This transmission is for future generations. As it stands, a small sliver of humanity is currently imposing their visions on the rest of us. They invest in space travel and AI superintelligence and underground bunkers, while casting health care and housing for all as outlandish and unimaginable. These futurists let their own imaginations run wild when it comes to bending material and digital realities, but their visions grow limp when it comes to transforming our social reality so that everyone has the chance to live a good and meaningful life.
這個是要傳送給未來世代的。 現在的狀況是,有一小撮的人 目前正在將他們的遠景 強加在我們其他人身上。 他們投資太空旅行及人工超級智慧 和地下保壘, 卻把全民醫療保健 和居住正義視為很離奇 且無法想像的事。 說到彎曲物質和數位實境時, 這些未來主義者充分發揮 他們天馬行空的想像力; 但說到改善我們社會的現實面, 讓每個人都有機會過著 美好且有意義的生活時, 他們的想像力卻乏善可陳。
We are in many ways trapped inside the lopsided imagination of those who monopolize power and resources to benefit the few at the expense of the many. And as I see it, there are two stories these monopolists sell us about what the future holds.
在許多層面上,我們都被困在 那些人的偏差想像中, 那些人獨佔權力和資源, 讓少數人受益, 卻由多數人付出代價。 在我看來,這些壟斷者 會向我們銷售兩種故事, 關於未來的故事。
The first is the Silicon Valley version, in which all our preferences are tracked and desires catered to. Chatbots, virtual assistants, driverless cars at our beck and call. All our wants and needs met in an instant. This is their utopia, where technology is our savior, a future where our automated offspring know us better than we know ourselves. Ease and convenience, just a click away. And in their wildest dreams, we merge with technology, optimizing our potential to be stronger, smarter, superhuman.
第一種是矽谷版,在這種故事中 我們所有的偏好都會被追蹤, 所有的慾望都會被迎合。 聊天機器人、虛擬助理、 無人駕駛汽車,供我們差遣。 我們所有的慾望和需求 都能立即獲得滿足。 這是他們的烏托邦, 在這裡,科技是我們的救世主, 在這個未來,我們這些 自動化產物對我們的了解 更勝於我們對自己的了解。 輕鬆且便利,點一下即可。 在他們最瘋狂的夢想中, 我們與科技融合後, 會讓我們的潛力優化到極致, 讓我們更強壯、更聰明、超乎常人。
The other story, preferred by Hollywood, is grittier, more chaotic. Conflict and competition run rampant. It's "Hunger Games" meets "Blade Runner" meets "The Matrix." People are ruthless and unpredictable. Inequality and precarity are permanent features in our lives. In this dystopian vision, technology is our slayer, displacing and dominating humanity.
另一種故事則是好萊塢偏愛的 故事,它比較寫實,比較混亂。 衝突和競爭猖獗。 就像是《飢餓遊戲》遇見 《銀翼殺手》遇見《駭客任務》。 人很無情且不可預測。 我們的生活永遠脫離不了 不平等和不穩定性。 在這種反烏托邦的遠景中, 科技是屠宰我們的殺手, 取代人類,主宰人類。
And while these sound like opposing narratives, they have different endings for sure, one in which we're saved, one in which we're slayed, they actually share an underlying logic. And in both, we give up power. Both stories assume technology is in the driver's seat, propelled by a will of its own. In the utopic and dystopic stories, technology impacts us for better or worse. But our impact on technology, the human inputs, shall we say, are missing. The values, assumptions, interests and needs that shape our digital and physical worlds are nowhere to be seen. To move forward, we have to pull back the screen. Rather than agonizing about a coming dystopia or longing for a future utopia, we have to reckon with ustopia.
