Think back to the Industrial Revolution: a stretch of ambitious decades characterized by widespread displacement, Schumpeterian-style growth, and striking societal leaps. It was a paradigm shift for the western world — this lucky convergence of invention (with newly discovered profitable applications to boot) and the systematized harnessing of natural resources (think coal, cotton, water power.)
回想一下工业革命：绵延数十年的野心勃勃，其特点是流离失所，熊彼特式的增长和惊人的社会飞跃。 这是西方世界的范式转变-这项幸运的发明融合(新发现的有利可图的应用程序可以启动)和对自然资源(如煤炭，棉花，水力发电)的系统化利用。
Centuries removed from this period, we can neatly outline these unprecedented shifts and pinpoint the Industrial Revolution as a kind of launchpad for modern capitalism. We are not always so cognizant, however, that at our present moment we occupy a revolution all its own, one perhaps more powerful than the vaunted upheaval that was its predecessor.
从这一时期过去的几个世纪以来，我们可以巧妙地概述这些空前的变化，并确定工业革命是现代资本主义的一种发源地。 但是，我们并不总是那么了解，以至于我们目前正在独自进行一场革命，这一革命可能比它的前任所宣称的动荡更为强大。
This new revolution is scaffolded on novel technologies of the digital variety. It is a revolution glutted with data, the golden commodity of our age. There is one important difference, however, between the revolution with the steam engine and the revolution with the smartphone.
这项新革命以数字化新技术为基础。 这是一场充满数据的革命，数据是我们这个时代的黄金商品。 但是，蒸汽机的革命和智能手机的革命之间有一个重要的区别。
The powers of the former could be harnessed by humans, the powers of the latter came bundled up with more runaway potential. Human labor was still a vital component of the industrial prowess behind the economic growth of the former revolution. But the digital revolution of today? More seismic shifts are in order.
前者的力量可以被人类利用，后者的力量被捆绑在一起，具有更大的失控潜力。 在前一次革命的经济增长背后，人力仍然是工业实力的重要组成部分。 但是今天的数字革命呢？ 将会发生更多地震变化。
With the grip of human control weakening in this domain and the exponential gains from tech discoveries heating up, it’s not certain how the institutions that have heretofore anchored western civilization will weather the storm.
随着人类控制权在这一领域的削弱和技术发现的成倍增长，目前尚不能确定以西方文明为基础的机构将如何度过难关。
That is, it’s not clear whether the new technologies we will unleash will have improving potential or tyrannizing potential.
也就是说，尚不清楚我们将释放的新技术是否具有提高的潜力或巨大的潜力。
It is fairly obvious that shifts in the technological domain are ceaselessly imminent. But this is not the most interesting question. It is, instead, how these technological shifts will alter our political and economic structures. Technology and capitalism will not seamlessly move together, locked into a harmonious waltz. They will eventually butt heads if they have not already. That one will come to overpower the other is not surprising per se, but the consequences of this are enormous.
显然，技术领域的变化将不断迫在眉睫。 但这不是最有趣的问题。 相反，这些技术变革将如何改变我们的政治和经济结构。 技术和资本主义不会无缝地融合在一起，陷入和谐的华尔兹时代。 如果他们还没有的话，他们最终将对接。 一个将要压倒另一个的本身本身就不足为奇了，但是这样做的后果是巨大的。
We proceed from this sobering quandary to a second one, this time concerned not with economic structure but with political structure: how will democracy itself fare? That is, how will it fare amidst this confluence of technological supremacy, the threat of corporate statism, the growing profitability of data, and the questionable abilities of new innovations which themselves carry with them democracy-undermining properties?
我们从这个发人深省的难题转到第二个问题，这一次与经济结构无关，而与政治结构有关：民主本身将如何发展？ 就是说，在技术至上，企业统计的威胁，数据盈利能力不断增长以及自身具有破坏民主的财产的新创新能力令人怀疑的融合中，它将如何发展？
We must think very hard about the relationship between capitalism and democracy — two overarching systems, one economic, the other political — that have thus far nurtured the impressive records of prosperity belonging to western civilization. It is these two structures in their sweeping totality that we must keep an eye on when it comes to technology’s inevitable march.
