介绍 (Introduction)
Disclaimer: If you’re not much into phones or the Apple v. Google debate, I’d recommend skipping this introduction and picking up in the next section 🙂
免责声明： 如果您不太喜欢手机或Apple诉Google辩论，我建议跳过此介绍，在下一节中继续进行🙂
I n late Spring of this year, Apple and Google were each to release a “budget” smartphone — the iPhone SE (2nd generation) and the Pixel 4a. Both were to be less than $400, relatively affordable in the sea of four-figure flagships.
I N今年春末，苹果和谷歌都各自发布了“预算”的智能手机- iPhone的SE(第二代)和像素4A。 两者均不到400美元，在四位数旗舰店的海洋中相对便宜。
Despite COVID-19, April saw the release of Apple’s iPhone SE. Google, however, seems to have taken the pandemic harder. The Pixel 4a was to be announced in May, but it was pushed back month by month until finally (probably) it will release August 3.
尽管有COVID-19，但四月苹果发布了iPhone SE。 但是，Google似乎更严峻地控制了这一流行病。 Pixel 4a将于5月发布，但它逐月推迟，直到最终(可能)它将于8月3日发布。
All this is irrelevant to say that this summer I have been considering which competing phone to upgrade to. Since my iPod touch and my grandparents’ old iPhone 4, I have been solely an Apple user. I now have a MacBook Pro, an iPhone 6s, and AirPods, and although I love that these devices work well together, Apple’s restrictions on third-party applications and devices to integrate with their own (namely and most frustrating, Spotify), sometimes makes me wish I had never bought in to their confined ecosystem.
所有这些都与我今年夏天一直在考虑升级到哪个竞争手机无关。 自从我使用iPod touch和祖父母使用旧的iPhone 4以来，我一直只是Apple用户。 我现在拥有MacBook Pro，iPhone 6s和AirPods，尽管我喜欢这些设备可以很好地协同工作，但是Apple对第三方应用程序和与它们自己的设备(即最令人沮丧的Spotify)集成的设备的限制有时使我希望我从未陷入他们有限的生态系统。
Furthermore, Google has, in my opinion, topped Apple in several areas within the past few years. Their budget Pixel 3a didn’t even have an iPhone competitor, unless the first generation iPhone SE counts, which was already two years old when the 3a was released. Google’s vast collection of Nest home products makes Apple’s only home devices, the Apple TV and the absurdly expensive, Spotify-unfriendly HomePod, look like a joke. Google Assistant is miles ahead of Siri and, honestly, I think those Google Pixel Buds have AirPods beat in aesthetics.
此外，我认为Google在过去几年中在多个领域都超过了Apple。 他们的预算Pixel 3a甚至没有iPhone的竞争对手，除非算上第一代iPhone SE，而3a发布时已经有两年历史了。 Google大量的Nest家用产品系列使Apple唯一的家用设备，Apple TV和价格昂贵，价格昂贵，对Spotify不友好的HomePod看起来像是在开玩笑。 Google助手比Siri领先几英里，老实说，我认为这些Google Pixel Buds在AirPods方面拥有出色的表现。
But I’ve digressed enough off-topic. This is not an article about whether Google or Apple is superior. It’s not even really about which of the two budget phones I am going to buy.
但是我已经偏离话题了。 这不是一篇有关Google还是Apple优越的文章。 甚至与我要购买的两款廉价手机中的哪一个都不是真的。
Rather, my oscillation between the iPhone SE and the Pixel 4a (which involved watching far more YouTube videos than was good for me of people switching from Google to Apple or Apple to Google) has gotten me thinking of a more serious question that underlies that of which smartphone to upgrade to.
相反，我在iPhone SE和Pixel 4a之间的摇摆(涉及观看的YouTube视频远远多于从Google切换到Apple或从Apple切换到Google的人们对我来说是有益的)，这使我想到了一个更严重的问题，即升级到哪个智能手机。
Namely, what are the standards that a new technology must meet in order for me to integrate it into my life?
