136
假如还有人以为可以通过改革的方式保护自由不受技术的侵害，那就让他想想我们的社会在应对远远更加简单直接的其他问题时到底有多么笨拙且往往不成功好了。体系未能制止的问题有很多，比方说环境恶化、政治腐败、贩毒或家庭暴力等等。
Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren [22] But on this subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action, and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, or is it one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social problems, if they get “solved” at all, are rarely or never solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups pursing their own (usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive (mainly by luck) at some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful that rational, long-term social planning can EVER be successful.
137
以环境问题为例。在这里价值的冲突是直截了当的：是要眼前的经济利益还是为我们的子孙保留一些自然资源[22]。然而，关于这个问题我们从掌权者那里得到的只是一些废话和胡话，而没有得到任何清楚一贯的行动路线。与此同时我们则继续为子孙积累环境问题。解决环境问题的尝试成为不同集团之间的斗争与妥协，有时这边占上风，有时那边占上风。战线随着公众舆论的飘移不定而变化。这不是一个理性的过程，也不能及时且成功地解决问题。大的社会问题，即使能够“解决”，解决方式也很少是理性、全面的计划。各个相互竞争的群体在各自追求（往往是短期的）自身利益的过程中 [23] 主要凭运气达成了某种多多少少还算稳定的临时解决办法，这样问题就算是得到了解决。实际上，我们在100-106段系统地阐述的原理已经显示了理性长期的社会计划很难成功。
[22]. (Paragraph 137) Here we are considering only the conflict of values within the mainstream. For the sake of simplicity we leave out of the picture “outsider” values like the idea that wild nature is more important than human economic welfare.
[22]（137段）我们这里仅仅考虑主流之内的价值观冲突。为了简化讨论，我们姑且忽略了“非主流”理念的价值观，例如认为野生自然界比人类经济福祉更重要的看法。
[23]. (Paragraph 137) Self-interest is not necessarily MATERIAL self-interest. It can consist in fulfillment of some psychological need, for example, by promoting one’s own ideology or religion.
[23]（137段）自身利益未必一定是物质性的，也可能包含特定心理需求的满足，例如通过传播自身信仰的宗教或意识形态来获得满足感。
Thus it is clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem of reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.
138
因此很显然，即使只解决相对直截了当的社会问题，人类的能力也是十分有限的。那么，人类又怎么能够解决协调自由与技术关系这样远为困难且微妙的问题呢？技术显示的是明确的物质优势，而自由是对不同的人有着不同含义的抽象概念，宣传和花哨的言论很容易掩盖自由的缺失。
And note this important difference: It is conceivable that our environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system to solve these problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to preserve freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible extent. [24] Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems, equally practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on freedom.) This isn’t just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) have stressed the importance of “socializing” people more effectively.
139
而且请注意这样一项重要区别：可以想像某一天我们的环境问题（比方说）可以通过一项理性的全面计划得到解决，但这一切只有在解决环境问题符合体系的长期利益时才可能发生。然而保留自由和小群体的自主权却不符合体系的利益。正相反，最大程度地控制人类行为才符合体系的利益。因此出于实际利益的考虑有可能最终迫使体系采取理性且深谋远虑的手段去解决环境问题，但同样的实际考虑却会迫使体系更严格地管制人类的行为（最好是通过能够掩盖其侵蚀自由之举的间接手段）。这不仅仅是我们的看法。杰出的社会科学家们（例如James Q. Wilson）也曾经强调过更有效地“社会化”人民的重要性。
[24]. (Paragraph 139) A qualification: It is in the interest of the system to permit a certain prescribed degree of freedom in some areas. For example, economic freedom (with suitable limitations and restraints) has proved effective in promoting economic growth. But only planned, circumscribed, limited freedom is in the interest of the system. The individual must always be kept on a leash, even if the leash is sometimes long( see paragraphs 94, 97).
[24]（第139段）一个限制条件：在某些领域允许某些指定程度的自由符合体系的利益。例如经济自由（辅之以适当的限制和约束）可以有效地促进经济发展。但只有有计划、有约束、有限制的自由才符合体系利益。个人必须得被拴上绳子，即使绳子有时放得很长（参看94、97段）
REVOLUTION IS EASIER THAN REFORM
革命比改革更容易
We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in a such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society.
140
我们希望我们已经说服了读者，体系无法通过改革来调和自由与技术。唯一的出路是摒弃整个工业-技术休系。这意味着革命，不一定是武装起义，但肯定是激烈而根本的社会性质变化
People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances revolution is much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development of application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers of people may devote themselves passionately to a revolution against the industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limite certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful reward – fulfillment of their revolutionary vision – and therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.
141
人们倾向于想当然地认为，由于革命带来的变化比改革大，所以革命也就比改革更难发动。实际上，在某些条件下革命比改革容易得多。这是因为一场革命运动能够激发出人们极大的献身热情，而一场改革运动却不能。一场革命运动许诺一下子解决所有问题并创造整个新世界；它提供人民为之甘冒风险、甘作牺牲的理想。由于这些理由，推翻整个技术体系要比对技术的某一部分——如遗传工程的应用发展——进行有效、持久的限制容易得多。在适当的条件下，许许多多的人会热情地献身于推翻工业技术体系的革命。正如我们在132段提到的那样，寻求限制技术的某些方面的改革者是为了避免不良后果而工作。然而，革命者是为了获得强力的报偿一一实现其革命理想——而工作，因此他们比改革者更努力且更执著。
Reform is always restrainde by the fear of painful consequences if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of the population is really committed to the revolution, but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution in paragraphs 180-205.
142
改革总是为对于变化过大有可能带来的痛苦后果的恐惧所阻遏。而一旦革命的狂热控制了一个社会，人民会为了革命事业而忍受无与伦比的苦难。法国与俄国革命充分显示了这一点。很可能在这些案例中，只有少数人真正献身于革命，但这少数人已足够多且足够积极，足以成为社会的主导力量。我们将在180-200段更深入地探讨革命.
CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
控制人类行为
Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing humans behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going rong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaces by some more efficient form of society.?
143
自文明肇始，有组织的社会便对人们施加压力以保证社会有机体的运行。这类压力在各个社会中极为不同。某些压力是生理的（缺乏营养、过度劳累、环境污染），某些是心理的（噪音、拥挤、按社会所要求的模式重塑人类行为）。过去，人性基本上是恒定的，有变化也不会超越某种界限。因此社会也不能将人推过一定界限。当人的耐受极限被突破时，问题就来了：反叛、犯罪、腐败、逃避工作、抑郁和其他精神问题、死亡率升高、出生率降低，等等；社会或是崩坏，或是不能有效运行，最终将会（或快或慢地通过征服、内耗或演进）被其他更为有效的社会形式所取代。
[25]. (Paragraph 143) We don’t mean to suggest that the efficiency or the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the society subjects people. That is certainly not the case. There is good reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to less pressure than the European society did, but European society proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages conferred by technology.
[25]（143段）我们并不是说一个社会生存的效能和潜能总是与该社会加于其人民的压力或不适成反比。这显然是不正确的。有充分理由相信许多原始社会加于其人民的压力比欧洲社会小，但欧洲社会远比任何原始社会更有效能，而且在与这些社会冲突时总能因为技术优势而胜出。
Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People coud be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing way of modifying human beings.
144
因而在过去，人性对于社会的发展设置了某些界限，人们至多被推到此处而不会逾越。然而今天情况已经发生了变化，因为现代技术正在开发改造人类的方法。
Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribley unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression had been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption fo the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today’s society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants area a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to toelrate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)
145
设想这样一个社会，它可以迫使人们处于极度不快的状况，然后向他们提供药物以解消他们的不快。这是科学幻想吗？某种程度上这种事正在我们的社会里上演。在最近几十年中，可临床诊断的抑郁症发病率迅速上升。我们相信这是由于权力过程遭到打断而导致的，如59-76段解释的那样。但即使我们错了，抑郁症发病率的提高也肯定是由于当代社会的某些条件造成的。现代社会不是去改变那些使人们抑郁的条件，而是给人们抗抑郁药。实际上抗抑郁药是改变个人的内在状态以使其能够忍受其原先不能忍受的社会条件的一种手段（是的，我们知道抑郁显时常是纯遗传性的。我们在这里谈的是那些环境起决定作用的病例）
Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.
146
用于人类头脑的药物仅仅是现代社会正在开发的控制人类行为方法的一个例子。让我们看看其他例子
To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement).[26] Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don’t have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be contantly occupied or entertained, otherwise the get “bored,” i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.
147
让我们从监视技术开始。隐蔽的录像摄影机今天在大多数商店和许多其他地方使用，计算机被用来收集和处理大量的个人信息。如此获取的信息大大加强了生理强制（即执法）的有效性。[26] 然后是宣传手段，大众传播媒介为此提供了有效的载体。有效的技术被开发来，使选举、销售产品、影响民意娱乐的产业成为了体系的重要心理工具，即使是在大量播放性与暴力的时候。娱乐业为现代人提供了逃避现实的必要手段。当人们关注于电视、录像等时，就会忘悼紧张、焦虑、挫折、不满等情绪。许多原始民族在无需劳作的闲暇时候很乐意一连坐上几个小时无所事事，因为他们与自身以及外在世界和睦相处。但是多数现代人必须不停地忙碌或不停地娱乐，不然就会“厌倦”，坐立不安、心神不定、烦燥易怒。
[26]. (Paragraph 147) If you think that more effective law enforcement is unequivocally good because it suppresses crime, then remember that crime as defined by the system is not necessarily what YOU would call crime. Today, smoking marijuana is a “crime,” and, in some places in the U.S.., so is possession of ANY firearm, registered or not, may be made a crime, and the same thing may happen with disapproved methods of child-rearing, such as spanking. In some countries, expression of dissident political opinions is a crime, and there is no certainty that this will never happen in the U.S., since no constitution or political system lasts forever.
