SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY
几条历史原则
Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.
99
在此请将历史想象为两个组成部分的总和：一个是不规则组成部分，由无法预知也不遵循任何明显模式的事件组成；另一个是规则组成部分，由长期历史趋势组成。我们在这里考虑的是长期趋势。
FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered but only pushed a step ahead.
100
第一条原则。假如一个小改变影响了长期历史趋势，这种影响只能是暂时性的，趋势很快就能逆转回到原来的状态。（举例：政治反腐改革几乎总是只能取得短期效果，改革者终将懈怠，腐败也总会卷土重来。任何一个给定社会的腐败程度都是恒定的，或者只会随着社会的演变发生缓慢的变化。正常情况下，反腐改革只有在伴随着广泛社会变革的情况下才能取得长期效果，小规模改变是没有用的。）如果某个小改变看似在长期历史趋势当中取得了长期影响，这只是因为这个改变的方向与大趋势相一致，因此趋势没有得到改变，只是向前推进了一步。
The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.
101
第一原则基本上就是同义反复。假如某个趋势相对小改变而言不够稳定，这一趋势就会随机发展而非追寻特定方向，换句话说就是根本无法成为长期趋势。
SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without change all the other parts as well.
102
第二条原则。假如一项改变足够大，可以永久改变长期历史趋势，那这项改变必然影响整个社会。换言之，社会体系中的各个部分都是相关的，不可能永久性改变任何重要部分而不改变所有其他部分。
THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)
103
第三条原则。假如一项改变足够大，可以永久改变长期历史趋势，那么任何人都无法预测社会整体将如何改变。（除非许多其他社会也经历了相同的变化与同样的结果，这样才可以在经验基础上预测下一个经历了此类改变的社会可能会遭受类似的结果。）
FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.
104
第四条原则。新型社会无法从纸面上创造出来。换句话说，你无法提前设计新型社会，并期待该社会在得到建立之后会按照设计来运行。
The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.
105
第三条与第四条原则是人类社会复杂性的结果。人类行为的改变将会影响社会经济与物质环境，经济与环境互为影响，而社会与经济的改变又将以无法预测的方式作用于人类行为。因果律的网络过于复杂，任何人都无法理清并理解。
FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.
106
第五条原则。人们并不有意识地并理性地选择他们所属社会的形态。是通过社会演化而形成，不受人的理性控制。
The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.
107
第五条原则是前四条的结果。
To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it only has a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.
108
在此说明一下：根据第一条原则，一般说来进行社会改革的尝试要么遵从社会发展的方向（因此仅仅加速了无论如何都要发生的改变）要么就只有暂时性的效果，而社会很快就会恢复原状。如果要在任何重要的社会方面遵循发展方向进行持续性的改变，改革是不够的，必须诉诸于革命。（革命并不必然意味着武装暴动或推翻政府）根据第二条原则，革命绝不会仅仅改变某一个单独社会方面；根据第三条原则将会发生革命者们未曾期望或不想看到的改变。根据第四条原则，革命者或乌托邦主义者们建立的新型社会永远无法按照计划运作起来。
The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.
109
美国独立运动并不是反例。所谓的美国“革命”并不是我们所谓的革命，而是一场独立战争加上一场用力过猛的政治改革。开国元勋们没有改变美国社会的发展方向，也没有这么做的打算。他们仅仅将美国从英国的拘束性统治之下解放了出来。他们的政治改革没有改变任何基本趋势，仅仅将美国政治文化在自然发展方向上推了一把。美国社会是从英国社会分生出来的，而英国社会早已在代议制民主的方向上发展很久了。独立战争之前美国已经在各殖民地代表大会内部实行了相当程度的代议制民主。美国宪法确立的政治体系是根据英国政体与殖民地代表大会为模版构建出来的。开国元勋们的确进行了重大修改，他们走出了重要的一步。但是这一步仅仅是踏在了英语国家早已走了很久的道路上。证据就是英国本土以及所有英国人永久居留的殖民地最终都发展出了与美国类似的代议制民主。就算当年开国元勋们一时手软没有签署《独立宣言》，我们今天的生活方式也不会有显著差异。我们与英国的联系或许会更紧密，或许会有议会与首相而不是国会与总统，但这都不是什么大事。美国独立运动并未对我们的原则构成反例，而是对其进行了很好的诠释。
Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.
