我最近寫了關(guān)于每個(gè)合格的未來主義者都應(yīng)該知道的約20個(gè)術(shù)語的文章，但現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候關(guān)注其對立面了——這里有 10 個(gè)沒有意義的偽未來主義術(shù)語和概念。

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


I recently wrote about 20 terms every self-respecting futurist should know, but now it's time to turn our attention to the opposite. Here are 10 pseudofuturist catchphrases and concepts that need to be eliminated from your vocabulary.


頂圖：Elysium 的截圖。
1.“超越”

1. "Transcendence"


一些未來學(xué)家以一種與宗教根源相差無幾的方式使用這個(gè)詞。希望我們的科技能夠幫助我們體驗(yàn)超越正常形式或物理界限的存在。我們最終很有可能學(xué)會如何在計(jì)算機(jī)中成功模擬大腦，但我們是否能夠轉(zhuǎn)移意識本身，這是一個(gè)開放性的問題。換句話說，未來可能不屬于我們，而是屬于我們的副本。因此，任何生物都不可能真正經(jīng)歷超越的過程（也就是說超越只是幻覺）。更重要的是，在一個(gè) "超越的 "數(shù)字化世界的生活雖然充滿了難以置信的潛力，但不會像在公園里散步那樣簡單；完全超越不可能是一個(gè)可行目標(biāo)。模擬思維容易被黑客攻擊、被刪除、被未經(jīng)授權(quán)的復(fù)制，還有如何維持最低生活水平的問題。事實(shí)上，一個(gè)所謂的“上傳思想”可能會脫離其肉體形式，但不會脫離經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實(shí)和物理限制，包括運(yùn)行模擬思維的超級計(jì)算機(jī)的安全性和可靠性，以及采購足夠的處理能力和存儲空間的成本問題。

Some futurists toss this word around in a way that's not too far removed from its religious roots. The hope is that our technologies can help us experience our existence beyond normal or physical bounds. Now, it very well may be true that we'll eventually learn how to emulate brains in a computer, but it's an open question as to whether or not we'll be able to transfer consciousness itself. In other words, the future may not for us — it'll be for our copies. So it's doubtful any biological being will ever literally experience the process of transcension (just the illusion of it).
What's more, life in a "transcendent" digitized realm, while full of incredible potential, will be no walk in the park; full release, or transcendence, is not likely an achievable goal. Emulated minds, or ems, will be prone to hacking, deletion, unauthorized copying, and subsistence wages. Indeed, a so-called uploaded mind may be free from its corporeal form, but it won't be free from economic and physical realities, including the safety and reliability of the supercomputer running the ems, and the costs involved in procuring sufficient processing power and storage space.

2.奇點(diǎn)

2. "The Singularity"

Vernor Vinge引入了這個(gè)宇宙學(xué)術(shù)語，用來描述我們預(yù)測思維中的盲點(diǎn)，或者更確切地說，我們無法預(yù)測在比人類更高的人工智能出現(xiàn)后會發(fā)生什么。但在那之后，技術(shù)奇點(diǎn)已經(jīng)退化為一個(gè)沒有任何真正意義的術(shù)語。
除了其準(zhǔn)宗教內(nèi)涵之外，“奇點(diǎn)”一詞已經(jīng)變成對未來學(xué)家的真正羅夏測試。奇點(diǎn)已被用來描述加速的變化或技術(shù)進(jìn)步幾乎瞬間發(fā)生的未來時(shí)刻。奇點(diǎn)也被用來描述人類過渡到后人類的狀態(tài)，思維上傳，以及一個(gè)烏托邦時(shí)代的到來。由于這個(gè)詞的寬泛含義，以及在未來等待我們的險(xiǎn)境越來越明晰（例如智能爆炸），我們要放棄奇點(diǎn)的概念轉(zhuǎn)而用更多實(shí)質(zhì)的、明確的假設(shè)。

Vernor Vinge co-opted this term from cosmology as a way to describe a blind spot in our predictive thinking, or more specifically our inability to predict what will happen after the advent of greater-than-human machine intelligence. But since that time, the Technological Singularity has degenerated to a term void of any true meaning.
In addition to its quasi-religious connotations, it has become a veritable Rorschach Test for futurists. The Singularity has been used to describe accelerating change or a future time when progress in technology occurs almost instantly. It has also be used to describe humanity's transition into a posthuman condition, mind uploads, and the advent of a utopian era. Because of all the baggage this term has accumulated, and because the peril that awaits us coming clearer into focus (e.g. the Intelligence Explosion), it's a term that needs to be put to bed, replaced by more substantive and unambiguous hypotheses.

