论工业社会及其未来（三）——泰德卡辛斯基

82，对于广告与营销策略有着中等易感度的人可以赚到足够的钱来满足自己对于商品与服务的欲望，但是必须为此付出相当的努力（加班，兼职，争取升职等）。因此获取物质可以满足他们对于权力过程的需要。但他们的需要未必一定就能得到完全的满足。他们在权力过程中未必拥有完全自主（他们的工作就是执行命令）而他们的一部分预防也可能遭到压制（安全或攻击性）。（我们在80-82段的论述过于简略，因为我们假设获取物质的欲望完全是广告与营销行业创造出来的。当然实际情况要复杂得多。）

83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward these goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it, too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). The U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.

83，有些人通过认同某个强大组织或群体运动来部分满足自己的权力需求。缺乏目标或权力的个人会加入一个组织或运动，接受其目标作为自己的目标，然后努力实现这些目标。当这些目标中的一部分达成之后，即使个人的努力在目标实现的过程中只起到了不太重要的作用，个人依然会（通过对于运动或组织的认同）感到自己已经完成了权力过程。法西斯，纳粹和共产主义者都利用过这种现象。我们的社会也会利用这种现象，尽管不那么粗暴。例如：诺列加刺激了美国（目标：惩罚诺列加）。美国入侵巴拿马（努力）并惩罚了诺列加（达到目标）。美国完成了权力过程，许多认同美国的美国人也共鸣班底感到了权力过程的完成。因此公众广泛支持入侵巴拿马，因为这一事件给人们带来了权力感。 [15]在军队，企业，政党，人道主义组织，宗教或意识形态运动当中也能看到同样的现象。左派主义运动尤其会吸引试图满足权力过程需要的人。但对于大多数人来说认同一个庞大的组织或群众运动并不能完全满足对权力的需求。

[15]. (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval of the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.

【15】我们并不打算对入侵巴拿马事件表示赞同或反对。我们只想说明自己的论点。

84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp collecting. Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and therefore will more readily attack importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that is deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).

84，人们满足权力过程的另一种方法是替代活动。正如我们在第38-40段所解释的那样，替代活动指向人为的目标，个人追求此类目标是为了获得“满足感”而不是达到目标本身。举例来说，锻炼出巨大的肌肉，将小球打入一个洞里或获得一套完整的系列邮票等行为并没有什么实用动机。然而在我们的社会里有很多人都在充满激情地进行着健身、高尔夫或集邮活动。有些人与其他人相比要更加 “以他人为导向”，因此更容易仅仅因为他们周围的人认为这些替代活动十分重要或者因为社会告诉他们这些活动很重要就重视这些替代活动。这就是为什么有些人会非常严肃地对待基本上无关紧要的活动，如运动、桥牌、象棋或晦涩的学术研究，而其他看得更清楚的人从来只将这些活动视为替代活动，因此在满足权力过程的需要时从来没有重视过这些活动。接下来只需要指出在许多情况下一个人的谋生方式也是替代活动。不是单纯的替代活动，因为活动的动机是为了获得物理必需品以及（对于某些人来说）社会地位和因为广告宣传而想要拥有的奢侈品。但很多人投入工作的努力远远超过了赚取任何金钱或地位所必需的额度，而这种额外的努力就构成了替代活动。这种额外努力加上随之而来的感情投资是促进体系不断发展和完善的最强大力量，并会为个人自由带来消极的后果（见第131段）。特别是对于最有创意的科学家和工程师来说，工作往往主要是替代活动。这一点非常重要，因此值得拿出来单独讨论（第87-92段）。

85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly "hooked" or a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.

85，在本节当中我们讨论了许多现代人是如何或多或少地满足了自己对于权力过程的需要。但是我们认为对于大多数人来说对于权力过程的需要并未得到完全满足。首先，那些对于社会地位的欲望极强，或者极其投入替代行为，或者十分认同某个组织或运动，从而满足了自己对于权力过程的需求的人都是特例。其他人是无法通过这些方法来得到满足的（见41、64段）。其次，体系通过明文规定与社会化施加了太多限制，导致了自主性不足，无法达成某些目标以及对于过量冲动进行限制的必要性也会使人感到挫败。

86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.

