凯文凯利谈科技的发展

I don't know about you, but I haven't quite figured out exactly what technology means in my life. I've spent the past year thinking about what it really should be about. Should I be pro-technology? Should I embrace it full arms? Should I be wary? Like you, I'm very tempted by the latest thing. But at the other hand, a couple of years ago I gave up all of my possessions, sold all my technology -- except for a bicycle -- and rode across 3,000 miles on the U.S. back roads under the power of my one body, fuelled mostly by Twinkies and junk food. (Laughter)

我不知道你们怎么想,不过我还没搞明白，到底科技对我的生活意味着什么。我花了过去一年在想，那到底该怎样 我要亲科技吗？我要全心拥抱它吗？我要谨慎一些吗？和你们一样，最新的事物对我总是很有诱惑。但另一方面，几年前，我放弃我所有的收藏，用自身的力量，骑了三千英里的美国小路，只靠自身的力量，大部分只吃奶油蛋糕卷和垃圾食物。 (笑声)

And I've since then tried to keep technology at arm's length in many ways, so it doesn't master my life. At the same time, I run a website on cool tools, where I issue a daily obsession of the latest things in technology. So I'm still perplexed about what the true meaning of technology is as it relates to humanity, as it relates to nature, as it relates to the spiritual. And I'm not even sure we know what technology is. And one definition of technology is that which is first recorded. This is the first example of the modern use of technology that I can find. It was the suggested syllabus for dealing with the Applied Arts and Science at Cambridge University in 1829.

自此，我试着和科技保持距离，试图不让它来支配我的生活 而同时，我又管着一个酷品网站，每天发表一篇文章介绍最新的科技产品，所以我还是对到底什么是科技真正的意义感到迷茫。 它与人类的关系，与自然的关系，与精神的关系。我甚至不确定我们真的认识科技。有一个最早对科技的定义。这是我找到的“科技”一词现代用法的首例。它出现在一本教学大纲中，是剑桥大学1829年出的“应用艺术与科学”。

Before that, obviously, technology didn't exist. But obviously it did. I like one of the definitions that Alan Kay has for technology. He says technology is anything that was invented after you were born. (Laughter)

那之前，显然“科技”一词并不存在。但显然科技是存在的。我喜欢Alan Kay对科技作的一个定义。他说：科技是你出生后发明的任何东西。 (笑声)

So it sums up a lot of what we're talking about. Danny Hillis actually has an update on that -- he says technology is anything that doesn't quite work yet. (Laughter)

但它涵盖了许多我们讨论的事物。Danny Hillis 事实上有个更新版本 － 他说：科技是还不怎么能用的任何东西。 (笑声)

Which also, I think, gets into a little bit of our current idea. But I was interested in another definition of technology. Something, again, that went back to something more fundamental. Something that was deeper. And as I struggled to understand that, I came up with a way of framing the question that seemed to work for me in my investigations. And I'm this morning going to talk about this for the first time. So this is a very rough attempt to think out loud.

我认为，这也和我们现在的想法有关。但我却对科技的另一个定义感兴趣。它再次触及到更基本的一些东西更深层的一些东西。当我尽力去理解它时，我忽然找到了一种认识这个问题的思路， 它似乎更符合我探索的需求。今天上午我就首次来谈它。因此这是一种边想边说的粗略尝试。

The question that I came up with was this question, what does technology want? And by that, I don't mean does it want chocolate or vanilla. By what it wants, I mean, what are its inherent trends and biases? What are its tendencies over time? One way to think about this is thinking about biological organisms, which we've heard a lot about. And the trick that Richard Dawkins does, which is to say, to look at them as simply as genes, as vehicles for genes. So he's saying, what do genes want? The selfish gene. And I'm applying a similar trick to say, what if we looked at the universe in our culture through the eyes of technology? What does technology want? Obviously, this in an incomplete question, just as looking at an organism as only a gene is an incomplete way of looking at it. But it's still very, very productive. So I'm attempting to say, if we take technology's view of the world, what does it want? And I think once we ask that question we have to go back, actually, to life. Because obviously, if we keep extending the origins of technology far back, I think we come back to life at some point.