即，一项新技术要使我融入生活，必须满足哪些标准？
Wendell Berry的帮助和启发 (Help and inspiration from Wendell Berry)
Like everyone else, I want to purchase things that will enhance my life instead of subtract from it. But determining between wanting a new thing for the value it will provide from wanting it just to have it can often be difficult.
像其他所有人一样，我想购买可以改善生活而不是减少生活的东西。 但是，要想在新事物的价值与仅仅拥有它的价值之间做出决定通常是很困难的。
We hear it over and over again, that our devices ought to be tools, not entertaining distractions that fill up our time. In other words, technology ought to provide the means to some end (of adding value to our lives) rather than being ends in themselves.
我们一遍又一遍地听到，我们的设备应该是工具，而不是为了娱乐而浪费我们的时间。 换句话说，技术应该为某种目的提供手段(为我们的生活增添价值)，而不是自身目的。
A year ago I read the farmer-philosopher Wendell Berry’s essay “Why I am Not Going to Buy a Computer,” published in 1988. Berry’s ideas in this essay clashed with how the majority viewed personal computers during the 1980s — that is, as manifestations of humanist ideals like freedom, individualism, efficiency, and unlimited knowledge for the common man.
一年前，我读了农民哲学家温德尔·贝里(Wendell Berry)于1988年发表的文章“为什么我不打算购买计算机”。在这篇文章中，贝里的想法与大多数人在1980年代如何看待个人计算机相冲突-即作为体现平民主义的人文主义理想，例如自由，个人主义，效率和无限知识。
If you’re unfamiliar with Berry’s work, he writes primarily about how America has mistakenly abandoned the Jeffersonian agrarian ideal, participating in a “rape of nature” through our consumerist, environmentally detrimental lifestyles.
如果您不熟悉Berry的工作，那么他主要是写有关美国如何错误地放弃了杰斐逊主义的农业理想，并通过我们的消费主义，对环境有害的生活方式参与了“大自然的强奸”的文章。
These themes form the basis for Berry’s reasons for not purchasing a computer — he cannot write against the destruction of the environment with a tool created by destroying the environment.
这些主题构成了Berry不购买计算机的理由的基础-他无法使用破坏环境所创建的工具来反对破坏环境。
But he goes further than his conservationist reasons. Berry states that in order to adopt a computer into his life, it would have to help him achieve what he values:
但是他比保护主义的理由走得更远。 贝瑞指出，为了将一台计算机带入他的生活，它必须帮助他实现自己的价值观：
“I do not see that computers are bringing us one step nearer to anything that does matter to me: peace, economic justice, ecological health, political honesty, family and community stability, good work.”
“我看不到计算机使我们对我而言重要的任何事情都迈出了一步：和平，经济正义，生态健康，政治诚实，家庭和社区稳定，良好的工作。”
Later in his brief essay, Berry provides nine standards for a new technology to meet in order for him to welcome it into his life and work:
在随后的简短文章中，Berry为满足一项新技术提供了九种标准，以便他欢迎它进入他的生活和工作：
The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
新工具应该比替换的工具便宜。
It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
它的规模至少应与其所取代的规模一样小。
It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
它所做的工作显然要明显好于它要取代的工作。
It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
它所消耗的能源应少于其替代的能源。
If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.
如果可能，它应该使用某种形式的太阳能，例如身体的形式。
It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.
只要有必要的工具，它应该可由具有一般知识的人修理。
It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.
它应尽可能在家里附近购买和维修。
It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.
它应该来自一家小型私人商店或商店，该商店或商店将其带回去进行维护和维修。
It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.
它不应替代或破坏已经存在的任何美好事物，包括家庭和社区关系。
Berry’s standards are my inspiration for writing this article. I haven’t bought a new phone (or a new digital device of any kind) in several years, and considering purchasing an upgrade to an iPhone SE or Pixel 4a has lead me to assess my own requirements that either of these devices (or any device/tool) would have to satisfy before bringing it into my life.
Berry的标准是我撰写本文的灵感。 几年来我没有购买新手机(或任何种类的新数字设备)，考虑购买iPhone SE或Pixel 4a的升级版使我评估了自己对这些设备(或任何其他设备)的要求设备/工具)，必须先满足我的生活。
Originally I was going to respond briefly to each of Berry’s standards, describing why I would adopt some while leaving others out, but suffice it to say that I will only be adding several from Berry’s list to my own while unfortunately ignoring the majority, which I find to be unrealistic nearly 32 years after the publication of his essay.