我们必须认真思考资本主义和民主之间的关系，这是两个总体体系，一个是经济体系，另一个是政治体系，迄今为止已经孕育了令人印象深刻的西方文明繁荣的记录。 当涉及到技术的必然发展时，我们必须密切关注这两个结构。
The truth is, capitalism and democracy are constantly in flux relative to one another. They coexist — thank goodness — but their’s is not an indestructible union. Capitalism necessarily possesses more brute force than the delicate (and consciously maintained) precepts of democracy.
事实是，资本主义与民主相对不断变化。 他们并存-谢天谢地-但他们的联盟并非坚不可摧。 资本主义必然比民主的(自觉维护的)戒律具有更多的暴力。
The blunt reality is that capitalism has never depended on democracy to survive. Far from it. Democracy is actually dismissive within the wider economic architecture of capitalism.
直率的现实是，资本主义从来没有依靠民主来生存。 离得很远。 在更广泛的资本主义经济体系中，民主实际上是不屑一顾的。
Some would even argue that the two are naturally opposites. Democracy is a counterweight to capitalism and not merely a frill to its function but a bridle. Thus, there is reason to believe that capitalism can live on without democracy but the inverse — democracy living on without capitalism — is much less a possibility.
甚至有人认为这两者自然是对立的。 民主是对资本主义的制衡，不仅是对其资本主义的轻描淡写，而且是a锁。 因此，有理由相信资本主义可以在没有民主的情况下生存，但是相反的情况(民主在没有资本主义的情况下生存)的可能性要小得多。
Capitalism as a system is function without feeling, capable of modulating self-interest on a grand scale. It maintains unparalleled status as an aggregate wealth generator. But capitalism has no conscience whereas democracy does. Western civilization desperately needs these two elements to collaborate. For it is not only the trophy of economic prosperity that western civilization can claim but so also the triumph of human dignity.
资本主义作为一个系统是没有感觉的功能，能够大规模地调节自身利益。 作为总财富产生者，它保持着无与伦比的地位。 但是资本主义没有良心，而民主却有良心。 西方文明迫切需要这两个要素进行协作。 因为西方文明不仅可以称得上是经济繁荣的战利品，而且可以说是人类尊严的胜利。
But don’t be misled: our recipe for success is not a natural, peaceful pairing. Take the case study of the Industrial Revolution again: athletic capitalism produced some undesirable excesses — namely, worker discontent. As we know, a culture of democracy allowed this discontent to be aired, paving the way for worker reforms and a necessary refashioning of human dignity in a new age.
但不要误导：我们的成功秘诀不是自然而和平的配对。 再次以工业革命为例进行研究：运动资本主义产生了一些不良后果，即工人不满。 我们知道，民主文化使这种不满情绪得以传播，为工人改革和在新时代重新塑造人的尊严铺平了道路。
But today we watch as capitalism becomes top-heavy with technology companies. Our economy is bloated with their clout. To the extent that an economy is dominated by a particular sector is not alarming; this is normal. What is alarming is the extent to which modern technology’s particular products could radically alter our freedoms. This is where we cross domains from the economic into the political.
但是今天，我们看到，资本主义已成为科技公司的头等大事。 他们的影响使我们的经济膨胀。 在某种程度上，经济由特定部门主导并不令人担忧； 这是正常的。 什么是令人震惊的是，其现代科技的某些产品可能会从根本上改变我们的自由程度。 这是我们跨越经济领域进入政治领域的地方 。
Modern tech is an excruciatingly competitive arena replete with stealth projects and extravagant salaries. Those inhabiting the top layers of its hierarchy are, in most cases, a paradoxical combination of both ambitious and fearful when it comes to their field’s future horizons.
现代技术是一个竞争激烈的竞技场，充满了隐形项目和奢侈的薪水。 在大多数情况下，居住在其层次结构顶层的人在其领域的未来视野中既雄心勃勃又充满恐惧。
For example, it is not uncommon to find tech executives speaking candidly about their worry of artificial intelligence projects taking a wrong turn. They understand that humans may construct something capable of bulldozing over democracy — and they understand that this “something” would be no mere random discovery but the result of active and aggressive pursuit by tech firms the world over, all with an eye on the money.
例如，发现技术主管坦率地谈论他们对人工智能项目转向错误的担忧并不少见。 他们了解人类可以构造出能够推翻民主的东西，并且他们理解这一“东西”不仅仅是随机发现，而是全世界科技公司积极和积极追求的结果，所有人都在关注钱。
The rate of technological change progresses exponentially, often doubling perpetually à la Moore’s Law. Something like a positive feedback cycle undergirds it, with fresh discoveries acting as a catalyst for the next round of improvements. These features have caused many to compare the heft of technological change to the prowess of evolutionary processes.
