TZM官網正式FAQ5:資源導向型經濟模型的一些主要特色是什麼?

The Zeitgeist Movement
回覆文章
漢化組亞伯
文章: 84
註冊時間: 2014-04-26, 17:02

TZM官網正式FAQ5:資源導向型經濟模型的一些主要特色是什麼?

文章 漢化組亞伯 » 2014-04-28, 22:51

(5) What are some of the central characteristics of the solution proposed (RBEM)?
(5)資源導向型經濟模型的一些主要特色是什麼?

1. No Money or Market System
2. Automation of Labor
3. Technological Unification of Earth via “Systems” Approach
4. Access over Property
5. Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems
6. Science as the Methodology for Governance
1. 沒有金錢或市場體系
2. 用自動化取代勞動
3. 透過「系統理論」統整地球上的科技
4. 超越貧窮的「取得使用權」
5. 自給自足/本地化的城市和生產系統
6. 科學作為管理社會的方法論

1) No money or market system.
1) 沒有金錢或市場體系

Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false, marginally beneficial, or outright socially detrimental.
市場理論有一些假設,已被證明為錯誤的或只是少部份對社會有益,而且徹底對社會有害。

The core problems to consider are the following:
值得考慮的重要問題如下:

A) The need for “infinite growth”, which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the market system is not the intelligent management of the mostly finite resources on this planet but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”. In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment, and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.
A) 對於無限增長的需求,在數學邏輯上是不永續的且有害生態。整個市場體系的基礎,通常都不是這顆星球上有限資源的智慧管理,反而是為了利潤和「經濟成長」, 在自然環境中不斷擷取和消耗資源。為了使人們保持就業狀態,人們一定要持續消費,但卻不用理會自然環境的狀態,並通常也忽略了產品的利用。這對於實踐永續 發展的要求而言,即有策略的保存和有效率的資源利用來說,是完全的本末倒置。

B) A “corruption-generating” incentive system. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal, if not more pronounced, amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, labor exploitation, and many other issues. The vast majority of people in prison today are there because of monetary-related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes.
B) 「產生腐敗」的激勵動機體系。通常人們認為競爭的市場會創造出對社會有進步的激勵動機。然而這只是部份有理,因為這點也產生了同樣明顯程度的腐敗(如果不 是更嚴重的話),其形式包括計劃報廢、一般犯罪、戰爭、大規模的金融詐欺、勞動剝削和許多其它問題。會有今日監獄中大多數的囚犯,都是因為與金融貨幣有關 的犯罪,或者非暴力性的藥物犯罪。今日大多數的立法,也皆存在於金融貨幣導向的犯罪脈絡之中。

If one were to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others – it is found that they did not derive their motivation from the prospect of monetary gain. The interest in making money must not be confused with the interest in creating socially beneficial products, and very often the two motivations are even at odds.
此外,如果一個人批判性地檢視歷史,並研究我們的時代中最偉大的科學家、發明家們的文字傳記或心性,像是尼古拉•特斯拉、艾爾伯特•愛因斯坦、亞歷 山大•格拉漢姆•貝爾、萊特兄弟和許多其它人,人們就會發現他們並不是在金融貨幣獲益的願景之中找到激勵動機。對於賺錢的興趣和關注的動力,一定不能與創 造對社會有助益的產品混為一談,而且通常這兩種動機是矛盾衝突的。

C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amounts of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe rather than to produce locally. Bananas are imported from Ecuador to the US and bottled water travels there from Fuji, Japan, while western companies will go to the deprived third world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the processes of extraction, component generation, assembly, and distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs/property costs. This “cost efficiency” generates extreme technical inefficiency, and is only justifiable within the market system for the sake of saving money.
C) 一個脫節、無效率的工業複合體,浪費了巨大數量的資源和能源。在當今世界中,隨著全球化的來臨,在全球範圍內進口、出口勞動力和物品變得更有利可圖,而不 是在地化生產。我們從厄瓜多爾進口香蕉到美國、從日本的富士山進口瓶裝水、西方企業去到貧困的第三世界剝削便宜的勞動力等等。同樣地,僅僅因為勞動和生產 成本/資產成本的緣故,於是對於單一的終端產品而言,從擷取資源的過程、生產零件、組裝產品、分配既有物品等等,可能就都需要橫跨數國。這是極端無技術效 率的,而且只在市場體系中為了「省錢」的大義而理直氣壯。

In a RBEM, the focus is maximum technical efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements travelling the very least distance possible, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor as compared to the methods in use today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time, given the flexibility of indoor agricultural technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible while producing the “strategically best” possible goods (see more below). In other words, the system is planned to maximize efficiency and minimize waste.
在資源導向型經濟的模型中,所關注的焦點是最大的技術效率。生產過程不是零散的,而是儘量集中化和流暢,將各種要素的移動程度降至最低,比起今日使 用的方法,將會節省大量的能源和勞動。食物無論何時都是儘可能在地化生產(大部份的農作時間),這要歸功於今日室內農業技術的彈性,而所有的擷取、生產和 分配過程,都經過有邏輯的組織,儘量利用最少量的勞動/運輸/空間,並儘量生產「策略上最佳的物品」(請見下文更多的說明)。換句話說,這個系統是經過規 劃的,以將效率最大化、污染最小化。

D) A propensity for “establishments”. Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built-in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit, and, therefore, power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self-perpetuation.
D) 對於「既定建制」的需求傾向。非常簡單,既定的企業財團/金融貨幣的運作秩序,如果預見到市場份額、利潤及權力的損失,便會樹立一種傾向,以阻止對社會有正面效益的新穎事物開花結果。重要的是去考慮到一家企業財團的基本特質,和它對於自我存續的內在固有需求。

