You can’t teach a Sneech.
史尼奇（注：美國(guó)著名兒童文學(xué)作家西奧多?蓋澤爾筆下的形象）是教不了的。

That’s what Theodor Geisel — author of many children’s books under the name Dr. Seuss — concluded in a biting commentary on human foolishness that’s as relevant for adults as for kids.
西奧多?蓋澤爾在尖銳批判人類的愚蠢之處時(shí)總結(jié)道，這句話既適用于兒童也適用于成人。他曾以筆名蘇斯博士寫(xiě)過(guò)許多兒童讀物。

Two classes of Sneeches, lived on the beaches. One breed had belly stars and flaunted them with arrogant superiority. The others had no stars, and they envied their neighbors.
沙灘上住著兩種史尼奇。一種肚皮上有星星，他們傲慢優(yōu)越地炫耀自己。另一種肚皮上沒(méi)有星星，他們很嫉妒他們的鄰居。

A crafty salesman brings a machine that can apply a star, for a price. Naturally, the plain-belly Sneeches pay to get them. But now the snooty neighbors are unhappy and want theirs removed. A wild melee ensues, with all the Sneeches trying to gain social advantage and frantically applying and removing stars. When the money runs out, nobody remembers who was who.
一個(gè)狡猾的推銷員帶來(lái)了一臺(tái)能花錢(qián)買(mǎi)星星的機(jī)器。理所當(dāng)然，光肚皮史尼奇會(huì)花錢(qián)買(mǎi)星星。但這樣他們傲慢的鄰居就不高興了，想把他們的星星去掉。一場(chǎng)混戰(zhàn)上演，所有的史尼奇都想獲得社交優(yōu)勢(shì)，瘋狂地加星星和去除星星。當(dāng)錢(qián)用完后，沒(méi)人記得誰(shuí)是誰(shuí)。

Unfortunately for me and anyone reading this, we’re part of a similar story. Throughout all recorded time, we’ve been clannish. We stick with those most like ourselves — our own race, class or political system — always fearful of “the other” and angling for advantage.
不幸的是，對(duì)于我和任何讀到這個(gè)故事的人來(lái)說(shuō)，我們都活在一個(gè)與此相似的故事里。有史記載以來(lái)，人類一直是抱團(tuán)排他的。我們總是和那些最像自己的人在一起——我們自己的種族、階級(jí)或政治制度——總是害怕“異己”，并謀求優(yōu)勢(shì)。

In our endless global power games, Sneechlike behavior abounds. To get what we want, we are even willing to organize ourselves in bands, unlike any other animal, for the purpose of exterminating members of our own species. We use our 50 or 100 years to scratch and claw for little bits of territory, or shiny metals, or influence on a planet that is infinitesimally small in an expanding universe that’s 92 billion light years across.
在人類無(wú)休無(wú)止的全球權(quán)力游戲中，史尼奇般的行為比比皆是。為了得到我們想要的，為了消滅同一物種的成員，我們甚至愿意成群結(jié)隊(duì)，而其他任何動(dòng)物都不會(huì)這樣做。我們耗費(fèi)50年或100年的時(shí)間，在地球上爭(zhēng)奪狹小的領(lǐng)土、閃亮的金屬或影響力。然而地球在一個(gè)直徑920億光年的不斷膨脹的宇宙中是極其微小的。

Making matters worse, that vast universe is indifferent to us. It doesn’t care if we destroy the planet or ourselves with pollution or war: Depending on which theory you like, it will roll on inexorably for many more billions of years. New life will arise, until it too becomes extinct, and the cycle repeats. If, as some physicists say, we live in a budding “multiverse”, ours will pass away and another will take its place in an endless parade — or, if you prefer, an eternal funeral wake.
更糟糕的是，浩瀚的宇宙對(duì)我們漠不關(guān)心。它不在乎是污染還是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)讓人類摧毀了地球或者我們自身。不論你喜歡哪種論調(diào)，它都將無(wú)情地存續(xù)數(shù)十億年。新的生命將出現(xiàn)，而后滅絕，如此循環(huán)往復(fù)。正如一些物理學(xué)家所言，假使我們生活在一個(gè)新生的“多元宇宙”中，我們的宇宙將會(huì)逝去，而另一個(gè)宇宙將會(huì)在無(wú)盡的隊(duì)列中占據(jù)一席之地——或者，你更喜歡這種說(shuō)法，為一個(gè)永恒的葬禮守靈。

Yet here we are, struggling for puny advantage against our fellowmen. The only response I can manage is befuddlement.
然而，我們卻在這里，與我們的同胞爭(zhēng)奪微弱的優(yōu)勢(shì)。我對(duì)此唯一的反應(yīng)就是迷惑不解。

It was inevitable, then, that space would become militarized, because that is, after all, what humans do. If it wasn’t the United States, it would be someone else.
太空軍事化是不可避免的，畢竟因?yàn)槿祟惖男袨榫褪侨绱?。即便沒(méi)有美國(guó)，也會(huì)有其他國(guó)家這樣做。

