::: {#adfe .section .section .section—body .section—first .section—last} ::: section-divider
:::
::: section-content ::: {.section-inner .sectionLayout—insetColumn}
“Look At the World Through the Eyes Of A Fool” {#da83 .graf .graf—h3 .graf—startsWithDoubleQuote .graf—leading .graf—title name=“da83”}
像傻瓜那样看世界------ 斯图尔特·布兰特访谈录 {#cff5 .graf .graf—h4 .graf-after—h3 .graf—subtitle name=“cff5”}
2011年5月31日
原文：http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/stewart-brand—2/6027-life-the-universe-and-everything{.markup—anchor .markup—p-anchor data-href=“http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/stewart-brand—2/6027-life-the-universe-and-everything” rel=“nofollow noopener” target=“_blank”}
斯图尔特·布兰特自从1960年代开始就参与政治运动，当时，他说服了NASA公布第一张从太空看地球的照片。他是一位生物学家、作者、以及环保分子。这次他坐下来与马丁·艾尔曼（Martin Eierman）一道去探讨关于话语框架、核电以及科技创新之好处的问题。
The European：我们知道您现在正在做的Rosetta项目是要保存世界上那些面临灭绝命运的语言。是不是我们的社会变得太容易去丢弃东西和想法了？
布兰特：你的问题很有趣，但我从来没有这么想。我认为我们是变得太过短视了。所有东西都变动得非常快，所有人都在同时干多件事情。投资也是为了获得短期的回报，民主政体也是被短暂的选举交替的循环所主导。快速的进步是好的，但它也是过于投机取巧了。当一切都是在快速变动的时候，未来看上去就像明天一样。但是真正重要的是十年或一百年之后的未来。另外我们也得清楚，真正重要的历史不仅仅是昨天的历史，而且还有十年、百年乃至千年前发生的历史。而为了取得一个平衡，我们需要在有更长远的视角来看世界，要看到过去一万年发生的事情，以及看到未来一万年可能会发生的事情。（Interesting, I never thought of it that way. I think we have become too shortsighted. Everything is moving faster, everybody is multitasking. Investments are made for short-term returns, democracies run on short-term election cycles. Speedy progress is great, but it is also chancy. When everything is moving fast, the future looks like it is next week. But what really counts is the future ten or hundred years from now. And we should also bear in mind that the history that matters is not only yesterday’s news but events from a decade or a century or a millennium ago. To balance that, we want to look at the long term: the last ten thousand years, the next ten thousand years.）
The European：你是建议我们在面对气候变化以及文化转变这类问题的时候，需要有一种大视野？
布兰特：我们在心中要有这样的大图景。让我举个例子来说明吧：当NASA在1960年代的时候第一次公布从外太空拍摄到的地球照片的时候，人们看待问题的那个框就发生了改变。我们开始对地球、对环境以及对人类都有了不一样的视角。（We’re bearing in mind the big picture. Let me give you an example of how that approach might play out: When NASA released the first photographs of the earth from space in the 1960s, people changed their frame of reference. We began to think differently about the earth, about our environment, about humanity.）
The European：在那些照片被公布之前，人们是否有”蓝色星球”这样的一个想象？
布兰特：我们有过很多从太空看地球的绘画，就像我们在没有发明热气球之前一样有从太空看城市的绘画一样，但是那些都是错的。这些绘画里的地球通常是没有任何云彩、没有任何天气也没有任何的气候。并且那些图画通常没有黑暗部分，但实际上地球大部分都是处于黑暗中（在太空中看来）。另外从大多数视角来看，地球都好像是镰刀形状的。只有当太阳从后面直射地球的时候，才会看到整个地球是光亮的，而旁边的浩渺的宇宙仿佛是黑暗的。（There had been many drawings of the earth from space, just like people made images of cities from above before we had hot-air balloons. But they were all wrong. Usually, images of the earth did not include any clouds, no weather, no climate. They also tended to neglect the shadow that much of the earth is usually in. From most angles, the earth appears as a crescent. Only when the sun is directly behind you would you see the whole planet brightly illuminated against the blackness of space.）