[26] 如果你认为更有效的执法手段打击了犯罪，因此只有好处没有坏处，那么不要忘了，体系定义的犯罪未必就是在你眼中的犯罪行为。吸食大麻在今天美国的某些地区是“犯罪”。持有火器，无论注册与否，也有可能变成犯罪。同样，不受认可的育儿方式，例如打屁股，也有可能变成犯罪。在某些国家，表达异见政治观点是犯罪。谁也不敢说美国永远也不会发生这种事，因为任何宪制或政体都不可能永远存在下去。
If a society needs a large, powerful law enforcement establishment, then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.
如果一个社会需要一个庞大且强有力的执法机构，那么这个社会肯定有些什么严重的毛病：如果有那么多的人拒绝遵守规则，或者只有在遭受强迫的时候才肯遵守规则，那么这个社会必须向人们施以强大压力。过去很多社会并没有正式执法力量，或者执法力量有限，不过也照样运行得很好。
Other techniques strike deeper that the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid’s behind when he doesn’t know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child’s development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. “Parenting” techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. “Mental health” programs, “intervention” techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word “abuse” tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing “child abuse” are directed toward the control of human behavior of the system.
148
其他技术的影响比上文所述更深远。教育已经不再是孩子不会功课时打打他的屁股、会了就拍拍他的头这样简单的事了。它成了一门控制儿童发展的科学技术。例如，西尔瓦学习中心（Sylvan Learning Centers）在激励儿童学习方面取得了很大成功，而心理学技术在许多常规学校中的应用也多多少少取得了成功。教给家长们的“如何做家长”的技术是为了使儿童接受体系的基本价值观并按照体系的要求行事而设计的。“精神健康”计划、“参与教学”技术、心理治疗等等表面上是为了个人的利益设计的，但实际上它们往往是诱导个人按照体系的要求去想去做的一种方法（这里确实也没有什么矛盾，如果个人的态度和行为与体系发生了冲突，那么他就是在与一个极为强大的力量作对，他既无法战胜也无法躲避，因此他就会因紧张、挫折、失败而痛苦。如果他按照体系的要求去想去做，他的路就会容易得多。在这个意义上，体系对个人进行洗脑，使他顺从，确实是为了他好。大多数文化——如果不是全部——都不赞同以粗暴且明显的方式虐待儿童。为了一点小事或无事便折磨一个儿童，这使几乎每一个人都感到厌恶。但是许多心理学家把虐待的概念无限扩大。打屁股，作为教育孩子遵守纪律的理性并合谐的体系的一部分，是否算虐待？这个问题的答案最终要由打屁股是否能使一个人良好地适应社会的现存体系而定。实际上，虐待这个词的解释几乎包括了所有会导致不利于体系的行为的抚育儿童方法。因此，当防止“虐待儿童”的计划超出了防止明显且无意义的残酷行为时，其目的就已经在于加强体系对于人类行为的控制了。
Presumably, research will continue to increas the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentiond the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues of modifying the human mind. Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of “gene therapy,” and there is no reason to assume the such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental funtioning.
149
可以推测，研究将继续增强心理学技术用于控制人类行为的有效性。但是，我们认为。仅凭心理学技术就使人类适应技术正在创造的这种杜会是不可能的。生物学方法多半也会被用上。这方面我们已经提到了药物的使用。神经病学也许可以提供改造人类头脑的其他途径，人类遗传工程已经以“基因疗法”的形式开始冒头了，没有理由认为这些办法最终不会被用来改造能够影响思维的身体机能。
As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system’s economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won’t study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse , other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.
150
正如我们在134段提到的那样。工业化社会似乎正在进人一个严重紧张的时期，部分是由于人类行为的问题，部分是由于经济及环境问题。而体系的经济及环境问题当中很大一部分又是由人类行为引起的。异化、缺乏自尊、抑郁、敌意、叛逆、厌学儿童、青少年犯罪团伙、毒品、强奸、虐待儿童、其他罪行、滥交、少女怀孕、人口增长、吹治腐败、种族仇恨、民族对立、意识形态对立（例如支持与反对人工堕胎的问题）、政治极端主义、恐怖主义、破坏、反政府集团、仇恨集团，等等。所有这些都直接威胁着体系的生存，体系将被迫使用所有可行的手段来控制人类行为。
The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure itw own survival, a new watershed in human history will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system. [27]
151
我们今天所见的社会动荡肯定不是偶然，只能是体系强加于人们的生存条件所造成结果（我们曾经论证过这些条件中最重要的是权力过程的中断）。如果体系能够成功地对人类行为施加足够的控制以保障其自身的生存，那么，人类历史将跨越一条分水岭。过去，人类耐受力的界限曾经成为社会发展的界限（如我们在143，144段中解释的那样），但是工业——技术社会将能够通过改造人类—无论是依靠心理学方法还是生物学方法，抑或双管齐下——来逾越这些界限。未来的社会体系将不再作调整以适应人类的需要，而是人类作调整以适应社会的需要。[27]
[27]. (Paragraph 151) To be sure, past societies have had means of influencing behavior, but these have been primitive and of low effectiveness compared with the technological means that are now being developed.
[27]（第151段）的确，过去的社会也拥有影响人类行为的手段，但是与现代技术发展起来的现金手段相比，这些手段十分原始且效果有限。
Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28] Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children’s welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn’t have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn’t have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can’t change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn’t have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.
152
一般来说，对于人类行为的技术控制多半并非出于极权主义意图，甚至并非出于有意识地限制人类自由的愿望。[28] 控制人类思想的每一步都是针对社会所面临问题的合理反应。例如防治酗酒、降低犯罪率或者引导年轻人学习科学技术。在许多情况下，总能找到正当的人道主义理由。例如，当一个精神病专家给一个抑郁症患者开抗抑郁药物时，他显然是在帮助那个人。不给一个需要药物的人吃药是不人道的。家长们把他们的孩子送到西尔瓦学习中心去接受改造从而使他们热爱学习的动机自然也是关心自己孩子的幸福。也许其中有些家长并不喜欢不经特殊训练就找不到工作的社会现实，也不希望看到自已的孩子被迫经过洗脑后变成计算机宅男。但他们有什么办法？他们不能改变社会，他们的孩子如果不掌握某些技术就找不到工作，所以他们把孩子送去西尔瓦。
[28]. (Paragraph 152) However, some psychologists have publicly expressed opinions indicating their contempt for human freedom. And the mathematician Claude Shannon was quoted in Omni (August 1987) as saying, “I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I’m rooting for the machines.”
[28]（第152段）无论如何，一些心理学家公开表示了他们付于人类自由的蔑视。《Omni》杂志 （1987年8月号）曾引用数学家克劳德.香农的言论：“我想象有一天我们与机器人的关系就像今天的狗与人一样，而我支持机器人那边。”
Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.
153
因此，对于人类行为的控制并非出自当局的蓄意的决策，而是出自社会进化（快速进化）过程。这一过程将是难以抗拒的，因为单独考虑向前迈出的每一步，则似乎每一步都是有利的，或者至少迈出这一步所产生的危害比不迈这一步所产生的祸害要小（参见127段）。例如，宣传被用于许多良好的目的，如减少虐待儿童或种族仇恨。性教育显然是有用的，然而性教育（如果有效的话）的作用是把对于性观念的引导权从家庭夺走，交到以公立学校体系为代表的国家手中。
Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.
154
假设人们发现某种生物学性状能够增加某个儿童长大后成为罪犯的概率，并假设某种基因疗法可以去除这种性状 [29]，当然许多家长都会把具有这种性状的子女送去接受治疗。不这么做是不人道的，因为如果孩子长大后成为罪犯，他的一生多半会很悲惨。但许多或大多数原始社会的犯罪率都比我们的社会低，虽然它们既没有高科技的抚育儿童方法，也没有严厉的惩罚制度。没有理由认为现代人比原始人天生就更为掠夺成性。我们社会的高犯罪率必然是现代生活条件强加于人的压力造成的，对于这些压力许多人不能或不愿适应。因此去除潜在犯罪倾向的疗法至少在一定程度上是一种重新设计制造人类以便使他们满足体系要求的方法。
[29]. (Paragraph 154) This is no science fiction! After writing paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for identifying possible future criminals and for treating them by a combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be available in the near future. (See “Seeking the Criminal Element”, by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March 1995.) Maybe you think this is OK because the treatment would be applied to those who might become drunk drivers (they endanger human life too), then perhaps to peel who spank their children, then to environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment, eventually to anyone whose behavior is inconvenient for the system.
[29]（第154段）这不是科学幻想！在写完第154段后。我们碰巧在《科学美国人》当中发现了一篇文章。据这篇文章说，科学家们正在积极开发辩认潜在罪犯并用生物学和心理学的综合手段为其治疗的技术。一些科学家家主张施行义务治疗，这种疗法可能不久就会出现。（参见《寻找犯罪分子》（Seeking the Criminal Element），作者 W. Wayt Gibbs，《科学美国人》，1995年3月号）。也许你认为这挺好，因为他们治的是那些有可能醉酒驾车的人（这些人也对人类生命构成了威胁），不过此后他们就要修理那些打孩子屁股的人，然后是那些破坏伐木机械的环境主义者，最后是任何为体系找麻烦的人。
Our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.