If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created and anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well-being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a “competition” mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level, which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.
如果一個人開了一家公司、雇用員工、創造出市場並變得有利可圖,則迄今為止創造出來的東西,部份便會是使一群人能生存下去的方法。既然每位在該團體 中的成員通常都會依賴於所效命的組織以得到薪水,自然就會創造出一種保護主義者的傾向,而任何威脅到該機構的事物,因此就會威脅到該群體/個人的福祉。這 就是「競爭」心態的結構。儘管人們把自由市場競爭視為兩個或更多的公司之間的鬥爭(在給定的產業內),人們通常忽略了另一個層面,即競相去排斥新事物的降 臨,而這些新事物將能徹底淘汰舊秩序使其過時陳腐。

The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US government and ‘Big Oil’ collusion to limit the expansion of the fully electric car in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary , Who Killed the Electric Car? The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well-being of those on the payroll leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to absorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations (for example, the perpetuation of “hybrid” cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance). There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.
延伸這一個論點最好的方式就是拿例子說明,像是美國政府和大型石油公司,共謀限制全電動車輛在美國的擴展。這個問題在記錄片「誰謀殺了電動車?」之 中已完整呈現並引用可靠來源。這裡的關鍵是維護既建制秩序的需求,為了那些發薪名冊上的人們的福祉,導致了一種內在的固有傾向去妨礙進步。一項能夠使之前 老舊科技過時的新科技,將會遭遇到抵制,除非市場經濟體系能有一種方式,以一種緩慢的樣態逐步吸納所帶來的衝擊,讓企業財團能有轉變的過渡期間(例如,去 延續美國的「油電動力混合車」,而不是現在本來就可以大量出現的全電動車)。也有大量的證據表明,美國食品及藥物管理局偏袒藥商公司並與其共謀,以限制並 停止先進的藥物可得性,而這些新藥物會使得現存有利可圖的舊藥物不再有價值。

In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back development/implementation of anything. If safe and useful, it would immediately be implemented with no monetary institution to thwart the progress due to their self-preserving nature.
在資源導向型經濟中,不會有東西阻止任何事物的發展和應用。如果該事物是安全和有用的,便會立即被應用實施,而沒有金融貨幣的機構能夠因為其本身自我維護的本質,而去阻撓進步。

E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay “competitive”. This little-recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate products in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that, due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every item produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due to the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence remain “competitive” against another company… which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free-market adage where producers “create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices” is a needlessly wasteful reality, and is detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the production of anything, as it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis.
E) 固有報廢會立刻創造出次級品,因為需要維持「競爭力」。這個少有人認知到的生產特性,是另一個在市場經濟體系內創造出來的浪費例子。夠糟的是多數公司持續 重複生產產品,企圖使它們的產品更多樣化且有趣,只為了引起大眾的消費,但更浪費的現實在於,因為這個體系的競爭性本質,數學上當然每一樣經過生產的物 品,在其被創造之時就立刻淪為次級品,因為需要刪減初始的生產成本基準,並因此才能保有「競爭力」以對抗其它公司。但其它公司也為了同樣的理由在做同樣的 事情。傳統的自由市場經濟有云:「生產者儘量用最低的價格去儘量創造最好的產品。」但在現實中這是不必要的浪費,而且有害地誤導大眾,因為一家公司不可能 使用最有效率的材料或最有效率的生產過程,因為這樣會太昂貴以致於無法維持具競爭力的成本基準。

It is simply impossible to make the “strategically best” physically – it is mathematically impossible. If it were accomplished, no one would buy it as it would be unaffordable due to the value inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember – people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built-in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback-loop of constant waste via inferior production to meet inferior demand. In a RBEM, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well as limiting waste.
實際上就是不能製造出「策略上最佳的」產品,因為數學邏輯上這是不可能的。如果如此做了,就沒有人會去買產品,因為在更高品質的材料中,其內在價值 和所使用的生產方法將會貴到無法負擔。記住,人們會買能夠負擔得起的產品。這顆星球上的每個人,在金融貨幣體系之中,都有內建的負擔能力極限,因此會產生 一種回饋機制的迴圈,透過生產次級品而不斷浪費資源,以滿足對於次級品的需求。在資源導向型經濟的模式中,物品被創造來耐久耐用,而特定物品的更新和升 級,一開始就會直接內建在設計中,也要有策略性地回收並限制浪費。

You will notice the term “strategically best” was used in the statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to the state of affairs of planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into account all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions, and the like. In other words, we would not blindly use titanium for, say, every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the “strongest” materials for the job. That narrow practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of relevant attributes such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be accessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time. It is a mere issue of calculation.
在上述的說明之中,你將會注意到使用了「策略上最佳的」這個詞。這項描述的意思是物品的創造與星球資源的狀態有關,所使用的材料品質是根據將所有資 源的相關屬性、耗竭速率、負面反作用等等因素考慮進去,進而形成動態平衡。換句話說,我們不會在每一台電腦上盲目地使用鈦元素,就只因為它可能是對於工作 而言「最有強度」的材質。這種狹獈的作法可能會導致耗竭。相反地,將會有材料品質的分級,經由分析相關的屬性而獲得,像是可相比擬的資源、一個給定物品自 然的淘汰速率、社群中的資源使用等等。這些特性和關係可以透過程式獲得,即時計算出策略上最可行的解決方案和輸出。這只是一種計算的問題而已。

F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny under the assumption that open competition is self-regulating and that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This “invisible hand” assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the degree of legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In the US there have been numerous monopolies such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the “free market” itself does not resolve these issues – it always takes the government to step in and break up the monopolies.
F)壟斷和企業聯合的傾向,源自於利潤增長的基本動機和為了增加市場份額。這是經濟學理論家通常會否認的一點,其假設為開放式的競爭是自律的,因此 壟斷和企業聯合在自由市場經濟體系中是極端罕見的異常現象。所謂「看不見的手」的假設,從歷史上來說並沒有多大效用,更別提圍繞著這個議題的立法,證明了 其不可行性。在美國一直都有大量的壟斷現象,像是標準石油公司和微軟公司。在一個行業中,企業聯合實際上是最大的競爭者之間一種共謀的壟斷方式,而且也持 續至今,儘管對一般隨意的觀察者而言較不明顯。但無論如何,「自由市場」本身並未解決這些問題,它總是讓政府介入並中止壟斷。

