sentence-transformers/parallel-sentences-talks

english stringlengths 2 3.06k	non_english stringlengths 1 4.3k
The bottom board of this three-dimensional, the board of transnational relations, things that cross borders outside the control of governments, things like climate change, drug trade, financial flows, pandemics, all these things that cross borders outside the control of governments, there nobody's in charge.	最下層的棋盤：國家之間的關係，外於政府控制而跨國界的東西，像是氣候變遷、毒品交易、財務流、全球流行病等，所有這些跨越國界而外於政府控制的東西，沒有人是真正的領頭。
It makes no sense to call this unipolar or multi-polar.	要稱之為單極化或多極化並不正確。
Power is chaotically distributed.	權力很混亂的分散，
And the only way you can solve these problems -- and this is where many greatest challenges are coming in this century -- is through cooperation, through working together, which means that soft power becomes more important, that ability to organize networks to deal with these kinds of problems and to be able to get cooperation.	而唯一能解決這些問題的方法而這也是很多這世紀最大的挑戰就是合作，同心協力的來解決。這也表示軟實力越來越重要。軟實力能夠組織、解決這些問題和組織合作的連結。
Another way of putting it is that as we think of power in the 21st century, we want to get away from the idea that power's always zero sum -- my gain is your loss and vice versa.	另一種描述這的方式，就是當我們思考二十一世紀裡的權力，我們必須摒棄權力是零和遊戲這個觀念-- 我的增是你的減。
Power can also be positive sum, where your gain can be my gain.	權力的總和可以是正數，也就是你的增加也可以是我的增加。
If China develops greater energy security and greater capacity to deal with its problems of carbon emissions, that's good for us as well as good for China as well as good for everybody else.	如果中國開發了更多的能源保證和更多的能力來處理它境內的碳排放的問題，那對我們有益、對中國有益、也對所有其他人有益。
So empowering China to deal with its own problems of carbon is good for everybody, and it's not a zero sum, I win, you lose.	所以激勵中國來處理它的碳排放問題對所有人都有益，而這不會是權力加總起來是零，
It's one in which we can all gain.	而是所有人都從中獲益。
So as we think about power in this century, we want to get away from this view that it's all I win, you lose.	所以當我們想到這個世紀裡的權力，我們必須遠離我嬴你輸這種看法。
Now I don't mean to be Pollyannaish about this.	我無意做一個盲目而樂觀的人，
Wars persist. Power persists.	戰爭仍然在發生，權力仍然重要，
Military power is important.	軍事實力很重要，
Keeping balances is important.	保持平衡很重要，
All this still persists.	這些所有的仍然持續著，
Hard power is there, and it will remain.	硬實力還是存在，而且還會繼續存留。
But unless you learn how to mix hard power with soft power into strategies that I call smart power, you're not going to deal with the new kinds of problems that we're facing.	但除非你學著將硬實力和軟實力混合成所謂我稱呼的巧實力，你將無法處理我們正在面對的新的問題。
So the key question that we need to think about as we look at this is how do we work together to produce global public goods, things from which all of us can benefit?	所以我們現在最需要思考的關鍵問題，就是我們如何可以同心協力合作來產生對於全球都有好處使得每個人都可以獲益?
How do we define our national interests so that it's not just zero sum, but positive sum.	我們如何定義我們的國家利益，使得權力的總和不會是零，而是大於零。
In that sense, if we define our interests, for example, for the United States the way Britain defined its interests in the 19th century, keeping an open trading system, keeping a monetary stability, keeping freedom of the seas -- those were good for Britain, they were good for others as well.	如果我們能使用這種思維來定義國家利益，舉個例子：對美國來說英國在十九世紀定義國家利益的方法，是保持開放的貿易系統、保持貨幣穩定、保持航海的自由-- 這些對英國有益，也對其他國家有益。
And in the 21st century, you have to do an analog to that.	而在二十一世紀裡，你必須要做出類似的舉動。
How do we produce global public goods, which are good for us, but good for everyone at the same time?	我們如何產生全球公共財，那不只對我們有益也在同時讓所有人獲益，
And that's going to be the good news dimension of what we need to think about as we think of power in the 21st century.	而那就是屬於我們在思考二十一世紀裡的權力的好消息的方面
There are ways to define our interests in which, while protecting ourselves with hard power, we can organize with others in networks to produce, not only public goods, but ways that will enhance our soft power.	在定義國家利益的時候，除了使用硬實力來保護自己，我們還能組織我們和其他人來生產，不只有公共財還有能夠提升我們軟實力的方法。