155
我们的社会倾向于将不利于体系的思想或行为模式视为“病态”，这样做看起来似乎也很有道理，因为如果一个人不适应体系，其后果不仅仅是给体系带来麻烦，其个人也会遭受痛苦。因此，揉搓一个人使其适应体系被看作是“治病”，因而是好事。
In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society’s most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is “optional”: No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.
156
在第127段我们曾指出，即使某一项新技术的使用一开始是非强制性的，它也不一定一直都会是非强制性的，因为新技术将改变社会，以致于个人离开了该项技术就很难或无法生存。这同样适用于涉及人类行为的技术。在一个大多数儿童都接受使之热爱学习的训练计划的世界里，家长几乎是被迫送他的孩子接受这种训练计划的。如果他不送，他的孩子长大后和其他人相比就会显得像个笨蛋，并因此而失业。再假设人们发明了一种生物学疗法，可以大大减少困扰我们社会中许多人的紧张症，并且没有什么副作用。如果许多人都接受这种治疗，社会的总的紧张水平就会降低，而体系也就可以增强制造紧张的压力。事实上，类似现象已经在我们的社会中出现了，这就是大众娱乐（参看147段），我们社会使人们能够减少（或至少暂时逃避）紧张的最重要的心理学工具之一。大众娱乐的使用是非强制性的：没有任何法律要求我们一定要看电视、听收音机、读杂志。然而，大众娱乐已经成为了我们之中大多数人所依赖的逃避或减少紧张情绪的手段。每一个人都抱怨电视节目尽是垃圾，但几乎每一个人都看电视。有些人可能不看电视，但令天已很少有人拒绝任何形式的大众娱乐。（然而，直至相当切近的人类历史时期，大多数人仅仅享用本地社区的娱乐便能够过得很好）
Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.
157
假如工业化社会能够存在下去，技术很可能最终将找到完全控制人类行为的某种方法。人类的思想和行为有着深厚的生物学基础，这一点已是不容质疑的了。实验人员告诉我们：通过用电刺激大脑的适当部位。可以挑起或关闭诸如饥饿、愉快、愤怒和恐惧等感觉。可以通过破坏大脑的某些部位来消除记忆，也可以通过电刺激来使记忆浮现。可以用药诱发幻觉，也可以用药改变情绪。非物质性的人类灵魂可能有也可能没有，即使有，它也显然不如人类行为的生物学机制那么强大。否则研究人员不可能如此容易地使用药物和电流来操纵人类的感情和行为。
It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons, hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior.
158
将所有人的脑袋都插上电极以便当局控制大概是不切实际的。但人类的思想和感觉如此易受生物介入这一事实说明控制人类行为仅仅是一个技术问题，一个涉及神经元、激素和复杂分子的问题，一个可以用科学解决的问题。我们的社会在解决技术问题方面有着非凡的记录，因此它在控制人类行为方面将取得巨大进步实在是十拿九稳的事。
Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs 127,132, 153.)
159
公众抵抗能够防止对人类行为进行技术控制吗?如果谁要想一下子就进行全面的控制，那么公众的抵抗肯定会奏效。但是因为技术控制将是通过一长串连续的微小进展逐渐实现的，也就不会出现理性或有效的公共抵抗。（见第127、132、153段）
To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday’s science fiction is today’s fact. The Industrial Revolution has radically altered man’s environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.
160
对于那些认为这一切无非是科幻小说的人们，我们想指出，昨天的科学幻想小说在今天已成为了现实。工业革命已经极大地改变了人类的环境和生活方式，完全可以预期，随着技术不断地应用于人类的身体和思维，人类自身将发生的变化不会小于其环境和生活方式已经产生的变化。
HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS
十字路口的人类
But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the “lab schools” where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called “bourgeois.” But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system: welfare leaches, youth gangs cultists, satanists, nazis, radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc..
161
但是，我们的故事或许还是超前了一点。在实验室里开发一系列操纵人类行为的心理学或生物学技术是一回事，将这些技术整合进一个运转的社会体系则是另一回事。后一个问题更困难。例如，教育心理学技术在开发这些技术的“实验学校”中无疑十分有效，但要在我们的整个教育体系中有效地运用就不见得那么容易了。我们都知道我们的许多学校是什么样的。老师们正忙于收缴孩子们的刀具与枪支，根本没有时间运用最新技术把他们造就成计算机宅男。因此，虽然拥有这些关乎人类行为的技术进步，体系迄今在控制人类行为方而尚未取得令人印象深刻的成功。其行为受到体系很好控制的人是那些可以被称为“小资产阶级”的类型。但越来越多的人在这方面或那方面成为了体系的叛逆：社会福利的寄生虫、青年犯罪团伙、邪教崇拜者、恶魔崇拜者、纳粹分子、激进环境保护主义者、民间军事集团，等等。
The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to 100 years.
162
体系目前正在为克服某些威胁到其生存的问题进行着拼死的斗争，在这其中最重要的或许就是人类行为问题。如果体系能够及时地掌握充分控制人类行为的能力，它就多半能够生存下去。否则它就会崩溃。我们认为这个问题多半在今后几十年，大约在40至100年间，就能见分晓。
Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of “socializing” human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that their behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits.
163
假设体系能够度过今后几十年的危机。到那时，它必须已经解决或至少控制住了它面临的主要问题，特别是“社会化”人类的问题，即将人们改造得足够驯顺，使得他们的行为不再威胁到体系。实现了这一点之后，技术的发展就不再会有任何障碍，它将会走向它的逻辑终点，也就是完全控制地球上的一切，包括人类和所有其它重要的有机体。体系将成为铁板一块的整体组织，或者多多少少分成几块，由几十个既合作又竞争的共存组织共同组成，就像今天的政府、公司和其他大型组织既合作又竞争一样。人类自由基本上将不复存在，因为个人和小群体无法对抗用超级技术以及可以操纵改造人类的先进心理学和生物学工具武装起来的大型组织，更不用说后者还掌握着监视仪器和物理强制手段了。只有极少数人握有真正的权力，但甚至就连他们的自由也是十分有限的，因为他们的行为也是受到管制的；就像今天的政客和公司主管，他们要保住自己的职权就必须限制自己的行为，不逾越某些十分狭隘的界限。
Don’t imagine that the systems will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system’s survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over the system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained in paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the “good of humanity,” of course.
164
今后几十年的危机如果能过去，那时体系就不再需要为生存而加强控制了，但不要想像体系会因此而停止进一步发展控制人与自然的技术。正相反，一旦艰难时期过去了，体系将更迅速地加强对于人与自然的控制，因为它将不再为今日所面临的困难所掣肘。生存并非加强控制的主要动机。我们在第87-90段已经阐述过，技术人员和科学家把他们的工作作为了替代性活动；他们解决技术问题是为了满足自己的权力欲。他们乐此不疲，而留待他们解决的最令人感兴趣、最具挑战性的问题就是探究人类身体和思想的秘密并干预它们的发展。当然，这是为了“人类福祉”。
But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down there may be a period of chaos, a “time of troubles” such as those that history has recorded: at various epochs in the past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles, but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who will be anxious to get the factories running again.
165
但另一方面，请假设今后几十年的压力超出了体系的承受能力。如果体系崩溃，可能会有一个混乱时期，“动乱年代”，就像在过去各个对代历史所记载的那样。不可能预见动乱年代最后会产生什么结果。但无论如何人类会被赋予一个新机会。最大的危险是工业化社会很可能在崩溃后不几年就开始重组其自身，肯定会有许多人（特别是权力饥渴型的人们）急于重新开动工厂。
Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Second, it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.
166
工业体系将人类贬低到了被奴役的状态，而憎恨这种被奴役状态的人则面临两个任务。第一，我们必须增强体系内的社会紧张态势，以加快其崩溃或把它弱化到足够程度，使得反对体系的革命成为可能。第二，当体系充分弱化时，我们必须发展并宣传一种反对技术和工业社会的意识形态。当工业社会崩溃时，这种意识形态将有助于保证其残余被粉碎到无法修复的地步，这样体系就无法重组。工厂将被捣毁，技术书籍将被烧掉，等等
HUMAN SUFFERING
人类苦难
The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world’s population has become so overblown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in deep trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening the onset of the breakdown will be reducing the extent of the disaster.
167
工业体系的崩溃不会纯粹是革命行动的结果，它不会那么难以抵御革命的攻击，除非它自身内部的发展问题导致了极为严重的困难。因此如果体系崩溃，那么它或是自发崩溃，或是部分自发、部分由革命者促发的崩溃。如果崩溃是突如其来的，许多人都会死去，因为世界人口已如此过分膨胀，离开了先进技术就无法养活自己。甚至即使崩溃足够缓慢，人口的减少可以主要通过出生率的降低而不是死亡率的提高而实现，非工业化的过程也多半是极度混乱和极度痛苦的。幻想通过平稳控制的有序方式逐步废除技术是天真的，特别是要考虑到技术爱好者们的负隅顽抗。那么，致力于体系的崩溃是否因此就十分残酷呢？也许是，也许不是。首先，除非体系本来就已经陷入了深重的困难，无论如何都很可能最终自行崩溃，否者单靠革命者是不可能强行使其崩溃的。而且体系发展得规模越大，崩溃的后果就越严重。因此加速体系崩溃的革命者或许反倒控制了灾难的规模。
In the second place, one has to balance the struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.