3.《科技拯救未來》

3."Technology Will Save the Future"


我完全贊同我們應(yīng)該利用科技為我們自己和后代打造理想的未來。 但重要的是，我們要承認(rèn)未來肯定會面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，以及我們的努力可能帶來的意外后果。
科技是一把雙刃劍，不斷讓我們面對新問題。 我們的發(fā)明通常會導(dǎo)致需要解決的矛盾。 槍支產(chǎn)生了對槍支管制和防彈背心的需求。 軟件產(chǎn)生了對殺毒軟件和防火墻的需求。 工業(yè)化導(dǎo)致了工會、氣候變化和對地球工程的需求，飛機(jī)已被選為恐怖主義武器，等等。 這種態(tài)勢會一直持續(xù)下去。

I wholeheartedly agree that we should use technology to build the kind of future we want for ourselves and our descendants. Absolutely. But it's important for us to acknowledge the challenges we're sure to face in trying to do so and the unintended consequences of our efforts.
Technology is a double-edged sword that's constantly putting us on the defensive. Our inventions often produce outcomes that need to be provisioned for. Guns have produced the need for gun control and bulletproof vests. Software has produced the need for antivirus programs and firewalls. Industrialization has resulted in labour unxs, climate change, and the demand for geoengineering efforts. Airplanes have been co-opted as terrorist weapons. And on and on and on.


我們的科技發(fā)展可能會導(dǎo)致未來我們的星球遭到破壞和資源耗盡，我們的隱私消失，我們的公民自由受到嚴(yán)重限制，我們的政治、社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)發(fā)生劇烈變化。 因此，盡管我們?nèi)詰?yīng)努力創(chuàng)造未來，但必須記住，我們將不得不適應(yīng)親手創(chuàng)造的未來。

The evolution of our technologies could result in a future in which our planet is wrecked and depleted, our privacy gone, our civil liberties severely curtailed, and our political, social and economic structures severely altered. So while we should still strive to create the future, we must remember that we're going to have to adapt to this future.

4.“必然”

4. "Will"

我們經(jīng)常在談?wù)撐磥頃l(fā)生的事情時(shí)說得好像它們必然發(fā)生，或者好像我們是自己命運(yùn)的主人。 問題是，不同的人對未來有不同的看法，這取決于他們的需求、價(jià)值觀和特權(quán)地位； 利益競爭總是會引起緊張局勢。 更重要的是，我們無疑會在此過程中遇到一些棘手的科技和經(jīng)濟(jì)障礙，更不用說一些黑天鵝（意外事件）和騾子（超出我們目前對世界運(yùn)作方式的理解的意外事件）事件。
另一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)來自 Idea Couture 的遠(yuǎn)見戰(zhàn)略家Jayar LaFontaine， 他告訴我：
“必然”這個(gè)詞被未來學(xué)家濫用了。 這個(gè)詞看似很微不足道，所以人們可以把這個(gè)詞加入演講中以創(chuàng)造一種幾乎總是不合適的權(quán)威感。 通常情況下，它表明未來學(xué)家對某個(gè)主題的個(gè)人偏見，而不是對確定性的任何認(rèn)真評估。 對我來說重點(diǎn)是這個(gè)詞會終止關(guān)于未來的有效交流。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


We often speak about things that will happen in the future as if there's a certain inevitability to it, or as if we're masters of our own destinies. Trouble is, different people have different visions of the future depending on their needs, values, and place of privilege; there will always be a tension arising from competing interests. What's more, we will undoubtedly hit some intractable technological and economic barriers along the way, not to mention some black swans (unexpected events) and mules (unexpected events beyond our current understanding of how the world works).
Another perspective comes from Jayar LaFontaine, a Foresight Strategist with Idea Couture. He told me,
The word "will" is wildly overused by futurists. It's small and innocuous, so it can be slipped into speech to create a sense of authority which is almost always inappropriate. More often than not, it indicates a futurist's personal biases on a subject rather than any serious assessment of certainty. And it can shut down fruitful conversations about the future, which for me is the whole point.

