Jon Gosier: The problem with "trickle-down techonomics"

譯者: Melody Tang 審譯者: Sherry Chen

As a software developer and technologist,

身為一個軟體開發者和科技者，

I've worked on a number of civic technology projects

在過去多年來， 我曾參與許多公民科技計畫。

over the years.

Civic tech is sometimes referred to as tech for good,

公民科技有時又被稱為有益科技，

using technology to solve humanitarian problems.

運用科技解決有關人道主義的問題。

This is in 2010 in Uganda,

這是我 2010 年在烏干達，

working on a solution that allowed local populations

參與解決一個讓當地的人

to avoid government surveillance on their mobile phones

避免被政府監聽他們用手機 表達不滿的方案。

for expressing dissent.

That same technology was deployed later in North Africa

同樣的科技後來被應用到北非，

for similar purposes to help activists stay connected

為了同樣的目的，也被用於 幫助異議活動者保持聯繫。

when governments were deliberately shutting off connectivity

那時政府故意切斷 人民相互連結的途徑，

as a means of population control.

以便控制全民。

But over the years, as I have thought about these technologies

過去幾年來，我在思維這些科技

以及我所參與的工作時，

and the things that I work on,

有一個問題一直困擾著我。

a question kind of nags in the back of my mind, which is,

那就是，如果我們對於科技 有益之處的看法是錯誤的，

what if we're wrong about the virtues of technology,

and if it sometimes actively hurts

或許它有時反而傷害了

the communities that we're intending to help?

我們立意要幫助的社群呢？

The tech industry around the world tends to operate under similar assumptions

世界上的科技行業往往基於 類似以下的假設而運作：

that if we build great things,

他們認為如果我們創造了好的東西，

it will positively affect everyone.

就一定會正面的影響所有人。

Eventually, these innovations will get out and find everyone.

最終，這些創新的產品都會找到途徑 讓所有人使用。

But that's not always the case.

但是，事實並非如此。

我稱之為科技「下滲科技經濟」的 盲目擁護，

I like to call this blind championing of technology "trickle-down techonomics,"

to borrow a phrase. (Laughter)

借用一下這個短詞。（笑聲）

We tend to think that if we design things for the select few,

我們認為如果我們原先為了 特定的少數人而設計的東西，

eventually those technologies will reach everyone,

最後這些科技還是為所有人所用。

and that's not always the case.

但是事實並非全然如此。

Technology and innovation behaves a lot like wealth and capital.

科技和創新就像財富和資本，

They tend to consolidate in the hands of the few,

大多時候他們被掌握在少數人手中，

and sometimes they find their way out into the hands of the many.

偶而也會落入多數人手上。

And so most of you aren't tackling oppressive regimes on the weekends,

你們大多數不會在週末忙著 應付暴虐的政權，

so I wanted to think of a few examples that might be a little bit more relatable.

所以我要用一些你們 比較容易聯想的例子。

In the world of wearables and smartphones and apps,

在可以穿戴產品、智慧手機 和應用程序的世界裡，

there's a big movement to track people's personal health

有一個可以追蹤 人體健康狀態的大躍進。

with applications that track the number of calories that you burn

透過手機軟體， 它可追蹤你所燃燒的熱量，

or whether you're sitting too much or walking enough.

或計算你是否坐太久， 或者做足夠的走動。

These technologies make patient intake in medical facilities much more efficient,

這些科技讓醫療機構更有效率地 獲取病人的狀況，

and in turn, these medical facilities

反過來，這些醫療機構

開始期待這種形式的效率。

are starting to expect these types of efficiencies.

當這些電子工具進入到醫療診療室，

As these digital tools find their way into medical rooms,

and they become digitally ready,

它們就為數位化做好了萬全準備。

what happens to the digitally invisible?

但那些不能實現數位化的病人呢？

What does the medical experience look like

那些沒有 400 元美金的手機和手錶

for someone who doesn't have the $400 phone or watch

tracking their every movement?

來追蹤他們的日常生活的人， 他們的醫療經驗是如何呢？

Do they now become a burden on the medical system?

他們現在是否成為醫療體系的負擔呢？

Is their experience changed?

他們的醫療經驗是否改變了？

In the world of finance, Bitcoin and crypto-currencies

在金融的世界，比特幣和加密貨幣

are revolutionizing the way we move money around the world,

革新了錢在全世界流通的方式。

but the challenge with these technologies

但是這些科技的挑戰是

is the barrier to entry is incredibly high, right?