168
其次，我们必须权衡斗争与死亡和丧失自由与尊严这两方面的得失。对于我们之中的许多人来说，自由与尊严比长寿和避免肉体痛苦更重要。再者，我们早晚会死，死于为生存或为某一事业而战，强于活得空虚而无目的。
In the third place, it is not all certain that the survival of the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause , immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate abut what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
169
第三，体系的存续所带来的痛苦并不一定就比体系崩溃所带来的痛苦更少。在全世界范围内，体系已经招致、并且正在招致的巨大痛苦曾使人类千百年与他人以及环境和睦相处的古代文化被与其解接触的工业社会所摧毁。其结果就是全方位的经济、环境、社会和心理问题。工业杜会的侵扰所产生的影响之一，就是传统的人口控制在全球范围内一下子失去了平衡，因而产生了人口爆炸及其所有连带后果。接着就是心理疾病席卷了整个所谓“幸运”的西方社会（参见44, 45段）。没有人知道臭氧层耗尽、温室效应及其他现在还不能预测的环境问题最终会为这个世界带来怎样的后果。而且就像核扩散已经显示的那样，我们无法防止新技术落入独裁者和不负责任的第三世界国家手中。愿意猜猜伊位克或北朝鲜将用遗传工程来干什么吗?
“Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure. That’s what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempt to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so that the present one. For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will lead to other new problems for society far more rapidly that it has been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long difficult period of trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their Brave New World (if they ever do). In the meantime there will be great suffering. So it is not all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape.
170
“嗨！”技术爱好者们会说，“科学能解决所有这些问题！我们将征服饥荒、消灭心理病痛，让每一个人都健康而快乐！”是的，是的。他们200年前就是这么说的。人们曾指望工业社会能够消灭贫穷，使每一个人都快乐，等等。实际结果却不是那么回事。技术爱好者对社会问题的理解简直是无可救药地天真（或自欺欺人）。他们没有意识到（或故意视而不见）这样一个事实：当巨大的变化，即使是看上去有利的变化，被引入一个社会时，将会引发一长串其他变化，这些变化之中的大都分是不可预见的（103段）其结果则是社会的混乱。因此，技术爱好者们在试图消灭贫穷和疾病，设计制造驯顺、快乐的人格等等时，很可能会创造出比现在还糟糕的社会体系。例如，科学家们吹嘘说他们能够创造出新的、经遗传工程改造的粮食植物以消灭饥荒。然而，这将会允许人日无限膨胀下去，而众所周知，拥挤会导致紧张和攻击性的增强。这仅仅是技术会导致的可预见问题中的一个例子。我们强调指出，历史经验告诉我们，技术进步给社会带来新问题的速度远比它解决旧问题的速度要快。因此技术爱好者们要经过一个漫长的试错时期才能够为他们的美丽新世界排除掉所有的故障（假设他们最终能做到的话）。而与此同时所产生的痛苦将会如此巨大，以至于体系生存下去所带来的痛苦不见得就比体系崩溃更少。技术己将人类带入了一条无法轻易逃脱的死胡同。
THE FUTURE
未来
But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decade and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities.
171
然而，假设工业社会经过未来几十年确实幸存下来并最终排除了故障，因而实现了平稳运转，它又会是一个什么样的体系呢？我们将考虑几种可能性
First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better that human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
172
首先，让我们假定计算机科学家成功地开发出了智能机器，这些机器无论做什么事都比人类强。在这种情况下，大概所有工作都会由巨大的、高度组织化的机器系统去做，而不再需要任何人类的努力。有两种情况可能发生。一种是允许机器在没有人类监督的情况下自已做出所有的决策，另一种是人类保留对于机器的控制。
If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
173
如果我们允许机器自己做出所有的决策，就无法对其结果进行揣度，因为不可能猜测此类机器的行为。我们只想指出，人类的命运那时就全凭机器发落了。人们也许会反驳，人类决不会愚蠢到把全部权力都交给机器。但我们既不是说人类会有意将权力交给机器，也不是说机器会存心夺权。我们实际上说的是，人类可能会轻易地让自己滑落到一个完全依赖机器的位置，滑落到不能做出任何实际选择，只能接受机器的所有决策的地步。随着社会及其面临的问题变得越来越复杂，而机器变得越来越聪明，人们会让机器替他们做更多的决策。仅仅是因为机器做出的决策会比人的决策带来更好的结果。最后，第二阶段将会来临，在这个阶段，维持体系运行所必需的决策已变得如此之复杂。以至于人类已无能力明智地进行决策。在这一阶段，机器实质上已处于控制地位。人们已不能把机器关上，因为他们已如此地依赖于机器，关上它们就等于是自杀。
On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
174
另一方面，也可能人类还能保持对机器的控制。在这种情况下，一般人也许可以控制他自己的私人机器，如他自己的汽车或私人计算机，但对于大型机器系统的控制权将落入一小群精英之手——就像今天一样，但有两点不同。由于技术的改进，精英对于大众的控制能力将会极大提高，因为人不再必需工作，大众就成为了多余的人，成为了体系的无用负担。如果精英集团失去了怜悯心，他们完全可以决定灭绝人类大众。如果他们有些人情味，他们也可以使用宣传或其他心理学或生物学技术降低出生率，直至人类大众自行消亡，让这个世界由精英们独占。或者，如果精英集团是由软心肠的自由派人士组成的，他们也可以为剩余的人类种族扮演好牧人的角色。他们将注意保证每个人的生理需求都得到满足，每一个孩子都在心理十分健康的条件下被抚养成人，每一个人都有一项有益于健康的癖好来打发日子，每一个可能会变得不满的人都会接受治疗以治愈其“疾病”。当然，生活是如此没有目的，以致于人们都不得不经过生物学的或心理学的重新设计改造，以去除他们对于权力过程的需求，或使他们的权力欲“升华”为无害的癖好。这些经过改造的人们也许能在这样一个社会中生活得平和愉快，但他们决不会自由。他们将被贬低到家畜的地位。
But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed; They will need more and m ore training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that I can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to “sublimate” their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve that needs of the system. We can imagine into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige an power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his needs for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.
175
再假设计算机科学家们没有能够在开发人工智能方面取得成功，因此人的工作还是必要的。即使如此，机器也将承担越来越多的简单工作，而低能力的工人将越来越过剩（正如我们所见，这种事已经发生了。许多人很难或根本找不到工作，因为他们由于智力或心理原因而不能达到在现今体系内有用就必须达到的训练水平）对于那些找到工作的人，要求会越来越高。他们将需要越来越多的训练，越来越强的能力，他们将不得不越来越可靠、越来越规矩、越来越驯顺，因为他们将越来越像巨型有机体的细胞。他们的任务将越来越专门化，囚而他们的工作在某种意义上也将越来越脱离真实世界，仅集中于现实的一块小碎片。体系将使用一切可以使用的心理学或生物学手段来设计制造人类，使之驯顺，使之具有体系要求的能力，使之将权力欲“升华”为某些专门化的任务。但是这样一个社会的人民将不得不驯顺。这一陈述是有条件的。如果可以找到某种方法，能将竞争性导向服务于体系需求的轨道，那么社会也许会发现竞争性是有用的。我们可以想像这徉一个未来社会，生活于其间的人没完没了地为了声望和权力而竞争，但是只有少数人能够爬上独占真正权力的顶点（参见163段末尾）。这是一个极其令人反胃的世界，因为在这个世界当中，一个人满足权力需求的唯一方式就是将众多他人排挤到一边并剥夺他们满足权力需求的机会。
Once can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service of industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people will would spend their time shinning each others shoes, driving each other around inn taxicab, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, , crime, “cults,” hate groups) unless they were biological or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.
176
我们还可以想像某种把若干个上述可能性结合起来的场景。例如，机器可能接管大部分具有真正重要性的工作，但人类则仍旧还能在相对不那么重要的工作上面忙活。例如有人建议，大力发展服务业可以给人类提供工作机会。这样人们就可以把时间花在互相擦皮鞋上面，可以用出租车带着彼此到处瞎转，互相为对方做手工艺品，互相给对方端盘子，等等。人类如果最终以这样的方式结局，那对于我们来说也实在是太可怜了，而且我们怀疑有多少人会觉得这样的无意义的忙碌等同于充实的生活。他们会去寻找危险的其他渲泄途径（毒品、犯罪、邪教、仇恨群体等），除非他们经过生物学或心理学的设计改造后适应了这种生活方式。
Needless to day, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us mots likely. But wee can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable that the ones we’ve just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the “bourgeois” type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more “socialized” that ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God’s will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.
177
不用说，上述场景尚未穷尽所有可能性。它们只是表明了我们看来似乎最可能的结局。然而，我们无法想像比上述情况更好而又似乎可能的场景。极其可能的情况是，如果工业技术体系能够度过未来40-100年而幸存下来，那时它将会发展出某些一般特征：个人（至少是那些“小资产阶级”类型的人，他们被整合进体系并维持其运转，因而也掌握了全部权力）空前地依赖大型组织，空前地“社会化”，他们的身心品质在相当程度上（很可能是极大程度上）是设计改造的结果，而不是机缘（或上帝意志，或其他什么）的结果；野生自然所能留下的部分只是为了科学研究而保留的一些残余，这些残余将由科学家监视与管理（因而也算不上真正野生）。从长远看（比如几个世纪以后），无论是人类，还是任何其他重要的有机体，都不会像我们今天所知道的那样存在下去，因为只要你一开始通过遗传工程改造有机体，就没有理由在某一个特定点上停下来，因此改造多半会继下去去，直至人类和其他有机体彻底改观。
Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human begins a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychological. If man is not adjust to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long an painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely that the latter.
