The Necessity and Normativity of Green Development Beyond the “Malthusian Trap”

“Development” is one of the keywords of modernity; modernization is the acceleration of civilizational development. However, not all development in any direction is safe. If development proceeds in the wrong direction, human civilization may plunge into the abyss of destruction, and the faster the development, the sooner it may rush toward that abyss. Re-examining the direction of development in today’s human civilization has become an unavoidable intellectual task.

“发展”是现代性的关键词之一，现代化就是文明发展的加速。然而，不是朝着任何方向的发展都是安全的，朝着错误方向发展，人类文明就有可能走向毁灭的深渊，发展得越快就可能越快地走向毁灭的深渊。重新审视当今人类文明的发展方向，成为一项不可回避的思想任务。

I “Development is the absolute principle”

一 “发展才是硬道理”

Since Deng Xiaoping pointed out that “development is the absolute principle,” the concept of “development” has increasingly taken root in people’s hearts. Yet for a long time, I harbored deep anxiety over the situation of one-sided pursuit of development while disregarding environmental protection, and once published an article titled “The Absolute Principle and the Soft Principle,” arguing strenuously that “environmental protection is also an absolute principle.” At that time, my understanding of the “absoluteness” of development was not yet profound enough. Today, it is necessary to re-understand the “absoluteness” of development.

自邓小平指出“发展才是硬道理”之后，“发展”的观念日益深入人心。但在较长时间里，笔者对片面追求发展而不顾环境保护的形势深怀忧虑，曾发表过题为《硬道理与软道理》的文章，着力论证“环保也是硬道理”。那时，笔者对发展之“硬”的理解还不够深刻。时至今天，有必要重新理解发展之“硬”。

According to economic historians such as Gregory Clark, before 1800 the human economy was mired in the “Malthusian trap,” and only afterward did it enter the stage of development (growth). To say that the human economy was long mired in the “Malthusian trap” means that human economic activity could not transcend the natural law to which the survival of all animals (indeed all living beings) is subject: the birth rate equals the death rate.[1]1 The “Malthusian trap” refers to the theory, associated with Thomas Robert Malthus, that population growth tends to outstrip the growth of food supply, keeping per capita living standards at subsistence level until checked by famine, disease, or war. In the long premodern period, increases in labor productivity brought by slow institutional and technological change (innovation) would raise food output or the quantity of material means of subsistence, but the growth of material means of subsistence would lead to population growth, so per capita income would not grow, and the per capita material standard of living could not rise. When population grew too much, plagues, famines, wars, and various other disasters would appear, drastically reducing the population. Clark points out that a large body of data shows that before 1800, the material living standards of laborers around the world were no different from the lives of non-human animals. This refers mainly to the consumption of the laboring people (not princes and nobles), not to the mode of production. As for the mode of production, Marxists have always emphasized one distinction between humans and non-human animals: humans make and use tools, whereas non-human animals do not. Yet precisely because before industrialization human production used simple hand tools, labor productivity was extremely low. The broad masses of laborers toiled all year round (mainly producing grain, clothing, hand tools, and so on); after supporting the luxurious lives of the rulers, in good years they barely managed to sustain themselves, and in bad years they could not avoid perishing in ditches and gullies. The charcoal seller in Bai Juyi’s poem is a vivid portrayal of the ancient laborer: using simple production tools to engage in heavy physical labor—cutting firewood and burning charcoal—“What does he seek with the money from selling charcoal? Clothes for his body and food for his mouth.” Clark, with a wealth of historical materials and data, has proven from the perspective of historiography Deng Xiaoping’s judgment: “Development is the absolute principle.”

依格里高利·克拉克（Gregory Clark）等经济史学家之见，1800年之前，人类经济一直深陷“马尔萨斯陷阱”，之后才进入发展（增长）阶段。说人类经济一直深陷“马尔萨斯陷阱”，是指人类经济活动无法超越一切动物（甚至一切生物）生存都要服从的自然规律：出生率等于死亡率。①在漫长的前现代时期，因缓慢的制度和技术变革（创新）而带来的劳动生产率的提高，会增加食品产量或物质生活资料数量，而物质生活资料数量增长会导致人口增长，于是人均收入不会有什么增长，人均物质生活水平无从提高。人口增长过多时就会出现瘟疫、饥荒、战争以及各种其他灾害，致使人口大幅度减少。克拉克指出，大量数据表明：1800年之前，世界各地劳动者的物质生活水平与非人动物的生活没有什么区别。这主要是指劳动人民（非王公贵族）的消费，而非指生产方式。就生产方式而言，马克思主义者一直重视人与非人动物的一个区别：人类会制造并使用工具，而非人动物不会制造和使用工具。然而，正因为在工业化之前人类生产使用的是简单的手工工具，故劳动生产率极为低下。广大劳动者终岁劳苦（主要生产粮食、衣物、手工工具等），在供养统治者的奢华生活之余，丰年勉强维持生计，灾年难免填于沟壑。白居易笔下的卖炭翁就是古代劳动者的逼真写照：用简单的生产工具从事繁重的体力劳动——伐薪烧炭，“卖炭得钱何所营，身上衣衫口中食”。克拉克用大量的史料和数据，从历史学的角度证明了邓小平的论断：“发展才是硬道理。”

Premodern civilization was not entirely without development; otherwise it could not have advanced from primitive society to agrarian civilization, and then from agrarian civilization to industrial civilization. But development was extremely slow. Development originates from innovation, and extremely slow development is precisely because the rate of innovation was extremely low. For example, the ancient Chinese invention of ox-plowing technology was an important innovation, but Chinese agriculture long remained at the level of ox-plowing. The rate of innovation in other areas was also very low; an important innovation appeared only once every several hundred or even thousand years. The slow development of agrarian civilization ensured the luxury of the ruling class’s material life, but it could not lift the material life of the broad masses of laborers beyond that of non-human animals. The European Industrial Revolution opened a new epoch in human civilization; the rate of innovation suddenly accelerated, that is, the speed of development suddenly quickened. This new epoch is modernization. The Israeli economist Oded Galor says that “the fundamental feature of this new era” is “the acceleration of the rate of innovation.” The development Deng Xiaoping called for was not the slow development of the premodern era but the development of modernization, that is, rapid development with an accelerated rate of innovation. All development discussed below is development in this sense.