86，但是即使大多数人在工业技术社会都得到了完全满足，我们（FC）依旧要反对这种社会形式，因为（原因之一是）我们认为通过投入替代行为或者认同某个组织而不是追寻真正的目标来满足对于权力过程的需求是对人的贬低。

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS

科学家的动机

87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problem that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they couldn't giver a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work.

87，科学和技术为替代活动提供了最重要的例子。一些科学家宣称，他们的动机是“出于好奇”，这个概念十分荒谬。大多数科学家研究的都是高度专业化的问题，并非任何正常好奇心的对象。例如，一个天文学家、数学家或一个昆虫学家会对三甲基丁烷的特性感到好奇吗？当然不会。只有化学家才会对此感到好奇，因为化学是他的替代活动。化学家会对一种新发现甲虫的适当分类感到好奇吗？这个问题只有昆虫学家有兴趣，他对此有兴趣也仅仅是因为昆虫学是他的替代活动。如果化学家和昆虫学家不得不认真努力从而获得物质必需品，而且如果这种努力需要他们以非科学研究的有趣方式发挥自己的能力，那么他们根本不会关心三甲基丁烷或甲虫分类。假设研究生教育的资金缺乏导致原本可能成为化学家的人成为了保险经纪人。在这种情况下，他会对保险事宜很感兴趣，但不会再关心什么三甲基丁烷了。科学家们单纯以好奇心为理由将如此大量的时间和精力投入自己的工作是难以服人的。

88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race - most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

88，“造福人类”,这个解释也同样靠不住。一其他科学领域则显然有着造成危险的可能性。然而，在这些领域的科学家们对他们的工作就像开发疫苗或研究空气污染的同行们一样热情。考虑爱德华.泰勒博士（Edward Teller）的例子，他对于参与促进核电厂建设十分热情。这种感情投入是否源于造福人类的愿望呢？如果是这样的话，那么为什么泰勒博士没有对其他 “人道主义”事业进行同样的感情投入呢？如果他是人道主义者，那么他为什么要帮助发展氢弹呢？与许多其他的科学成就一样，核电厂是否真正能够造福人类是非常值得商榷的。廉价电力的好处能够超过核废料累积和危险事故带来的危害吗？泰勒博士看到的只是问题的一个侧面。显然他对于核电的情感投入并非源于“造福人类”的愿望，而是源于他的工作以及将核电投入实用所带来的个人价值的实现。

89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

89，一般来说科学家都是这样。可能其中也有少数例外，但总体而言他们的动机既不是好奇也不是造福人类，而是完成权力过程的需要。

90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

90，当然实际情况并没有如此简单。其他动机对于许多科学家来说也有作用，例如金钱与地位。有些科学家或许对地位有着无法满足的欲求（见79段），这一点为他们的工作提供了最主要的动机。无疑，大多数科学家也像大多数公众一样多少易于受到广告与营销手段的影响，也需要金钱来满足他们对于商品和服务的需要。因此科学研究并不完全是替代行为，但在相当程度上是这样。

91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).

91，此外，科学技术也构成了群体权力运动，许多科学家都通过认同这一运动来满足自己的权力需求（见83段）

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

92，因此科学盲目地前进，不考虑人类种族的真正福祉或任何其他标准，仅仅服从科学家以及提供研究资金的政府官员与企业高管的心理需求。

THE NATURE OF FREEDOM

自由的本质

93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But because "freedom" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.

93，我们认为工业技术社会无法加以改革，使之不至于蚕食人类自由的空间。但是由于“自由”这个词可以从许多不同方面加以解释，我们必须首先阐明我们这里所谓的自由究竟是什么。

94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).

