I'm here to enlist you in helping reshape the story about how humans and other critters get things done. Here is the old story -- we've already heard a little bit about it: biology is war in which only the fiercest survive; businesses and nations succeed only by defeating, destroying and dominating competition;
今天我来这里号召大家 一起来重构人类及其他生物做事的方式。 这里先说说过去的老方式。这个我们已经知道了一些。 生物学是一场战争,只有最凶猛的生物可以生存。 生意场上、国家之间,只有击败、 摧毁对方,占据主导地位才能成功。
politics is about your side winning at all costs. But I think we can see the very beginnings of a new story beginning to emerge. It's a narrative spread across a number of different disciplines, in which cooperation, collective action and complex interdependencies play a more important role. And the central, but not all-important, role of competition and survival of the fittest shrinks just a little bit to make room.
政治就是不计代价为自己一方赢得胜利。 但我觉得我们看得到,一个新故事也渐渐开始上演。 这是个横跨很多不同领域的故事, 在这中间合作开放、协作行为及复杂的相互依存关系, 扮演着更加重要的角色。 它的中心部分,不再是完全由绝对重要的竞争和适者生存占据 它萎缩了一些,留出了一部分空间。
I started thinking about the relationship between communication, media and collective action when I wrote "Smart Mobs," and I found that when I finished the book, I kept thinking about it. In fact, if you look back, human communication media and the ways in which we organize socially have been co-evolving for quite a long time. Humans have lived for much, much longer than the approximately 10,000 years of settled agricultural civilization
当我开始写《聪明行动族》这本书时, 我开始思考沟通、媒体和集体行为三者间的关系。 我发现在写完书之后,我还是忍不住不停地去想。 事实上,当你回顾过去,人类沟通媒体 及我们的社会组织方式,都是共同演进了相当长一段时间的。 人类活在地球上的时间, 比起约一万年的定居农业文明要长得多。
in small family groups. Nomadic hunters bring down rabbits, gathering food. The form of wealth in those days was enough food to stay alive. But at some point, they banded together to hunt bigger game. And we don't know exactly how they did this, although they must have solved some collective action problems; it only makes sense that you can't hunt mastodons while you're fighting with the other groups.
以小家庭为组织的游牧猎人,射杀兔子,采集食物。 当时财富的形式是有足够的食物可以生存。 但在某个阶段这些家庭组织在一起,去捕捉更大的猎物。 我们不确定他们当时是如何做到的。 不过他们一定解决了某些集体行动上的问题。 当你猎杀乳齿象时, 不能和其他组织争斗,这样才说的通。
And again, we have no way of knowing, but it's clear that a new form of wealth must have emerged. More protein than a hunter's family could eat before it rotted. So that raised a social question that I believe must have driven new social forms. Did the people who ate that mastodon meat owe something to the hunters and their families? And if so, how did they make arrangements? Again, we can't know, but we can be pretty sure that some form of symbolic communication must have been involved.
不过,我们也无从得知, 但很显然,当时一定有某种新的财富模式产生了。 猎人家庭拥有了更多的蛋白质,等不到吃完就腐烂掉了。 这样就产生了一个社会问题, 而我相信这个问题推动了新的社会模式的产生。 那些吃乳齿象肉的人是否欠了 猎人和他们的家庭某些东西呢? 如果是这样,他们又是如何达成协议的呢? 同样的,我们无法得知,但我们可以确信, 其中一定包含某种象征性的沟通。
Of course, with agriculture came the first big civilizations, the first cities built of mud and brick, the first empires. And it was the administers of these empires who began hiring people to keep track of the wheat and sheep and wine that was owed and the taxes that was owed on them by making marks; marks on clay in that time.