我得到的问题就是这个问题，科技要的是什么？这里的意思不是指它要巧克力或香草。我指的是：它的固有趋势与偏向是什么？在整个发展长河中，它的走向是什么？一种思考的方法是：想想生物组织体，我们听到很多了。理查德·道金斯的技巧是：将它们看成只是基因，是基因载体。因此他说，基因要什么？自私的基因。因此我用相似的技巧说：如果我们透过科技眼光， 观看我们的文化世界，科技要的是什么？显然，这是个不完整的问题，就像把生物体看成只是基因，也是不完整的看法。但这仍然很有建设性。因此我试着说，如果我们采取科技的世界观，它要的是什么？我认为，一旦我们问这个问题我们必须实际上回到生命。因为很明显，如果我们追溯科技的起源，我认为从一定的角度上就会追溯到生命。

So that's where I want to begin my little exploration, is in life. And like you heard from the previous speakers, we don't really know what life there is on earth right now. We have really no idea. Craig Venter's tremendous and brilliant attempt to DNA sequence things in the ocean is great. Brian Farrell's work is all part of this agenda to try and actually discover all the species on Earth. And one of the things that we should do is just make a grid of the globe andrandomly go and inspect all the places that the grid intersects, just to see what's on life. And if we did that with our little Martian probe, which we have not done on Earth, we would begin to see some incredible species.

因此，我就准备从生命开始进行我的小小探索。就如你听到前几个演讲者，我们不真正知道地球上现有的生命。我们真的毫无概念。 克莱格·凡特的雄大抱负要为海洋生物DNA定序是伟大的。Brian Farrell 的工作也是尝试中的一部分,而实际要发现地球上所有的物种。我们该做的一件事就是为地球画格子并随机检视格子的交叉点，看看那里有什么生命。如果我们使用火星探测仪，我们还没在地球上用过，我们很可能会看见很多神奇的物种。

This is not on another planet. These are things that are hidden away on our planet. This is an ant that stores its colleagues' honey in its abdomen. Each one of these organisms that we've described -- that you've seen from Jamie and others, these magnificent things -- what they're doing, each one of them, is they're hacking the rules of life. I can't think of a single general principle of biology that does not have an exception somewhere by some organism. Every single thing that we can think of -- and if you heard Olivia's talk about the sexual habits, you'll realize that there isn't anything we can say that's true for all life. Because every single one of them is hacking something about it. This is a solar-powered sea slug. It's a nudibranch that has incorporated chloroplast inside it to drive its energy. This is another version of that. This is a sea dragon, and the one on the bottom, the blue one, is a juvenile that has not yet swallowed the acid, has not yet taken in the brown-green algae pond scum into its body to give it energy.

这不是另外一个星球，这是就在我们星球上的东西。这是一只蚂蚁，它将同伴的蜜放在肚子里。这些生物体的每一个－你从詹米等人的讲座里看过的，这些了不起的东西它们每一个都在都是在潜入修改生命的规则。我想不出哪一条生物学通则是对任何生物体适用而没有例外的。我们想得到的任何一件事－如果你听过Olivia谈性习惯，你将知道，没有任何我们谈论的东西是适用所有的生命的。因为每一个都在修整它的某部分。这是太阳能海蛞蝓。它属裸鳃亚目它结合叶绿体在体内当它的能源。这是另外一种。这是海龙。那只在底部，蓝色的，是幼虫，尚未吞进酸，也尚未食用 棕绿色的海藻浮渣到体内提供能源。

These are hacks, and if we looked at the general shape of the approaches to hacking life there are, current consensus, six kingdoms. Six different broad approaches: the plants, the animals, the fungi, the protists, the little things -- the bacteria and the Archaea bacteria. The Archaeas. Those are the general approaches to life. That's one way to look at life on Earth today.

