陈志武称养儿防老绑架家庭 现代金融解构传统孝道

陈志武称养儿防老绑架家庭 现代金融解构传统孝道 传统儒家孝道本质上是抵御生存风险的经济保险，唯有依托现代金融工具跨期配置财富，才能终结家庭依附并赋予子女真正的人身自由。 节目围绕技术进步与现代社会结构的巨变展开深层探讨。上半场聚焦基因编辑、器官打印与人类延寿技术，辩证反思了科技异化、认知鸿沟以及“技术并未减轻劳碌反让人更忙”的现实困境。下半场由陈志武教授引出对“养儿防老”与传统儒家伦理的经济学解构，指出金融工具对个人与家庭的解放作用，并进一步延伸至养老院困局、婚姻经济功能的瓦解以及现代人追求“生活品质”时快乐阈值被拉高的深层反思。 前沿科技正从解决效率转向追求“人类永生”，3D生物打印心脏、脑机接口与CRISPR基因编辑逐步突破，但也伴随着昂贵商用疗法与民间低成本DIY生物黑客的分野。 (1:23) 传统“养儿防老”与包办婚姻在经济学本质上是缺乏金融工具时的家庭风险对冲机制；现代养老金、长期护理险与跨期金融配置才是子女与女性摆脱人身依附、获得人身自由的前提。 (30:56) 当代独生子女面临寿命延长带来的双重照料挤压：父母漫长的医疗救治与看护账单无兄弟姐妹分担，待送终完成时自身亦步入老年且难依附下一代。 (39:00) 现代商业与消费主义通过制造“稀缺感”和社交平台“出片率”绑架审美，但生活品质与快乐体验并不等同于高消费，审美阈值的拉高反倒可能剥夺低成本的纯粹快乐。 (68:15)

本期对谈围绕前沿科技变革、家庭伦理演化与消费主义心理展开，嘉宾们指出生物科技与延寿工程正重塑人类认知，传统“养儿防老”与婚姻机制本质上是抵御风险的经济契约，正在被现代金融与社会分工全面剥离，而消费社会对品质的病态追求亦在推高个体的快乐门槛。 技术狂想与劳动解放的异化悖论 (0:00) 对谈首先审视了马云关于“机器如人干活、人类每天仅需工作两三小时”的乐观预言。嘉宾们将其与硅谷追逐150至900岁寿命、雷·库兹韦尔（Ray Kurzweil）在《奇点临近》中提出的三条永生路径（AI脑机接口、3D生物打印与CRISPR基因编辑）并置考量。虽然日本成功3D打印解决回流问题的心脏，IBM Watson早在2016年便能一天内处理相当于300米高论文量的罕见癌症基因诊断，但高昂的商业门槛也催生了地下DIY生物黑客运动。窦文涛等嘉宾警惕指出，若允许基因定制或注意力强化技术滥用，将从童年期拉开根本性的生物学阶层不平等，重演优生学阴影。 针对技术替代劳动是否会带来闲暇，窦文涛深表怀疑并指出人类缺乏“知足基因”，手机与自动化不仅未使人变懒，反而拉长了工时并滋生出过度沉溺虚拟帝国的现象（如日本超150万隐蔽青年）。技术理性往往只专注物理极限突破而漠视伦理与人文关怀，人类总会通过“报复性熬夜”或自我找事陷入新的劳碌闭环。 “养儿防老”解构与现代养老困局 (30:56) 经济学家陈志武从金融学视角解构了传统儒家孝道与婚姻制度。他指出，在缺乏金融工具的传统农耕社会，生养子女实际上是父母购买的“保险、股票与养老基金”，以对冲生老病死风险；为了防止这项沉重投资亏损，宗族必须依托“三纲五常”剥夺子女的择偶与人身自由以维系经济依附。现代金融市场（商业养老金、长期护理险等）的发展，在底层逻辑上承担了跨期风险分散功能，从而将子女从赡养工具的属性中解救出来，赋予两代人真正的独立自由。 然而，制度转型中的独生子女一代正遭遇残酷的双重挤压。随着现代医疗拉长预期寿命，照料成本急剧飙升，“父母走时自己已步入老年”成为现实宿命。窦文涛结合自身经历指出，即便经济上尚能应付，因无法床前尽孝而产生的道德负疚与心理焦虑依然极为沉重，东亚文化中的情感惯性使得纯粹依靠金融和机构养老难以抚平成年子女的内心撕裂。 家庭功能剥离与原子化生存的孤独 (63:37) 梁文道与陈志武拉开历史维度分析指出，人类近百年的历史本质上是一部家庭职能被社会制度不断剥夺的简史：出生与临终移交医院，启蒙教育托付托幼与学校，婚姻原本具备的“男女互补微型生产公司”功能被商业化服务替代，生老病死的避险职能则归于金融与养老机构。现代人不可避免地退回至孤独的“原子化”状态，且现代信息迭代彻底解构了传统长者的经验壁垒，使得老年人面临价值贬值与数字鸿沟。 面对老龄化带来的精神真空，窦文涛提出让极度内向的老人强行融入陌生的养老院社交无异于“下地狱”。梁文道借此回顾了广东顺德“自梳女”（妈姐）的历史经验——她们年轻时建立行业信托、立誓不婚，晚年则合资修建“姑婆屋”守望相助。陈志武则坦言，欧美社会虽以清晰的个体边界换取了代际自由，但也必须承受养老院独居的凄凉，如何在家庭解构后完成晚年精神的自洽，是转型期无法回避的命题。 商业稀缺陷阱与生活品质的审美代价 (68:15) 转入日常生活维度，对谈剖析了消费主义塑造的品质陷阱。嘉宾指出，商品的昂贵往往只代表制造出来的“稀缺感”而非绝对优质，现代餐饮培训甚至将“容易出片”列为首要指标，以迎合消费者发社交圈的虚荣心理。从商业精算角度看，企业在及格线上利润最合理，追求极致品质往往伴随边际成本急剧飙升，若大众缺乏真正的感官鉴赏能力，便只能任由品牌溢价收割。 追求高品质生活同时伴随着隐秘的心理代价：当一个人习惯了昂贵的红酒与精致摆盘，其快乐阈值被大幅拉高，反而永远失去了喝百元红酒或吃街头小吃时纯粹、简单的快乐。窦文涛分享自己网购二十元宋瓷仿品自得其乐的体验，感叹“不懂”反而保留了纯真探索的乐趣；过度追求分析与极致，有时反而会剥夺个体对生活烟火气与微小滋味的感知力。 本场对话揭示出技术飞跃与资本分工给人类带来的深层悖论：现代科技与金融工具虽逐步击碎了传统宗族对个体的严苛控制，实现了人身与阶层的解放，但同时也剥离了家庭温情纽带，将个体推入原子化的养老孤独与被推高的欲望阈值中；如何在效率至上的工具理性之外重构精神自洽与伦理底线，仍是当代社会悬而未决的课题。

本期节目围绕前沿生物技术伦理、现代家庭与养老制度的经济学解构，以及消费主义与审美体验的异化展开深入对谈。嘉宾们指出，科技演进与金融工具虽在重塑个体自由与社会结构，却也加剧了阶层鸿沟、伦理风险与精神孤独，真正的品质与解脱取决于内在的认知自洽而非外在符号的绑架。 技术狂热与永生伦理的边界 (0:00) 对话首先审视了人工智能、脑机接口与基因编辑等前沿技术的加速发展。从日本团队成功3D打印解决回流难题的人工心脏，到雷·库兹韦尔提出的硅基永生假说，长寿科技正吸引巨额资本布局；但嘉宾强调，昂贵的商业化基因治疗动辄数百万美元，加剧了生物学层面的不平等，甚至催生以DIY生物黑客为代表的去中心化对抗。窦文涛与嘉宾警示，技术的工具理性往往忽视人文学科与伦理约束，基因编辑一旦越界便可能造成不可逆的基因库污染，甚至滑向历史优生学的危险泥潭；且技术并不能如马云预言般自动让人类摆脱劳碌，反而可能在缺乏约束的情况下让人陷入更深的精力虚耗与虚拟沉溺。 养儿防老的瓦解与金融解放 (30:56) 陈志武教授从经济学视角对传统儒家孝道与婚姻制度进行了深刻解构，指出传统社会的“养儿防老”与包办婚姻本质上是由于缺乏社会化避险机制，父母不得不将子女视作抵御生老病死风险的“保险与股票”，其代价是对后代人身自由与个性的全面压制。现代金融市场提供的商业养老险、长期护理险及养老金工具，实现了跨期与跨区域的风险分散，才真正将子女和女性从沉重的家庭依附工具属性中解脱出来。然而，梁文道与窦文涛指出，独生子女一代正遭遇空前的结构性夹击：医疗进步大幅拉长了看护周期，独生一代既要承担沉重的高额医疗照护账单与伦理负疚，自身晚年又面临少子化背景下的机构养老难题。 家庭职能剥离与原子化孤独 (58:26) 对谈进一步梳理了家庭制度演进的历史轨迹，从原始狩猎社会的母系抚养，到定居农耕时代以生产合作为核心的父系家庭，直至现代工业文明将生育、教育、医疗与养老等功能全面外包。梁文道以广东顺德“自梳女”合资修建“姑婆屋”抱团养老为例，阐述了民间互助共同体的历史经验；但现代都市中家庭核心功能的剥离，正将个体推向彼此割裂的“原子化”状态。陈志武强调个人的经济金融自由是一切权利的前提，但也坦言追求代际独立要求父母主动克制占有欲；对于精神无法自立的老人而言，无论是脱离社会的居家孤居，还是强行融入养老院的密集社交，都可能演变为晚年深重的孤独困境。 消费主义陷阱与审美品鉴代价 (68:15) 围绕日常生活与商业逻辑，嘉宾们剖析了大众对“品质生活”的认知误区。商业营销的核心在于利用虚荣心理和信息差“制造稀缺感”，现代餐饮甚至为了大众点评等平台的“出片率”而牺牲味道本身，企业出于成本收益精算往往止步于标准化的及格线，而追求更高层次的品质则需要付出指数级飙升的边际成本。窦文涛与嘉宾们反思，追求高门槛的品鉴能力虽然能避免被商家忽悠，但同时也会拉高感知阈值、丧失简单的快乐，如同习惯昂贵酒食后便再难体会街头小吃的纯粹乐趣；真正的生活品质不在于追逐昂贵符号与阶层鄙视链，而在于建立敏锐真实的感官体验与克制知足的内在自洽。 无论是面对生命科技的激进突破、传统伦理与家庭契约的瓦解，还是商业消费主义的精巧包装，核心挑战均在于人类如何在技术与资本的工具理性中守住伦理底线与精神自律，避免在追求效率与极致的过程中走向异化。

[43:44] 陈志武: 个人的经济金融自由，是其他一切自由的基础和前提。 [9:49] 窦文涛: 就算替代了体力，你放心，人是一个给自己找事的动物，就算把体力替代了，最后他们会找别的把自个儿累死。 [63:37] 陈志武: 所有人都最终意识到，你唯一真正能指望的只有你自己。

[0:00] Let’s take a question; for example, I [0:02] heard Mr. Jack Ma the other day. Mr. Ma [0:06] is questioning education now, saying [0:08] that in the past, humans worked like [0:11] machines, right? In the future, [0:14] machines will work like humans. He [0:19] meant that people might only need to [0:21] work two or three hours a day, leaving [0:23] plenty of leisure time. But I have a [0:28] doubt; I don't really believe it. Why? [0:32] >> I was at a future science conference [0:34] hosted by another company this morning, [0:36] and what were they talking about? They [0:37] were discussing whether humans will [0:39] live to be 150 or 900. While we are [0:41] here talking about whether we can make [0:43] it past 50, they are discussing how to [0:45] live to 150. Right, I’ve heard some [0:46] Silicon Valley moguls have already [0:48] changed their genes and blood? [0:50] >> There is a curve called the hype cycle [0:52] from Gartner. It tracks all the new [0:56] tech—AI, 5G, IoT—all on that curve. [0:59] They showed it to me the other day, and [1:01] in 2019, the very top of that curve was [1:03] cloud computing. [1:04] >> You said, "Teacher Wu, let's not invest [1:06] in that anymore; it's full of big [1:08] players like Google, Microsoft, and [1:10] Alibaba." So I asked, what’s at the [1:12] very top now? It’s four words: "Human [1:14] Immortality." That's your understanding [1:16] of new tech. [1:18] >> Wang Shi was even saying the other day [1:20] that this is total nonsense. [1:23] >> But have you seen the report in a [1:25] science magazine this June? The [1:27] Japanese have printed a heart. [1:29] >> Printed? [1:30] >> 3D printed. Americans did it two years [1:32] ago, but couldn't solve the backflow [1:34] problem. The Japanese did it in a [1:36] simulated state where the blood doesn't [1:38] flow back. In 1904, Ray Kurzweil wrote [1:40] "The Singularity Is Near." He said [1:42] there are three paths for the future. [1:44] One is called...Artificial Intelligence [1:46] . Implanting a chip in your brain that [1:48] stays with you for 20 years. When you [1:49] die, the chip remains. That’s human [1:52] immortality in an engineering sense. [1:54] The second is nanoscience, where any [1:56] biological structure can be printed. [1:58] The third is gene science. [2:00] >> Can you actually use what's printed? [2:01] >> Yes, everything is usable now. [2:03] >> Everything is usable? [2:04] >> Yes, everything is usable now. [2:06] >> It's all usable. Isn't a printed lung [2:08] usable now? If so, why would people [2:10] still need to donate organs? It’s not [2:13] about that; organ donation is just very [2:15] expensive. [2:16] >> The third is gene science, where you [2:19] extract genes. Regarding brain science [2:21] gene extraction, I heard about a [2:23] Chinese scientist born in the 80s from [2:25] Harvard in Las Vegas. They created a [2:29] robotic arm for amputees that's [2:30] controlled by the brain, even allowing [2:32] them to play piano with Lang Lang. Oh, [2:36] I think I've seen that clip. It’s [2:37] brain-controlled, it’s quite [2:39] fascinating. You mean you still have to [2:41] train to use it, right? You need a [2:46] clear intention in your mind; it's [2:48] almost like telekinesis, forming the [2:49] right signals to trigger the device. [2:53] >> Exactly. [2:54] >> Actually, saving money is really [2:56] important right now. [2:57] >> It really feels like that now. [2:58] >> Isn't it like how penicillin dropped [3:00] from $ 100,000 to a few thousand? It [3:02] was once more expensive than gold, but [3:04] ten years later, it became very cheap. [3:07] Right now, it's like penicillin hasn't [3:09] been invented yet, or it's still in the [3:11] lab. If he lives a bit longer—what [3:13] were you trying to say? [3:14] >> Nothing, I was just thinking about a [3:15] British show I watched recently where a [3:17] little girl tells her mom, "I'm going [3:19] to Zurich to upload my brain," and her [3:21] mom asks, "Are you going for assisted [3:23] suicide?" Because usually, when people [3:24] go to Switzerland, they go for assisted [3:26] suicide, right? She said, "No, I'm [3:27] achieving immortality." [3:29] >> Basically, she had her entire brain [3:30] digitized. Yeah, she... [3:32] >> She said what we used to call death, [3:34] she calls immortality. [3:36] >> Oh, I've seen that series on Netflix. [3:40] You know, I also recently watched a [3:42] real documentary—not a drama—about [3:44] gene editing technology. I forget the [3:48] name. * [3:48] >> Unnatural Selection*. [3:49] >> Yes, it had four or five episodes. We [3:52] could really talk about this, Xiao Bo, [3:54] because it’s explained in a way that [3:56] even someone at our station would [3:58] understand. It means we already have [4:01] the technology; your genes can actually [4:03] be edited. [4:04] >> They can be edited. [4:05] >> It is possible to edit them. [4:06] >> Many cancers are just a matter of [4:08] genetics. [4:08] >> And this film showed that there are [4:10] already 3,000 such babies born. If a [4:12] couple has hereditary diseases and [4:14] can't have children, this is what's [4:16] happening now. So what is it exactly? [4:18] They used another woman, and the baby [4:20] has already been born. This is it. But [4:24] the film explores an ethical dilemma [4:26] that I find really interesting. [4:29] >> He said it's like some kind of protein [4:31] molecule, acting just like scissors. He [4:34] said, but why are countries around the [4:35] world so cautious right now? The issue [4:38] is that humanity has arrived at a [4:40] threshold, where [4:41] >> how can we modify ourselves, [4:44] >> how can we become better? You know, his [4:46] film actually addresses this very [4:47] question. [4:48] >> Some big pharmaceutical companies have [4:50] already used this biology and genetics [4:51] to develop treatments for certain [4:53] genetic diseases, yes. [4:54] >> Millions of dollars. When children get [4:56] these diseases, their parents cry [4:58] pitifully. Without donations, you might [5:00] ask, how can these big drug companies [5:02] be so heartless? But they have no [5:04] choice; their R&D costs are so high. So [5:08] , there are these volunteers in Western [5:10] countries now doing this, which is, to [5:12] some extent, quite bizarre, you know? [5:16] They are saying, we are determined not [5:18] to let a situation arise in the future [5:20] where only the rich can use this gene [5:22] technology, this gene-editing [5:23] technology, to upgrade themselves. So [5:28] they are now saying they want to [5:30] develop this technology and make it [5:32] democratic, making it very cheap, so [5:34] that in the future, you could just go [5:36] to a 7-Eleven or a supermarket, buy a [5:38] few vials, buy some supplies, and do it [5:40] yourself. And then, the documentary, [5:45] the documentary shows a group of young [5:47] guys, you know what they're doing? [5:51] They're modifying their dogs to have [5:53] fluorescent, glowing fur. [5:56] >> Because all they have to do is find the [5:58] gene that determines hair color, [6:00] >> the color of the fur, [6:01] >> he even said, "Oh, I think this is [6:03] terrifying." They describe that, right [6:05] now, for example, if you want to build [6:07] muscle, in the future, you won't even [6:09] need to go to the gym. You just modify [6:11] the gene responsible for inhibiting [6:13] muscle growth, and you can grow muscle [6:14] while lying in bed, or rather, not grow [6:16] long life, but grow lean muscle while [6:18] lying in bed. My God! So he says, [6:21] humanity has reached this tipping point [6:23] , where the technology exists, though [6:25] it is certainly very immature. Right [6:28] now, there are no ethical issues with [6:30] using it for medical treatment, but [6:32] using it for, say, human enhancement, [6:34] >> that definitely has problems. So they [6:37] say in the future, plastic surgery [6:38] won't be needed either. Want green eyes [6:41] ? It’s easy. [6:42] >> Yes, this is an ethical problem right [6:44] now, [6:44] >> it’s an ethical issue. [6:46] >> Back in 2016, IBM had a case where a [6:48] Japanese patient had a very rare type [6:50] of cancer related to their genes. To [6:55] find that specific gene, you’d have [6:57] to read a stack of research papers as [6:58] tall as the Shanghai Tower. The papers [7:02] would be over 300 meters high; no human [7:04] could read them all. But then a robot [7:06] read them, and in less than a day, it [7:08] identified the gene, which saved the [7:09] woman’s life. That was a very famous [7:12] case in 2016, involving gene editing [7:14] for medical treatment. But when you [7:15] talk about changing eye color to green [7:17] or blue, or growing a third arm, I [7:19] don’t know if that’s possible, but [7:20] it’s definitely an ethical issue. No. [7:23] >> But there is an ethical issue behind it [7:25] . First, we need to consider... [7:28] >> The