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;
今天我來這裡徵募各位, 一同來協助改造人類與其他動物做事情的方式。 先講舊的方式,這個我們已經聽到了一些。 生物學是一場戰爭,只有最兇猛者可以生存。 商業及國家要成功, 唯有擊敗、消滅以及支配競爭對手。
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.
政治就是不擇手段要讓我方獲勝。 但是我想我們可以看見一個新的方式正開始興起。 這個方式在許多不同領域出現, 當中企業、群體行動和複雜的互存關係, 扮演著更重要的角色。 而競爭與適者生存,儘管扮演核心角色,卻不是至高無上, 它們的角色會縮小、讓位出來。
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
當我在寫《聰明行動族》這本書時,開始思考起溝通、媒體 及群體行動三者間的關係, 結果書寫完了,我還是不停地想。 事實上,當你回顧過去,人類的溝通媒體 及我們社會組織的方式,長久以來其實都是共同演進的。 人類的歷史非常悠久, 遠超過農業定居文明長約一萬年的歷史。
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.
以小家庭為單位的游牧獵人,獵殺兔子,採集食物。 當時的財富就是有足夠的食物可以生存。 但有一天這些家庭組織了起來,一起捕捉更大的獵物。 我們不確定他們當時是如何辦到的, 不過他們一定解決了某些群體行動的問題。 我們可以合理推斷,他們不可能一邊獵殺乳齒象, 一邊跟其他團體鬥爭。
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.
另外,雖然我們也無從得知, 但顯然當時一定出現了新的財富模式。 蛋白質多到一個獵人家庭無法在肉爛掉之前吃完。 因此產生了一個社會問題, 而我相信這問題推動了新的社會模式。 那些吃乳齒象肉的人是不是要給 獵人家庭某些東西呢? 如果是的話,他們又是如何達成協議的呢? 我們也無法得知,但可以很確定的是,其中一定包含某種 象徵性的溝通。
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.
當然,農業出現後,人類的第一波大型文明也出現了。 出現了第一批以泥土和磚塊建造的城市,第一批帝國。 這些帝國的掌權人, 開始雇人記錄別人欠下的麥子、羊、葡萄酒, 還有積欠的稅金, 當時記錄的方式是在黏土上做記號。
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.
不久之後,羅馬字母就被發明了。 有好幾千年的時間,這強大的工具都專屬於 幫帝國記帳的精英管理者。 然後,另一個新的溝通科技創造了新的媒體。 印刷機出現了,此後短短幾十年內, 就讓數以百萬計的人懂得讀寫。 而識字的人群 在知識、宗教、政治的領域裡, 孕育出新的群體行動模式。 我們看到科學革命、新教改革, 以及憲政民主。過去不可能的也成為可能。 這不是由印刷機創造出來的, 而是識字促成的集體行動所成就的。 各種新的財富模式再次興起。
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.
商業由來已久,市場的歷史跟十字路口一樣悠久。 但我們所了解的資本主義只有短短幾百年的歷史, 在合作規劃和科技的催生下出現。 例如合股公司, 共有責任保險及複式會計。
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.
當然,現在帶動發展的科技都以網路為基礎。 在多對多的時代,現在每個桌上型電腦都是印刷機、 廣播電台、社群或是市場。 革命正在加速進行。 近來這個力量開始從桌上型電腦轉向行動裝置。 很快地,我們將會看到很高比例的人,甚至是大多數人 或拿或提或穿著超級電腦四處行動, 連線的速度 比我們今天所謂的寬頻還要快。
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.
當我開始研究群體行動時, 大量相關文獻的基礎是社會學家所謂的社會困境。 關於社會困境有幾個虛構的情境。 我要談到其中兩個: 即囚犯的困境與共有財的悲哀。
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)
我跟凱文凱利聊起這些事的時候, 他跟我保證在座的每位大概都知道 囚犯困境是怎麼回事。 我就很快地帶過, 如果你有更多的疑問,等一下去問凱文凱利。
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.