当然,随着农业的发展,人类第一次迈向文明 出现了第一批泥土和砖块盖起来的城市以及第一个帝国。 正是这些帝国的掌权人, 开始雇佣人力,来记录别人欠下的麦子、羊以及葡萄酒。 还有他人欠的税款等。 当时他们通过在粘土上做记号来记录这些。
Not too much longer after that, the alphabet was invented. And this powerful tool was really reserved, for thousands of years, for the elite administrators (Laughter) who kept track of accounts for the empires. And then another communication technology enabled new media: the printing press came along, and within decades, millions of people became literate. And from literate populations, new forms of collective action emerged in the spheres of knowledge, religion and politics. We saw scientific revolutions, the Protestant Reformation, constitutional democracies possible where they had not been possible before. Not created by the printing press, but enabled by the collective action that emerges from literacy. And again, new forms of wealth emerged.
在那之后不久,人们就发明了字母表。 这个强有力的工具从此被保存了好几千年, 专门给那些帮帝国记账的精英管理者所使用。 然后,另一个新的沟通科技创造了新的媒体。 印刷厂出现了,在几十年内, 就有数以百万计的人懂得了读写。 而这些会读书写字的人们, 在知识、宗教、政治的领域里, 开创了新的集体行动的模式。 我们看见了科学革命,新教改革, 以及宪政民主等这些以前不可能的事物成为了可能。 这些不是由印刷媒体创造的, 而是文化所带动的集体行动中造就的。 此外,各种新的财富模式也兴起了。
Now, commerce is ancient. Markets are as old as the crossroads. But capitalism, as we know it, is only a few hundred years old, enabled by cooperative arrangements and technologies, such as the joint-stock ownership company, shared liability insurance, double-entry bookkeeping.
现如今开来,经济是古老的,市场跟十字路口一样老。 但就如我们所知,资本主义只有短短几百年而已, 它因合作和科技而得以实现, 例如合资股份公司, 共有责任保险及复式记账等。
Now of course, the enabling technologies are based on the Internet, and in the many-to-many era, every desktop is now a printing press, a broadcasting station, a community or a marketplace. Evolution is speeding up. More recently, that power is untethering and leaping off the desktops, and very, very quickly, we're going to see a significant proportion, if not the majority of the human race, walking around holding, carrying or wearing supercomputers linked at speeds greater than what we consider to be broadband today.
当然,现在的科技都以网络为基础。 在多对多沟通的时代,每个桌面电脑现在都成了印刷厂、 广播电台、社区或者市场。 革命还在加速进行。 近来,这种革命已经不再围绕台式机打转转了。 很快,我们将会看到一个占显著比例的一部分人,即使不是大多数, 将会拿着、揣着或戴着超级电脑走来走去, 这些电脑互相连接,而其连接速度 会比我们今天所知道的宽频还要快的多。
Now, when I started looking into collective action, the considerable literature on it is based on what sociologists call "social dilemmas." And there are a couple of mythic narratives of social dilemmas. I'm going to talk briefly about two of them: the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons.
当我开始研究集体行动时, 那可观的相关文献是基于被社会学家称为“社会困境”之上的。 关于社会困境有些虚构的描述。 我将简要地说明其中两项, 即囚犯困境以及共有财产的悲哀。
Now, when I talked about this with Kevin Kelly, he assured me that everybody in this audience pretty much knows the details of the prisoner's dilemma, so I'm just going to go over that very, very quickly. If you have more questions about it, ask Kevin Kelly later. (Laughter)
当我跟凯文·凯利聊起这些事时, 他向我保证在座的每位大概都知道 囚犯困境是怎么回事。 所以,我将很快速地重复一下。 如果你有更多的疑问,可以去问凯文·凯利,不过要等下。(笑)
The prisoner's dilemma is actually a story that's overlaid on a mathematical matrix that came out of the game theory in the early years of thinking about nuclear war: two players who couldn't trust each other. Let me just say that every unsecured transaction is a good example of a prisoner's dilemma. Person with the goods, person with the money, because they can't trust each other, are not going to exchange. Neither one wants to be the first one or they're going to get the sucker's payoff, but both lose, of course, because they don't get what they want. If they could only agree, if they could only turn a prisoner's dilemma into a different payoff matrix called an assurance game, they could proceed.
