Howard Rheingold: Way-new collaboration

譯者: Dxm Online大小媒體 審譯者: Clare Wang

I'm here to enlist you

今天我來這裡徵募各位，

in helping reshape the story about how humans and other critters get things done.

一同來協助改造人類與其他動物做事情的方式。

Here is the old story -- we've already heard a little bit about it:

先講舊的方式，這個我們已經聽到了一些。

biology is war in which only the fiercest survive;

生物學是一場戰爭，只有最兇猛者可以生存。

businesses and nations succeed only by defeating,

商業及國家要成功，

destroying and dominating competition;

唯有擊敗、消滅以及支配競爭對手。

politics is about your side winning at all costs.

政治就是不擇手段要讓我方獲勝。

But I think we can see the very beginnings of a new story beginning to emerge.

但是我想我們可以看見一個新的方式正開始興起。

It's a narrative spread across a number of different disciplines,

這個方式在許多不同領域出現，

in which cooperation, collective action and complex interdependencies

當中企業、群體行動和複雜的互存關係，

play a more important role.

扮演著更重要的角色。

And the central, but not all-important, role of competition and survival of the fittest

而競爭與適者生存，儘管扮演核心角色，卻不是至高無上，

shrinks just a little bit to make room.

它們的角色會縮小、讓位出來。

I started thinking about the relationship between communication, media

當我在寫《聰明行動族》這本書時，開始思考起溝通、媒體

and collective action when I wrote "Smart Mobs,"

及群體行動三者間的關係，

and I found that when I finished the book, I kept thinking about it.

結果書寫完了，我還是不停地想。

In fact, if you look back, human communication media

事實上，當你回顧過去，人類的溝通媒體

and the ways in which we organize socially have been co-evolving for quite a long time.

及我們社會組織的方式，長久以來其實都是共同演進的。

Humans have lived for much, much longer

人類的歷史非常悠久，

than the approximately 10,000 years of settled agricultural civilization

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.

以小家庭為單位的游牧獵人，獵殺兔子，採集食物。

The form of wealth in those days was enough food to stay alive.

當時的財富就是有足夠的食物可以生存。

But at some point, they banded together to hunt bigger game.

但有一天這些家庭組織了起來，一起捕捉更大的獵物。

And we don't know exactly how they did this,

我們不確定他們當時是如何辦到的，

although they must have solved some collective action problems;

不過他們一定解決了某些群體行動的問題。

it only makes sense that you can't hunt mastodons

我們可以合理推斷，他們不可能一邊獵殺乳齒象，

while you're fighting with the other groups.

一邊跟其他團體鬥爭。

And again, we have no way of knowing,

另外，雖然我們也無從得知，

but it's clear that a new form of wealth must have emerged.

但顯然當時一定出現了新的財富模式。

More protein than a hunter's family could eat before it rotted.

蛋白質多到一個獵人家庭無法在肉爛掉之前吃完。

So that raised a social question

因此產生了一個社會問題，

that I believe must have driven new social forms.

而我相信這問題推動了新的社會模式。

Did the people who ate that mastodon meat owe something

那些吃乳齒象肉的人是不是要給

to the hunters and their families?

獵人家庭某些東西呢？

And if so, how did they make arrangements?

如果是的話，他們又是如何達成協議的呢？

Again, we can't know, but we can be pretty sure that some form of

我們也無法得知，但可以很確定的是，其中一定包含某種

symbolic communication must have been involved.

象徵性的溝通。

Of course, with agriculture came the first big civilizations,

當然，農業出現後，人類的第一波大型文明也出現了。

the first cities built of mud and brick, the first empires.

出現了第一批以泥土和磚塊建造的城市，第一批帝國。

And it was the administers of these empires

這些帝國的掌權人，

who began hiring people to keep track of the wheat and sheep and wine that was owed

開始雇人記錄別人欠下的麥子、羊、葡萄酒，

and the taxes that was owed on them

還有積欠的稅金，

by making marks; marks on clay in that time.

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.

不久之後，羅馬字母就被發明了。

And this powerful tool was really reserved, for thousands of years,

有好幾千年的時間，這強大的工具都專屬於

for the elite administrators (Laughter) who kept track of accounts for the empires.

幫帝國記帳的精英管理者。

And then another communication technology enabled new media:

然後，另一個新的溝通科技創造了新的媒體。

the printing press came along, and within decades,

印刷機出現了，此後短短幾十年內，

millions of people became literate.

