版主及各位版眾打擾了，不知道我文章po在這裡適不適合，若覺得跟此版無關的話，就 煩請版主刪文了。以下的文章是我最近從時代精神那裡接到的一份翻譯校對工作，我覺 得還不錯，內容是關於烏托邦的，所以應該可以po吧??因為我不知道PTT有沒有烏托邦版 或社會主義版之類的(好像沒有社會主義版?我只找到社會學版而已)，所以感覺只有這裡 最適合po這類的文章。若有冒犯敬請見諒! 這篇文章是The Venus Project的創始人Jacque Fresco所寫的，我把中英文貼上來，方 便一段一段對照。 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second. The complexity of today』s civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve in the future. Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for politics. 隨著未來科學與技術發展的出現，我們會把更多的決策交給機械。在今日，電腦的能力 已可接收每秒超過5百兆位元的資訊，目前最明顯的例子，就是在先進的軍事航空器中運 用電子感應器，以賦與其理想的飛航特性。在現今人類體制中，如不尋求電腦的幫助， 是無法管理今日文明所衍生出的複雜性。當然在未來，電腦也會比今日的電腦來得更先 進，社會系統的管理最終將需要運用電子感應器來互相聯結社會序列的全部階段，並因 此淘汰對政治的需要。 Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance. 例如，今日，現在已經有工業廠房設立自動庫存系統，能夠提前訂製材料，如機械軸承和 其他機械消耗品。 We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science. 我們相信，今日我們有可能實現一個社會，讓人類於其中可以更長壽、更健康，與更有生 活價值。在這樣的社會，衡量成功的要點將取決於實現個人的追求，而不是獲得財富和權 力。雖然許多在這裡提出的概念也許顯得無法實現，但所有的想法都是有已知的科學根據 。我的目的不是去寫一篇能讓大家接受的文章，因為這不是科學研究的精神。 The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development. 在此提議的社會方向，與歷史上任何其它之前的政治思想體系或經濟戰略毫無相關。建立 新文明的要素，將需要超越過往許多的傳統、價值觀、及方法。未來我們將發展全新的模 式，去適用於每個後續人類和科技發展的階段。 Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever pro-posed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage. 綜觀文明史，只有少數的國家領導人或政治家曾經提出一個全面性的計劃，以改善人民在 其轄區內的生活。雖然柏拉圖（Plato），愛德華貝拉米（Edward Bellamy），韋爾斯（ HG Wells），卡爾馬克思（Karl Marx），和霍爾史考特（Howard Scott）這些人都企圖 嘗試提出一種新的文明，但在既定的社會秩序裡，卻被認為是不切實際的烏托邦設計夢想 家，違背了人類的本性。列陣對抗這些社會思想先鋒的，是由那些滿足於現況的既得利益 者所構成的可畏現狀，再加上年復一年不停地灌輸現狀並制約大眾，使得大眾不求任何積 極的改變。我們有著數以百萬像這樣安於現狀unappointed的捍衛者。這些領導者們的 哲學見解，與他們的權位一致來取得特定的優勢。 註:這裡unappointed我功力不足，不太確定是啥意思或要翻成怎樣才好，所以抱歉了。 In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society. 在1898年，愛德華貝拉米寫了＜向後看＞（Looking Backward）一書。 他陳述一個理想 的平等社會系統，並加注了許多先進的概念。 這本暢銷書引起很多興趣，許多人詢問要 如何將這種類型的烏托邦合作社會運用於現實。但是愛得華貝拉米回覆說他只是一位作家 ，他並不知道要如何創造那樣的社會。 The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy's books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition. 愛得華的平等主義，與那些柏拉圖共和國、馬克思的著作、韋爾斯的書「觀念變遷的塑造 」、與許多其他思想觀念，都曾試圖解決舊有文明中，無法被解決的問題，並找出可行 的解決方案。毫無疑問，貝拉米的書籍在當時糟糕的社會條件下，更托顯烏托邦理想的 吸引力。但是，這樣的概念似乎缺乏一個總體性的規劃與過渡系統的必要方法，來使這 樣的概念成為現實，而在早期，建立一個新世界的概念，也沒有考慮到技術與人為價值 觀念的改變，傾向於防礙創新的努力。除此之外，全部的提議都缺乏一套全面性的藍圖 模型與觀念上的落實。最後，它們缺少具有能力的個人們，導致這樣的轉變無法實現。 The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in me-thodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment. 這些問題的答案的重點不在於辯論或關於價值的哲學討論，而是方法。因此，現在需要的 是去定義一個可行的更美好世界，如下：以改進全人類的生活與保護環境為唯一目的，將 現有和未來的技術發揮最大的價值。 Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology. 今日，我們已經發展了必要的技術，來超越過往社會革新者最天真的希望與夢想，就算 過往的社會改革是失敗的，我們仍不應有任何理由放棄嘗試，人類的真正危機在於自滿 ，而唯一限制人類未來發展的，都是我們強加在自己身上的。現在透過人道的科技應用 來解放人類與解決許多懸而未決的問題是絕對可行的。 Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system. 許多年前，一部叫做The March of Time的美國電影，試圖去了解一個與美國不同的社會 系統與經濟系統，有關蘇聯共產主義，影片說到：「我們相信美國的自由企業系統會比集 體企業系統來的更有成效，然而，我們預祝你們那不尋常的社會實驗能夠成功。」共產主 義未能滿足人類需求和豐富其公民的生命這一點，與我們自身的失敗其實有相同的地方。 這兩者的失敗與成功，都是在社會進化這個正在進行的實驗之中。在所有既定的社會體制 內，構思不同的方式，來改善系統的運作是必要的。 Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis before one was finally proven successful. All of the technology we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant state of improvement and modification. Yet our social system and values remain largely static. An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. 科學充滿實驗失敗與成功的例子，舉例而言，在飛機的開發歷史中，在經歷數以千計的失 敗之後才出現了成功的模型，並加以生產。醫藥領域的博士Paul Ehrlich嘗試了600種以 上不同的方法，才找出控制梅毒的方法。我們今日所使用的產品，如電腦，手機，網路， 飛機和汽車，都是在不斷改進和修改的狀態。但是我們的社會體制與價值觀卻仍然靜如止 水。一面在美國政府大樓上的碑銘寫道：「當未來無願景可言，人民將走向滅亡。」達成 願景是需要改革的。 The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general. It is imperative that we continue the process of social experimentation in order to transcend our present limitations and enhance the lives of everyone. 主要抗拒改革的理由，是因為會威脅到既定的利益關係。事實上，當我們思考一直以來的 文明歷史時，它其實只是一種文明的實驗罷了，而恐懼社會變革，也只是一份毫無根據的 概念而已。即使是美國的自由企業制度，在早期階段，也曾面臨著比今天更多嚴重許多的 各種問題。包括：長工時、剝削童工、不良的工廠通風設置、女性與少數民族缺乏權力、 礦井的危險工作環境與種族偏見，儘管我們有著許多的問題，這也刻畫出一個歷史上最佳 的社會進化實驗，不管是在多樣的生活型態與個體的自由、諸多創新的建築型態與科技等 方面，普遍皆有整體進展。我們勢必應該持續進行這樣的社會實驗，以凌駕我們目前的盲 點並改善每個人的生命。 The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth. 未來並不是取決於今日的理念與社會風俗，而是會持續演化出一套適時的獨特價值觀。「 烏托邦」並不存在，因為烏托邦的概念是靜態的。然而，任何社會制度的存活，最終取決 於發揮適當的改變來改善整個社會的能力。而我們的選擇將會決定在這個地球上，是否能 持續有高知性生命的存在。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 123.204.122.59