最初，我只是简要地对Berry的每个标准做出回应，描述了为什么我会采纳某些标准，而将其他标准排除在外，但足以说明我只会将Berry的标准中的一些添加到我自己的标准中，而不幸的是忽略了大多数标准，我在他的论文发表近32年后，他发现这是不现实的。
我自己采用新技术的标准，以及iPhone SE与Pixel 4a的对比 (My own standards for embracing a new technology, plus the iPhone SE v. the Pixel 4a)
Creating my own standards was not easy, as there are many devices and tools that slip through the gaps of generalized statements. Ending up with a list of nearly 20 rules, I combined several and eliminated others so that only seven remain. Threaded through the explanations for these standards is my processing of which phone to upgrade to, the iPhone SE or Pixel 4a.
创建我自己的标准并不容易，因为有很多设备和工具都可以跨越通用语句的空白。 最后列出了将近20条规则，我合并了几条规则，并消除了其他规则，因此仅剩下7条。 通过这些标准的解释，可以了解到我要升级到哪种手机(iPhone SE或Pixel 4a)。
1.它所做的工作显然要明显好于它要取代的工作。 (1. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.)
Berry’s third standard. There are two things here that stand out. One, adopting a new device means replacing another already owned. Second, the new device ought to perform the function of the replaced device more efficiently and effectively. Berry writes,
贝瑞的第三个标准。 这里有两件事很突出。 一个，采用新设备意味着替换另一个已经拥有的设备。 其次，新设备应该更有效地执行被替换设备的功能。 贝瑞写道，
“My final and perhaps my best reason for not owning a computer is that I do not wish to fool myself. I disbelieve, and therefore strongly resent, the assertion that I or anybody else could write better or more easily with a computer than with a pencil. I do not see why I should not be as scientific about this as the next fellow: when somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante’s, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of computers with a more respectful tone of voice, though I still will not buy one.”
“我最后的原因，也许是我最好的不拥有计算机的理由，是我不想自欺欺人。 我不相信并因此强烈愤慨这样的说法，即我或其他任何人都可以用计算机比用铅笔更好或更轻松地书写。 我不明白为什么我不应该像下一个同事那样科学：当有人使用计算机编写出明显优于但丁的作品时，并且可以证明这归因于使用计算机，那么我我会以较低的语音语调来谈论计算机，尽管我仍然不会购买。”
Returning to my phone upgrade affair, both the iPhone SE and Pixel 4a would replace my current iPhone 6s, as well as performing “clearly and demonstrably better.” They have faster processing speed and battery lives that last more than 4 hours (which is about what my 6s can handle these days). They also have other new features like improved cameras and wireless charging, but I view these as luxuries rather than essentials.
回到我的手机升级事务，iPhone SE和Pixel 4a都将取代我目前的iPhone 6s，并且性能“明显更好”。 它们的处理速度更快，电池续航时间超过4小时(这与我的6s可以处理的时间差不多)。 它们还具有其他新功能，例如改进的相机和无线充电功能，但我将其视为奢侈品而不是必需品。
2.零售价格应与被替换产品的价格相近。 (2. It should retail for a similar price to the one it replaces.)
This is my version of Berry’s first rule (“The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces”). Both the iPhone SE ($399) and the Pixel 4a (rumored to be $349) retail for much cheaper than the iPhone 6s when it was released ($649). I even bought mine used for $450, and both these new phones still beat that price.
这是我对Berry的第一个规则的看法( “新工具应该比被替换的工具便宜” )。 iPhone SE(399美元)和Pixel 4a(传闻为349美元)的零售价都比发布时的iPhone 6s(649美元)便宜得多。 我什至以450美元的价格买了我的手机，而这两款新手机仍然超过了这个价格。
However, I find Berry’s original standard to be too idealistic. Successive generations of devices fluctuate in price, sometimes cheaper and other times more expensive than previous models. To hold that an upgrade must always be cheaper is unrealistic, but emphasizing that the new device should be within a similar price range is nevertheless a good reminder that I don’t really need the iPhone 11 Pro (which would cost me my soul); instead, I can do just fine with a “budget” smartphone.
