Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world

翻译人员: Xu Jiang 校对人员: Angelia King

The story starts in Kenya

故事开始于2007年12月的

in December of 2007,

肯尼亚，

when there was a disputed presidential election,

一届备受争议的总统选举。

and in the immediate aftermath of that election,

此次选举刚刚结束，

there was an outbreak of ethnic violence.

就发生了种族暴力事件。

And there was a lawyer in Nairobi, Ory Okolloh --

一位在内罗毕市的律师-奥里欧克罗，

who some of you may know from her TEDTalk --

你们当中有些人可能通过她的TED讲话认识她-

who began blogging about it on her site,

她在她的博客上报道这个事件，

Kenyan Pundit.

她的博客叫肯尼亚观点。

And shortly after the election and the outbreak of violence,

就在选举结束和暴力事件发生之后的短短时间内，

the government suddenly imposed

肯尼亚政府突然实施了

a significant media blackout.

对媒体的强有力管制。

And so weblogs went from being

博客们纷纷从作为

commentary as part of the media landscape

媒体平台的评述部分

to being a critical part of the media landscape

变为媒体平台的批评部分，

in trying to understand where the violence was.

试着了解到底在什么地方出现暴力。

And Okolloh solicited

欧克罗向她的博客读者们

from her commenters

征求更多

more information about what was going on.

关于暴力事件的信息。

The comments began pouring in,

大量的评论涌入进来。

and Okolloh would collate them. She would post them.

欧克罗就收集起来。 再发表。

And she quickly said, "It's too much.

她很快意识到，“这太多了。

I could do this all day every day

我每天都可以工作一整天，

and I can't keep up.

还忙不过来。

There is more information

现在关于

about what's going on in Kenya right now

肯尼亚的信息

than any one person can manage.

简直多得让单独一个人无法整理。

If only there was a way to automate this."

除非有个自动化的方式来整理。”

And two programmers who read her blog

两位程序员读了她的博客后

held their hands up and said, "We could do that,"

说：“我们可以帮助你建立一个自动化的程序。”

and in 72 hours, they launched Ushahidi.

72个小时后，他们推出了Ushahidi。

Ushahidi -- the name means "witness"

Ushahidi-这个名字来源于

or "testimony" in Swahili --

斯瓦西里的“目击者”或“证人”-

is a very simple way of taking reports from the field,

它的运作方式很简单，就是将现场，

whether it's from the web or, critically,

无论是来自于互联网，更重要的

via mobile phones and SMS,

是来自于移动电话或短信

aggregating it and putting it on a map.

的报告汇总起来再发表到地图上。

That's all it is, but that's all that's needed

那就行了，那就是所需要的了。

because what it does is it takes the tacit information

因为它所做的就是获取

available to the whole population --

全人类那些不为人知的隐形信息-

everybody knows where the violence is,

每个人都知道暴力发生在什么地方，

but no one person knows what everyone knows --

但是没有人通晓所有信息-

and it takes that tacit information

所以这个程序就是将获取的那些不为人知的隐性信息汇总，

and it aggregates it,

再到地图上定位，

and it maps it and it makes it public.

最后公之于众。

And that, that maneuver

那网站叫做

called "crisis mapping,"

“危机信息地图”

was kicked off in Kenya

于2008年一月

in January of 2008.

在肯尼亚开始。

And enough people looked at it and found it valuable enough

有足够多的人关注这网站，也发现了它有足够的价值，

that the programmers who created Ushahidi

于是发明Ushahidi的程序员们

decided they were going to make it open source

决定继续改变它为开放源，

and turn it into a platform.

形成一个平台。

It's since been deployed in Mexico

它被运用在跟踪墨西哥的

to track electoral fraud.

选举舞弊中。

It's been deployed in Washington D.C. to track snow cleanup.

它也被用在跟踪华盛顿特区的积雪清理。

And it's been used most famously in Haiti

最著名的是它被运用在

in the aftermath of the earthquake.