So if one looks at the statements that have been made about this, I am impressed that when Hillary Clinton described the foreign policy of the Obama administration, she said that the foreign policy of the Obama administration was going to be smart power, as she put it, "using all the tools in our foreign policy tool box."	所以如果有人來檢驗官方對於此的發言，希拉蕊‧柯林頓在描述歐巴馬政府的外交政策的發言給我很深刻的印象：她說歐巴馬政府的外交政策將會以巧實力為中心，她說：「使用我們外交政策工具箱裡所有的工具。」
And if we're going to deal with these two great power shifts that I've described, the power shift represented by transition among states, the power shift represented by diffusion of power away from all states, we're going to have to develop a new narrative of power in which we combine hard and soft power into strategies of smart power.	而如果我們要面對我所提到的重大權力轉移：由轉移在不同國家之間所代表的，和由擴散遠離於政府所代表的權力轉移，我們將會有一個對於權力的新的闡述方法。結合硬和軟實力來創造聰明實力的策略，
And that's the good news I have. We can do that.	這就是我的好消息。我們真的做得到。
Sustainability represents the what, the where and the how of what is caught.	永續性是指捕撈什麼、在哪裡捕撈，以及怎麼去捕撈那東西。
The who and the why are what's important to me.	對我來說，誰在捕撈以及為什麼捕撈是很重要的。
I want to know the people behind my dinner choices.	我想知道在我的晚餐料理背後的那些人。
I want to know how I impact them.	我想知道我對他們會有怎樣的影響。
I want to know how they impact me.	我想知道他們會如何影響我。
I want to know why they fish.	我想知道為什麼他們要捕魚。
I want to know how they rely on the water's bounty for their living.	我想知道他們有多麼依賴大海的賜予藉以謀生。
Understanding all of this enables us to shift our perception of seafood away from a commodity to an opportunity to restore our ecosystem.	了解這些可以讓我們將我們對於海鮮的認知從單純的商品轉變為可以讓生態系統回復的機會。
It allows for us to celebrate the seafood that we're also so fortunate to eat.	了解這些可以讓我們慶幸自己還能吃到海鮮。
So what do we call this?	所以，我們該稱之為什麼呢？
I think we call it restorative seafood.	我想我們該稱之為恢復性海鮮。
Where sustainability is the capacity to endure and maintain, restorative is the ability to replenish and progress.	永續性是指可以持續並進行修補的能力，恢復性則是指可以補充並增加的能力。
Restorative seafood allows for an evolving and dynamic system and acknowledges our relationship with the ocean as a resource, suggesting that we engage to replenish the ocean and to encourage its resiliency.	恢復性海鮮可以產生一個不停演化進展的系統，並且讓海洋能夠變成我們的一種資源，促使我們去讓海洋得以補充，增加它的恢復力。
It is a more hopeful, it is a more human, and is a more useful way of understanding our environment.	這是一種比較有希望、比較人道，也比較有效的方式來了解我們的環境。
Wallet guides -- standard issue by lots in the marine conservation world -- are very handy; they're a wonderful tool.	消費指南 -- 是由世界海洋保護組織所制定的標準 -- 相當方便，是很棒的工具書。
Green, yellow and red lists [of] seafood species.	用綠色、黃色和紅色來標示海鮮種類。
The association is very easy: buy green, don't buy red, think twice about yellow.	很簡單的概念：買綠色的，不要買紅色的，想買黃色的時候要三思。
But in my mind, it's really not enough to just eat green list.	但是對我來說，只吃綠色的作法還是不夠。
We can't sustain this without the measure of our success really changing the fate of the species in the yellow and the red.	如果無法確認這樣能成功的改變那些黃色和紅色魚種的命運，就無法保持其永續性。
But what if we eat only in the green list?	但是如果我們只吃綠色標示的魚呢？
You've got pole-caught yellowfin tuna here -- comes from sustainable stocks.	這裡有專門捕撈的黃鰭金槍魚 -- 來自於永續性放養池中。
Pole caught -- no bycatch.	專門捕撈 -- 不是被誤補的。
Great for fishermen. Lots of money. Supporting local economies.	對於漁民而言很棒。可以賺很多錢。可以促進地方經濟。
But it's a lion of the sea. It's a top predator.	但是它是海裡的獅子。它是頂層掠食者。
What's the context of this meal?	這一餐的含意是什麼？
Am I sitting down in a steakhouse to a 16-ounce portion of this?	我會到牛排館點一份16盎司的黃鰭金槍魚嗎？
Do I do this three times a week?	我會每個禮拜吃三次嗎？
I might still be in the green list, but I'm not doing myself, or you, or the oceans any favors.	也許我仍然在吃綠色標示的魚，但是對我、對你，或是對海洋來說都沒有好處。
The point is that we have to have a context, a gauge for our actions in all this.	重點是我們必須有一個概念，對於我們所做的事情要有一個標準。
Example: I've heard that red wine is great for my health -- antioxidants and minerals -- heart healthy.	舉例來說：我聽說紅酒對健康很好 -- 有抗氧化劑和礦物質 -- 對心臟很好。
That's great! I love red wine!	太棒了！我愛紅酒！
I'm going to drink so much of it. I'm going to be so healthy.	我要喝很多紅酒。我會變得非常健康。
Well, how many bottles is it before you tell me that I have a problem?	那麼，在我喝出問題之前，我可以喝多少瓶？
