尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
A reader gets in touch with a quibble. I wrote last month about the profusion of Michelin stars among restaurants that serve the (once-patronised) food of India, China and Nigeria. I’d connected this to the story of our times: the seepage of power and prestige from the west and its allies. Their cuisines used to hog the Guide, as their economies used to hog world GDP.
一位讀者就一個細節問題與我聯繫。我上個月寫了一篇關於米其林(Michelin)星級氾濫的文章，這些餐廳提供的是印度、中國和奈及利亞（曾被輕視的）美食。我將這與我們這個時代的故事聯繫起來：權力和聲望從西方及其盟友中滲透出去。他們的美食曾經在《米其林指南》中佔據主導地位，正如他們的經濟曾經主導世界國內生產總值(GDP)一樣。
The Michelin trend is real enough, said this informed reader. In London. Elsewhere, even in cities of general open-mindedness, the Euro-Japanese grip on the finest end of fine dining hasn’t budged.
這位訊息靈通的讀者表示，米其林的趨勢確實存在，在倫敦尤爲明顯。然而在其他地方，即便是思想較爲開放的城市，歐洲和日本在高階餐飲領域的主導地位依然牢不可破。
I could counter-quibble, but not much. Instead, the email set off a broader thought. Why, in a growing world, can so few cities make a plausible claim to contain everything?
我可以就一些小問題提出反駁，但並不多。相反，這封電子郵件引發了我更廣泛的思考。爲什麼在一個不斷發展的世界中，只有極少數城市能夠看似合理地聲稱自己擁有一切？
The global population has doubled over the past 50 years to 8bn. Our species now produces over $100 trillion of output per annum in current prices. And this stuff sloshes around with an ease that was unknown in the middle of the last century. Thanks to shipping containers, successive tariff-cutting rounds and the mutation of once-communist countries into prolific exporters, almost anything can get almost anywhere. So, albeit with more friction, can people. Migrants constitute a larger share of the world’s population than in 1960.
過去50年間，全球人口翻了一番，達到80億。按當前價格計算，我們人類現在每年生產超過100兆美元的產品。而這些產品的流通之便捷，在上世紀中葉還是聞所未聞的。得益於海運集裝箱、連續幾輪關稅削減以及曾經的共產主義國家轉變爲多產出口國，幾乎任何東西都可以到達幾乎任何地方。人也一樣，儘管會有更多的摩擦。與1960年相比，移民在世界人口中所佔的比例更大。
Given all this, there should be a multitude of what I am going to call “total cities”. A total city is one in which a person can find almost literally anything: any cuisine, at low, middle and extortionate price points; any art form, exhibited or performed to world-class standard; any language spoken, not in scattered households but in communities of appreciable size. If you are dating in a total city, you might go out with someone from each continent in one calendar year without pausing to notice the fact. (I grant that Antarctica requires work.)
鑑於這一切，應該有大量我所稱之爲「綜合城市」。綜合城市是指一個人幾乎可以找到任何東西的城市：任何菜系，以低、中、高昂的價格點；任何藝術形式，以世界級水準展示或表演；任何語言，不是在零散的家庭中，而是在可觀規模的社區中使用。如果你在一個綜合城市約會，你可能在一個日曆年內與來自每個大洲的人約會，而不會注意到這個事實。
As soon as cities outside of London and New York are named, arguments kick off. Paris? I’d include it. Others wouldn’t. Tokyo?
一提到倫敦和紐約以外的城市，爭論就開始了。巴黎？我會包括它。其他人可能不會。東京？
In an 8bn world, there should be lots of cities that readers agree are total. Instead, well, would it take more than one hand to count them off? Would you get past the index finger before starting a fight among ourselves? As soon as cities outside of London and New York are named, arguments kick off. Paris? I’d include it. Others wouldn’t. Tokyo? Not heterogeneous enough for some. Dubai? You can eat almost anything, meet almost anyone but not yet see a Vermeer on a whim. Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Sydney, Bangkok, Toronto: each incurs dissent. Is the number of cities who meet the criteria much higher than when the world held 4bn souls?