就讓數以百萬計的人懂得讀寫。

And from literate populations,

而識字的人群

new forms of collective action emerged in the spheres of knowledge,

在知識、宗教、政治的領域裡，

religion and politics.

孕育出新的群體行動模式。

We saw scientific revolutions, the Protestant Reformation,

我們看到科學革命、新教改革，

constitutional democracies possible where they had not been possible before.

以及憲政民主。過去不可能的也成為可能。

Not created by the printing press,

這不是由印刷機創造出來的，

but enabled by the collective action that emerges from literacy.

而是識字促成的集體行動所成就的。

And again, new forms of wealth emerged.

各種新的財富模式再次興起。

Now, commerce is ancient. Markets are as old as the crossroads.

商業由來已久，市場的歷史跟十字路口一樣悠久。

But capitalism, as we know it, is only a few hundred years old,

但我們所了解的資本主義只有短短幾百年的歷史，

enabled by cooperative arrangements and technologies,

在合作規劃和科技的催生下出現。

such as the joint-stock ownership company,

例如合股公司，

shared liability insurance, double-entry bookkeeping.

共有責任保險及複式會計。

Now of course, the enabling technologies are based on the Internet,

當然，現在帶動發展的科技都以網路為基礎。

and in the many-to-many era, every desktop is now a printing press,

在多對多的時代，現在每個桌上型電腦都是印刷機、

a broadcasting station, a community or a marketplace.

廣播電台、社群或是市場。

Evolution is speeding up.

革命正在加速進行。

More recently, that power is untethering and leaping off the desktops,

近來這個力量開始從桌上型電腦轉向行動裝置。

and very, very quickly, we're going to see a significant proportion, if not the majority of

很快地，我們將會看到很高比例的人，甚至是大多數人

the human race, walking around holding, carrying or wearing supercomputers

或拿或提或穿著超級電腦四處行動，

linked at speeds greater

連線的速度

than what we consider to be broadband today.

比我們今天所謂的寬頻還要快。

Now, when I started looking into collective action,

當我開始研究群體行動時，

the considerable literature on it is based on what sociologists call "social dilemmas."

大量相關文獻的基礎是社會學家所謂的社會困境。

And there are a couple of mythic narratives of social dilemmas.

關於社會困境有幾個虛構的情境。

I'm going to talk briefly about two of them:

我要談到其中兩個：

the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons.

即囚犯的困境與共有財的悲哀。

Now, when I talked about this with Kevin Kelly,

我跟凱文凱利聊起這些事的時候，

he assured me that everybody in this audience pretty much knows the details

他跟我保證在座的每位大概都知道

of the prisoner's dilemma,

囚犯困境是怎麼回事。

so I'm just going to go over that very, very quickly.

我就很快地帶過，

If you have more questions about it, ask Kevin Kelly later. (Laughter)

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

囚犯困境其實是建構在

on a mathematical matrix that came out of the game theory

賽局理論中的一個數學矩陣。

in the early years of thinking about nuclear war:

用來探討早年核子戰爭

two players who couldn't trust each other.

兩個玩家無法信任彼此的情境。

Let me just say that every unsecured transaction

簡單來說，每個無擔保的交易，

is a good example of a prisoner's dilemma.

都是囚犯困境的好例子。

Person with the goods, person with the money,

一個人有貨物，一個人有錢，

because they can't trust each other, are not going to exchange.

因為彼此無法信任而無法進行交換。

Neither one wants to be the first one

沒有人想先交錢或交貨，

or they're going to get the sucker's payoff,

不然就成了冤大頭。

but both lose, of course, because they don't get what they want.

但這一來兩方都輸，因為他們都得不到想要的東西。

If they could only agree, if they could only turn a prisoner's dilemma into

唯有當他們同意，將囚犯困境變成

a different payoff matrix called an assurance game, they could proceed.

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

二十年前，羅伯特阿克塞羅德利用囚犯困境

as a probe of the biological question:

來探討生物學的問題：

if we are here because our ancestors were such fierce competitors,

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，

how does cooperation exist at all?

那麼怎麼還會有合作？

He started a computer tournament for

阿克塞羅德開始了一個電腦競賽，

people to submit prisoner's dilemma strategies and discovered,

讓大家投稿囚犯困境的策略，

much to his surprise, that a very, very simple strategy won --

出乎他意料之外，一個非常非常簡單的策略竟然贏了。

it won the first tournament, and even after everyone knew it won,

那策略贏了第一場比賽，甚至在大家都知道策略之後，

it won the second tournament -- that's known as tit for tat.