problem is, what you’re changing, [7:30] we don’t necessarily fully understand [7:31] . You think a trait is only related to [7:34] A, but it’s actually related to B, [7:35] and we don’t know. Human knowledge [7:38] has its boundaries. But regardless of [7:41] what it’s related to, we first have [7:42] to define it as a disease. It’s more [7:47] acceptable if we define those [7:48] conditions you mentioned as diseases; [7:50] that makes it easier to handle. However [7:54] , the whole set of ethical questions [7:56] behind this isn't new. In different [8:01] eras and places, they’ve always [8:02] targeted certain groups—what kind of [8:04] groups might these be? People with [8:10] speech impediments like me shouldn't [8:12] reproduce; perhaps they should be wiped [8:14] out, or even segregated, right? [8:19] Actually, their reasoning sounded [8:21] sufficient to them; otherwise, they’d [8:23] claim we were dragging down the level [8:25] of the whole population. [8:27] >> Dragging it down—that’s the [8:28] argument. Exactly. And some people said [8:31] those with lower intelligence, or even [8:33] people with certain skin colors, should [8:35] be exterminated. The logic behind it is [8:38] the same. In the end, who has the right [8:41] to decide? [8:42] >> Exactly, that’s why... [8:45] >> Right, in the past, animals or humans [8:47] couldn't cross that barrier. But now, [8:52] with technology at this stage, looking [8:54] to the future, you might very well gain [8:56] the ability to design yourself, or even [8:58] your children. [9:01] >> You could transform yourself while [9:02] you're still alive, but can you? But [9:04] how do we decide what direction [9:06] transformation should take? That's hard [9:08] to understand. And from a democratic [9:10] perspective, didn't I mention the [9:12] Harvard Brain Science Center I visited [9:14] earlier this year? They are currently [9:16] working on something, which is [9:17] cognitive focus training. [9:19] >> For example, one of their techniques [9:21] allows average people—our attention [9:23] span usually doesn't exceed an hour [9:24] when working on a draft. After an hour, [9:27] you lose focus, or if you need to [9:29] concentrate again, they are currently [9:31] training with NASA and Olympic teams to [9:33] enable a person to maintain focus for [9:35] over four hours. This requires a [9:36] massive investment of money and [9:38] technology. So, what kind of problem [9:40] does that create? We all have children [9:42] who start elementary school at five or [9:43] six. Some kids lose interest in a task [9:45] after ten minutes, while others can [9:47] focus for an hour. [9:48] >> Which means they might be able to [9:49] attend Harvard by age ten. Yes, exactly [9:51] . From the very beginning of their [9:53] education, some are already becoming [9:55] superhumans. Some are human, but this [9:58] is worth worrying about. [10:00] >> This is a technology that is already [10:02] essentially ready to be applied in [10:04] clinical settings. [10:06] >> But let me ask you, Xiaobo, there is [10:08] something very worrying, what is it? [10:12] Given human nature, have you ever seen [10:14] humanity throughout its long history [10:16] possess such potential? That is, once [10:19] they gain an ability, they choose not [10:21] to use it. Two atomic bombs were [10:24] dropped, but look, they came up with [10:26] more ways to prevent more from being [10:28] dropped, or at least tried to prevent [10:30] it. The problem now is that, for [10:32] instance, I still want to ask you. [10:34] >> People can't control it, people just [10:36] can't control it. [10:37] >> I still want to consult you on a [10:38] question. For example, the other day I [10:41] heard Jack Ma—Jack Ma is involved in [10:44] education now—say that in the future, [10:46] in the past, people worked like [10:48] machines, right? In the future, [10:51] machines will work like people. He [10:56] meant that people might only need to [10:58] work two or three hours a day—I don't [11:00] recall exactly—leaving plenty of [11:02] leisure time. But I have a doubt, I [11:07] don't quite believe it. Why? All our [11:10] technology was originally intended to [11:12] make our lives easier and save us [11:14] effort. [11:15] >> To make us lazier. [11:16] >> Lazier, but look at the results, have [11:18] you actually become lazier? Haven't you [11:21] become even busier? [11:22] >> For example, mobile phones were [11:23] supposed to help you process things [11:25] more quickly. Yet this very thing has [11:26] caused us to go to sleep even later. [11:28] Have you thought about this? Have you [11:30] considered this problem? So I think [11:31] there is a question of human nature [11:33] here. Even if labor is replaced, rest [11:35] assured, humans are just animals that [11:37] create trouble for themselves. Even if [11:39] their labor is replaced, [11:40] >> eventually, [11:41] >> they will find something else to work [11:43] themselves to death with. Do you think [11:45] there’s a virtual space? Like in [11:47] Hollywood movies, it’s very likely [11:49] that many people in the future will [11:50] live in a virtual realm. Sitting there [11:53] wearing an AR headset. Building their [11:55] own kingdom, playing emperor or pirate [11:57] king, killing and burning as they [11:59] please, while in real life they are [12:01] just a, a, a [12:02] >> shut-in. [12:02] >> Yes, a shut-in. There are over a [12:04] million shut-ins in Japan now. What is [12:06] a Japanese shut-in? Someone who, for an [12:08] entire month, speaks to no one except [12:09] the person at 7-Eleven. There are over [12:11] 1.5 million in Japan now. How many do [12:13] you think there are in China? They have [12:14] nothing, the state provides a basic [12:16] stipend for food, and then they [12:18] disappear into another world. Today, [12:20] Chinese people already spend five hours [12:21] on their phones. Just like you [12:23] mentioned, people already average an [12:25] hour on Kuaishou alone. But what kind [12:26] of knowledge is that? It's better to [12:28] listen to the original works, hear them [12:30] a couple more times. [12:31] >> But you don't need to worry about the [12:33] time being occupied. People will simply [12:36] divide into two categories. [12:38] >> Think about it. [12:38] >> I’m wondering if humanity is missing [12:40] a gene, what you might call a " [12:42] contentment gene." All of our current [12:44] technology, these human modifications [12:46] —whether you call it genetic [12:47] modification or whatever—are based on [12:49] the belief that we aren't perfect [12:51] enough. But how much do we actually [12:54] understand about humanity itself? In [12:55] reality, we haven't reached that level [12:57] of self-awareness yet. We don't even [12:59] know where that understanding stands. I [13:01] remember the most shocking scene I [13:03] witnessed this year: I was at the [13:05] Siasun robot factory in Shenyang. [13:08] >> You walk in and it’s just massive [13:10] robotic arms everywhere. I asked, "What [13:11] are they doing?" [13:13] >> They told me the robots were building [13:14] themselves. [13:15] >> I asked, "Do they know they are [13:16] building themselves?" They said, "Not [13:18] yet, they don't." [13:21] >> But I asked, why do they say this [13:23] arm-like thing can lift a needle to [13:25] write on paper, and also exert great [13:27] force to grab heavy objects? So I asked [13:31] , why is it all the same arm? They said [13:34] , our human arm is designed with three [13:36] joints and six degrees of freedom. [13:39] It’s the most perfect design; just [13:41] change the palm or add anything, and it [13:43] can do everything. Oh, it suddenly made [13:46] me realize we didn't even know that [13:48] what we have is actually quite amazing. [13:51] Why are we built like this? Why are we [13:53] like this? We haven't seemed to fully [13:55] grasp it. Le Corbusier once drew a " [13:57] perfect human body," but in his drawing [13:59] , the head was quite small and the [14:01] hands were very, very large. It shows [14:04] they were studying the structure of the [14:06] human body itself, and I wonder how [14:08] much we really know about ourselves. [14:11] Actually, people do know. So, you could [14:14] say it's being unsatisfied, or put [14:16] another way, it's the drive to improve, [14:18] constantly moving upward. The problem [14:21] is how to use it; that’s very hard. [14:23] The more technology there is, the more [14:25] it demands your self-discipline. Many [14:29] people know that for a while, in order [14:31] to write, my wife and I slept in [14:32] separate rooms, in separate beds, so I [14:34] could focus on my writing. [14:37] >> Otherwise, I would always go to bed [14:38] very late. Because I love chatting with [14:40] my wife, often until two or three in [14:42] the morning. She said, "This won't do, [14:44] I chat with you every day and have no [14:46] energy left to write." So we slept in [14:49] separate rooms. I thought sleeping [14:52] separately would help me sleep, but I [14:54] ended up sleeping even later. Because [14:58] when I was alone, I felt free, with no [15:00] one watching me, so I’d just grab my [15:02] phone and chat with other people's [15:03] wives until even later. So, to avoid [15:07] chatting with my wife, I ended up using [15:09] my phone to chat with other people's [15:11] wives. I can only blame myself; I just [15:13] don't have self-discipline. [15:14] >> Your wife might have been doing the [15:15] same with others. [15:16] >> Chatting with you? Later, I checked my [15:18] wife's phone, and it turns out she [15:20] knows this person quite well. It was [15:22] all Wentao, right? [15:24] >> I recently discovered that my friends [15:25] have a common habit—do you have it? [15:27] It's when it's late at night and you [15:29] don't want to sleep, even though [15:30] there's nothing important to do. You [15:31] just watch boring TV, shop online, or [15:33] do something else, but you just don't [15:35] want to go to bed. [15:36] >> Do you know what I mean? We should [15:38] include this in our roundtable analysis [15:40] , perhaps the fear of death. [15:42] >> Why do people keep staying up late? You [15:45] don't want to go to sleep because you [15:47] keep wanting to extend the previous [15:49] state, refusing to let it end. It’s [15:52] basically the same principle as the [15:54] fear of death—trying to prolong [15:56] things. It feels like falling asleep [16:00] marks the end of a state, so you want [16:02] to drag the last state out, like a [16:04] feast that never ends. We all want the [16:07] feast to last forever. [16:09] >> That's not really the reason why people [16:10] don't sleep at night, is it? I don’t [16:12] think so. For me, it's about the [16:15] silence. During the day, with all these [16:19] tech devices in our hands, we feel our [16:21] entire state of being is chaotic. There [16:25] are so many things you normally [16:26] wouldn't need to respond to, right? [16:28] Then, at night, you suddenly feel very [16:30] ... [16:31] >> So, look at what we’re saying. Now [16:35] that we have all this biological [16:36] technology, it’s not just about [16:38] individuals anymore; it’s about [16:40] humanity as a whole. For instance, I [16:43] was watching someone talk about [16:45] gene-editing technology, and they said [16:47] this can’t be decided by democracy. [16:50] Currently, it’s illegal—you can’t [16:52] just go around modifying genes. The [16:55] question is, why shouldn't we open that [16:57] door? They said it’s because this [17:01] isn't something you can vote on. It’s [17:06] not about the majority ruling; once [17:09] someone starts, the human gene pool is [17:11] permanently altered, affecting all of [17:13] humanity. So, you can't just go by [17:17] majority vote; it requires the consent [17:20] of everyone. It is strictly prohibited [17:22] right now. [17:23] >> It’s very complicated, truly [17:24] complicated. Mm. [17:26] >> But in comparison, I think Xiaobo has a [17:28] method; he’s self-disciplined. I [17:32] remember Xiaobo saying how he built his [17:34] wealth; he said after returning to [17:36] China, he bought one property a year. I [17:40] ... [17:40] >> Is that what you said? [17:41] >> Yes, yes, I bought a house every year [17:43] and wrote a book every year. [17:44] >> When are you going to declutter your [17:45] houses? [17:46] >> No, I’m asking you now. [17:47] >> No, you’re in your prime years now, [17:50] surely you still want to continue? Have [17:52] you thought about your life plan? Your [17:55] personal IP. [17:57] >> I think I see things quite clearly; [17:59] there are many dishes on the table, but [18:01] to me, only one really matters. For [18:03] instance, writing is the most important [18:05] thing to me, but I can't spend my whole [18:07] life just writing about finance, and if [18:09] I only focused on that, I wouldn't be a [18:11] good financial writer either. So, [18:12] whether I'm running a business, making [18:14] an investment, failing today, or rising [18:16] tomorrow, I feel it's all related to [18:18] this. Look, I don't write fiction, [18:20] plays, or do anything else; I stick to [18:22] this, but there are things around it. [18:25] Writing a book a year, or maybe three [18:27] years from now as I get older, is very [18:28] important to me. [18:30] >> But I can't do this 365 days a year; [18:32] that would be too boring. I still play [18:34] mahjong and go traveling when I should. [18:36] I still appear on your show as I should [18:38] . [18:38] >> I do some publishing; that's how I [18:40] think about it. As long as I keep this [18:41] one thing in check, I can be free with [18:43] everything else. That’s how I view it [18:45] . Do you think you’re living a [18:46] healthy life? [18:47] >> Look at him, he doesn't even have any [18:48] wrinkles, how could he not be healthy? [18:50] >> True, he really is, look at this... [18:54] >> Right, and his spirit is very good, I [18:56] mean... [18:58] >> He’s not wearing any makeup; I [18:59] actually thought he was wearing some. [19:01] >> I feel that for me, this... [19:02] >> Actually, what have you been drinking? [19:04] >> I don't care about this; I don't care [19:05] about that. It doesn't really matter [19:07] whether other things happen or not; [19:08] that's how I think about it. [19:09] >> Right now, I am... [19:10] >> Writing this matters, whether other [19:12] things happen or not doesn't. I'm just [19:14] thinking that the reason people love [19:16] staying up late and stalling before [19:18] sleep is actually a form of wanting to [19:20] live; it's the joy of life. Oh, of [19:24] course, everyone wants to live—living [19:27] is so flavorful! You know, for example, [19:31] my parents—they really understand [19:33] this flavor of living, you know? For [19:37] instance, my mother is bedridden now, [19:39] right? My father feels that life has [19:41] lost its flavor. You know, I asked, [19:44] what kind of enjoyment do old people [19:46] like them have? He said, you know, he [19:48] feels lonely now. He said they used to [19:53] go out for walks together, discussing [19:54] whether to wear this outfit or that one [19:56] , or which color looked better. [20:00] >> Even bickering and arguing. [20:01] >> Yes, bickering and arguing are all part [20:03] of the flavor of life. Sometimes, I [20:06] remember Teacher Chen Tianjin once said [20:09] , that he saw an elderly couple in [20:11] Shanghai, who were in very poor health, [20:13] sitting there drinking porridge. From [20:17] his perspective, their quality of life [20:19] was already quite poor, but watching [20:21] them drink that porridge, you could [20:23] still feel that they found life [20:25] flavorful, eager to live, and wanting [20:27] to live longer. So I was just listening [20:30] to what you said earlier. [20:32] >> Regarding the fact that biotechnology [20:34] has reached a threshold, I find that [20:36] what Ma-ye said might not have been a [20:38] joke after all. Ma-ye said, "I'm really [20:41] afraid of death." He said, "I want to [20:43] wait; I'm waiting to see if technology [20:45] can truly, at least, make me live [20:47] longer and significantly extend my [20:49] lifespan." Do you think we should wait? [20:52] We should [20:52] >> You, I, I just said humanity [20:55] >> How much to wait. [20:56] >> Right, among human insatiability, don't [20:58] you feel that compared to 20 years ago, [21:00] we have lost a lot of humanistic things [21:02] ? The trivial aspects of life and [21:05] emotion that you just mentioned, we [21:07] used to value those things quite a lot. [21:10] In the past, if you liked literature, [21:12] drama, or writing, those were things [21:14] held in high regard; now these things [21:16] are slowly...No need to worry. Let me [21:18] tell you, this year in Shanghai, at the [21:20] Shanghai Theatre Academy, there's a [21:21] very small department called the [21:23] Musical Theatre Department, where Wang [21:24] Yong is the director. Musicals are [21:26] considered small, right? They only took [21:28] 17 people, but 2,700 applied. Would our [21:31] generation have signed up for musical [21:32] theatre 20 years ago? Who knows what [21:34] they'll do later; 2,700 people applied [21:37] for 17 spots, only two spots for the [21:39] whole of Shanghai. And then we look at [21:41] our own generation. [21:43] >> In the future, the ones working in the [21:45] factories will be robots, and all of [21:47] humanity will be in the entertainment [21:48] industry. [21:49] >> Teacher Ma says you'll get at most two [21:51] hours of work a day and have to spend [21:53] extra money to buy more; what else is [21:54] there to do? Paint what you should [21:56] paint, play what you should play, watch [21:58] what you should watch, and creating an [21:59] "Inception" would be quite...hmm. I [22:01] think you don't need to worry, humanity [22:02] will balance itself out. You remember [22:04] everyone saying robots would replace [22:06] humans after 5G arrived? They told me a [22:08] couple of days ago not to worry, that [22:10] after 5G arrives, it will first create [22:12] 22 million jobs. It will first create [22:14] 22 million jobs, because this work [22:15] requires a lot of people to carry it [22:17] out. [22:17] >> Right, don't underestimate human [22:19] learning ability. Right, right, don't [22:21] underestimate it. Nature will still [22:23] find a balance. I believe that when [22:26] humans truly live to an average age of [22:28] 150, a 150-year-old state of survival [22:30] and a new equilibrium will emerge. [22:33] That's what I'm thinking about, but... [22:36] >> You know what the saddest thing is? I [22:39] wish I were younger. You talk about [22:42] future technology, like if technology [22:44] can preserve you. If you're 80 now and [22:46] it gives you 100 more years, living 100 [22:48] years as an 80-year-old man—I'd say [22:50] that's not as enjoyable as living as a [22:52] 20-year-old. Maybe it could revert you [22:55] to that state. [22:57] >> Will it be reversible in the future? [22:59] >> You can't imagine it now. Things you [23:01] can't conceive of today might become a [23:03] research topic for scientists. If an 80 [23:05] -year-old asks, "Can I have a [23:06] reversible body?" do you think no one [23:08] would study it? I think they would. [23:10] >> I've noticed you're a bit of a [23:12] proponent of scientific omnipotence. [23:13] I'm a liberal arts student, but I [23:15] really think technology brings about [23:17] tremendous changes. I truly believe in [23:18] technology itself now. Technology is [23:20] irreversible. Once the internet arrives [23:22] and you're buying things online, what [23:24] are you going to do? Since mobile [23:25] payments arrived, it doesn't matter how [23:27] many bank branches there are. With [23:28] smartphones, you go out whenever you [23:30] want. I think—I'm slowly becoming a [23:32] technocrat. Things that can't be solved [23:34] by people will be solved by technology; [23:36] if technology can't solve them, we wait [23:38] . [23:38] >> The so-called technocracy depends on [23:40] how you define it. Technology is very [23:42] cold, potentially. [23:43] >> Of course, and it's irreversible. [23:45] >> As Marx said, what does technology [23:46] represent? Productive forces. [23:48] Productive forces will definitely move [23:50] forward, and the engineer's mindset [23:51] regarding technology is different from [23:52] ours. I've also read a book by a German [23:54] philosopher. He said those who built [23:56] the atomic bomb didn't think about the [23:58] fact that dropping it would kill [23:59] 100,000 people. They surely didn't [24:01] think about that. They felt that wasn't [24:03] important. What was important was how [24:04] much heat and calories could be [24:06] generated when it fissioned. That was [24:07] the most important thing to them. [24:09] >> Right, exactly. It was only after they [24:11] created it that they thought about it, [24:12] but then it was too late. [24:13] >> You know? [24:13] >> They were bound to build it. [24:14] >> This is called human alienation, human [24:17] instrumentality. When they invented the [24:19] nuclear reactor, they only thought [24:20] about how to maximize its efficiency. [24:22] >> But where it would be used... [24:23] >> Yes, he started opposing it, opposing [24:25] his own actions, yet he still saw it [24:27] through. Take cloning or gene editing, [24:29] for example; he never considered the [24:30] ethical issues. If he had, he wouldn't [24:32] have been able to proceed. [24:33] >> Regarding whether things are expensive [24:35] or cheap, and why people care so much [24:37] or seem to like expensive things, I [24:39] have a different take. First of all, I [24:41] don't believe that more expensive [24:42] necessarily means better. [24:44] >> It usually does, but once it passes a [24:45] certain threshold, I’ve found that [24:47] price and quality have nothing to do [24:49] with each other. A product's price in [24:51] the market is usually, from an economic [24:53] perspective, just a matter of scarcity. [24:56] And scarce things aren't necessarily [24:58] good; they're just things everyone [25:00] wants. So, in branding—and I’ve [25:02] worked in fields related to brands—I [25:04] know that the most important thing for [25:07] brand builders is to make people feel [25:09] that a product is scarce and that [25:10] everyone needs it. It doesn't have to [25:13] be good; it just has to make you think [25:15] it's good. Those are two different [25:17] things, because I’ve increasingly [25:19] realized that the vast majority of [25:21] people don't actually know what "good" [25:23] is. That is absolutely true. [25:25] >> They really don't know the difference; [25:27] they can only rely on the price to [25:29] decide. To them, price is the primary [25:31] indicator for judging the quality of [25:33] something. I've seen too many people [25:36] drink expensive wine who don't actually [25:38] understand wine, and too many people [25:40] buy expensive clothes without knowing [25:42] the first thing about fabrics or [25:44] materials. Too many people spend a lot [25:47] of money on things, yet you’ll find [25:49] they don't understand the process [25:50] behind why that item is worth that [25:52] price. They just want it because it's [25:55] expensive, or it's that brand, and [25:57] everyone knows it's pricey, so there's [25:59] that. [26:01] >> Well, I sometimes feel that I don't [26:03] mind if someone likes buying nice [26:05] things, but if everyone could put in a [26:07] little effort to understand what they [26:09] are doing and buying, and if they could [26:11] learn a bit more about it, it might be [26:13] better—and you might not end up [26:15] spending so much money. So, improving [26:18] one's aesthetic sense and appreciation [26:21] can actually save money. [26:23] >> Absolutely. [26:24] >> Right? It can ensure you get more value [26:26] for your money. [26:27] >> I really do think that, like some of my [26:29] peers who are successful bosses, they [26:31] actually stay in quite simple hotels. [26:34] >> Uh, I have a friend who runs a hotel. I [26:37] told him, "I think your hotel is the [26:39] best in the country; it has such great [26:41] taste." But later, he sold it to [26:43] someone else. He said it wasn't very [26:45] profitable. I asked, "Why?" There [26:48] aren't many guests who understand my [26:49] inner thoughts the way you do. You know [26:53] , many wealthy guests are used to a [26:55] rather rough lifestyle from childhood. [26:59] They don't really notice how soft or [27:01] hard a bed is. We've seen many rugged [27:03] people in life; if you tell them about [27:05] the materials I used for this table or [27:07] this chair, they'll just think, "I [27:09] don't need to stay in such an expensive [27:11] hotel, even if I have the money," right [27:14] ? That's it. [27:15] >> That’s actually correct, because if [27:16] you can’t tell the difference anyway, [27:18] why bother? Right, we can continue; I [27:21] like to summarize, let me make a [27:23] summary. See, the marketplace implies [27:26] one thing: although there is a real [27:28] part, there is a lot of temptation and [27:30] deception, mostly just temptation. You [27:34] see, businesses try to entice consumers [27:36] , saying their product is better, to [27:38] get everyone to consume. But there is [27:41] still a problem here. For instance, [27:45] between the two of us—you are the [27:47] vendor, the developer—you tell me [27:49] this thing is great, and you want me to [27:51] buy it. [27:55] >> At that moment, should I believe your [27:56] words, or believe the relationship I [27:58] build with this