A bigger surprise would be if all nations worked together in harmony. Instead of being Chinese, or Americans, or Europeans, or whatever, laying claim to a tiny spot on a dust speck, we could identify ourselves as inhabitants of Earth and channel our energies. This utopian vision has been explored in literature and film. But nothing ever comes of it.
如果所有國(guó)家都和諧相處團(tuán)結(jié)合作，那將是一個(gè)更大的驚喜。我們不是作為中國(guó)人，作為美國(guó)人，作為歐洲人，或者其他什么人，而聲稱自己是一粒塵埃上的一個(gè)小點(diǎn)。我們將自己當(dāng)作地球上的居民，并引導(dǎo)我們的能量。這種烏托邦式的愿景已經(jīng)在文學(xué)和電影中得到了探索，但卻沒(méi)有任何結(jié)果。

Not known for his vision, US President Donald Trump certainly doesn’t see that. He is a grasper. His character is revealed by his tweets. “Space Force all the way!” he tweeted about a plan by the United States to put weapons in orbit — and, one imagines, later on the moon and Mars. The sky is no longer the limit.
美國(guó)總統(tǒng)唐納德?特朗普并不以遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)卓識(shí)著稱，他肯定沒(méi)有意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)。他是一個(gè)掌權(quán)者。他的推文展現(xiàn)了他的性格。“太空部隊(duì)一路前進(jìn)!”他在推特上發(fā)布了美國(guó)將武器送入地球軌道的計(jì)劃。有人猜想，之后美國(guó)還會(huì)將武器運(yùn)往月球和火星。天空不再是人類的極限。

In truth, other nations and their leaders are graspers, too, at one level or another. The rhetoric of peace often masks underlying acquisitiveness and a drive for power. Turf means everything.
事實(shí)上，其他國(guó)家及其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在某種程度上也都是緊握權(quán)力的人。和平的言辭往往掩飾了潛在的占有欲和對(duì)權(quán)力的追求。地盤(pán)意味著一切。

I see no way out of this perplexing dilemma. Human convergence is theoretically possible but profoundly unlikely.
我看不出有什么辦法擺脫這個(gè)進(jìn)退兩難的局面。人類的融合在理論上是可能的，但實(shí)際上卻幾乎不可能。

What is more likely is something like sci-fi writer Ben Bova’s Moonwar, in which a lunar colony is jeopardized by political forces that seek to control or destroy it; or the fulfillment of the Biblical prophet Joel, who predicted ominously: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood”. Space war, anyone?
更有可能發(fā)生的也許是像科幻作家本?博瓦在《月球大戰(zhàn)》中所描寫(xiě)的那樣，一個(gè)月球殖民地陷入了被政治力量控制或摧毀的危機(jī)；也許是《圣經(jīng)》中的先知約珥的預(yù)言應(yīng)驗(yàn)，約珥曾做出一個(gè)不祥的預(yù)言:“太陽(yáng)將變成黑暗，月亮將變成血色”。太空戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，還有人嗎?

Which brings me to a happier moon story. It was night in Beijing, and the full moon was high in the sky. I knew it must be setting in the western US, so I quickly called my elderly parents and asked them to go outside. Could they see it going down? They did, and for a few minutes our eyes seemed to meet on the same moon, at the same moment, as we talked on the phone half a world apart.
這讓我想起一個(gè)關(guān)于月亮的更開(kāi)心的故事。那是北京的夜晚，一輪圓月高掛在天空中。我知道美國(guó)西部也正掛著一輪圓月，我趕快打電話給我年邁的父母，讓他們走到外面。他們能看到它落下嗎?他們照做了，我們?cè)谙喔舭雮€(gè)地球的地方通電話，有那么幾分鐘，我們的目光似乎同時(shí)在同一個(gè)月亮上相遇。

Can nations ever stand as one on the same planet and share the same vision? Can mankind really be reborn? Count me among the skeptics. As Shakespeare said through Cassius: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
各國(guó)能否團(tuán)結(jié)共存于同一個(gè)星球上，擁有共同的愿景？人類真的能重生嗎?對(duì)此，我也是懷疑者之一。正如莎士比亞借卡西烏斯之口所言：“親愛(ài)的布魯圖斯，錯(cuò)誤不在星星，而在我們自己?！?/p>

英文來(lái)源：“CHINA DAILY”微信公眾號(hào)
翻譯：李夢(mèng)瑩（實(shí)習(xí)生）
編審：丹妮 董靜
音頻編輯：焦?jié)?/p>

更多內(nèi)容請(qǐng)關(guān)注“CHINA DAILY”微信公眾號(hào)：

About the author & broadcaster

Randy Wright joined China Daily as an editor in 2013. His career spans 36 years and 10 newspapers in the United States in senior management, editorial writing and reporting roles. He served as adjunct faculty at the University of Arizona and has consulted for many publications, including the California Bar Journal for lawyers and judges. He is a licensed pilot in the US.