The European：这是不是说我们在政治或环境方面所作出的判断与我们所观察到的东西是紧密联系在一起的，也和我们自身对观察到的东西的情感反应有极大关联？
布兰特：我认为不管什么时候我们都会遇到如何选择我们从哪个视角看世界问题（the framing problem），也就是说，我们是如何看事物的？当人们第一次看到地球之全景照片的时候，他们改变了看世界的视角。我们于是开始更多讲到”人类”，而更少的谈及的德国人怎样或美国人怎样。我们也开始谈论整个地球的事情。而这从某种意义上就使得我们有能力去思考像气候变化这样的全球问题。我们之前是从没有想过全球决议这样的事情的。而气候变化又是一个需要整个世纪的时间投入才能解决的问题。人类之前从没有解决过这样的时间范围如何长而又短暂的问题。我们必须要同时认真的去对待如此大范围以及延续时间如此长的问题。（I think there is always the question of framing: How do we look at things? The first photos of the earth changed the frame. We began to talk more about “humans” and less about Germans or Americans. We began to start talking about the planet as a whole. That, in a way, gave us the ability to think about global problems like climate change. We did not have the idea of a global solution before. Climate Change is a century-sized problem. Never before has humanity tried to tackle something on such a long temporal scale. Both the large scale and the long timeframe have to be taken seriously.）
The European：你是否相信有人类认同（human identity）这样的东西？
布兰特：从某种意义上来讲，最好的突破会是，我们发现了外星生命。那样的话会带给我们一个更清晰的关于人类的认识。但即使那样的事情不会发生，但我们已经走出了我们平常看世界的局限，我们已经可以从太空中看地球和看人类了。那是很好的事情。我更愿意我们不要那么快就遇上外星智慧。（In a way, the ideal breakthrough would be to discover alien life. That would give us a clear sense of our humanity. But even without that, we have done pretty well in stepping outside our usual frame of reference and looking at the planet and at the human race from the outside. That’s nice. I would prefer if we didn’t encounter alien intelligence for a while.）
The European：其中一个我想到的关于从那种视角看世界的问题是关于物种灭绝的。目前地球上生物物种灭绝速度是生物进化速度的很多倍。但是可能只有少数的人会意识到我们正生活在地球历史的一个关键时期。
布兰特：地质学家已经找到证据表面数千年来人类行为已经对地球带来了改变。我们自身也成为了地质记录的一部分了。作为一名生物学家，我想说，目前这种生物灭绝的速度是很有问题的，但是也并非如我们想象的那么糟糕。而我更为感兴趣的是，我们怎么才能利用DNA样本把那些已经灭绝的物种复活过来。假如我们可以把猛犸复活过来，那么两极永久苔原带就可以被适合猛犸生存的草地所代替，而且这些草地也能涵养更多的碳。（Geologists are making very persuasive arguments about the effects that our behavior has on the scale of tens of thousands of years. We have become part of the geological record. As a biologist, I would say that the rate of extinction is problematic but not as bad as we used to think. But what I am more interested in is the recreation of extinct species using DNA samples. If we can bring back the mammoth, it could replace the Tundra with the old Mammoth grasslands, which fixes much more carbon.）
The European: 我们重新复活那些已经灭绝的物种的意义在哪里呢？进化一直在发生，物种有的消亡，有的诞生。为什么你要干预这一过程呢？
布兰特：因为这样做可以带给我们希望的信息。我们可以修正人类过去所犯的错误，可以纠正我们已经带来的破坏和伤害。它可以带给人们这样一个信息：假如我们可以去解决物种复活这么复杂的问题，那么我们是否也能在其他方面去为生物多样性做点什么呢？与其一味的抱怨问题的存在，不如勇敢的去想办法解决问题。（It sends a message of hope. We can rectify past mistakes, we can undo damage and harm. It would give people the sense that if we can fix something as profound as the extinction of a species, what else could we do for biodiversity? Instead of just complaining about problems, we would move towards fixing problems.）
