主题：【原创】炮打工业党：《论工业社会及其未来》 -- 万年看客

TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM

与自由的渴望相比，技术是更为强大的社会力量

125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise. Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.

125，在技术与自由之间不可能实现持久的妥协，因为技术是远远更为强大的社会力量，它将通过不断的强迫妥协来侵蚀自由。请想像两个邻居争地的案例，开始时两人各有一块同样大小的地皮，但其中一个比另一个强有力，强的那一个要占对方一块地，弱的那一个拒绝了。强的说“那好吧，让我们妥协，给我原先要的那块地的一半就行。”弱的没办法，只能让步。过了一些时候，那个强的邻居又要另一块地，然后又妥协，直这样妥协下去。通过一系列强加于弱者的妥协，强者最后占了他所有的地。在技术与自由的冲突中，情况也是一样。

126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.

126，请允许我们解释一下为什么与自由的渴望相比技术是更为强大的社会力量。

127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

127，一开始看上去并不威胁自由的技术进步往往会在日后极大地威胁自由。以机动车辆交通为例。从前步行者可以去任何他想去的地方，可以按照自己的步调行走，不用遵守任何交通规则，不依靠任何技术支持系统。机动车刚刚出现时好像增加了人的自由的。它们没有夺去步行的人的自由，任何人只想要不想买汽车就可以不买，而买了汽车的人则可以比步行者走得快得多。但是机械化运输很快就改变了社会并大大地限制了人的移动自由。当汽车多起来了之后，大规模地管制它们的使用就变为必需了。开上汽车之后，特别是在人口密集的地区，人们不能按照自己的步调去自己想去的地方，人们的移动为车流和各种各样的交通法规所限。人们将为各种各样的义务所累：牌照、驾驶员考试、更换注册、保险、安全维修、每月付车款，等等。尤其是人们不再拥有选择是否使用机动车辆交通的自由。自从有了机动车辆交通，我们的城市的布局已有了很大改变：大多数人的居所已不在其工作场所、购物区和娱乐区的步行距离之内，因而他们不得不依赖汽车交通或者必须使用公共交通。这时他们对自己的移动的控制更少于自己开车。甚至步行者的自由也变到了很大限制。在城市里，他要不断地停下来等待为汽车交通而设计的红绿灯。在乡下，机动车交通也使得沿高速公路行走变得危险而难受。（注意我们在机动车案例中阐述的重要论点：一项新技术刚开始往往是以一种备选的面目出现的，作为个人可以接受也可以不接受，但它不一定停留在备选的位置上。在许多情况下，新技术会改变社会，最后人们会发现他们自己将要被强制去使用它）

128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).

l28，尽管技术进步作为整体不断压缩我们的自由空间，但是每一项新的技术进步单独考虑都是可取的。电、室内上下水管道、快速远距离通讯……一个人怎么能反对这些东西呢？怎么能反对数不清的技术进步呢？正是这些技术进步造就了现代社会。例如，反对电活实在是荒唐的，因为电话带来的全是方便而没有任何不便。然而，正如我们在59-79段中解释的那样，所有的技术进步汇总到一起就创造出了这样一个世界.在这个世界中，普通人的命运不再掌握在他自己

或他的邻居朋友手中，而是掌握在政客，公司主管及遥远的、不知其名的技术人员和官僚手中，而对这些人他是没有任何影响力的。[21] 这一过程将在未来继续下去。以遗传工程为例。很少人会反对消灭某种遗传疾病的遗传技术。它没有任何明显的害处，却能消除大量的痛苦。而大量对于人类的遗传改进汇总到一起则会把人变成设计制造的产品而不是随机性（或上帝，或其他什么，取决于你的信仰）的创造物。

[21]. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we will illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils the game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves.

The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.

【21】许多人都觉得许多好东西合到起就会变成坏东西是一个有悖常理的想法，因此我们将用一个类比来说明。假设A先生与B先生下棋，而C先生是一位特级大师，站在A先生后面看棋。A先生当然想赢，于是C先生给他支了一步好招，他是在帮A先生。但现在假设C先生告诉A先生这盘棋的全部下法，情况会如何呢？在两种情况下，C先生都是给A先生支好招来帮他，但如采他替A先生走完这盘棋，他就等于把这盘棋搅了，因为如果有其他人替他走棋，A先生还下个什么劲呢？现代人的处境十分似于A先生。体系在无数方面都方便了个人的生活，但这样它就剥夺了个人对于自己命运的控制

129 Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

129，技术之所以是如此强有力的社会力量的另一个理由是，在给定社会的条件下技术进步只会不可逆地朝一个方向前进。只要某项技术发明被引进，人们就往往会对其产生依赖，除非它被某种更先进的发明所取代。人们不仅仅作为个人依赖这项新技术。甚至体系作为一个整体都会依赖它。（例如请想像一下，如果没有了计算机，今天的体系会怎么样）因此，体系只能朝向更加技术化的方向移动。在不至于颠覆整个技术体系的前提下，技术将会不断地逼迫自由后退。

130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long different social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.

