Ameer Alhalbi | AFP | Getty Images
Syrian men carry a body on a stretcher amid the rubble of destroyed buildings following a reported air strike on the rebel-held neighbourhood of Al-Qatarji in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, on April 29, 2016.
Violence, globally, cost each individual on earth $1,876 in 2015, or 13.3 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), according to a new report by the Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP).
That's a staggering total of $13.6 trillion - the equivalent of 11 times the size of global foreign direct investment.
And in the last ten years, the economic impact of violence has cost the world $137 trillion, according to the index which was released this week. The cost includes money spent on the military, on private security in areas of violent conflict and on UN peacekeeping forces among other things.
Even more depressingly - there are just ten countries on the globe that are considered to be fully at peace: Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Japan, Mauritius, Panama, Qatar, Switzerland, Uruguay and Vietnam- which are all free from both internal and external conflict.
These rank differently to the world's most peaceful countries- in which Iceland ranks number one- but don't enjoy "absence of the fear of violence," explained Thom Morgan, IEP research fellow and one of the authors of the report, to CNBC.
Denmark, Austria, New Zealand and Portugal also rank among the world's most peaceful countries.
"They [the most peaceful countries] may have a small commitment to supporting Afghanistan or Syria, for example – whether it be peacekeeping or aid," said Morgan, on Thursday to CNBC, therefore not making them free of conflict.
Nearly 1 percent of the world's population are refugees and displaced persons. The figure has risen dramatically over the last decade, doubling to approximately 60 million people between 2007 and 2016. There are now nine countries with more than 10 percent of their population displaced in some form, including in Syria – the world's most dangerous country-
which has been "fairly consistent" in terms of ranking at the bottom of the index in the past few years, said Morgan.
However, over the past decade, both Syria and Libya are the list's biggest movers, having not been anywhere near the bottom of the list when the index was started ten years ago. Today, "no country comes close" to Syria's impact on the conflict scale, said Morgan, with 60 percent of its population refugees or displaced persons.
Europe, although once again considered the world's most peaceful region in the index, saw its score move down due to the attacks in Paris and Brussels and its involvement in wars in the Middle East. In fact, only 23 percent of countries listed have not experienced a recent terrorist incident.
The IEP also highlighted Brazil as a "striking" case, said Morgan.
The South American giant, which recently experienced a huge political upheaval, has dropped five places in the index, due to factors such as an "increase in political instability and rising incarceration rates," Morgan told CNBC.
The IEP also noticed a "growing inequality of peacefulness" in the index, said Morgan. The countries with strong peaceful indicators only became more peaceful, while the ones that experienced conflict, such as Syria, only seem to worsen.
Follow CNBC International on
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
To learn more about how we use your information, please read our您要找的是不是:
pron. 你；你们
$firstVoiceSent
- 来自原声例句
请问您想要如何调整此模块？
感谢您的反馈，我们会尽快进行适当修改！
请问您想要如何调整此模块？
感谢您的反馈，我们会尽快进行适当修改！「senseless violence 」如何翻译理解为妥？关于恐怖袭击的不同英文官方表述有何政治意义？
手机提问，请帮忙添加新闻背景。感谢。@美国驻华大使馆在发布了这样的微博美国谴责这一可怕且毫无意义的在昆明的暴力行为。我们向死难者的家人表示哀悼，并向所有被这场悲剧殃及的人们致以慰问。 “毫无意义的在昆明的暴力行为”引起了较大争议，但也有人认为这是“senseless violence”的中译，并无不妥。
先声明：1. 这件事情无论怎么讲，是美方做的不对；2. 美方真实态度我无从得知，也不在本回答的范畴内，我仅从字面来解读美使馆的微博。
首先我承认没有看到该微博谴责的英文原文，但是根据以往经验来看，“可怕且毫无意义的在昆明的暴力行为”的英文原文应该是
"horrible and senseless acts of violence in Kunming"。
如果事后证明他们用的词不是senseless，欢迎来打脸，我认了。
但是我有信心原文八九不离十，去google一下"condemn senseless
violence"就知道这几乎是标准的谴责模板，举几个例子：
奥巴马谴责美国驻利比亚大使被杀是"senseless violence"
美国谴责2013年5月在英国发生的针对退役军人的
"We stand with our UK allies in the face of such senseless
violence."