This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on “growth”, it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand, and, hence, dominate. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world – expansion. Expansion of any corporation always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to outdo your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to the point above – the inherent propensity of an “establishment” to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel’s income sources will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted.
撇開此點,更重要的論點為在一個基於「成長」的經濟中,自然只會讓一家公司想要去擴張,並進而主導統治該產業。畢竟,「擴張」就是現代世界中經濟穩 定的基礎。任何公司的擴張,總是會往壟斷或企業聯合的方向發展,因為,再說一次,競爭的基本驅動力是贏過你的競爭者。換句話說,壟斷和企業聯合在這個競爭 性的體系中是絕對自然的。事實上,這是無法避免的,因為,再說一次,其根本基礎就是去追求市場份額的主導統治權。這個現實的真正害處回歸到上述的論點,即 「既建體系」固有的內在傾向在於去維持本身的構成。如果藥商的企業聯合影響了食品及藥物管理局,那麼會使減少這些企業聯合的收入來源的新想法,通常就會遭 到藥商的抵制抗爭,而不管社會的福祉正受到損害。

G) The market system is driven, in part, by scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny abundance of production. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. As an example, the Kimberly diamond mines in South Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to limit supply and, therefore, keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest in generating an abundance of necessary resources for the world’s people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short-term profits.
G)市場經濟體系部份是由於「匱乏」所驅動。某樣東西數量越少,在短期內就能從中產生更多的利潤。這點造就了企業財團去限制物資可得性的傾向,並因 此阻撓富裕的生產。此體系純粹就是要對抗創造富裕的驅動需求。例如,在南非洲的金柏利鑽石礦坑,在過去的資料中已有燒毀鑽石的記錄,以為了限制供應數量並 因此維持高價格。鑽石是罕見的資源,要花上數十億年的時間才能被創造出來。但這點就充滿了問題。我們所居住的世界,其基礎和關注的重點,應該是要為了世上 的人們去創造必要資源的富裕,伴隨著有策略性的保存和有效率的方法,以實現這種富裕。「匱乏」就是為何自2010年起,在這顆星球上有超過十億人口正在挨 餓的主要原因。這無關沒有能力去生產食物,而是每件事都與目前體系去創造、維持匱乏的固有內在需求有關,只為了短期的利潤。

Abundance, efficiency and sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This scarcity logic also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime, with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn’t even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed.
非常簡單,「富裕」、「效率」、「永續」就是利潤的天敵。這種「匱乏」的邏輯也可以運用到物品的品質上。例如,創造壽命能夠維持一輩子,而幾乎不需 維修的某樣物品這種想法,對市場經濟體系而言是一種詛咒,因為這會減少消費的速率,也減緩「經濟成長」並創造出系統性的影響,像是失業等等。市場體系的匱 乏屬性由於這些理由就是有害的,更別提它甚至並未達成其自詡的有效率資源保存。

While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued, and, hence, the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of “running out”, the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short-term reward which results from scarcity-driven pricing, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never “run out” of oil, for example, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporations who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money from the scarcity, regardless of the long-term social and environmental ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.
儘管供給和需求會導致東西數量越少價值越高,因此增加的價值會限制消費量,減少了「耗竭」的可能性,但創造匱乏的動機,伴隨著固有內在的短期近利 (起源於由匱乏所驅動的高價格),會使得策略性保存資源這種想法失效。例如,在目前的市場經濟體系中,我們可能從來不會「耗盡」石油(因為匱乏而保存了資 源)。但反過來講,這樣子價格也將會升高到任何人都無法負擔的程度,而那些擁用剩餘石油的公司,將從匱乏中賺取大量的金錢,而不管長期的社會和環境後果。 換句話說,關於剩餘的罕見資源,雖然保存了如此高的經濟價值以致於限制了本身的消耗,但不能與具有功能性和策略性的保存維護互相混淆。真正的保存維護一定 要有策略性,只能從直接管理所討論的資源而來,與該資源在某產業本身內最有效率的科技應用有關,而不是武斷的、膚淺的價格關係,缺少了理性的配置。

2) Automation of Labor
2) 用自動化取代勞動

As the trend of what appears to be an exponential increase in the evolution of information technology, robotics and computerization, it has become apparent that human labor is becoming more and more inefficient with regard to meeting the demands necessary for supporting the global population. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an increasing trend of “technological unemployment”, which is the phenomenon whereby humans are replaced by machines in the workforce. This trend, while debatable in regard to its ultimate long term effect on employment, creates a propensity to displace the worker, negatively affecting purchasing power, and, in turn, slowing consumption.
隨著資訊科技的演化中,看似指數級的成長所顯示出的趨勢,像是機器人和電腦化,在關於滿足並支撐全球人口的必要需求這一方面,人力勞動顯然正變得越 來越沒有效率。從工業革命開始,我們已目睹「科技性失業」的增長趨勢,在此現象裡,人類勞動力被機械取代。雖然這個趨勢對於最終長期的就業影響是可再辯論 的,但卻已創造出一種淘汰工人的傾向,負面地影響了人們的購買力,並進而減緩了消費的力道。