在一個80億人口的世界中，應該有很多城市被讀者認爲是全面(total)的。然而，除了倫敦和紐約，你能一隻手數得過來嗎？你能在開始爭吵之前數到食指嗎？一旦提到倫敦和紐約以外的城市，爭論就開始了。巴黎？我會包括它。其他人可能不會。東京？對於一些人來說，它的多樣性還不夠。杜拜？你幾乎可以喫到任何東西，見到幾乎任何人，但還不能隨心所欲地看到一幅弗美爾畫作。洛杉磯、香港、孟買、雪梨、曼谷、多倫多：每個城市都引起了爭議。符合這些標準的城市數量比40億人口時高嗎？
Now, a few disclaimers. I don’t suggest “total” means “better”. Houston, with its abundance and range of migrants, and no lack of art, has a stronger claim to total-ness than most European capitals. You can still favour Rome, though. Total needn’t even mean good. The average person doesn’t become, as I do, a claustrophobic diva when denied immediate access to everything (“I can’t believe there are just four Uzbek-Galician wine bars in this dump”) or the ambient sound of foreign voices. As various elections over the past decade have shown, wanting the world on one’s doorstep isn’t a universal taste.
現在，有幾點免責聲明。我並不認爲「全面」意味著「更好」。休斯頓，憑藉其豐富和多樣的移民人口，以及不缺乏藝術，比大多數歐洲首都更有資格成爲全面之城。儘管如此，你仍然可以偏愛羅馬。全面甚至不一定意味著好。普通人不會像我一樣，在無法立即接觸到一切事物（「我不敢相信在這個破地方只有四家烏茲別克-加利西亞葡萄酒吧」）或無法聽到外國聲音的環境中變成幽閉恐懼症患者。正如過去十年的各種選舉所表明的那樣，想在家門口就能享受世界並不是一種普遍的口味。
It is strange, though, that the world can grow and grow while the agreed-upon world cities remain more or less consistent. True, some things, such as access to visual art, are naturally constrained. Canonical paintings are few, and one in the Met is one that can’t at the same time be in the São Paulo Museum of Art. But most things that make urban life great are, as economists put it, non-rivalrous.
然而，奇怪的是，儘管世界在不斷發展，公認的世界城市卻或多或少保持不變。的確，某些事物，例如接觸視覺藝術，自然是受限的。經典的繪畫作品很少，而大都會藝術博物館中的一幅畫作不可能同時出現在聖保羅藝術博物館。但正如經濟學家所指出的，大多數使城市生活美好的事物是非競爭性的。
We are left with a puzzle, then. In the end, a total city relies on three things: raw numbers of people (nearer 10mn than 5mn, I suggest), openness (a foreign-born share of perhaps a third), and enough wealth to sustain all those amenities. It follows that a world that has undergone steep population growth, mass migration and steady enrichment throughout my life should have thrown up, I don’t know, a dozen or so uncontested total cities by now. Instead, consensus falls apart after one or two. Given the present reversals of globalisation, it is conceivable that no one reading this will live to see another.
那麼我們面臨一個謎題。最終，一個全面的城市依賴於三個因素：人口數量（我建議接近1000萬而不是500萬），開放性（外國出生人口占比約三分之一），以及足夠的財富來維持所有這些設施。由此可見，在我一生中，經歷了人口激增、大規模移民和持續富裕的世界，現在應該已經出現了十幾個無爭議的全面城市。然而，事實上，在提出一兩個公認的全面城市之後，共識就會瓦解。考慮到當前全球化的逆轉，可以想像沒有人在閱讀這篇文章時會活到看到另一個全面城市的出現。
Email Janan at janan.ganesh@ft.com
給嘉南發電子郵件janan.ganesh@ft.com
Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend on Instagram and X, and subscribe to our podcast Life & Art wherever you listen