欧盟谴责（死亡191人，伤1800人）是 ferocious
and senseless
senseless这个词如果简单的翻译成中文，的确是有可能译成“无意义的”，但是在中文语境下，很容易引起误会——你说这是无意义的暴力，那么就是说换种方式也许就是有意义的暴力了？
但是结合前两则例子就知道不是这样，美国总不可能认为自己的大使被杀害也存在“有意义”的方式吧？
实际上在这个语境下，senseless强调的是不可能取得任何效果的杀戮，“不可能取得任何效果”，也并非建议暴徒换种方式，而是说你们希望通过暴行想要达到的目的是不会得逞的。
所以这个词在简单的翻译到中文时，就被悲剧的误读了，实际上如果翻译敏感些，可以把senseless
violence译成“愚蠢的暴行”，因为senseless在这个语境里就有foolish的意思
另外一点大家会觉得美国用“暴力行为”这个词程度太轻，前面说了，美国对针对本国和英国的袭击也用violence，并非厚此薄彼；同样，翻译如果中文稍好点，把“暴力行为”改成“暴行”就会让中文读者更容易接受。
至于为什么美国没有将其作为“恐怖袭击”来谴责，这的确是可商榷的地方。我的理解是他们准备谴责的措辞时，未必能确定这究竟是一起背后含有政治动机的恐怖袭击，还是一起大规模的刑事案件。对美国来说，恐怖袭击并不是以死亡人数多少来判定的，譬如2007年的，死亡人数33人，但事后并未被定性为恐怖袭击。当然，会不会是出于政治考量，不敢说没有。
但是无论怎样，这则发言的原本态度，是谴责暴行，对遇难人员表示深切哀悼，我相信英文原文是没有什么问题的，而且在这种针对平民进行残忍杀戮的大是大非上，美国没理由还想用言语刺激中国。
我只能说一则草率的翻译招致数万人的愤怒，实在是很悲剧的事情，而且主要责任在美方；一来翻译马虎缺乏斟酌，二来这条微博从昨晚到现在引来几万条批评（不少抨击来自平时满亲美的ID），可到现在居然连后续解释和澄清都没有。我估计美帝使馆老大换人之际，里里外外一团糟，这件事情没人认真管也没人负责，只是可惜了他们前几年在微博上辛辛苦苦用卖萌和教英语换来的亲民形象。
谢邀翻译部分我不回答，我只答政治意义部分。简单回答：用senseless violence是不妥的，但是不直接用terrorist attack也是可以理解的。展开来说：首先为什么说senseless violence是不妥的。因为它本身就是一个很有争议的说法——senseless的violence是负面表达的话，难道不senseless的violence就可以接受吗？这个说法本身就不太合适，容易激起听者的反感——你想，人家家人被砍死了，你去跟人讲说这帮暴徒的暴行实在是senseless啊，那不管你的翻译准不准确，哪怕受害人家属本身就是讲英语的，估计也要跟你急。为什么说不直接使用terrorist attack是可以理解的呢？关键是美国官方还不好给这个事情定性。9/11之后，“恐怖袭击”这个词在美国官方的语境里面就是非常敏感的，官方的发言里面，有没有用到“恐怖袭击”、和具体的表达方式，是能引发很大争议的。有多敏感呢？比如美国驻班加西使馆被袭击之后，奥巴马在白宫的演讲里面提到这个事情是“act of terror”，已经是说的很直白了。但是还是被批判了很久——“你为什么不说班加西的事情是terrorist attack？白宫是不是不认为大使被弄死这么严重的事情是恐怖袭击？”这个事情还被罗姆尼在总统选举辩论的时候拿出来说事——“班加西使馆被恐怖分子打了，你作为总统怎么不管这个事情叫terrorist attack？”你们看，抠字眼抠成这样。但是即使这么敏感，官方还是不会立刻就使用“恐怖袭击”这个字眼的，比如后来的波士顿马拉松爆炸案，奥巴马第一时间说辞也不是说恐怖袭击，之后等到调查深入并且有更多信息后，才使用了“act of terrorism”的说法：现在的情况和波士顿事发后很类似，嫌犯的信息不能确定。大陆官方可能有信息，但是没放出来，所以哪怕外界推测的和真实情况八九不离十，白宫还是不会愿意直接用terrorist attack这个说法的——用个senselss violence最多被吐吐口水，太早给事件定性，万一定错了那问题就要大多了。
我打赌原词用的是senseless violence。因为这种错误经常在媒体上看到，以前在译言甚至wsj中文版上就看到很多人这么翻译，出来原文的味道都没了。如果列出来最容易被曲解的翻译一定有这个词。这个用词基本上标准的外交辞令，在没有拿到美国政府定性的事件对于外交官或者政府发言人都会用这么一个词来说。而且这次措辞其实也蛮强硬的了。前面也有人提到了，美国对国内很多枪击案和他国的民间暴力行为经常使用这个词。senseless这个词的意思并不是经常表示「毫无意义」，如果在很多语境里面看到按照词的后缀都会这么认为，和meaningless其实很像，多数时候表达的意思是「愚蠢」、「愚昧」。我觉得比较适合的翻译是「愚昧无知的暴行」。所以这完全是一个翻译上的失败。
好吧，既然看到大家的答案中提到了这样一些看法1. “翻译的失败”2. 对伦敦那次也用的是“senseless"那么我就把当时每日电讯报对于Obama使用"senseless"的看法贴个链接大家可以看看当时英国人是怎么回应这个单词的
Senseless: (Especially of violent or wasteful action) without discernible meaning or purpose.我觉得这个词很准确地蔑视了恐怖分子。我想这是美使馆的意思。至于是否英文翻译过来的……“毫无意义” 这个词也很好地蔑视了恐怖分子用他们的生命换来的无意义的暴行，对他们所追求的理想、教义是毫无帮助，是无果的。这件事的重点其实并不在这四个字上。新浪微博将这条微博很便捷地推送到了每个新浪微博用户的手机里。这种推送是不可退订的。也就是说，我是被强迫看到这条消息的。并且它附带一个疑问句：“你怎么看？”新浪微博，我告诉你我怎么看。你只不过在高喊：“臣新浪接旨！～”你才不管什么中文英文呢，先误导了再说。本人长期居住在伦敦，也是个多次被恐怖袭击过的地方。Senseless 这种词常听到，没什么不妥。“毫无意义” 这种词无疑也是谴责匪徒的。如果你有另一种想法，well，何患无辞。谢 邀。
我真为知乎上有那么多XX感到震惊居然在讨论他们用的是什么单词，是什么意思人家美国大使馆就是用中文说的这句话好吗，根本没有英语原文好吗你们以为人家和你们一样不知道自己吃几碗干饭是吗？人家就是明确的说：“这是毫无意义的，但是不一定是错误的。”
都别争了，看看FP的一篇文章吧：里面提到美国大使馆的原文是“a senseless act of violence"So, you are the judge.