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

另一個經濟賽局可能不如囚犯困境廣為人知，

is the ultimatum game,

叫做最後通牒遊戲。

and it's also a very interesting probe of

它也是很有趣的探討工具，

our assumptions about the way people make economic transactions.

可以測試關於人類進行經濟交易的假設。

Here's how the game is played: there are two players;

遊戲是這麼玩的，有兩個玩家，

they've never played the game before,

雙方都從來沒玩過這遊戲，

they will not play the game again, they don't know each other,

以後也不會再玩。他們不知道彼此是誰，

and they are, in fact, in separate rooms.

而且兩人身在不同的房間裡。

First player is offered a hundred dollars

第一個玩家有一百塊美金，

and is asked to propose a split: 50/50, 90/10,

必須跟另一個玩家分，可以平分或90/10分，

whatever that player wants to propose. The second player either accepts the split --

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，

both players are paid and the game is over --

雙方獲得金錢然後遊戲結束。

or rejects the split -- neither player is paid and the game is over.

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

新古典派經濟的基礎

would tell you it's irrational to reject a dollar

會告訴你，只因為另一個房間裡的陌生人會拿到99元，

because someone you don't know in another room is going to get 99.

就拒絕一元的提議是不理性的。

Yet in thousands of trials with American and European and Japanese students,

可是，在成千上萬美國、歐洲及日本學生的測試裡，

a significant percentage would reject any offer that's not close to 50/50.

有顯著比例的人不接受接近平分的提議。

And although they were screened and didn't know about the game

儘管玩家經過篩檢，以前從來沒聽過這個遊戲，

and had never played the game before,

也從沒玩過，

proposers seemed to innately know this

提議的人似乎天生就知道這個結果，

because the average proposal was surprisingly close to 50/50.

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

而有趣的部分最近才出現，

when anthropologists began taking this game to other cultures

人類學家把這遊戲帶到其他文化去，

and discovered, to their surprise,

結果驚訝地發現，

that slash-and-burn agriculturalists in the Amazon

在亞馬遜過著刀耕火種生活的人，

or nomadic pastoralists in Central Asia or a dozen different cultures --

或是中亞的游牧畜民，或其他十幾種不同的文化裡，

each had radically different ideas of what is fair.

每個文化對公平都有極端不同的看法。

Which suggests that instead of there being an innate sense of fairness,

由此可見，與其說人類天生有個對公平的共同觀感，

that somehow the basis of our economic

我們的經濟交易基礎

transactions can be influenced by our social institutions,

是會被社會制度影響的，

whether we know that or not.

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.

另一個主要的社會困境就是，共有財的悲哀。

Garrett Hardin used it to talk about overpopulation in the late 1960s.

60年代末美國生物學家哈丁利用它來說明，人口過剩。

He used the example of a common grazing area in which each person

他舉某個共用的放牧區為例，

by simply maximizing their own flock

每個人只要個人的牛羊數目增加到最大值，

led to overgrazing and the depletion of the resource.

就將會導致過度放牧與資源耗竭。

He had the rather gloomy conclusion that

他的結論滿悲觀的，

humans will inevitably despoil any common pool resource

那就是人類無可避免地將掠奪任何共有的資源。

in which people cannot be restrained from using it.

因為人們無法克制不去使用它。

Now, Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist, in

政治科學家奧斯特姆

1990 asked the interesting question that any good scientist should ask,

在1990年問了一個有趣問題，是所有好科學家都該問的，

which is: is it really true that humans will always despoil commons?

人類是否真的總會破壞公共資源呢？

So she went out and looked at what data she could find.

於是她去審視她能找到的所有資料。

She looked at thousands of cases of humans sharing watersheds,

她查看了好幾千個個案，像是人們共用水域、

forestry resources, fisheries, and discovered that yes, in case after case,

森林及漁業資源，結果發現果然許多案例都顯示，

humans destroyed the commons that they depended on.

人類真破壞了賴以生存的共有資源。

But she also found many instances in which people escaped the prisoner's dilemma;

但是，她也發現在許多情況下，人們逃出了囚犯困境，

in fact, the tragedy of the commons is a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma.

事實上，共有財的悲哀就是一個多玩家的囚犯困境。

And she said that people are only prisoners if they consider themselves to be.