110
不过人们在应用这些原则时依然需要依靠自己的常识。这些原则的表述语言并不周密，有进行阐释的空间，也可以找到例外。因此我们提出这些原则并非将其当作牢不可破的定律，而是作为思考指南，希望能为关于未来社会的不成熟想法提供部分解药。应当牢记这些原则，假如某人得出了与这些原则相冲突的结论，他应当仔细审视自己的思考过程，仅仅在有坚实理由的前提下才维持原有结论。
INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED
工业技术社会无法得到改良
The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one -- soon swamped by the tide of history -- or, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words, by revolutionaries, not reformers.
111
上述原则也表现了为什么很难对工业体系进行改革从而防止其渐进性侵蚀我们的自由。技术至少早在工业革命时就就已经有了以个体自由与地方自主非为代价来加强体系的持续趋势。因此任何保护自由不受技术损害的改变都与我们社会的基本发展趋势相悖。这样的改变要么是暂时性的——很快就会被历史的潮水所淹没——要么就会因为足够产生永久性效果而改变我们这个社会的本质。这是根据第一与第二条原则得出的结果。此外，由于社会的变化无法事先得到预知（第三原则），这种变化将会伴随极大的风险。如果改变足以产生对自由长期有利的变化，那么就不会被风险吓倒，因为这些风险将极大地打乱体系。因此任何改革努力都过于软弱，无法生效。就算改革者们发动了足以带来持久不同的改革，他们也会在这些改革的破坏性效果表露出来后收手。因此只有那些愿意接受极端、危险且无法预测的体系变动的人才能对于自由永久有利的改变，换句话说就是革命者而不是改革者。
People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.
112
有些人急于拯救自由却不愿牺牲技术带来的所谓好处，他们会提出天真的新式社会构想来调和自由与技术。姑且不论这些人很少提出任何建立此类社会的具体方法这一事实，就算这些社会真能得到建立也得遵循第四条原则，要么崩溃要么产生与预期十分不同的结果。
So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbably that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.
113
因此即便是泛泛而言，想要通过改革协调自由与现代科技也很不现实。在接下来几节当中我们将会给出更详细的理由来总结为什么自由与技术进步不相容。
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
在工业社会里对自由的限制是不可避免的
As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health" programs, etc.)
114
正如在65-67段以及70-73段所解释的那样，现代人受到了一整套规则与规章的约束，他的命运取决于他人，这些人离他很远以致他无法对他们的决策施加影响。这并非偶然发生的事故，也不是傲慢的官僚独断专行的结果。在任何一个技术发达的社会这都是不可避免的。体系必须紧密监管人类行为，唯此才能正常运作。在工作当中人们必须遵守命令，否则生产过程就将陷入混乱。官僚体系必须根据硬性规定进行运作。假如允许底层官僚运用任何潜在的个人裁量就将打乱体系，底层官僚运用个人裁量导致的差异也会引发不公平的指控。的确，有一些对于自由的限制的确可以得到消除，但总体而言，答应组织对于我们生活的监管是工业技术社会正常运行所必需的。这将令普通人感到无力。不过正式的监管将会越发由心理工具所取代，使我们想要遵从体系对我们的要求（第14段，教育手段，“心理健康”项目，等等）
The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
115
体系必须强制人们的行为越发远离人类行为自然模式。例如体系需要科学家、数学家与工程师，否则就无法正常运作。因此儿童们担负了要在这些领域出类拔萃的巨大压力。青少年将大量时间花在静坐学习上是不自然的。正常的青少年希望花时间来能动地接触真实世界。原始民族训练儿童所做的事情与自然的人类节律自然和谐。例如美洲印第安人就会训练男孩到户外相互追逐——正是男孩子喜欢做的事情。但是在我们的社会儿童被迫学习技术学科，大多数儿童对此都不情不愿。
Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
116
因为体系持续施压来矫正人类行为，不能或不愿调整自己来适应社会需要的人也越来越多：这其中包括完全拒绝工作的社会救济领取者、青少年犯罪团伙、邪教信徒、反政府叛逆、激进派环保主义破坏者、辍学者以及其他各种抵制社会体系的人。
In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
117
在任何一个技术发达的社会，个体命运都必须依赖于那些他本人不能施加实质性影响的决策。技术社会无法分解成小型自主社区。因为生产有赖于极大数目的人和机器的协作。这祥一个社会必须是高度组织化的，而且不得不做出影响极其大量人口的决策。打个比方，当一个决策影响一百万人时，每一个被影响的个人对于该项决策平均只有百万分之一的影响力。实际上，决策往往是由政府公务员、公司主管抑或技术专家做出的，但即使是公众投票进行决策，一般也会因为投票人数过多而使得任何个人的投票不起什么实质性作用。因此，大多数个人不可能对于影响他们生活的重大决策产生任何值得注意的影响。在技术发达社会中，这一点是无可救药的。体系试图通过使用宣传手段来诱使人们主动要求那些已为他们作好的决策来“解决”这个问题，即使这种“解决办法”非常成功地让人民在感觉上好了一点，它也依然是对人类的一种贬低。
Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy." Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
118
保守派和其他一些人主张进一步加强地方社区曾经有过的自主权，但随着地方社区越来越与公共设施、计算机网络、高速公路、大众传媒以及现代医保制度等大规模系统纠缠在一起并且必须依赖它们才能存在，这种自主也就越来越不可能了。应用于一个地点的技术往往会影响到距离遥远的其他地区，这一事实同样说明了技术社会与自主的不相容。例如，在某条小溪使用杀虫剂或化学品可能污染下游几百英里的水供应，而温室效应则影响了整个世界。
The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.