同意 关于senseless violence的政治意义的说法客观的说，外交无小事，在没有得到第一手确凿证据的情况下，外交辞令趋于保守也无可厚非，在一些敏感的政治问题上，使用模糊语言常常可以起到掩饰或回避的作用，参见： 3.2的微博Hugo Swire：“ Shocked to hear of serious knife attack in Kunming China. Thoughts with those injured and families of those killed."英国外交部国务大臣Hugo Swire：“听到中国昆明发生的严重的砍人事件我非常震惊。我的心与那些受害人及他们的家属们同在。”但美国驻华使馆的微博是用中文发出的，即便考虑到有可能是从英文直译过来的这种可能，这个直面中国广大网民的官方微博确实没能照顾到中国人民的感受，哪怕译为说成发生在昆明的丧心病狂的暴行也要好很多呀，何况，这条微博背后是否真有这么一段原始的英文依然不可考。事实上，美帝在senseless violence这个外交词汇上已饱受病垢，包括美国本土人民，甚至闹到了2012总统大选的政治辩论上。Why does President Barack Obama refuse to call the killing of our Libyan ambassador "murder"?BY , SEPTEMBER 19, 2012SHARE +1 SHARESThis past week, the United States commemorated the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With those memories fresh in our mind we were confronted with the news that our sovereign embassy in Egypt and consulate in Libya were attacked on the very day of one of America's greatest tragedies.The morning following the attack, President Barack Obama made a that has gone largely unexamined. Buried within his initial comments, Obama said the following: "While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."The president's statement is remarkable for both the sequence of the thoughts expressed and the careful wording of the remarks. Why does the president feel the obligation to soothe the feelings of the offended religious groups in the context of expressing condolences to the families of the individuals who have been killed?There is no moral equivalency between an alleged offense to religious sensibility and the murder of a U.S. diplomat. Our sovereign embassy and consulate were attacked on the anniversary of 9/11, and a U.S. ambassador and several staff members were executed. Neither the United States nor its diplomatic staff had anything to do with the alleged religious insult, and our outrage at the actions of the murderers should trump any effort to placate a religious insult committed by an amateurish film.While the sequencing of the president's thoughts is concerning, his remarks are more troubling when one pauses to examine how carefully they were worded. If one reads his comments more closely, the president does not actually condemn anyone for the ambassador's murder -- nor does he even call it "murder." The president blames the attack on the ambiguous and impersonal notion of "senseless violence" that somehow "took the lives" of our countrymen. Whom is Obama talking to? Does he believe that the American people accept the fact that the murder of an ambassador, a Foreign Service officer, and two U.S. security personnel on the anniversary of 9/11 were merely acts of "senseless violence"?Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the following shortly after the president's: "We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we've lost."There it is again. The culprit in this tragedy is not a radical terrorist ideology that seeks to harm America, but instead the soft, ambiguousvillain of "senseless violence." The use of this phrase by both the president and secretary of state is not accidental -- it's a reflection of the unwillingness of the administration to name our enemies.It is important to understand the context of how we have arrived at the current