这些都是修整，如果我们看修整生命取向 的一般形式，依目前的共识，共有六个界。六个广泛的取向：植物、动物、真菌、原生生物、细菌、古菌。这是生命的一般取向，是看待今日地球生命的一种方式。

But a more interesting way, the current way to take the long view, is to look at it in an evolutionary perspective. And here we have a view of evolution where rather than having evolution go over the linear time, we have it coming out from the center. So in the center is the most primitive, and this is a genealogical chart of all life on earth. This is all the same six kingdoms you see. 4,000 representative species, and you can see where we are. But what I like about this is it shows that every living organism on Earth today is equally evolved. Those fungi and bacteria are as highly evolved as humans. They've been around just as long and gone through just the same kind of trial and error to get here. But we see that each one of these is actually hacking, and has a different way of finding out how to do life.

但另一个较有趣的方式，如果用长远的眼光来看目前的方式 便是以演化的观点来看它。这里我们有个演化观，它不是线性时间的演化，我们将它从中心往外扩延。在中心是最原始的，这是地球所有生命的系谱。 所有相同的六个界都看得到。四千个代表性物种，你看到我们在何处。我喜欢这个，因为它显示 地球上每种生物体都是同等演化的。那些真菌和细菌和人类都是高度演化的。它们同样久存，并经历相同的考验才发展到今天的样子。但我们看到，这些每个都实际上在修整，且各有不同方式去求取生存。

And if we take the long-term trends of life, if we begin to say, what does evolution want? There's several things that we see. One of the things about evolution is that nowhere on Earth have we ever been where we don't find life. We find life at the bottom of every long-term, long-distance drilling core into the center of rock that we bring up -- and there's bacteria in the pores of that rock. And wherever life is, it never retreats. It's ubiquitous and it wants to be more. More and more of the inert matter of the globe is being touched and animated by life.

如果我们看生命的长期趋势，如果我们开始说， 演化要的是什么？我们看到若干事。演化的一件事就是，地球上无处找不到生命。我们发现生命存在于每一个长期、长距离钻探地心岩石 所取出的核心中－ 岩石孔隙中就有细菌。生命所在之处，它从不撤退。它无所不在，不断增多。地球上越来越多的无生命物质受到生命的刺激及活化。

The second thing is is we see diversity. We also see specialization. We see the movement from a general-purpose cell to the more specific and specialized. And we see a drift towards complexity that's very intuitive. And actually, we have current data that does show that there is an actual drift towards complexity over time. And the last thing I bring back, this nudibranch. One of the things we see about life is that it moves from the inner to increasing sociability. And by that it means that there is more and more of life whose entire environment is other life. Like those chloroplast cells -- they're completely surrounded by other life. They never touch the inner matter. There is more and more co-evolution. And so the general, long-term trends of evolution are roughly these five: ubiquity, diversity, specialization, complexity and socialization. Now, I took that and said, OK, what are the long-term trends in technology?

另一件我们看到的是多样性。我们也看到特殊化。 我们看到的是由一般目的的细胞 转移成很多更特定、特殊化的细胞。而且我们也很显然地可以看到它们变得复杂 实际上，我们现有数据显示 实际上长期来它们是变得更复杂。最后我再提一下裸鳃亚目。我们看到生命的一件事，即它由内 向外渐渐增长的社会性。也就是 有越来越多的生命，其整体环境就是于其他生命。就像那些叶绿体细胞－它们全被其他生命所包围。它们从不触及内部物质。有更多的共同演化。因此，演化的一般长期趋势大约有五个：普遍、多样、特殊、复杂、及社群。我采取此一观点，说，那么，科技的长期趋势是怎样的？

And again, my question is, what does technology want? And so, remarkably, I discovered that there's also a drift toward specialization. That we see there's a general hammer, and hammers become more and more specific over time. There's obviously diversity. Huge numbers of things. This is all the contents of a Japanese home. I actually had my daughter -- gave her a tally counter, and I gave her an assignment last summer to go around and count the number of species of technology in our household. And it came up with 6,000 different species of products. I did some research and found out that the King of England, Henry VIII, had only about 7,000 items in his household. And he was the King of England, and that was the entire wealth of England at the time. So we're seeing huge numbers of diversity in the kinds of things.

