How often do we hear that people just don't care? How many times have you been told that real, substantial change isn't possible because most people are too selfish, too stupid or too lazy to try to make a difference in their community? I propose to you today that apathy as we think we know it doesn't actually exist, but rather, that people do care, but that we live in a world that actively discourages engagement by constantly putting obstacles and barriers in our way.

我們多久會聽到 人們說他們毫不在乎？ 你多少次被告知 不可能發生真正的、實質性的變化， 因為多數人都太自私、 太愚蠢或是太懶惰了， 不會試著在他們的社區內有所作為？ 我今天想告訴各位，那些我們自以為了解的冷漠 其實并不存在， 相反，人們真的在乎， 我們生活的世界中， 我們不斷地在我們的前方 設置障礙和壁壘以阻礙參與。

And I'll give you some examples of what I mean. Let's start with city hall. You ever see one of these before? This is a newspaper ad. It's a notice of a zoning application change for a new office building so the neighborhood knows what's happening. As you can see, it's impossible to read. You need to get halfway down to even find out which address they're talking about, and then farther down, in tiny 10-point font, to find out how to actually get involved. Imagine if the private sector advertised in the same way -- if Nike wanted to sell a pair of shoes and put an ad in the paper like that. (Applause) Now that would never happen. You'll never see an ad like that because Nike actually wants you to buy their shoes. Whereas the city of Toronto clearly doesn't want you involved with the planning process, otherwise their ads would look something like this -- with all the information basically laid out clearly. As long as the city's putting out notices like this to try to get people engaged, then of course people aren't going to be engaged. But that's not apathy; that's intentional exclusion.

我會給些例子來做說明。 讓我們從市政廳開始。 各位以前見過這類東西么？ 這是個報紙廣告。 這是份新辦公樓區劃變更申請的通知 讓鄰近的人就能知道發生了什么。 正如各位所見，這簡直沒法讀。 需要半道停下來 去弄明白他們說的地址是哪兒， 接著往下讀，用微小的10號字體 標明了如何才能參與其中。 想象一下私營機構也用同樣的方式廣告 -- 試想一下，耐克想銷售一雙鞋 并用這樣的廣告在報紙上做廣告。 （掌聲） 這永遠不會發生。 各位永遠不會看到這樣的廣告， 因為耐克是真的想讓你們去購買他們的鞋子。 然而多倫多市 顯然不想你們參與規劃過程， 不然他們的廣告應該是這樣的 -- 基本上所有的信息都清楚地列出來。 只要市政府還在發布像這樣的通知 來讓人們參與其中， 那么人們當然不會參與。 但這不是冷漠； 這是有意地排斥。

Public space. The manner in which we mistreat our public spaces is a huge obstacle towards any type of progressive political change because we've essentially put a price tag on freedom of expression. Whoever has the most money gets the loudest voice, dominating the visual and mental environment. The problem with this model is that there are some amazing messages that need to be said that aren't profitable to say. So you're never going to see them on a billboard.

公共空間。 （掌聲） 我們糟蹋公共空間的行為 對任何類型的進步政治變革來說 都是一個巨大的障礙。 因為本質上，我們在言論自由上貼上了價格標簽。 最有錢的人有最大的發言權， 并支配著視覺和心理環境。 這一觀念的問題在于 有些需要傳遞的很棒的訊息 是無利可圖的。 因此，絕不會在布告板上看到它們。

The media plays an important role in developing our relationship with political change, mainly by ignoring politics and focusing on celebrities and scandals, but even when they do talk about important political issues, they do it in a way that I feel discourages engagement. And I'll give you an example: the Now magazine from last week -- progressive, downtown weekly in Toronto. This is the cover story. It's an article about a theater performance, and it starts with basic information about where it is, in case you actually want to go and see it after you've read the article -- where, the time, the website. Same with this -- it's a movie review, an art review, a book review -- where the reading is in case you want to go. A restaurant -- you might not want to just read about it, maybe you want to go to the restaurant. So they tell you where it is, what the prices are, the address, the phone number, etc.