94，我们这里的“自由”指的是经历权力过程的机会，该权力过程要有真正的目标，而不是替代行为的人为目标，不受任何人尤其是大型组织的干涉、操纵或监督。自由意味着（以个人或小群体成员的身份）控制关乎本人生死的问题：食物，衣物，住所以及抵御环境当中任何可能的威胁。自由意味着拥有权力，不是控制他人的权力，而是控制自身周边环境的权力。如果任何其他人（尤其是大型组织）对某人有权力，那么这个人就不自由，无论这种权力的实施有多么宽容放纵。绝不能将自由与放纵混为一谈。

95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than out society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

95，人们说我们生活在一个自由社会，因为我们拥有若干宪法保护的权利。但是这些权利并没有看上去那么重要。一个社会当中个人自由的限度并不是由法律或者政府形式决定的，而是由这个社会的经济与技术结构决定的【16】新英格兰的大多数印度国家都是君主制国家，文艺复兴时期的意大利城邦也多由独裁者掌控。但是研究一下这些社会，人们会感到这些社会远比我们的社会更加允许个人自由的存在。部分原因在于这些社会缺乏执行统治者意志的有效机制。这些社会里没有组织良好的现代警察，没有远距离快速通信，没有监视摄像头，没有针对普通人日常生活的信息卷宗。因此在此类社会里逃避控制相对较容易。

[16]. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from "Violence in America: Historical and Comparative perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476-478: "The progressive heightening of standards of property, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19th century America). . .were common to the whole society. . .The change in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes; that of industrial urbanization itself. . ."Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. It's citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically dependent on each other. . .Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern. . ."But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable.

【16】（第95段）当北美殖民地依旧处于英国统治之下时，对于自由的法律保障与美国宪法生效之后相比要更少且效力更弱。但是与工业革命在美国扎根之后相比，在独立战争前后的前工业化美国有着更多的个人自由。我们引用Violence in America: Historical and Comparative perspectives一书，Hugh Davis Graham与Ted Robert Gurr编辑，第12章，作者Roger Lane，第476-478页，“（十九世纪美国）财产标准的渐进式升高与人们对于官方执法力量的越发依赖……对于整个社会而言十分常见……这对于社会行为的改变历时如此之长，范围如此之广，以至关乎当代最基本的社会进程：工业化与城市化……1835年的马萨诸塞人口约为660940人，81%是农村人口，前工业化社会与本地出生人口占绝对主流。无论是牛马车夫、农夫还是手艺匠人都习惯于自行设定日程，他们工作的性质也使得他们在物质层面上相互依赖……个人问题，罪过甚至犯罪一般都不会导致大范围的关注……”但是1835年时刚刚起步的工业化与城市化这对双生子运动在整个十九世纪与二十世纪期间对于人的行为一直有着渐进性的影响。工厂要求行为规律化，要求人们顺从钟表与日历的节律以及工头与监管人员的命令。而在城镇当中，紧密居住的需要禁止了许多之前无人反对的行为。

Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows. as one man's work fit into another's, so one man's business was no longer his own. "The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period. . .The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more 'civilized' generation than its predecessors."

大型机构里的蓝领与白领工人全都相互依赖，他们的工作相互契合，因此他们再也没有私事了。“新式生活与工作组织形式的结果到了1900年已经很明显了，马萨诸塞州2805346名居民中有76%成为了城市人口。在一个随意独立的社会当中往往能得到容忍的大量暴力或不端行为在后来更加正规化合作化的氛围当中都成了不可接受的表现……简而言之，迁入城市的运动造成了比之前世代更加驯良，更加社会化，更加‘文明’的一代人。”

(If copyright problems make it impossible for this long quotation to be printed, then please change Note 16 to read as follows:)

（假如出于版权原因无法出版上文中的长篇引言，请将第16号注释替换为下文：）

([16]. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. In "Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, it is explained how in pre-industrial America the average person had greater independence and autonomy than he does today, and how the process of industrialization necessarily led to the restriction of personal freedom.)

（【16】（第95段）当北美殖民地处于英国统治之下时，与美国宪法生效之后相比，自由的法律保障较少且效力较弱。但是与工业革命在美国扎根之后相比，在独立战争前后的前工业化美国有着更多的个人自由。Hugh Davis Graham与Ted Robert Gurr编辑的《美国的暴力：历史与比较视角》（Violence in America: Historical and Comparative perspectives）一书中由Roger Lane撰写的第12章专门解释了前工业化时期美国的普通人如何拥有超过今天的独立自主以及工业化进程如何必然导致了对个人自由的限制。）

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.

