This article is from WeChat official account:create (ID: xingshu100), editor: Li Ying, original title: “Takeaway Dilemma: It is easy to stand on the commanding heights of morality, but it is extremely difficult to avoid all the benefits of technology”, the title picture comes from: Yu Zhejun makes a speech
Driven by the algorithms and data of the food delivery system, the delivery time of the food delivery riders has been continuously shortened. If the delivery time displayed by the system is exceeded, it means bad reviews, reduced revenue, or even eliminated. A series of related reports sparked discussions about “Takeaway riders have become a high-risk occupation”.
Are you hungry?, a new “I’m willing to wait 5 minutes/10 minutes” function will be added, and an encouragement mechanism will be provided for outstanding blue knights, even if individual orders are overtime, there is no need to take responsibility .
Meituan also stated that the system will set aside 8 minutes of flexible time for riders and improve the reward model so that they can obtain more practical returns while ensuring safety.
The responses of the two platforms seem to be considering the delivery staff, but after careful consideration, these cannot actually liberate the delivery staff.
Takeaways from a certain platform
If the consumer clicks on “I’m willing to wait more”, it’s just a ridePrioritizing the delivery of food delivery is obviously only a disadvantage for the “honest people”; and the so-called flexible 8 minutes is actually very easy to complete the hedging through the delivery time deduction in the system.
If the logic and goal of the algorithm are always faster, more efficient, and higher profit margins, then the position of people and the position of labor will always be in such an awkward situation. Wait for a few more minutes is an inefficient solution that treats the symptoms rather than the root cause, but more starkly, it seems that it is difficult for us to find a “root cure” plan.
Wake up, we are all in the system
We seem to know that technology invades life and brings many problems, but at the same time we are enjoying the various conveniences and practical benefits that technology brings.
While we scold Meituan, are you hungry, and order takeaway orders, we can’t avoid the advantages and advantages of technology. And the problems brought about by technology are not something we can solve without ordering takeaways or reminding orders……
Why is the application of technology always a double-edged sword?
How should humans face this dilemma brought by technology?
Is it possible to use only the benefits of technology and completely avoid the risks?
Yu Zhejun, Associate Professor, School of Philosophy, Fudan University
Hello everyone, my name is Yu Zhejun and I come from the School of Philosophy, Fudan University.
To find me this time, I was given a particularly difficult topic for a speech: Should we set limits on creativity?
As a teacher, an academic worker, when I first heard this topic, my reaction was like this:
I think that human creativity is so limited, why should we set limits on creativity? It should be let it play!
However, due to my professional habits, I feel that the structure of such a sentence is incomplete.
So I added up the structure of the sentence and put all the subject, predicate and object on it. Change this sentence to: Should we draw boundaries for creativity?
After you see this sentence is completed, it is not just a slogan, or an imperative imperative sentence. It becomes a complete sentence.
The subject is who we are. Next is ought. Philosophy should be a question of what should be. It is not a real question. We can never deduce what we should be. So ask, why should it be restricted? What kind of creativity is next, and everyone will definitely care about it, how to limit creativity?
Of course, the most important question, as every ultimate consumer, will ask such a question: If we delineate such a boundary for creativity, who will these boundaries affect?
1. Different human civilizations have different attitudes towards innovation
I will analyze these 5 questions for you separately.
The first question is: Which kind of creativity do we want to limit?
Mankind’s creativity is diverse, and if we look at the entire human civilization history and cultural history, we will find that different time periods and different civilizations have completely different attitudes towards creativity. of.
I just give you two extreme generalizations: One is called the father-killing culture, and the other is called the Kazi culture.
Yu Zhejun at the lecture site
What’s the difference?
The father-killing culture means that the next generation always thinks that the previous generation has problems with you. I don’t think you are pleasing to the eye. I don’t necessarily have to kill you physically, but I want to kill you spiritually. I want to surpass you and create something newer and better. This is the father-killing culture.
The other kind, in certain periods and in some countries, there is a so-called culture of restraint, that is, when the next generation sees the previous generation, they will always be in a cautious and conscientious attitude.