crossroads.Obama undertook a world peace tour before he was elected, and we were assured that his rhetorical skills would convince radicals of various stripes to lay down their arms -- North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, and the like. President George W. Bush was, after all, a warmonger. Obama would be able to persuade Pyongyang and Tehran to abandon their nuclear ambitions once he was able to convince them that he appreciated the fact that it was U.S. aggression that had forced these countries to acquire such weapons in the first place.Has the president's rhetoric convinced these regimes to abandon their weapons programs?After he was elected, the president traveled to Cairo and
to the Muslim world to persuade them that he understood the oppression of "colonialism" and the ill will that colonial policies had created around the globe. In the liberal mind, the United States was comp in fact, we are the chief purveyors of the post-colonial oppression that continues to this day. The president has gone to great lengths to empathize with the hardships experienced by religious groups that we have supposedly played a role in oppressing. His administration then celebrated as radical elements swept through Egypt and toppled an American ally. It is now clear that the Arab Spring was largely a revolt against the West and, at its core, against America.Has the president's empathy placated the aspirations of the radicals?In nearly four years as president, he has made two trips to the Middle East and has not once visited Israel -- America's most loyal ally in the region. On the contrary, the president has gone to great lengths to snub Israeli leaders at a time when Iran continues to threaten Israel with extinction. As late as this week, the White House indicated that the president is
the Israeli prime minister when he visits the United States in late September. I suppose an attack on Israel will be considered another act of "senseless violence."The president's reluctance to promote and project our values around the world is undoubtedly translated by both friends and foes as an admission that America lacks moral authority and is at least partially responsible for global injustice.We should not be ashamed of our values -- chief among them freedom of speech. For over two centuries, America has been a force for an expansion of human rights, women's rights, and religious rights around the globe. When our president appears confused about our own history, or worse yet embarrassed by it, then we are weakened and the world becomes a much more dangerous place.This week we grieve the deaths of our ambassador and members of his diplomatic staff. Our sovereign embassy and consulate have been breached. Peace through strength has evolved into appeasement through apology. America and the world are likely to experience continued acts of senseless violence until the president obtains moral clarity about the fact that his own nation is not obligated to console our enemies相比之下，英国大使馆官方微博所说的knife attack 砍人事件就相对中立，虽说没带任何感情色彩的直述看起来有点无情无义，但至少不会产生因毫无意义的暴力行为这种说辞所带来的各种歧义和联想。