囚犯困境实际上是一个 叠加在数学矩阵之上的故事, 这个故事来源于早期对于核战争思考的游戏理论: 两个玩家无法信任彼此。 我们可以说,每个无担保的交易, 都是囚犯困境的好例子。 有商品的人和有钱的人, 因为无法信任彼此而无法进行交易。 没有人想迈出第一步, 因为这样他们就会吃亏。 当然,他们都会输,因为他们都得不到想要的东西, 只有当他们同意将囚犯困境 变成信任赛局的报酬矩阵时,他们才能进行下一步。
Twenty years ago, Robert Axelrod used the prisoner's dilemma as a probe of the biological question: if we are here because our ancestors were such fierce competitors, how does cooperation exist at all? He started a computer tournament for people to submit prisoner's dilemma strategies and discovered, much to his surprise, that a very, very simple strategy won -- it won the first tournament, and even after everyone knew it won, it won the second tournament -- that's known as tit for tat.
二十年前,罗伯特阿克塞罗德利用囚犯困境, 进行对生物问题的探索。 如果我们活在此地是因为我们的祖先都是强悍的竞争者, 那么合作又怎么可能存在呢? 阿克塞罗德开始了一个电脑竞赛 让人们针对囚犯困境,提交各自策略, 然后他意外的发现,其中最最简单的策略竟然赢了。 这个策略赢了第一场比赛,甚至在大家都知道这件事之后, 还赢了第二场竞赛。这个策略就是以牙还牙。
Another economic game that may not be as well known as the prisoner's dilemma is the ultimatum game, and it's also a very interesting probe of our assumptions about the way people make economic transactions. Here's how the game is played: there are two players; they've never played the game before, they will not play the game again, they don't know each other, and they are, in fact, in separate rooms. First player is offered a hundred dollars and is asked to propose a split: 50/50, 90/10, whatever that player wants to propose. The second player either accepts the split -- both players are paid and the game is over -- or rejects the split -- neither player is paid and the game is over.
另一个经济游戏可能不像囚犯困境那样广为人知, 这就是最后通牒游戏 这也是个关于人们 如何进行经济交易的有趣探索。 游戏是这样玩的。 有两个玩家, 双方都不没有玩过这游戏, 他们也不会再玩这个游戏。他们知道彼此是谁。 实际上,他们在不同的房间里。 给第一个玩家一百美元, 然后要求他做出分配:50/50,90/10。 随意怎么做都行。第二个玩家可以接受第一个玩家所提出的分配, 然后双方都获得金钱,游戏结束。 第二个玩家也可以拒绝这个分配,双方都拿不到钱,然后游戏结束。
Now, the fundamental basis of neoclassical economics would tell you it's irrational to reject a dollar because someone you don't know in another room is going to get 99. Yet in thousands of trials with American and European and Japanese students, a significant percentage would reject any offer that's not close to 50/50. And although they were screened and didn't know about the game and had never played the game before, proposers seemed to innately know this because the average proposal was surprisingly close to 50/50.
新古典派经济的基础会告诉你, 拒绝任何一美元都是不明智的, 因为某个陌生人在另一个房间里将得到99美元。 可是,在成千上万美国、欧洲以及日本学生的测试中, 有显著的比例的人会拒绝任何少于50/50的分配。 尽管玩家被隔离而且从来不知道这个游戏, 而且从前也从没玩过这个游戏, 提议的人似乎天生就知道这个结果, 因为提议的平均值令人意外的接近50/50。
Now, the interesting part comes in more recently when anthropologists began taking this game to other cultures and discovered, to their surprise, that slash-and-burn agriculturalists in the Amazon or nomadic pastoralists in Central Asia or a dozen different cultures -- each had radically different ideas of what is fair. Which suggests that instead of there being an innate sense of fairness, that somehow the basis of our economic transactions can be influenced by our social institutions, whether we know that or not.