她說，如果人們覺得自己是囚犯，他們就會是囚犯。

They escape by creating institutions for collective action.

要逃離困境靠的是創造群體行動的機制。

And she discovered, I think most interestingly,

我覺得最有趣的是，她發現

that among those institutions that worked,

這些可行的機制

there were a number of common design

有幾個共通的設計原則。

principles, and those principles seem to be

而那些原則似乎

missing from those institutions that don't work.

是不可行機制所欠缺的。

I'm moving very quickly over a number of

我要很快地談談幾個領域：

disciplines. In biology, the notions of symbiosis,

領生物學中的共生、群體天擇，

group selection, evolutionary psychology are contested, to be sure.

以及演化心理學確實有爭議性。

But there is really no longer any major debate over the fact that

但是，合作機制在生物學上的角色已經從邊緣轉為核心，

cooperative arrangements have moved from a peripheral role to a central role

這一點則已經沒有重大爭議了，

in biology, from the level of the cell to the level of the ecology.

從細胞的層級到整個生態系，都是如此。

And again, our notions of individuals as economic beings

此外，我們將個人視為經濟個體的概念

have been overturned.

也已經被推翻了。

Rational self-interest is not always the dominating factor.

理性的利己考量不完全是決定因素。

In fact, people will act to punish cheaters, even at a cost to themselves.

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

最近，神經生理學的實驗顯示，

have shown that people who punish cheaters in economic games

在經濟遊戲中懲罰欺騙者的人，

show activity in the reward centers of their brain.

腦部的酬償中樞處於活躍狀態。

Which led one scientist to declare that altruistic punishment

這項發現讓一位科學家宣稱，利他的懲罰

may be the glue that holds societies together.

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

我剛才都在談新的溝通模式和新媒體

in the past have helped create new economic forms.

過去如何促成初新的經濟模式。

Commerce is ancient. Markets are very old. Capitalism is fairly recent;

商業是古老的，市場也歷史悠久，資本主義是近代的。

socialism emerged as a reaction to that.

而社會主義的崛起則是，對資本主義的回應。

And yet we see very little talk about how the next form may be emerging.

但我們卻很少講到下個模式將如何興起。

Jim Surowiecki briefly mentioned Yochai Benkler's paper about open source,

吉姆索羅維基提到尤海班克勒教授對開放原始碼的論文，

pointing to a new form of production: peer-to-peer production.

指出一種新的生產模式：P2P點對點的生產。

I simply want you to keep in mind that if in the past, new forms of cooperation

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，

enabled by new technologies create new forms of wealth,

繼而製造出新的財富形式，

we may be moving into yet another economic form

我們也許正走向又一個新的經濟模式，

that is significantly different from previous ones.

與過去截然不同。

Very briefly, let's look at some businesses. IBM, as you know, HP, Sun --

我們很快地來看看幾個企業。大家知道，IBM、HP、SUN...

some of the most fierce competitors in the IT world are open sourcing

IT產業中一些最強的競爭者正在開放軟體原始碼，

their software, are providing portfolios of patents for the commons.

正把專利組合開放共享。

Eli Lilly -- in, again, the fiercely competitive pharmaceutical world --

禮來藥廠在競爭激烈的藥品世界裡，

has created a market for solutions for pharmaceutical problems.

創造了一個解決藥品問題的市場。

Toyota, instead of treating its suppliers as a marketplace,

豐田不把供應商當市場看待，

treats them as a network and trains them to produce better,

而是把供應商視為網絡的一環，訓練加強他們的生產水準。

even though they are also training them to produce better for their competitors.

儘管豐田知道競爭者也將因此獲得更好的產品。

Now none of these companies are doing this out of altruism;

這些公司都不是為了利他而這麼做。

they're doing it because they're learning that

他們這麼做是因為他們開始了解到，

a certain kind of sharing is in their self-interest.

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,

開放軟體的生產讓我們看到世界級的軟體，像Linux及Mozilla，

can be created with neither the bureaucratic structure of the firm

可以不靠企業的官僚結構，

nor the incentives of the marketplace as we've known them.

也無法從我們熟悉的市場誘因中產出。

Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense.

Google用AdSense豐富成千上萬的部落客來使自己富足。

Amazon has opened its Application Programming Interface

Amazon開放了自己的應用程式介面，

to 60,000 developers, countless Amazon shops.

給六萬名開發者及無數的Amazon商店。

They're enriching others, not out of altruism but as a way of enriching themselves.