The European: 讲到解决问题，我知道你在坚持核电作为绿色能源这样一个立场。福岛核辐射事故是否改变了你的想法？
布兰特：一点也不呢。气候变化使得我去了解在更大范围内我们有什么可以降低碳排放的能源组合的选择。风电和太阳能比煤电要好，但是它们都是很昂贵的电力并且迄今为止还没有成为我们能源组合中的大头。我认为位于北非的大型太阳能发电站也许最终会为欧洲提供电力，但那将会是非常遥远的将来发生的事情。因此我们需要寻找其他的可能。而核电是可以降低碳排放的。一旦我真的认真考虑这个选项之后，我发现我熟悉的那些环保人士，他们都高估了核电的危险性。我认为核聚变未来会成为一个非常好的选择，但是就目前来看，我们只能利用我们现有的那一套。很多地方都已经在使用核电，并且这一技术本身每年都在进步。（Not at all. Climate change has forced me to look at alternative sources of energy that reduce carbon emissions on a large scale. Gas is better than coal. Wind and solar power are better than coal, but they are expensive and thus far haven’t made a significant contribution to our energy mix. I think that large solar farms in Northern Africa could eventually power Europe, but that’s in the distant future. So we need to look elsewhere. Nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gases. Once I began to take that idea seriously, I found that my fellow environmentalists tend to greatly exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power. I think nuclear fusion would be a swell option, but for now we have to work with what we have. Nuclear technology has been widely implemented, and the technology is advancing every year.）
The European: 德国政府非常自信的认为假如我们重点发展天然气、可再生能源以及非集中式的电网的话，我们到2023年的时候就可以抛弃核电。这是一个现实的目标吗？
布兰特：我认为德国还远远没有办法做到这点呢。你把本国的核电站关闭了，但到最后你还是需要从邻国那里购买核电。德国政府应该做的是关闭他们的火力发电站，就像法国几十年前那样做。但我不大清楚一个民主的政体是否可以对这些可以带来长远影响的问题作出好的回答。而真正的问题是：假如民主政体做不到，谁能做得到？中国在拓展核电以及水电这些零碳排的发电设施上做了很大量的工作，但是中国并不是一个民主政体。（I don’t think Germany is even remotely able to do that. You turn off your power plants, and then you eventually have to import nuclear power from the neighboring countries. Germany should shut down its coal plants instead, just like France did a few years ago. But I am not sure whether democracies can really provide good answers to these questions that have very long-term impacts. The question is: If democracies cannot do it, what can? China has done a lot to expand carbon-neutral energy sources like nuclear power or water power. But China is no democracy.）
The European: 那是不是说代议式的民主体制已经到达了其历史峰顶，而我们应当保持开放的心态去接受更独裁的统治？假如是那样有的话，未来将会是完全不一样的世界。
布兰特：不，我并不是肯定独裁统治。但我们要面对一个现实，就是那些可以带来长期效益的解决方案通常跟现在的政治和经济结构是不吻合的。过去那些担心会出现人口爆炸的人很欣赏中国的计划生育政策。但是我们后来发现，随着城市化以及技术的发展，人口出生率正在下降，因此，人口过度膨胀的问题并没有我们想象的那么严重。当你对妇女进行赋权，让她们自己决定生多少个孩子的时候，她们会选择少生。现在联合国所推测的到2100年地球人口总数会达到100亿的估计是骗人的，不是基于现实的。（No, I don’t believe in authoritarian rule. But we have to face the problem that long-term solutions are often incompatible with our current political and economic arrangements. Many who worried about the population bomb were quite sympathetic to China’s One-Child-Policy. But we have since seen that childbirths decline with urbanization and technological progress, so over-population is less dangerous that we used to think. When you empower women and give them control over family planning, family sizes decline. The current UN predictions of ten billion people by 2100 are simply misleading and not supported by reality.）