前现代文明也不是一点都不发展，否则就不可能由原始社会进入农业文明，进而由农业文明进入工业文明，但是发展得极其缓慢。发展源自创新，发展极其缓慢就是因为创新速率极低。例如，古代中国人发明牛耕技术是一项重要创新，但中国农业长期停留于牛耕水平。其他方面的创新速率也很低，要几百年甚至上千年才出现一次重要创新。农业文明的缓慢发展确保了统治阶级物质生活的奢华，但无法让广大劳动人民的物质生活超越非人动物的生活。欧洲工业革命开创了人类文明的新纪元，创新速率突然加快，也就是发展速度突然加快。这个新纪元就是现代化。以色列经济学家奥戴德·盖勒（Oded Galor）说，“这个新时代的基本特征”就是“创新速率加快”。邓小平呼唤的发展不是前现代的缓慢发展而是现代化的发展，即创新速率加快的快速发展。以下所说的发展都是这种意义的发展。

The “absoluteness” of development lies in the following: first, only through the rapid development of modernization can humanity transcend the natural law that “the birth rate equals the death rate”; without development, humanity will continue to be trapped in the “Malthusian trap,” and a large population (the broad masses of laborers) will go hungry, unable to surpass the material living conditions of non-human animals, and in the global competition of modernization will be expelled from “planetary membership”; second, development must respect science, respect talent, and seek truth from facts; third, development must gradually introduce a market economy system, because only a market economy system can continuously incentivize elites in all walks of life to innovate.

发展之“硬”在于：第一，只有通过现代化的快速发展才能超越“出生率等于死亡率”这一自然法则，不发展就会继续陷于“马尔萨斯陷阱”，就会有众多人口（广大劳动人民）饿肚子，无法超越非人动物的物质生活状况，在全球现代化的竞争中就会被开除“球籍”；第二，发展必须尊重科学、尊重人才、实事求是；第三，发展必须逐渐引进市场经济体制，因为只有市场经济体制才能持续激励各行各业的精英不断创新。

After the reform and opening up in 1978, Chinese-path modernization entered the fast track, and China’s development began to transcend the “Malthusian trap.” Before that, many rural areas still used ox-plowing as in thousands of years past, and many people still faced the threat of hunger from time to time. Today, China’s 1.4 billion people have been comprehensively lifted out of poverty; cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and the like have entered ordinary households (things even ancient princes and nobles could not enjoy), and the material life of the laboring people has fundamentally surpassed that of non-human animals.

1978年改革开放之后，中国式现代化进入快车道，中国的发展才开始超越“马尔萨斯陷阱”。在此以前，很多农村仍沿用几千年前的牛耕，很多人仍不时面临饥饿威胁。如今，中国14亿人口已全面脱贫，小汽车、空调、冰箱等已进入寻常百姓家（这是古代王公贵族也享受不到的），劳动人民的物质生活从根本上超越了非人动物的生活。

II “Black development”

二 “黑色发展”

Early modernized development was “black development,” that is, development that disregarded life and polluted the environment, development that conquered nature, development that used fossil energy in large quantities. Lewis Mumford said: “Coal and iron ruled the paleotechnic period. Everywhere were their colors: light gray, dark gray, even black. Black bins, black chimney caps, black carriages or buses, the black iron frames of hearths, black pots, pans, and stoves used for cooking. … Whatever the original colors of the paleotechnic environment, it was soon discolored by the soot or ashes characteristic of the age, becoming the typical dirty brown, gray, or black. The new industrial centers of England were aptly called the black country. Around 1850, a similar blackness appeared in the Pittsburgh region of the United States, and soon after in the Ruhr and around Lille.” What Mumford calls the “paleotechnic period” clearly refers to the nineteenth century, when the large-scale use of fossil fuels had just begun. As long as people continue to use fossil fuels in large quantities, industrial civilization cannot shed its black undertone.

早期现代化发展是“黑色发展”，即漠视生命、污染环境的发展，是征服自然的发展，是大量使用化石能源的发展。刘易斯·芒福德（Lewis Mumford）说：“煤与铁统治了古生代技术时期。到处是它们的颜色：浅灰、深灰直至黑色。黑色的料仓、黑色的烟囱管帽、黑色的马车或客车、炉膛的黑色铁框，用于烹饪的黑色锅、盘和炉子。……不论古生代技术时期的环境的本来颜色是什么，它很快就由于具有时代特征的煤烟或灰烬而褪色了，变成典型的肮脏的棕色、灰色或是黑色。英国新工业中心被恰当地称为黑色的家乡。1850年美国匹兹堡地区也出现类似的黑色，不久又出现在鲁尔区和里尔的周边地区。”芒福德所谓“古生代技术时期”，显然是指刚刚开始大量使用化石燃料的19世纪。只要人们仍大量使用化石燃料，工业文明就不可能褪去黑色的底色。

The course of “black development” shows that humanity can transcend the “Malthusian trap,” can transcend the natural law that “the birth rate equals the death rate,” can make material wealth gush forth abundantly, and can lift the material life of the laboring people beyond that of non-human animals.

