is sometimes a polite way of saying things about the present

來隱晦地討論當下的現狀

that would otherwise be rude or risky.

以免顯得無禮或狂妄

But have you ever wondered why

但你是否想過

so little of the bright futures promised in TED talks actually come true?

為什麼 TED 演講中所提到的美好未來很少實現？

Is something wrong with the ideas?

難道這些想法有問題嗎？

Or with the notion of what ideas can do all by themselves?

還是想法本身是不可行的？

I write about the entanglements of technology and culture,

我曾寫過科技與文化之間的糾葛

how technologies make certain compositions of certain worlds possible,

科技如何改變某些世界的樣貌

how culture in turn structures the evolution of those technologies.

文化如何促使科技進步

It's where philosophy and design intersect.

這就是哲學與設計相輔相成之處

And so the conceptualization of possibilities

所以我很嚴肅地看待

is something that I take very seriously.

將可能性概念化這件事

And it's for that reason that I, and a lot of people,

這因素讓我本身，以及許多人

think that it's time that we take a step back

認為此時我們該退一步

and ask some serious questions

問一些嚴肅的問題

about the intellectual viability of things like TED.

關於理念的可行性，例如 TED 演講

And so, my TED talk is not about my work, my new book,

所以我的 TED 演講內容 不是關於我的工作或新書

the usual spiel,

這類的話題

it's about TED — what it is, and why it doesn't work.

而是關於 TED 是什麼 以及其理念無法實現的原因

The first reason is over-simplification.

第一個原因是：過度簡化

Now, to be clear, I have nothing against the idea

我必須強調我不反對

of interesting people who do smart things explaining their work

一些有趣的人們以簡單易懂的方式

in a way that everyone can understand.

來解釋他們的工作

But TED goes way beyond that.

但 TED 做得太過頭了

Let me tell you a story.

我來告訴你們一則故事

I was recently at a presentation that a friend of mine, astrophysicist,

我最近參加一位天文物理學家朋友

was making to a potential donor.

的募款演講

And I thought his talk was lucid, it was engaging...

我覺得他的演講內容清晰且吸引人

And I'm a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego.

我是加州大學聖地牙哥分校視覺藝術系的教授

At the end of the day, I know nothing about astrophysics.

我完全不懂天文物理學

The donor, however, said, "I'm going to pass, I'm just not inspired.

然而贊助者卻說：「我不打算提供贊助，這一點也不吸引我

You should be more like Malcolm Gladwell."

你應該多學學麥爾坎·葛拉威爾 (加拿大記者)。」

Now, at this point I kind of lost it.

我當時有些憤怒

Can you imagine?

你能想像嗎？

I mean, think about it: a scientist who creates real knowledge

我的意思是，想想： 一位創造真正知識的科學家應該要去學習

should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights.

利用偽造見解的記者！

This is not popularisation.

這不是將知識普及化

This is taking something with substance and value

而是將事物的意義和價值簡化

and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing.

讓大眾可以不經咀嚼就吸收了解

This is not how we'll confront our most frightening problems,

這不是面對棘手問題的好方法

this is one of our most frightening problems.

這本身就是個棘手的問題

And so ...

所以…

So, what is TED?

TED 是什麼？

TED is perhaps a proposition,

TED 也許是一種主張：

one that says if we talk about world-changing ideas enough,

認為若我們多討論改變世界的想法

then the world will change.

那麼世界就會改變

Well, this is not true either. And that's the second problem.

但這也是不對的，且這是 TED 的第二個問題

TED of course stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design.

TED 三個字母代表科技，娛樂，設計。

To me, TED stands for: middlebrow megachurch infotainment.

對我而言，TED 代表： 平庸大教堂的娛樂資訊

The key rhetorical device at any TED talk

所有 TED 演講的主要措辭手法

is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony.

是頓悟的過程加上個人見證

The speaker shares some personal story of insight and revelation,

演講者分享啟發他們的個人故事

its trials and tribulations.

訴說當中的考驗及折磨

What does the TED audience hope to get from this?

TED 聽眾希望從這裡得到什麼？

A vicarious insight? A fleeting moment of wonder?

不同的啟發？奇蹟的瞬間？

A sense that maybe it's all going to work out after all?

一種最終總能實現的可能性？

A spiritual buzz?

短暫地精神超脫？

Well, I'm sorry, but this is not up to the challenge of the problems

但抱歉，當面對充滿挑戰性的問題時

that we are ostensibly here to face.