The European: 是不是说我们要基于现有的数据，去改进我们的推测？
布兰特：史蒂芬·平克（Steven Pinker）正在写一本书是讲暴力为何会随着人类历史发展而减少的。我们通常会认为我们正在生活在一个充满了暴力的年代，未来也是一片灰暗。但是数据告诉我们，暴力在过去的每一个千年、每一个百年、每一个十年里都是在下降。看到这样一种人类暴力的下降实在让人惊讶。因此我们不应该太关注于20世纪所发生的暴力事件。更值得思考的问题是，我们如何才能保持这种趋势，使得暴力继续消减下去。我们可以做些什么，来使得世界变得更加和平？这些都是基于数据的问题啊。（Steven Pinker is currently working on a book about the decline of violence through human history. We like to think that we are living in a very violent time, that the future looks dark. But the data says that violence has declined every millennium, every century, every decade. The reduction in cruelty is just astounding. So we should not focus too much on the violence that has marked the twentieth century. The interesting question is how we can continue that trend of decreasing violence into the future. What options are open to us to make the world more peaceful? Those are data-based questions.）
The European: 当暴力和不公每天都在发生并且走进我们的视野，迫使我们要采取行动去纠正这些事情的时候，是很难看到那样一个正面的趋势的。
布兰特：当平克指出这样一个正面的趋势的时候，人们还指责他呢。但是你为什么要因为听到一个好消息而感到愤怒呢？（And people get angry at Steven Pinker for pointing out these positive trends. But why would you be angry about good news?）
The European: 我的回应是，假如我们只是看到好消息而忽视了正在发生的问题的话，那会很有问题。过度的乐观情绪会导致人们走向自满，不是吗？它是安全的反面 --- --- 也就是漠不关心 --- --- 会使得我们只是关注遥远的未来而同时忽视了我们的当下。
布兰特：那是一种很德国化的思想，自从浪漫主义派看到法国大革命之后的暴力结局而因此感到惊讶之后，德国人都是如此。尼采就充满了文化悲观主义以及英雄绝望的情感。而今天，我们看到了很多环保人士在拥抱这样一个观点，他们认为地球正在走向毁灭。这样的看法带来的问题是，它会使得我们去把末世看作是必然发生的事情，并且要为之进行庆祝活动，而正确的做法应该是想办法，我们如何做才能使得事情变得更好。你就看看核电将毁掉人类这样的观点吧，根本就没有什么根据去支撑这样的恐惧的。（That’s a very German strain that has been influential ever since the Romantics were surprised by the violent aftermath of the French Revolution. Nietzsche is full of cultural pessimism, of heroic despair. Today, we see many environmentalists embracing the idea that the earth is headed for doom. The problem with that is that it begins to celebrate and elevate the apocalypse as inevitable, rather than think about ways to make things better. Just look at the idea that nuclear power is going to destroy us all. There is no rational basis for that fear.）
The European: 那是什么使得那样的末世论得以盛行呢？
布兰特：那是跟基督教的被提（rapture）体验有关的，跟基督复活有关，基督徒认为，到世界末日的时候，耶稣会复活，而只有基督徒才能汇集到天堂那里去见耶稣。要知道，即使是在反文化运动盛行的1960和1970年代，同样是有一批末世论的追随者。那时候，很多去到公社里居住的人都是生存主义者（survivalism），他们当时希望可以活到1970年代末，让垂死的人类文明走向消亡而后去重建文明。但是他们的计划都落空了。这一段插曲是非常有乐趣并且很有教育意义的，主要是因为世界并没有走向消亡。对于那些持末世论者，我提出这样一个挑战：去到一个小岛上，而后假设人类文明已经自我毁灭了，而后看你是否能够在那个岛上创建出比我们现在这个世界更好的一个世界。（It’s tied to the Christian experience of rapture, to the coming of Christ in the end times of the world, when only the Christians will be gathered to meet him in heaven. Remember that there was an apocalyptic enthusiasm even in the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. Many of the communes were survivalist, planning to outlive a dying civilization and then reinvent it. They all failed. They are great fun and very educational, primarily because the world did not end. I put this challenge to anyone who desires the apocalypse: Go to an island and pretend that civilization has destroyed itself. And then build something that is better than the world we know today.）