雖然這兩種故事聽起來 像是相反的說法, 它們的結局肯定不同, 一個結局是我們被拯救了, 另一個是我們被屠殺了, 但它們背後的邏輯卻相同。 兩種故事都說我們放棄了自己的權力。 兩種故事都假設科技掌控了一切, 由它自己的意志力所驅動。 在烏托邦和反烏托邦的故事中, 科技會影響我們, 讓我們更好或更糟。 但是我們對科技的影響, 也可以說是「人類的輸入」, 卻不見了。 那些形塑我們數位和實體世界的 價值觀、假設、益趣和需求, 也看不到了。 要向前邁進, 我們必須把螢幕拉回來。 與其煩惱即將到來的 反烏托邦或渴望未來的烏托邦, 我們該想想 「吾托邦」 亦即「我們托邦」。
Ustopia is a word I'm borrowing from Margaret Atwood to describe the fact that the future is us. However loathsome or loving we are, so will we be. Whereas utopias are the stuff of dreams, dystopias, the stuff of nightmares, ustopias are what we create together when we're wide awake. Ustopias invite us into a collective imagination in which we still have tensions, but where everyone has what they need to thrive.
我們托邦這個詞是我向 瑪格麗特‧艾特伍借用的, 她用這個詞來表達: 事實上未來就是我們。 無論我們有多可憎或可愛, 我們將來就會是我們的樣子。 烏托邦是一堆美夢, 反烏托邦是一堆惡夢, 而我們托邦 則是我們很清醒時共同創造出來的。 在我們托邦邀請我們 進入的集體想像中, 我們仍然有緊張局勢, 但每個人都有他們成功 所需要的一切。
When I was a grad student at UC Berkeley in the early 2000s, I witnessed firsthand how innovation often deepens social inequity. As the tech sector grew, people who had lived in the Bay area for generations were displaced and discarded. At the time, I was researching the social dimensions of biotechnology. As I observed scientists growing heart cells using pluripotent stem cells beating in a petri dish, I thought about how hard it is to grow empathy for other human beings in our everyday lives. Here were billions of dollars being poured into the future of medicine, but health care for all was somehow far-fetched. This is what I mean by a lopsided imagination, where we can imagine regenerating sick bodies but not an ailing body politic.
2000 年代初我在加州大學 柏克萊分校讀研究所時, 我親眼見證了創新通常 會如何加深化社會不平等。 隨著科技業的發展, 在灣區生活了幾代的人 被迫流離失所。 當時,我在研究 生物科技的社會面向。 當我觀察科學家 在培養皿中用萬能幹細胞 培育出會跳動的 心臟細胞時, 我就在想,在日常生活中 培育出對他人的同理心 會有多困難。 有數十億美金投注在未來醫學, 但全民醫療保健卻似乎遙不可及。 這就是我所說的偏差的想像, 我們可以想像讓生病的身體再生, 卻無法改善不健全的政體。
Utopias require inequality and exclusion. Ustopias center collective well-being over gross concentrations of wealth. They're built on an understanding that all of our struggles, from climate justice to racial justice, are interconnected. That we are interconnected.
烏托邦需要不平等和排擠。 我們托邦則著重在集體福祉, 而非龐大的財富集中。 其建立的基礎是了解 我們所有的困難, 從氣候正義到種族正義, 是相互關聯的。 我們是相互關聯的。
Take what's happening in Barcelona, Spain, where a large-scale participatory experiment has been underway for almost ten years now using a digital platform called “Decidim,” which means "we decide" in Catalan, alongside in-person neighborhood-level deliberations to create policies that respond to people's actual needs.
以西班牙巴塞隆納發生的事情為例, 有個大規模參與式實驗在那裡進行, 已經做了快十年,使用 叫做「Decidim」的數位平台 這個字是加泰羅尼亞語, 意思是「我們決定」。 同時和居民面對面進行 鄰里層級商議討論, 以創造出能真正因應 大家需求的政策。
And the thing is, technology companies are not driving what's happening. The collective intelligence of people from all walks of life are. Proponents call it a “New Deal on Data” that recognizes data sovereignty, privacy, collective rights to data. Decidim is open-source software, so it's already been adapted and used in over 80 other cities, guaranteeing public transparency in a way commercial platforms don't. Once you install Decidim, you can create, comment, consult on ideas and track what happens in real time. Over 40,000 residents have submitted proposals on everything from affordable housing to air quality, and about 70 percent of the government's action plan have been derived directly from these proposals.