Well folks, we have a protein problem.	朋友們，我們有個關於蛋白質的問題。
We have lost this sensibility when it regards our food, and we are paying a cost.	當它牽涉到食物時，我們會失去對它的敏感度，而我們會因此付出代價。
The problem is we are hiding that cost beneath the waves.	問題是，我們將這代價隱藏在這種風潮之下。
We are hiding that cost behind the social acceptance of expanding waistlines.	我們將這代價隱藏在社會接受腰圍變粗的現象之後。
And we are hiding that cost behind monster profits.	我們將這代價隱藏在巨大商業利益之後。
So the first thing about this idea of restorative seafood is that it really takes into account our needs.	所以，關於恢復性海鮮第一件事，是必須了解我們真正需要的數量。
Restorative seafood might best be represented not by Jaws, or by Flipper, or the Gordon's fisherman, but rather, by the Jolly Green Giant.	恢復性海鮮的最佳代表，不是大白鯊、海豚或Gordon海鲜食品，而是綠巨人。
Vegetables: they might yet save the oceans.	也就是各種蔬菜：它們也許能夠拯救海洋。
Sylvia likes to say that blue is the new green.	Sylvia 喜歡說藍色是新的綠色。
Well I'd like to respectfully submit that broccoli green might then be the new blue.	那麼，我想尊敬地提出，花椰菜的綠色也許是新的藍色。
We must continue to eat the best seafood possible, if at all.	我們必須持續地去吃能吃到最好的海鮮。
But we also must eat it with a ton of vegetables.	但是我們也必須配著大量的蔬菜一起吃。
The best part about restorative seafood though is that it comes on the half-shell with a bottle of Tabasco and lemon wedges.	雖然這些恢復性海鮮最棒的吃法是用一半的貝殼將它裝盛上桌，再配上一瓶TABASCO辣椒醬和檸檬片。
It comes in a five-ounce portion of tilapia breaded with Dijon mustard and crispy, broiled breadcrumbs and a steaming pile of pecan quinoa pilaf with crunchy, grilled broccoli so soft and sweet and charred and smoky on the outside with just a hint of chili flake.	一份五盎司的鯛魚，用 Dijon 芥末醬和烤得酥脆的土司碎片包覆著，加上一份山核桃藜麥燴飯搭配著酥脆的花椰菜，外表是如此柔軟、甜美又帶點略焦的煙燻色澤，再加上一點點的辣椒片。
Whooo!	哇！
This is an easy sell.	這肯定會熱賣。
And the best part is all of those ingredients are available to every family at the neighborhood Walmart.	最棒的是這些材料在每個家庭附近的超級市場都買得到。
Jamie Oliver is campaigning to save America from the way we eat.	Jamie Oliver 正在發起一個藉由改變飲食習慣的活動來拯救美國。
Sylvia is campaigning to save the oceans from the way we eat.	Sylvia 正在發起一個藉由飲食習慣的活動來拯救海洋。
There's a pattern here.	這是一個很好的典範。
Forget nuclear holocaust; it's the fork that we have to worry about.	先忘記核子戰爭的災難；我們要擔心的不只是那件事。
We have ravaged our Earth and then used the food that we've sourced to handicap ourselves in more ways than one.	我們已經破壞了地球生態，還將我們視為天然資源的食物在許多方面上困擾著我們自己。
So I think we have this whole eating thing wrong.	所以我認為我們的飲食習慣是不對的。
And so I think it's time we change what we expect from our food.	因此，我想現在正是時候我們該改變我們對食物原有的看法。
Sustainability is complicated but dinner is a reality that we all very much understand.	永續性是相當複雜的，但晚餐對我們來說是比較能掌握的部分，
So let's start there.	所以讓我們從這兒開始。
There's been a lot of movement recently in greening our food systems.	最近，針對綠化我們的飲食系統有相當大的進展。
Dan Barber and Alice Waters are leading passionately the green food Delicious Revolution.	Dan Barber 和 Alice Waters 正在熱烈地提倡一種美味綠色食物革命。
But green foods often represent a way for us to disregard the responsibility as eaters.	但是綠色食物常常會代表一種我們忽視了身為飲食者的責任。
Just because it comes from a green source doesn't mean we can treat it with disregard on the plate.	即使它來自於綠色資源，並不代表我們可以隨便將它放到餐盤上。
We have eco-friendly shrimp.	我們有環保蝦。
We can make them; we have that technology.	我們有技術可以生產環保蝦。
But we can never have any eco-friendly all-you-can-eat shrimp buffet.	但是不可能出現那種提供環保蝦吃到飽自助餐廳。
It doesn't work.	這是不可行的。
Heart-healthy dinner is a very important part of restorative seafood.	有益心臟健康的晚餐，是恢復性海鮮重要的一部份。
While we try to manage declining marine populations, the media's recommending increased consumption of seafood.	正當我們試著去控制海洋生物數量減少的問題時，媒體還在建議大家多吃海鮮。
Studies say that tens of thousands of American grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers and fathers might be around for another birthday if we included more seafood.	各種研究告訴大家，成千上萬的美國祖父母和父母們，可能可以活得更久，只要我們多吃海鮮。
That's a reward I am not willing to pass up.	這是我不想錯過的好事。
But it's not all about the seafood.	但是這不單只是和海鮮有關。
It's about the way that we look at our plates.	這還關係著我們怎麼看待我們餐盤裡的食物。