在發展我們與政治變革的關系上， 媒體扮演了一個重要的角色， 主要是通過忽視政治， 專注于名流和丑聞做到這些的。 但甚至他們在討論重要的政治問題時， 也是以一種阻礙參與的方式。 我來舉個例子：上周的現在雜志 -- 進步者，多倫多市中心每周發行。 這是個封面故事。 它是一篇關于劇場演出的文章， 以在哪兒演出的基本的信息開始， 在你閱讀了這篇文章后，一旦你真的想去看看 -- 地點，時間，網址一目了然。 這篇也一樣 -- 這是篇電影評論， 一篇藝術評論， 一篇書評 --假若你想去讀讀，在哪兒能讀到。 一家餐館 -- 或許你不僅僅是想讀讀， 也許你想去那家餐館美餐一頓。 因此他們告訴你餐館在哪兒，價格， 地址，電話，等等。

Then you get to their political articles. Here's a great article about an important election race that's happening. It talks about the candidates -- written very well -- but no information, no follow-up, no websites for the campaigns, no information about when the debates are, where the campaign offices are. Here's another good article about a new campaign opposing privatization of transit without any contact information for the campaign. The message seems to be that the readers are most likely to want to eat, maybe read a book, maybe see a movie, but not be engaged in their community. And you might think this is a small thing, but I think it's important because it sets a tone and it reinforces the dangerous idea that politics is a spectator sport.

然后我們看看政治文章。 這是一篇關于正在進行的重要選舉的很好的文章。 論及候選人 -- 寫的非常棒 -- 但沒有信息，沒有尋根問底， 沒有競選者的網站， 沒有關于辯論時間，競選辦公室的地址等信息。 這另一篇好文章 是關于反對交通運輸私有化的一場新運動 其中沒有任何關于這一運動的聯系信息。 這似乎表明 讀者最有可能想去品嘗美食， 或是讀一本書，或是看一場電影，但并沒在他們的社區中參與活動。 各位也許會認為這是小事， 但我認為這很重要，因為這樹立了一個榜樣 并且加強了政治是項觀賞性活動 這一危險看法。

Heroes: How do we view leadership? Look at these 10 movies. What do they have in common? Anyone? They all have heroes who were chosen. Someone came up to them and said, "You're the chosen one. There's a prophesy. You have to save the world." And then someone goes off and saves the world because they've been told to, with a few people tagging along. This helps me understand why a lot of people have trouble seeing themselves as leaders because it sends all the wrong messages about what leadership is about. A heroic effort is a collective effort, number one. Number two, it's imperfect; it's not very glamorous, and it doesn't suddenly start and suddenly end. It's an ongoing process your whole life. But most importantly, it's voluntary. It's voluntary. As long as we're teaching our kids that heroism starts when someone scratches a mark on your forehead, or someone tells you that you're part of a prophecy, they're missing the most important characteristic of leadership, which is that it comes from within. It's about following your own dreams -- uninvited, uninvited -- and then working with others to make those dreams come true.

英雄：我們怎么看待領導力？ 看看這10部電影。它們有什么共同之處？ 有人知道么？ 它們中都有被選中的英雄。 有人走到他們面前說，“你就是被選中的那個人。 這是預言。你必須去拯救世界。” 接著有人動身去拯救世界，因為他們被告知要這么做， 身邊只跟隨了幾個人。 這讓我理解了 為什么許多人很難把自己視為領導者。 因為關于什么是領導力有太多的錯誤信息。 英雄式的壯舉是集體的努力， 第一點。 第二點，它不完美；它不是很迷人； 它不是突然開始并突然結束的。 它是個持續一生的過程。 但最重要地是，它是自愿的。 它是自愿的。 只要我們還在教導我們的孩子 英雄事跡從有人在你額頭畫上標記時開始， 或是有人告訴你，你是預言的一部分時開始， 他們錯過了領導力中最重要的特質， 而這是來自于內心的。 最重要的是追尋自己的夢想 -- 未經邀請地，自發地 -- 然后與他人一起努力實現這些夢想。

Political parties: oh boy. Political parties could and should be one of the basic entry points for people to get engaged in politics. Instead, they've become, sadly, uninspiring and uncreative organizations that rely so heavily on market research and polling and focus groups that they end up all saying the same thing, pretty much regurgitating back to us what we already want to hear at the expense of putting forward bold and creative ideas. And people can smell that, and it feeds cynicism.