有趣的部分是最近才知道的, 当人类学者将这些游戏带到其他文化去时, 他们惊讶的发现, 亚马逊的刀耕火种法的农耕民族, 或者是中亚的游牧民族,以及其他许多不同的文化—— 每个人对于公平都有极端不同的看法。 由此可见,与其说人类天生有对公平的共同观感, 倒不如说我们的经济交易基础 会被我们的社会制度所影响—— 无论我们是否意识到这点。
The other major narrative of social dilemmas is the tragedy of the commons. Garrett Hardin used it to talk about overpopulation in the late 1960s. He used the example of a common grazing area in which each person by simply maximizing their own flock led to overgrazing and the depletion of the resource. He had the rather gloomy conclusion that humans will inevitably despoil any common pool resource in which people cannot be restrained from using it.
另一个主要的社会困境就是共有财产的悲哀。 60年代末,加勒特·哈丁利用它来说明人口过剩的问题。 他例举某个共用畜牧的土地为例,在那里, 每个人只是简单的将他们畜牧的牛羊增加到最大值, 就会导致过度畜牧,资源耗尽。 他得出了令人沮丧的结论, 人类将无可避免的掠夺任何公有的资源, 因为人们无法克制不去使用它们。
Now, Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist, in 1990 asked the interesting question that any good scientist should ask, which is: is it really true that humans will always despoil commons? So she went out and looked at what data she could find. She looked at thousands of cases of humans sharing watersheds, forestry resources, fisheries, and discovered that yes, in case after case, humans destroyed the commons that they depended on. But she also found many instances in which people escaped the prisoner's dilemma; in fact, the tragedy of the commons is a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. And she said that people are only prisoners if they consider themselves to be. They escape by creating institutions for collective action. And she discovered, I think most interestingly, that among those institutions that worked, there were a number of common design principles, and those principles seem to be missing from those institutions that don't work.
奥斯特姆,政治科学家, 在1990年问了一个任何好的科学家都该问的有趣问题, 那就是,人类是否真的总会破坏公共资源呢? 于是她就想看下能找到什么样的数据。 她查看了几千个关于人们共用 水源、森林和渔业的个案,然后果然发现,各个案例都显示 人类真的会破坏他们所依赖的公有资源。 但是,她也发现,在许多情况下,人们逃出了囚犯困境。 事实上,共有财产的悲哀是一个多数玩家的囚犯困境。 她说,只有当人们觉得自己就是囚犯时,他们才会是囚犯。 人们通过制造集体行动的机制逃离困境。 我觉得最有趣的, 是她发现在所有可行的机制当中, 有几个通用的设计原则, 而这些原则看起来 在不可行的机制中是没有的。
I'm moving very quickly over a number of disciplines. In biology, the notions of symbiosis, group selection, evolutionary psychology are contested, to be sure. But there is really no longer any major debate over the fact that cooperative arrangements have moved from a peripheral role to a central role in biology, from the level of the cell to the level of the ecology. And again, our notions of individuals as economic beings have been overturned. Rational self-interest is not always the dominating factor. In fact, people will act to punish cheaters, even at a cost to themselves.
我将快速的谈谈几个领域。 在生物学中,共生的概念,群组选择, 以及演化心理学颇都是非常具有争议性的。 但是,关于生物学中 合作机制已经日渐重要这个事实,再不会有任何大的辩论, 从细胞到整个生态系统都是如此。 此外,这也颠覆了我们视个人为经济体 的概念。 理性的个人利益,并不总是占优势的因素。 实际上,人们会为了惩罚欺骗者而做出行动,哪怕会输掉他们自己的利益。
And most recently, neurophysiological measures have shown that people who punish cheaters in economic games show activity in the reward centers of their brain. Which led one scientist to declare that altruistic punishment may be the glue that holds societies together.