囚犯困境其實是建構在 賽局理論中的一個數學矩陣。 用來探討早年核子戰爭 兩個玩家無法信任彼此的情境。 簡單來說,每個無擔保的交易, 都是囚犯困境的好例子。 一個人有貨物,一個人有錢, 因為彼此無法信任而無法進行交換。 沒有人想先交錢或交貨, 不然就成了冤大頭。 但這一來兩方都輸,因為他們都得不到想要的東西。 唯有當他們同意,將囚犯困境變成 所謂信任賽局的報酬矩陣時才能進行下一歩。
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,羅伯特阿克塞羅德利用囚犯困境 來探討生物學的問題: 如果我們今天能夠存在,是因為我們的祖先都是強悍的競爭者, 那麼怎麼還會有合作? 阿克塞羅德開始了一個電腦競賽, 讓大家投稿囚犯困境的策略, 出乎他意料之外,一個非常非常簡單的策略竟然贏了。 那策略贏了第一場比賽,甚至在大家都知道策略之後, 還贏了第二場競賽。那個策略就是以牙還牙。
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.
另一個經濟賽局可能不如囚犯困境廣為人知, 叫做最後通牒遊戲。 它也是很有趣的探討工具, 可以測試關於人類進行經濟交易的假設。 遊戲是這麼玩的,有兩個玩家, 雙方都從來沒玩過這遊戲, 以後也不會再玩。他們不知道彼此是誰, 而且兩人身在不同的房間裡。 第一個玩家有一百塊美金, 必須跟另一個玩家分,可以平分或90/10分, 他想怎麼提議都行。第二個玩家可以接受第一個玩家提議的分法, 雙方獲得金錢然後遊戲結束。 也可以拒絕分錢的方式,雙方都拿不到錢,然後遊戲結束。
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.
新古典派經濟的基礎 會告訴你,只因為另一個房間裡的陌生人會拿到99元, 就拒絕一元的提議是不理性的。 可是,在成千上萬美國、歐洲及日本學生的測試裡, 有顯著比例的人不接受接近平分的提議。 儘管玩家經過篩檢,以前從來沒聽過這個遊戲, 也從沒玩過, 提議的人似乎天生就知道這個結果, 因為令人意外的是,提議的平均值都很接近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.
而有趣的部分最近才出現, 人類學家把這遊戲帶到其他文化去, 結果驚訝地發現, 在亞馬遜過著刀耕火種生活的人, 或是中亞的游牧畜民,或其他十幾種不同的文化裡, 每個文化對公平都有極端不同的看法。 由此可見,與其說人類天生有個對公平的共同觀感, 我們的經濟交易基礎 是會被社會制度影響的, 無論我們是否意識到這件事。
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.
另一個主要的社會困境就是,共有財的悲哀。 60年代末美國生物學家哈丁利用它來說明,人口過剩。 他舉某個共用的放牧區為例, 每個人只要個人的牛羊數目增加到最大值, 就將會導致過度放牧與資源耗竭。 他的結論滿悲觀的, 那就是人類無可避免地將掠奪任何共有的資源。 因為人們無法克制不去使用它。
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.
政治科學家奧斯特姆 在1990年問了一個有趣問題,是所有好科學家都該問的, 人類是否真的總會破壞公共資源呢? 於是她去審視她能找到的所有資料。 她查看了好幾千個個案,像是人們共用水域、 森林及漁業資源,結果發現果然許多案例都顯示, 人類真破壞了賴以生存的共有資源。 但是,她也發現在許多情況下,人們逃出了囚犯困境, 事實上,共有財的悲哀就是一個多玩家的囚犯困境。 她說,如果人們覺得自己是囚犯,他們就會是囚犯。 要逃離困境靠的是創造群體行動的機制。 我覺得最有趣的是,她發現 這些可行的機制 有幾個共通的設計原則。 而那些原則似乎 是不可行機制所欠缺的。
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.
我要很快地談談幾個領域: 領生物學中的共生、群體天擇, 以及演化心理學確實有爭議性。 但是,合作機制在生物學上的角色已經從邊緣轉為核心, 這一點則已經沒有重大爭議了, 從細胞的層級到整個生態系,都是如此。 此外,我們將個人視為經濟個體的概念 也已經被推翻了。 理性的利己考量不完全是決定因素。 實際上,人們會為了懲罰欺騙者而行動,甚至不惜犧牲自己的利益。
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,神經生理學的實驗顯示, 在經濟遊戲中懲罰欺騙者的人, 腦部的酬償中樞處於活躍狀態。 這項發現讓一位科學家宣稱,利他的懲罰 也許就是維繫社會的力量。
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.
