这不仅仅关于亚马孙地区，还关乎雨林本身。
It's not just about the Amazonas, or indeed about rainforests.
无论你从哪个层面看，从生态系统层面也好、从物种层面、抑或从基因层面看也罢，同样的问题一再显现。
No matter what level you look at, whether it's at the ecosystem level or at the species level or at the genetic level, we see the same problem again and again.
因此，降水循环和雨林中的水份保持是位于整个生态系统层面的问题。
So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests at an ecosystem level.
从物种层面来说，昆虫的授粉过程，例如蜜蜂给水果授粉等，据估计大约含有1.9千亿美元的经济价值。
At the species level, it's been estimated that insect-based pollination, bees pollinating fruit and so on, is something like 190 billion dollars-worth.
这相当于全球农业总产量的8%左右。
That's something like eight percent of the total agricultural output globally.
这一过程完全未被有意识地侦测到。
It completely passes below the radar screen.
蜜蜂什么时候为这一过程向你要过钱呢？
But when did a bee actually ever give you an invoice?
还有，如果从基因层面来看，60%的药物都是最早在雨林或是暗礁处作为分子而被勘查、发现的。
Or for that matter, if you look at the genetic level, 60 percent of medicines were prospected, were found first as molecules in a rainforest or a reef.
同样地，人类没有为这些自然资源付过一分钱。
Once again, most of that doesn't get paid.
因此我开始从另一角度看这个话题：我们该向谁付这笔钱？
And that brings me to another aspect of this, which is, to whom should this get paid?
这些基因方面的材料也许应该属于（如果它们能够属于某些人的话）当地社区的穷人—他们用自己的知识帮助研究人员找到这些最终成为药物的分子。
That genetic material probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone, to a local community of poor people who parted with the knowledge that helped the researchers to find the molecule, which then became the medicine.
他们从未为此得到过报酬。
They were the ones that didn't get paid.
如果从物种层面看，鱼类是个很好的例子。
And if you look at the species level, you saw about fish.
如今，对于海洋渔场的消耗已经大到对于那些穷人、深谙捕鱼技艺并把它作为一门手艺的人、以及那些为了养活家人而捕鱼的人产生了严重影响。
Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor, the artisanal fisher folk and those who fish for their own livelihoods, to feed their families.
大约十亿人口的生活依赖于鱼类，依赖于海洋中鱼的数量。
Something like a billion people depend on fish, the quantity of fish in the oceans.
十亿人把鱼作为他们摄入动物蛋白的主要来源。
A billion people depend on fish for their main source for animal protein.
鱼类的数量如此迅速的减少，构成了一个多维度的问题，一个我们从未遇见过的健康问题。
And at this rate at which we are losing fish, it is a human problem of enormous dimensions, a health problem of a kind we haven't seen before.
最后，从生态系统层面看，无论是从森林提供的防洪抗旱功能来说，从并不富裕的农民们到森林中为他们的牛羊搜集枯树叶作为饲料来说，还是从农妇们外出到森林中搜集用于烤火的木头来说，穷人们实际上更加依赖于生态系统所提供的资源。
And finally, at the ecosystem level, whether it's flood prevention or drought control provided by the forests, or whether it is the ability of poor farmers to go out and gather leaf litter for their cattle and goats, or whether it's the ability of their wives to go and collect fuel wood from the forest, it is actually the poor who depend most on these ecosystem services.
我们在研究中做了如下估计：对于像巴西、印度、印尼这样的国家，即使生态系统提供了充足资源—这些是人类可免费从大自然获取的—从国内生产总值（GDP）来看，也没占多大比例—大约2%，4%，8%，10%，15%左右—但在这些国家中，如果我们来看自然资源对于穷人来说占生产总值的比例，那么，这个答案更加可能是45%，75%，90%。
We did estimates in our study that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia, even though ecosystem services — these benefits that flow from nature to humanity for free — they're not very big in percentage terms of GDP — two, four, eight, 10, 15 percent — but in these countries, if we measure how much they're worth to the poor, the answers are more like 45 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent.
这就是差距所在。
That's the difference.
因为对于穷人来说，自然资源是一项很重要的福利。
Because these are important benefits for the poor.
想要建立一个恰当的发展模式，如果与此同时破坏或者任由最重要的发展资本—生态基础设施—退化，那么实现发展只是空谈。
And you can't really have a proper model for development if at the same time you're destroying or allowing the degradation of the very asset, the most important asset, which is your development asset, that is ecological infrastructure.
这种情况能变得多糟糕呢？
How bad can things get?
这里有幅被称为“平均物种充足性”的图。
Well here a picture of something called the mean species abundance.