119
体系的存在不是为了满足人类的需求，仅仅以满足人类需求为目的的体系也不可能存在。相反，体系会改变人类的行为以适应它自己的需要。这与可能假装引导技术体系的政治或社会意识形态无关，而是技术本身的问题，因为体系不是由意识形态引导的，而是由技术需求引导的。[18] 当然，体系满足了人类的许多需求。但一般说来，只有在满足人的需求对体系有好处时，它才会这样做。体系本身、而非组成体系的个人的需求才是至高无上的。例如，体系供给人们粮食，因为如果每个人都挨饿体系就不能运转；在方便的情况下，体系也会照顾人们的心理需求，因为如果太多的人感到压抑或变得反叛，体系就不能运转。但是，体系有许多充分且实际的理由要不断地对人施压，改变他们的行为以适应体系的需要。比方说，假如垃圾积累过多，那么政府、媒体、教育系统以及环保主义者就会一拥而上，用铺天盖地的垃圾回收利用宣传来淹没我们。假如体系需要更多的技术人员，那么各种声音就会组成一场大合唱来劝诱儿童学习科学。没有人停下来问一问：强迫青少年花费大量时间来学习他们之中大多数人都十分讨厌的东西是否人道。当技术工人因技术进步失去工作而去接受“重新训练”时，没有人问一问：像这样把他们推过来拨过去对于他们来说是否太屈辱。所有人都理所当然地认为，每一个人都必需向技术的需要低头，而且理由十分充分：如果人的需求被摆在了优先于技术需要的地位，就会出现经济问题、失业、短缺甚至更糟。在我们的社会当中，“精神健康”的概念主要被定义为在多大程度一个人能够根据体系的需要行事并且不会流露出承受精神压力的迹象。
[18]. (Paragraph 119) "Today, in technologically advanced lands, men live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious and political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, a Communist bank clerk in Moscow are far more alike than the life any one of them is like that of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities are the result of a common technology. . ." L. Sprague de Camp, "The Ancient Engineers," Ballentine edition, page 17.
[18]（119段）“今天，在技术发达地区，人们的生活方式十分相像，地理位置、宗教和政治上的不同几乎没有任何关系。芝加哥的一个基督教银行职员，东京的一个佛教银行职员，莫斯科的一个共产党银行职员，他们彼此之间的日常生活十分相像，而他们之中的任何一个人的生活与一千年以前人们的生活却非常不同。这种相像是普遍技术的结果……”L. Sprague de Camp，The Ancient Engineers，Ballencine版，第17页。
The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.