但是，我发现Berry的原始标准过于理想化。 连续几代的设备价格波动，有时比以前的型号便宜，有时是昂贵。 坚持认为升级必须总是更便宜是不现实的，但是强调新设备应该在相似的价格范围内，这很好地提醒了我，我真的不需要iPhone 11 Pro(这会让我丧命)。 相反，我可以使用“预算”智能手机来做得很好。
3.我应该有足够的钱舒适地购买两次。 (3. I should have enough money to comfortably buy it twice.)
In other words, I should be able to afford it. Not much else to say here. I can afford both the SE and 4a. I can’t afford the iPhone 11 Pro.
换句话说，我应该负担得起。 这里没有太多要说的。 我买得起SE和4a。 我买不起iPhone 11 Pro。
I don’t think this rule should necessarily apply to every technology, however. I will not buy a car or a house only when I have enough saved to buy two of them — that would be absurd.
但是，我认为该规则不一定适用于所有技术。 只有当我有足够的积蓄来购买其中的两个时，我才不会买汽车或房屋，这是荒谬的。
But for purchases in the first few thousands of dollars or less should perhaps be considered from this perspective.
但是对于前几千美元或更少的购买，应该从这个角度考虑。
4.在其他自有技术中，它应该有自己的特殊位置。 (4. It should have its own specific place among other owned technologies.)
It should have its own function. It should not do what my computer does, or what my TV does, or even what a book does. In fact, it does all of these things, but it does them in a portable manner, so that I can take my computer, TV, and books anywhere I go. Thereby, it secures its own function among these other technologies.
它应该具有自己的功能。 它不应该执行计算机的功能，电视的功能甚至书籍的功能。 实际上，它可以完成所有这些操作，但是它们以可移植的方式进行，因此我可以随身携带计算机，电视和书籍。 从而，在其他技术中，它确保了自己的功能。
Since there’s not much here to go on with the SE v. 4a debate, as both would serve their own function among my other devices, I’ll resort to another example. I used to have a school-issued iPad, which I only really used for gaming and Netflix. But I could stream Netflix on my laptop and I only played games occasionally, so I sold my iPad, since its specific function among my other devices was unclear.
由于SE v。4a的争论不多，因为它们在我的其他设备中都能发挥自己的功能，因此我将举另一个例子。 我以前有一本学校发行的iPad，实际上只用于游戏和Netflix。 但是我可以在笔记本电脑上播放Netflix，并且我偶尔只玩游戏，所以我卖掉了iPad，因为它在其他设备中的特定功能尚不清楚。
5.如有可能，出售更换的设备。 如果没有，请摆脱它。 (5. Sell the replaced device if possible. If not, get rid of it.)
I have not upheld this standard very well. I still have my previous phones (a glossy-red LG slide-phone and an iPhone 4) stowed away somewhere in my bedroom. Why? No idea. I won’t be able to make a profit from them or even donate them, but there’s still no reason for them to clutter my space.
我没有很好地坚持这一标准。 我仍然将以前的手机(有光泽的红色LG滑盖手机和iPhone 4)存放在我卧室的某个地方。 为什么？ 不知道。 我将无法从中获利甚至无法捐赠，但他们仍然没有理由让我的空间混乱。
If upgraded to the SE or 4a, I could sell my iPhone 6s or trade it in, rather than trashing it or letting it collect dust.
如果升级到SE或4a，我可以出售我的iPhone 6s或以旧换新，而不是将其扔垃圾或让其积尘。
6.它与我的其他设备的交互不应太复杂，而应尽可能简化。 (6. Its interaction with my other devices should not be complicated, but as simplified as possible.)
I believe that technology, unless for a very good reason otherwise, ought to simplify our lives rather than complicate them.
