在1966年預(yù)測(cè)2000年的生活
英國(guó)廣播公司(BBC)檔案部在社交媒體上發(fā)布的一段6分鐘視頻短片，成了最近節(jié)日氣氛的亮點(diǎn)之一。視頻中，一個(gè)班級(jí)的青少年在1966年試著預(yù)測(cè)2000年的生活會(huì)是什么樣的。
The footage from Tomorrow’s World, a BBC television programme, was viewed close to half a million times in its first four days online and attracted about 4,000 comments. It is fascinating for anyone interested in futurology.
這段來(lái)自BBC《明日世界》(Tomorrow’s World)節(jié)目的短片，上線四天內(nèi)的點(diǎn)播量接近50萬(wàn)次，吸引了4000多條評(píng)論。對(duì)于那些對(duì)未來(lái)學(xué)感興趣的人，這段視頻令人神往。
The children of 1966 were a profoundly gloomy lot. Pessimists outnumber optimists by six to one. The miserabilists are principally worried about a nuclear apocalypse, which several regard as inevitable.
1966年的那群孩子們對(duì)未來(lái)非常沮喪。悲觀派遠(yuǎn)超樂(lè)觀派，比例為6：1。悲觀派主要擔(dān)心核末日，其中有幾個(gè)人認(rèn)為那是不可避免的。
Overpopulation is mentioned repeatedly, as is unemployment caused by automation and computers (“Something has to be done about it,” says one). Factory farming comes up, as does boredom occasioned by uniformity, rationing — and the prospect of having to live on food pills.
他們反復(fù)提及人口過(guò)剩的問(wèn)題，以及自動(dòng)化和計(jì)算機(jī)帶來(lái)的失業(yè)問(wèn)題。(其中一個(gè)孩子說(shuō)，“必須對(duì)此采取一些行動(dòng)。”)他們還提到了工廠化農(nóng)場(chǎng)，還有因整齊劃一統(tǒng)一和配給造成的無(wú)趣——以及必須依靠食物丸為食的前景。
Climate change is fretted over, after a fashion, by two children. A boy argues that orbiting satellites are interfering with the weather and will cause sea levels to rise “by 300ft to 600ft”. A girl believes the sun will burn out and start an ice age.
兩個(gè)孩子勉強(qiáng)算是對(duì)氣候變化感到不安。其中一個(gè)男孩認(rèn)為，在軌衛(wèi)星干擾了天氣，將造成海平面上升“300至600英尺”。一個(gè)女孩認(rèn)為，太陽(yáng)將燃燒殆盡，在地球上開(kāi)啟一個(gè)冰河期。
Another boy takes a different tack: “People will be regarded more as statistics than as actual people.” Another imagines: “I may be at the funeral of a computer, or if something goes wrong with a nuclear bomb, coming back from hunting while living in a cave.” I like that.
另一個(gè)男孩采取了截然不同的思路：“人們將在更大程度上被視為統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字，而不是實(shí)實(shí)在在的人。”另一個(gè)孩子想象道：“我可能會(huì)去參加一個(gè)計(jì)算師的葬禮，或者如果一枚核彈出了問(wèn)題，我會(huì)在洞穴內(nèi)生活，外出打獵謀生。”我喜歡這個(gè)想法。
The outnumbered optimists speak of racial harmony, of rich and poor still existing but getting on fine, of medical advances, and of better architecture (“more rounded and less boxy”). One girl’s optimism is non-specific: “People think the earth will explode but it won’t,” she says.
人數(shù)處于劣勢(shì)的樂(lè)觀派談到了種族和諧，提到富人和窮人仍會(huì)存在，但兩個(gè)群體和諧相處，還提到了更好的建筑設(shè)計(jì)(“房子會(huì)更圓，而不那么像方盒子”)。有一個(gè)女孩的樂(lè)觀比較籠統(tǒng)：“人們認(rèn)為地球會(huì)爆炸，但不會(huì)的，”她說(shuō)道。
For the most part, those viewing the clips have taken from it exactly what they wished.
大體上，看過(guò)這段視頻的人都找到了合乎自己愿望的內(nèi)容。
If their big worry is climate change, they seize on the 1966 interviewees’ mention of the weather as being super-perceptive. The child who says we will all be mere statistics by 2000 — not a particularly brilliant point — is hailed as a veritable seer by those who believe we are all helpless subjects of Google and Amazon.
如果他們最大的擔(dān)憂是氣候變化，他們便會(huì)抓住1966年的受訪者提到天氣這一點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為他們的觀察力超級(jí)敏銳。那個(gè)說(shuō)我們到2000年都將只是統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字——并非特別精辟的一點(diǎn)——的孩子，被那些認(rèn)為我們都是受谷歌(Google)和亞馬遜(Amazon)擺布的可憐蟲(chóng)的人譽(yù)為真正的先知。
“These kids are so right,” says one Twitter commentator. “Pretty much spot on with nearly everything they said!”
“這些孩子說(shuō)得太對(duì)了，”一名Twitter用戶評(píng)論稱，“他們所說(shuō)的幾乎一切都說(shuō)到了點(diǎn)子上!”
“Some very clever kids,” writes someone else on Facebook, “that can see what the future for animals and mankind is going to be very clearly. They can even think for themselves.”
“真的是一些非常聰明的孩子，”有人在Facebook上寫道，“非常清楚地看到動(dòng)物和人類的未來(lái)。他們甚至可以獨(dú)立思考。”
The Tomorrow’s World children seem serious and articulate, but their speculation mirrors only the stock dismal concerns of the day. I am of a similar age to those 1966 teenagers. As children, we were aware of the nuclear arms race, as I recollect, but we were mostly talking about “Americanisation” and of politics. Also missing is much of the era’s upbeat stuff on space exploration, technological marvels and cultural changes.
