To measure welfare we would need a measure of changes in the need our output must satisfy. One aspect, population change, is now handled by converting output to a per capita basis on the assumption that, other things equal, twice as many people need twice as many goods and services to be equally well off. But an index of needs would also account for differences in the requirements for living as the population becomes more urbanized and suburbanized; for the changes in national defense requirements; and for changes in the effect of weather on our needs. The index would have to tell us the cost of meeting our needs in a base year compared with the most of meeting them equally well under the circumstances prevailing in every other year.

为了衡量福利状况, 我们需要一个尺度，以测量需满足的产品需求的变化。一方面，人口的变化，通过将产品转化成人均占有来处理，而这种方法是基于这样的假设，在其他各方面因素保持不变的情况下，人口变成2倍的话，则相应地所需要的产品和服务也变成2倍，（如果人口增加一倍，所需要的产品和服务也应该增加一倍），这样才能保证生活水平一致。但是需求指数也应该考虑以下因素：随着人口的城市化和郊区化，人们不同的生活要求；国防需要的变化；天气变化对我们的需求影响。这个指数必须告诉我们以某一年为基准，为满足我们的需求的所需的成本， 并以此与其他各年份在相同条件下满足我们需要的成本作比较。

In most people’s mind, growth is associated with prosperity. We judge how well the economy is doing by the size of the Gross National Product (GNP), a measure, supposedly, of growth. Equally axiomatic, however, is the notion that increased pressure on dwindling natural resources must inevitably lead to a decline in prosperity, especially when accompanied by a growth in population. So which is correct?

在大多数人看来，增长与繁荣是联系在一起的。我们判断经济运转状况如何是根据GNP国民生产总值的大小来判断，而GNP被认为是衡量增长的尺度。然而同样不言而喻的是，自然资源逐渐变少所带来的压力必将导致繁荣的下滑，尤其是伴随着人口的增长。（如果再给越来越少的自然资源施加压力，将肯定不可避免地影响繁荣发展—特别是在加上人口增长的因素）那么，哪种说法是对的呢？

è注意小词的到位处理/标点的灵活运用/中文的语言习惯

What growth advocates mean, primarily, when they say growth is necessary for prosperity is that growth is necessary for the smooth functioning of the economic system. In one arena the argument in favour of growth is particularly compelling and that is with regard to the Third World. To argue against growth, other than population growth, in light of third world poverty and degradation, seems callous. But is it? Could it be that growth, especially the growth of the wealthier countries, had contributed to the impoverishment, not the advancement, of the third world countries? If not, how do we account for the desperate straits these countries find themselves in today after a century of dedication to growth?

支持增长的人的主要的意思为：当他们说增长对繁荣是必要的时候，就是指增长对经济体制平稳运转是必要的。在一方面，支持增长的论点是强势的（特别具有说服力），尤其是涉及到第三世界国家。根据（考虑到）第三世界的贫困和落后，对除去人口增长以外的增长表示反对，似乎有些无情（如果对除了人口增长以外的增长表示反对）。但是这样的吗？增长—尤其是富有国家的增长，是否可以贡献给（导致了）第三世界的贫困而不是进步？如果不是这样的话，那么我们将如何解释（这些国家）在致力于一个世纪的增长后（增长一个世纪后），这些国家发现他们今天仍然是处在极度窘迫的处境里？

To see how this might be the case we must look at the impact of growth on third world counties—the reality, not the abstract stages-of-economic-growth theory advocated through rose-colored glasses by academicians of the developed world. What good is growth to the people of the third world if it means the conversion of peasant farms into mechanized argi-businesses producing commodities not for local consumption but for export, if it means the stripping of their land of its mineral and other natural treasures to the benefit of foreign investors and a handful of their local collaborators, if it means the assumption of a rushing foreign indebtedness, the proceeds of which goes not into the development of the country but into the purchase of expensive cars and the buying of luxurious residences in Miami?

为了说明为什么情况可能如此，我们必须要看经济增长对第三世界的影响—是事实，而不是发达国家学者们透过玫瑰色眼镜（乐观地）所主张的抽象的经济增长阶段性理论。如果增长以为这将农民的农田转换成机械化的农产品企业，不是为了当地消费而是为了出口所生产商品，如果增长意味着从他们的土地上剥夺矿物及其他自然资源以让外国投资者及一小搓当地合作者获利，如果增长意味着大量海外债务，而这些债务的收入并不是用于国家的发展，而是用来购买昂贵的汽车、在迈阿密买毫宅，那这些对第三世界的人民又带来什么好处呢？è注意排比句的翻译，抓住主题词，然后根据中文语言习惯各分句句首均体现

Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. But the point, I believe, remains valid: that growth in underdeveloped countries cannot simply be judged in the abstract; it must be judged based on the true nature of growth in these societies, on who benefits and who is harmed, on where growth is leading these people and where it has left them. When considered in this way, it just might be that in the present context growth is more detrimental to the well-being of the wretched on the earth than beneficial.

诚然，这种说法过于简单化。但是我认为，这个论点依旧有效：不能对欠发达国家的增长仅仅做抽象的判断，必须基于这些国家增长的性质，到底谁收益了，谁受害了，而增长又会领导这里的人民去向何方，又将他们置于于何处。当以这个角度考虑时，就目前的形式看，也许增长给地球上的不幸的人带来的是害处而并非获益。（从这个角度来看，在目前形式下，增长也许给地球上不幸的人们带来的与其说是益处，不如说是害处）

So, do we need growth for prosperity? Only the adoption of zero growth can provide the answer. But that is a test not easily undertaken. Modern economies are incredibly complex phenomena, a tribute to man’s ability to organize and a challenge to his ability to understanding. Anything that affects their functioning, such as a policy of zero growth, should not be proposed without a wary prudence and a self-doubting humility. But if the prospect of leaping into the economic unknown is fear-inspiring, equally so is the prospect of letting that fear prevent us from acting when the failure to act could mean untold misery for future generations and perhaps environmental catastrophes which threaten our very existence. 

那么，我们还需要用增长来保持繁荣吗？只有采取零增长才能找到答案。但这不是一个容易做的试验。现代经济是一个非常复杂的现象，人类的组织能力和认知能力的挑战已证明此论点。任何影响其运行，比如零增长政策，都应该非常小心谨慎。但是如果进入经济的未知领域将令人惊恐，同样可怕的是让这种惊恐阻止了我们去采取行动，那时这些失误可能意味着未来几代人要经受的无法预测（无法言喻）的苦难，也可能是威胁到我们所生存的环境灾难。