我剛才都在談新的溝通模式和新媒體 過去如何促成初新的經濟模式。 商業是古老的,市場也歷史悠久,資本主義是近代的。 而社會主義的崛起則是,對資本主義的回應。 但我們卻很少講到下個模式將如何興起。 吉姆索羅維基提到尤海班克勒教授對開放原始碼的論文, 指出一種新的生產模式:P2P點對點的生產。 我只希望大家記住,如果過去新的科技促進了新的合作模式, 繼而製造出新的財富形式, 我們也許正走向又一個新的經濟模式, 與過去截然不同。
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.
我們很快地來看看幾個企業。大家知道,IBM、HP、SUN... IT產業中一些最強的競爭者正在開放軟體原始碼, 正把專利組合開放共享。 禮來藥廠在競爭激烈的藥品世界裡, 創造了一個解決藥品問題的市場。 豐田不把供應商當市場看待, 而是把供應商視為網絡的一環,訓練加強他們的生產水準。 儘管豐田知道競爭者也將因此獲得更好的產品。 這些公司都不是為了利他而這麼做。 他們這麼做是因為他們開始了解到, 某種程度的分享是對自己有利的。
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.
開放軟體的生產讓我們看到世界級的軟體,像Linux及Mozilla, 可以不靠企業的官僚結構, 也無法從我們熟悉的市場誘因中產出。 Google用AdSense豐富成千上萬的部落客來使自己富足。 Amazon開放了自己的應用程式介面, 給六萬名開發者及無數的Amazon商店。 他們並不是爲利他而豐富他人,而是一種豐富他們自己的手段。 Ebay解決了囚犯困境創造了前所未見的市場, 透過製造一個回饋機制, 將囚犯困境變成了信任賽局。
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.
不再因為彼此的猜疑而做出不理想的選擇, 而是你必須證明自己的誠信度來讓我願意合作。 維基百科利用上萬名志工來創造一個免費的百科全書, 短短兩年內就以200種語言完成了150萬篇文章。
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.
我們看到ThinkCycle讓開發中國家的非政府組織, 上傳問題讓世界各地設計學科的學生來幫忙解決, 包括現在海嘯救援中所使用的東西。 用來爲霍亂病者 補充水分的簡單機制。 即使是不識字的也可被訓練成操作者。 BitTorrent將每個下載者變成上傳者, 讓系統變成使用愈多就愈有效率。
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.
千百萬人使用網路連結的時候, 都貢獻了自己的桌上型電腦, 變成超級電腦的集體, 協助醫學研究員解決蛋白質摺疊的問題。 協助史丹佛大學的Folding@Home, 破解密碼及在外太空尋找生命跡象。
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.
我認為我們知道的還遠遠不夠, 甚至我們連最基本的原理是什麼都還未搞清楚, 但是我們可以開始去思索這些問題。 而我沒有足夠的時間可以說明全部, 但是想想自我利益, 這全是關於累積自我利益來獲取更多。 在薩爾瓦多的內戰中,撤退的兩方 所採取的行動驗證了囚犯困境的脫困策略。
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.
在美國、菲律賓、肯亞及世界各地, 公民利用手機和SMS自己組織, 政治遊行及催票活動, 一個類似阿波羅登月計畫的合作是否可能呢? 跨學科的研究合作是否可能呢? 我相信帶來的獲利將非常地大。 我想我們需要開始為這新的領土規劃地圖, 讓我們可以跨越領域進行討論。 我並不是說了解合作行為, 將會使我們便成更好的人。 有時候人們會一起合作做壞事。 但是,讓我提醒你幾百年前, 人們看見自己親愛的人死於疾病時, 認為那是由罪惡或外國人或惡魔所造成的。
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)
迪卡兒說我們應該有一個全新的思考方式。 當科學帶來了那個新思考方式, 當生物學查出微生物是造成疾病的原因, 就減緩了病人的痛苦。 什麼樣的痛苦可以得到減緩呢? 什麼樣的財富可以被創造呢? 如果我們對合作了解得更多。 我不認為這跨學科的對話, 將會自動發生。 這將會需要努力。 因此,我在此招募大家來幫助我一起啟動這個合作計畫。 謝謝各位! (掌聲)