“黑色发展”历程表明：人类可以超越“马尔萨斯陷阱”，可以超越“出生率等于死亡率”这一自然法则，可以让物质财富充分涌流，让劳动人民的物质生活超越非人动物的生活。

The “outlook on black development” can be summarized as follows: development is the raising of humanity’s material standard of living, the growth of the material economy, the improvement of humanity’s technological level in controlling the natural environment, transforming the natural environment, and creating material wealth—or, in short, the enhancement of humanity’s power to conquer nature. The hallmark of civilizational (or social) development is the increase of material wealth, the raising of the degree of artificialization of humanity’s living environment, and the raising of the technological content of all kinds of human articles (both production tools and daily necessities). Civilization and nature are opposed; wherever civilization reaches, wilderness must retreat. For example, before the Great Northern Wilderness was developed, “one could knock down roe deer with a stick, scoop up fish with a gourd ladle, and wild pheasants flew into the rice pot” (and ecologists regard this as a sign of intact biodiversity); after development, not only did vast farmland appear, but also the concentrated points of civilization—cities. The Great Northern Wilderness was rapidly artificialized, and this wilderness disappeared.

“黑色发展观”可概括如下：发展就是人类物质生活水平的提高，就是物质经济的增长，就是人类控制自然环境、改造自然环境、创造物质财富的技术水平的提高，或简言之，就是人类征服自然的力量的增强。文明（或社会）发展的标志就是物质财富的增多，就是人类生活环境人工化程度的提高，就是人类各种用品（既包括生产工具也包括生活用品）技术含量的提高。文明与自然是对立的，文明所到之处必是荒野退缩之地。例如，北大荒在未被开发之前是“棒打狍子瓢舀鱼，野鸡飞到饭锅里”（而生态学家认为这是生物多样性完好的标志），被开发后就不仅有了大片农田，还出现了文明的集中点——城市。北大荒被快速人工化，这片荒野消失了。

The “outlook on black development” is an outlook that insists on conquering nature. The ideology supporting the “outlook on black development” is early modern thought. From a philosophical perspective, early modern thought mainly includes the following views:

“黑色发展观”是力主征服自然的发展观。支持“黑色发展观”的意识形态就是早期现代性思想。从哲学上看，早期现代性思想主要包括如下观点

First, the physicalist view of nature. Newtonian physics is a great achievement of modern science, and the aerospace industry today still uses knowledge from Newtonian physics. The view of nature that accompanied Newtonian physics was the mechanistic view of nature. According to this, nature is a vast machine that operates according to the principles of Newtonian physics. By the 20th century, with the advent of electromagnetic theory, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics, mechanism evolved into physicalism. According to physicalism, all things are ultimately physical, that is, they can be explained using the principles of physics.

：第一，物理主义自然观。牛顿物理学是现代科学的伟大成就，如今的航天工业仍在使用牛顿物理学知识。伴随着牛顿物理学出现的自然观是机械论自然观。据此，大自然就是一座巨大的机器，它按牛顿物理学原理运转。到了20世纪，随着电磁理论、相对论、量子力学的问世，机械论演变为物理主义。根据物理主义，万事万物归根结底是物理的，也就说，是可用物理学原理加以说明的。

Second, dogmatic rationalist epistemology of knowability. Nature (or the world) is completely knowable. Nature appears bizarre, ever-changing, and richly diverse, but these are only phenomena; the fundamental laws governing all phenomena are unified and eternal, and scientists can use mathematical language to represent these fundamental laws. Science hopes to reveal the ultimate laws governing all phenomena through a “final theory.” From this optimistic complete knowability, a practical theory of conquest can be derived: knowledge is power; the closer humanity comes to a complete understanding of nature, the stronger its power to conquer nature. Complete knowability supports an uncompromising theory of conquest: nature is completely conquerable. “Conquering nature is both a great feat of humanity and an important manifestation of human tenacious will. Only when humans or humanity possess the firm perseverance and determination to conquer nature can they achieve the great feat of conquering nature.”

第二，独断理性主义可知论。自然界（或世界）是完全可知的。自然界貌似光怪陆离、千变万化、丰富多彩，但那些都只是现象，支配所有现象的基本定律是统一的、永恒不变的，科学家们可用数学语言去表征这些基本定律。科学有望通过“终极理论”揭示出支配一切现象的终极定律。由这种乐观的完全可知论，可推导出实践上的征服论：知识就是力量，人类愈接近对大自然的完全认识，其征服自然的力量就愈强。完全可知论支持毫不妥协的征服论：大自然是完全可被征服的。“征服自然既是人类的伟大壮举，又是人的顽强意志的重要表现。人或人类只有具有征服自然的坚强毅力和决心，才可能有征服自然的伟大壮举”。

Third, anthropocentric axiology. Only humans possess reason, free will, dignity, and intrinsic value; all non-humans lack reason, free will, dignity, and intrinsic value. In short, only humans have subjectivity; all non-humans lack subjectivity. Accordingly, non-humans and humans cannot belong to the same community.

第三，人类中心主义价值论。只有人才有理性、自由意志、尊严和内在价值，一切非人类都没有理性、自由意志、尊严和内在价值。或简言之，只有人才有主体性，一切非人皆没有主体性。据此，非人与人不可能同属于一个共同体。

Since the 1960s and 1970s, people of insight have begun to question the sustainability of the development of industrial civilization, that is, to question the sustainability of “black development.” Some scientists and philosophers who face reality have also begun to question the view of nature, theory of knowledge, and axiology that support the “black development view.”