96，至于宪法权利，不妨以出版自由举例。我们绝对无意抨击这一权利：这是一件十分重要的工具，可以用来限制政治权力集中化以及通过暴露掌权者的不轨之举来约束他们的行为。但是出版自由对于作为个体的普通人用处很小。大众媒体主要受与体系同化的大型机构的控制。任何人只要有一点钱就可以出版印刷品，或在互联网上传播，或借助其他此类手段；但他想说的话将会被媒体的巨量材料所淹没，无法起到任何实际作用。因此对于大多数个人或小团体来说几乎无法用语言为社会留下印象。以我们（FC）为例。如果我们此前从未进行任何暴力活动，那么将这份文稿交给出版社之后很可能不会得到接受。如果其得到接受与出版，恐怕也不会吸引太多读者。即使能够吸引到大量读者，这些人中的大部分也会因为暴露在媒体提供的巨量材料当中而很快将其遗忘。为了将我们的信息传递到公众面前并有机会产生持久影响，我们不得不杀人。

97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what could be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a rights to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 202, explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society of the nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? FC's conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed.

97，宪法权利在一定程度上是有用的，但只能保证所谓资产阶级的自由观。根据资产阶级的概念，一个“自由”的人本质上是社会机器的一个组件，只享有一套特定的自由，这套自由与其说是服务于个人，倒不如说是服务于社会机器的需要。因此资产阶级的“自由人”有经济自由，因为这能促进经济成长和进步；他有新闻自由，因为公开批评能抑制政治领袖的不当行为，他有获得公正审判的权利，因为出于当权者心血来潮的监禁将会破坏体系。这显然是西蒙.玻利瓦尔的态度。在他看来只有利用自由来推动进步（小资产阶级心目中的进步）的人们才有资格得到自由。其他资产阶级思想家也采取了类似的观点，认为自由仅仅是达到集体目的的手段。Chester C. Tan在Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century，第202页解释了国民党领袖胡汉民的理念：“一个人被授予权利，因为他是社会的一员，他的社会生活需要这样的权利。胡在这里指的是整个国家的社会。”Tan还在第259页指出，根据张君劢（中国国家社会党领袖）的观点，认为自由必须为了国家与人民的整体利益而得到使用。但是假如某人的自由只能按照别人规定的方式使用，那还算是什么自由呢？FC的自由观不同于玻利瓦尔，胡，张或其他资产阶级理论家。这些理论家的问题在于他们将社会理论的研发和应用当成了替代活动。因此这些理论的设计是为理论家而服务的，而不是那些不幸生在被人强加了这些理论的社会当中的人们。

98. One more point to be made in this section: It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological control of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people's ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs. For example, it's likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.

98，本节还要再说明一点：人们不应因为某人声称自己足够自由就认为他足够自由。自由部分受到了心理控制的约束，而人们无法感知这种心理活动。此外人们对于自由的感念也不是由他们的真正需要决定的，而是取决于社会常规。例如，许多过度社会化左派主义者都声称包括他们自己在内的大多数人的社会化程度不是太深，而是太浅。但是过度社会化左派主义者为了自己的高度社会化付出了惨重的心理代价。

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY

几条历史原则

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

99，在此请将历史想象为两个组成部分的总和：一个是不规则组成部分，由无法预知也不遵循任何明显模式的事件组成；另一个是规则组成部分，由长期历史趋势组成。我们在这里考虑的是长期趋势。

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered but only pushed a step ahead.

100，第一条原则。假如一个小改变影响了长期历史趋势，这种影响只能是暂时性的，趋势很快就能逆转回到原来的状态。（举例：政治反腐改革几乎总是只能取得短期效果，改革者终将懈怠，腐败也总会卷土重来。任何一个给定社会的腐败程度都是恒定的，或者只会随着社会的演变发生缓慢的变化。正常情况下，反腐改革只有在伴随着广泛社会变革的情况下才能取得长期效果，小规模改变是没有用的。）如果某个小改变看似在长期历史趋势当中取得了长期影响，这只是因为这个改变的方向与大趋势相一致，因此趋势没有得到改变，只是向前推进了一步。

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

101，第一原则基本上就是同义反复。假如某个趋势相对小改变而言不够稳定，这一趋势就会随机发展而非追寻特定方向，换句话说就是根本无法成为长期趋势。

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without change all the other parts as well.