再次我问：科技要的是什么？因此，显然，我发现了 它也是移向特殊化。 这里我们看到普通的锤子，锤子随着时间越来越特殊化。显然有多样性。许许多多的物品。这是日本家庭的所有东西。我要我女儿 － 送她一个计数器，去年夏天我要她四处看看 算算我们家中有多少科技物种。结果有六千个产品种类。我做过研究，发现英格兰王享利八世 只有大约七千件物品在他家中。 而他是英格兰王， 那是当时英格兰的全部财富了。因此我们看到大量的物品多样性。

This is a scene from Star Wars where the 3PO comes out and he sees machines making machines. How depraved! Well, this is actually what we're headed towards: world machines. And the technology is only being thrown out by other technologies. Most machines will only ever be in contact with other technology and not non-technology, or even life.

这是星球大战的一景，PO出现了他看到了机器在制作机器。真败坏呀！嗯，这正是我们的走向：世界机器 新的科技只是由其他科技发展出来的。大部分机器将只和其他科技打交道 而不管非科技，甚至生命。

And thirdly, the idea that machines are becoming biological and complex is at this point a cliche. And I'm happy to say, I was partly responsible for that cliche that machines are becoming biological, but that's pretty evident. So the major trends in technology evolution are actually are the same as in biological evolution. The same drives that we see towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity. That is maybe not a big surprise because if we map out, say, the evolution of armor, you can actually follow a sort of an evolutionary-type cladistic tree. I suggest, in fact, technology is the seventh kingdom of life. That its operations and how it works is so similar that we can think of it as the seventh kingdom. And so it would be sort of approximately up there, coming out of the animal kingdom. And if we were to do that, we would find out -- we could actually approach technology in this way.

第三，机器生物化、复杂化的想法已是陈腔滥调。而我很高兴地说，我要为那个陈腔滥调负部分责任：机器生物化了，那很明显。 因此科技演化的主要趋势，实际上 就像生物演化。我们看到相同的趋势 走向普遍、多样、社群、复杂。这或许不是大惊奇 因为如果我们图示，举例说：盔甲的演化， 你其实可以跟踪不同类型的演化的分支 我认为，事实上科技是生命的第七界。 它的运作及功能都如此相似 我们可以将它当成第七界。 因此它大略就在上方， 出自于动物界。如果这么做， 我们将发现－ 我们实质上可以这样面对科技。

This is Niles Eldredge. He was the co-developer with Stephen Jay Gould of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. But as a sideline, he happens to collect cornets. He has one of the world's most largest collections -- about 500 of them. And he has decided to treat them as if they were tribolites, or snails, and to do a morphological analysis, and try to derive their genealogical history over time. This is his chart, which is not quite published yet. But the most interesting aspect about this is that if you look at those red lines at the bottom, those indicate basically a parentage of a type of cornet that was no longer made. That does not happen in biology. When something is extinct, you can't have it as your parent. But that does happen in technology. And it turns out that that's so distinctive that you can actually look at this tree, and you can actually use it to determine that this is a technological system versus a biological system.