重點是, 推動這一切的並不是科技公司。 是由各行各業的人,集思廣益而成的。 擁護者稱它為「資料新協議」, 它承認資料主權、隱私、 對資料的集體權利。 Decidim 是開放原始碼的軟體, 因此已經有至少八十個 其他城市採用和使用它了, 能保證對公眾的透明度, 這是商業平台無法做到的。 安裝 Decidim 後, 你就可以即時創造、評論、 諮詢想法,並追蹤現況。 已經有超過四萬名居民提出提案, 內容無所不包,從平價住宅 到空氣品質都有, 而政府的行動計畫有大約 70% 都是直接來自這些提案。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Take “Superblocks,” an initiative to cut carbon emissions and improve air quality, where 12 city districts have been closed to through traffic so the interior blocks are more hospitable to pedestrians, cyclists, more green space. On the Barcelona coastline, another initiative is underway in which residents are working to make it more accessible to locals, rather than simply a playground for elites and cruise ships.
以「超級街區」為例, 這個計畫指在減少碳排放 和改善空氣質量,有十二個行政區 進行封閉並禁止車輛通行, 讓內部街區 對行人及單車騎士更友善, 有更多綠色空間。 在巴塞隆納海岸線上 還有另一個計畫在進行, 居民要讓海岸線變成 當地人皆可使用的, 而不只有給菁英 和遊輪使用的遊樂場。
Notice how different this is than the typical top-down, "we know best" approach to shaping the future. Like what happened with Sidewalk Labs in Toronto, Google's urban development smart city play that would have collected masses of data data in order to create more efficient and convenient city services. But which in the end was tech-driven rather than people-driven. Sidewalk Labs staged public input sessions in order to appear responsive to residents' concerns about the newfangled surveillance that would have been embedded into the Quayside neighborhood. But people saw through the proposal and put an end to the development.
請注意這有多麼不同於 典型的由上而下威權化 「我們最懂」的方式 來打造未來。 就像多倫多的人行道 實驗室所發生的事, Google 的都市發展智慧城市計畫 本來會收集大量資料來創造 更有效和更方便的城市服務, 但它最終是以科技為導向 而不是由人來主導。 人行道實驗室舉辦了 公眾意見會議, 以顯示他們對於居民 關心的議題有所回應, 這些議題是關於本來要導入 碼頭區鄰里的新式監控。 但大家看穿了這項提案, 終止了此發展。
In fact, there are ustopias taking shape right here in Atlanta. Known by some as Silicon Peach or Techlanta, because it’s the fastest-growing urban tech hub in the country, it’s also the city with the highest income inequality in the nation. Which shouldn't surprise us when we remember that the fantasies of some are so often the nightmares of others. In many places, tech booms actually exacerbate inequality, increasing the cost of living, displacing local residents and creating high tech tools for surveillance and social control.
事實上, 在亞特蘭大就有一些 我們托邦正在形成中。 有些人稱之為矽桃或科技蘭大, 因為它是全國發展 最快速的城市科技樞紐, 它也是全國收入最不平等的城市。 對此我們應該不會驚訝,因為, 別忘了,某些人的幻想通常 會是別人的惡夢。 在許多地方,科技繁榮 其實會加劇不平等、 增加生活成本、迫使當地居民搬遷, 並創造高科技工具 來進行監控和社會控制。
But that's only half of the story. Because here in Atlanta, and in many other locales, we're also witnessing a historic mobilization of residents, creating ustopias that prioritize people over profit, public goods over policing. It started a few years ago, when Atlanta officials announced plans to build Cop City, a massive 90-million-dollar facility that would have trained police from all over the country. The development would include cutting down Weelaunee Forest, one of the four lungs of Atlanta that protects against heat waves and floods, and which is located next to a predominantly Black working-class community. But ATLiens were having none of it.