The bottom board of this three-dimensional, the board of transnational relations, things that cross borders outside the control of governments, things like climate change, drug trade, financial flows, pandemics, all these things that cross borders outside the control of governments, there nobody's in charge.

最下層的棋盤：國家之間的關係，外於政府控制而跨國界的東西，像是氣候變遷、毒品交易、財務流、全球流行病等，所有這些跨越國界而外於政府控制的東西，沒有人是真正的領頭。

It makes no sense to call this unipolar or multi-polar.

要稱之為單極化或多極化並不正確。

Power is chaotically distributed.

權力很混亂的分散，

And the only way you can solve these problems -- and this is where many greatest challenges are coming in this century -- is through cooperation, through working together, which means that soft power becomes more important, that ability to organize networks to deal with these kinds of problems and to be able to get cooperation.

而唯一能解決這些問題的方法而這也是很多這世紀最大的挑戰就是合作，同心協力的來解決。這也表示軟實力越來越重要。軟實力能夠組織、解決這些問題和組織合作的連結。

Another way of putting it is that as we think of power in the 21st century, we want to get away from the idea that power's always zero sum -- my gain is your loss and vice versa.

另一種描述這的方式，就是當我們思考二十一世紀裡的權力，我們必須摒棄權力是零和遊戲這個觀念-- 我的增是你的減。

Power can also be positive sum, where your gain can be my gain.

權力的總和可以是正數，也就是你的增加也可以是我的增加。

If China develops greater energy security and greater capacity to deal with its problems of carbon emissions, that's good for us as well as good for China as well as good for everybody else.

如果中國開發了更多的能源保證和更多的能力來處理它境內的碳排放的問題，那對我們有益、對中國有益、也對所有其他人有益。

So empowering China to deal with its own problems of carbon is good for everybody, and it's not a zero sum, I win, you lose.

所以激勵中國來處理它的碳排放問題對所有人都有益，而這不會是權力加總起來是零，

It's one in which we can all gain.

而是所有人都從中獲益。

So as we think about power in this century, we want to get away from this view that it's all I win, you lose.