三个银行职员的生活其实并不完全一样。意识形态确实会产生某种影响，但所有技术社会必须遵循大致相同的进化路径，唯此才能存在下去。
Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
120
在体系内为目的感和自主权留出空间的努力只是一个笑话。例如，我们的公司把每个工人只组装一套机件的一部分改为每个工人都组装整套机件，声称这就是给了他们目的感与成就感。有些公司的确试图在工作中赋予雇员更多的自主权，但由于实际需要，这种尝试只能是非常有限的，而且无论如何也不能给予雇员有关最终目标的自主权，他们的“自主”努力决不能指向他们自己选择的目标，而只能指向雇主的目标。任何公司如果允许其雇员自行其是都会很快关门大吉。同样，对于任何一家存在于特定社会体系当中的公司来说，其中的雇员都必须将各自的努力指向企业的目标，否则企业就不能实现其作为系统一部分的目的。从纯技术角度来说，大多数个人或小团体在工业社会中都不可能享有高度自主权。甚至就连小型企业所有者通常也只有有限的自主权。除了遵从必要的政府规章之外，他还必须适应经济体系对自己的要求。例如，当有人开发出一种新技术之后，小企业主为了保持竞争力往往必须利用这种技术，无论他本人意愿如何。
THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS
技术的负面效应不可能与正面效应分割开来
A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
121
工业化社会不能迸行有利于自由的改革的一个更深层原因在于，现代技术是一个统一的系统，其中所有部分都相互依存。你不可能去掉技术当中“坏的”部分，只保留“好的”部分。以现代医学为例。医学的进步有赖于化学、物理、生物、计算机科学以及其他领域的进步。先进的医疗需要昂贵的高科技设备。只有技术先进、经济富裕的社会才能提供。显然，抛除了整个技术体系及其所有伴生物，你就不可能在医学领域有任何进步。
Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.
122
即使医学进步可以不依赖技术体系的其他部分，这一进步本身也会带来特定的弊端。例如，假设我们发现了治疗糖尿病的办法。带有糖尿病遗传倾向的人就会生存下来并且与他人一样繁殖，淘汰糖尿病基因的自然选择就会中止，而这类基因就会在人口中扩散。（在一定程度上这种现象已经发生了，因为糖尿病虽然仍旧不可治愈，却可以用胰岛素控制）许多其他疾病的易感性也会受到人口遗传退化的影响。这个问题的解决之道无非是优生学计划或者大规模人体基因改造工程。换句话说，未来的人类将不再是自然、偶然或者上帝（根据各人哲学观点而异）的造物，而是人造的产品。
If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. [19]
123
如果你认为现在的大政府过度地干涉了你的生活，那么你就等着政府着手管制你的孩子的遗传构造吧。随着人类遗传工程的到来，这种管制将不可避免，因为没有管制，遗传工程的后果将是灾难性的。
[19] (Paragraph 123) Just think an irresponsible genetic engineer might create a lot of terrorists.
[19]（123段）可以设想一下某无良基因工程师创造出一群恐怖分子的场景。
The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system. [20]
124
通常对于这类担忧的反应是谈论所谓的“医学伦理”，但是伦理规范无法在医学进步面前保护自由，只能使事情变得更糟。能够应用于遗传工程的伦理规范事实上将成为管制人类遗传构造的手段。一部分人（多半是上层阶级）将决定如此这般的遗传工程合乎“道德”，如此这般的做法则不道德，因而他们将在实际上将自己的价值观强加于整个人口的遗传构造。即使伦理规范是以完全民主的方式选择出来的，多数族裔也会将他们自己的价值观强加于那些很可能对于如何 “道德地”运用遗传工程另有看法的少数族裔。真正能够保护自由的伦理规范只能是一条，那就是禁止任何人类遗传工程。而我们可以十分有把握地说，这一点恰恰不可能在技术社会中得到实现。任何将遗传工程贬低成配角的规范都不可能维持下去，因为生物技术的巨大力量所产生的诱惑是无法抗拒的。特别是在大多数人看来，大量生物技术的应用显然且肯定是有益的（可以根除身体与精神疾病，赋予人们当今世界所需要的能力）。基因技术必将不可避免地得到大规模应用，但应用方式只能与工业-技术体系的需求相一致。[20]
[20]. (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered. Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of carcinogens into the environment.
[20]（124段）再举一个医学进步导致负面后果的例子。假设人们发现了治疗癌症的可靠方法，哪怕这种疗法过于昂贵，只能用于少数精英，依然会极大地削弱人们制止致癌物质逸入环境的意愿。
TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM
与自由的渴望相比，技术是更为强大的社会力量
It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise. Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.