object? If I don't [28:02] trust myself, I’ll just believe [28:04] whatever you say, or whatever the [28:06] internet says is good, and I’ll just [28:07] chase that. But if I can settle down, [28:11] build a relationship with this item, [28:13] truly savor it, feel it, start from my [28:15] own perspective, and really open my [28:17] senses, I can experience these things [28:19] and ask myself what I truly need. [28:22] That’s when you slow down. You really [28:24] start wanting what you actually need. [28:25] So, I think it still comes down to the [28:27] issue of building a relationship. So, [28:30] would you say the best way to cure [28:32] consumerism is to go shopping? Because [28:36] if you want to go shopping, you have [28:38] comparisons, you try on clothes, you [28:40] have the act of paying, and you learn [28:42] what is good and what is average. By [28:47] building a connection with the object, [28:49] could shopping actually be a better way [28:51] to cure consumerism? You finally found [28:54] a justification for yourself; I guess [28:56] you'll be shopping more from now on. [28:58] Shopping. [28:59] >> Let’s shop, thanks. [29:00] >> Thank you, thank you. Professor Chen, I [29:03] think he is quite an extraordinary [29:05] person among economists. I’ve had an [29:08] impression of him for a long time. For [29:12] instance, I saw a letter the other day [29:13] that Professor Chen wrote to his [29:15] daughter. [29:17] >> A letter he wrote. [29:18] >> I believe you have two daughters, right [29:20] ? [29:20] >> Yes, that’s right. [29:21] >> Are they both in the United States? Yes [29:23] . [29:23] >> What is their current situation? [29:25] >> Now, both of them have graduated from [29:27] college; one is working in San [29:28] Francisco. [29:29] >> She's been working for two and a half [29:31] years. The other one is in Beijing, [29:33] working in Beijing. [29:34] >> Oh, she returned? [29:35] >> For half a year now, she's been working [29:36] for half a year. [29:37] >> Is she with you then? [29:38] >> Uh, I am in Hong Kong and she is in [29:40] Beijing, so... [29:41] >> We are in three different places. [29:42] >> Mm. I found his letter quite moving. I [29:45] think the only children of today, the [29:47] post-80s and 90s generations, should [29:49] read it; they would likely feel very [29:51] comforted. Why? Because in his letter, [29:55] I saw an economist's approach. [29:58] >> What do you mean? [30:01] >> He said, "Daughters, after you graduate [30:03] from college, of course, if you want to [30:05] come back, we would be very happy, but [30:07] don't come back just to support us in [30:09] our old age.""You should come back only [30:14] because you want to. We would also be [30:17] happy if you choose to stay in the U.S. [30:19] Stay if you want, and date whoever you [30:21] want to date." He said, "You don't need [30:25] to worry about us, because we have [30:27] already bought retirement insurance, [30:29] long-term elderly care insurance, and [30:30] invested in funds, in elderly funds."" [30:35] We have already secured our later years [30:37] ; we can go to nursing homes or hire [30:39] long-term care. We have the money, so [30:44] you are free." Oh, I think... [30:47] >> This is the best gift for children. I [30:48] think parents being able to take care [30:50] of themselves is truly the best gift [30:52] for their children. [30:52] >> Of course, I know it's easier said than [30:55] done. [30:56] >> I mainly feel this way because I am 55 [30:58] now. I can feel that as I get older, I [31:03] am better able to understand why those [31:06] traditional Confucians had such demands [31:08] for children, such as that sons and [31:10] daughters must be filial, and so on. Of [31:14] course, I wouldn't act like that myself [31:16] . But my own growth and the changes in [31:22] my psychological journey allow me to [31:24] understand why, for instance, in many [31:26] surveys we’ve conducted, the older [31:28] the generation, the more strongly they [31:30] react to questions about whether [31:32] children should be obedient or have [31:34] their own personality. [31:38] >> The reaction is very strong. [31:41] >> The reaction was very strong—the [31:42] requirement that children have no [31:44] choice, that they must be filial to [31:46] their parents and take care of the [31:47] elderly. [31:49] >> Of course, I later realized that there [31:51] is indeed an actual conflict of [31:53] interests here. As people age, their [31:55] individual needs grow stronger, and [31:57] they are naturally more likely to favor [32:00] the non-negotiable nature of the [32:02] Confucian social hierarchy and the " [32:04] Three Bonds and Five Constants" in [32:06] terms of values, behavior, and moral [32:08] norms. It means that everyone must [32:11] regulate themselves according to this [32:13] method, find their place, and behave in [32:15] this specific way. Of course, when I [32:18] was writing that letter... [32:21] >> These beliefs and viewpoints haven't [32:22] changed a bit. Even now, when I give [32:25] lectures, I constantly talk about this [32:27] to the post-90s and post-00s [32:29] generations. [32:30] >> The original idea of raising children [32:32] for old-age support. Hmm. [32:34] >> We often say that traditional Chinese [32:36] society was an old society without [32:38] freedom, human rights, rule of law, or [32:40] democracy. I tell them that, in reality [32:44] , many of these things fundamentally [32:46] stem from this system of raising [32:47] children for old-age support. [32:49] >> Raising children for old-age security. [32:51] >> Raising children for old-age security; [32:53] the reasoning is quite simple. I raise [32:55] my sons and daughters, right? And for [32:58] all my future aging, sickness, and [33:00] death...I have to count on them. They [33:04] are my insurance, my stocks, my pension [33:06] fund. [33:10] >> If they grow up and, after I’ve [33:12] invested so much in them, they want [33:14] their own freedom and individual [33:16] choices, and they just go and marry [33:18] whoever they want—what happens to my [33:20] investment in them? This is why [33:24] arranged marriages, by necessity... [33:26] >> Arranged marriages were a must. It’s [33:28] not that people in the past were so [33:30] foolish that they didn't want [33:31] individual freedom or to choose their [33:33] own partners—that would be great, [33:34] wouldn't it? The story of the Cowherd [33:37] and the Weaver Girl has been told for [33:39] over 2,000 years and is still seen as [33:41] our highest ideal. But in real life, [33:45] under the system of raising children [33:47] for old-age support, you cannot have a [33:49] choice. If you marry someone who has no [33:53] future, someone who won't become the [33:55] next Ma Huateng or Li Ka-shing, then [33:57] after I’ve invested so much in you [33:59] and I get old and can no longer move... [34:01] ...and I get sick, what will I rely on? [34:04] It won’t do. You must marry someone I [34:07] can approve of. Who is someone I can [34:10] approve of? Someone who has a promising [34:13] future, and ideally, someone whose [34:14] family has money. We aren't the Ma [34:17] Huateng family, but it would be best if [34:19] they were from the Ma Huateng family. [34:21] Is this—is this considered selfish? [34:23] Or is it perhaps out of helplessness? [34:24] Because you just mentioned telling your [34:26] daughter that a portion of your [34:27] retirement burden can now be shifted to [34:29] the social system, right? You can buy [34:30] stocks, buy funds, and take care of [34:32] yourself. So, our traditional notions [34:34] from the past only existed because [34:36] society couldn't provide those [34:37] functions. You, you said that very well [34:39] . So, in many of the books, articles, [34:43] and lectures I’ve produced, I try to [34:46] explain one core point: the reason [34:48] modern society is modern—with human [34:50] rights, democracy, and the rule of law [34:52] —is fundamentally because we now have [34:54] financial markets. [34:58] >> We have insurance. We have various [35:01] lending products, pension funds, stocks [35:03] , and bonds. There is a wide array of [35:07] financial instruments that allow you to [35:09] manage any foreseeable risk or life [35:11] necessity by arranging them through [35:13] these products. Consequently, this [35:17] liberates your children, and [35:19] particularly liberates women. That’s [35:24] why, over the years, after finishing my [35:26] lectures, I’ve found that the people [35:28] who enjoy these topics most are women, [35:31] because...Because I tell them, look, in [35:33] the old society without markets, wives [35:35] and children... [35:40] >> When in need, you could sell these [35:42] people or sell your daughters, because [35:44] otherwise—in other words, the [35:45] daughter... [35:48] >> Or the wife, in reality, acted as an [35:50] insurance product. [35:51] >> When necessary, you could sell them off [35:54] . [35:54] >> He studies finance, so he views the [35:55] human world from that perspective. But [35:57] in fact, besides China, I suspect that [35:59] most parts of the world followed [36:01] similar systems in the past. [36:05] >> All societies must have been like that; [36:07] otherwise, why would Engels have said [36:08] that the marriage system is actually an [36:10] issue of family property inheritance [36:12] and exchange? In Europe, it was the [36:15] same in the past; raising children was [36:17] for old-age security, because the [36:18] entire social system was structured [36:20] that way. However, what’s unique [36:24] about Chinese-speaking regions is that [36:27] even now, with the rise of capitalism [36:29] and globalization, and the availability [36:31] of the many financial tools you [36:32] mentioned, Professor Chen—or the [36:34] social systems many countries use to [36:36] cover aging, illness, and death— [36:38] people in Chinese regions still firmly [36:40] believe in "rearing children for old [36:42] age." Even back in the 80s, when [36:47] discussions about the relationship [36:49] between Confucian ethics and capitalism [36:51] were popular, many pointed this out: [36:53] why do Taiwan, Singapore, and, to some [36:56] extent, we could say mainland China, [36:58] still count as such? The reason [37:04] government or state investment in [37:05] personal retirement insurance and [37:07] elderly care is relatively low is [37:09] mainly because these responsibilities [37:10] are shifted onto individual families. [37:17] Some scholars even argue this is [37:19] actually a good thing. So this reduces [37:22] government spending. Yes. [37:24] >> Lowering government spending and [37:26] shrinking the scale of government; for [37:28] example, in Hong Kong, there is a type [37:30] of welfare we know as... [37:31] >> Yes, the "fruit money" for the elderly. [37:34] >> The name "fruit money" itself is [37:36] actually quite funny. It is supposed to [37:39] be the equivalent of the retirement [37:40] pension concept in Europe, but it [37:42] serves no such purpose because the [37:44] amount is so small—so small that [37:45] people in Hong Kong gave it a nickname. [37:49] This money is only enough for the [37:50] elderly to buy some fruit each month, [37:52] which is how it got the name "fruit [37:53] money." But even Li Ka-shing receives [37:55] it, or rather, he is eligible to. [37:57] People criticize him for taking it, but [37:59] I think he’s right. He says, "I pay [38:01] taxes in Hong Kong." [38:02] >> Given how much tax he pays, this is a [38:04] right that every Hong Kong citizen [38:06] should legally and reasonably receive. [38:07] Why shouldn't he take it? So, Li [38:09] Ka-shing collects it too. I really [38:12] resonate with this, especially now that [38:14] my own mother has fallen ill. I’ve [38:18] truly come to understand what parents [38:20] always used to say when they’d nag us [38:22] : that your parents 'health is the [38:24] greatest blessing for you children. [38:27] >> Mhm. You can really sympathize with [38:31] Chinese children, especially me, being [38:33] an only child. I think to myself, if [38:36] all four elderly parents were to fall [38:38] ill one after another in the future, oh [38:40] my goodness, how would one even manage? [38:42] It’s simply impossible. And think of [38:45] how much emotional tearing apart [38:47] happens in such situations. You know, [38:50] there’s that cold saying from the [38:52] past, right? "There are no filial sons [38:55] by a sickbed." But once you’ve [38:58] experienced it yourself, you understand [39:00] that this saying isn't meant to be [39:02] derogatory; it’s just a helpless [39:03] situation. Furthermore, we must [39:07] consider that these only children, [39:08] apart from having to carry the burden [39:10] alone, face another issue. That is, [39:12] whether they have children