所以當我們想到這個世紀裡的權力，我們必須遠離我嬴你輸這種看法。

Now I don't mean to be Pollyannaish about this.

我無意做一個盲目而樂觀的人，

Wars persist. Power persists.

戰爭仍然在發生，權力仍然重要，

Military power is important.

軍事實力很重要，

Keeping balances is important.

保持平衡很重要，

All this still persists.

這些所有的仍然持續著，

Hard power is there, and it will remain.

硬實力還是存在，而且還會繼續存留。

But unless you learn how to mix hard power with soft power into strategies that I call smart power, you're not going to deal with the new kinds of problems that we're facing.

但除非你學著將硬實力和軟實力混合成所謂我稱呼的巧實力，你將無法處理我們正在面對的新的問題。

So the key question that we need to think about as we look at this is how do we work together to produce global public goods, things from which all of us can benefit?

所以我們現在最需要思考的關鍵問題，就是我們如何可以同心協力合作來產生對於全球都有好處使得每個人都可以獲益?

How do we define our national interests so that it's not just zero sum, but positive sum.

我們如何定義我們的國家利益，使得權力的總和不會是零，而是大於零。

In that sense, if we define our interests, for example, for the United States the way Britain defined its interests in the 19th century, keeping an open trading system, keeping a monetary stability, keeping freedom of the seas -- those were good for Britain, they were good for others as well.

如果我們能使用這種思維來定義國家利益，舉個例子：對美國來說英國在十九世紀定義國家利益的方法，是保持開放的貿易系統、保持貨幣穩定、保持航海的自由-- 這些對英國有益，也對其他國家有益。

And in the 21st century, you have to do an analog to that.

而在二十一世紀裡，你必須要做出類似的舉動。

How do we produce global public goods, which are good for us, but good for everyone at the same time?

我們如何產生全球公共財，那不只對我們有益也在同時讓所有人獲益，

And that's going to be the good news dimension of what we need to think about as we think of power in the 21st century.

而那就是屬於我們在思考二十一世紀裡的權力的好消息的方面

There are ways to define our interests in which, while protecting ourselves with hard power, we can organize with others in networks to produce, not only public goods, but ways that will enhance our soft power.

在定義國家利益的時候，除了使用硬實力來保護自己，我們還能組織我們和其他人來生產，不只有公共財還有能夠提升我們軟實力的方法。

So if one looks at the statements that have been made about this, I am impressed that when Hillary Clinton described the foreign policy of the Obama administration, she said that the foreign policy of the Obama administration was going to be smart power, as she put it, "using all the tools in our foreign policy tool box."

所以如果有人來檢驗官方對於此的發言，希拉蕊‧柯林頓在描述歐巴馬政府的外交政策的發言給我很深刻的印象：她說歐巴馬政府的外交政策將會以巧實力為中心，她說：「使用我們外交政策工具箱裡所有的工具。」

And if we're going to deal with these two great power shifts that I've described, the power shift represented by transition among states, the power shift represented by diffusion of power away from all states, we're going to have to develop a new narrative of power in which we combine hard and soft power into strategies of smart power.

而如果我們要面對我所提到的重大權力轉移：由轉移在不同國家之間所代表的，和由擴散遠離於政府所代表的權力轉移，我們將會有一個對於權力的新的闡述方法。結合硬和軟實力來創造聰明實力的策略，

And that's the good news I have. We can do that.

這就是我的好消息。我們真的做得到。

Sustainability represents the what, the where and the how of what is caught.

永續性是指捕撈什麼、在哪裡捕撈，以及怎麼去捕撈那東西。

The who and the why are what's important to me.

對我來說，誰在捕撈以及為什麼捕撈是很重要的。

I want to know the people behind my dinner choices.

我想知道在我的晚餐料理背後的那些人。

I want to know how I impact them.

我想知道我對他們會有怎樣的影響。

I want to know how they impact me.

我想知道他們會如何影響我。

I want to know why they fish.

我想知道為什麼他們要捕魚。

I want to know how they rely on the water's bounty for their living.

我想知道他們有多麼依賴大海的賜予藉以謀生。

Understanding all of this enables us to shift our perception of seafood away from a commodity to an opportunity to restore our ecosystem.

了解這些可以讓我們將我們對於海鮮的認知從單純的商品轉變為可以讓生態系統回復的機會。

It allows for us to celebrate the seafood that we're also so fortunate to eat.