震后的海地。

And when you look at the map

现在当你看到在

now posted on the Ushahidi front page,

Ushahidi首页公布的地图，

you can see that the number of deployments in Ushahidi

你会发现Ushahidi运用在世界各个角落，

has gone worldwide, all right?

对吧?

This went from a single idea

这项技术已经在短短三年

and a single implementation

从2008年初在

in East Africa in the beginning of 2008

东非的一个想法，

to a global deployment

一个部署发展成为

in less than three years.

一个网络全球的部署。

Now what Okolloh did

欧克罗所做的

would not have been possible

离开了数字科技

without digital technology.

是远远不可能实现的。

What Okolloh did would not have been possible

欧克罗所做的离开了人类共享

without human generosity.

也是远远不可能实现的。

And the interesting moment now,

现在有趣的是，

the number of environments

社会设计挑战所需的

where the social design challenge

氛围

relies on both of those things being true.

依赖于这两个条件都具备。

That is the resource that I'm talking about.

这就是我所讲的资源。

I call it cognitive surplus.

我称它为认知盈余。

And it represents the ability

它代表了

of the world's population

人类

to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate

在大型，全球化的项目上

on large, sometimes global, projects.

自愿贡献和合作的能力。

Cognitive surplus is made up of two things.

认知盈余由两部分组成。

The first, obviously, is the world's free time and talents.

起初，很明显的，是全球的空闲时间和才能。

The world has over

世界上

a trillion hours a year

每年有超过一万亿的

of free time

空闲时间

to commit to shared projects.

来供我们合作项目。

Now, that free time existed in the 20th century,

那是20世纪的空闲时间数据，

but we didn't get Ushahidi in the 20th century.

不过20世纪我们没有Ushahidi。

That's the second half of cognitive surplus.

接下来说到认知盈余的另一半。

The media landscape in the 20th century

20世纪的媒体

was very good at helping people consume,

在帮助人们消费方面做得非常好。

and we got, as a result,

所以结果是，

very good at consuming.

我们非常善于消费。

But now that we've been given media tools --

但是现在，我们使用的媒体-

the Internet, mobile phones -- that let us do more than consume,

互联网，移动手机-都让我们做更多的事情，而不仅仅是消费，

what we're seeing is that people weren't couch potatoes

我们正看见的是人们不再是坐在电视机前，

because we liked to be.

因为我们更喜欢做其它的事情。

We were couch potatoes because that was

我们原先坐在电视机前是因为

the only opportunity given to us.

我们只有那一个选择。

We still like to consume, of course.

当然，我们还是喜欢消费。

But it turns out we also like to create,

但是，我们也喜欢创造，

and we like to share.

同时喜欢分享。

And it's those two things together --

这两项加起来-

ancient human motivation

就是人类自古就有的激情，

and the modern tools to allow that motivation

现代工具使得这种激情

to be joined up in large-scale efforts --

扩大化-

that are the new design resource.

变成新的设计资源。

And using cognitive surplus,

使用认知盈余，

we're starting to see truly incredible experiments

我们更加看到真正的无与伦比的

in scientific, literary,

在自然、文学

artistic, political efforts.

艺术、政治的各种实验。

Designing.

设计。

We're also getting, of course, a lot of LOLcats.

我们还有了很多很多的狂笑猫咪LOLcats。

LOLcats are cute pictures of cats

狂笑猫咪LOLcats是一组

made cuter with the addition of cute captions.

很多可爱的猫咪在最可爱的时候的照片。

And they are also

它们也是

part of the abundant media landscape we're getting now.

我们当前广阔的媒体景观的一部分。

This is one of the participatory --

这只是其中的一种参与模式，

one of the participatory models

我们看到同Ushahidi一块儿的

we see coming out of that, along with Ushahidi.

众多参与模式的一种。

Now I want to stipulate, as the lawyers say,

我只想说，正如律师们说过的，

that LOLcats are the stupidest possible

狂笑猫咪LOLcats是最愚蠢可行的

creative act.

创作艺术。

There are other candidates of course,

当然还有其它的一些，

but LOLcats will do as a general case.