The European: 我还是会认为，真正要做的并不是重新塑造社会，而是想办法让社会变得最好。而这就需要我们意识到你刚才所提到的那些问题。我们需要一种要采取紧急（urgent）行动的心态才能避免我们走向冷漠。
布兰特：我不同意紧急这个提法。假如我们事实上有很多时间来解决那些基本问题呢？假如我们实际上所需要的是坚持以及耐心呢？这是跟紧急很不一样的心态。当然很肯定，我们确实面临着一些问题是需要我们尽快去关注的。但是对于那些更大一点的问题，例如气候变化，我们的行动是很重要的，但不是紧急的。我们必须是采取一种渐进式改变的做法，我们必须要敢于试验，并且必须坚持。（The term that I would object to is urgency. What if there is plenty of time to address the basic problems? What if what we need is persistence and patience? That is quite different from urgency. I grant you that there are immediate problems that require immediate attention. But for larger issues like climate change, our actions are important, not urgent. We must pursue incremental change, we must be open to experimentation, we must be persistent.）
The European: 我还是想回到关于用什么样视角看世界的这个问题上来。随着技术进步，我们现在比以往任何时候都有了更多的资讯。我们该怎么去征服这样一座知识的森林，使之对我们 有用并且可以为我们所理解呢？
布兰特：互联网其实已经被人们征服了，这是让我感到颇为惊讶的事情。Google或维基百科使得我们有了去对事物进行排序的能力，去管理那些集中的信息，以及去搜索人类的所有知识。另外图书的质量也在增长，因为现在我们进行写作的时候可以方便的查找信息并且快速的检查事实真相。而互联网上的知识，虽深不可测，却是很容易管理的，这让我很惊讶。（It strikes me that the internet has already been tamed. Google or Wikipedia give us the ability to rank things, to organize central hubs of information, to search all of human knowledge. The quality of books is increasing, because we can now find information and fact-check as we write. The depth of knowledge on the internet is surprisingly manageable.）
The European: 1968年你开始出版《地球概览》的时候，你说过你想创建一个数据库，“使得地球上任何一个人只要拿起电话就可以获得关于任何东西的信息。“那算不算没有互联网的那个年代里的一个关于互联网的构想？
布兰特：是的，我自己也忘记了说过那句话。看，现在我不需要自己费力的去收集各种信息了，它自然的发生了。有些人跟我说，我应当更新一下那本杂志了，而我的回答是：互联网比任何一本我编的《地球概览》或者是百科全书都要好。（Right, I had forgotten about that quote. Isn’t it nice that I didn’t have to go through the work of collecting that information, it just happened organically. Some people say to me that I should revive the catalogue and my answer is: The internet is better than any catalogue or encyclopedia could ever be.）
The European: 你参与了早期关于互联网的一些辩论当中，当时这些辩论还充满了反文化主义的色彩，像John Perry Barlow, 电子前哨基金会（EFF）以及Grateful Dead等都曾参与其中。现在那些辩论是否被更为主流的声音所淹没了？
布兰特：还是有一些小地方，例如 edge.org 那些，我和其他一些朋友会时不时去那里逛一逛，去跟踪事物的最新发展，也跟踪我们彼此的动态。那个项目关注的重点是科学，并且它的东西很有含金量。在互联网上有很多小地方，在那里会有一些深度的讨论，我们就通过邮件列表交流了很多话题。今天的年轻人可能都不知道这东西了。其实就是有很多人参与的邮件会话。假如说这东西已经不再是主流了，我也一点都不感到意外。从某种意义上来讲，今天人们通过Facebook进行对谈其实也是1980年代那种在线讨论区的现代版。而我发现最有趣的是，发展中国家的网民也喜欢这东西。也许他们是通过手机短信或者是twitter来聊天。我不认为形式是什么就会使得他们交流的内容不重要。只要人们有了更多机会以及更低的交流成本，我们就能扩大和改进我们的交流。