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 solved the prisoner's dilemma and created a market

Ebay解決了囚犯困境創造了前所未見的市場，

where none would have existed by creating a feedback mechanism

透過製造一個回饋機制，

that turns a prisoner's dilemma game into an assurance game.

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,"

不再因為彼此的猜疑而做出不理想的選擇，

it's, "You prove to me that you are trustworthy and I will cooperate."

而是你必須證明自己的誠信度來讓我願意合作。

Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia

維基百科利用上萬名志工來創造一個免費的百科全書，

with a million and a half articles in 200 languages in just a couple of years.

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

我們看到ThinkCycle讓開發中國家的非政府組織，

to put up problems to be solved by design students around the world,

上傳問題讓世界各地設計學科的學生來幫忙解決，

including something that's being used for tsunami relief right now:

包括現在海嘯救援中所使用的東西。

it's a mechanism for rehydrating

用來爲霍亂病者

cholera victims that's so simple to use it,

補充水分的簡單機制。

illiterates can be trained to use it.

即使是不識字的也可被訓練成操作者。

BitTorrent turns every downloader into an uploader,

BitTorrent將每個下載者變成上傳者，

making the system more efficient the more it is used.

讓系統變成使用愈多就愈有效率。

Millions of people have contributed their desktop computers

千百萬人使用網路連結的時候，

when they're not using them to link together through the Internet

都貢獻了自己的桌上型電腦，

into supercomputing collectives

變成超級電腦的集體，

that help solve the protein folding problem for medical researchers --

協助醫學研究員解決蛋白質摺疊的問題。

that's Folding@home at Stanford --

協助史丹佛大學的Folding@Home，

to crack codes, to search for life in outer space.

破解密碼及在外太空尋找生命跡象。

I don't think we know enough yet.

我認為我們知道的還遠遠不夠，

I don't think we've even begun to discover what the basic principles are,

甚至我們連最基本的原理是什麼都還未搞清楚，

but I think we can begin to think about them.

但是我們可以開始去思索這些問題。

And I don't have enough time to talk about all of them,

而我沒有足夠的時間可以說明全部，

but think about self-interest.

但是想想自我利益，

This is all about self-interest that adds up to more.

這全是關於累積自我利益來獲取更多。

In El Salvador, both sides that withdrew from their civil war

在薩爾瓦多的內戰中，撤退的兩方

took moves that had been proven to mirror a prisoner's dilemma strategy.

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,

在美國、菲律賓、肯亞及世界各地，

citizens have self-organized political protests and

公民利用手機和SMS自己組織，

get out the vote campaigns using mobile devices and SMS.

政治遊行及催票活動，

Is an Apollo Project of cooperation possible?

一個類似阿波羅登月計畫的合作是否可能呢？

A transdisciplinary study of cooperation?

跨學科的研究合作是否可能呢？

I believe that the payoff would be very big.

我相信帶來的獲利將非常地大。

I think we need to begin developing maps of this territory

我想我們需要開始為這新的領土規劃地圖，

so that we can talk about it across disciplines.

讓我們可以跨越領域進行討論。

And I am not saying that understanding cooperation

我並不是說了解合作行為，

is going to cause us to be better people --

將會使我們便成更好的人。

and sometimes people cooperate to do bad things --

有時候人們會一起合作做壞事。

but I will remind you that a few hundred years ago,

但是，讓我提醒你幾百年前，

people saw their loved ones die from diseases they thought

人們看見自己親愛的人死於疾病時，

were caused by sin or foreigners or evil spirits.

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.

迪卡兒說我們應該有一個全新的思考方式。

When the scientific method provided that new way of thinking

當科學帶來了那個新思考方式，

and biology showed that microorganisms caused disease,

當生物學查出微生物是造成疾病的原因，

suffering was alleviated.

就減緩了病人的痛苦。

What forms of suffering could be alleviated,

什麼樣的痛苦可以得到減緩呢？

what forms of wealth could be created

什麼樣的財富可以被創造呢？

if we knew a little bit more about cooperation?

如果我們對合作了解得更多。

I don't think that this transdisciplinary discourse

我不認為這跨學科的對話，

is automatically going to happen;

將會自動發生。

it's going to require effort.

這將會需要努力。

So I enlist you to help me get the cooperation project started.

因此，我在此招募大家來幫助我一起啟動這個合作計畫。

Thank you.

謝謝各位！

(Applause)

(掌聲)