178
无论还有另外什么情况，有一点是肯定的：技术给人类创造了一个新的物质和社会环境。这个环境与人类通过自然选择而在生理上和心理上适应了的所有各类环境都极为不同。如果人类不能通过人为的重新设计改造而适应这一新环境，那么就得通过自然选择的痛苦过程去适应它，前者的可能性要比后者大得多
It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.
179
更好的办法是把这个腐朽的体系整个扔进垃圾堆，并勇敢地承受其后果。
STRATEGY
策略
The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don’t think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.
180
技术爱好者们把我们所有的人都绑上了一辆笔直冲向未知世界的战车。许多人已经开始理解了技术进步给我们带来的究竟是什么，但仍然采取消极态度，囚为他们认为这是无法改变的。但是，我们（FC）认为这是可以改变的。我们认为可以制止它，而且在这里我们将提出如何着手制止它的办法。
As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose in something along the same lines.
181
正如我们在第166段宣称的那样，现在的两个主要任务是在工业社会中促进社会紧张与不稳定，以及宣传一种反对技术和工业体系的意识形态。当体系变得足够紧张和不稳定时，一场反对技术的革命就有机会发动了。这一模式将十分类似于法国和俄国革命。在两国各自革命之前的几十年里，法国和俄国社会都显示出了越来越多的紧张与脆弱迹象。同时，提供一个与旧世界完全不同的新世界愿景的意识形态发展了起来。以俄国的情况为例，革命者积极从事于破坏旧秩序的工作。然后当旧体系面临着足够的额外紧张时（法国是财政危机，俄国是军事失败），它就会被革命一扫而光。我们预想的就是这样的道路。
It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the existing form of society.
182
大多数革命都有两个,目标，一个目标是摧毁一个旧社会，另一个目标是建立革命者想像的新社会。法国和俄国的革命者没有能够成功地建立他们所梦想的新社会（这是十分幸运的事），但她们非常成功地摧毁了既存社会。
But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideals well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
183
然而，一种意识形态如想争取到热情支持，除了负面理想外必须还有正面理想，决不能只破不立。我们的正面理想是自然，即野生自然，按照其本来面目运行的地球，不依赖于人类管理、摆脱人类干涉和控制的地球生灵。我们的野生自然也包括人类本性，即不受有组织社会管制、自主运行的个人，成为偶然性或自由意志或上帝（由你的宗教或哲学观念）的产物。
Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is not other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunter, etc., And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.
184
出于以下原因，自然成为了与技术抗衡的完美理想。自然处于体系权力之外，是技术（它谋求无限地扩张体系权力）的对立面。大多数人都会认为自然是美的，而美确实对公众有着巨大的感召力。激进的环境主义者们已经秉承了颂扬自然、反对技术的意识形态。[30] 根本不需要为了自然而建立某种空想的乌托邦或任何社会新秩序自然能够自己照料自己：它是自发的创造物，在有任何人类社会之前很久就存在了，而且许多不同类型的人类社会与自然共存了无数世纪却没有对它造成大的损害。只是工业革命之后，人类社会对于自然的影响才真正变得具有破坏性缓解对自然的压力是不用着创建一个新社会体系的，只要摆脱工业化社会就足够了。当然这不能解决所有问题。工业化社会已经对自然遣成r极大的破坏，医治创伤需要一个漫长的时期。另外，甚至前工业社会也能对自然造成相当的破坏。尽管如此，摆脱工业社会也能大有建树。它会缓解对自然的最严酷的压力，使创伤能开始愈合。它将剥夺有组织的社会对自然(包括人类自然)的控制能力。工业体系死亡之后，无论出现什么徉的社会，有一点是肯定的:它的人民将更贴近自然，因为没有了先进技术，这成了人们唯一能采取的生活方式。为了吃饱，他们必须是农民、牧民、渔民或猎人，等等。而且，一般说来，地方自洽会增加，因为没有了先进技术和快速通迅，政府或其他大型组织控制地方社区的能力将十分有限
[30]. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because Western society today has no strong religious foundation.
[30]（第184段）将自然作为与技术抗衡的理想的另一个优点是，在许多人心目中自然都会唤起某种和宗教相类似的神圣情感。因此自然多半可以在宗教的基础上加以理想化。确实，在很多社会中，宗教都支持既存状序并将其正当化，但宗教同样也经常提供反叛的基础。因此，把宗教成份导入反对技术的革命也是有用的，特别是因为今天的西方社会没有很强的宗教基础。
Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist Protestant sects, “cults”), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong, widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is fragmented and has no clear, unified inspiring goal.
今天的宗教，或者被人拿来廉价且显眼地支持狭隘短视的私利（一些保守派就是这样利用它的），或者甚至被人百无禁忌的拿来赚钱（许多福音派传道人就是这么做的），或者堕落成了粗陋的非理性主义（许多原教旨新教教派以及邪教就是这么做的），或者干脆陷入了停滞（天主教与主流新教）。近年来西方世界当中最接近于强大、传播广泛且富于活力的宗教的事物就是左派准宗教，但左派今天陷入了分裂，而且没有清晰统一、鼓舞人心的目标。
Thus there is a religious vaccuum in our society that could perhaps be filled by a religion focused on nature in opposition to technology. But it would be a mistake to try to concoct artificially a religion to fill this role. Such an invented religion would probably be a failure. Take the “Gaia” religion for example. Do its adherents REALLY believe in it or are they just play-acting? If they are just play-acting their religion will be a flop in the end.
因此，在我们的社会中出现了宗教真空，它多半可以由一个注重自然、反对技术的宗教填补。但是试图人为地拼揍出一门宗教来承担这一角色将是一个错误。人为创造的宗教多半会失败。比方说“盖亚”（Gaia）教，它的信徒是真信仰它还是仅仅在装腔作势呢？如果他们只是在装腔作势，那么他们的宗教最终会砸锅。
It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.
最好不要把宗教引入自然与技术的冲突，除非你自己真正相信这门宗教，并发现它能在许多人心中激发出内心深处强烈且真实的共鸣
As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society – well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing you have to sacrifice another.
185
至于把工业社会消灭掉会随之引发的负效应——怎么说呢，你不可能一边吃掉蛋糕一边还想在手上把着它不放——有得必有失。
Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple, black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.
186
大多数人不喜欢心理冲突。由于这个原因，他们避免对困难的社会问题做任何严肃思考，他们喜欢看到这些问题以简单且非黑即白的方式摆在他们面前：这完全是好的而那完全是坏的。革命的意识形态因而必须在两个层次上展开。
On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational. The object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved, and of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is particularly important to attract people of this type, as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible. Facts should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.
187
在高层次上，意识形态必须针对高智力、有思想且理性的人们。目标是要建立一个核心，由基于理性与缜密考虑的工业体系反对者组成，这些人完全了解问题及其两面性，了解摆脱工业社会所必须付出的代价。吸引这种类型的人尤为重要，因为他们能起到影响他人的作用。对于这些人要尽量在理性的层次上做工作。不应故意歪曲事实，也不应使用过激的语言。这并不是说不能诉诸情感，而是说在这样做时必须注意避免歪曲真相，避免以任何方式毁掉意识形态在理智方面的体面。
On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms. But even on this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old world-view goes under.
188
在第二个层次上，应当以简化的形式宣传我们的意识形态。这种方式将能够使不事思考的大多数人以没有歧义的方式看到技术与自然的冲突。但即使在这个层次上，也不应以廉价过激或非理性的语言表达意识形态，因为这会疏远那些有思想和理性的人。廉价过激的宣传有时会获得令人印象深刻的短期效果，但从长远看。保持少数出于理智而献身的人们的忠诚。比激发一群没有头脑、变幻无常的乌合之众的热情更有价值。后者只要有个什么人搞出点更好的宣传花招马上就会改变态度。然而当体系已濒临崩溃之际，当决定哪种意识形态将在旧世界观破产之后占据主导地位的最后时刻来临时，纠台乌合之众的宣传也可能是必要的。
Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution [31], the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.
189
在最后的斗争到来之前，革命者不应指望多数人站在他们一边。历史是由积极坚定的少数人创造的，而不是由多数人决定的，多数人对他们的真正需要很少能有一个清晰一贯的想法。直到即将发动革命的前夕[31]，革命者的主要任务都不是赢得大多数人的泛泛支持，而是建立一个由甘愿献身的人们组成的小核心。至于多数人，只要让他们知道新的意识形态的存在并时时提醒他们就够了。当然，如果能掌握好分寸，既争取到多数人的支持又不伤害到认真投身的核心层，那自然再好不过。
[31]. (Paragraph 189) Assuming that such a final push occurs. Conceivably the industrial system might be eliminated in a somewhat gradual or piecemeal fashion. (see paragraphs 4, 167 and Note 4).
[31]（第189段）这里假设确实会有这样的一个最后时刻。同样可以想见的是，工业体系也可能以零敲碎打的渐进方式遭到消灭。
Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians, scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials, etc..). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn’t need and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally avoid blaming the public.
