英文速読　中級-46

　In 1983, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief highlighted the debate through a clever comparison of humans and horses. For many decades, horse labor appeared unaffected by technological change. Even as railroads replaced the stagecoach and the Conestoga wagon, the U.S. horse population grew seemingly without end. The animals were vital not only on farms but also in the country’s rapidly growing urban centers.
　But then, with the introduction and spread of the powerful and efficient engine, the trend was rapidly reversed. As engines found their way into automobiles in the city and tractors in the countryside, horses became largely irrelevant. Then, the question is whether a similar outcome is possible for human labor. Are autonomous machines and supercomputers indicating a coming wave of technological progress that will finally sweep humans out of the economy? For Leontief, the answer is yes. However, he missed a number of important points. Humans, fortunately, are not horses and remain an important part of the economy.
　Alfred Marshall, a British economist, in his foundational 1890 book, Principles of Economics, said, “Human wants and desires are countless in number and very various in kind.” Ever since Marshall, people have linked unlimited wants to full employment. After all, who else but workers will be able to fulfill all those wants and desires? We humans are a deeply social species, and the desire for human connections carries over to our economic lives. We come together to appreciate human expression or ability when we attend plays and sporting events. Regular customers often visit particular restaurants, not only because of the food and drink, but because of the hospitality offered. In these cases, human interaction is central to the economic transaction, not incidental to it. Humans have economic wants that can be satisfied only by other humans, and that makes us deny that we will go the way of the horse.

　In 1983, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief highlighted the debate /through a clever comparison of humans and horses. For many decades, horse labor appeared unaffected /by technological change. Even as railroads replaced the stagecoach and the Conestoga wagon, the U.S. horse population grew seemingly without end.The animals were vital /not only on farms but also in the country’s rapidly growing urban centers.

　
　1983年に、ノーベル賞受賞経済学者ワシリー・レオンチェフはその議論を強調した、人間と馬の巧みな比較を通して。何十年もの間、馬の労働は影響を受けないように思われた、技術の変化によって。鉄道が駅馬車や幌馬車に取って代わった時でさえ、アメリカの馬の数は一見果てしなく増え続けるように思われた。動物は不可欠であった、農場だけでなく急激に成長しつつある都会の中心部においても。

　But then, with the introduction and spread of the powerful and efficient engine, the trend was rapidly reversed. As engines found their way /into automobiles in the city and tractors in the countryside, horses became largely irrelevant. Then, the question is /whether a similar outcome is possible for human labor. Are autonomous machines and supercomputers indicating a coming wave of technological progress /that will finally sweep humans out of the economy? For Leontief, the answer is yes. However, he missed a number of important points. Humans, fortunately, are not horses and remain an important part of the economy.

　しかしそれから、強力で効率的なエンジンの導入と普及とともに、風潮は急速に逆転した。エンジンが都市部で自動車に、地方でトラクターにたどり着いたとき、馬はほとんど無用なものになった。次に、問題は同様の結果が人間の労働にも可能かどうかという事だ。自律機械とスーパーコンピューターは来るべき技術
進歩の波を示しているのか、それは最終的に経済活動から人間を一掃してしまう。レオンチェフにとって、答えはYesであった。しかし彼は、多くの重要な点を見落としていた。人間は、幸いにも、馬ではないし、経済の重要な一部のままでいる。

　Alfred Marshall, a British economist, in his foundational 1890 book, Principles of Economics, said, “Human wants and desires are countless in number and very various in kind.” Ever since Marshall, people have linked unlimited wants to full employment. After all, who else but workers will be able to fulfill all those wants and desires?

　　アルフレッド・マーシャルは、イギリスの経済学者の、彼の基盤となる1890年の著書、「経済学原理」において、述べた、「人間の欲望と願望は数えきれないし種類も実に様々だ。」以来マーシャルずっと、人々は限りない欲望を結び付けた、完全雇用に。結局、労働者以外の誰が満たすことができるのか、彼らの欲望と願望を。

　We humans are a deeply social species, and the desire for human connections carries over to our economic lives. We come together /to appreciate human expression or ability /when we attend plays and sporting events. Regular customers often visit particular restaurants, not only because of the food and drink, but because of the hospitality offered. In these cases, human interaction is central to the economic transaction, not incidental to it. Humans have economic wants /that can be satisfied only by other humans, and that makes us deny that we will go the way of the horse.

　私たち人間は非常に社会的な種であるし、人とのつながりに対する願望は私たちの経済生活に持ち越されている。私たちは集まる、人間の表現や可能性を称賛するために、演劇やスポーツイベントに行くとき。常連客が特定のレストランをしばしば訪れるのは、食べ物や飲み物のためだけでなく、提供されるもてなしのためだ。このような場合では、人的交流は経済取引にとって中核であり、偶発的ではない。人間は経済的欲望を持っている、それは他の人間によってのみ満たされうる、そしてそれは私たちが馬と同じ道をたどるという事を否定させる。