但這只是故事的一半。 因為在亞特蘭大和許多 其他地區,我們也都見證到 居民的歷史性動員, 創造出將人擺在利益之前的我們托邦, 也把公共財擺在維安之前。 它始於幾年前亞特蘭大官員 宣佈建造警察城市的計畫, 那是個價值九億美金的大型設施, 本來要用來培訓 來自全國各地的警察。 這項開發也必須要砍伐威勞尼森林, 它亞特蘭大的四個肺之一, 可以對付熱浪和洪水,提供保護, 且位於一個以黑人藍領 階級為主的社區旁邊。 但亞特蘭大居民對此毫不妥協。
(Cheers and applause)
(歡呼和掌聲)
Utilizing direct action, digital tools, a broad coalition has formed to push back against the militarizing imagination of the city. Atlanta's forest defenders remind us that true community safety relies on connection, not cops. On public goods, like housing and health care, not punishment. They understand that protecting people and the planet go hand in hand. From college students to clergy, environmental activists to Indigenous elders, they’re inviting us into a collective imagination in which our ecological and our social well-being go hand in hand. An ustopia right in our own backyards.
用直接行動和數位工具, 他們形成了一個廣大的聯盟, 旨在抵制把城市軍事化的想像。 亞特蘭大的森林守護者提醒我們 真正的社區安全仰賴的是連結, 不是警察; 仰賴的是公共財, 如居住正義和健康照護, 不是懲罰。 他們了解保護人 和保護地球是緊密相關的。 從大學生到神職人士, 從環境活動家到原住民長老, 他們邀請我們進入一種集體的發想, 在這個發想中,我們的生態 和社會福祉是緊密相關的。 就在我們自己的後院裡的吾托邦。
And even children are pushing back against the lopsided imagination of city officials. Like one who asked, "What did cops do to deserve a playground?" As they sat in the kids zone outside of the city council meeting where hundreds of people had showed up to speak out against Cop City. Together, they're reminding us that deadly systems may seem durable, but they're not inevitable. And we don’t simply have to click: submit. We can each work to strengthen the social fabric in our own locale and create a shared vision in which no one is left behind. We can follow the example of data justice organizers in Barcelona, forest defenders in Atlanta, imagining and crafting the worlds we cannot live without, just as we dismantle the ones we cannot live within.
甚至連孩子也在抵制 城市官員的偏差想像。 比如有個孩子就問: 「警察做了什麼, 值得給他們一個遊樂場?」 當他們坐在市議會 會議室外的兒童區時, 有數百人出席發聲, 反對警察城。 他們提醒了我們 致命的體制可能看似很堅固, 但它們並非無法攻破。 而且我們不需要點擊「提交」。 我們每個人都可以盡一己之力 來強化自己地區的社會結構, 創造一個所有人皆能共享的願景。 我們可以效法巴塞隆納的 資料正義組織者, 亞特蘭大的森林保衛者, 想像並打造出我們所嚮往的世界, 就像拆除那個讓我們 無法生活的世界一樣。
The first step is to stop policing the borders of our own imagination. A world without prisons? Ridiculous. Schools that foster the genius of every child? Naive. Work that doesn't drive us into the grave? Impossible. A society where everyone has food, shelter, love? In your dreams. Exactly.
第一步 是不要對我們的想像畫地自限。 一個沒有監獄的世界? 很可笑。 培養每個孩子天賦的學校? 很天真。 不會讓我們過勞死的工作? 不可能。 人人都有食物、庇護 和愛的社會? 做你的大頭夢吧。 沒錯。
(Applause)
(掌聲)