（There are pockets like edge.org, where I and some others hang out to keep track of things and of each other. There’s a real rigor and a focus on science in that project. So there are many enclaves for critical discussion all over the internet. We talk a lot over listservs. Today’s young generation might not even know them anymore, I don’t know. They are basically long group email chains. I wouldn’t be surprised if this persisted off the mainstream. In a way, even the Facebook chat is a continuation of the bulletin boards of the 1980s that were user-driven online discussions. What I find particularly interesting right now is the embrace of those discussions in the developing world. It might happen in the form of text messages or on Twitter. I don’t think the form determines the triviality of information or the level of discussion. By having much more opportunities and much lower costs of online participation, we are in a position to really expand and improve those discourses.）
The European: 是不是说科技进步所带来的影响大部分是正面而且积极的？
布兰特：我的回答是肯定的。几年前，当尼葛罗庞蒂说世界上每个孩子都需要一台笔记本电脑的时候，他是对的。当时很多人对他的想法表示怀疑，但事实表明他们是错误的。当发展中国家的人们能够上网之后，他们马上就组织起教育的网络了。他们借此拓展了他们的视野，孩子还教他们的父母读和写呢。（The answer is yes. When Nicholas Negroponte said a few years ago that every child in the world needed a laptop computer, he was right. Many people were skeptical of his idea, but they have been proven wrong. When you give internet access to people in the developing world, they immediately start forming educational networks. They expand their horizons, children teach their parents how to read and write.）
The European: 假如我们假设摩尔法则基本上是对的话，那么在2020年的时候，我们将可以获得是现在运行速度之32倍的机器。我们有没有什么想法，如何充分的利用好那样的计算能力呢？我们是否有想过什么样的技术创新是好的创新，还有我们应该走怎么样的路？
布兰特：我通常不会那样去看问题。通常当我们用理论去讲科技进步的时候，我们通常会过分的强调科技所带来的害处，而同时又没有充分的去讲述科技的好处。我们通常会因为科技所产生的好处而感到惊讶。这样的事情发生过很多遍了。因此我会对那些以悲观的心态看科技进步的看法表示怀疑的态度。（ I usually don’t frame questions that way. Usually when we theorize about technological progress, we tend to over-emphasize the harmful consequences and under-emphasize the positive consequences. We are generally surprised and amazed by the benefits that arise. That has happened enough times that I am skeptical about pessimistic assessments of technological progress.）
The European: 你提到了关于惊讶和惊喜这样的看法。记得在1974年的《地球概览》杂志的背后有这样一句话：“Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish.”跟你刚才说的很像。是什么意思呢？
布兰特：它的意思是，你需要有像初学者那样的心态去看待新事物。我们需要自信以及好奇心的结合。那是根植于我们天性之深处的一种机会主义（opportunism），并且这是一种乐观的心态。到现在为止，我还没有因为我的愚蠢而死呢。我们还是继续发扬这种精神吧，让我们一起来冒险。这句话说的是，我们的知识永远都是不够的，并且我们需要因此而做点什么。有了这样的心态，你就会打开你的心智，去进行探索。它还表示你要抛开那些社会结构以及意识形态给你的解释。我很喜欢你们跟Wade Davis的采访。他就讲得很清楚我们为什么应该让原住民的文化保持原来的状况。这也是Rosetta项目背后的想法。大多数美国人只会说一门语言，这是有很大局限性的。而学会了多一门语言，你才会对世界上不同的人不同的思维更为敏感。我们需要扩大我们认知的范围。我认为有很多种方式可以做到这一点：例如拥抱互联网，拥抱科学，经常去旅行，去了解那些跟你不一样的人。当我20来岁的时候，我大部分时间是跟北美的原住民在一起度过的。假如你只是循规蹈矩的话，你会跟很多重要的东西失之交臂。而假如你能够像一位傻瓜那样看世界的话，你会看到更多。但是在1974年的时候，我显然没有想到那么多。那时候这是一种很反文化的做法。