190
任何社会冲突都有助于导致体制不稳定，但我们必须小心谨慎，不能随便鼓励什么冲突。冲突线必须划在大众与工业社会的权力精英（政客、科学家、公司上层管理人员、政府官员，等等）之间，而不应划在革命者与大众之间。例如对于革命者来说，谴责美国人的消费习惯是很坏的战略。相反，一般美国人应当被描绘成广告和营销业的受害者，是广告和者销业欺骗他去购买大堆他并不需要的破烂，而相对于他所付出的自由代价来说，这是极其可怜的报偿。两种方式都符合事实。不同之处只是态度：你是归咎于广告业操纵大众，还是归咎于大众允许自已遭到操纵。作为战略，我们要避免责备大众。
One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people, between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing back individuals in the technological power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials, scientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are helping to absorb the African American subculture into the technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power–elite vs. ordinary people, technology vs nature.
191
除了权力精英（他们掌握技术）与一般大众（他们是技术施加淫威的对象）之间的冲突之外，革命者在鼓励任何其他冲突的时候都必须三思而后行。首先，其他冲突会转移斗争大方向（权力精英与普通人民之间的斗争，技术与自然之间的斗争），其次，其他冲突可能会鼓励技术化，因为在这种冲突中，双方都想利用技术压倒对手。这一点在国家的敌对之中有着清楚的体现，在国内民族冲突中也可以看到。例如在美国，许多黑人领导人急切希望让黑人挤入技术权力精英层来为非洲裔美国人争取权利。他们希望能够出现很多黑人政府官员、黑人科学家、黑人公司主管，等等。照这种方式，他们其实是在帮助技术体系同化吸收非洲裔美国人的亚文化。一般地说，我们应该只支持那些符合权力精英对普通人民、技术对自然这一框架的冲突。
But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological system, and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance.
192
但是阻止民族冲突的方法不是激进地主张少数民族的权利（参见21，29段）。相反，革命者应该强调指出，虽然少数民族确实或多或少地处于不利地位，但这种不利地位是无关紧要的。我们的真正敌人是工业—技术体系，而在反对这一体系的斗争中，民族的区别并不重要.
The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. [32]
193
我们想像的这种革命并不一定非要牵涉一场反对任何政府的武装起义。它可能牵涉也可能不牵涉到暴力，但它将不是一场政治革命。它的焦点是技术和经济，不是政治。[32]
[32]. (Paragraph 193) It is even conceivable (remotely) that the revolution might consist only of a massive change of attitudes toward technology resulting in a relatively gradual and painless disintegration of the industrial system. But if this happens we’ll be very lucky. It’s far more probably that the transition to a nontechnological society will be very difficult and full of conflicts and disasters.
[32]（第193段）我们甚至可以（远期）想像，革命仅仅由对于技术的态度发生的巨大转变构成，从而导致工业体系相对渐进且无痛苦的解体。但如果真是这样我们可谓非常幸运。更为可能的情况是向非技术社会的过渡将会十分痛苦，充满了冲突和灾难。
Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some “green” party should win control of the United States Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Dissatisfaction would grow, the “green” party would be voted out of of fice and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.
194
很可能革命者甚至应当回避承担政治权力，无论是合法的还是不合法的，直到工业体系被压迫到了危险点，并在大多数人民眼中证实了自己的失败。例如，设想某个绿党在选举中赢得了对于美国国会的控制。为了避免背叛自己的意识形态或将其打折扣，他们就必须采取强有力措施将经济增长转变为经济缩减。在一般人看来，其结果会是灾难性的：大量失业，商品短缺，等等。即使能够通过超人般的管理而避免更为恶劣的影响，人们还是要放弃他们已经上了瘾的奢侈品。不满会增长，绿党会在选举中失败，而革命者会遭受一次严重的挫折。由于这个原因，革命者不应试图去获取政治权力，直至体制陷入严重的困境，直至人们把任何困难都看作是工业体系自身的失败而不是革命者政策的结果。反对技术的革命多半会是一场由外人发动的革命，一场自下而上的革命。
The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.
195
这场革命必须在国际与世界范围内同步进行，不能一个国家一个国家地进行。无论什么时候，如果有国家——例如美国——提出要减慢技术进步或经济增长的速度，人们就会歇斯底里并开始大叫大嚷。如果我们在技术上落到日本后面，日本就会超过我们。机器人在上啊！要是日本卖汽车总是比我们多，这地球就会飞出轨道！（民族主义是技术的强大促进力量）更为理性的反对意见是，如果相对民主的国家在技术上落在了邪恶独裁的国家如中国、越南和北朝鲜后面，那么那些独裁者最终将有可能主宰世界。这就是为什么要尽可能同时在所有的国家对工业体系发动总攻击。确实，我们无法确保几乎同时摧毁世界范围内的工业体系，甚至可以想像推翻体系的企图反而会导致独裁者主宰体系。但我们必须冒这个险。这个险也值得冒：比工业体系与非工业体系之间的差别来，“民主”的工业体系与独裁的工业体系之间的差别是很小的。[33] 甚至可以认为，独裁的工业体系更好，因为独裁的工业体系往往没有效率，因而也更容易崩溃。看看古巴就好了。
[33]. (Paragraph 195) The economic and technological structure of a society are far more important than its political structure in determining the way the average man lives (see paragraphs 95, 119 and Notes 16, 18).
[33]（第195段）一个社会的经济与技术结构在决定一般人的生活方式方面远比政治结构更加重要（见第95、119段以及附注16、18）
Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. I will be eaier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if he world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any on major nation will lead to its breakdwon in all industrialized nations. In the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations.
196
革命者也可以考虑支持促使世界经济一体化的措施。自由贸易协定，如北美自由贸易区和关贸总协定，从短期看对环境有害，但从长期看也许是有利的。因为它们促进了国与国之间相互的经济依赖。如果世界经济一体化到了任何一个主要国家的经济崩溃会导致所有工业化国家经济崩溃的程度，那么在全世界范围内摧毁工业体系就变得容易了。
Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish between power for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power. Modern man as a collective entity–that is, the industrial system–has immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS have far less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast power of “modern man” over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. (You need a license for everything and with the license come rules and regulations). The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.
197
有些人认为现代人的权力过大，对自然控制过多，他们主张人类应采取更为消极一些的态度。往好里说这些人并未清楚表明自己的意见，因为他们未能区分大型组织的权力与个人和小群体的权力。主张放权与消极是错误的，因为人们需要权力。现代人作为一个集合的实体——即工业体系——具有凌驾自然之上的巨大权力，而我们（FC）将此看作邪恶。但是，现代个人以及个人组成的小群体的权力比原始人小得多。一般说来，“现代人”在自然之上的巨大权力不是由个人或小群体行使的，而是由大组织行使的。即使一般现代个人能够使用技术的力量，也要受到极大限制并且处在体系的监视和控制之下（干什么都得要许可证，而有证就有规章制度）。个人只能拥有体系选择给他的技术力量。他个人在自然之上的权力是很小的。
Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals, etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.
198
原始的个人和小群体实际上有着相当大的凌驾于自然之上的权力；或更为准确地说是拥有存在于自然之内的权力。当原始人需要食物时，他知道如何去寻找和调理可食用的根，知道如何跟踪猎物并用自制的武器猎获它。他知道如何保护自己不受热、冷、雨、野兽等的侵害。但是原始人相对来说很少破坏自然，因为原始社会的集体权力与工业化社会的集体权力相比是微不足道的。
Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS.
199
我们不应主张无力或消极，我们应主张打破工业体系的权力，而这将大大增加个人和小群体的权力和自由。
Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries’ ONLY goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in to that temptation, they will fall right back into the technological trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one finds oneself obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology.
200
在工业体系被彻底破坏之前，摧毁这一体系必须成为革命者的唯一目标。其他目标将会分散注意力和精力。更重要的的是，如果革命者允许自己既有摧毁技术之外的任何其他目标，他们就会受不住诱惑而把技术用作实现其他目标的工具。如果他们不能抵御这种诱惑，就会正中下怀地落入技术的陷阱，因为现代技术是统一紧密地组织起来的系统，所以，要保留某些技术，就必须保留绝大部分技术，因而最后也就只能象征性地牺牲掉一点技术。
Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took “social justice” as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be enforced. In order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control. For that they would need rapid long-distance transportation and communication, and therefore all the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural and manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt to insure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the technological system. Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the technological system.
201
假设革命者将社会正义作为一个目标。人性就是人性。社会正义不会自发实现，必须强制执行。为了强制执行社会正义，革命者就不得不保留中央组织和控制。为此，他们又会需要快速长距离运输与通讯，因而也需要所有支持运输和通讯系统的技术。为了让穷人吃饱穿暖，他就不得不使用农业和制造业技术，等等。因此。保障社会正义的企图会迫使他们保留绝大部分技术。我们并不反对社会正义，我们只是认为不应允许它干扰我们推翻技术体系的努力。
It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.
202
革命者要攻击体系就必须使用某些技术，否则就没有成功的希望，他们至少必须使用传媒来传播他们的思想。但他们应当只将现代技术用于一个目的，那就是攻击技术体系
Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, “Wine isn’t bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won’t do me any harm if I take just one little drink…” Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.
203
想像酒鬼坐在一桶酒前面。假设他开始对自己说：“喝酒只要不过量就没有坏处。嘿，他们说稍喝一点甚至有好处。如果我只喝一小口，这决不会有什么害处。”你当然知道接下来会发生什么事。不要忘记人类和技术在一起恰恰就像酒鬼和一桶酒在一起
Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case the ARE passed on.
204
革命者应尽量多生孩子。有相当切实可信的科学证据表明，对于社会的观点在很大程度上会遗传。这并不是说某种社会观点是一个人的遗传构造的直接结果，但在我们的社会背景下，似乎是人格特性决定了一个人更可能持有这种或那种社会观点。对于这些发现的反对意见很多，但这些反对意见往往站不住脚，而且多半是出于意识形态的动机。不管怎样，没有人能够否认，一般说来孩子持有的社会观点与其父母类似。从我们的观点看，究竟观点是通过遗传还是通过幼时训练传承关系其实并不大。反正它们是传承的。
The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation must reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.