130，技术的进步十分迅速并在许多方面威胁自由（拥挤、规章制度、个人对于大型组织越发严重的依赖、宣传与其他心理学技术、遗传工程、通过监视设备和计算机侵犯隐私，等等），阻挡任柯一项对于自由的威胁都需要一场单独的社会斗争。那些想要保卫自由的人会被无数的新攻势及其发展速度所压倒，他们会变得微不足道并停止抵抗。分别反击这些威胁是无效的。只有把技术体系作为一个整体来反击才有成功的希望，但这就是革命而不是改革了。

131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.

131,，技术人员（我们在此取这个名词的广义定义来描述所有那些执行需要培训的专门任务的人）往往如此投入自己的工作（他们的替代活动），以至于当他们的技术工作和自由之间发生冲突时，他们几乎总是决定以技术工作为先。对于科学家来说这是显而易见的，但这种情况也出现在其他地方：教育机构、人道主义团体与环保组织都会毫不犹豫地使用宣传或其他心理手段以便他们实现其值得称道的目的。公司和政府机构发现个人信息很有用之后，也会毫不犹豫地进行采集而丝毫不考虑隐私问题。执法机构经常因为犯罪嫌疑人与完全无辜者的宪法权利感到不便，于是他们采取了一切合法（或非法）手段以限制或规避这些权利。大多数教育工作者，政府官员和执法人员相信自由、隐私和宪法权利，但是当这些观念与他们的工作相冲突时，他们通常会觉得自己的工作更重要。

132. It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technilogiccal invasions of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome, consequently there are a few who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technological progress, most would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system.

132，众所周知，人们在追求报偿时比起在避免惩罚或不良后果时工作得更好、更坚持不懈。科学家和其他技术人员主要是为了报偿而工作，但那些抵抗技术对于自由的侵犯的人们却是为了避免不良后果而工作。因此，只有很少的人能够坚持不懈并且全心投入地从事这项令人泄气的工作。如果改革者的确获得了明面上的显著胜利，设立了防止技术进步进一步侵蚀自由的坚固屏障，那么大多数人都会松懈下来并把注意力转向更为惬意的追求。但科学家会仍旧留在他们的实验室里忙活，而技术随着自身的进步会找到办法绕过任何屏障，将越来越多的控制加于个人头上，使他们越来越依赖于体系。

133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.

133，无论是法律、机构、习惯还是伦理规范，任何社会安排都不可能提供永久的保护来防止技术的侵害。历史表明，所有的社会安排都是短暂的，它们最后都会改变或崩坏。但是技术进步在给定的文明的背景下却是永久的。例如假设我们能够作出防止遗传工程应用于人类，或是防止其威胁自由与尊严的某种社会安排，技术仍会等在那里。迟早这种社会安排会崩坏，多半很快就会崩坏，因为我们的社会变化是如此之快。这时，遗传工程就会开始入侵我们的自由领域，而这种入侵却是不可逆的（除非技术文明本身崩坏）。任何通过社会安排获得持久成果的幻想都会被最近在环境立法中发生的事情所打破。几年以前，我们似乎已经有了一些牢靠的法律屏障，至少可以防止某些最坏的环境退化。但是政坛风向一变，这些屏障也就崩溃了。

134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.

134，所有前述理由说明，技术是比自由的渴望更强大的社会力量。但需要对这一陈述作一个重要的限定：在未来几十年中，由于经济和环境问题，特别是由于人类行为的问题（异化、反叛、敌意，许多社会和心理困难），工业-技术体系很可能会承受严重的压力。我们希望体系多半要

经历的这种压力会引发其崩溃，或至少起到足够的削削弱作用，使得革命能够发生并获得成功，那时，自由的渴望将证明自己比技术更强大。

135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.

135，在第125段中，我们使用了一个被其强邻通过一系列强制性妥协抢走了所有土地，最后一无所有的弱邻的比喻。但是，假设强邻病了，不能保卫自己了，弱邻就可以迫使其归还自己的土地或在有机会时将其杀死。同样，我们在工业体系患病时将其摧毁。如果我们与其妥协，给它从病中恢复的机会，它将最终剥夺我们所有的自由。