最近,神经生物学的测量显示 在经济游戏中惩罚欺骗者的人 脑部的酬劳中枢处于活跃状态。 这项发现让某位科学家宣称,利他的惩罚 也许是使社会连接在一起的粘合剂。
Now, I've been talking about how new forms of communication and new media in the past have helped create new economic forms. Commerce is ancient. Markets are very old. Capitalism is fairly recent; socialism emerged as a reaction to that. And yet we see very little talk about how the next form may be emerging. Jim Surowiecki briefly mentioned Yochai Benkler's paper about open source, pointing to a new form of production: peer-to-peer production. I simply want you to keep in mind that if in the past, new forms of cooperation enabled by new technologies create new forms of wealth, we may be moving into yet another economic form that is significantly different from previous ones.
我一直说新的沟通模式和新的媒体 在过去如何帮助塑造新的经济模式。 商业是古老的,市场是历史悠久的,资本主义是近代的。 而社会主义的崛起,则是对资本主义的回应。 但我们很少看到有人讲到下个模式将如何崛起。 詹姆斯·索诺维尔基简要的提到了约柴·本科勒教授关于开放源代码的论文, 论文中提出了一种新的生产模式——点对点的生产。 我只想要你们记住,如果在过去是新的科技促进了新的合作模式, 继而制造出新的财富形式, 我们也许正向另一个新的经济模式演进, 它与过去的模式相比有着显著的不同。
Very briefly, let's look at some businesses. IBM, as you know, HP, Sun -- some of the most fierce competitors in the IT world are open sourcing their software, are providing portfolios of patents for the commons. Eli Lilly -- in, again, the fiercely competitive pharmaceutical world -- has created a market for solutions for pharmaceutical problems. Toyota, instead of treating its suppliers as a marketplace, treats them as a network and trains them to produce better, even though they are also training them to produce better for their competitors. Now none of these companies are doing this out of altruism; they're doing it because they're learning that a certain kind of sharing is in their self-interest.
让我们很简要的看看几个企业,你们知道IBM、惠普以及SUN。 在IT产业中,他们最强的竞争者正将软件开源, 为公共经济提供专利的支持。 美国礼来公司在竞争激烈的药品世界里 创造了一个解决药品问题的市场。 丰田不再象对待市场一样对待供应商, 而是视他们为网络的一环并训练加强他们生产力, 尽管丰田知道这样一来竞争者也将因此获得更好的产品。 这些公司都不是为了利他主义而行动的。 他们做这些事都是因为 了解到在自我利益中含有某种程度的分享。
Open source production has shown us that world-class software, like Linux and Mozilla, can be created with neither the bureaucratic structure of the firm nor the incentives of the marketplace as we've known them. Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense. Amazon has opened its Application Programming Interface to 60,000 developers, countless Amazon shops. They're enriching others, not out of altruism but as a way of enriching themselves. eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma and created a market where none would have existed by creating a feedback mechanism that turns a prisoner's dilemma game into an assurance game.
开放自由软件的生产让我们看到世界级的软件,像Linux以及Mozilla, 但这些软件不能从公司的官僚结构中生产, 也无法从我们所知的市场诱因中产出。 谷歌使用AdSense丰富成千上万的博客,同时使自己富足。 亚马逊开放了自己的应用程序接口 给6万名开发者以及无数的亚马逊商店。 他们并不是出于利他主义而去做好事,而是当作一种充实自己的手段。 Ebay解决了囚犯困境, 创造了前所未有的市场。他们创造了一个回馈机制, 将囚犯困境变成了合作博弈。
Instead of, "Neither of us can trust each other, so we have to make suboptimal moves," it's, "You prove to me that you are trustworthy and I will cooperate." Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in 200 languages in just a couple of years.
原来是“我们彼此间不信任,所以我们不得不退而求其次”, 现在是“你必须先证明自己是可信任的,然后我才愿意合作”。 维基百科利用上万名志愿者来创造一个免费的百科全书, 在短短两年内就以200种语言完成了150万篇文章。
We've seen that ThinkCycle has enabled NGOs in developing countries to put up problems to be solved by design students around the world, including something that's being used for tsunami relief right now: it's a mechanism for rehydrating cholera victims that's so simple to use it, illiterates can be trained to use it. BitTorrent turns every downloader into an uploader, making the system more efficient the more it is used.