它們的門檻非常高，對嗎？

你需要有同樣的手機、設備、網路連結，

You need access to the same phones, devices, connectivity,

and even where you don't, where you can find a proxy agent,

以及甚至在你沒有的地方， 你必須能找到替代的工具。

usually they require a certain amount of capital to participate.

通常這些需要有一些錢才能參與。

And so the question that I ask myself is, what happens to the last community

所以我自問，那些僅存的 還在用紙幣的社群怎麼辦，

using paper notes when the rest of the world moves to digital currency?

當全世界都轉而使用數字貨幣時？

Another example from my hometown in Philadelphia:

另一個例子是我的家鄉－費城：

I recently went to the public library there,

我最近去那裡的一個公立圖書館，

and they are facing an existential crisis.

他們也正在面對生存危機。

Public funding is dwindling,

公共資金在萎縮，

they have to reduce their footprint to stay open and stay relevant,

為了能繼續開放和提供相關服務， 他們只能盡量減少所佔的面積.

and so one of the ways they're going about this

他們的解決的方法之一是

is digitizing a number of the books and moving them to the cloud.

將許多書數位化後，送到網路雲端。

This is great for most kids. Right?

這對大多數的小孩是很好的，對嗎？

You can check out books from home,

你可以在家裡就可以閱讀這些書。

you can research on the way to school or from school,

你可以在去學教的路上 或在學校裡做研究。

but these are really two big assumptions,

但是有兩個大前提，

that one, you have access at home,

第一，你的家裡必須有網路；

and two, that you have access to a mobile phone,

第二，你必須有手機可使用。

and in Philadelphia, many kids do not.

在費城，許多小孩沒有這些。

So what does their education experience look like

所以他們的教育經驗

in the wake of a completely cloud-based library,

在圖書館完全成為雲端化以後 會變成如何呢？

what used to be considered such a basic part of education?

實體圖書館以前是教育裡 最基本的部分。

How do they stay competitive?

這些孩子們如何維持競爭力呢？

A final example from across the world in East Africa:

最後的一個例子， 是在世界另一邊的東非。

there's been a huge movement to digitize land ownership rights,

那裡曾大力推動將土地所有權數位化，

for a number of reasons.

理由如下：

Migrant communities, older generations dying off,

在移民的社區裡，老一代的逐漸死去。

and ultimately poor record-keeping

最後由於保存紀錄不佳，

have led to conflicts over who owns what.

導致許多土地所有權的爭議。

And so there was a big movement to put all this information online,

所以他們大張旗鼓地 將這些資料放在網路上，

to track all the ownership of these plots of land,

以追蹤個別土地的所有權紀錄。

put them in the cloud, and give them to the communities.

他們將這些資料放在網上的雲端， 讓有關社群可以使用。

But actually, the unintended consequence of this

但是實際上，出乎意料的是，

has been that venture capitalists, investors, real estate developers,

風險投資家、投資者、房地產開發商人

have swooped in and they've begun buying up these plots of land

開始猛撲進來， 從這些社群買入這些土地。

right out from under these communities,

because they have access to the technologies

因為他們能夠運用科技 和網路連結來達到這些目的。

and the connectivity that makes that possible.

So that's the common thread that connects these examples,

這些例子的共同點是，

the unintended consequences of the tools and the technologies that we make.

這些不是我們在創造科技 和工具時所意想的結果。

As engineers, as technologists,

身為工程師、技術專家，

有時我們偏重效率多於效用。

we sometimes prefer efficiency over efficacy.

We think more about doing things than the outcomes of what we are doing.

我們較多想到去做一些事情， 而不是我們做這些事情的結果。

This needs to change.

這需要改變。

We have a responsibility to think about the outcomes of the technologies we build,

我們有責任要考量我們所創造的 這些科技所造成的後果，

especially as they increasingly control the world in which we live.

特別是當這些科技逐漸 在控制我們所生存的世界。

In the late '90s,

在 1990 年代末期，

there was a big push for ethics in the world of investment and banking.

在投資和銀行界，有一場很大型的 有關道德的推動。

I think in 2014, we're long overdue for a similar movement

在 2014 年，在高科技領域， 我們也早該有類似的推動。

in the area of tech and technology.

So, I just encourage you, as you are all thinking about the next big thing,

所以，我要鼓勵大家， 當你在想下一件大發明時，

as entrepreneurs, as CEOs, as engineers, as makers,

作為企業家、公司總裁、 工程師、製造業者，

that you think about the unintended consequences

也考量一下你們創造的東西 會不會產生意外的後果。

of the things that you're building,

because the real innovation is in finding ways to include everyone.

因為真正的創新要找到 能夠利及所有人的途徑。

謝謝！

Thank you.

（掌聲）

(Applause)