这是尼尔斯·艾崔奇，他和史蒂芬·古尔德一起提出了间断平衡理论。但业余，他也收藏小铜喇叭。他有着世界上最大的收藏－大约有500只。他决定把它们当成旋螺或蜗牛进行形态分析，试着导出它们在时间上的系谱史。这是他得到的图表，还没完全公开。但这最有趣的一处是 如果你看那些底下的红线，它基本上表示某种小铜喇叭的上一代现在已没人制造了。生物学上不是这样。当某物灭绝后，你无法以它为上一代。但在科技它会发生。结果呢 它非常独特，你可以看这个系谱，可以用它来确定这是科技系统而非生物系统。

In fact, this idea of resurrecting the whole idea is so important that I began to think about what happens with old technology. And it turns out that in fact, technologies don't die. So I suggested this to an historian of science, and he said, "Well, what about, you know, come on, what about steam cars? They're not around anymore." Well actually, they are. In fact, they're so around that you can buy new parts for a Stanley steam automobile. And this is a website of a guy who's selling brand new parts for the Stanley automobile. And the thing that I liked is sort of this one-click, add-to-your-cart button -- (Laughter)

事实上，观念复活的想法是非常重要的，因而，我开始思考旧的科技怎么了。结果呢，事实上科技不会死。我向一位科学史学家提起，他说：嗯，那么蒸汽车还在吗？它们已消失了。而事实上，它们还在。它们不但在，你还能买到Stanley 蒸汽车的新零件。这个网站有卖全新的零件供应 Stanley 汽车之用。我很喜欢的是 它也有一点击就能选货进购物车的按键 － (笑声)

for buying steam valves. I mean, it was just -- it was really there. And so, I began to think about, well, maybe that's just a random sample. Maybe I should do this sort of in a more conservative way.

可以买蒸汽阀。我是说，真的有人在卖。因此，我开始想，也许这只是个特例。 也许我该用比较保守的方式去查看。

So I took the great big 1895 Montgomery Ward's catalog and I randomly went through it. And I took a page -- not quite a random page -- I took a page that was actually more difficult than others because lots of the pages are filled with things that are still being made. But I took this page and I said, how many of these things are still being made? And not antiques. I want to know how many of these things are still in production. And the answer is: all of them. All of them are still being produced. So you've got corn shellers. I don't know who needs a corn sheller. Be it corn shellers --you've got ploughs, you've got fan mills, all these things, and these are not, again, antiques. These are -- you can order these. You can go to the web and you can buy them now, brand-new made. So in a certain sense, technologies don't die. In fact, you can buy, for 50 bucks, a stone-age knife made exactly the same way that they were made 10,000 years ago. It's short, bone handle, 50 bucks. And in fact, what's important is that this information actually never died out. It's not just that it was resurrected. It's continued all along. And in Papua New Guinea, they were making stone axes until two decades ago, just as a course of practical matters.

我拿大部头的 1895年 蒙哥马利沃德商品目录 随机翻翻，我选了一页－并不完全是随便选择的－ 我选的这样实际上是比较难的 因为许多页面中的东西都还有在制造。但我选了这一页 我说：这些东西有多少还在制造？ 而不是古董。我要知道这些东西有多少还在制造。答案是：全部。它们都还在制造。因此你能买到玉米脱粒机。我不知道现在还有谁要玉米脱粒机就是玉米脱壳机－ 你还可买到犁、风车磨，所有这些东西都不是古董。这些是－你可以订购。你可以上网，现在就去买，全新制造的。因此，某种观点而言，科技不死。事实上，你能花50 美元买到石器时代的刀以一万年前完全一样的方式做成的。它有短的骨柄，50 美元。而事实上，重要的是这项技术信息从未消逝。它不只是复活。它一直存在着。而在巴布亚新几亚，他们做石斧 直到二十年前，好象它还是件实用的东西。

Even when we try to get rid of a technology, it's actually very hard. So we've all heard about the Amish giving up cars. We've heard about the Japanese giving up guns. We've heard about this and that. But I actually went back and took what I could find, the examples in history where there have been prohibitions against technology, and then I tried to find out when they were -- when they came back in, because they always came back in. And it turns out that the time, the duration of when they were outlawed and prohibited, is decreasing over time. And that basically, you can delay technology, but you can't kill it. So this makes sense. because in a certain sense what culture is, is the accumulation of ideas. That's what it's for. It's so that ideas don't die out. And when we take that, we take this idea of what culture is doing and add it to what the long-term trajectory -- again, in life's evolution -- we find that each case -- each of the major transitions in life -- what they're really about is accelerating and changing the way in which evolution happens. They're actually changing the way in which ideas are generated.