技术变化的速度呈指数级增长，通常是摩尔定律的两倍。 诸如积极反馈周期之类的东西是它的基础，新的发现可以作为下一轮改进的催化剂。 这些特征使许多人将技术变革的繁重与进化过程的精湛程度相提并论。
Technology has obviously made incredible strides in enriching our world and in improving our lives. But a caveat: this has much to do with our managing to retain some semblance of control over it.
技术显然在丰富我们的世界和改善我们的生活方面取得了令人难以置信的进步。 但要注意：与我们设法保持对它的控制有些相似。
Technology is a wonderful tool so long as it doesn’t outstrip our democratic freedoms. And here’s the catch: the capitalism that made our technological strides possible is presently poised to threaten the future of our democracy — if it is not very clearly doing so already.
只要技术不超过我们的民主自由，技术就是一种绝妙的工具。 这就是要注意的问题：使我们的技术取得长足发展的资本主义目前蓄势待发，威胁着我们民主的未来-如果不是很清楚的话。
This is one of the unsettling snags of capitalism — an inevitability, mind you. That we might one day experience the decadence of technology to a degree that it no longer empowers us but tyrannizes us. That the free market — that great liberating force of human potential — might unleash something the opposite of free that is our very undoing. Here is where we face the limitations of capitalism. Many will defend it as an unblemished model, pure in its function, but for all its greatness, it cannot attain the podium of perfection.
这是资本主义令人不安的障碍之一，请注意，这是不可避免的。 我们也许有一天会经历技术的decade废，其程度不再使我们有能力，而是使我们专横。 自由市场-人类潜能的巨大解放力量-可能释放出与自由相反的东西，这是我们非常想取消的。 这是我们面临资本主义局限性的地方。 许多人会捍卫它作为一个纯粹的模型，纯粹是其功能，但就其全部而言，它无法达到完美的讲台。
What we must watch for is the degree of decoupling between capitalism and democracy in the western world. As a matter of course, technology will advance at crushing speeds. And with time, it nearly always converges into centralized territory.
我们必须注意的是西方世界中资本主义与民主之间的脱钩程度 。 当然，技术将以惊人的速度发展。 随着时间的流逝，它几乎总是汇聚到集中区域。
That said, capitalism moves in a swift, lithe manner. But democracy is not nearly as quick. The economics may be fast, but the politics lags.
就是说，资本主义以迅捷，轻松的方式运动。 但是民主并没有那么快。 经济可能很快，但政治落后。
This is, of course, how our government was designed to function — its inefficiency itself is a protection against tyranny. Where this incongruence runs into trouble is that eventually regulation, government, and democracy at large will be utterly left in the dust by a technological pace indifferent to its thoughtful considerations.
当然，这就是我们政府运作的方式-效率低下本身就是对暴政的保护。 这种不一致之处会导致最终的混乱，那就是最终，法规，政府和整个民主都将因对其审慎考虑无动于衷的技术步伐完全尘埃落定。
And just as we must be careful of the threat to society of democracy sapped of its former defenses (powerless against runaway technology) we must also watch the threat to our own psychologies as individuals. I do not think I am being unduly alarmist to mention this potentiality.
正如我们必须注意民主社会因其先前的防御措施而遭受的威胁(无力抵抗失控的技术)一样，我们也必须关注作为个体的自身心理的威胁。 我认为我没有过分提防这种潜力。
The author and philosopher Aldous Huxley, known for his dystopian novels, is quoted as saying, “People will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.”
引用了以反乌托邦小说而著称的作者和哲学家奥尔多斯·赫x黎(Aldous Huxley)的话说：“人们会爱上自己的压迫，去崇拜那些无法思考的技术。”
Make no mistake: the negotiations between these grand systems of capitalism and democracy that have for so long secured our western societies are poised for a rocky ride in light of technology, the modern iterations is which are some of the most powerful forces furiously rewriting life as we know it with each new day.
毫无疑问：长期以来确保西方社会安全的这些资本主义和民主制宏伟体系之间的谈判，正准备从技术的角度出发动荡不安，而现代的变革正是其中一些最强大的力量，它们疯狂地将生活重写为我们每天都知道这一点。
扫一扫
1408
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
