Globalisation has helped lift millions of people in the developing world out of poverty and showered cheap goods on western consumers.

全球化帮助发展中国家数以百万计的人脱离贫困，并让西方消费者有大量廉价商品可以选择。

Yet at the ballot¹ box it is also blamed by those very same people for increasing inequality and squeezing living standards.

然而在投票箱前，人们却指责全球化加剧不平等，挤压生活水平。

Pro-globalisation politicians are facing a noisy backlash in Europe and the US as populists demand greater protection for those who feel the system has been rigged.

在欧洲和美国，支持全球化的政治人士正面临强烈反弹，民粹主义者要求加大保护那些觉得体制被操纵的人士。

In their view, globalisation is an innocent fraud, to use John Kenneth Galbraith’s phrase.

在他们看来，用约翰.肯尼思.加尔布雷斯(John Kenneth Galbraith)的话来说，全球化是一种无罪欺诈。

The US economist² argued in his 2004 book of that name that societies were often sustained by handy fictions, such as the idea that companies were run for the benefit of shareholders³ rather than managers.

这位美国经济学家曾在他2004年的同名著作中辩称，社会经常受到一些方便假想的支撑，例如认为企业的经营是为了股东利益，而非管理者。

Politics, money and intellectual fashion create their own version of the truth, irrespective of reality.

政治、金融和学术潮流创造了各自版本的真理，而不管现实如何。

No one is especially at fault; what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred, Galbraith wrote.

加尔布雷斯写道：没有人特别有错；人们就是喜欢那些方便相信的事情。

There is a risk that technological⁴ disruption may come to be seen as the second great innocent fraud of our times.

风险在于，技术突变可能被视为我们这个时代第二个巨大的无罪欺诈。

It is hard to dispute that promising⁵ new technologies — like globalisation — can bring enormous benefits.

颇有希望的新技术（与全球化一样）能够带来巨大好处，这点很难质疑。

Energy, transport and healthcare are just three sectors⁶ that are likely to be transformed for the better in the next few years.

能源、交通和医疗是很可能会在未来几年向好的方向转型的其中3个行业。

But these new technologies will also threaten many established industries, markets and jobs.

但是，此类新技术还会威胁很多成熟行业、市场和就业。

As with globalisation, the digital revolution will bring generalised gain but cause localised pain.

与全球化一样，数字革命将带来普遍好处，但也会造成局部痛苦。

Many new technologies have unintended, and often adverse⁸, consequences — or bite back.

很多新技术产生了意想不到而且往往不利的后果，即反咬。

For example, the combustion⁹ engine revolutionised transport.

例如，内燃机让交通实现了革命。

But it also did terrible damage to the environment.

但它也对环境造成了严重损害。

Asbestos was once hailed as a miracle material.

石棉一度被吹嘘为一种神奇的材料。

But in the past 20 years we have spent billions stripping it from buildings.

但过去20年，我们花费了数十亿美元将其从建筑中拆除。

The potential bite back from the latest crop of new technologies, such as gene editing and artificial intelligence, is terrifying.

最新这批技术（例如基因编辑和人工智能）的潜在反咬令人害怕。

As Stephen Hawking¹⁰, the British scientist, said last week, the creation of powerful artificial intelligence will be either the best, or the worst, thing ever to happen to humanity.

正如英国科学家斯蒂芬.霍金(Stephen Hawking)最近所说的，强大人工智能的出现将是对人类要么最好要么最坏的事情。

How can we ensure good outcomes? Here are three ideas.

我们怎么能确保良好的结果呢？这里有三个构想。

First, the private sector⁷ has to embrace the public sector, appreciating that they have common aims.

首先，私营部门必须拥抱公共部门，认识到大家有着共同的目标。

As Galbraith wrote, the interdependence of the two sectors is often so great as to render distinctions between them almost meaningless.

正如加尔布雷斯所写的，这两个部门的相互依赖往往非常密切，以至于区分它们几乎没有意义。

Insurgent¹¹ West Coast tech firms have a near messianic belief that they are bettering the lot of humanity and do not need adult supervision¹².

敢想敢干的西海岸科技公司有着一种近乎救世主的信念：他们在为全人类的福祉作出贡献，不需要成人监护。

Their chief demand to government is: clear out of the way.

它们向政府提出的主要要求是：别挡道。

They are increasingly vocal¹³ in pushing such views, having become one of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington.

他们在形成华盛顿最大的游说势力之一后，正日益强势地推动这些观念。

In a conversation in Wired magazine, President Barack Obama argued that the adoption¹⁴ of new technologies was too important to be left to private companies.

在与《连线》(Wired)杂志的对话中，美国总统巴拉克.奥巴马(Barack Obama)辩称，新技术的采用非常重要，不能留给私营企业。

But he warned confidence in collective action had been chipped away, partly because of ideology¹⁶ and rhetoric¹⁷.

但他警告称，对集体行动的信心已受损，部分原因是意识形态和花言巧语。

If we want the values of a diverse community represented in these breakthrough technologies, then government funding has to be a part of it, he said.

他表示：如果我们希望多元化社会的价值观在这些突破性技术中得到体现，那么政府资金不得不成为其中的一部分。

Second, the public sector needs to retool¹⁸ itself to understand and meet the challenges posed by new technologies.

其次，公共部门需要调整自己，理解并迎接新技术所带来的挑战。

Many of the regulatory functions of government, introduced in the US in the early 20th century, were designed to protect the consumer from predatory monopolists and financial cartels.

美国在20世纪初引入的很多政府监管职能，是为了保护消费者不受掠夺性垄断者和金融卡特尔的损害。

But government institutions today need to protect us as citizens as much as consumers.

但现在的政府体制需要保护我们作为公民以及消费者的双重利益。

The frontline of regulation concerns issues of privacy, security, data use, employment rights and freedom of expression.

监管第一线涉及隐私、安全、数据使用、就业权利和言论自由等问题。

We need reinvigorated public institutions to help guarantee that new technologies are used in benign¹⁹ ways.

我们需要公共机构重振雄风，帮助保证良性利用新技术。

We also need enforced legal protections to ensure that government itself does not abuse these technologies.

我们还需要施行法律保护，确保政府自己不滥用这些技术。

Third, we may need to rewrite the implicit²⁰ social contracts that govern our democracies, redefining what goods and services our governments provide.

第三，我们可能需要重写治理我们民主社会的隐性社会契约，重新定义政府提供的商品和服务。

Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues that the present wave of technological change could create so much social turmoil²¹ that we may need to fundamentally rethink our political systems.

经济历史学家乔尔.莫克伊尔(Joel Mokyr)辩称，当前的技术变革浪潮可能会造成巨大社会动荡，以至于我们可能需要从根本上反思我们的政治体制。

He suggests the necessary transformation²² could be on a par¹⁵ with the creation of the German welfare state in the 19th century or the New Deal of the 1930s.

他认为，必要的转型可能堪比19世纪德国福利国家的创建或者上世纪30年代的美国新政(New Deal)。

Change on that scale could do with input²³ from the brilliant minds of the tech sector.

这种规模的变革需要科技行业优秀人才的集思广益。

As Wired, guest-edited by Mr Obama, put it: Ask not what government can do for Silicon²⁴ Valley; ask what Silicon Valley can do for the government.

正如奥巴马担任嘉宾主编的那一期《连线》杂志所言：不要问政府能为硅谷做什么；要问硅谷能为政府做什么。