125
在技术与自由之间不可能实现持久的妥协，因为技术是远远更为强大的社会力量，它将通过不断的强迫妥协来侵蚀自由。请想像两个邻居争地的案例，开始时两人各有一块同样大小的地皮，但其中一个比另一个强有力，强的那一个要占对方一块地，弱的那一个拒绝了。强的说“那好吧，让我们妥协，给我原先要的那块地的一半就行。”弱的没办法，只能让步。过了一些时候，那个强的邻居又要另一块地，然后又妥协，直这样妥协下去。通过一系列强加于弱者的妥协，强者最后占了他所有的地。在技术与自由的冲突中，情况也是一样。
Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.
126
请允许我们解释一下为什么与自由的渴望相比技术是更为强大的社会力量。
A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
127
一开始看上去并不威胁自由的技术进步往往会在日后极大地威胁自由。以机动车辆交通为例。从前步行者可以去任何他想去的地方，可以按照自己的步调行走，不用遵守任何交通规则，不依靠任何技术支持系统。机动车刚刚出现时好像增加了人的自由的。它们没有夺去步行的人的自由，任何人只想要不想买汽车就可以不买，而买了汽车的人则可以比步行者走得快得多。但是机械化运输很快就改变了社会并大大地限制了人的移动自由。当汽车多起来了之后，大规模地管制它们的使用就变为必需了。开上汽车之后，特别是在人口密集的地区，人们不能按照自己的步调去自己想去的地方，人们的移动为车流和各种各样的交通法规所限。人们将为各种各样的义务所累：牌照、驾驶员考试、更换注册、保险、安全维修、每月付车款，等等。尤其是人们不再拥有选择是否使用机动车辆交通的自由。自从有了机动车辆交通，我们的城市的布局已有了很大改变：大多数人的居所已不在其工作场所、购物区和娱乐区的步行距离之内，因而他们不得不依赖汽车交通或者必须使用公共交通。这时他们对自己的移动的控制更少于自己开车。甚至步行者的自由也变到了很大限制。在城市里，他要不断地停下来等待为汽车交通而设计的红绿灯。在乡下，机动车交通也使得沿高速公路行走变得危险而难受。（注意我们在机动车案例中阐述的重要论点：一项新技术刚开始往往是以一种备选的面目出现的，作为个人可以接受也可以不接受，但它不一定停留在备选的位置上。在许多情况下，新技术会改变社会，最后人们会发现他们自己将要被强制去使用它）
While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
128
尽管技术进步作为整体不断压缩我们的自由空间，但是每一项新的技术进步单独考虑都是可取的。电、室内上下水管道、快速远距离通讯……一个人怎么能反对这些东西呢？怎么能反对数不清的技术进步呢？正是这些技术进步造就了现代社会。例如，反对电活实在是荒唐的，因为电话带来的全是方便而没有任何不便。然而，正如我们在59-79段中解释的那样，所有的技术进步汇总到一起就创造出了这样一个世界.在这个世界中，普通人的命运不再掌握在他自己或他的邻居朋友手中，而是掌握在政客，公司主管及遥远的、不知其名的技术人员和官僚手中，而对这些人他是没有任何影响力的。[21] 这一过程将在未来继续下去。以遗传工程为例。很少人会反对消灭某种遗传疾病的遗传技术。它没有任何明显的害处，却能消除大量的痛苦。而大量对于人类的遗传改进汇总到一起则会把人变成设计制造的产品而不是随机性（或上帝，或其他什么，取决于你的信仰）的创造物。
[21]. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we will illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils the game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves.
The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.
[21] 许多人都觉得许多好东西合到起就会变成坏东西是一个有悖常理的想法，因此我们将用一个类比来说明。假设A先生与B先生下棋，而C先生是一位特级大师，站在A先生后面看棋。A先生当然想赢，于是C先生给他支了一步好招，他是在帮A先生。但现在假设C先生告诉A先生这盘棋的全部下法，情况会如何呢？在两种情况下，C先生都是给A先生支好招来帮他，但如采他替A先生走完这盘棋，他就等于把这盘棋搅了，因为如果有其他人替他走棋，A先生还下个什么劲呢？现代人的处境十分似于A先生。体系在无数方面都方便了个人的生活，但这样它就剥夺了个人对于自己命运的控制。
Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.
129
技术之所以是如此强有力的社会力量的另一个理由是，在给定社会的条件下技术进步只会不可逆地朝一个方向前进。只要某项技术发明被引进，人们就往往会对其产生依赖，除非它被某种更先进的发明所取代。人们不仅仅作为个人依赖这项新技术。甚至体系作为一个整体都会依赖它。（例如请想像一下，如果没有了计算机，今天的体系会怎么样）因此，体系只能朝向更加技术化的方向移动。在不至于颠覆整个技术体系的前提下，技术将会不断地逼迫自由后退。
Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long different social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.