我认为，除非有非常充分的理由，否则技术应该简化我们的生活，而不是使其复杂化。
Thus, this where, in the phone upgrade example, the SE and 4a take diverging routes. Should I switch to Android, I’d be more than fine adopting Google Calendar and Photos (they’re better than Apple’s anyway), but I’d miss Apple’s Notes, AirDrop, and AirPods (usually) seamless interaction with my iPhone and MacBook. Also, I can type significantly faster on my MacBook than on any phone, which makes having synced Messages with my iPhone and MacBook so very nice.
因此，在电话升级示例中，SE和4a采取了不同的路线。 如果我改用Android，则最好采用Google日历和照片(无论如何它们都比Apple更好)，但我会想念Apple的Notes，AirDrop和AirPods(通常)与iPhone和MacBook进行无缝交互。 另外，我在MacBook上键入的速度比在任何手机上都快得多，这使得将消息与我的iPhone和MacBook同步非常好。
I don’t think this standard applies just to software. For instance, it would be great if all my devices required USB-C cables. If I bought the 4a, both my phone and laptop would be USB-C, but my AirPods would still take Apple’s Lightning cable (unless I ditched them for the USB-C Pixel Buds, that is).
我认为该标准不仅适用于软件。 例如，如果我所有的设备都需要USB-C电缆，那就太好了。 如果我购买了4a，我的手机和笔记本电脑都将是USB-C，但我的AirPods仍会使用Apple的Lightning电缆(除非我为USB-C Pixel Buds抛弃了它们)。
Considering only this standard, going with the SE makes the most sense. iOS and MacOS just work well together and I am already using Lightning cables, so the SE would fit right in. And I don’t want to buy the Pixel Buds just to have all USB-C devices (although, having one type of cable for every device so that you only have to pack one when traveling is about as good as digital minimalism can get).
仅考虑此标准，选择SE最为有意义。 iOS和MacOS可以很好地协同工作，并且我已经在使用Lightning电缆，因此SE可以很好地插入。我不想购买Pixel Buds来拥有所有USB-C设备(尽管只有一种类型的电缆)每台设备都可以使用，因此您只需要在旅行时随身携带一个就可以达到数字简约的效果。
7.您意识到它将取代或破坏包括家庭和社区关系在内的好处。 (7. You are aware of the good that it will replace or disrupt, which includes family and community relationships.)
A twist to Berry’s final standard (It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships).
与Berry最终标准的扭曲( 不应替代或破坏已经存在的任何美好事物，包括家庭和社区关系 )。
Again, I find Berry’s original statement to be unrealistic. Though a new technology can add good to the world, it will always replace or disrupt something good that already exists.
再次，我发现贝里的原始说法是不现实的。 尽管一项新技术可以为世界带来好处，但它将始终替代或破坏已经存在的美好事物。
Neil Postman terms this the Faustian bargain, that “technology giveth and technology taketh away.” For instance, our smartphones connect us with people all over the world, offer unlimited knowledge at our fingertips, serve as pocket-sized cameras, TVs, and computers. But they can also isolate us and, all too often, disrupt our “family and community relationships.”
尼尔·波斯特曼(Neil Postman)将此称为浮士德式的讨价还价协议，即“技术带来的价值和技术带来的收益”。 例如，我们的智能手机将我们与世界各地的人们联系起来，在我们的指尖提供无限的知识，可作为袖珍相机，电视和计算机使用。 但是它们也可能使我们孤立，并且经常破坏我们的“家庭和社区关系”。
Many of us, however, need our smartphones. We can’t get away from them. They have Outlook and Slack so we never miss what’s going on at work. They have group chats and social media so we don’t miss what’s happening with our friends and family. Unless we want to upend our lives, we cannot help giving in to the smartphone Faustian bargain.
但是，我们许多人都需要智能手机。 我们无法摆脱他们。 他们拥有Outlook和Slack，因此我们永远不会错过正在发生的事情。 他们有群聊和社交媒体，所以我们不会错过与我们的朋友和家人一起发生的事情。 除非我们想延长自己的生活，否则我们不能不让智能手机讨价还价。
But this does not mean that we have to be unconscious of what a technology takes away. Knowing our phones are distracting to ourselves and others, we can choose to put them down at the dinner table, while driving, or during a conversation. Purchasing a new technology while understanding what it will give and take away from your life is essential to controlling it rather than letting it control you.