That stated, this issue is actually overshadowed by a larger social imperative: That the use of machine labor (mechanization) is evidently more efficient than human performance in virtually all sectors. If one were to track, for example, the performance output of factory production such as that within the steel industry in the US for the past 200 years, we find that not only do less than 5% of the workforce now work in such factories, but that the efficiency and output capacities have increased substantially. The trend, in fact, now shows that employment is inverse to productivity. The more mechanization that occurs, the more productive and industry becomes.
說明了這點,但這個議題實際上仍被一個更巨大的社會急迫性所覆蓋:機械勞動(機械化)在所有的部門領域中,實際上明顯比人力勞動的表現更有效率。例 如,如果一個人去追蹤工廠生產的輸出表現,像是美國在過去200年間鋼鐵業的表現,我們就能發現不只低於現今5%的勞動力就能使這些工廠運作,而且其效率 和輸出能力也已大幅增加。事實上,這個趨勢現在顯示出「就業多寡與生產能力成反比」。機械化越是劇烈,一個產業就越具有生產力。

Today, there are repetitive occupations which simply do not need to exist given the state of automation and computerization (“cybernation”). Not only would mechanization in these areas reduce the mundane burden of work and allow more free time for people, it would also, more importantly, increase productivity. Machines do not need breaks, vacations, sleep, etc. The use of mechanization provides a means of creating many forms of abundance on this planet, from food to physical goods.
如今,由於自動化和電腦化(自動化控制)的發展現況,有許多重複枯燥的職業跟本就沒有存在的必要性。機械化在這些領域中不只減少了世俗工作的負擔, 而且也能讓人們獲得更多自由的時間,更重要的是,它也會增加生產力。機械不需休息、休假、睡覺等等。機械化的使用是作為一種方法,創造出這顆星球上多種形 式的富裕,從食物到實體物品。

In order to achieve this level of productivity, even abundance, the traditional labor system we have simply cannot exist. The reality is that our labor for income system is stifling progress in its requirement to “keep people working” for the sake of “economic stability”. We are reaching a stage where the efficiency of automation is overriding and making obsolete the system of labor for income. This trend shows no sign of slowing, especially with regard to the now dominant service industry, which is increasingly being automated in the form of kiosks, robotics and other forms. Likewise, due to phenomena related to Moore’s law and the decreasing expense of computers and machines, it is likely that it is simply a matter of time before corporations simply can’t rationalize keeping human labor any longer, as the automation systems will become too cheap for non-automated processes to compete with. Of course, this is a paradoxical market phenomenon, called by some theorists as “the contradiction of capitalism”, for it is, in effect, removing the consumer (laborer) itself and hence reducing consumption.
然而為了達成這種生產力的等級,我們傳統的勞動體系就是不能繼續存在。現實是我們這個為了薪水而勞動的體系,正在扼殺抑止進步,因為需要「讓人們繼 續工作」以為了「經濟的穩定性」。我們正在達到一個階段,其中自動化的效率正在推翻這種為了薪水而勞動的體系,並使其過時陳腐。這種趨勢沒有減緩的跡象, 特別是現今占主導地位的服務業,已正在慢慢透過自助服務機器、機器人和其它形式而自動化。同樣地,由於與摩爾定律有關的現象以及電腦和機械越來越便宜的成 本花費,企業財團就是無法再使維持人力勞動合理化,而這可能僅僅只是時間的問題而已,因為自動化系統將會變得太便宜,而未自動化的工作流程將無法與之匹 敵。當然,這是一個矛盾的市場現象,被某些理論家稱為「資本主義的矛盾」,因為這實際上消滅了消費者(勞動者)本身,並因此也減少了消費。

Apart from those issues, it is important to also consider human labor contributions based on social relevance, not monetary gain. In a RBE, there would be no reason to have such occupations as banking, trading, insurance, cashiers, brokers, advertising… or anything related to the governance of money.
除了這些問題,重要的是也要考慮根據社會重要意義的人力貢獻,而不是金融貨幣的收益。在資源導向型經濟裡,像是銀行、貿易、保險、出納、經紀人、廣告等職業將不會有存在的理由,或是任何與管理金錢有關的任何東西。

All human actions in the form of institutionalized labor should also have the highest social return. There is no logic in wasting resources, time and energy on operations that do not have a direct and tangible function. This adjustment alone would remove millions of jobs for the idea of “working for money” as a purpose would no longer exist.
所有制度化勞動的人類行動形式,也都應該要有最大化的社會回饋。浪費資源、時間、精力在沒有直接、實體效用的運作是沒有邏輯的。而光是這項調整就將會消除掉數以百萬計的工作,因為把「工作為了賺錢」作為人生的目標這種想法將不會再存在。

In turn, all the poor demographic, shoddy goods, vanity items and culturally contrived creations designed to influence people for reasons of status, for the sole sake of profit, would also no longer exist, saving countless amounts of time and resources.
因此所有的貧困人口統計、劣等的物品、豪奢浮誇的精品和透過文化而被虛構、設計出來的產物,這些東西也將不會再存在,並節省了無數的時間和資源,因為它們僅僅只是為了人們的地位和賺取利潤而影響著人們。

One final note on this issue: Some hear this and they assume that this voids the communicative arts and personal and social expression as far as painting, sculpture, music and the like. This is not the case. These mediums of expression will likely thrive like never before, for the amount of free time made available to people will permit a renaissance of creativity and invention, along with community and social capital. The burden of labor obligation will also reduce stress and create a more amiable culture.
關於這個問題的最後一個論點:有些人聽說了這些想法,並且推斷假設這樣會消滅掉溝通的藝術和個人、社會的自我表現,像是繪畫、雕刻、音樂等等。但不 是這樣的。這些表達想法的媒介將很有可能以史無前例的方式興盛繁榮起來,因為人們可以利用的自由時間多寡,伴隨著社群和社會的資本,將能夠復興創造力和發 明。而勞動義務的負擔也將會減少壓力,並創造出一個更宜人的文化。

There is a difference between creating for the sake of keeping society sustainable and efficient, focusing on resource preservation, product efficiency and strategic allocation of labor for those things which generate a tangible social return – and creating for personal expression, exploration, experimentation and art, which has been a staple of human evolution since the dawn of time.
為了使得社會永續、有效率地運作而創造是不同於以往方式的。其關注的焦點在於保存資源、產品的效率和有策略性的勞動配置,並應用於能夠產生實體社會回饋的事物上,而且也是為了個人的表達、探索、實驗、藝術而創造,這些東西自從有史以來都是人類演化的必要條件。