不过狂笑猫咪LOLcats是个大众化的例子。

But here's the thing:

但有一点是

The stupidest possible creative act

即便是最愚蠢可行的创作艺术

is still a creative act.

也还是创作艺术。

Someone who has done something like this,

一些人已经创作了类似的创作，

however mediocre and throwaway,

无论创作是平庸或者一次性作品，

has tried something, has put something forward in public.

他们都尝试过了，也展示给了大众。

And once they've done it, they can do it again,

他们一旦完成了，就可以再次创作，

and they could work on getting it better.

还可以做得更好。

There is a spectrum between mediocre work and good work,

在平庸的作品和优秀作品之间有段空间。

and as anybody who's worked as an artist or a creator knows,

任何艺术家或创作者都知道，

it's a spectrum you're constantly

这段空间是你一直

struggling to get on top of.

努力都想达到的最高境界。

The gap is between

这也是

doing anything and doing nothing.

做出点名堂和一事无成的鸿沟。

And someone who makes a LOLcat

创作出狂笑猫咪的人

has already crossed over that gap.

已经跨越了这个鸿沟。

Now it's tempting to want to get the Ushahidis

现在没有狂笑猫咪，我们希望得到Ushahidis，

without the LOLcats, right,

对，

to get the serious stuff without the throwaway stuff.

从一次性作品过渡到严肃的创作作品。

But media abundance never works that way.

但是大众媒体从来都不是那样工作的。

Freedom to experiment means freedom to experiment with anything.

自由实验意味着自由地去尝试任何事情的实验。

Even with the sacred printing press,

即便是在神圣的印刷业，

we got erotic novels 150 years

色情小说比科技期刊

before we got scientific journals.

早出现150年。

So before I talk about

在我谈

what is, I think, the critical difference

狂笑猫咪和Ushahidi的

between LOLcats and Ushahidi,

关键区别之前，

I want to talk about

我想，

their shared source.

先谈谈它们共享的资源。

And that source is design for generosity.

那资源是为了共享所设计的。

It is one of the curiosities of our historical era

这是我们历史上充满好奇心的一段时期，

that even as cognitive surplus

即便是认知盈余

is becoming a resource we can design around,

也成为我们设计的资源，

social sciences are also starting to explain

社会学家们也开始解释

how important

我们内在动机

our intrinsic motivations are to us,

对于我们是如何的重要，

how much we do things because we like to do them

我们做什么事是因为我们喜欢这样做，

rather than because our boss told us to do them,

而不是我们的老板告诉我们要这样做，

or because we're being paid to do them.

或者是我们通过做这些事而拿到工钱。

This is a graph from a paper

这张图来自于

by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini,

Uri Gneezy和Afredo Rusticini的作品，

who set out to test, at the beginning of this decade,

他们测试，在十年前，

what they called "deterrence theory."

他们称为“威慑理论”的东西。

And deterrence theory is a very simple theory of human behavior:

威慑理论是人类行为最简单的理论。

If you want somebody to do less of something,

如果你不想要人们做某些事情，

add a punishment and they'll do less of it.

只需要加上惩罚，人们便不会去做了。

Simple, straightforward, commonsensical --

简单的，直白的，常识性的，

also, largely untested.

同时很大程度上也是未加实验验证的。

And so they went and studied

他们前往以色列

10 daycare centers in Haifa, Israel.

海法市研究了十所日托中心。

They studied those daycare centers

他们研究了这些日托中心

at the time of highest tension,

最忙碌的时刻，

which is pick-up time.

也就是接孩子的时刻。

At pick-up time the teachers,

在接孩子的时刻，

who have been with your children all day,

已经跟你的孩子呆了一整天的老师们

would like you to be there at the appointed hour to take your children back.

希望家长们按照预定的时间接回孩子。

Meanwhile, the parents -- perhaps a little busy at work, running late, running errands --

与此同时，家长们-可能因为工作，忙忙碌碌，琐事-

want a little slack to pick the kids up late.

在接孩子的时候有可能迟到。

So Gneezy and Rustichini said,

所以Gneezy和Rusticini说过，

"How many instances of late pick-ups

“那十所日托中心

are there at these 10 daycare centers?"