130
技术的进步十分迅速并在许多方面威胁自由（拥挤、规章制度、个人对于大型组织越发严重的依赖、宣传与其他心理学技术、遗传工程、通过监视设备和计算机侵犯隐私，等等），阻挡任何一项对于自由的威胁都需要一场单独的社会斗争。那些想要保卫自由的人会被无数的新攻势及其发展速度所压倒，他们会变得微不足道并停止抵抗。分别反击这些威胁是无效的。只有把技术体系作为一个整体来反击才有成功的希望，但这就是革命而不是改革了。
Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.
131
技术人员（我们在此取这个名词的广义定义来描述所有那些执行需要培训的专门任务的人）往往如此投入自己的工作（他们的替代活动），以至于当他们的技术工作和自由之间发生冲突时，他们几乎总是决定以技术工作为先。对于科学家来说这是显而易见的，但这种情况也出现在其他地方：教育机构、人道主义团体与环保组织都会毫不犹豫地使用宣传或其他心理手段以便他们实现其值得称道的目的。公司和政府机构发现个人信息很有用之后，也会毫不犹豫地进行采集而丝毫不考虑隐私问题。执法机构经常因为犯罪嫌疑人与完全无辜者的宪法权利感到不便，于是他们采取了一切合法（或非法）手段以限制或规避这些权利。大多数教育工作者，政府官员和执法人员相信自由、隐私和宪法权利，但是当这些观念与他们的工作相冲突时，他们通常会觉得自己的工作更重要。
It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technilogiccal invasions of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome, consequently there are a few who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technological progress, most would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system.
132
众所周知，人们在追求报偿时比起在避免惩罚或不良后果时工作得更好、更坚持不懈。科学家和其他技术人员主要是为了报偿而工作，但那些抵抗技术对于自由的侵犯的人们却是为了避免不良后果而工作。因此，只有很少的人能够坚持不懈并且全心投入地从事这项令人泄气的工作。如果改革者的确获得了明面上的显著胜利，设立了防止技术进步进一步侵蚀自由的坚固屏障，那么大多数人都会松懈下来并把注意力转向更为惬意的追求。但科学家会仍旧留在他们的实验室里忙活，而技术随着自身的进步会找到办法绕过任何屏障，将越来越多的控制加于个人头上，使他们越来越依赖于体系。
No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
133
无论是法律、机构、习惯还是伦理规范，任何社会安排都不可能提供永久的保护来防止技术的侵害。历史表明，所有的社会安排都是短暂的，它们最后都会改变或崩坏。但是技术进步在给定的文明的背景下却是永久的。例如假设我们能够作出防止遗传工程应用于人类，或是防止其威胁自由与尊严的某种社会安排，技术仍会等在那里。迟早这种社会安排会崩坏，多半很快就会崩坏，因为我们的社会变化是如此之快。这时，遗传工程就会开始入侵我们的自由领域，而这种入侵却是不可逆的（除非技术文明本身崩坏）。任何通过社会安排获得持久成果的幻想都会被最近在环境立法中发生的事情所打破。几年以前，我们似乎已经有了一些牢靠的法律屏障，至少可以防止某些最坏的环境退化。但是政坛风向一变，这些屏障也就崩溃了。
For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.
134
所有前述理由说明，技术是比自由的渴望更强大的社会力量。但需要对这一陈述作一个重要的限定：在未来几十年中，由于经济和环境问题，特别是由于人类行为的问题（异化、反叛、敌意，许多社会和心理困难），工业-技术体系很可能会承受严重的压力。我们希望体系多半要经历的这种压力会引发其崩溃，或至少起到足够的削削弱作用，使得革命能够发生并获得成功，那时，自由的渴望将证明自己比技术更强大。
In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.
135
在第125段中，我们使用了一个被其强邻通过一系列强制性妥协抢走了所有土地，最后一无所有的弱邻的比喻。但是，假设强邻病了，不能保卫自己了，弱邻就可以迫使其归还自己的土地或在有机会时将其杀死。同样，我们在工业体系患病时将其摧毁。如果我们与其妥协，给它从病中恢复的机会，它将最终剥夺我们所有的自由。