5.永生

5. "Immortality"

激進(jìn)的延壽和超人類主義社區(qū)中的一些人喜歡談?wù)搶?shí)現(xiàn)“永生”。 事實(shí)上，未來的人類很有可能最終實(shí)現(xiàn)停止老化——一種顯著的可能是通過幾類科技的結(jié)合應(yīng)用來實(shí)現(xiàn)，包括生物科技、控制論、神經(jīng)科學(xué)、分子納米科技等。 但這個(gè)前景有點(diǎn)太樂觀了。
首先，意外或不可避免的死亡（比如被有軌電車撞死、被謀殺或無意中駕駛航天器遇上超新星）將永遠(yuǎn)是人類或后人類的生命中不可避免的一部分。 確實(shí)，我們活得越久，被外力殺死的可能性就越大。 其次，宇宙是有限的——這意味著我們的存在也是有限的。 這可能意味著生命的最終命運(yùn)由宇宙的熱寂、大擠壓或大撕裂決定。 與 弗蘭克·J·蒂普勒的想法相反，這里沒有漏洞——甚至沒有復(fù)活生命的歐米茄點(diǎn)。

Some folks in the radical life extension and transhumanist communities like to talk about achieving "immortality." Indeed, there's a very good chance that future humans will eventually enter into a state of so-called negligible senescence (the cessation of aging) — a remarkable development that will likely come about through the convergence of several tech sectors, including biotechnology, cybernetics, neuroscience, molecular nanotechnology, and others. But it's a prospect that has been taken just a bit too far.
First, accidental or unavoidable deaths (like getting hit by a streetcar, being murdered, or inadvertently flying a spacecraft into a supernova) will always be a part of the human — or posthuman — condition. Indeed, the longer we live, the greater chance we have of getting killed in one way or another. Second, the universe is a finite thing — which means our existence is finite, too. That could mean an ultimate fate decided by the heat death of the universe, the Big Crunch, or the Big Rip. And contrary to the thinking of Frank Tipler, there's no loop hole — not even a life-resurrecting Omega Point.

6.“顛覆性”

6. "Disruptive"

如今，幾乎所有從硅谷出來的小玩意兒都被過譽(yù)為具有顛覆性。 我不認(rèn)為這個(gè)詞的內(nèi)涵與這些公司宣傳的意思一樣。
老實(shí)說，要使一項(xiàng)科技真正具有顛覆性，它必須動(dòng)搖社會的基礎(chǔ)。 回顧歷史，可以肯定地說，電報(bào)、火車、汽車和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)確實(shí)具有顛覆性。 展望未來，分子組裝的發(fā)展、大規(guī)模自動(dòng)化的社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)后果以及人工智能和通用人工智能的廣泛應(yīng)用可能具有顛覆性。

Virtually every gadget that comes out of Silicon Valley these days is heralded as being disruptive. I don't think this word means what these companies think it means.
Honestly, for a technology to be truly disruptive it has to shake the foundations of society. Looking back through history, it's safe to say that the telegraph, trains, automobiles, and the Internet were truly disruptive. Looking ahead, it'll be various developments in molecular assembly, the social and economic consequences of mass automation, and the proliferation of AI and AGI.


7.未來沖擊

7. "Future Shock"

這是一個(gè)很快就會過時(shí)的術(shù)語。

This is a term that's getting old fast.

當(dāng)然，未來沖擊可能在70 年代初Alvin Toffler第一次提出這個(gè)理念時(shí)就已經(jīng)發(fā)生過（盡管我對此表示懷疑），但是真的有人遭受“未來沖擊”嗎？ 托夫勒將其描述為“在太短時(shí)間內(nèi)發(fā)生太多變化”導(dǎo)致的“巨大壓力和迷?！保也挥浀迷谧钚碌腄SM-V（精神疾病診斷與統(tǒng)計(jì)手冊第五版）中見過這種病。
毫無疑問，我們社會中的許多人都反對變革——比如抵制同性婚姻或全民醫(yī)療保健——但將他們描述為處于受沖擊狀態(tài)是不準(zhǔn)確和不合理的， 也許是反動(dòng)的。

Sure, such a thing may have existed in the early 1970s when Alvin Toffler first came up with the idea (though I doubt it), but does anyone truly suffer from "future shock"? Toffler described it as "shattering stress and disorientation" caused by "too much change in too short a period of time," but I don't recall seeing it in the latest edition of the DSM-V.
No doubt, many folks in our society rail against change — like resistance to gay marriage or universal healthcare — but it would be inaccurate and unfair to refer to them as being in a state of shock. Reactionary, maybe.