這不是我們該採取的方式

They are complex and difficult and not given to tidy just-so solutions.

問題往往複雜困難 沒有簡單的解決方式

They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism.

這與個人是否樂觀毫無關聯

And given the stakes, having our best and brightest

讓這些優秀人才投注心力

waste their time — and the audience's time —

浪費他們和觀眾的時間

dancing about like infomercial hosts is too high a price.

像電視購物主持人般耍寶是不必要的

And it's cynical.

而且這看起來極為諷刺

Plus, it just doesn't work.

且毫無幫助

Recently, TEDGlobal sent out a memo to TEDx local organisers

最近，TEDGlobal 向 TEDx 主辦機構發出聲明

telling them to avoid booking speakers whose work spans the paranormal,

要他們避免邀請研究超自然現象、

conspiratorial, new age "quantum neuroenergy" and so forth

陰謀論、新紀元「量子神經能源」等等

— what is called 'woo'.

胡說八道的東西

They should book speakers whose work is imaginative but grounded in reality.

他們應當邀請研究合乎現實卻又有想像力的講者

And, to be fair, TEDGlobal took some heat for this,

對此，TEDGlobal 面對許多反對聲浪

so the gesture should be acknowledged.

我們別忘了這點

'NO' to placebo science and placebo medicine.

他們反對毫無根據的偽科學和偽醫藥

But —the corollary to placebo science and medicine

但其實偽科學和醫療的理論卻來自於

is placebo politics and placebo innovation.

毫無根據的偽政治和偽創新思維

And on this count, TED has a ways to go.

可是對於後者，TED 又認為可行

Perhaps the pinnacle of placebo politics was presented at TEDxSanDiego

最知名的偽政治演講是在 TEDxSanDiego

a few years ago.

那是幾年前的事了

You're familiar, I assume, with the Kony2012 social media campaign?

你應該聽過影片《Kony 2012》的爭議吧？

OK, so, what happened here?

當時發生了什麼事呢？

Evangelical surfer bro goes to Africa.

一位想傳福音的衝浪哥去了非洲

He makes campy video explaining genocide to the cast of Glee.

做了聳動的影片向《Glee》的演員 解釋種族大屠殺

The world finds his epiphany to be shallow to the point of self-delusion.

世人覺得他的影片膚淺且自欺

The complex geopolitics of central Africa are left undisturbed.

而中非複雜的地緣政治也無為此好轉

Kony's still there.

Kony (烏干達反抗軍首領) 還活得好好的

The end.

故事結束

You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation,

當人們把理念當做操弄的工具

inspiration becomes obfuscation.

理念就變得渾沌不清

And if you're not cynical, you should be skeptical.

若你不憤世嫉俗，起碼也得對事物起疑

You should be as skeptical of placebo politics as you are of placebo medicine.

你得像懷疑偽藥物般地懷疑偽政治

So ...

所以..

T – E – D.

.T - E - D

First, Technology.

首先是科技

We're told that not only is change accelerating,

人們說科技不只讓改變日新月異

but that the pace of change is accelerating.

改變本身的速度也越來越快

In terms of the computational carrying- capacity at a planetary level, it is true.

若以資訊儲存的無限空間這點來看，的確如此

But at the same time — and in fact the two are related —

但同時，且這兩者是息息相關的

we're also in a moment of cultural de-acceleration.

我們文化的進步速度卻慢了下來

We invest our energies in futuristic information technologies,

我們把精力投注在未來的資訊處理系統

including our cars, but drive them home

例如轎車我們開車回到

to kitsch architecture copied from the 18th century.

醜死人的 18 世紀建築

The future on offer is one in which everything can change,

我們對未來的理念是：只要凡事皆一成不變

so long as everything stays the same.

凡事才會改變

We'll have Google Glass, but we'll still have business casual.

我們發明 Google 眼鏡，但仍身著商業套裝

This timidity is not our path to the future.

這種對未來的懼怕感不是好事

This is incredibly conservative.

這讓我們變得保守

And more gigaflops won't inoculate us.

就算電腦再進步也幫不上忙

Because, if a problem is endemic to a system,

若我們的問題來自於不良的體制

then the exponential effects of Moore's law also amplify what's broken.

摩爾的加倍定律只會讓問題更加嚴重

It's more computation along the wrong curve,

這不只是運算科技出錯

and I hardly think this is a triumph of Reason.

更不是理性的勝利

A lot of my work deals with deep technocultural shifts,

我有許多研究與科技改變相關

from the post-humanism to the post-anthropocene,

從後人類主義到後人類世代

but the TED version has too much faith in technology,

但 TED 只對科技發展有著盲目的信心

and not enough commitment to technology.