甚至当我们试图放弃一项科技，那实在很难。我们都听过阿米希人放弃车子。我们也听过日本人放弃枪炮。我们听过这个、那个。但我回头去找 在历史中找到 某些禁止科技的实例是从什么地方开始的， 然后， 我试着找出何时它们又回来了，因为它们总是回头。结果是：时间 受禁止和限制的长度 随着历史发展而减少。那基本上你可以延迟科技，而无法弃绝它。这是有意义的。就某种意义而言，所谓文化就是观念的累积。其目的是要使观念生生不息。当我们采取，我们采取这个文化作用的观念 并将它加到生命演化的长程轨道中 我们发现每次－ 生命的每次主要转换－它们真正是在加速与改变 演化就是这么发生的。它们实际上改变着观念产生的方式。

So all these steps in evolution are increasing, basically, the evolution of evolvability. So what's happening over time in life is that the ways in which you generate these new ideas, these new hacks, are increasing. And the real tricks are ways in which you kind of explore the way of exploring. And then what we see in the singularity, that prophesized by Kurzweil and others -- his idea that technology is accelerating evolution. It's accelerating the way in which we search for ideas. So if you have life hacking -- life means hacking, the game of survival -- then evolution is a way to extend the game by changing the rules of the game. And what technology is really about is better ways to evolve. That is what we call an infinite game. That's the definition of infinite game. A finite game is play to win, and an infinite game is played to keep playing. And I believe that technology is actually a cosmic force.

因此，演化的这些步骤基本上都是在 增加演化的可演化性。 因此，在生命的发展过程 产生新观念、新修整的方式也 一直在增加。真正的技巧是 你怎么去探索的探索方式。 而我们在这独特性中看到的由库茨魏尔和其他人所预言的－他认为的科技正在加速演化。 它正在加速我们寻找观念的方式。因此，如果你有生命修整 － 生命就是一个修整，生存竞赛的游戏。那么，演化就是改变竞赛规则来延长赛局的方式。而科技真正涉及的，是产生更好的演化方式。那就是我们所说的无限赛局，是无限赛局的定义。有限赛局是要赢， 无限赛局是要赛个不停。 我相信科技实际上是一种宇宙力。

The origins of technology was not in 1829, but was actually at the beginning of the Big Bang, and at that moment the entire huge billions of stars in the universe were compressed. The entire universe was compressed into a little quantum dot, and it was so tight in there there was no room for any difference at all. That's the definition. There was no temperature. There was no difference whatsoever. And at the Big Bang, what it expanded was the potential for difference. So as it expands and as things expand what we have is the potential for differences, diversity, options, choices, opportunities, possibilities and freedoms. Those are all basically the same thing. And those are the things that technology bring us. That's what technology is bringing us: choices, possibilities, freedoms. That's what it's about. It's this expansion of room to make differences. And so a hammer, when we grab a hammer, that's what we're grabbing. And that's why we continue to grab technology -- because we want those things. Those things are good. Differences, freedom, choices, possibilities. And each time we make a new opportunity place, we're allowing a platform to make new ones.