You can imagine, which one is more conducive to innovation?
It must be a father-killing culture. However, once the father-killing culture goes too far and the bottom line of the entire human civilization is subverted, innovation will not be possible.
So I opened my mind and used a few characters as representatives to summarize and summarize creativity.
Take a few characters as representatives to make a small summary and summary of creativity
From left to right, the first is Shakespeare, the creativity of human literature; Beethoven, the creativity of music; Leonardo, the creativity of art painting.
The last two, Turing and Einstein, should they be ticked at all?
The ticking means that I don’t think there is any need to limit the creativity of literary masters like Shakespeare, musicians like Beethoven, and artists like Leonardo da Vinci.
Why? Because this kind of creativity has a characteristic, the works they create, if we don’t listen to his music or read himHis works, he has no direct influence on you.
But the last two, have to hesitate a little, Turing, we know that he is a representative of a mathematician. However, if he is the father of modern computers and artificial intelligence, the impact of this technology product on us may be different from the previous literary and artistic works, and it will affect each of us.
If we put Einstein in, we will find that the problem is even greater.
We know that Einstein is a famous physicist, but the application of his physical theory in reality has actually profoundly affected each of us’s lives, and even the evolution of human history.
Second, the Colingridge dilemma of technological development
So the first types of creativity, I think there is no need to limit it. But for the latter science and technology, I think it needs to be restricted.
Then the next question is: Why should we limit technical and technological creativity?
In philosophy, we often have the idea that science and technology are two completely different things, although they are often mixed together in our daily language and called technology. What is the basic difference between them?
Scientists, when they are still studying science, are basically in a state of being a utter bystander and out of touch. He wants to better understand this world, this universe, and understand its internal operating laws and rules.
But the technology is different. When we are talking about technology, a person is an actual actor, even a stakeholder. We want to gain some of our own benefits and avoid some disadvantages by transforming the world.
So I wrote two lines here: Science may be neutral, but the application of technology is definitely not neutral. Just like this formula, Einstein’s famous relativity formula E=mc².
Science may be neutral, but the application of technology is definitely not neutral
The technical application of this formula can be used for peaceful power generation-a use that everyone can accept. But if it is used in the military, it can also create nuclear weapons and destroy many lives. Of course, it also depends on who holds such nuclear weapons and which countries use them.
Therefore, there is a relatively small branch in our entire major philosophy discipline, called ethics, or moral philosophy-Ethics or Moral philosophy. There is a relatively small branch under ethics, a cutting-edge branch, to consider these issues, it is called technical ethics(Techno-Ethics).
In technology ethics, it actually raises a very interesting question for contemporary technology. This question was raised by a British philosopher named Collingridge (Collingridge), so later scholars named it after him , Called the Collingridge Dilemma(Collingridge Dilemma).
This concept was proposed in the 1980 book “The Social Control of Technology”.
Collingridge’s Dilemma
The Collingridge’s dilemma is this: On the one hand, unless a technology is widely used, its impact cannot be completely predicted; but on the other hand, if a technology is Wide application, then it is difficult to control.
This is like stepping on the brakes. If the brakes are stepped too hard, technological innovation will be completely curbed; but if you don’t step on the brakes, the speed will be too fast. When everyone is already racing on the highway, you It is almost impossible to apply the brakes to control it, or even change lanes.
So today’s human technological innovation is basically in the dilemma that Colin Ridge said.
If we look back, there are many unforeseen and unforeseen consequences of human technological inventions, which are called unintended/unforeseen consequences in English.
A technical expert, an inventor, when he proposed this technology, he had no idea that it might bring such consequences.
Yu Zhejun at the lecture site
To give a simple example, we know that in the 19th century, German scientists invented rubber vulcanization technology. Rubber itself is very viscous and will age, become brittle and hard after being exposed to the air for a long time. The rubber vulcanization technology can keep it elastic.
This kind of technology has produced a commodity, which has a fatal impact on each of our lives, on our families, on the structure of human society, and even on the structure of population. What kind of product is this?
Condoms.