自20世纪六七十年代始，有识之士开始质疑工业文明发展的可持续性，即质疑“黑色发展”的可持续性。一些直面现实的科学家和哲学家也开始质疑上述支持“黑色发展观”的自然观、知识论和价值论。

A group of scientists and philosophers, represented by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Ilya Prigogine, have, based on the achievements of 20th-century science, summarized a new view of nature completely different from physicalism (we might call it the “vitalist view of nature”). According to the vitalist view of nature, possibilities in nature are richer than actualities; nature is creative. Contemporary cosmologists tell us, “One of the most astonishing discoveries of 20th-century cosmology is the sense of time inherent in the universe. This time is not a mechanical time, but a cosmic time in which all things in the universe emerge.” The creativity of nature is embodied in the process of endless generation, that is, as time passes, nature continuously brings forth new things, new structures, and new orders.

以诺贝尔化学奖得主普利戈金（Ilya Prigogine）为代表的一批科学家和哲学家，根据20世纪的科学发展成果，概括出完全不同于物理主义的新自然观（我们不妨称之为“生机论自然观”）。根据生机论自然观，大自然中的可能性比现实性更加丰富，大自然是具有创造性的。当代宇宙学家告诉我们，“二十世纪宇宙学最惊人的发现之一便是宇宙所内含的时间感。这种时间不是一种机械式的时间，而是一种宇宙中万物出现的宇宙时间”。大自然的创造性就体现为生生不息的过程，即随着时间的推移，大自然会不断涌现出新事物、新结构、新秩序。

Renowned theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss says: “Most of the energy in the universe exists in some mysterious, currently inexplicable form, permeating all of space.” With the “emergence” of “dark matter” and “dark energy,” more and more scientists realize that nature (referring to the entire universe, not just Earth) always contains an “unknown ocean.” Rather than saying that human understanding of nature is like a farmer harvesting a ridge of wheat (each harvest reduces what remains, so the more one knows, the less mystery nature holds), it is more like a person picking mushrooms in a large forest (the ones picked are enough for personal consumption, but the forest constantly produces new mushrooms); the little knowledge humans acquire may be sufficient, but nature constantly generates new things, new structures, and new orders. Based on new scientific discoveries, humanity should shift from dogmatic rationalism to humble rationalism.

著名理论物理学家劳伦斯·克劳斯（Lawrence M. Krauss）说：“宇宙中的大部分能量存在于某种神秘的、现在还无法解释的形式中，渗透在整个空间。”随着“暗物质”“暗能量”的“浮现”，越来越多的科学家意识到，大自然（指整个宇宙而非仅指地球）永远都存在“未知的海洋”。与其说人类认识自然就像农民收割一垄小麦（每收割掉一点就少剩下一点），每多认知一点，大自然就少一点奥秘；不如说像一个人在大森林中采蘑菇（采到的那点够他自己吃，但大森林随时会生出新的蘑菇），人类认知到的那点知识或许够用，但大自然会随时生成新事物、新结构、新秩序。基于科学新发现，人类应由独断理性主义转向谦逊理性主义。

The latest research by economic historians shows that inclusive institutions are far more effective than extractive institutions in promoting economic growth and social prosperity. However, since Europe initiated the process of modernization, all modernized countries or those striving for modernization have not included non-human organisms in the same community, which is directly related to anthropocentric axiology. Since the 1960s, some environmental philosophers have been deconstructing anthropocentric axiology. The report of the 19th National Congress of the CPC [2]2 The 19th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2017, at which Xi Jinping delivered a explicitly states that “humanity and nature form a community of life,” indicating that China’s mainstream ideology no longer adheres to anthropocentrism.

经济史学家的最新研究表明，包容性制度远比攫取性制度更能促进经济增长和社会繁荣。但自欧洲开启现代化历程以来，所有的现代化国家或正努力实现现代化的国家都没有把非人类生物包容进同一个共同体，这与人类中心主义的价值论直接相关。自20世纪60年代以来，一部分环境哲学家一直在消解人类中心主义价值论。党的十九大报告则明确指出，“人与自然是生命共同体”，这表明中国的主流意识形态已不再坚持人类中心主义。

Based on the vitalist view of nature and the humble rationalist theory of knowledge, we can clearly infer that nature is unconquerable and the “black development view” is entirely wrong. Future history will prove that only when the community includes the ecosystem and humanity ceases to plunder the ecosystem wantonly can the economy grow sustainably and society prosper continuously.

根据生机论自然观和谦逊理性主义知识论，我们能明白无误地推断出，大自然是不可征服的，“黑色发展观”是完全错误的。未来的历史将证明，唯当共同体包容生态系统，人类不再对生态系统肆意攫取时，经济才可持续增长，社会才会持续繁荣。

The facts of global environmental pollution, ecological damage, and climate change indicate that “black development” is unsustainable. After human civilization has transcended the natural law that “birth rate equals death rate,” can it further transcend ecological laws? More and more scientists and thinkers believe that the development of human civilization cannot transcend ecological laws.

全球性环境污染、生态损坏和气候变化的事实则表明：“黑色发展”是不可持续的。人类文明发展超越了“出生率等于死亡率”这一自然法则之后，能否进而超越生态规律？越来越多的科学家和思想家认为，人类文明发展不可超越生态规律。

The human economic system is a subsystem of the Earth’s ecosphere. The intensity of energy and material flows caused by human economic activities must not exceed the carrying capacity of the ecosphere. Scientific data show that large-scale greenhouse gas emissions from the massive use of fossil fuels have already caused anthropogenic climate change. If the production-lifestyle of massive fossil fuel use is not changed, the Earth will become increasingly uninhabitable.