理性的看一下美国领事馆这条微博，这条以中文发布的微博虽然看上去似乎很有外交辞令的意味，但难以对愤慨的中国人民起到任何表达同情的作用，让人不禁产生各种想法的这些表述方式是否带有各种双重标的准意味也为未可知。回头看，奥巴马也是在米荣妮攻击两周后才说是act of terror，姑且可以认为是外交上有措辞不当会得罪利比亚的顾虑，但是，称此次板上钉钉已被政府定性的事件为暴力恐怖袭击难道也是害怕得罪谁吗？我也未能免俗的在猜测是不是在暗地里支持谁？CNN的新闻这条新闻几乎通篇都是援引中国记者的话语和中国媒体的报道，并未见体现其他主观意见和评论，看似中立客观。不过看上去也有很强的引用意味的标题，似乎也很碍眼，其他几篇类似的新闻也几乎是这个套路，总给人一种米国极不情愿这是一次恐怖袭击的感觉，包括人民日报炮轰的那一篇，怎么看怎么觉着CNN在玩文字游戏打擦边球，当然，这只是我个人主观感觉。这条新闻几乎通篇都是援引中国记者的话语和中国媒体的报道，并未见体现其他主观意见和评论，看似中立客观。不过看上去也有很强的引用意味的标题，似乎也很碍眼，其他几篇类似的新闻也几乎是这个套路，总给人一种米国极不情愿这是一次恐怖袭击的感觉，包括人民日报炮轰的那一篇，怎么看怎么觉着CNN在玩文字游戏打擦边球，当然，这只是我个人主观感觉。回到题目，senseless violence如何翻译理解为妥，我认为在昆明这次事件中翻译为丧心病狂的暴力袭击较为合适，至于原微博引起的争议，有玩文字游戏的可能，也有无意为之却被掉书袋的人过分解读的可能。总之，这条微博的受众是中国人，无论微博内容是否有对应的英文原文，理应在措辞时考虑到语言环境，照顾到中国人的情绪后再审慎发布内容，否则引起各种争议和不满是不可避免的。申明，本人非5M 也非美分党
-“不问是不是，就问为什么，统统都在耍流氓。”——知乎箴言我觉得大家预设的前提似乎并不一定成立。谁说美使馆用的词语就一定是senseless violence？或者退一万步来说，谁见过美国使馆所发表微博的英文原文？反正我没有见过。不但没有见过，我在美国国务院网站也没有见到在北京时间3月2日晚上9点之前，美国政府官方对于本事件的任何英文表态。谁见到了可以给个链接，除英文和中文外的语言也可，谢谢！那么回到题目来，如题所述，美使馆所发的微博是在3月2日晚上9点使用中文在新浪微博发布的。既然是中文发布的，那么我们自然可以，也应当按照中文的语言习惯来理解这条微博，不是么？那么按照中文的理解，将发生在昆明的骇人听闻的恐怖事件，称之为毫无意义，这无意是对每一个受害者，每一个因恐怖行径而深受影响的人的又一次侵害。不是么？即使怀着最大的善意去揣测发布这条微博者的心理和行为，那也只能理解为美国人的中文水平太差，而不是中国人的英文水平太差。-
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录英语应该这样说:情景口语话题荟萃 Chapter 27 Violence in Movies
扫描二维码方便学习和分享
http://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012
Violence in Movies
电影当中的暴力
David ： What do you think about violence in movies? 你对电影里的暴力镜头怎么看？
You ：I don&t like violent movies. They are not good for children. 我不喜欢暴力电影。暴力电影对孩子不好。
David ： Can you explain why? 为什么这样说呢？
You ：Some movies are harmful to children&s concepts of love and innocence. Since they are young and native, they may be moved to imitate the violence they see, which is surely harmful to their development. 一些暴力电影会损害小孩子的爱心和纯真。因为他们毕竟还很年幼不懂事。很可能在看了一些暴力镜头后会去模仿，这样对小孩子身心发展是极其有害的。
David ： I agree. In the United States, most movies are rated in order that people know if it is appropriate for children. The ratings include &G& which means for the general audience including children, &PG& which recommends parental guidance for children, &PG 13& which strongly recommends parental guidance for children under 13, and &R& which is for adults. 是这样的。在美国，电影都是分类的，这样大人能够分辨哪些是适合小孩子看的。这个分类主要包括： G 类，表示适合一般的观众，包括小孩； PG 类，表示建议父母带着孩子看； PG-13 表示 13 岁以下的小孩必须由父母带着看； R 类是只适合成年人看的片子。
You ：I see. So there are different ratings for different kinds of movies. There are different kinds of American movies, such as the action movies and violent movies you mentioned earlier. I don&t like these and I seldom watch them. 我明白了，不同的电影分类不同。正如你刚才所说的美国电影分很多类，诸如，动作片，暴力片等，但我不太喜欢此类片子，我也不常看。
David ： Do you know any violent movies? 那么你知道一些暴力片吗？
You ：I don&t know much about violent movies. I have just heard about them and watched a few, but I don&t watch them at all any more. 我知道的不多，只是听说过一些，曾经也看过一两部，但我以后再也不会看了。
David ： So you are not very interested in them? 你对它们不感兴趣？
You ：是的。我只了解我感兴趣的东西，而其他的，嗯 &&
David ：无可奉告？
You ：是的，无可奉告。
内容来自 听力课堂网：用手机学英语，请加听力课堂微信公众号：tingclass123
[报错与提意见]
订阅每日学英语：