205
问题在于许多赞同反叛工业体系的人们也十分担忧人口问题，因此他们往往只要数量很少的孩子或不要孩子。这样他们就把世界拱手让给了那些支持或至少是接受工业体系的人们。为了确保下一代革命者的力量，这一代革命者必须大量繁殖后代。他们这样做也许会稍稍加重人口问题。然而最重要的是推翻工业体系，因为一旦工业体系没有了，世界人口必然会减少（参见167段）。而如果工业体系幸存下来，它就会继续发展粮食生产技术，使世界人口几乎是无限地增长下去
With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.
206
关于革命的战略，我们绝对坚持一点：压倒一切的首要目标是消灭现代技术，任何其他目标都不允许与这个目标竞争。至于其他方面，革命者可以依据经验决定采取具体方法。如果经验表明，某些我们在前面段落推荐的方法效果不佳，那么这些方法就应被弃置一旁。
TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY
两种技术
An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.
207
有一个反对我们所设想的革命的理由是它必定会失败，因为（据称）贯穿整个历史，技术都是进步的，从未退步过，因此技术退步是不可能的。但这并非事实。
We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities that of Ancient Rome.
208
应该区别两种技术，一种我们称为小规模技术，另一种我们称为组织依赖型技术。小规模技术是小社团无需外援就能运用的技术。组织依赖型技术是必须依赖大规模社会组织的技术。我们知道，就小规模技术而言，确实不存在明显退步的事例。但是，组织依赖型技术当其所依赖的社会组织崩溃时确实会退步。例如，当罗马帝国崩溃时，罗马的小规模技术幸存了下来，因为任何一个心灵手巧的乡村手艺人都能制造诸如水车之类的东西，任何一个技术熟练的铁匠都能用罗马的方法炼钢，等等。但罗马的组织依赖型技术确实退步了。他们的高架引水渠年久失修且再未重修过。他们的筑路技术失传了。罗马的城市公共卫生系统被遗忘了，以至于直至相当近代，欧洲城市的公共卫生系统才达到了古代罗马的水平。
The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.
209
技术之所以看上去总在不断进步是因为直至工业革命前一两个世纪，大部分技术是小规模技术。但自工业革命以来发展的大部分技术却是组织依赖型技术。以电冰箱为例。离开了工厂制造的零件和后工业时代机器车间的设备，单靠几个本地手艺人是绝对不可能造出电冰箱的。即使奇迹发生，他们真造出一个来，没有可靠的电力供应，这个电冰箱对他们也没什么用。于是他们就得在河上筑坝，并造一个发电机。发电机需要大量的铜线。能够想像不用现代机械造出这些铜线吗？而且他们到哪去找冷却用气体呢？建个冰窖要容易得多，也可以用干燥或腌溃的方法来保存食物，电冰箱发明前，人们就是用这些方法。
So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools … . A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for “progress” is a phenomenon particular to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.
210
可见，假如工业体系彻底崩溃，冰箱技术就会很快失传。其他组织依赖型技术也一样。而只要这种技术失传一代人，重新开发它就需要几个世纪，就像第一次开发时需要几个世纪一样。残留下来的技术书籍将稀少而四散。一个工业社会，如果要在没有外力帮助的情况下从零开始建设，就必须经过许多个阶段：你需要工具以制造工具以制造工具以制造工具…… 一个很长的经济发展和社会组织进步的过程是不可少的，而且，即使没有反对技术的意识形态，也没有理由相信任何人会对重建工业化社会感兴趣。对于“进步”的热情是现代社会形态的特殊现象，在大约十七世纪之前并不存在。
In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally “advanced”: Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
211
在中世纪，有四大文明几乎同样“先进”：欧洲、伊斯兰世界、印度和远东（中国、日本、朝鲜）。其中三个多多少少保持了稳定，只有欧洲始终处于动态。没有人知道为什么欧洲处于动态，历史学家们有他们的理论，但那仅仅是猜测。无论如何，走向技术社会形态的快速发展是特殊情况下才出现的现象。这一点是很明显的。因此没有理由相信持久的技术退步不会发生。
Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.
212
社会最终会不会再向工业-技术形态发展？也许，但担心这一点毫无意义，因为我们无法预见也无法控制500或1000年后的事情。那些问题应由那个时代的人们去处理。
THE DANGER OF LEFTISM
左派的危险
Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type are often unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.
213
因为左派需要反叛与参加运动，他们以及类似心理类型的人往往为反叛或行动主义的运动所吸引，即使这些运动原本的目标和成员都不是左派。由此而产生的左派大量涌入会很容易就把一个非左派运动变成左派运动，因而左派的目标将会替代或歪曲该运动原来的目标
To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.
214
为了避免这种事情，一个弘扬自然并反对技术的运动必须采取坚决的反对左派立场并避免与左派进行任何合作。左派从长远看与野生自然、人类自由和消灭现代技术都是相悖的。左派是集体主义者，他们寻求将整个世界（包括自然和人类两者）捆绑到一起，成为一个统一的整体。但这就意味着要由有组织的社会来管理自然和人的生活，而这就需要技术。离开了快速运输和通迅，就不可能有统一的世界，离开了先进的心理学技术，就不可能让所有的人都相亲相爱；离开了必要的技术基础，就不可能有“计划的社会”。尤其是左派受权力欲所驱使，并且通过认同于一个群众运动或一个组织以集体为基础谋求权力，左派极不可能放弃技术，因为技术对于集体权力来说太宝贵了。
The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.
215
无政府主义者 [34] 也谋求权力，但那是以个人或小群体为基础的；他要让个人或小群体有能力控制他们自己的生活环境。他反对技术，因为技术使小群体依赖于大组织
[34]. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called “anarchist,” and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC’s violent methods.
[34]（第215段）这一陈述所指的是我们这种特殊品牌的无政府主义。许多不同的社会态度都被叫作“无政府主义”，而且许多自认为是无政府主义者的人可能不接受我们第215段的陈述。需要顺便说明，如今有一场非暴力无政府主义运动，其成员多半不会接受FC为无政府主义者，也肯定不会赞同FC的暴力手段。
Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.
216
一些左派看上去似乎反对技术，但那只不过是因为他们是体系外的人，而技术体系是由非左派控制的。如果左派成为了社会的主导力量，从而技术体系变成了左派手中的工具，他们就会热情地使用它，促进它的成长。这样，他们就会重复左派在过去一再显现的模式。当俄罗斯的布尔什维克位于体系外的时候，他们起劲地反对新闻检查和秘密警察，他们支待少数民族自决权，等等；但是一旦他们自己掌握了政权，他们却实施了比任何沙皇都更严厉的新闻检查，创建了比任何沙皇都更残酷的秘密警察，而且他们压迫少数民族也不逊于任何沙皇。在美国，当几十年前左派在大学里还是少数时，左派教授们起劲地鼓吹学术自由，而今天，在大多数大学里左派已占据了主导地位，他们却表明随时准备剥夺他人的学术自由（这就是所谓的“政治正确性”）左派与技术的关系也是一样；只要他们控制了技术，他们就会利用它去压迫别人。
In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.
217
在过去的革命中，最为权力饥渴的左派反复先与非左派革命者和比较有自由派倾向的左派合作，然后再欺骗他们，以便自己攫取权力。在法国革命中，罗伯斯庇尔是这样做的，在俄国革命中，布尔什维克是这样做的，1938年的西班牙共产党人是这徉做的，卡斯特罗及其追随者也是这样做的。回顾左派过去的历史，非左派革命者与左派合作乃是最愚蠢不过的事。
Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)
218
各种各样的思想家曾指出，左派思想是一种宗教。左派思想并非严格意义上的宗教，因为左派的学说不假定任何超自然事物的存在。但对于左派人士来说，左派思想所起的心理学作用和宗教对于某些人所起的作用十分相像。左派人士需要信仰左派思想；这在他的心理经济学中起着生死攸关的作用。他的信仰不会轻易被逻辑或事实改变。他深深地相信左派在道德上真正正确，而他不仅有权力而且有责任将左派的道德强加于每一个人。（无论如何，许多我们指称为“左派”的人并不认为自己是左派，也不把他们的信仰系统描述成左派思想。我们使用“左派”这个术语是因为我们不知道有更好的词汇来标识包括女权主义、同性恋权利、政治正确性等运动的一整套相关的信条，也是因为这些运动与老左派有着亲缘关系。参见第227-230段）
Leftism is totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftists beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal.[35]
219
左派是极权主义力量。无论左派在什么地方掌握了权力，它都往往会侵入每一个私人领域并强行把每一个人的思想都改造成为左派。这部分地是由于左派的准宗教性质。任何与左派信仰相悖的东西都代表罪孽。左派成为一股极权主义力量的更重要原因是左派的权力欲。左派寻求通过认同于一个社会运动来满足白己的权力欲，并且试图通过参与追求和实现该运动的目标来体验权力过程（参见第83段）。但是，无论该运动在实现其目标方面获得了多大的成功，左派都不会满足，因为他的行动主义是一种替代性活动（参见41段）。这是指左派的真实动机并非是实现左派表面上追求的目标，而是他可以通过追求实现某个社会目标而获得权力感 [35]。
[35]. (Paragraph 219) Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power.
[35]（第219段）许多左派的动机是敌意，但敌意多半是权力欲受挫所导致的。
Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alco hot then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.