8.《摩爾定律》

8. "Moore's Law"

不，摩爾定律不是定律。 充其量只是一個(gè)一致的經(jīng)驗(yàn)規(guī)律——而且是一個(gè)相當(dāng)明顯的規(guī)律。 是的，處理器的處理速度越來越快了。 但為什么要稱之為定律而迷信呢？ 還有其他類似的可觀察到的規(guī)律，包括軟件、電信、材料小型化甚至生物科技的穩(wěn)步進(jìn)步。 事實(shí)上，數(shù)學(xué)“定律”可以預(yù)測許多經(jīng)濟(jì)部門的產(chǎn)業(yè)增長和生產(chǎn)力。 更重要的是，摩爾定律不是進(jìn)步的指標(biāo)（摩爾定律經(jīng)常被用來衡量進(jìn)步），尤其是社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)步。

Nope, not a law. At best it's a consistent empirical regularity — and a fairly obvious one at that. Yes, processing speed is getting faster and faster. But why fetishize it by calling it a law? There are other similar observable regularities, including steady advancements in software, telecommunications, materials miniaturization, and even biotechnology. An in fact, mathematical "laws" can predict industrial growth and productivity in many sectors. What's more, Moore's Law is a poor barometer of progress (something it's often used for), particularly social and economic progress.

9.機(jī)器人啟示錄

9. "The Robot Apocalypse"

讓我們暫時(shí)假設(shè)一個(gè)人工超級智能最終出現(xiàn)并決定摧毀所有人類（插句題外話，考慮到它更有可能是偶然或因?yàn)樗鼰o動(dòng)于衷）。 由于人們經(jīng)常把人工智能與機(jī)器人這兩種技術(shù)混為一談，因此許多人表示隨之而來的很可能是侵略性機(jī)器人——即所謂的機(jī)器人啟示錄。
當(dāng)然，瘋狂的超級人工智能當(dāng)然可以毀滅人類，但常規(guī)武力并不是最有效的手段。 一種更可能的情況是某種納米噬菌體破壞大氣層或地球表面。 或者，人工智能也可以用致命病毒感染全體人類。 或者毒化所有的水和食物供應(yīng)。 還有其它不可預(yù)見的方式——沒關(guān)系。 關(guān)鍵是，如果AI想，它根本不需要那些蠢辦法來毀滅人類。

Let's assume for a moment that an artificial superintelligence eventually emerges and it decides to destroy all humans (a huge stretch given that it's more likely to do this by accident or because it's indifferent). Because AI is often conflated with robotics, many people say the ensuing onslaught is likely to arrive in the form of marauding machines — the so-called robopocalypse.
Okay, sure, that's certainly one way a maniacal ASI could do it, but it's hardly the most efficient. A more likely scenario would involve the destruction of the atmosphere or terrestrial surface with some kind of nanophage. Or, it could infect the entire population with a deadly virus. Alternately, it could poison all water and the food supply. Or something unforeseen — it doesn't matter. The point is that it doesn't need to go to such clunky lengths to destroy us should it choose to do so.

10.生物學(xué)人類的末日

10. "The End Of Humanity"


（圖片來自bikeriderlondon/Shutterstock）這個(gè)概念真的讓我反感。 生物學(xué)人類末日的說法既是反人類的，也是對未來的不準(zhǔn)確描述。 有些人認(rèn)為，下一個(gè)人類進(jìn)化時(shí)代的到來必然意味著人類的滅亡。 這不太可能。 不僅在遙遠(yuǎn)的未來可能會存在未經(jīng)改造的生物學(xué)意義上的人類，而且他們將永遠(yuǎn)保留保持原始狀態(tài)的權(quán)利。 所謂的超人類和后人類很可能存在（無論他們是基因改造的產(chǎn)物、控制論的還是數(shù)字化的），但他們將永遠(yuǎn)和大量普通的老智人共存。

This one really bugs me. It's both misanthropic and an inaccurate depiction of the future. Some people have gotten it into their heads that the advent of the next era of human evolution necessarily implies the end of humanity. This is unlikely. Not only will biological, unmodified humans exist in the far future, they will always reserve the right to stay that way. So-called transhumans and posthumans are likely to exist (whether they be genetically modified, cybernetic, or digital), but they'll always inhabit a world occupied by regular plain old Homo sapiens.

喬治于 2014 年5月15日發(fā)布