102，第二条原则。假如一项改变足够大，可以永久改变长期历史趋势，那这项改变必然影响整个社会。换言之，社会体系中的各个部分都是相关的，不可能永久性改变任何重要部分而不改变所有其他部分。

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

103，第三条原则。假如一项改变足够大，可以永久改变长期历史趋势，那么任何人都无法预测社会整体将如何改变。（除非许多其他社会也经历了相同的变化与同样的结果，这样才可以在经验基础上预测下一个经历了此类改变的社会可能会遭受类似的结果。）

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.

104，第四条原则。新型社会无法从纸面上创造出来。换句话说，你无法提前设计新型社会，并期待该社会在得到建立之后会按照设计来运行。

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

105，第三条与第四条原则是人类社会复杂性的结果。人类行为的改变将会影响社会经济与物质环境，经济与环境互为影响，而社会与经济的改变又将以无法预测的方式作用于人类行为。因果律的网络过于复杂，任何人都无法理清并理解。

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

106，第五条原则。人们并不有意识地并理性地选择他们所属社会的形态。舍同通过社会演化而形成，不受人的理性控制。

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

107，第五条原则是前四条的结果。

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it only has a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.

108，在此说明一下：根据第一条原则，一般说来进行社会改革的尝试要么遵从社会发展的方向（因此仅仅加速了无论如何都要发生的改变）要么就只有暂时性的效果，而社会很快就会恢复原状。如果要在任何重要的社会方面遵循发展方向进行持续性的改变，改革是不够的，必须诉诸于革命。（革命并不必然意味着武装暴动或推翻政府）根据第二条原则，革命绝不会仅仅改变某一个单独社会方面；根据第三条原则将会发生革命者们未曾期望或不想看到的改变。根据第四条原则，革命者或乌托邦主义者们建立的新型社会永远无法按照计划运作起来。

109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.

109，美国独立运动并不是反例。所谓的美国“革命”并不是我们所谓的革命，而是一场独立战争加上一场用力过猛的政治改革。开国元勋们没有改变美国社会的发展方向，也没有这么做的打算。他们仅仅将美国从英国的拘束性统治之下解放了出来。他们的政治改革没有改变任何基本趋势，仅仅将美国政治文化在自然发展方向上推了一把。美国社会是从英国社会分生出来的，而英国社会早已在代议制民主的方向上发展很久了。独立战争之前美国已经在各殖民地代表大会内部实行了相当程度的代议制民主。美国宪法确立的政治体系是根据英国政体与殖民地代表大会为模版构建出来的。开国元勋们的确进行了重大修改，他们走出了重要的一步。但是这一步仅仅是踏在了英语国家早已走了很久的道路上。证据就是英国本土以及所有英国人永久居留的殖民地最终都发展出了与美国类似的代议制民主。就算当年开国元勋们一时手软没有签署《独立宣言》，我们今天的生活方式也不会有显著差异。我们与英国的联系或许会更紧密，或许会有议会与首相而不是国会与总统，但这都不是什么大事。美国独立运动并未对我们的原则构成反例，而是对其进行了很好的诠释。

110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.

110，不过人们在应用这些原则时依然需要依靠自己的常识。这些原则的表述语言并不周密，有进行阐释的空间，也可以找到例外。因此我们提出这些原则并非将其当作牢不可破的定律，而是作为思考指南，希望能为关于未来社会的不成熟想法提供部分解药。应当牢记这些原则，假如某人得出了与这些原则相冲突的结论，他应当仔细审视自己的思考过程，仅仅在有坚实理由的前提下才维持原有结论。

INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED

工业技术社会无法得到改良

111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one -- soon swamped by the tide of history -- or, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words, by revolutionaries, not reformers.