了解這些可以讓我們慶幸自己還能吃到海鮮。

So what do we call this?

所以，我們該稱之為什麼呢？

I think we call it restorative seafood.

我想我們該稱之為恢復性海鮮。

Where sustainability is the capacity to endure and maintain, restorative is the ability to replenish and progress.

永續性是指可以持續並進行修補的能力，恢復性則是指可以補充並增加的能力。

Restorative seafood allows for an evolving and dynamic system and acknowledges our relationship with the ocean as a resource, suggesting that we engage to replenish the ocean and to encourage its resiliency.

恢復性海鮮可以產生一個不停演化進展的系統，並且讓海洋能夠變成我們的一種資源，促使我們去讓海洋得以補充，增加它的恢復力。

It is a more hopeful, it is a more human, and is a more useful way of understanding our environment.

這是一種比較有希望、比較人道，也比較有效的方式來了解我們的環境。

Wallet guides -- standard issue by lots in the marine conservation world -- are very handy; they're a wonderful tool.

消費指南 -- 是由世界海洋保護組織所制定的標準 -- 相當方便，是很棒的工具書。

Green, yellow and red lists [of] seafood species.

用綠色、黃色和紅色來標示海鮮種類。

The association is very easy: buy green, don't buy red, think twice about yellow.

很簡單的概念：買綠色的，不要買紅色的，想買黃色的時候要三思。

But in my mind, it's really not enough to just eat green list.

但是對我來說，只吃綠色的作法還是不夠。

We can't sustain this without the measure of our success really changing the fate of the species in the yellow and the red.

如果無法確認這樣能成功的改變那些黃色和紅色魚種的命運，就無法保持其永續性。

But what if we eat only in the green list?

但是如果我們只吃綠色標示的魚呢？

You've got pole-caught yellowfin tuna here -- comes from sustainable stocks.

這裡有專門捕撈的黃鰭金槍魚 -- 來自於永續性放養池中。

Pole caught -- no bycatch.

專門捕撈 -- 不是被誤補的。

Great for fishermen. Lots of money. Supporting local economies.

對於漁民而言很棒。可以賺很多錢。可以促進地方經濟。

But it's a lion of the sea. It's a top predator.

但是它是海裡的獅子。它是頂層掠食者。

What's the context of this meal?

這一餐的含意是什麼？

Am I sitting down in a steakhouse to a 16-ounce portion of this?

我會到牛排館點一份16盎司的黃鰭金槍魚嗎？

Do I do this three times a week?

我會每個禮拜吃三次嗎？

I might still be in the green list, but I'm not doing myself, or you, or the oceans any favors.

也許我仍然在吃綠色標示的魚，但是對我、對你，或是對海洋來說都沒有好處。

The point is that we have to have a context, a gauge for our actions in all this.

重點是我們必須有一個概念，對於我們所做的事情要有一個標準。

Example: I've heard that red wine is great for my health -- antioxidants and minerals -- heart healthy.

舉例來說：我聽說紅酒對健康很好 -- 有抗氧化劑和礦物質 -- 對心臟很好。

That's great! I love red wine!

太棒了！我愛紅酒！

I'm going to drink so much of it. I'm going to be so healthy.

我要喝很多紅酒。我會變得非常健康。

Well, how many bottles is it before you tell me that I have a problem?

那麼，在我喝出問題之前，我可以喝多少瓶？

Well folks, we have a protein problem.

朋友們，我們有個關於蛋白質的問題。

We have lost this sensibility when it regards our food, and we are paying a cost.

當它牽涉到食物時，我們會失去對它的敏感度，而我們會因此付出代價。

The problem is we are hiding that cost beneath the waves.

問題是，我們將這代價隱藏在這種風潮之下。

We are hiding that cost behind the social acceptance of expanding waistlines.

我們將這代價隱藏在社會接受腰圍變粗的現象之後。

And we are hiding that cost behind monster profits.

我們將這代價隱藏在巨大商業利益之後。

So the first thing about this idea of restorative seafood is that it really takes into account our needs.

所以，關於恢復性海鮮第一件事，是必須了解我們真正需要的數量。

Restorative seafood might best be represented not by Jaws, or by Flipper, or the Gordon's fisherman, but rather, by the Jolly Green Giant.

恢復性海鮮的最佳代表，不是大白鯊、海豚或Gordon海鲜食品，而是綠巨人。

Vegetables: they might yet save the oceans.

