Letters are welcome via email to letters@economist.com Find out more about how we process your letter
欢迎通过电子邮件 letters@economist.com 来信。了解更多关于我们如何处理来信的信息。
The doctrine(学说；教义) of effective altruism tells charities to spend their money to produce the largest possible benefits (“The century’s biggest idea”, October 3rd). But a much bigger idea says that governments, too, should be doing just that(正是那样).
有效利他主义这一学说要求慈善机构把钱花在能产生最大效益的地方（见10月3日文章《本世纪最伟大的理念》）。但一个更宏大的理念认为，政府也应当这样做。
This idea is rapidly taking root. In Britain it is what the Treasury’s Green Book now adheres to(遵循；坚持). So when departments ask for money they have to estimate the benefits that the spending will produce and show how that compares with the cost to the taxpayer.(因此，各部门申请资金时，必须估算支出将带来的收益，并说明这些收益与纳税人所承担成本之间的对比关系。) And the benefits have to include not just increases in income but all those non-monetary(非货币的) things that make our lives worthwhile(让生活有价值); health, safe streets, a job and so on. All of these non-monetary things are to be evaluated in units of life satisfaction, before they are translated back into their monetary equivalents(等价物).
这一理念正在迅速扎根。在英国，财政部《绿皮书》如今遵循的正是这一理念。因此，各部门申请资金时，必须估算支出将带来的收益，并说明这些收益与纳税人所承担成本之间的对比关系。收益不仅包括收入的增长，还必须涵盖所有让我们的生活有价值的东西：健康、安全的街道、一份工作等等。所有这些非货币性收益都要先用“生活满意度”单位来衡量，然后再折算回相应的货币价值。
The moral impetus behind AI
人工智能背后的道德动力
A gig’s gigabyte memories
演唱会的千兆字节记忆
Sweet tooth, sour economy
嗜甜之口，酸涩经济