3) Technological Unification of Earth via “Systems” Approach
3) 透過「系統理論」統整地球上的科技

We live in a symbiotic/synergistic planetary ecosystem, with a cause-effect balance reflecting a single system of earthy operation. Buckminster Fuller defined this well when he referred to the planet as “Spaceship Earth”. It is time we reflect this natural state of affairs in our societal affairs on this planet. The fact of the matter is that the human societies, which are dispersed across the globe, require resources which are also non-uniformly dispersed across the globe. Our current procedure for enabling resource distribution comes in the form of corporations which seek and claim “ownership” of our earthly resources, which they in turn “sell” to others, in the name of profit. The problems inherent in this practice are numerous due to, again, the self-interest-based disposition inherent in selling anything for personal gain, as denoted before. However, this is only partially the issue in the larger scheme of things when it come to the reality that we live on a finite planet and resource management and preservation should be the number one concern in regard to human survival – especially with the population explosion of the last 200 years. Two people are born every second on this planet and each one of those humans needs a lifetime of food, energy, water, and other necessary resources.
我們生活在共生/協同的行星生態系統之中,伴隨著因果關係的平衡,反映出地球運作的單一體系。巴克敏斯特•富勒對這點下了良好的定義。當他提及這個 星球時,他稱之為「地球太空船」。因此該是我們反省這顆星球上社會事務的自然狀態的時候了。事實是遍佈全球的人類社會,需要同樣也是不一致地散佈在全球各 地的資源。我們目前能讓資源分配運作的程序,是以企業財團的形式去追求並主張我們地球資源的「所有權」,接著企業財團再把這些資源以利潤的名義「賣給」其 它人。再一次,在這項實踐中存有龐大的內在固有問題,因為如前所述,根據固有的自利傾向,人們會為了個人的獲益而販賣任何事物。但就事態更廣大的層面而 言,這只是其中一小部份的問題。當涉及到我們居住在資源有限的行星上這個現實時,資源的管理和維護保存應該就要是最首要的考慮,這關乎到人類的生存,特別 是過去200年之間的人口爆炸。在這顆星球上,每一秒就誕生了兩個人,而這些新生人類的每個人,都需要一輩子使用量的食物、能源、水等等和其它必要的資 源。

Given this fundamental need to understand what we have, the rates of depletion and, invariably, the need to streamline industry in the most efficient, productive way, a global system of resource management must be put in place. It is just common sense. This is an extensive subject when one considers the technical, quantitative variables needed for implementation. However, for the sake of overview, it can be stated that the first step is a complete global survey of all earthly resources. Then, based on a quantitative analysis of the properties of each material, a strategically defined process of production is constructed from the bottom up, using such variables as negative retro-actions, renewability, etc. (more on this can be found in the section called Project Earth in the ZM lecture, Where Are We Going?). Then consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitored, distribution logically formulated, etc.
鑒於瞭解我們擁有什麼、資源消耗速率多快的這種基本需求,並因此總是需要以最有效率、最有生產力的方式簡化各個產業的運作方式,則一定要實行一種全 球性的資源管理系統。這只是常識。當一個人考慮到這種實踐所需要技術及量化的變數時,這是一個廣泛的主題。然而為了概述重點,我們可以說第一步是完整調查 所有的地球資源。接著,根據每一種物料屬性的量化分析,從底部基礎再向上建構出一種具有明確策略性的生產過程,利用像是負面反作用、可更新性等等這些變 數。(更多資訊可以在時代精神運動的演講「地球計畫」、「我們在哪裡?」的部份中找到)。然後也需要評估所消耗資源的統計數字、監控資源消竭的速率、規劃 出合邏輯的分配等等。

In other words, it is a full systems approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution, with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability. Given the mathematically defined attributes, as based on all available information at the time, along with the state of technology at the time, the parameters for social operation in the industrial complex become self-evident, with decisions arrived at by way of computation, not human opinion. This is where computer intelligence becomes an important tool for social governance, for only the computation ability/programming of computers can access and strategically regulate such processes efficiently, and in real time. This technological application is not novel; it is simply ‘scaled out’ from current methods already known.
換句話說,對於地球資源的管理、生產和分配,伴隨著絕對的效率、維護保存和永續性,這是一個完整的系統性途徑。給定了數學上定義明確的屬性,並根據 當下全部可利用的資訊與科技的現狀,在產業複合體之中的社會運作參數將會不證自明,決策會透過電腦計算而達成,而不是人為的意見。這就是電腦的智慧對於管 理社會而言變成重要工具的地方,因為只有電腦計算/程式的能力可以即時有策略、有效率地進入並控管這種過程。這種科技應用並不新穎,這只是單純從目前已知 的方法中去「擴大規模」。

4) Access over Property
4) 超越貧窮的「取得使用權」

The concept of property, unexplained to most people today, is a fairly new social concept. Before the neolithic revolution, as extrapolated from hunter and gatherer societies currently in existence, property relationships did not exist as we know them. Neither did money or even trade in many cases. Communities existed in an egalitarian fashion, living within the carrying capacity of the regions and the natural production built in. It was only after direct agricultural development was discovered, eventually proceeding with resource acquisition by ship traders and the like – up to the modern day of power establishments and corporations – that property became the defined staple of society as we know it today.
財產的概念,今日大多數人不知道這是一個相當新的社會概念。在新石器革命之前,像是從今日對於漁獵社會的觀點去推斷,財產關係過去並非如我們所知的 那樣。在許多狀況中,金錢或者甚至貿易的關係也不一樣。當時的社群是以平等主義的樣態存在,並依靠著那些區域的資源承載能力和既有的自然生產力來生活。只 有在發現了直接的農業概念,並最終透過貿易商船的獲取資源等等-直到現代強大的既定體制和企業財團-財產這個概念才如我們今日所知的那樣,成為社會中定義 明確的必需品。