人类经济系统是地球生态圈的子系统，人类经济活动所导致的能流、物流强度不可超越生态圈的承载限度。科学数据表明，大量使用化石燃料而导致的大量温室气体排放，已导致人为的气候变化，若不改变大量使用化石燃料的生产－生活方式，地球将变得越来越不宜居住。

So, is the carrying capacity of the ecosphere the limit constraining the development of human civilization? In other words, in the face of ecological laws, can human civilization only stagnate? The answer is no; human civilization has the potential for endless development!

那么，生态圈的承载限度是不是制约人类文明发展的极限？换言之，面对生态规律，人类文明是不是只能停滞不前？答案是否定的，人类文明有无止境发展的可能！

III. Green Development

三 绿色发展

Anthropological and historical research shows that since the emergence of humanity, a tension between the artificial (humans using technology to transform the environment and engage in production) and the natural (beings not intervened in by human technology) has formed. From hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies, this tension has been accumulating (i.e., slowly increasing). Industrial civilization, while rapidly enhancing material productive forces, has pushed this tension quickly to its limit. If there is no tension at all between the artificial and the natural, civilization cannot emerge (i.e., humanity has not transcended non-human animals); but if the tension is too great, the ecosystem will completely collapse, and civilization will lose its foundation. “When the ecology thrives, civilization thrives; when the ecology declines, civilization declines.” This is like playing string music: if the strings are too loose, no music can be played; if the strings are too tight, they will break. So, can it be considered that the tension during the agricultural civilization period was the most appropriate? If so, it would be equivalent to acknowledging that human civilization cannot transcend the “Malthusian trap” and that the vast working masses can only live a life no different from non-human animals.

人类学和历史学研究表明，自人类诞生以来，人为（用技术改造环境、从事生产）与自然（未经人类技术干预的存在物）之间的张力就形成了。从采集－狩猎社会到农业社会，这种张力一直在积累（即缓慢增大）。工业文明在迅速提高物质生产力的同时，把这种张力快速地推向极限。在人为与自然之间，若完全没有张力，则文明无从诞生（即人类未超越非人动物）；但若张力过大，生态系统就会彻底崩溃，文明则失去底基。“生态兴则文明兴，生态衰则文明衰。”这恰如弦乐演奏，琴弦过松则奏不出乐音，琴弦绷得过紧则会断。那么，能不能认为农业文明时期的张力就是最合适的？若认为是，就相当于承认人类文明不可超越“马尔萨斯陷阱”，并认为广大劳动人民只能过和非人类动物一样的生活。

When we say that the development of industrial civilization so far has been “black development,” it does not mean that the positive significance of “black development” can be entirely denied. Transcending the “Malthusian trap” and raising the material living standards of a large population above those of non-human animals is one of the positive significances of “black development.” Clark believes that “only one thing has actually happened in human history, namely the Industrial Revolution that began around 1800. There is only the world before the Industrial Revolution and the world after the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, human history has only this one event, the Industrial Revolution, worth studying; everything else is relatively unimportant detail.” Although this is an overly extreme view, the important progressive significance of the Industrial Revolution and modernization is indeed undeniable.

当我们说迄今为止工业文明的发展是“黑色发展”时，并不意味着可以全然否定“黑色发展”的积极意义。超越“马尔萨斯陷阱”，使众多人口的物质生活水平超越非人动物的生活水平，就是“黑色发展”的积极意义之一。克拉克认为，“人类史上其实只发生了一件事，即1800年前开始的工业革命。只有工业革命之前的世界和工业革命之后的世界之分，所以，人类历史只有工业革命这一件事值得研究，其他都是不太重要的细节”。这虽然是过于极端的看法，但工业革命和现代化的重要进步意义确实不容否定。

While pushing the tension between the artificial and the natural to its limit, industrial civilization has also provided the knowledge reserves and technological conditions for both alleviating the tension and improving the material living standards of all people. The fundamental path to alleviating the tension is the construction of ecological civilization, that is, the path of green development. And green development is development in which human civilization and nature coexist harmoniously, development that both maintains human material comfort and preserves biodiversity.

工业文明在把人为与自然的张力推向极限的同时，也为既缓解张力又提高所有人的物质生活水平提供了知识储备和技术条件。缓解张力的根本道路就是生态文明建设，即绿色发展之路。而绿色发展就是人类文明与自然和谐共生的发展，是既保持人类物质生活舒适又维护生物多样性的发展。

Industrial civilization has enabled even the broad masses of laborers to possess consumer goods such as automobiles, air conditioners, refrigerators, televisions, computers, and mobile phones. Taking the path of ecological civilization construction does not require people to abandon the use of these industrial products, but it does require that, when engaging in production and using industrial products, people no longer pollute the environment or damage ecological health. The key at present lies in no longer emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases, so as to avoid continuing to artificially exacerbate climate change. The invention and innovation of electric power technology have provided the most important technical conditions for green development. The reason “black development” has led to global environmental pollution, ecological damage, and climate change is precisely that people have used large quantities of fossil fuels for efficient production and comfortable consumption. By replacing fossil energy with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, humanity can continue to produce efficiently and consume comfortably.