of their own [39:14] . I see many people born in the 80s and [39:16] 90s who don't really want to have [39:18] children, or they are having fewer. [39:21] Just think about what that means: they [39:23] have to support the elderly above them, [39:24] and we must also keep in mind that the [39:26] average life expectancy is increasing. [39:31] In other words, their generation— [39:33] actually starting with mine—requires [39:35] much more time, energy, and money to [39:36] support our parents than my parents did [39:38] for their parents, because lifespans [39:40] have increased. Right. [39:44] >> And what does this longer lifespan [39:45] actually mean in today's society? Why [39:48] are we able to live longer now? Because [39:50] of advancements in various medical [39:52] treatments, but none of these are free. [39:54] So that adds to your expenses, right? [39:56] Looking further, if you don't have [39:58] children yourself, what else does that [40:00] involve? It means you have to start [40:02] planning for when you reach your [40:03] parents' age. So you have to make [40:07] multiple layers of investments; you [40:09] need to prepare for your own old age, [40:10] since I won't have children to take [40:12] care of me, I'll have to rely on other [40:14] investments or the government. But it's [40:17] very likely that for my parents ' [40:19] generation, or the "post-80s" and "post [40:21] -90s" generations now—who I think [40:23] have it the worst—by the time their [40:25] parents no longer need them and pass [40:27] away, they themselves will already be [40:29] old. Yes, they'll be old, and then they [40:32] have...plus, if you have a child of [40:33] your own, and then that child has a [40:35] different mindset and doesn't want to [40:37] follow your ideas—like the freedom [40:39] Professor Chen encourages—then you're [40:41] in an even more miserable position. [40:43] >> Exactly. Exactly. When I heard you [40:45] talking about "having the elderly above [40:46] and the young below," wasn't that just [40:48] describing me? I feel that, regarding [40:51] my parents, their health isn't great [40:53] right now, and I’m not there by their [40:55] side. Beyond the financial arrangements [40:58] you mentioned—which are actually [41:00] manageable—it’s more about the [41:02] emotional side of things. [41:05] >> Whether you find someone to care for [41:06] them or hire help, whenever the [41:08] slightest problem arises, the moment my [41:10] mom complains, I think, "Are you [41:12] blaming me?" Because I'm not there. But [41:15] this is so hard to arrange; it's a kind [41:17] of moral pressure. And when it comes to [41:20] children, you realize that when we were [41:22] dating or getting married, it was all [41:24] about emotions and romance, everything [41:25] was great. But once you're married and [41:27] have kids, you suddenly realize, "My [41:29] god, I've chosen a completely different [41:31] way of life," a lifestyle with very few [41:33] choices but an extremely high price. [41:35] Because once you have children, you can [41:37] forget about the idea of the two of you [41:38] living a carefree, nomadic life— [41:40] that’s just not going to happen. You [41:41] have to find a place to live, whether [41:43] it's in a good school district or [41:44] whatever else. You will definitely take [41:46] it into consideration, regardless of [41:47] the different tiers or levels, you'll [41:49] surely think about these things because [41:50] you can't just ignore your kids. [41:51] >> But if you don't have children, there [41:53] are different circumstances, just like [41:54] I mentioned earlier. Some people don't [41:56] have kids now, so you can't rely on [41:57] raising children to provide for your [41:58] old age. [41:58] >> That’s why I’m telling you, [42:00] Professor Chen is isolated. [42:01] >> Professor Chen's theory—my mind likes [42:03] to wander, you know? When I look at his [42:05] theory, I often think of a female [42:07] writer, Eileen Chang. Yeah. [42:09] >> It gives me a chilling feeling, you [42:11] understand? If you look at Eileen [42:13] Chang's famous quotes, some people look [42:15] at the world with warmth, but Eileen [42:17] Chang views the world with a cold eye. [42:20] She has a famous saying: "Life is like [42:22] a gorgeous robe,"" [42:23] >> full of lice." And she wrote about her [42:27] own family relationships. Many things [42:31] we consider love, maternal love, or [42:33] filial piety, if you look at it from an [42:35] economic perspective, it was just a [42:37] method used in ancient China when there [42:39] was no pension insurance. And then, [42:43] look at how Eileen Chang describes the [42:44] relationship with her mother. I can't [42:47] help but think of some children today [42:49] who have this problem; there was a time [42:50] when they couldn't be controlled. Do [42:53] you know there’s a new phenomenon now [42:54] ? Some children, I think it’s truly [42:57] something—parents go to the [42:58] matchmaking corner in the park to find [43:00] you a match, saying you must marry them [43:02] , right? They say that for only [43:05] children, I saw them write online, the [43:07] one sentence you can't argue with. [43:10] It’s when parents get into a heated [43:12] argument and say, "You're eating my [43:13] food and drinking my water, so you have [43:15] to listen to me." When you hear that, [43:18] you feel a bit defeated. Are you really [43:20] just a child living off your parents? [43:22] You're living in their house, and [43:24] you're even still spending their money. [43:26] Sigh, the logic behind this...sigh... [43:28] earlier, the parents say, "Dad and Mom [43:29] are doing this for your own good, we [43:31] love you, and since you're eating and [43:33] drinking on us, how can you not listen [43:35] to us?" You say this guy is...it's a [43:37] mess. Indeed, behind this, I realized [43:39] that the relationship of financial [43:41] support between people is a truly [43:43] critical one. [43:44] >> Regardless of what school of thought [43:46] we're talking about. [43:47] >> And so, that is why in the end [43:50] >> Individual economic and financial [43:51] freedom is the foundation and [43:53] prerequisite for all other freedoms. [43:56] >> Mm. Don't just say, "I'm part of the [43:59] post-90s generation, I need to have my [44:02] own personality; we are the new [44:04] generation, modern people, and you post [44:06] -50s, 60s, and 70s are all too old, you [44:09] don't understand these rights and [44:11] freedoms." But if these young people [44:16] don't have their own way of achieving [44:18] financial and economic freedom, in the [44:20] end, they obviously have to do whatever [44:22] their parents want them to do. [44:26] Listening to your words, I still have [44:28] one question. For instance, I remember [44:31] Lin Yutang, back in the Republic of [44:33] China era, he praised China after [44:35] returning from the West. He felt that [44:38] while Western elderly people might end [44:40] up in nursing homes, nothing could [44:42] compare to the warmth of a Chinese [44:44] family where four generations live [44:46] together and a daughter-in-law has to [44:48] greet the elders. So, for example, as [44:50] you said, if your two daughters really [44:52] listen to your inner thoughts, then in [44:54] your old age you will indeed have [44:56] nurses taking care of you. Don't you [44:59] find that bleak? [45:02] >> Ah, so for everyone to truly achieve [45:04] this, one needs to do a lot of their [45:07] own... [45:09] >> Psychological. [45:10] >> Psychological adjustments and personal [45:12] reflection. Do I like the idea of my [45:14] daughters living with us today? Of [45:16] course, I certainly would. But I can't [45:20] do that, because they have their own [45:22] lives. They are still so young, with [45:25] decades or even a hundred years ahead [45:27] of them; how are they supposed to live? [45:31] I can't just say, according to my [45:33] preferences, you must forget who you [45:35] are, forget your own interests, forget [45:37] the kind of life you want to lead, and [45:40] just come here and follow the path I [45:42] think is best for you. This is [45:45] something I know many Chinese parents [45:47] are. [45:48] >> Very selfish, and they put in too [45:50] little effort [in that regard]. [45:52] >> Yes, that's very interesting. [45:53] >> Because I originally thought it was [45:55] just a difference in personality; I [45:56] thought some parents could truly manage [45:58] without needing their children's care, [46:00] but now hearing you say this, it's [46:01] actually that you are restraining [46:02] yourself from interfering. [46:03] >> Of course. Is that so? Because I— [46:06] because I—sometimes I see, for [46:07] example, in Europe, some elderly people [46:09] I see have very strong personalities, [46:12] like my mother-in-law, for instance; [46:14] she lives alone in a large house, and I [46:16] always assumed she really didn't need [46:18] us to take care of her. It’s not [46:20] really that; I’m just used to [46:21] foreigners. I have a friend who married [46:24] a French man, and his parents—or [46:26] rather, his in-laws—traveled a long [46:28] way for the holidays, driving two hours [46:30] to visit them. When they arrived and [46:33] opened the door, even to have a beer, [46:35] they would ask their son, "May I have a [46:37] beer?" It’s always like that; [46:39] there’s a sense of distance, though [46:41] perhaps that’s not entirely how they [46:43] feel deep down. As I just heard, and [46:45] it’s quite interesting, they do [46:46] sometimes envy the liveliness of the [46:48] Chinese people. Take square dancing, [46:50] for example; to them, it looks like, " [46:52] Wow, their evening life is so joyful." [46:54] >> They really like that. [46:55] >> That’s true. I’ve taken foreigners [46:57] to see square dancing in Beijing, and [46:59] they were so excited, saying, "Oh my [47:01] God, I want to join in." They even [47:03] asked me, "Can you let me out of the [47:04] car to go in?" I told them, "Are you [47:06] sure?" And they all backed away. But I [47:08] want to circle back to the fact that [47:10] sometimes it really comes down to [47:11] personality. Just as you mentioned, [47:14] there are boundaries; I’ve even met [47:16] parents who actually get annoyed when [47:18] their children come to visit. They feel [47:23] their life is just fine, and when the [47:25] kids say they want to come back for a [47:26] month, they think, "Oh my God, the [47:28] daughter-in-law or son-in-law is coming [47:30] ," and they find it troublesome to have [47:32] another person in the house. But others [47:38] are the complete opposite—they want [47:40] to control everything, even demanding [47:41] that you hand over all the money you [47:43] earn. Personalities really vary. But [47:47] what I want to say is that beyond the [47:49] differences caused by personality, [47:51] there are some institutional and [47:52] historical arrangements in human [47:54] history that I find quite unique. For [47:56] instance, why raise the next generation [47:58] ? Why respect the elderly and support [48:00] them in their old age? The elderly— [48:02] for example, China has revered the [48:03] elderly since ancient times, right? In [48:05] the past, sometimes only the elders [48:07] were allowed to eat meat. So, why did [48:09] they do that? Often, it’s because in [48:11] past societies, the accumulation of [48:13] knowledge was purely related to age. [48:15] Experience is wisdom, isn't it? [48:17] Knowledge is accumulated over time, so [48:19] the older you live, the wiser you are; [48:21] at the very least, the more knowledge [48:23] you possess. A think tank—they were [48:26] like a think tank. That’s why elders [48:28] are called elders; you rely on them to [48:30] solve many of the problems that arise [48:32] in our society or our families. But the [48:34] problem is, today that function has [48:35] been completely stripped away. Elders [48:37] aren't necessarily the wisest; they are [48:39] often the least tech-savvy, and they [48:40] don't always know how to use various [48:42] electronic devices. [48:43] >> Right, and their experience has become [48:45] meaningless. [48:45] >> In this situation, the objective value [48:47] of the elderly themselves is declining. [48:50] So, a question arises: could " [48:52] abandoning the elderly" happen again? [48:56] Could it re-emerge? To put it brutally, [48:58] throughout human history, there have [49:00] been societies where the value of [49:02] elders' experience wasn't important [49:03] because the environment was too harsh [49:05] and conditions too cruel, much like the [49:07] "Narayama" story. [49:09] >> So, their society developed a custom— [49:11] a practice that actually existed—of [49:13] carrying the elderly up a mountain. [49:15] >> To wait for