111，上述原则也表现了为什么很难对工业体系进行改革从而防止其渐进性侵蚀我们的自由。技术至少早在工业革命时就就已经有了以个体自由与地方自主非为代价来加强体系的持续趋势。因此任何保护自由不受技术损害的改变都与我们社会的基本发展趋势相悖。这样的改变要么是暂时性的——很快就会被历史的潮水所淹没——要么就会因为足够产生永久性效果而改变我们这个社会的本质。这是根据第一与第二条原则得出的结果。此外，由于社会的变化无法事先得到预知（第三原则），这种变化将会伴随极大的风险。如果改变足以产生对自由长期有利的变化，那么就不会被风险吓倒，因为这些风险将极大地打乱体系。因此任何改革努力都过于软弱，无法生效。就算改革者们发动了足以带来持久不同的改革，他们也会在这些改革的破坏性效果表露出来后收手。因此只有那些愿意接受极端、危险且无法预测的体系变动的人才能对于自由永久有利的改变，换句话说就是革命者而不是改革者。

112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.

112，有些人急于拯救自由却不愿牺牲技术带来的所谓好处，他们会提出天真的新式社会构想来调和自由与技术。姑且不论这些人很少提出任何建立此类社会的具体方法这一事实，就算这些社会真能得到建立也得遵循第四条原则，要么崩溃要么产生与预期十分不同的结果。

113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbably that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.

113，因此即便是泛泛而言，想要通过改革协调自由与现代科技也很不现实。在接下来几节当中我们将会给出更详细的理由来总结为什么自由与技术进步不相容。

RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

在工业社会里对自由的限制是不可避免的

114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health" programs, etc.)

114，正如在65-67段以及70-73段所解释的那样，现代人受到了一整套规则与规章的约束，他的命运取决于他人，这些人离他很远以致他无法对他们的决策施加影响。这并非偶然发生的事故，也不是傲慢的官僚独断专行的结果。在任何一个技术发达的社会这都是不可避免的。体系必须紧密监管人类行为，唯此才能正常运作。在工作当中人们必须遵守命令，否则生产过程就将陷入混乱。官僚体系必须根据硬性规定进行运作。假如允许底层官僚运用任何潜在的个人裁量就将打乱体系，底层官僚运用个人裁量导致的差异也会引发不公平的指控。的确，有一些对于自由的限制的确可以得到消除，但总体而言，答应组织对于我们生活的监管是工业技术社会正常运行所必需的。这将令普通人感到无力。不过正式的监管将会越发由心理工具所取代，使我们想要遵从体系对我们的要求（第14段，教育手段，“心理健康”项目，等等）

115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

115，体系必须强制人们的行为越发远离人类行为自然模式。例如体系需要科学家、数学家与工程师，否则就无法正常运作。因此儿童们担负了要在这些领域出类拔萃的巨大压力。青少年将大量时间花在静坐学习上是不自然的。正常的青少年希望花时间来能动地接触真实世界。原始民族训练儿童所做的事情与自然的人类节律自然和谐。例如美洲印第安人就会训练男孩到户外相互追逐——正是男孩子喜欢做的事情。但是在我们的社会儿童被迫学习技术学科，大多数儿童对此都不情不愿。

116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.

116，因为体系持续施压来矫正人类行为，不能或不愿调整自己来适应社会需要的人也越来越多：这其中包括完全拒绝工作的社会救济领取者、青少年犯罪团伙、邪教信徒、反政府叛逆、激进派环保主义破坏者、辍学者以及其他各种抵制社会体系的人。

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.

117，在任何一个技术发达的社会，个体命运都必须依赖于那些他本人不能施加实质性影响的决策。技术社会无法分解成小型自主社区。因为生产有赖于极大数目的人和机器的协作。这祥一个社会必须是高度组织化的，而且不得不做出影响极其大量人口的决策。打个比方，当一个决策影响一百万人时，每一个被影响的个人对于该项决策平均只有百万分之一的影响力。实际上，决策往往是由政府公务员、公司主管抑或技术专家做出的，但即使是公众投票进行决策，一般也会因为投票人数过多而使得任何个人的投票不起什么实质性作用。因此，大多数个人不可能对于影响他们生活的重大决策产生任何值得注意的影响。在技术发达社会中，这一点是无可救药的。体系试图通过使用宣传手段来诱使人们主动要求那些已为他们作好的决策来“解决”这个问题，即使这种“解决办法”非常成功地让人民在感觉上好了一点，它也依然是对人类的一种贬低。

118 Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy." Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.