工业文明使广大劳动者也能拥有汽车、空调、冰箱、电视、电脑、手机等生活用品。走生态文明建设之路，不要求人们放弃使用这些工业品，但要求人们在从事生产、使用工业品时，不再污染环境，不再损害生态健康。目前的关键在于，不再大量排放温室气体，以免继续人为加剧气候变化。电力技术的发明和创新为绿色发展提供了最重要的技术条件。“黑色发展”之所以导致全球性的环境污染、生态损害和气候变化，就是因为人们为高效生产和惬意消费而大量使用化石燃料。用风能、太阳能等可再生能源取代化石能源，人类就可以继续高效生产且惬意消费。

The linear economic growth model is a model in which environmental pollution is directly proportional to economic growth—that is, the more the economy grows, the more severe the pollution. To take the path of green development, this model must be transformed into a circular economy model, namely an economic model of resource reduction, reuse, and recycling (the 3R model). In other words, humanity must transform the industrial system into a system compatible with the ecosystem. This process of transformation is the process of industrial ecologization.

线性经济增长模式是环境污染和经济增长成正比的模式，即经济越增长，污染越严重。走绿色发展之路必须把这种模式转变为循环经济模式，即资源减量化、再利用、循环利用（3R）的经济模式。也就是说，人类要把产业系统改造成和生态系统兼容的系统。这一改造过程就是产业生态化的过程。

Classes emerged after humanity entered agricultural civilization. To borrow the words of Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, this produced “a tiny elite of privileged, pampered elites,” while “the work of peasants was harder than that of foragers, and the resulting diet was worse.” As described in Du Fu’s poem, “Behind the red gates wine and meat rot; on the road are frozen bones of the dead.” [3]3 Du Fu (712–770) was a celebrated poet of the Tang Dynasty. The couplet “Behind the red gates wine and meat rot; on the road are frozen bones of the dead” is from his poem “Five Hundred Words of Song of My Cares from the Capital to Fengxian,” which sharply contrasts the luxury of the rich with the suffering of the poor. Industrial civilization greatly raised labor productivity, but capitalist countries did not change the severe distributional injustice of agricultural society. The economic growth of advanced industrialized countries has a “trickle-down” effect, meaning that as the economy grows rapidly, the ever-larger “pie” is mostly carved up by the rich, but the “crumbs” that fall to the laborers are enough to lift them out of absolute poverty, enabling them not only to have enough to eat and wear but also to possess material goods such as automobiles, air conditioners, refrigerators, computers, and mobile phones. The emergence of the global ecological crisis now requires humanity to change this distribution model. The concept of “inclusive development” is precisely a response to severe distributional injustice.

人类进入农业文明之后就出现了阶级，用以色列历史学家赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）的话说，即产生了“一群养尊处优、娇生惯养的精英分子”，而“农民的工作要比采集者更辛苦，而且到头来的饮食还要更糟”，用杜甫的诗描述，即“朱门酒肉臭，路有冻死骨”。工业文明极大提高了劳动生产力，但资本主义国家没有改变农业社会的严重分配不公。先进工业化国家的经济增长有“向下涓滴”的效应，即随着经济的快速增长，不断做大的“蛋糕”绝大部分被富人们瓜分，但劳动者分得的“蛋糕屑”也足以让他们摆脱绝对贫困，让他们不仅温饱无虞，而且也拥有汽车、空调、冰箱、电脑、手机等物质。而全球性生态危机的出现，要求人类改变这种分配模式。“包容性发展”理念就是针对严重分配不公提出的。

The vast disparity between rich and poor not only violates social norms but also violates natural laws. To say it violates social norms means it violates the principle of equality; the vast disparity between rich and poor even conflicts with the principle of “equality before the law.” For example, a billionaire who commits a crime can hire top lawyers to defend him and may even evade legal punishment, whereas a poor person cannot do so. To say it violates natural laws is because nature does not permit humanity to continue adopting this distribution model—that is, allowing political elites, business elites, and others to carve up the vast majority of the economic “pie” while only “trickling down” to the broad masses of laborers. While this distribution model can certainly stimulate innovation among business elites and thereby ensure economic efficiency, it is unsustainable.

贫富悬殊不仅违背社会规则，而且违背自然规律。说它违背社会规则，是指它违背平等原则，贫富悬殊甚至与“在法律面前人人平等”的原则相冲突。例如，亿万富翁犯罪可以找顶尖的律师为之辩护，甚至可以逃避法律的惩罚，而穷人却不可能这样。说它违背自然规律，是因为大自然不容许人类继续采用这种分配模式，即让政治精英、商业精英等瓜分经济“蛋糕”的绝大部分，而只对广大劳动者“涓滴”。这种分配模式固然能刺激商业精英的创新，从而能确保经济效率，但它是不可持续的。

Furthermore, this distribution model violates natural laws for the following reasons: First, this distribution model supports a material-consumerist lifestyle, but nature does not permit billions of people to all choose this lifestyle. Second, before the nearly one billion hungry people on Earth can escape hunger, the Earth’s ecosystem may already collapse—this is determined by natural laws. Without changing this distribution model, it is impossible to change the material-consumerist lifestyle.

进一步而言，这种分配模式之所以违背自然规律是因为：第一，这种分配模式支持物质消费主义生活方式，但大自然不容许几十亿人都选择这种生活方式；第二，未等到地球近10亿饥饿人口摆脱饥饿，地球生态系统就可能崩溃，这是由自然规律决定的。不改变这种分配模式，就不可能改变物质消费主义生活方式。

Without changing the materialist consumption pattern, billions of people will endlessly engage in material consumption comparisons, persisting in “mass consumption, mass emissions.” The environment will inevitably continue to be increasingly polluted, ecological health will be increasingly damaged, and the Earth will heat up further.