death. [49:16] >> To wait for death. Let me interject [49:17] here: one night on the street, I heard [49:19] two people talking behind me, probably [49:21] two middle-aged or elderly women. They [49:23] were discussing this very thing—they [49:25] didn't know where they saw it—and [49:26] they asked, "Have you heard this story? [49:28] ""They say when people got old, they [49:30] would carry them up a mountain and let [49:31] them wait to die." [49:32] >> Then they added, "But do you know what? [49:34] " It was about a son and his father [49:35] carrying the grandfather up the [49:37] mountain, and on the way down, the son [49:39] said to his father, "When you get old, [49:40] I'll carry you up just like this." The [49:42] point is, don't think that just because [49:44] a society does that, you won't face [49:46] karma. Their traditions won't allow it; [49:48] our values still cannot accept your [49:49] so-called most economical arrangement. [49:52] >> Death is one thing, but there's also [49:54] the issue of elder care. Actually, like [49:57] Professor Chen said that day, many [49:59] problems today, when viewed from [50:00] another angle, show that society is [50:02] improving. Mm. [50:04] >> It's improving. People's needs—caring [50:06] for the elderly, providing a peaceful [50:09] end, fulfilling filial piety—and the [50:11] bonds between parents and children, all [50:13] these things... [50:15] >> How should I put it? For instance, I [50:18] feel that today's parents in China, [50:20] like Professor Qian Liqun from Peking [50:21] University, I've found that those like [50:23] you... [50:25] >> Who are well-educated and have their [50:26] own reading habits—who actually have [50:28] their own spiritual lives—can say, " [50:30] I'll go to a nursing home; I don't need [50:32] my children." Mm, it's fine, because [50:34] they can live their own lives. But you [50:37] know, what are many of the parents [50:39] around us like? When they reach their [50:43] twilight years, the only topic of [50:44] conversation for an old couple is you. [50:46] >> Right. [50:47] >> Nothing else. [50:48] >> They have nothing else independent. [50:49] >> There is nothing else in their world. [50:51] So, if they are bedridden and dependent [50:53] on each other, but don't see their [50:55] children for a long time, and you don't [50:57] even get a phone call—I mean, I [50:58] wouldn't even say a phone call, they [51:00] rarely call at all—then you could say [51:02] their physical needs are being met, but [51:04] what about their psychological needs? [51:07] >> Yes, yes, so, that's why, having lived [51:09] in the United States for so many years. [51:15] In the small town where I used to live, [51:17] I would drive past a nursing home every [51:19] day on my way to the office at Yale. [51:24] After passing it so often, I started [51:26] thinking that besides the financial [51:27] market, there needs to be a lot of [51:29] supporting infrastructure throughout [51:31] the social and economic sectors. [51:33] >> Right. [51:34] >> Every single link has to be in place; [51:36] otherwise, what we talk about regarding [51:38] moving away from "relying on children [51:40] for old age" is very difficult to [51:42] achieve. [51:43] >> So, in those nursing homes, there are [51:45] people living there who are eighty, [51:47] ninety, or even over a hundred years [51:49] old. Sometimes when I went in to take a [51:52] look, it seemed quite pitiful. So I [51:54] also thought, wow, if it were Chinese [51:55] parents, they certainly wouldn't be [51:57] able to accept this, and even now, many [51:59] people still can't accept it. Most of [52:01] them, I think, wouldn't want to. [52:04] >> But if you ask these elderly people, do [52:06] you think Americans don't want to see [52:08] their children, grandchildren, and [52:10] other relatives? Of course they do. [52:17] >> They all say they still miss them very [52:19] much, it's just that average Americans [52:21] understand that I am me. [52:25] >> My son and daughter are themselves. [52:28] >> They have their freedom, their rights, [52:30] and their own lives; I cannot impose my [52:32] own preferences or demands on them. So, [52:37] this is something that the whole [52:39] society, including culture—as we just [52:41] mentioned—needs to go through some [52:43] transformation and constant change. [52:47] People have to change, right? I mean, [52:49] from ancient times to modern times, are [52:51] people...... [52:52] >> becoming more and more heartless? [52:54] >> It's just that you can't be too [52:56] emotional. [52:58] >> On one hand, you could say that on the [53:00] surface it looks heartless, but in [53:02] reality, I think that respecting every [53:04] individual as a person represents [53:06] progress in society. Right, this is [53:11] different from ties based on kinship or [53:13] family; it is about the respect for [53:15] every individual citizen. But for [53:19] example, let's say a marital [53:20] relationship—as Wendao just mentioned [53:22] —back in the early days, it was also [53:24] a kind of family transaction or origin [53:26] of property. But by today, has that [53:30] reason disappeared? [53:32] >> Uh-huh. [53:33] >> It hasn't completely disappeared, it [53:35] hasn't completely disappeared. In fact, [53:41] regarding what Wendao just mentioned [53:43] about the early days of humanity, if we [53:45] look at it through the lens of marriage [53:48] , primitive societies—not just in [53:50] Asia, but in Europe and Africa as well [53:52] —were more akin to matriarchal [53:54] societies with polyandry. [54:00] >> Men were secondary, and women were the [54:02] most important. One of the main reasons [54:04] , of course, was that in primitive [54:06] societies, men had to go out to hunt. [54:08] >> Uh-huh. [54:10] >> Within a year, a quarter to a third of [54:12] the men would die. [54:14] >> Uh-huh. [54:18] >> So, in that kind of environment, if [54:20] descendants were defined by the [54:22] paternal line to determine whose child [54:24] it was, [54:29] >> in a society where many of these [54:31] children had a one-quarter to one-third [54:33] probability, Yeah. [54:35] >> of losing their father within a year, [54:37] who would be left to provide for them? [54:40] >> But because the mothers at that time [54:42] remained within the tribe, [54:46] >> doing light work, not going out to face [54:48] the life-threatening challenges of [54:50] hunting, they naturally became the [54:51] primary guardians of the children, [54:53] which greatly increased the probability [54:55] of continuity. However, once we entered [55:00] a settled agricultural society, [55:03] >> everything changed completely. Hmm. [55:05] >> Every agricultural society adopted this [55:08] >> patrilineal [55:09] >> or patrilocal system, more or less. [55:14] >> As a result, a widespread phenomenon of [55:16] polygynous marital relationships [55:18] emerged. [55:19] >> Of course, later on, after the advent [55:21] of industrial society, [55:23] >> Hmm. [55:24] >> in pre-industrial Christian societies, [55:26] monogamy eventually continued. So, this [55:30] is a change resulting from shifts in [55:32] industrial structure. [55:37] >> Looking at it from the perspective of [55:38] industrial structural shifts, the [55:40] changes in human marital relationships [55:42] and the power dynamics within families [55:43] are actually quite interesting. This [55:48] can also help us understand why Chinese [55:50] society today, which is undergoing a [55:52] digital transformation and shifting [55:54] further toward the service sector, will [55:56] actually see these things have a [55:58] significant impact on family [55:59] relationships. [56:00] >> Gradually, it will bring about major [56:02] changes. [56:03] >> Yes, this is why women's status in the [56:04] home is getting higher and higher. [56:06] Actually, not really. I think it's [56:08] possible that in many societies which [56:10] appear on the surface to be dominated [56:12] by patriarchy, women actually still [56:13] hold a fair amount of status within the [56:15] home. For example, you mentioned how it [56:17] eventually turned into polygyny. In the [56:19] Middle East, for instance, nomadic [56:21] tribes allowed men to take multiple [56:23] wives largely because war created so [56:25] many widows. Initially, it was about [56:27] providing for and integrating those [56:29] widows, so marriage systems are [56:30] basically just social arrangements. [56:32] Exactly, it’s about how, as a society [56:34] , you arrange for these people. Even in [56:37] those polygynous households, women [56:39] actually held quite a bit of status; [56:41] they were still in charge of managing [56:43] domestic affairs. Conversely, in some [56:46] societies that appear quite [56:48] gender-equal, women still face a very [56:50] severe glass ceiling outside the home, [56:52] like in the workplace. [56:54] >> True, I’ve heard from Chinese [56:55] business people who say that when they [56:57] go out to negotiate, they often find [56:59] that the other company is structured [57:01] like this: a male boss, [57:02] >> and that male boss isn’t necessarily [57:04] the smartest one. In fact, he’s often [57:06] not the brightest, but the female [57:08] assistant by his side, [57:09] >> that person is guaranteed to be the [57:11] sharpest. [57:11] >> They usually say that if I want to [57:13] discuss something, I have to talk to [57:15] the female deputy first. She remembers [57:17] everything and is extremely organized. [57:18] That’s the typical setup. [57:20] >> Yes, I’ve had that exact experience. [57:22] >> Let’s take a break for a commercial. [57:26] We’ll be back to chat more after [57:28] these messages from Ford Edge. [57:33] >> The high quality we present comes from [57:35] countless scientific simulation tests. [57:39] 2018 New Ford Edge, new achievements. [57:42] Ford, Go Further. Getting back to it, [57:46] social needs and the environment [57:48] naturally drive many institutional [57:50] changes. How we handle [57:57] intergenerational or gender [57:58] relationships is the same, but the [58:00] problem is, as society changes, what we [58:02] as individuals can usually do is just [58:04] adapt personally. I think that’s a [58:10] huge issue in today’s changing order. [58:13] I feel that in China, especially many [58:14] older and middle-aged people haven’t [58:16] made the necessary psychological [58:18] adjustments yet. [58:19] >> Mm. [58:20] >> Speaking of eldercare, in the future, [58:22] it’s very likely you’ll face the [58:24] possibility of moving into a nursing [58:26] home. But people in nursing homes need [58:28] to have the right mental preparation [58:29] for living there. So, what does this [58:32] mental preparation include? Take you, [58:34] for example, Professor Chen—perhaps [58:36] you and your spouse both have enough [58:37] mental fortitude, having your own lives [58:39] , just as you said, not basing your [58:41] existence on talking about your [58:43] children. Aside from that, what else [58:45] counts? Let’s not forget that there [58:47] is a huge difference between living in [58:48] a nursing home and aging at home. When [58:50] you age at home, you become [58:51] increasingly disconnected from society. [58:54] We see many elderly people, and I think [58:56] the most miserable thing is loneliness. [58:58] What is that loneliness? The longer [59:00] they live, the smaller their world [59:02] becomes, until eventually, they stop [59:04] leaving the house altogether. They stay [59:07] in their own small bedroom or area, but [59:09] a nursing home is the opposite; it's a [59:11] social environment. Hmm. [59:14] >> Do you possess that kind of capability, [59:16] personality, and social skill? At such [59:20] an old age, you still have to adapt to [59:21] people you didn't know before, [59:23] interacting with them every day. Take [59:25] my dad, for instance—it would be [59:27] impossible, because he is a very [59:29] introverted, very withdrawn person who [59:31] never even goes downstairs. [59:33] >> So for him, being in an environment [59:35] with strangers and having to socialize, [59:38] >> that would be like going to hell. Right [59:40] , so other situations arise. For [59:43] example, I’ve seen cases—not [59:45] exactly nursing homes, but some kind of [59:47] elderly residential dorms. Or senior [59:50] apartments, which are very popular in [59:52] Europe and America. How do they work? [59:54] They aren't full-blown nursing homes; [59:56] it's more like, say, if we were friends [59:58] , we might decide that when we get old, [60:00] we'll buy a few houses together and [60:02] live side by side. You're actually [60:05] living with a group of friends. We've [60:09] seen it—I often saw it in Switzerland [60:11] . [60:11] >> It can be quite miserable in those [60:13] places too. [60:13] >> Yes, of