118，保守派和其他一些人主张进一步加强地方社区曾经有过的自主权，但随着地方社区越来越与公共设施、计算机网络、高速公路、大众传媒以及现代医保制度等大规模系统纠缠在一起并且必须依赖它们才能存在，这种自主也就越来越不可能了。应用于一个地点的技术往往会影响到距离遥远的其他地区，这一事实同样说明了技术社会与自主的不相容。例如，在某条小溪使用杀虫剂或化学品可能污染下游几百英里的水供应，而温室效应则影响了整个世界。

119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

119，体系的存在不是为了满足人类的需求，仅仅以满足人类需求为目的的体系也不可能存在。相反，体系会改变人类的行为以适应它自己的需要。这与可能假装引导技术体系的政治或社会意识形态无关，而是技术本身的问题，因为体系不是由意识形态引导的，而是由技术需求引导的。【18】当然，体系满足了人类的许多需求。但一般说来，只有在满足人的需求对体系有好处时，它才会这样做。体系本身、而非组成体系的个人的需求才是至高无上的。例如，体系供给人们粮食，因为如果每个人都挨饿体系就不能运转；在方便的情况下，体系也会照顾人们的心理需求，因为如果太多的人感到压抑或变得反叛，体系就不能运转。但是，体系有许多充分且实际的理由要不断地对人施压，改变他们的行为以适应体系的需要。比方说，假如垃圾积累过多，那么政府、媒体、教育系统以及环保主义者就会一拥而上，用铺天盖地的垃圾回收利用宣传来淹没我们。假如体系需要更多的技术人员，那么各种声音就会组成一场大合唱来劝诱儿童学习科学。没有人停下来问一问：强迫青少年花费大量时间来学习他们之中大多数人都十分讨厌的东西是否人道。当技术工人因技术进步失去工作而去接受“重新训练”时，没有人问一问：像这样把他们推过来拨过去对于他们来说是否太屈辱。所有人都理所当然地认为，每一个人都必需向技术的需要低头，而且理由十分充分：如果人的需求被摆在了优先于技术需要的地位，就会出现经济问题、失业、短缺甚至更糟。在我们的社会当中，“精神健康”的概念主要被定义为在多大程度一个人能够根据体系的需要行事并且不会流露出承受精神压力的迹象。

18. (Paragraph 119) "Today, in technologically advanced lands, men live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious and political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, a Communist bank clerk in Moscow are far more alike than the life any one of them is like that of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities are the result of a common technology. . ." L. Sprague de Camp, "The Ancient Engineers," Ballentine edition, page 17.

【18】（119段）“今天，在技术发达地区，人们的生活方式十分相像，地理位置、宗教和政治上的不同几乎没有任何关系。芝加哥的一个基督教银行职员，东京的一个佛教银行职员，莫斯科的一个共党银行职员，他们彼此之间的日常生活十分相像，而他们之中的任何一个人的生活与一千年以前人们的生活却非常不同。这种相像是普遍技术的结果……”L. Sprague de Camp，The Ancient Engineers，Ballencine版，第17页。

The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.

三个银行职员的生活其实并不完全一样。意识形态确实会产生某种影响，但所有技术社会必须遵循大致相同的进化路径，唯此才能存在下去。

120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.

120，在体系内为目的感和自主权留出空间的努力只足一个笑话。例如，我们的公司把每个工人只组装一套机件的一部分改为每个工人都组装整套机件，声称这就是给了他们目的感与成就感。有些公司的确试图在工作中赋予雇员更多的自主权，但由于实际需要，这种尝试只能是非常有限的，而且无论如何也不能给予雇员有关最终目标的自主权，他们的“自主”努力决不能指向他们自己选择的目标，而只能指向雇主的目标。任何公司如果允许其雇员自行其是都会很快关门大吉。同样，对于任何一家存在于特定社会体系当中的公司来说，其中的雇员都必须将各自的努力指向企业的目标，否则企业就不能实现其作为系统一部分的目的。从纯技术角度来说，大多数个人或小团体在工业社会中都不可能享有高度自主权。甚至就连小型企业所有者通常也只有有限的自主权。除了遵从必要的政府规章之外，他还必须适应经济体系对自己的要求。例如，当有人开发出一种新技术之后，小企业主为了保持竞争力往往必须利用这种技术，无论他本人意愿如何。

THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS

技术的负面效应不可能与正面效应分割开来