不改变物质主义消费方式，几十亿人就永无休止地进行物质消费攀比，坚持“大量消费、大量排放”，环境就必然继续被加剧污染，生态健康将被加剧损害，地球会加剧升温。

So why is the material-consumerist lifestyle closely related to distributional injustice? Because this lifestyle has always been led by the rich. Economists tell us that today’s billionaires need only a negligible portion of their total wealth each year to live an extremely luxurious life; it is almost impossible to demand that they and their relatives live a life of energy conservation and emission reduction. However, to protect the environment, billionaires and ordinary people must share responsibility. Of course, it is impossible to require billionaires and ordinary people to maintain the same consumption patterns and levels, and luxury consumption is not necessarily all bad. An environmentally conscious billionaire can pursue luxury in non-material life, rather than continuing to pursue luxury in material life, which inevitably leads to massive emissions.

那么，物质消费主义生活方式为什么与分配不公关系密切呢？因为这种生活方式一直是由富人引领的。经济学家告诉我们，当今的亿万富翁个人每年仅需总财富中几乎可忽略不计的部分，也足以过上极为奢华的生活，要求他们及其亲属过节能减排的生活几乎是不可能的。但为了保护环境，亿万富翁和平民必须共同承担责任。当然，让亿万富翁与平民保持同等消费方式和水平是不可能的，奢侈消费也不见得都是坏的。一个有环保意识的亿万富翁可以追求非物质生活的奢侈，而不再追求必然导致大量排放的物质生活的奢侈。

If there were no limits to the growth of material wealth, then it could not be said that the distributional injustice that has persisted to this day violates natural laws. With rapid growth of the material economy, the wealth that “trickles down” to the poor would eventually enable all the poor to live a decent material life. But the growth of material wealth has limits, which are determined by natural laws. As of today, the stock of the world’s material wealth (houses, cars, airplanes, trains, railways, roads, etc.) has approached the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, yet there are still nearly one billion hungry people in the world. Before the wealth of the world’s super-rich can “trickle down” to these one billion people, enabling them not only to fill their stomachs but also to drive cars and use air conditioners, the Earth’s ecosystem will completely collapse. If total world wealth were distributed fairly, it would be enough for everyone to live a materially comfortable life. So what should be done? Deprive the super-rich of their wealth and then distribute it equally? This is doomed to fail. A feasible approach is to gradually raise progressive tax rates within the basic framework of democracy and the rule of law, so that the more wealth one has, the more taxes one pays. This would both help narrow the gap between rich and poor and help improve the social welfare system.

如果根本不存在物质财富增长的极限，那么就不能说沿袭至今的分配不公违背了自然规律。物质经济快速增长，“涓滴”于穷人们的财富终将让所有穷人都过上体面的物质生活。但物质财富的增长是有极限的，这是由自然规律决定的。时至今日，世界物质财富（房屋、汽车、飞机、火车、铁路、公路等）的存量已接近生态系统的承载极限，但全世界仍存在近十亿饥饿人口。未等到全球巨富们的财富“涓滴”到这10亿人口，让他们不仅吃饱肚子，而且开上汽车、用上空调，地球生态系统就会彻底崩溃。世界总财富若公平分配，足以让每一个人都能过上物质舒适的生活。那么该怎么办？剥夺巨富们的财富，然后平均分配吗？这注定行不通。可行的办法是，在民主法治的基本框架内，逐步提高累进税率，让财富越多的人缴纳越多的税。这样，既有利于缩小贫富差距，又有利于健全社会福利制度。

Taking the path of green development requires not only that humanity change its production methods, economic growth model, and distribution model, but also that humanity change its lifestyle. The consumption model of “mass consumption, mass emissions” led by business elites is unsustainable; only green consumption is sustainable. Green consumption is consumption that consciously protects the environment, conserves energy and reduces emissions, and maintains ecological health, while also ensuring comfortable material life.

走绿色发展之路，不仅要求人类改变生产方式、经济增长模式和分配模式，也要求人类改变生活方式。商业精英引领的“大量消费、大量排放”的消费模式是不可持续的，只有绿色消费才是可持续的。绿色消费是自觉保护环境、节能减排、维护生态健康的消费，且是可以确保物质生活舒适的消费。

Green development originates from green innovation. Green innovation is innovation that protects the natural environment, maintains biodiversity, conserves energy and reduces emissions, and promotes (or at least does not hinder) social progress and the improvement of people’s living standards. Innovation in a broad sense includes ideological (including scientific) innovation, cultural innovation, technological innovation, institutional innovation, management innovation, and so on. All industries and sectors can innovate, and only innovation can drive rapid development. To say that the development of human civilization has no end is because there exist infinite possibilities for innovation. To take the path of green development and build an ecological civilization, it is necessary to promote linked innovation across all industries and sectors, at all levels and in all fields. Among these, technological innovation is innovation that transforms the “hardware” of civilization—such as vigorously developing renewable energy, gradually reducing and eventually stopping the use of fossil fuels, correspondingly gradually replacing fuel-powered vehicles with electric vehicles, transforming infrastructure to make it green (i.e., shifting to the use of renewable energy, improving the recycling of resources, reducing internet energy consumption, etc.), promoting green buildings, and even developing new-energy aircraft (since the aviation industry is a major emitter), and so on. Ideological innovation, cultural innovation, institutional innovation, and the like are innovations that change the “software” of civilization. Among these, ideology is the “softest”—it cannot be touched or seen—but this by no means implies it is unimportant. Only when green ideas (concepts) exist can the motivation to engage in other forms of innovation arise. A scientific worker who still firmly believes that humanity can conquer nature through science and technology will not generate the motivation for green innovation; a politician with the same belief will not actively promote the formulation of public policies and laws that protect the environment, conserve energy, and reduce emissions; an entrepreneur with the same belief will not actively assume environmental responsibility; and so on.