也就是各種蔬菜：它們也許能夠拯救海洋。

Sylvia likes to say that blue is the new green.

Sylvia 喜歡說藍色是新的綠色。

Well I'd like to respectfully submit that broccoli green might then be the new blue.

那麼，我想尊敬地提出，花椰菜的綠色也許是新的藍色。

We must continue to eat the best seafood possible, if at all.

我們必須持續地去吃能吃到最好的海鮮。

But we also must eat it with a ton of vegetables.

但是我們也必須配著大量的蔬菜一起吃。

The best part about restorative seafood though is that it comes on the half-shell with a bottle of Tabasco and lemon wedges.

雖然這些恢復性海鮮最棒的吃法是用一半的貝殼將它裝盛上桌，再配上一瓶TABASCO辣椒醬和檸檬片。

It comes in a five-ounce portion of tilapia breaded with Dijon mustard and crispy, broiled breadcrumbs and a steaming pile of pecan quinoa pilaf with crunchy, grilled broccoli so soft and sweet and charred and smoky on the outside with just a hint of chili flake.

一份五盎司的鯛魚，用 Dijon 芥末醬和烤得酥脆的土司碎片包覆著，加上一份山核桃藜麥燴飯搭配著酥脆的花椰菜，外表是如此柔軟、甜美又帶點略焦的煙燻色澤，再加上一點點的辣椒片。

Whooo!

哇！

This is an easy sell.

這肯定會熱賣。

And the best part is all of those ingredients are available to every family at the neighborhood Walmart.

最棒的是這些材料在每個家庭附近的超級市場都買得到。

Jamie Oliver is campaigning to save America from the way we eat.

Jamie Oliver 正在發起一個藉由改變飲食習慣的活動來拯救美國。

Sylvia is campaigning to save the oceans from the way we eat.

Sylvia 正在發起一個藉由飲食習慣的活動來拯救海洋。

There's a pattern here.

這是一個很好的典範。

Forget nuclear holocaust; it's the fork that we have to worry about.

先忘記核子戰爭的災難；我們要擔心的不只是那件事。

We have ravaged our Earth and then used the food that we've sourced to handicap ourselves in more ways than one.

我們已經破壞了地球生態，還將我們視為天然資源的食物在許多方面上困擾著我們自己。

So I think we have this whole eating thing wrong.

所以我認為我們的飲食習慣是不對的。

And so I think it's time we change what we expect from our food.

因此，我想現在正是時候我們該改變我們對食物原有的看法。

Sustainability is complicated but dinner is a reality that we all very much understand.

永續性是相當複雜的，但晚餐對我們來說是比較能掌握的部分，

So let's start there.

所以讓我們從這兒開始。

There's been a lot of movement recently in greening our food systems.

最近，針對綠化我們的飲食系統有相當大的進展。

Dan Barber and Alice Waters are leading passionately the green food Delicious Revolution.

Dan Barber 和 Alice Waters 正在熱烈地提倡一種美味綠色食物革命。

But green foods often represent a way for us to disregard the responsibility as eaters.

但是綠色食物常常會代表一種我們忽視了身為飲食者的責任。

Just because it comes from a green source doesn't mean we can treat it with disregard on the plate.

即使它來自於綠色資源，並不代表我們可以隨便將它放到餐盤上。

We have eco-friendly shrimp.

我們有環保蝦。

We can make them; we have that technology.

我們有技術可以生產環保蝦。

But we can never have any eco-friendly all-you-can-eat shrimp buffet.

但是不可能出現那種提供環保蝦吃到飽自助餐廳。

It doesn't work.

這是不可行的。

Heart-healthy dinner is a very important part of restorative seafood.

有益心臟健康的晚餐，是恢復性海鮮重要的一部份。

While we try to manage declining marine populations, the media's recommending increased consumption of seafood.

正當我們試著去控制海洋生物數量減少的問題時，媒體還在建議大家多吃海鮮。

Studies say that tens of thousands of American grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers and fathers might be around for another birthday if we included more seafood.

各種研究告訴大家，成千上萬的美國祖父母和父母們，可能可以活得更久，只要我們多吃海鮮。

That's a reward I am not willing to pass up.

這是我不想錯過的好事。

But it's not all about the seafood.

但是這不單只是和海鮮有關。

It's about the way that we look at our plates.

這還關係著我們怎麼看待我們餐盤裡的食物。