有多少晚接孩子的例子？”

Now they saw -- and this is what the graph is,

现在他们看到-就是这张图表显示的，

these are the number of weeks and these are the number of late arrivals --

这是星期的数量，这是晚接孩子的数量-

that there were between six and 10

这十所日托中心平均

instances of late pick-ups

有6到10个

on average in these 10 daycare centers.

晚接孩子的例子。

So they divided the daycare centers into two groups.

所以他们将这十所日托中心分成两组。

The white group there

白色的一组是

is the control group; they change nothing.

对照组，不做变化。

But the group of daycare centers represented by the black line,

但是黑线代表的日托中心那组，

they said, "We are changing this bargain

他们说：“现在我们做

as of right now.

这样的改变。

If you pick your kid up more than 10 minutes late,

如果你接孩子比预定的晚了十分钟，

we're going to add a 10 shekel fine to your bill.

我们就罚你多交10锡克尔。

Boom. No ifs, ands or buts."

就这样了。没有什么如果，但是的借口。”

And the minute they did that,

就在他们做出改变的那一刻，

the behavior in those daycare centers changed.

日托中心也发生了变化。

Late pick-ups went up

接下来的四周内，

every week for the next four weeks

每周晚接孩子的数量都在上升，

until they topped out at triple the pre-fine average,

直到他们将罚金增加到原先的三倍，

and then they fluctuated

而后，

at between double and triple the pre-fine average

他们徘徊在

for the life of the fine.

两倍到三倍罚金之间。

And you can see immediately what happened, right?

你看到了立马的变化，是吧。

The fine broke the culture

罚金打破了日托中心

of the daycare center.

的规律。

By adding a fine,

因为增加了罚金，

what they did was communicate to the parents

原先他们同家长间的交流，

that their entire debt to the teachers

让家长们欠下老师的债务

had been discharged

变为了

with the payment of 10 shekels,

10锡克尔的罚金，

and that there was no residue of guilt or social concern

家长们也不会因为感到欠了老师的罚金

that the parents owed the teachers.

而觉得内疚或者受到社会关注。

And so the parents, quite sensibly, said,

所以家长们，感慨地说，

"10 shekels to pick my kid up late?

“10锡克尔就可以晚接会儿孩子。

What could be bad?"

还有什么更坏的呢？”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

The explanation of human behavior

自20世纪遗传下来的人类行为的解释

that we inherited in the 20th century

说法，

was that we are all rational, self-maximizing actors,

那就是我们人类都是理性的，自我最大化的演员。

and in that explanation --

在这解释下-

the daycare center had no contract --

日托中心没有合约-

should have been operating without any constraints.

也没有任何运营限制。

But that's not right.

但不对。

They were operating with social constraints

他们在社会的约束下运营，

rather than contractual ones.

而不是合同条款。

And critically, the social constraints

关键的是，社会的约束

created a culture that was more generous

创造了比合同条款

than the contractual constraints did.

更广泛的一种文化。

So Gneezy and Rustichini run this experiment for a dozen weeks --

所以在Gneezy和Rustichini进行这个实验的几周后-

run the fine for a dozen weeks --

也就是增加罚款的几周-

and then they say, "Okay, that's it. All done; fine."

他们说：“好啦，就到这里。都很好。”

And then a really interesting thing happens:

真正有趣的现象发生了。

Nothing changes.

什么也没有改变。

The culture that got broken by the fine

罚款所改变的晚接孩子现象

stayed broken when the fine was removed.

并没有随着罚款的取消而有所变化。

Not only are economic motivations

不仅仅是经济动机

and intrinsic motivations

和内在动机

incompatible,

不相容，

that incompatibility

那种不相容

can persist over long periods.

能持续很长一段时间。

So the trick

设计这样的情形的关键

in designing these kinds of situations

在于

is to understand where you're relying on

理解交易双方的经济行为部分，

the economic part of the bargain -- as with the parents paying the teachers --

你依靠什么-就像家长们支付老师工钱-

and when you're relying on the social part of the bargain,

和什么时候你依靠交易双方的社会行为部分，

when you're really designing for generosity.