course, but I've seen some [60:15] hilarious ones. I’ve really seen a [60:17] dozen seniors in their seventies [60:19] driving off on a road trip together. [60:22] >> That was my question, and it turned out [60:23] they all lived in that kind of place, [60:25] or in a nursing home, and it can [60:27] actually work. [60:28] >> A few old guys sitting in rocking [60:30] chairs, saying, "I just leaked a few [60:32] drops."" [60:33] >> I’ve had to change my pants three [60:35] times today." For instance, I think [60:38] China has had these kinds of [60:39] arrangements since ancient times. Let [60:41] me use my ancestral home, Shunde in [60:44] Guangdong, as an example. We have some [60:46] customs in Shunde that are different [60:48] from other places. For one, we have a [60:51] type of person like "Sister Tao" from [60:53] the movie starring Deanie Ip—these [60:55] are called "Ma Jie." What were Ma Jie? [60:58] They were just like the helpers many [61:00] people hire for their homes nowadays. [61:03] >> Or like the domestic helpers in Hong [61:04] Kong, it's a profession. Back in my [61:08] hometown, this profession had a unique [61:10] characteristic: they typically chose [61:12] not to marry for life, so they were [61:14] known as "self-combed women." [61:21] >> They took a vow of celibacy for life, [61:22] never married, and stayed with the [61:24] families they worked for. However, they [61:30] maintained very close ties within their [61:32] group. They also had a custom where the [61:37] employers were obligated to provide [61:38] them with a sum of money to save. What [61:42] was this money for? When they got too [61:45] old to work, if their employer was kind [61:47] like "Young Master" Andy Lau, they [61:49] might be supported, which is great. But [61:52] if not, they had to retire. What would [61:54] they do then? They would use the money [61:56] they had saved up all those years to [61:57] buy a small house. Usually, the "Ma Jie [61:59] "—these maids—would buy them as a [62:02] group. And these houses were what we [62:03] called "spinster houses." [62:05] >> An entire row, an entire village was [62:07] like that. The whole village consisted [62:10] of retired elderly women looking out [62:12] for one another. They were a community, [62:14] right? [62:14] >> Yes, a community. [62:16] >> Actually, Professor Chen, I’ve been [62:18] thinking... [62:19] >> Yes, you mentioned the internet's [62:20] transformation of the service industry. [62:23] I'm wondering if it might allow the [62:24] elderly to play a new role. For example [62:27] , years ago I heard that in South Korea [62:29] , they had seniors doing what? [62:30] Delivering packages, because seniors [62:32] get half-price bus fares, and they have [62:34] plenty of time anyway. [62:36] >> And now in China, there are apps where [62:37] you can hire people specifically to [62:39] stand in line for you. [62:41] >> It’s like hiring them for [62:42] time-consuming tasks. Since young [62:44] people have no time and the elderly do, [62:46] could this drive a new role for them? [62:47] >> Delivering packages, though, I don't [62:49] believe that's the best option. [62:51] >> They definitely aren't riding bicycles, [62:53] right? They can barely walk steadily, [62:55] let alone carry so many things. But [62:58] what you said is also a possibility. [63:01] >> There should be better ways, I suppose. [63:06] I wasn't used to it at first, but in [63:08] Hong Kong, I saw so many men and women [63:10] in their 70s or 80s still driving taxis [63:13] , or... [63:16] >> Working in restaurants. In the US, this [63:18] is rare. Of course, I didn't understand [63:22] it before, but now I do. Hong Kong's [63:25] retirement and pension security is just [63:27] far too little. [63:29] >> Far too little. [63:30] >> So that's what forces them to... [63:33] >> So many people are forced to stop [63:35] talking about this topic. [63:37] >> Right, but would you say that shifts in [63:39] economic relationships lead to many [63:41] changes in traditional family dynamics? [63:45] For example, what you just mentioned [63:46] about daughters—is that a product of [63:48] a specific economic structure? [63:53] >> In other words, can we think of it this [63:55] way: human systems like family, [63:56] marriage, and kinship are not inherent [63:59] or divinely ordained. [64:00] >> Of course not, absolutely not, they are [64:02] constantly changing. [64:03] >> They are always evolving. [64:05] >> Always evolving. So, can we anticipate [64:07] what’s next? Professor Chen, do you [64:08] have any predictions? What will it [64:10] become? For example, regarding what you [64:12] just said. I’ll say something a bit [64:16] crude: I’ve always found that who [64:17] supports whom matters a lot. Between a [64:23] married couple, frankly, who earns more [64:25] money has a subtle, underlying impact. [64:28] For instance, we’re now seeing a [64:30] clear trend where, as you said, [64:32] women’s status is rising. At the same [64:35] time, we see that marriage is becoming [64:37] increasingly unstable. A colleague told [64:43] me the other day that the reason it’s [64:44] unstable is because in today’s [64:46] society, men don’t lack for sex and [64:48] women don’t lack for...well, how do [64:50] you think traditional marriage will [64:51] change in the future? [64:56] >> It will certainly undergo massive [64:58] changes; in fact, it already has. We [65:03] used to talk about it like in that [65:04] Huangmei opera, "The Heavenly Match": " [65:06] You till the fields and I weave; I [65:08] carry water and you tend the garden." [65:15] The meaning was clear: by getting [65:17] married, two people formed a company of [65:19] sorts—you played to your strengths, I [65:21] played to mine—so that through this [65:23] union, the output was much higher than [65:25] it would be individually. [65:31] >> However, those economic functions are [65:33] now being replaced by all sorts of [65:35] companies and institutions, so there's [65:37] no need to rely on marriage for that. [65:41] And there's one last crucial function: [65:43] the risk protection we mentioned [65:45] earlier, like caring for the elderly. [65:49] The risk protection for birth, old age, [65:51] sickness, and death—all of these are [65:53] increasingly being replaced by [65:54] financial markets and nursing care [65:56] industries. Ultimately, some might ask [66:00] if marriage is even necessary to [66:02] stabilize a sexual relationship. [66:08] Nowadays, many Chinese men and women [66:10] are asking, "Is it really necessary to [66:12] go through marriage to solve this?" [66:16] >> So, when you think about it in the end, [66:18] >> About what? Everyone, everyone [66:21] eventually realizes that you can only [66:23] really count on yourself. [66:27] >> Oh, so this brings us back to the [66:29] individual as an atom, exactly. [66:32] >> In the end, we are all just lonely [66:34] stars; I feel like everything [66:36] >> is drifting apart. [66:37] >> But I feel that the momentum of [66:38] traditional values is still very strong [66:40] . Sometimes, for instance, in families [66:43] where the woman earns more, from the [66:45] examples I've seen, it's rarely the [66:47] woman who ends up cheating; it's the [66:49] man who feels psychologically [66:50] unbalanced. [66:52] >> Mhm. [66:52] >> They’ll go look for an affair. [66:54] Perhaps that’s a bit much to say. [66:55] That statement is too absolute, but I [66:57] have personally seen such cases, which [66:59] is quite strange. I feel that in the [67:02] past, when we talked about dating or [67:04] marriage, we always said the most [67:06] important thing was the person's [67:07] character—a very pure kind of [67:09] relationship. We'd say it's wrong to [67:12] just look at a woman’s beauty or a [67:14] man’s wealth; you should only care [67:16] about their character. But today, [67:18] I’ve realized it doesn't seem to be [67:20] that way. [67:20] >> This isn't just about money, everyone; [67:22] it's the truth. [67:24] >> Yeah, I realized it too late. I’ve [67:27] found that in a family, a man—not [67:29] necessarily earning a fortune—but [67:30] having a decent job and a stable income [67:33] is crucial for family stability. [67:35] >> Uh-huh. [67:36] >> Because [67:36] >> it involves the man's own character, [67:38] integrity, and dignity. [67:40] >> Exactly, including his confidence. [67:43] >> But on the other hand, looking back at [67:45] family functions, if you look at human [67:47] history, especially over the last 100 [67:49] years, I feel it’s a history of [67:50] family functions being stripped away or [67:52] roles being continuously eroded. [67:56] >> Right, can you give an example? [68:00] >> In China 60 years ago, most people were [68:02] actually born at home. Born at home, [68:07] and in the past, children died at home [68:09] too. And back then, you didn't need to [68:12] go to kindergarten; you were educated [68:13] at home. [68:15] >> So, I ask you, how many people today [68:17] are born at home and die at home? You [68:19] are born in a hospital, then during [68:21] your early childhood, you are in [68:23] daycare or kindergarten. So the roles [68:25] within the entire family are constantly [68:27] shifting. The standards have been [68:28] raised. Oh. [68:30] >> If you get exposed one day, it’s all [68:32] over. [68:32] >> Yes, if you don't get exposed, then... [68:35] >> This really has an impact; for instance [68:37] , you used to eat McDonald's every day, [68:39] but you're afraid of being exposed. [68:41] >> There are many places you used to go [68:42] that you can no longer comfortably [68:44] visit. [68:44] >> Exactly, if it’s all lost, right? [68:47] Look at me. [68:48] >> I thought he meant a miscarriage. [68:51] >> It doesn’t matter, does it hurt you [68:53] to eat at a regular place? [68:55] >> I'd lose face. Being exposed, hey, look [68:57] at that. Does "face" count as a quality [69:00] requirement? Is this high-quality life [69:02] actually just about face, or... [69:05] >> It’s exactly what I call "the vibe." [69:10] Right, many people go to eat somewhere [69:12] knowing they are there for the vibe, [69:14] not just the environment. Simply put, [69:23] many catering training courses tell you [69:25] to exploit people's psychological [69:27] vulnerabilities. For example, why are [69:35] those restaurants so crowded? They’re [69:39] good for photos. [69:41] >> Oh, right. [69:42] >> It's perfect to bring a selfie stick [69:43] when you go to eat. [69:44] >> I notice now that on review sites, they [69:46] all label places as "good for photos." [69:48] >> Exactly. [69:49] >> Is that so? [69:52] >> The most interesting thing is that you [69:55] only spend 85 yuan but get the feeling [69:57] of a 250 yuan meal. [70:02] >> That’s it, they give people a very [70:04] clear psychological suggestion. So [70:12] sometimes when I attend forums for [70:14] colleagues in the catering industry, I [70:16] feel a bit saddened, realizing that " [70:18] catering" and "gastronomy" are moving [70:20] in two different directions. Just now [70:29] we talked about improving quality; [70:31] judging quality is an aesthetic process [70:33] . [70:36] >> Right. [70:37] >> Right, and improving quality is for the [70:39] other party to see me. [70:40] >> Hey, that’s also true, you’re right [70:42] . [70:43] >> This is something that works the other [70:45] way around. We often improve quality to [70:48] just the right level. Simply put, [70:51] reaching the level of McDonald’s. [70:53] That is the optimal point for [70:55] profitability. [70:56] >> Mhm. [70:56] >> The energy I invest, the staff I hire. [70:59] They are... [71:00] >> The time I spend. [71:01] >> They have calculated it carefully. [71:02] >> Yes. Repeatedly calculated; this is the [71:05] most suitable, this is how I can make [71:07] money. [71:08] >> To the limit. [71:10] >> But, for example, if I spend 50 yuan to [71:13] reach this 60-point level, and I spend [71:15] another 50 yuan to reach 65 points. [71:19] >> It just feels... [71:20] >> It only gets you to 65 points. [71:22] >> Ah. [71:23] >> It's often like this; this is the [71:25] hardship modern society brings us. [71:27] >> Standardization. Right. [71:28] >> It restricts your quality requirements [71:30] to a certain limit. [71:31] >> Only within this. [71:33] >> So for those with high standards, if [71:35] you want something worth 70, you have [71:37] to pay 200. [71:38] >> Hmm. [71:41] >> I often find that if I want better [71:42] quality, I might have to pay two or [71:44] three times as much, or even more. Once [71:55] you pass that optimal line you [71:56] mentioned, any further improvement [71:58] requires double the effort. [72:01] >> So you have to find something slightly [72:03] better without the price being several [72:05] times higher. A friend told me— [72:07] >> He said, this