This is a typical unforeseen unforeseen consequence of technology. So in the history of human technology, since the Enlightenment, there has actually been such a deep worry-we are worried that technology will get out of control because it will produce these unpredictable results.
As shown in my picture above, there are some cases in history: such as the crash of the Concorde supersonic plane, the uncontrolled explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the former Soviet Union.
We are worried that technology will get out of control because it will produce these unpredictable results
Science fiction works also have similar themes, such as “Dr. Strange Love” during the Cold War. Because of this mechanical operation mode, the entire human race had to be dragged into the danger of nuclear war.
Including movies like “Terminator”. When most of us watch “Terminator”, we only know that it is an action movie, and even some horrors.
But please don’t forget, what is the background setting of “Terminator”? The supercomputer of the North American Air Defense Command is out of control. In the popular words, super artificial intelligence has lost the most basic care for mankind. It decided to wipe out the people on earth.
So this kind of technological out-of-control that has occurred in reality or the technological disaster envisaged in science fiction works reflects this basic human worry.
So, let’s analyze what fundamental forces are driving our modern technology?
My personal summary sums it up into three motivations, the first is capital, the second is power, and the third is selfish desire.
< /p>
Actually, these three powers have very different demands. Capital requires continuous appreciation and return, power requires greater control, and many selfish desires may be related to the basic biological power of our human heart. There is a relationship, diet men and women.
So what does technology look like when driven by these three forces? It is like a small boat in the vast ocean. It has no power and no sails. It doesn’t know where to go. It is just the strong wind and surging waves blowing outside that are pushing it.
In science fiction works, humans have repeatedly raised this concern. The earliest is like Frankenstein described by Mrs. Shelley, a monster created by scientists, until the artificial intelligence that has been heatedly discussed in recent years, from weak artificial intelligence to strong artificial intelligence to Super Intelligence.
However, the underlying motif (the motif) has not changed, that is: “The creation begins to counterattack “.
Here, we humans seem to be in the role of a creator, and a creator like humans is actually a created thing according to Western traditions, and humans are created by God.
But we are a creature of this kind, now walking at a historical node. We have the ability to create a creature, and we are worried that this creature will one day rebel against our creator. Not only resistance, it may fundamentally subvert some of our most basic abilities that we are proud of for survival.
A typical case, as everyone must know, at the end of November last year, He Jiankui, a former associate professor of Southern University of Science and Technology, disclosed to the media that he himself edited the genes of two babies. Many people say, does this mean that scientists have lost their self-discipline?
Of course I personally think it’s not that serious, but such a Pandora’s box has been opened.
After this incident, I once asked some of my students in class, I said: “If one day, this gene editing technology matures, do you support or not support editing baby genes?”
p>
They said one after another: “No, absolutely not, Teacher Yu. This is immoral, and I will not do it.”
But I asked a further question: “Please think about it, one day you are going to be a parent, you are going to have a child of your own, assuming it is affordable, without any side effects, and there is no off-target The question is, would you let such a scientist create a super baby for you? This super baby may have an IQ of 300 and a speed of less than 7 seconds at 100 meters. The strengthened bones will never fracture and are immune to all diseases. “
When I ask this question, everyone has to think about it, do I want a normal baby or a super baby? At this time the dilemma came.
It is very easy for people to stand on the moral high ground, but it is extremely difficult for you to avoid all the benefits that technology brings to you.
Yu Zhejun at the lecture site
So this question has already partially involvedIf creativity is limited, who will be affected?
Actually, each of us will be affected by it.
The last question, who will put a limit on creativity?
I also made a summary and summary, which can basically be attributed to the following four parties: government, academic community, enterprises and end consumers.
But the demands of each of them are still very different. For example, the government may be more concerned about the overall welfare and safety of the people. For our end consumers, they may be more concerned about personal welfare, health, income, and the education of the next generation. Therefore, many people say that we must consider the demands of these parties in a comprehensive manner before we can set limits on creativity.
So I quoted an analysis framework proposed by a Western scholar, called Stakeholder Analysis(Stakeholder Analysis). That is, people who are related to technological creation can be roughly divided into three categories: technology profiters, technology decision-makers, and technology risk bearers. These three circles can exactly draw 7 quadrants.