《明日世界》里的孩子似乎認(rèn)真而且善于表達(dá)，但他們的猜測(cè)反映的只是當(dāng)時(shí)典型的悲觀擔(dān)憂。我和那些1966年的青少年年齡相仿。我記得，小時(shí)候的我們知道當(dāng)時(shí)有一場(chǎng)核軍備競(jìng)賽，但我們討論的大多是“美國(guó)化”和政治。另外視頻中還缺少對(duì)當(dāng)時(shí)的正面事物的討論，比如空間探索、科技奇跡以及文化變化。
As for the children’s predictions proving accurate, I am afraid I do not agree — albeit as a perennial optimist and enthusiast for the 21st century.
至于孩子們的預(yù)測(cè)被證明準(zhǔn)確，我不能認(rèn)同——盡管我一直是個(gè)樂(lè)觀者，對(duì)21世紀(jì)充滿熱情。
The boy concerned about automation and its effect on jobs — a hot topic today — may seem unusually prescient. Perhaps he was and thought about it all on his own. But again, automation was widely discussed in newspapers and on television in the 1960s. Even aged 11, I remember family discussions about it.
那個(gè)擔(dān)心自動(dòng)化及其對(duì)就業(yè)影響——當(dāng)今的熱議話題——的男孩可能看似非常有先見(jiàn)之明。或許他確實(shí)如此，并且說(shuō)的完全是自己的想法。但是同樣地，自動(dòng)化是上世紀(jì)60年代報(bào)紙和電視上廣泛討論的話題。即使當(dāng)時(shí)我只有11歲，但我仍然記得當(dāng)時(shí)家里有關(guān)自動(dòng)化的討論。
An important book in 1966 was the University of Massachusetts economist Ben Seligman’s Most Notorious Victory: Man in an Age of Automation. Among its chapter headings: “Work Without Men” and “The Trauma We Await”. President Lyndon B Johnson even established a priority National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress in 1964.
馬薩諸塞大學(xué)(University of Massachusetts)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家本•塞利格曼(Ben Seligman)所著的《最臭名昭著的勝利：自動(dòng)化時(shí)代的人類》(Most Notorious Victory: Man in an Age of Automation)是1966年頗為重要的一本書。該書的章節(jié)標(biāo)題包括：“無(wú)人工作”(Work Without Men)和“我們等待的創(chuàng)傷”(The Trauma We Await)。時(shí)任美國(guó)總統(tǒng)林登•B•約翰遜(Lyndon B. Johnson)甚至在1964年成立了科技、自動(dòng)化和經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)步國(guó)家委員會(huì)，并將其放在優(yōu)先地位。
For me, the Tomorrow’s World clip has highlighted how we should be wary of basing prognostication on what is currently fashionable. Modish concerns rarely turn out to be on the money.
對(duì)我而言，《明日世界》這段視頻突顯了我們應(yīng)該如何警惕根據(jù)當(dāng)前潮流進(jìn)行預(yù)測(cè)。趕時(shí)髦的擔(dān)憂很少被證明是真正的先見(jiàn)之明。
The late Adrian Berry, a British science writer and Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Geographical Society and the British Interplanetary Society, went so far as to argue that humans fret over imaginary dangers, and that the degree of panic tends to be in inverse proportion to real peril.
已故的英國(guó)科學(xué)作家阿德里安•貝里(Adrian Berry)是皇家天文學(xué)會(huì)(Royal Astronomical Society)、皇家地理學(xué)會(huì)(Royal Geographical Society)以及英國(guó)星際航行協(xié)會(huì)(British Interplanetary Society)的成員。他甚至認(rèn)為，人類對(duì)想象中的危險(xiǎn)感到擔(dān)憂，而恐慌程度往往與真正的危險(xiǎn)成反比。
My nomination, then, for the leading misplaced fear of 2018 is artificial intelligence, which has dominated the future-gazing agenda for the past year.
那么，我提名的2018年頭號(hào)無(wú)厘頭擔(dān)憂是人工智能(AI)——過(guò)去一年AI主導(dǎo)著未來(lái)預(yù)測(cè)的議程。
There are many reasons for believing AI will not turn out be the monster so many fear. Frontline AI experts I have met, such as Ralf Herbrich, Amazon’s head of machine learning, believe claims made for the technology are overblown. AI, Mr Herbrich and many others say, is machine learning, which in turn is advanced pattern recognition — and is neither designed nor capable of “taking over the world”.
有很多理由相信AI不會(huì)像很多人所擔(dān)心的那樣變成可怕的怪物。我見(jiàn)過(guò)的第一線AI專家——比如亞馬遜的機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)主管拉爾夫•赫布里希(Ralf Herbrich)——相信，針對(duì)這項(xiàng)技術(shù)提出的說(shuō)法夸大其詞了。赫布里希以及其他許多人都表示，AI就是機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)，而后者是高級(jí)模式識(shí)別;“接管世界”既不是設(shè)計(jì)宗旨，也超出它的能力。
Without meaning to be flippant, a good reason for not giving today’s popular concern about AI much credence is precisely that it is a popular concern. If you are predicting what will really trouble us in the future, I commend you to look elsewhere.
我不想顯得油嘴滑舌，但是，之所以不要太相信當(dāng)今流行的對(duì)AI的擔(dān)憂，正是因?yàn)檫@是一個(gè)流行的擔(dān)憂。如果你想預(yù)測(cè)未來(lái)的真正麻煩，我建議你把目光投向其他領(lǐng)域。
