staunchest environmentalists are already skeptical of at home - in large part because of global supply chains' role in producing goods for first world consumption.
一方面，在帮助第三世界进行可持续发展方面，我们1000% 需要更多地合作而不是惩罚，这既是对殖民时代的“补偿”，也是为了地球的集体利益。
另一方面，像中国这样的国家客观地遵循着灾难性的环境政策，其后果不会只留在他们的境内。例如，巴西亚马逊（完全合法）的破坏不仅破坏了当地的生态系统，而且破坏了全球医学和生态研究、天然碳汇和大气模式，包括北美上空的雨云形成。
其核心是对右翼政府和全球资本主义的批评，最坚定的环保主义者在国内已经对此持怀疑态度——很大程度上是因为全球供应链在为第一世界消费生产商品方面所起的作用。
Right but the ecological impact from China is partly driven by first world (mostly America) outsourcing manufacturing to China because it’s cheaper, and then increasing consumption/demand of those goods.
I’m certainly not saying China’s innocent by any means. But it’s extremely hypocritical when the average American complains about Chinese pollution while making little effort to change (or even just recognize) their behaviors of excessive consumption that are enabled precisely because of cheap, ecologically destructive manufacturing in China and other third world countries.
Additionally the US has just 5% of the world’s population yet consumes about 24% of its energy. If we completely stopped using fossil fuels (60% of our energy), we would still be using almost twice as much energy per capita as China.
So the way I see it, Americans claim to want to save the environment and reduce emissions, but they’re not willing to change their lifestyle of gluttonous consumerism. And China and other third world countries are often just an excuse to say “Well they’re still polluting so why should I make sacrifices?”
是的，但中国的生态影响是由于第一世界（主要是美国）将制造业外包给中国，因为它更便宜，然后增加对这些商品的消费/需求。
我当然不是说中国是无辜的。但是，当普通美国人抱怨中国的污染时，却很少努力改变（甚至认识到）他们的过度消费行为，而这些行为正是因为中国和其他第三世界国家的廉价、破坏生态的制造业而得以实现，这是非常虚伪的。
此外，美国的人口仅占世界人口的5%，却消耗了世界能源的24%。如果我们完全停止使用化石燃料（占我们能源的60%），我们的人均能源消耗仍将是中国的两倍。
因此，在我看来，美国人声称想要拯救环境和减少排放，但他们不愿意改变他们贪婪的消费主义的生活方式。而中国和其他第三世界国家往往就有了一个借口，说 "他们都还在污染，所以我为什么要做出牺牲？"