而非對發展科技的決心

It's placebo technoradicalism,

這是偽科技激進主義

toying with risk, so as to reaffirm the comfortable.

輕視風險，也不願離開舒適圈

And so our machines get smarter and we get stupider.

我們的機器越來越聰明，人卻越來越笨

But it doesn't have to be that way. Both can be much more intelligent.

但其實情況不必如此，人和機器都能更加聰明

Another futurism is possible.

另一種未來的可能性是存在的

A better 'E' in TED might stand for Economics —

比較能代表 TED 裡面的 E 字應該是經濟

— and yes, imagining and designing, new systems of valuation,

也就是想像並設計新的系統度量

and exchange of accounting for transaction externalities,

並計算物品的外部交易價值

of financing coordinated planning, and so on.

規劃財務等等...

Because states and markets, states versus markets,

因為無論是國家操控經濟或是自由經濟

these are insufficient models, our thinking is stuck in a Cold War gear.

都不是好的模型，我們的思維還停在冷戰時期

And worse is when economics is debated like metaphysics,

更慘的是我們討論經濟的方式很不實際

as if any real system is just a bad example of the ideal.

好似現行制度都只是理想制度中的壞例子

Communism in theory was an egalitarian utopia.

理想中的共產主義是人人平等的烏托邦

Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation,

但現行的共產主義卻破壞生態

government spying,

政府監控人民

crappy cars, gulags.

開爛車或勞改營

Capitalism in theory is rocket ships,

但理論上的資本主義是火箭

nanomedicine,

奈米醫學

Bono saving Africa.

波諾拯救非洲

Actually existing capitalism is Walmart jobs,

現行資本主義卻是賣場工讀生

McMansions,

假惺惺的合宜住宅

people living in sewers under Las Vegas,

人們住在賭城的地下道

Ryan Seacrest.

萊恩西克雷斯特

Plus ecological devastation,

再加上環境破壞

government spying,

政府監控人民

crappy public transportation,

破爛的大眾交通工具

and for-profit prisons.

和營利式監獄

And yet, the alternatives on offer range from

但目前我們的選擇

basically what we have plus a little more Hayek,

只有現行的制度加上多一點的市場自由

to what we have plus a little more Keynes.

或是現行的制度加上多一點的政府干預

Why?

為什麼？

The recent centuries have seen tremendous advances

當現代科技日益進步大幅

in improving the quality of life.

改變我們的生活品質

But the paradox is that the system we have now

但矛盾的是我們遵循的體制

— whatever you want to call it —

名稱隨你稱之

is in the short term what makes these new technologies possible,

在短期內看似能讓新科技發展成真

but in the long term it's also what suppresses their full flowering.

但長期而言，卻又抑制這些新科技的發展

A new economic architecture is prerequisite.

新的經濟模型是不可或缺的

'D' — Design.

D — 設計

Perhaps our designers, instead of prototyping

設計師不能再一味地重覆製造

the same "change agent for good" projects over and over again,

看似能讓世界變得美好的相似原型

and then wondering why they aren't implemented at scale,

然後再疑惑為什麼改變卻如此有限

we should acknowledge that design is not some magic answer.

我們得承認設計非一切問題的神奇解方

Design is very important, but for different reasons.

設計很重要，但卻是由於別的原因

Getting excited about design is easy because, like talking about the future,

我們很容易對新設計感到興奮，因為一如談論未來

it's more polite than dealing with the real white elephants in the room.

談論設計可避免談論眼前的棘手問題

Such as phones, drones and genomes.

像是電話、無人飛機和基因

That's what we do here in San Diego and La Jolla.

這正是我們聖地牙哥此地的產業

In addition to all of the amazingly great things that these technologies do,

除了其它科技能做到的不凡之事

they're also the basis of NSA spying,

科技也是許多事的基礎，像國安局監控

flying robots killing people,

殺人飛機

and the wholesale privatisation of biological life.

企業販售私有化生命

That's also what we do.

這些也都是我們在做的

So you see, the potential of these technologies

你看，這些科技的潛能

is both wonderful and horrifying at the same time,

同時很棒但也很嚇人

and so to guide them towards a good future,

所以若想讓科技創造美好的未來

design as "innovation" just isn't strong enough of an idea by itself.

創新的設計並不足夠以實現想法

We need to talk a lot more about design as "immunisation,"

我們得多著重設計的「免疫性」

actively preventing certain "innovations" that we don't want from happening.