科技的起源不是在 1829 年，实际上是在大爆炸的开始，在宇宙中巨量亿万星球被压缩的时刻。整个宇宙被压缩为一个小量子点，它是那么紧，紧得不可能有任何差别。这就是定义。没有温度。 没有任何差别。而在大爆炸扩散开的是差别的潜能。因此，当它扩散，当事物扩散开来，我们即可能有差别、多样、替换、选择、机会、可能、和自由。这些基本上是相同的事。那些就是科技带给我们的事。科技带给我们：选择、可能、自由。它就是科技的根本，就是扩大造成差别。因此，当我们握鐡锤，我们握的是鐡锤。因而我们继续握住科技－因为我们要这些事物。这些事物是好的。差别、自由、选择、可能。每次我们制造一个新机会点，我们即容许一个平台去制造更多新的。

And I think it's really important. Because if you can imagine Mozart before the technology of the piano was invented, what a loss to society there would be. Imagine Van Gogh being born before the technologies of cheap oil paints. Imagine Hitchcock before the technologies of film. Somewhere, today, there are millions of young children being born whose technology of self-expression has not yet been invented. We have a moral obligation to invent technology so that every person on the globe has the potential to realize their true difference. We want a trillion zillion species of one individuals. That's what technology really wants.

我认为这真的很重要。因为如果你能想像莫札特生在钢琴科技发明之前，那会是社会的多大损失。想像梵谷生在廉价油彩的科技之前。想像希区考克生在电影科技之前。今天某处有好几百万小孩出生他们自我表达的科技尚未发明。我们有发明科技的道德义务使地球上每个人有潜能去实现他们的真正差别。我们需要亿万个这样的个体。那就是科技真正要的。

I'm going to skip through some of the objections because I don't have answers to why there's deforestation. I don't have an answer to the fact that there are -- seem to be bad technologies. I don't have an answer to how this impacts on our dignity, other than to suggest that maybe the seventh kingdom, because it's so close to what life is about, maybe we can bring it back and have it help us monitor life. Maybe in some ways the fact that what we're trying to do with technology is find a good home for it. It's a terrible thing to spray DDT on cotton fields, but it's a really good thing to use to eliminate millions of cases of death due to malaria in a small village.

我要跳过一些反对意见因为我不知道为何有森林滥伐。我也不知道为什么，至少看来其实是有一些坏的科技。我也不知道这如何冲击我们的尊严，我只是提议这个第七界，因为它非常接近生命形式，也许我们可以带回它，要它帮我们监测生命。或许以某些方式事实上我们试着要做的正是替科技找到一个好的家。在棉花田喷洒滴滴涕是可怕的事，但好的一面是用它来消灭小村庄疟疾导致的数百万死亡案例。

Our humanity is actually defined by technology. All the things that we think that we really like about humanity is being driven by technology. This is the infinite game. That's what we're talking about. You see, technology is a way to evolve the evolution. It's a way to explore possibilities and opportunities and create more. And it's actually a way of playing the game, of playing all the games. That's what technology wants. And so when I think about what technology wants, I think that it has to do with the fact that every person here -- and I really believe this - every person here has an assignment. And your assignment is to spend your life discovering what your assignment is. That recursive nature is the infinite game. And if you play that well, you'll have other people involved so even that game extends and continues even when you're gone. That is the infinite game. And what technology is, is the medium in which we play that infinite game. And so I think that we should embrace technology because it is an essential part of our journey in finding out who we are. Thank you. (Applause)

人道实际上是由科技定义的。所有我们认为我们喜欢的人道主义都是由科技驱导的。这就是无限赛局。我们谈的就是这个。看，科技是推展演化的方法。它是个方法用来探索可能和机会，并创造更多。它实际上是参与赛局、玩各种赛局的方法。那就是科技要的。因此，当我想到科技要的是什么，我认为，它涉及这里的每个人，我深信：这里的每个人都有一项任务。你的任务就是 究其一生找出你的任务是什么。那个递回的本质就是无限赛局。如果你玩得好，你将有他人参与，赛局会延长并持续，即使你已离开。那就是无限赛局。科技就是我们参与无限赛局的中介。因此我觉得我们应该拥抱科技因为它是我们找出自我的旅程中至为关键的部分。谢谢大家。 (掌声)