When we generally think about problems, we tend toThink about what benefits you can get from it? But I often forget what kind of risk I might take.
But in these 7 quadrants, think about it, which quadrant is the most difficult to control? In fact, it is in this place where the profit-making party and the decision-making party cross.
Because in this, many are not natural persons, individuals, but organizations, even countries, and some supranational groups. They are not only policy makers on the one hand, but also direct promoters and investors of this technology on the other, and they can get huge benefits from it.
So such an analysis model has caused us more concerns. For individuals, do they need to change their way of thinking frequently? Because not everyone can always get direct benefits in technological innovation.
If you are a decision maker, what restrictions would you place on technology? Or you may be exposed to a risk that you cannot predict at any time, so how to prevent and control such a risk?
Three, the spiritual dilemma of our time
Finally, what I want to say is about the spiritual predicament of our entire era. Because we humans are now at such a crossroads, there has never been a kind of relative value and nothingness.
In history, many thinkers, philosophers, artists, and writers have proposed visions for a better future for mankind. We call this beautiful vision a utopia. And Utopia itself also contains a meaning-it is difficult to achieve.
But now, we have all kinds of technological possibilities, and all kinds of utopias proposed in history can be realized now.
The concept that is the opposite of utopia, we call it heterotopia, is a very bad future. But with the blessing of a certain technology, it is possible.
Now we humans have this strange situation: for one person, this kind of future is utopia, but for another person, it may be heterotopia, and vice versa.
So between Utopia and Heterotopia, we are often stupid and unclear. At this time, we need the meaning of ethics, moral philosophy and philosophy.
Of course, many recent discussions have made me even more aware. It is not an exaggeration to say that our human beings are now facing a major change that has not been seen in ten thousand years. This is my modification of a famous saying, because Li Hongzhang once said: “The Chinese are facing a major change that has not been seen in 3000 years.”
Why is it called a big change that hasn’t been seen in ten thousand years? Where did this ten thousand years come from?
Ten thousand years means that human civilization has only ten thousand years. You can see such brilliant buildings and man-made objects on the surface of this earth, all kinds of wealth and systems created by mankind, which are only 10,000 years old. It is too short and too short relative to the evolution of the entire universe.
But like the word Transhumanism, transhumanism, our current technology can not only transform the outside world, we can transform ourselves, transform the entire human race, and even transform the future human beings beyond recognition and become very different from the current humans. The same species.
Humanity is at such a crossroads.
I even think that in the future, we can’t just talk about the so-called post-humans. I think there may be N different kinds of humans who are in a state of competition with each other.
So I found a passage, which comes from Picco, an Italian philosopher in the Renaissance. He has a book called “On the Dignity of Man”. Of course, he speaks to Adam from the perspective of God in a theistic tone. His words are very meaningful. Let’s take a look:
“On Human Dignity”
I specifically marked the color of the four words free choice here. Biology textbooks tell us that all species are accepting natural selection. But, think about it, To what extent are humans still accepting natural selection?
In most cases, human beings are free to choose. I plan a future for myself and design my ownYour own body, even the future spirit.
Humanity has just broken through the entire evolutionary history of nature and reached this state of free choice.
So many people often show me this picture-the evolution of humans, starting from the apes, to Homo erectus, and then to Homo sapiens, this is our species of homo sapiens.
But what will happen in the future? Will we become silicon-based organisms in the future, or will we go to cyber people?
Combined with today’s theme “creativity”, let me summarize. First of all, looking at the position of mankind in the universe, or that mankind can produce such a brilliant and advanced civilization, this in itself shows that human creativity is good.
However, among creativity, in the present, what needs our attention and reflection is the creativity in technology. Because the application of technology is definitely not neutral.
Of course, the most important sentence is the third sentence. In fact, when we, as end consumers, as natural persons, as individuals, when choosing the application of technology, we are not choosing a product, nor just choosing a lifestyle.
Fundamentally speaking, the use of technology is to choose a human nature and the future direction of human development.
This article is from WeChat official account:Create (ID: xingshu100), editor: Li Ying