什么时候你真正为人们共享而设计。

This brings me back to the LOLcats

这个将我引回狂笑猫咪LOLcats

and to Ushahidi.

和Ushahidi中。

This is, I think, the range that matters.

我认为，范围很重要

Both of these rely on cognitive surplus.

它们两者都依赖认知盈余。

Both of these design for the assumption

它们两者都为

that people like to create and we want to share.

喜欢创造和分享的人们而设计。

Here is the critical difference between these:

两者的关键差别是：

LOLcats is communal value.

狂笑猫咪LOLcats具有公共价值（communal value）。

It's value created by the participants

它的价值产生于参与者之间的

for each other.

互动。

Communal value on the networks we have

网络上的公共价值

is everywhere --

到处都是。

every time you see a large aggregate

每次你看到的那些庞大集合的，共享的

of shared, publicly available data,

公共数据，

whether it's photos on Flickr

无论是Flickr上的照片

or videos on Youtube or whatever.

还是Youtube上的视频，或者其它什么。

This is good. I like LOLcats as much as the next guy,

这些都很好。我跟另一个人一样喜欢狂笑猫咪，

maybe a little more even,

或许更加喜爱。

but this is also

但这也是

a largely solved problem.

一个未被完全解决了的问题。

I have a hard time envisioning a future

我很难设想未来，

in which someone is saying,

就像有人说的，

"Where, oh where, can I find a picture

“哪里，在哪里，我们能找到

of a cute cat?"

一张可爱的猫咪图？”

Ushahidi, by contrast,

相反，Ushahidi

is civic value.

是一种公民价值（civic value）。

It's value created by the participants

它的价值产生于参与者，

but enjoyed by society as a whole.

但是整个社会都能共享。

The goals set out by Ushahidi

Ushahidi的目标

are not just to make life better

不仅仅让参与者的生活

for the participants,

变得更好，

but to make life better for everyone in the society

而让操作Ushahidi的社会中的

in which Ushahidi is operating.

每一个人都生活得更好。

And that kind of civic value

公民价值

is not just a side effect

不仅仅是

of opening up to human motivation.

激发人类动力的伴随现象，

It really is going to be a side effect

而是它真正的成为

of what we, collectively,

我们一起共同

make of these kinds of efforts.

努力的巨大效应。

There are a trillion

每年一万亿的

hours a year

小时

of participatory value

可供大家自由争取

up for grabs.

共享价值。

That will be true year-in and year-out.

年复一年的确如此。

The number of people who are going to be able

参与这些项目

to participate in these kinds of projects

的人数

is going to grow,

正逐渐增加。

and we can see that organizations

我们也会看见不同组织

designed around a culture of generosity

在共享的文化下，尽管没有巨额的合同开销，

can achieve incredible effects

也可以设计出不可思议的

without an enormous amount of contractual overhead --

作品。

a very different model

这是一个非常不同于

than our default model for large-scale group action in the 20th century.

20世纪的大规模团体行动的默认模式。

What's going to make the difference here

有所不同的是，

is what Dean Kamen said,

正如一位发明家和企业家狄安卡门所说

the inventor and entrepreneur.

的话。

Kamen said, "Free cultures get what they celebrate."

卡门说：“自由文化让大家得到所崇尚的东西而庆祝。”

We've got a choice before us.

我们现在正面临一个选择。

We've got this trillion hours a year.

每年我们有成千上万亿小时的空闲时间。

We can use it to crack each other up, and we're going to do that.

我们能利用它们让每个人都快乐起来，我们就要那么做。

That, we get for free.

而且，我们免费共享。

But we can also celebrate

但我们也要庆祝

and support and reward the people

和支持以及奖励那些

trying to use cognitive surplus

使用认知盈余

to create civic value.

创造公民价值的人们。

And to the degree we're going to do that, to the degree we're able to do that,

在多大程度上，我们要那么做，我们能那么做，

we'll be able to change society.

我们就能改变社会。

Thank you very much.

非常谢谢大家。