因此，左派决不会满足于他已实现的目标。他对于权力过程的追求将永远引导他扑向某些新的目标。左派要求少数民族的平等机会。当这已实现了之后，他又要求少数民族的成就在统计上的平等。只要任何人在其思想深处还藏有对于某个少数民族的负面看法，左派就要对他实行再教育。而且少数民族还不够，任何人也不允许对同性恋、残疾人，胖子、老人、丑人等等等等持有负面看法。告诉公众吸烟的危害还不够；还必须把警告印在每一盒香烟上。然后香烟广告即使未被禁止也受到了限制。香烟一天不禁止，行动主义者们就一天不满意，而在此之后会是酒，然后又是不良食品，等等。行动主义者们反对儿童虐待，这是合理的，但现在他们要完全禁止打屁股。当他们实现这一点之后，他们又要禁止其它他们认为有害于身心健康的东西，一件又一件。在完全控制儿童的养育习俗之前，他们是不会满足的。而后他们又将向另一个问题下手。
Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.
220
假定你叫左派列一张表，写上所有社会上不正确的东西，然后假定你实行了他们要求的每一个社会变化。可以十分有把握地说，不出几年，大多数左派又会发现某些新的东西要抱怨，某些新的社会“邪恶”要纠正。因为，我们再说一遍，左派的动机不是对于社会弊病的忧患，而是把他的解决办法强加给社会以满足权力欲的需要.
Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.
221
由于其高度社会化水平对其思想和行为的限制，许多过度社会化类型的左派不能以其他人的方式追求权力。对于他们来说，权力欲在道德上只有一个可接受的宣泄口，就是把他们的道德强加于每一个人的斗争。
Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer’s book, “The True Believer.” But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a truebelieving nazi, for instance is very different psychologically from a truebelieving leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220, 221).
222
左派，特别是过度社会化的左派，是Eric Hoffer所著《真正的信仰者》（The True Believer）一书当中所谓的真正的信仰者。但不是所有真正有信仰的人都与左派是同一个心理类型。例如.纳粹的真正信徒多半在心理上与左派的真正信徒是十分不同的。由于能够一心一意地献身于某种事业，真正的信徒对于任何革命运动都是有用且多半必不可少的成分。这就给我们带来了一个我们必须承认不知道怎么处理的间题。我们不知道如何将真正信徒的能量用于一场反对技术的革命。我们现在只能说，除非一个真正的信徒执着一念地献身于摧毁技术，否则革命运动吸收他将是不安全的。如果他还献身于其他理想。他就很可能要利用技术去实现那个理想（参看220, 221段）
Some readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.
223
有些读者会说“这些关于左派的话都是一派胡言。我认识约翰和珍妮，他们都是左派，而他们没有任何极权主义倾向。”确买许多左派——单纯从数字上看多半还是大多数——是正派人，他们真诚地相信应该宽容其他人的价值观（某种程度上），而且不想用高压手段来实现他们的社会目标。我们对于左派的评论并不意味着适用于每一个左派个人，而是描述左派作为一个运动的一般特性。而一个运动的一般特性并不一定由卷入这个运动的各式各样的人们的数量比例所决定。
The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.
224
那些在左派运动中上升到掌权位置的人多半是最权力饥渴型的左派，因为权力饥渴型的人才是最努力奋斗以求跻身权力层的人。一旦权力饥渴型的人攫取了运动的控制权，虽然有许多更温和厚道的左派在内心中会不赞同领导人的行动，但他们也不会起来反对这些领导人。他们需要信仰他们的运动，而因为他们不能放弃这个信仰，所以他们只能跟着他们的领导入走。确实，某些左派有胆量反对出现的极权主义倾向，但他们一般会失败，因为权力饥渴类型的人组织得更好，更残酷无情，更马基雅维利，并己经为自己建立了强大的权力基础。
These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.
225
这些现象在俄国和其他被左派夺取了政权的国家曾十分明显地出现过十分类似，在苏联的共产主义崩溃之前，西方的左派很少批评那个国家。如果盯住他们问，他们会承认苏联做了许多错事，但然后他们就会替共产党找借口并开始谈论西方的毛病。他们总是反对西方对共产党的侵略进行军事抵杭。全世界的左派都起劲地抗议美国在越南的军事行动，但当苏联入侵阿富汗时，他们就都不说话了。他们并不是赞同苏联的行动，而是由于他们的左派信仰，使他们实在没法让自己反对共产主义，今天，在我们的那些“政治正确性”占了主导地位的大学里，多半也有许多左派私下里并不赞同压制学术自由，但他们无论如何都跟着走。
Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.
226
因此，尽管许多左派个人确实性情温和且颇为宽容，绝不意味着整体上的左派运动能够免于集权主义倾向。
Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g.., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.
227
我们对于左派主义的讨论有一个严重的缺陷。我们对于“左派主义者”的定义依旧远未明晰。对此我们似乎无能为力。今天的左派主义已经分裂成了一系列的运动。然而并非所有的运动者都是左派主义者。而且有一些运动（例如极端环保主义）当中似乎既包含了左派主义者，也包含了彻底的非左派主义者，而后者原本应当更为明智一些，而不是与左派主义者合作。左派主义者的种类逐渐隐入了非左派主义者的分类当中，我们在确定某人是不是左派主义者时也经常犯难。如果说左派主义者还有个定义的话，我们对这个词的概念就是由本文当中的讨论来定义的，我们仅能建议读者运用自己的判断来确定谁才是左派主义者。
But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.
228
但是为了诊断左派主义而列举一批标准将会很有好处。这些标准不能机械地加以应用。有些不是左派主义者的个人或许也会符合某几条标准，还有些左派主义者或许一条标准也不符合。读者必须运用自己的判断力。
The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like “racism, “ “sexism, “ “homophobia, “ “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism “ “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]
229
左派主义者的追求地大规模集体主义。他强调个人服务社会的义务与社会照料个人的义务。他对个人主义持负面看法。他经常采取说教的口吻。他倾向于支持枪支管制、性教育与其他心理“启蒙”教育方式、国家计划、平权运动以及文化多元主义。他倾向于认同被害者。他倾向于反对竞争与暴力，但他也经常为使用暴力的左派主义者进行开脱。他惯于使用左派的常用语，例如“种族主义”、“性歧视主义”、“恐同”、“资本主义”、“帝国主义”、“新殖民主义”、“种族灭绝”、“社会变革”、“社会正义”以及“社会责任”。或许一位左派主义者的最明显诊断特征就是他倾向于同情下列运动：女权运动、同性恋权益、少数族裔权益、残疾人权益、动物权益以及政治正确。任何强烈同情上述所有运动的个人几乎可以肯定是一位左派主义者。[36]
[36]. (Paragraph 229) It is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessarily a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.
[36]（第229段）必须懂得我们所指的是那些同情我们今天社会中这些运动的人。一个相信妇女、同性恋等等应有平等权力的人不一定就是左派。我们今天社会的妇女解放、同性恋权利等等运动有着一种特殊的意识形态调门。这种调门是左派的特性；而且如果一个人相信例如妇女应当有平等权力，井不一定就等于他必须同情现今的女权运动。
The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.
230
人们经常将傲慢或者教条化的意识形态当做更为危险的左派主义者的特征，即最为渴望权力的那部分人。但是最为危险的左派主义者往往都是过度社会化的人，他们从不咄咄逼人令人气恼，也从不公开宣扬左派主义，而是安静且不动声色地推动集体主义价值观、将儿童社会化的“启蒙”心理技巧、个人对于体系的依赖以及其他种种。这些隐蔽左派主义者（姑且这么称呼他们一下）在实际作为方面与某些小资产阶级份子很接近，但是在心理、意识形态与动机方面都不相同。一般的小资产阶级份子试图将民众置于体系控制之下，从而维护自己的生活方式，或者仅仅是因为他的态度很传统。隐蔽左派主义者试图将民众置于体系控制之下，因为他当真相信集体主义价值观。隐蔽左派主义者与一般过度社会化左派主义者的区别在于他的叛逆冲动较弱且社会化程度更巩固。他与一般社会化程度相当的小资产阶级的却别在于他内心存在着深刻的缺失，使他必须投身于某项事业并融入某个集体。或许他的（高度升华的）权欲比一般小资产阶级要高。
FINAL NOTE
最后的话
Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to fomulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.
231
在通篇文章中，我们进行了不精确的陈述，以及应该附带各种限定条件与保留的陈述，其中有些可能是错误的。信息的不充分和简明的需要使得我们不可能更准确地系统阐述我们的断言或者列出所有必要的限制。而且这类讨论当然是要依靠直觉判断的。所以我们承认这篇文章表达的只是极为粗陋的近似真理。
All the same we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.
232
尽管如此，我们有理由相信我们在此勾画的轮廓大致正确。我们把现代形态的左派描述成为了我们所属时代的特殊现象，一种因权力过程受到打断而产生的症状。但我们在这一点上也很可能错了。试图将自己的道德强加于每一个人而满足其权力欲的过度社会化类型肯定很早就存在了。但是我们认为自卑感、缺乏自尊、无力感、自己不是受害者却认同受害者等症状起到决定性作用是现代左派独有的特点。自己不是受害者却认同于受害者这一现象在某种程度上可以在十九世纪的左派和早期基督教中看到，但据我们所知，缺乏自尊等症状在上述运动以及任何其他运动中，都不像在现代左派中那么明显。但我们并不能自信地断言，在现代左派之前就从来没有存在过这样的运动。这是一个应该引起历史学家注意的重要问题。