我们看到ThinkCycle让发展中国家的非政府组织 提出问题,由世界各地设计学科的学生来帮忙解决。 这包括现在海啸救援中所使用的东西。 这是用来为霍乱病患者 补充水分的简单装置,非常容易用,即使是不识字的人 也可以通过培训很快掌握使用。 BitTorrent将每个下载者变成上传者, 这让系统变得使用越多就越有效率。
Millions of people have contributed their desktop computers when they're not using them to link together through the Internet into supercomputing collectives that help solve the protein folding problem for medical researchers -- that's Folding@home at Stanford -- to crack codes, to search for life in outer space.
千百万人自愿贡献出他们的桌面电脑, 在自己不使用的时候,一起连接到网络 变成超级电脑集体的一份子。 比如用来协助医学研究员解决蛋白质褶皱的问题, 这是在丹佛大学的Folding@Home。 或者破解密码。或是在外太空寻找生命迹象。
I don't think we know enough yet. I don't think we've even begun to discover what the basic principles are, but I think we can begin to think about them. And I don't have enough time to talk about all of them, but think about self-interest. This is all about self-interest that adds up to more. In El Salvador, both sides that withdrew from their civil war took moves that had been proven to mirror a prisoner's dilemma strategy.
我认为我们知道的还远远不够。 我们甚至连最基本的原理是什么都还没有搞清楚。 但是我觉得我们可以开始思考这些问题。 而我没有足够的时间可以讲述所有东西。 但是想想利己主义吧。 这全是自我利益最大化的例子。 在萨尔外多的内战中,撤退的两方 所采取的行动,验证了囚犯困境的脱困策略。
In the U.S., in the Philippines, in Kenya, around the world, citizens have self-organized political protests and get out the vote campaigns using mobile devices and SMS. Is an Apollo Project of cooperation possible? A transdisciplinary study of cooperation? I believe that the payoff would be very big. I think we need to begin developing maps of this territory so that we can talk about it across disciplines. And I am not saying that understanding cooperation is going to cause us to be better people -- and sometimes people cooperate to do bad things -- but I will remind you that a few hundred years ago, people saw their loved ones die from diseases they thought were caused by sin or foreigners or evil spirits.
在美国,菲律宾,肯尼亚以及世界各地, 公民利用手机和短信 自己组织政治游行以及投票活动。 一个类似阿波罗登月计划的合作是否可能呢? 跨学科的研究合作是否可能呢? 我相信合作带来的活力会非常大。 我想我们需要开始为这新领地绘制地图, 这样我们可以跨领域进行讨论。 我并不是说了解了合作 会使我们变成更好的人。 有时候人们会一起合作做坏事。 但是你要知道,在几百年前, 人们看见自己亲爱的人死于疾病时, 认为那是由罪恶、外国人或者恶魔造成的。
Descartes said we need an entire new way of thinking. When the scientific method provided that new way of thinking and biology showed that microorganisms caused disease, suffering was alleviated. What forms of suffering could be alleviated, what forms of wealth could be created if we knew a little bit more about cooperation? I don't think that this transdisciplinary discourse is automatically going to happen; it's going to require effort. So I enlist you to help me get the cooperation project started. Thank you. (Applause)
笛卡尔说我们应该有一个全新的思考方式。 当科学带来了那个新的思考方式, 当生物学查出微生物是造成疾病的原因, 病人的痛苦减轻了。 什么样的痛苦可以得到减缓呢? 如果我们对合作了解的更多, 什么样的财富可以被创造呢? 我不认为这跨学科的对话 将会自动发生。 这将会需要努力。 因此,我在此号召大家来帮助我一起启动这个合作计划。 谢谢! (掌声)