is the same—our [72:09] methodologies are the same. [72:12] >> When buying clothes, he said, look at [72:14] shops that just opened. He said, what [72:16] kind of shop? Shops opened by rich [72:19] second generations. Why? The materials [72:21] don't cost them money. That said, [72:24] regarding what you mentioned about [72:25] quality—everyone is particularly [72:27] anxious about this now. Why? If you [72:30] link quality to aesthetics, to beauty [72:32] and art education, all parents are [72:34] anxious now. Why? Art education has [72:37] been included in middle school entrance [72:38] exams, did you know? [72:39] >> Oh, really? [72:40] >> It didn't exist before. Right, now [72:42] middle school entrance exams include [72:44] this, so everyone is...what happened? [72:46] You found this to be beautiful? [72:49] >> This clumsy action isn't— [72:51] >> I thought he suddenly found this cup [72:53] beautiful. [72:53] >> That's a lack of quality. [72:55] >> You see, look at art museum exhibitions [72:57] now—wow, parents, whether they [72:59] understand or not, they sign up for [73:00] classes, they must learn, they take [73:02] their kids to see them. Even if they [73:04] don't get it, they line up for the kids [73:05] to see it. And then, they try every [73:07] possible way to improve this. And then [73:09] I— [73:09] >> Because it counts for points, right? [73:11] Not just that; everyone genuinely hopes [73:13] the next generation has this. Perhaps [73:16] the educational belief of our [73:17] generation is to let children know [73:19] about beauty and ugliness from a young [73:21] age, hoping they will have taste when [73:22] they grow up. [73:24] >> Our society and economy have developed [73:26] to this point, where everyone hopes the [73:28] next generation can distinguish beauty [73:30] from ugliness from a young age. [73:32] >> Many children I’ve seen can play the [73:34] piano, but I don't think they [73:35] understand music. They can paint, but I [73:38] don't think they appreciate art. I just [73:41] feel they don't understand aesthetics. [73:43] >> Is it a matter of the soul? The spirit [73:45] —one part is what is experienced [73:47] through the eyes, and the other is the [73:48] soul. I...I...lately I’ve been quite [73:50] moved by a Japanese animated series [73:52] that’s been around for years called* [73:55] Design Ah*. It gathered Japan's best [73:58] designers—half the industry—people [74:00] like Kenya Hara and Taku Satoh, all [74:02] involved in planning and designing the [74:04] content for this show. It’s an [74:06] animated series with many, many [74:08] episodes, each about ten minutes long, [74:10] showing how things are disassembled, [74:12] designed, and so on. The director, who [74:16] started this early on, said he wanted [74:18] to cultivate the designers of sixty [74:19] years from now. Sometimes we feel that [74:24] the top artists or the absolute best in [74:26] a certain field shouldn't be serving [74:27] children. I’m saying, can these top [74:31] artists and designers do things that [74:33] start from the very foundation, to help [74:35] things evolve gradually? But I think [74:39] you can offer advice on this, yet for [74:41] most people's lives—even young people [74:43] renting a room, maybe just a few square [74:45] meters, barely enough space to stand— [74:47] how should they pursue quality? Well, [74:52] reality might be very cruel, but I [74:54] think everyone has a desire for the [74:56] good. From this perspective, I feel [75:06] that living a quality life, once you [75:08] reach the stage of self-actualization, [75:10] doesn't really have much to do with [75:12] material life; a rich inner world is [75:14] enough. I’m often with colleagues, [75:25] and they ask, "What brand of car is [75:26] that?""Oh, that must be very expensive. [75:31] " Then they’ll say to me, "Wow, your [75:35] inner world is truly fulfilling." [75:40] Actually, it’s related to material [75:42] desire, and also about setting [75:43] standards for yourself. China is much [75:49] wealthier than it was 40 years ago, or [75:51] rather, the standard of living has [75:53] improved significantly. In the past, [75:59] the goal was to be full, to be [76:01] satisfied, to be content. Now, it’s [76:05] more about...Eating smaller portions [76:10] and eating refined food. People like [76:15] that, I feel, are in my life in large [76:17] numbers—they are generally people of [76:19] taste, not like us eating skewers every [76:21] day, that doesn't really... [76:25] >> Is eating skewers not having taste? It [76:27] doesn't count as a quality life. [76:30] >> To be honest, eating skewers...what you [76:32] eat isn't important. I feel that [76:35] sitting there with a stick in hand, [76:37] drinking, it just doesn't require being [76:39] particularly refined. [76:42] >> You mentioned hearing about some " [76:44] Skewer King" or something. [76:46] >> It seems its technical complexity is a [76:48] bit lower. [76:49] >> You see, it still comes down to the [76:50] level of technical complexity. [76:52] >> Exactly. [76:54] >> All dining is related to technical [76:56] complexity. That beef noodle shop [76:58] Professor Xu mentioned where people [77:00] line up. Mm-hmm. [77:03] >> They start stewing the beef the night [77:05] before, well before dawn. In the [77:09] morning, they cut it into chunks and [77:11] stew it again until it’s perfectly [77:12] tender, yet the chunks stay intact. [77:16] Then they use that beef broth for the [77:18] noodles. It’s not just hype; it’s [77:21] really about...... [77:22] >> investing effort into the craft. [77:25] >> No matter who visits or goes undercover [77:27] , it’s always like that. There’s [77:31] this talk of a bowl of beef noodles [77:32] made with beef from five different [77:34] places—like from Australia, Brazil, [77:36] and so on. [77:38] >> That’s definitely just storytelling. [77:40] >> That’s certainly just a story. [77:41] >> They’re just trying to fool you. [77:42] >> No, there were reports on it. [77:45] >> But I can’t taste which country’s [77:47] passport that beef holds. [77:48] >> I think what he just answered confirms [77:50] that this applies to all fields. [77:52] >> Mm. [77:53] >> Meaning, values aren't just [77:55] one-dimensional. Right. [77:58] >> I mean, you can eat at very expensive [78:00] restaurants; that’s one way. But we [78:02] see very realistic, great stuff. Right? [78:05] The kind common people line up for, [78:07] with great local character. [78:09] >> And there’s home cooking. [78:11] >> No one makes soup more heartfelt than [78:13] Mom. Of course, I’m sure there are [78:16] people in the comments saying, "My mom [78:18] doesn't make soup." [78:22] >> So, in reality, it’s not like [78:23] everyone has to follow this social [78:25] ladder......to pursue their own [78:27] happiness. Even if there are many [78:30] stories told, many brands, and lots of [78:32] stuff—it’s the same with clothing [78:34] and life, only housing is a bit harder. [78:38] >> But, Xiao Xin, let me ask you: back [78:39] when you were ten times poorer than you [78:42] are now, did you consider your life to [78:44] have "quality"? It had no quality. My [78:48] life now doesn't really have much [78:49] quality either, but I often spend time [78:51] with people who do. For example? [78:55] >> For instance, us. [78:57] >> Like you and your colleagues. But do [79:00] you feel that in the process of [79:01] pursuing quality, people are losing [79:03] something? [79:05] >> Mm. [79:07] >> Take twenty years ago at Dongsi Shitiao [79:09] Bridge, old Li would be grilling [79:11] skewers, drinking, and discussing [79:13] philosophical propositions—mentioning [79:15] names of thinkers whose books I’d [79:17] heard of but never read. [79:22] >> He was so incredibly happy back then. [79:27] Now he drinks very expensive wine. [79:30] >> Oh, really? Mm. [79:32] >> Yeah. [79:35] >> But you often notice he isn’t as [79:37] happy, or he’s become very picky, [79:38] saying things like this dish should be [79:40] a bit different. Back in Shenzhen, I [79:46] took you to that place, and he [79:48] evaluated the restaurant...The food [79:54] wasn’t bad, the cooking was decent. [79:58] But now he’s all about the plating [79:59] and everything; it’s all about the [80:01] atmosphere. This is what happens when [80:06] you pursue one thing, you might be [80:07] losing another. [80:10] >> Oh, you put that perfectly. When you [80:14] can't afford anything, the way you look [80:16] for a bowl of noodles in a certain [80:17] place is completely different. I think, [80:21] when you are searching for the [80:23] best-tasting bowl of noodles, that is [80:24] your character at that time. I think [80:27] even if you're poor at that moment, if [80:29] you have that spirit, you won't just [80:31] settle. You'll keep searching, and even [80:35] if it's just a five-dollar bowl, you [80:36] want to find the best one. That spirit [80:40] is a quality, and this quality changes [80:42] later on. For example, when you start [80:45] drinking $ 500 red wine, you lose the [80:47] joy you had when drinking $ 100 wine. [80:50] It's just like stand-up comedians; you [80:52] sacrifice the ability to laugh at many [80:54] simple jokes. [80:55] >> Because you've analyzed them all; you [80:57] aren't like us, we have a lower [80:58] threshold for laughter, you know? I [81:00] mean, what you're saying is so [81:02] interesting. I... [81:03] >> We get amused so easily, it happens so [81:05] fast. [81:06] >> I get it now. Do you know I've started [81:08] shopping online recently? I was really [81:10] late to discover this joy. I've heard [81:13] young people talk about it for ages, [81:14] but I've only just gotten hooked on it [81:16] lately. I feel like every day... [81:18] >> What are you looking for? [81:20] >> I'll tell you what I'm looking for. I'm [81:22] looking for Ru ware. [81:23] >> Oh. [81:24] >> Ceramics. [81:25] >> Mm. [81:26] >> I've bought some that cost over 20 yuan [81:28] . There are some for over 90, and some [81:30] for over 900. Since I don't know, I [81:32] don't understand. So, I only buy the 20 [81:34] -yuan ones. And oh, the joy of it, you [81:37] know? The photos, the descriptions, and [81:40] sometimes you can even contact the [81:41] seller directly. [81:43] >> You can ask questions. [81:45] >> Because right now, regarding ceramics [81:47] or Song dynasty ware, I don't know much [81:49] , and they are mostly replicas anyway. [81:52] So I just pick and choose among the 20- [81:54] yuan items, comparing the pictures, [81:56] checking them against each other. [81:59] Comparing the colors and shapes, [82:00] thinking this one is better than that, [82:02] maybe that bowl is a bit more reliable. [82:05] I really cherish this joy, my friend. [82:08] People like Master Ma are real experts [82:10] in ceramics. Mm. [82:15] >> I think in a few years, one day when my [82:17] taste has gradually improved, I’ll [82:19] look at these 20-yuan items as if they [82:21] were just broken shards of pottery. [82:25] >> That happiness won't be able to be [82:27] recreated. [82:28] >> The joy of these 20-yuan items today is [82:30] uniquely mine, precisely because I [82:32] don't know much yet, do you understand? [82:35] I don't know much about it, it just [82:37] looks nice displayed there. That's [82:39] exactly the logic he's talking about. [82:42] >> It means you have to want good food. [82:43] You have to not be afraid of the [82:45] trouble. Only then can you find good [82:47] food. People ask me how to improve [82:51] their food IQ, and I tell them to ask [82:53] me what to eat. I say the best way is [82:56] to learn from your mistakes. [82:58] >> Oh. After you've eaten a lot, hit many [83:03] pitfalls, and encountered many duds, [83:05] you gradually learn to just take one [83:06] look at a restaurant and know if it’s [83:08] any good. Another tip for the average [83:15] person on how to find good places: you [83:16] need to know a little bit of cooking [83:18] yourself. If you have some skills, [83:23] you'll know if it's done well or not. [83:26] Many people have no idea at all. [83:29] >> They just have to rely on the internet. [83:31] Right, right, right. And a lot of those [83:34] are just bought reviews. The fake [83:38] ratings, for instance, make it very [83:40] difficult. Another thing is to make [83:44] friends who know how to cook. I have a [83:48] friend who owns a Sichuan restaurant. [83:52] Every time we eat there, we think [83:54] it’s amazing and post it on Weibo, [83:56] but others go and say it’s not that [83:57] good. It’s because he isn't cooking [84:01] for them. [84:04] >> Right, he always tells us directly that [84:06] this isn't for sale. [84:08] >> This isn't on the menu. [84:11] >> Why does that sound like an antique [84:12] shop? [84:15] >> It means what we’re eating are [84:17] actually off-menu dishes. Qu