（ It proposes that a beginner’s mind is the way to look at new things. We need a combination of confidence and of curiosity. It is a form of deep-seated opportunism that goes to the core of our nature and is very optimistic. I haven’t been killed by my foolishness yet, so let’s keep going, let’s take chances. The phrase expresses that our knowledge is always incomplete, and that we have to be willing to act on imperfect knowledge. That allows you to open your mind and explore. It means putting aside the explanations provided by social constructs and ideologies. I really enjoyed your interview with Wade Davis. He makes a persuasive case for allowing native cultures to keep their cultures intact. That’s the idea behind the Rosetta Project as well. Most Americans are limited by the fact that they only speak one language. Being multilingual is a first step to being more aware of different perspectives on the world. We should expand our cognitive reach. I think there are many ways to do that: Embrace the internet. Embrace science. Travel a lot. Learn about people who are unlike yourself. I spent much of my twenties with Native American tribes, for example. You miss a lot of important stuff if you only follow the beaten path. If you look at the world through the eyes of a fool, you will see more. But I probably hadn’t thought about all of this back in 1974. It was a very countercultural move.）
The European: 说说政治吧。我们经常讲到政治，似乎除此之外没有其他理性的选择。这是不是意识形态带来的一种窒息性的影？
布兰特：意识形态不过是一些我们喜欢讲给自己听的话。这本身没有问题，假如我们心底里知道这只是故事而并非关于世界的准确描述的话。而一旦这个故事妨碍了我们去做正确的事情，这时候就表面故事本身是有问题的。有很多意识形态是会讲到邪恶这个概念的，包括邪恶的人以及邪恶的机构等等。Marvin Minsky（著名人工智能学家）曾跟我说过，世界上唯一可以被看作是邪恶的东西就是邪恶这个概念本身。一旦你抛弃了那样一个概念，很多问题都变得可以解决了。实用主义（pragmatism）所提倡的就是你要看到哪些东西是有效的，哪些只是好看却没有用的理论，而后就把后者抛弃掉。假如我们是要解决实际问题的话，没有什么理论可以做到非常完美和全面的，它们不能为解决问题指出直接的路线图。这就又说到当傻瓜这个话题啦：你可以是基于不完美的理论去实践，但是你不应该将全部都寄托在一个理论之上。（Ideologies are stories we like to tell ourselves. That’s fine, as long as we remember that they are stories and not accurate representations of the world. When the story gets in the way of doing the right thing, there is something wrong with the story. Many ideologies involve the idea of evil: Evil people, evil institutions, et cetera. Marvin Minsky has once said to me that the only real evil is the idea of evil. Once you let that go, the problems become manageable. The idea of pragmatism is that you go with the things that work and cast aside lovely and lofty theories. No theory can be coherent and comprehensive enough to provide a direct blueprint for practical actions. That’s the idea of foolishness again: You work with imperfect theories, but you don’t base your life on them.）
The European: 这是不是说”好”其实是建立于对”什么东西有效”这样的基础上的一个判断？
布兰特：在我看来，所谓好的东西是能够创造更多生命以及更多可能的选项。我认为这是一种有用的看法。而与之相反的不会是坏/邪恶，而是更少的生命以及更少的选项。（Good is what creates more life and more options. That’s a useful frame. The opposite of that would not be evil, but less life and fewer options.）
http://www.tonyyet.com/archives/877{.markup—anchor .markup—p-anchor data-href=“http://www.tonyyet.com/archives/877” rel=“noopener” target=“_blank”} ::: ::: :::