With this understood, an understanding which dismisses the common notion that property is a result of some kind of empirical “human nature”, the notion of “no property” is also today often blindly associated with “Communism” and the works of Karl Marx. It is important to point out the Zeitgeist Movement’s advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed “Communist” ideals. There is no relation between the two, for Communism was not derived from the needs to preserve and manage resources efficiently. Communism, in theory and practice, was based on a social/moral relativism which was culturally specific – not environmentally specific – which is the case with a RBE.
雖然瞭解了這一點,即拋開財產是因為某種具體經驗的「人性」這種普遍觀念,但在今日,「沒有財產」這種觀念卻也通常被盲目地與「共產主義」和卡爾. 馬克思的作品連結起來。重要的是指出時代精神運動所提倡的「沒有財產」這種想法源自於邏輯上的推論,並幾乎明確地根據有策略性的資源管理和效率,而不是根 據任何這些先入為主的「共產主義者」的概念。時代神運動和共產主義兩者之間並沒有關連,因為共產主義並不是導源於有效率地保存維護和管理資源的需求。共產 主義在理論和實踐上是根據社會/道德上的相對論,具體而言是在文化的層面上,而不是資源導向型經濟中具體明確的環境關係。

The real issue relevant to meeting human needs is not ownership – it is access. People use things; they do not “own” them. Ownership is a non-operational, protectionist advent, derived from generations of scarcity of resources, currently compounded by market-based advertising which supports status/class division for the sake of monetary gain. To put it another way, ownership is a form of controlled restriction, both physically and ideologically. Property as a system of controlled restriction, coupled with the monetary value inherent, and hence the market consequences, is unsustainable, limiting and impractical.
對於滿足人類的需求而言,真正的問題不在於「所有權」,而是「取得使用權」。人們使用東西,但並非「擁有」它們。「所有權」是一種運作不良、保護主 義的產物,起源於無數世代以來的資源匱乏,而且目前透過市場導向的廣告而被強化深植於人心,並支持為了金融貨幣的收益而去分裂人們的地位/階級。換句話 說,「所有權」是一種控制、限制的形式,不論在實質物理上或意識型態上皆是如此。財產作為一種控制、限制的形式,伴隨著金融貨幣體系的價值觀及其所帶來的 「市場」後果,這些都是不永續的、限制的以及不實際的。

In a RBEM, the focus moves from static ownership to strategic access, with a system designed for society to obtain access as needed. For example, rather than owning various forms of recreational sporting equipment, “access centres” are set up, typically in regions where such actions occur, where a person simply “checks out” the equipment, uses it, and returns it. This “library” type arrangement can be applied to virtually any type of human need. Of course, those reading this who have been conditioned into a more individualistic, materialistic mindset often object with claims such as “what if I want green, custom golf clubs and only white are available?” This is a culturally contrived, biased reservation. The issue in question is utility, not vanity. Human expression has been molded by the needs of the current market-based system (consumption) into values which are simply non-functional and irrelevant. Yes, this would require a value adjustment to quality, rather than identity. The fact is, even for those who object from the standpoint of their interest in personal identity, the overarching social ramifications of such a social approach will create benefits that will greatly overshadow any such arbitrary personal preference, creating new values to replace the outdated ones.
在資源導向型經濟的模式中,關注焦點從靜態的「所有權」轉移到「策略性的使用取得」,其體系被設計為來讓社會中的人們取得並使用所需資源。例如,不 是讓人們「擁有」各式各樣的娛樂運動設備,而是要去建立一個「使用取得中心」,通常設立在此種行為發生的區域,其中一個人僅僅就是「查看」該設備,使用它 並歸還。這種「圖書館」式的配置可以應用於幾乎所有類型的人類需求上。當然,那些心理上被制約為支持更個人主義式、物質主義式心態的人們,讀到這點時通常 反對的主張會像是「如果我想要綠色且自訂的高爾夫球桿,但只有白色的可用時要怎麼辦?」這是一種在文化上虛構出來帶有偏見的保留意見。要考慮的真正問題是 物品的利用,而不是虛榮心。人類的表現一直以來是由目前市場導向體系(消費)的需求所塑造,導致其價值觀就是不具功能性和不相關的。是的,這將會需要一種 價值觀的調整,轉向至注重品質而不是身份認同。事實上,即使對於立足點為關注個人身份認同的那些人們而言,這種包羅萬象的社會歧異後果和方式也會創造出 「利益」,並大大超越任何這種武斷的個人偏好,創造出新的價值觀且取代過時的那些。

These include : (a) No Property Crime: In a world of access rather than ownership, without money, there is no incentive to steal, for there is no resale value. You cannot steal something which no one owns, and you certainly couldn’t sell it. (b) Access Abundance: It has been noted that the average automobile sits in parking spaces for the majority of its lifespan, wasting space and time. Rather than having this wasteful consequence of the ownership system, one car could facilitate a large number of users in a given region, with only a fraction of the production/resource needs. (c) Peak efficiency of production: Unlike today, where the market system must perpetuate inherently inferior products for the sake of economic turnover, we could actually design goods to last, using the best materials and processes strategically available. We no longer make “cheap” products to serve a poor demographic (which is the majority). This attribute alone will save huge amounts of resources while also enabling society to have access to goods and services they would never have had in a world based on money, inherent obsolescence and property.
這些包括:(a)沒有財產犯罪:在一個取得使用權而不是所有權的世界中,沒有了金錢,就沒有竊盜的動機,因為沒有再販賣的價值。你不能去偷一個跟本 沒有人「擁有」的東西,而且你當然不可能拿去賣。(b)充足的取得使用:人們一直注意到,大部份的汽車會在停車空間中耗掉大部份的壽命,浪費了空間和時 間。但一輛車可以在給定的區域中讓大量的使用者來利用,並因此只需要少部份的生產/資源需求,而不是保有這個導致浪費後果的所有權體系。(c)生產的最高 效率:不像今日的市場體系,它一定要為了經濟的交易金額而不斷生產本身就是次級劣等的產品,我們實際上可以設計出讓壽命儘量延續的物品,並使用最佳的材料 和策略上可行的生產過程。我們不再製造「便宜的」產品去形成差勁的統計數字(但目前大部份情況都是如此)。光是這項特性就將能夠節省大量的資源,並也同時 使得社會中的人們能夠取得並使用物品和服務,而這些東西是人們在以金錢、固有報廢和財產等等概念為基礎的世界中所不會有的。

5) Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.
5) 自給自足/在地化的城市和生產系統

There are many brilliant engineers who have worked to tackle the issue of industrial design, from Jacque Fresco, to Buckminster fuller, to Nikola Tesla. Behind such designs, such as Jacque Frescos’ famed circular cities or Fuller’s geodesic dome, rests a basic core tenet: strategic efficiency and maximization of productivity.
有許多傑出的工程師們已努力去處理工業設計的問題,從雅克•法斯科到巴克敏斯特•富勒,再到尼古拉•特斯拉。在這些設計的背後,像是雅克•法斯科知名的圓形城市或富勒的球型屋頂,這些都遵循著一個基本核心的原則:有策略性的效率和生產力的極大化。

For example, a Fresco “circular city” is constructed of a series of “belts”, each serving a social function, such as energy production, research, recreation, living, etc. Each city is a complete system where all needs are produced in the city complex, in a localized fashion, whenever possible. For example, renewable energy generation occurs near the outer perimeter and food is produced closer to the middle in industrial sized greenhouses.
例如,法斯科的「圓形城市」是由一系列的「帶狀區域」所構成,每一個區域都為了特定的社會功能而服務,像是能源生產、研究、娛樂、居住等等。每一座 城市都是完整的系統,其中所有的需求,在任何可能的時候都在城市的複合體中,以一種在地化的方式被滿足。例如,可再生能源的生產在靠近外部的周圍進行,而 食物則是在更靠近中央的區域中,以工業規模的溫室來生產。

This is very different in its logic from the globalized economy we live in today which wastes outrageous amounts of energy and resources due to unnecessary transport and labor processing. Likewise, transportation within the city is strategically created to eliminate the use of detached automobiles, except for rare cases, such as emergency vehicles. Homes are created to be micro-systems as well, with as much power generation occurring internally, for example from sunlight absorbed by the building structure using photovoltaic technology. More information on these city systems can be found at www.thevenusproject.com.
這種方式跟現今我們生活於其中的全球化經濟體系,在邏輯上是非常不同的。目前的全球化體系,因為不必要的運輸和勞動加工,而浪費了令人髮指的能源和 資源數量。同樣地,在城市中的交通運輸也要有策略性地創造,以消除無關的汽車使用,除了在極少數的狀況中,像是緊急救護車輛。住宅也被創造為微型系統,盡 其所能從內部發電,例如從由建築結構中所吸收的陽光,並使用光伏太陽能科技。關於這些城市系統的更多資訊可以在 www.thevenusproject.com中找到

The geodesic dome, perfected by Buckminster Fuller, offers another efficiency-oriented medium within the same train of thought. Fuller’s goal was to build designs to do more with fewer resources. He noticed problems inherent in conventional construction techniques, and recognized the indigenous strength of naturally occurring structures. The advantages include: much stronger than a conventional building, yet using less material to construct; domes can be built very quickly because they are of a modular prefab construction and suit being mass-produced; they also use less energy to keep warm/cool than a conventional box structure. More information can be found at http://www.bfi.org/.
而由巴克敏斯特•富勒所完善的球型屋頂,則提供了另一個以效率為導向的媒介,也是根據相同的思路。富勒的目標是建造出能用更少資源但卻能做到更多事 的設計。他注意到傳統建築技術中固有的問題,並認知到在自然界中產生的結構所具有的內在力量。這些優勢包括:比起傳統的建築更強穩許多,而且只用了更少的 材料來建造。球型屋頂可以非常快速地建造,因為他們是利用模組預先建造的方式,而且也適合大規模生產。比起傳統的箱型房屋結構,這種方式也使用了較少的能 源來保暖或維持涼爽。更多資訊可以在http://www.bfi.org/中找到

In the end, the fundamental interest is, again, sustainability and efficiency on all levels, from housing deign to the “earth design”. The market system actually fights this efficiency due to its inherently broken and competitive nature.
最後再強調一次,最根本基礎的關注焦點在於各個層面的永續性和效率,從房
屋設計再到「地球設計」皆然。市場體系實際上因為它內在的腐敗和競爭本質而反抗這種效率。

6) Science as the Methodology for Governance
6) 科學作為管理的方法論

The application of “the scientific method for social concern” is the oft-repeated mantra for the basis of social operation in a RBEM. While the obviousness of this in regard to industry is simple enough to understand, it is important to also realize its value in regard to human behavior. Science, historically speaking, has often been derided as a cold, restrictive discipline, reserved for the sake of mere technology and invention. Little regard seems to be currently given to its use in the understanding of human behavior.
在資源導向型經濟中,「將科學方法應用於社會所關注的問題中」,是一個常被提及的社會運作的基礎概念。儘管對於產業而言,這是再明顯不過的理解,但 重要的是也要理解科學方法對於人類行為的價值。科學在歷史上來說,通常一直都被抵譭為冷酷、限制性的紀律教條,只是純粹為了科技和發明而被保存下來。目前 看似幾乎沒有人關注科學對於理解人類行為的用途。