思考如何才能避免造出我們不要的「創新」

So ...

所以...

As for one clear take away, one magic idea,

若你問我是否有簡單明瞭的解決之道

I don't really have one.

我其實沒有

That's kind of the point.

這正是我的重點

Perhaps I might venture that

我也許以後會嘗試這麼做

if our species were actually to solve its most dire problems,

但假使此時人類真的解決了大多棘手難題

perhaps a lot of us in this room would be out of a job, or perhaps in jail.

這可能會讓在座許多人失業或坐牢

It's not as though we don't have a lot of important things to be talking about.

我並不是說我們沒有需要談論的重要問題

We need a deeper discussion about the difference between

而是說我們得更深入地了解

digital cosmopolitanism and cloud feudalism.

數位世界主義和雲端封建主義的區別

And towards that, a queer history of computer science,

或是電腦科學的同志歷史

Alan Turing's birthday as a holiday.

例如將艾倫圖靈的生日設為國定假日 (譯按 : 電腦科技之父，為其性傾向受迫害)

I would like new maps of the world,

我想見到新的世界藍圖

ones not based on settler colonialism,

不是根據殖民者劃分的地圖

legacy genomes,

基因地圖

and bronze age myths,

或古代神話

but something more … scalable.

而是更寬宏的格局

But TED today is not that.

但目前 TED 的水準還不到那樣

Our problems are not "puzzles" to be solved.

我們的問題並不是要去「拼湊拼圖」

This metaphor implies that all the necessary pieces

這比喻的意涵是所有必要的元素

are already on the table, just need to be rearranged and reprogrammed.

都已存在，只是等著被重組或重設

It's not true.

但事實並不然

"Innovation" defined as "puzzles",

將「創新」比喻為「拼圖」

as rearranging pieces and adding more processing power,

也就是將元素重組和增加處理效能

is not some Big Idea that's going to disrupt the broken status quo —

並不是打破現狀的崇高想法

— that precisely is the broken status quo.

在這個狀況下，偽裝不只無效而且有害

One TED speaker said recently about his work,

最近有位 TED 講者談他的研究

"Now that this boundary is removed, the only boundary left is our imagination."

他說：當所有限制都被移除後，唯一要打破的限制是我們的想像力

Wrong.

他錯了

If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff —

若我們真的想要改變，就得花心力了解困難的事物

— the history, economics, philosophy, art, the ambiguities, and contradictions.

歷史、經濟、哲學、藝術和所有渾沌不明或自相矛盾的事物

Because focusing just on technology, or just on innovation,

因為只著重科技或創新

actually prevents transformation.

會阻礙改變

We need to raise the level of general understanding

我們不能只對事物有泛泛的了解

to the level of complexity of the systems

而是要了解整個複雜的系統

in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us.

因為我們與之共生且息息相關

And this is not about "personal stories of inspiration".

這與個人的啟發小故事無關

It's about the hard difficult work of demystification and reconceptualisation.

而是「去神秘化」和 「再概念化」這類困難的工作

More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.

多了解哥白尼，少聽東尼羅賓斯 (勵志演說家)

At a societal level, the bottom line is that

在社會層面上，重點在於...

if we invest in things that make us feel good but which don't work,

若我們將心力花在讓我們感覺良好卻不可行的事物

don't invest in things which don't make us feel good, but which may solve problems,

我們就不會鑽研讓我們感覺很糟， 但卻實際可行的事物

then our fate is that in the long run it will just get harder and harder

那我們的命運，長遠來看，只會越來越難

to feel good about not solving problems.

在逃避問題時再讓人感覺良好

And in this case, the placebo is not just ineffective — it's harmful.

在這樣的情況下，偽科學不只是沒有用，而是有害的

Because it takes your interest, and energy and outrage,

因為它消磨了你的興趣、精力和憤怒

and diverts into this black hole of affectation.

並將你帶入假象的黑洞

"Keep calm and carry on innovating" — is that the real message of TED?

「保持冷靜並繼續創新」 是 TED 真正想要傳達的訊息嗎？

To me it's not inspirational, it's cynical.

對我而言這並不鼓舞人心，反倒諷刺

In the US, the rightwing has certain media channels

在美國，右翼會透過特定媒體管道

that allow it to bracket reality.

來宣揚虛假的現實

Other constituencies have TED.

而其他機構則透過 TED 做一樣的事

Thank you for your time.

謝謝你們寶貴的時間

(Applause)

(掌聲)