但这并不意味着我们必须不了解某种技术将带走什么。 知道我们的电话会分散我们自己和他人的注意力，我们可以选择将它们放在餐桌旁，开车时或谈话中。 在购买新技术的同时，还要了解它会给您的生活带来什么样的影响以及从生活中夺走的知识，这对于控制它而不是让它控制您至关重要。
As with any new device, both the SE and 4a would give and take away. They would give me new features and better performance, but they would also dazzle me, distract me from what I find valuable for no other reason than that they are new and shiny.
与任何新设备一样，SE和4a都可以胜任。 它们会给我带来新的功能和更好的性能，但是它们也会使我眼花，乱，使我从我认为有价值的东西中分散注意力，无非就是它们新颖而有光泽。
结论 (Conclusion)
Those are my standards that a new technology must satisfy in order to be embraced into my life. If you’ve made it through this (congrats btw), I’d be interested to hear what your own standards are or if you have any critiques of mine.
这些是我必须接受的一项新技术的标准，才能融入我的生活。 如果您做到了这一点(祝贺您)，我很想听听您自己的标准是什么，或者您是否有对我的批评。
Oh, right. Like anyone actually cares what phone I’m going to choose, this article would be incomplete announcing the victor.
啊对。 就像任何人实际上在乎我要选择的手机一样，这篇文章并不完整地宣布胜利者。
So, without further ado, the winner is…
因此，事不宜迟，获胜者是…
My iPhone 6s.
我的iPhone 6s。
The reality is, I don’t need a new phone. Yeah, I have to charge my 6s about three times a day and it is frustratingly slow at times, but recently (after a year of holding back, thinking that my phone might implode if I did) I upgraded from iOS 12 to 13, which unexpectedly seems to have improved my battery life slightly. I also switched the background, applied an un-cracked screen protector, and stole my mom’s old iPhone 6 case.
现实是，我不需要新手机。 是的，我每天必须为6s充电一次，有时速度很慢，但是最近(经过一年的等待，以为我的手机可能会爆裂)，我从iOS 12升级到了13出乎意料的是似乎稍微改善了我的电池寿命。 我还切换了背景，使用了完整的屏幕保护膜，并偷走了我妈妈的旧iPhone 6手机壳。
All of that to say, after seriously considering both the iPhone SE and Pixel 4a, I find that I don’t need either. My 6s feels like a completely different phone right now, and I’m ready to keep plugging a god-forsaken Lightning cable into it three times a day until it actually does implode.
综上所述，在认真考虑了iPhone SE和Pixel 4a之后，我发现我也不需要。 我现在的6s感觉就像是一部完全不同的手机，我准备每天将3次被上帝抛弃的Lightning电缆插入其中，直到它真正爆裂为止。
One final note: if Wendell Berry can get by without a computer, a smartphone, or a landline connected to an answering machine for that matter, I can get by without the latest smartphone upgrade.
最后一点：如果Wendell Berry在没有计算机，智能手机或与答录机连接的固定电话的情况下可以通过，那么我可以在没有最新的智能手机升级的情况下通过。
资料和进一步阅读 (Sources and further reading)
“Why I am Not Going to Buy a Computer” by Wendell Berry, with responses to his essay and his responsive essay to those responses 😰
温德尔·贝里(Wendell Berry)的“为什么我不打算购买计算机” ，以及对他的论文的回应以及对这些回应的回应性文章😰
“Why Wendell Berry is Still Not Going to Buy a Computer” by Travis Kitchens
Travis Kitchens的“为何Wendell Berry仍不打算购买计算机”
“Informing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman
尼尔·波斯特曼(Neil Postman)的《告知自己死亡》
“A Timbered Choir” by Wendell Berry. If you’re interested in Berry at all, this collection of poems is a good place to start.
温德尔·贝瑞(Wendell Berry) 创作的“木结构合唱团” 。 如果您完全对Berry感兴趣，那么这首诗集是个不错的起点。
232
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