Superstitious thought, which has been powerfully dominant in human evolution, has worked on the basis that the human being was somehow detached from the physical world. We have “souls” or “spirits”; we are “divine”; we are related/guided by an all-seeing, all-knowing, controlling god, etc.
在人類的演化歷史中,迷信的思維一直都是強而有力的主宰,其運作的基礎在於人類不知怎麼搞的,就是脫離了實體的物質世界。我們有「靈魂」或「心靈」。我們是「神聖的」,我們與全知全能、掌控世界一切萬物的神連結並受其指引等等。

Conversely, yet oddly similarly, there is an argument that humans have “free will” in their decisions and that we have the open ability to choose our actions, free of the influence of our environment or even education. Now, while the vastness of the prior two statements suggests that many readers could find numerous cultural arguments to claim the contrary, this doesn’t change the basic reality that we humans have historically liked to think that we are special and unique from the rest of the organisms and natural phenomena around us.
反過來講,同樣看似奇怪的論點在於,人類竟然也有「自由意志」來下決定,而且我們有開放的能力來選擇我們的行動和行為,而不受到環境甚至教育的影 響。儘管從前兩項陳述論點所揭示出的巨大暗示意涵中,許多讀者可能找到大量的文化論點來反駁,但這不會改變以下的基本現實:即我們人類在歷史上都喜歡認為 我們是特別、獨一無二的,而且跟剩下的有機體和周遭的自然現象不同。

However, as time has gone on, it has become increasingly obvious that we are not special and that there is no such thing as “special” in the natural world, for everything is special based on the uniqueness of all organisms. There is no reason to assume that the human being is any more important or intrinsically different or special than a mole, a tree, an ant, a leaf or a cancer cell. This isn’t “New-Age” rhetoric – it is fundamental logic. We are physical phenomena – nothing more or less.
然而,隨著時光流逝,已變得越來越明顯的是人類並不是特別的,而且在自然世界中並沒有所謂的「特別」這種東西,因為每件事物的獨特性,都是根據所有 的有機體的獨特性而來。沒有理由假設人類比一隻鼴鼠、一棵樹、一隻螞蟻、一片樹葉或一個癌細胞更重要,或者在本質上更不同。這不是一種「新世紀(New Age)」的說辭,而是基本的邏輯。我們是一種實體的現象,不多也不少。

We are greatly influenced by our culture, and our values and behaviors can only be mainly a result of our conditioning, as external phenomena interact with our genetic predispositions. For example, we have a notion called “talent”, which is another word for a genetic predisposition to a given behavior, or set of behaviours. For example, a piano-playing prodigy might have an inherent ability that enables them to learn more quickly and perform in a more acute way than another who has spent the same time in practice but doesn’t have the genetic predisposition. Be that as it may, that “talented” person still had to learn what a piano was and how to play it. In other words, genes are not autonomous initiators of commands. It takes an environmental trigger to allow for the propensity to materialize.
我們大量受到文化的影響,而我們的價值觀和行為主要只能是因為我們的制約而形成,伴隨著我們基因的預定傾向與外在現象的互動。例如,我們有所謂「天 才」的概念,這是另一種基因的預定傾向取代了一個給定行為或一套行為的字眼。例如,一位鋼琴天才可能有一種天生內在固有的能力,能夠使他們學得更快並以更 敏銳的方式去表演,超越了其它花費同等時間練習但卻沒有相同基因預定傾向的人。即使如此,那位「天才」仍然必須去學習一座鋼琴是什麼,以及如何彈奏它。換 句話說,基因並不是任何命令的自發性啟動者,而是需要一個環境上的觸發,好讓這種基因傾向能夠具體化。

At any rate, it is not the point of this section to expand on the argument of “nature and nurture”. The point is that we have proven to be scientifically defined and a product of a traceable causality, and it is this understanding that can allow us to slow and even stop the aberrant, or “criminal” behavior we see in society today, such a abuse, murder, theft and the like. The logic, once the effects of human conditioning are understood, is to remove the environmental attributes which are precipitating to these reactions.
無論如何,這部份的重點不是要去擴展「先天和後天」的爭論觀點。重點在於,我們已在科學的定義上證明了人類是可追蹤的因果關係產物,而正是這種理 解,讓我們能夠減緩並甚至阻止今日我們在社會上看到的偏差或「犯罪」行為,像是虐待、謀殺、偷竊等等。一旦了解了人類制約的影響,行事的邏輯就是要去移除 加速這些反應的環境屬性。

Just as an abused dog who has been starved for a week might have a knee-jerk response to behave very violently to an otherwise innocuous passerby, we humans have the same behaviour dynamic. If you don’t want people to steal food, do not deprive them of it. It has been found that prisons are now generating more violence than they are curbing. If you teach a child to be a hateful racist, then they will likely carry those values into the rest of their life. Human values and human behaviour are shaped by the environment in a cause and effect-based way, no different than a leaf being blown by the wind.
正如同一隻受到虐待且已餓了一個禮拜的狗,對於無害的路過者,牠的行為可能會是非常暴力的反射回應,而我們人類也有同樣的行為動態。如果你不想要人 們偷食物,就不要剝奪人們的食物。人們已經發現,監獄本身現在正產生出更多他們所想要抑制的暴力。如果你教導一位孩子成為一位充滿憎恨厭惡的種族主義者, 那麼他們將可能在餘生中都抱持著這樣子的價值觀。人類的價值觀和行為,是一一種根據因果關係的方式而被環境所塑造,這跟一片葉子被風吹落並沒有什麼不同。

In a RBEM, the central focus in regard to removing aberrant human actions is not to “punish” people, but to find the reasons for their offensive actions and work to eliminate them. Humans are products of their environment and personal/social reform is a scientific process.
在資源導向型經濟模式中,關於移除偏差的人類行為和動作,其核心的焦點不在於「懲罰」人們,而是在於找出這些冒犯行為和動作的原因,並努力去消除它們。人類是自身環境的產品,而個人和社會的改革則是一種科學的過程。

回覆文章