政黨：哇！ 政黨能夠成為并且應該是 人們參與政治的 基本切入點之一。 相反，它們已經悲哀地成為 缺乏創見的和缺乏創造性的組織 它們高度依賴市場調查、 投票和 總是能最終達成一致的焦點群體， 我們總是聽到我們想聽的， 而不是提出切實大膽創新的觀點。 人們能感覺到這些，這成了冷嘲熱諷。 （掌聲）

Charitable status: Groups who have charitable status in Canada aren't allowed to do advocacy. This is a huge problem and a huge obstacle to change because it means that some of the most passionate and informed voices are completely silenced, especially during election time. Which leads us to the last one, which is our elections.

慈善組織： 在加拿大，擁有慈善組織的團體不允許擁護某個候選者。 這是個大問題，也是變革的巨大障礙， 因為這意味著一些最熱情的最知情的聲音 將完全消失，尤其是在選舉期間。 最后一點， 就是我們的選舉。

As you may have noticed, our elections in Canada are a complete joke. We use out-of-date systems that are unfair and create random results. Canada's currently led by a party that most Canadians didn't actually want. How can we honestly and genuinely encourage more people to vote when votes don't count in Canada? You add all this up together and of course people are apathetic. It's like trying to run into a brick wall.

各位或許已經注意到了，加拿大的選舉完全是個笑話。 我們使用落后的系統 這會產生一些不公平且隨意的結果。 加拿大當前正由一個 多數加拿大人并不認可的政黨領導著。 當在加拿大投票并不算數時， 我們如何能誠實地真誠地鼓勵更多的人去投票呢？ 把所有這些放在一起 人們當然缺乏興趣。 這就像試著玩兒穿墻術。

Now I'm not trying to be negative by throwing all these obstacles out and explaining what's in our way. Quite the opposite: I actually think people are amazing and smart and that they do care. But that, as I said, we live in this environment where all these obstacles are being put in our way. As long as we believe that people, our own neighbors, are selfish, stupid or lazy, then there's no hope. But we can change all those things I mentioned. We can open up city hall. We can reform our electoral systems. We can democratize our public spaces.

我現在列舉出這些障礙， 說明我們面對的困難并不是想變得消極。 恰恰相反：我確實認為人們很棒很聰明 而且他們真的在乎。 但正如我說過的，我們生活在一個 充滿坎坷的環境之中。 只要我們還在認為人們，我們的鄰居， 是自私的、愚蠢的或是懶惰的， 就沒有希望。 但我們能改變所有這些我所提到的事情。 我們能敞開市政廳。 我們能改良我們的選舉系統。 我們能使我們的公共空間民主化。

My main message is, if we can redefine apathy, not as some kind of internal syndrome, but as a complex web of cultural barriers that reinforces disengagement, and if we can clearly define, we can clearly identify, what those obstacles are, and then if we can work together collectively to dismantle those obstacles, then anything is possible.

我的主旨是， 如果我們重新定義冷漠， 不把它視作某種內在癥狀， 而是把它視為阻止我們參與的 文化障礙的復雜網絡， 如果我們能清晰地定義它，我們就能清晰地識別出 哪些是障礙， 而后，如果我們能一起協作去除這些障礙， 一切皆有可能。

Thank you.

謝謝。

（掌聲）

更多 英語演講小短文、英文演講稿、英語演講稿 相關文章和資料，請繼續關注 英語作文大全