绿色发展源自绿色创新。绿色创新就是保护自然环境、维护生物多样性、节能减排并促进（至少不妨碍）社会进步和人民生活水平提高的创新。广义的创新包括思想（包括科学）创新、文化创新、技术创新、制度创新、管理创新等。各行各业都可以创新，且唯有创新才能推动快速发展。说人类文明的发展永无止境，是因为存在无限创新的可能性。走绿色发展之路，建设生态文明，必须促进各行各业、各个领域、各个层级的联动创新。其中，技术创新是改造文明之“硬件”的创新，如大力发展可再生能源，逐渐减少直至停止使用化石燃料，相应地逐渐用电动汽车代替燃油汽车，改造基础设施使之绿色化（即转向使用可再生能源，提高资源的循环利用，降低互联网能耗等等），推广绿色建筑，甚至开发新能源飞机（因为航空业是排放大户），等等。思想创新、文化创新、制度创新等是改变文明之“软件”的创新。其中，思想是最“软”的，是摸不着看不见的，但这绝不意味着它是不重要的。唯当有了绿色思想（观念），才可能产生从事其他方面创新的动机。一个仍然坚信人类凭借科技力量可以征服自然的科技工作者，不会产生绿色创新的动机；一个有相同信念的政治家不会积极推动制定保护环境、节能减排的公共政策和法律；一个有相同信念的企业家也不会积极承担环保责任；等等。

In China, the concepts of respecting nature, conforming to nature, and protecting nature have already exerted considerable influence, and the construction of an ecological civilization system is proceeding smoothly. China has made commitments to the international community: “We will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.” China has also achieved significant accomplishments in the development and utilization of new energy. Both the “hardware” and “software” of Chinese civilization are undergoing a green transformation. We believe that the ancient Chinese civilization will be rejuvenated through green innovation and green development.

在中国，尊重自然、顺应自然、保护自然的观念已产生很大影响，生态文明制度建设也正顺利进行，中国已向国际社会承诺：“二氧化碳排放力争于2030年前达到峰值，努力争取2060年前实现碳中和。”中国在新能源开发和利用方面也取得了重要成就。中华文明的“硬件”和“软件”都在发生绿色嬗变。我们相信：古老的中华文明将会因绿色创新和绿色发展而焕发青春。

In summary, we cannot deny that “black development” [4]4 “Black development” (黑色发展) refers to the traditional industrial model of economic growth that relies on high consumption of fossil fuels, heavy pollution, and environmental degradation, in contrast to “green development” which emphasizes ecological sustainability. is a mode of development that has powerfully propelled the rapid progress of human civilization. It has enabled human civilization to break free from the “Malthusian trap” and has allowed the broad masses of working people to lead a dignified material life. However, the direction of conquering nature is dangerous and unsustainable; the endless pursuit of development aimed at enhancing the power of conquest is extremely perilous. Ordinary people clearly do not need an increase in the power of conquest; most of them are willing to live a peaceful and ordinary life. But politicians, militarists, arms dealers, and others are caught in what seems to be an unceasing competition and struggle; they need to constantly enhance their power of conquest. This has been the case since the emergence of class society. Looking at the course of modernization, hegemonists have always attached importance to the improvement and enhancement of technologies of conquest because they need both to increase their power of conquest for waging wars among humans or controlling the ruled, and to increase their power of conquest for plundering wealth from nature. In other words, the process of modernization up to now has been accompanied by two kinds of war: one is war among humans (of course, not waged continuously), and the other is humanity’s war against nature (as long as “black development” persists, this war never ceases). Quantum physics and the complexity science that encompasses ecology show that nature is absolutely unconquerable; green economists tell us, “War is the mortal enemy of the environment. In fact, for humanity and the globe, the worst outcome is nothing other than a large-scale nuclear war and a ‘nuclear winter’.” Only by reversing the direction of human civilization’s development, shifting from “black development” to green development, can human civilization tend toward peace and security. Conversely, if we continue to race along the path of “black development,” human civilization will plunge into the abyss of destruction.

总之，我们不能否认“黑色发展”是有力推动人类文明快速进步的发展。它使人类文明挣脱了“马尔萨斯陷阱”，使广大劳动人民过上了有尊严的物质生活。但征服自然的发展方向是危险的、不可持续的，无止境地追求提高征服力的发展是极度危险的。平民显然并不需要征服力的提高，他们大多愿意过平安、平常的日子。但政治家、军事家、军火商等处于似乎无法止息的竞争和斗争之中，他们需要不断提高征服力。自阶级社会出现以来，情况一直是这样。就现代化历程看，霸权主义者之所以一直重视征服性技术的改进和提高，就因为他们既需要提高发动人间战争或控制被统治者的征服力，又需要提高向自然攫取财富的征服力。换言之，迄今为止的现代化历程一直伴随两种战争：一是人间战争（当然不是时刻不停地进行着），二是人对自然的战争（只要“黑色发展”持续着，这种战争就没有停息）。量子物理学和蕴含生态学的复杂性科学表明，大自然是绝对不可征服的；绿色经济学家告诉我们，“战争是环境的死敌。实际上，对人类和全球来说，最糟糕的结果无非是一场大规模的核战争和‘核冬天’”。扭转人类文明的发展方向，由“黑色发展”转向绿色发展，人类文明才可能趋于和平与安全。相反，若继续沿着“黑色发展”的道路狂奔，人类文明就会坠入毁灭的深渊。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