斯蒂格勒 | 自动化社会的诸多问题
作者 | 贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒 当代法国著名技术哲学家
转自 | 实践与文本
本文选自“当代激进思想家译丛”之《南京课程》
贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒 著
张福公 译
南京大学出版社2019年
本书简介（Introduction）
本书是对法国著名技术哲学家贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒于2016年在南京大学哲学系开设的短期研究生课程“在人类纪时代阅读马克思和恩格斯——从《德意志意识形态》到《自然辩证法》”的八篇课程讲义的汇编。
在本书中，斯蒂格勒致力于借助现象学、后现象学、人类学、热力学、生物学等所提供的问题域和思想资源，从技术哲学的角度重新激活胡塞尔、海德格尔、德里达、西蒙栋等一批重要思想家的理论生长点，重新阐释马克思和恩格斯的经典文本和哲学精髓，以深入剖析自资本主义工业革命以来的人类纪时代中人的历史性生存所遭遇的诸多问题，特别是以数字第三持存为载体的自动化社会中以无产阶级化、系统性愚昧为表征的人类生存困境，并积极探索一种通过依托现代技术的药理学双面性来逃离人类纪、走向负人类纪的替代性方案和可能。透过本书，我们可以管窥斯蒂格勒在当代数字化资本主义批判中所做的种种理论努力，捕捉到他当下正在从事的激进社会批判理论的基本线索。
关于作者（Bernard Stiegler）
贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒（1952-2020），当代法国著名技术哲学家，解构主义大师德里达的得意门生。1992年在德里达的指导下于法国社会科学高等研究院获博士学位。他的技术哲学思想继承了马克思主义特别是法兰克福学派的社会批判理论传统，广泛吸收了胡塞尔和海德格尔的现象学、西蒙栋和吉尔的技术哲学、德里达的解构主义、勒鲁瓦-古兰和梅林·唐纳德的人类学以及现代自然科学等诸多思想资源，建构了一种独特的直面当代数字化资本主义社会现实的激进批判话语，这使他成为当代西方社会批判理论阵营中最重要的代表人物之一。
其主要代表作有：《技术与时间》（1994-2001）、《象征的贫困》（2004-2005）、《怀疑和失信》（2004-2006）、《构成欧洲》（2005）、《新政治经济学批判》（2009）等。
在这次研讨课上，我们将尝试用同一思路对马克思和海德格尔进行阅读、思考和解读。
During this seminar, we will try to read, think and interpret Marx and Heidegger in the same movement of thinking.
我们将以外在化问题来引导这种双重阅读和提问——外在化就是通常所说的技术。但需要注意的是，作为外在化的技术，是作为生命进化的器官形成的一个阶段而出现的。从这个角度来看，技术不是生命的对立面，而是生命的进化，一种借助生命之外的其他手段而实现的生命的延续。
It is the question of exosomatisation that will lead this double reading and questioning—exosomatisation being what one calls more generally technics. But thus considered, as exosomatisation, technics appears as a stage of organogenesis that the evolution of life is. In such a view, technics is not the opposite of life, but its evolution, a continuation of life by other means than life.
如拉马克所言，一个生物就是一个有机体，而这些有机体的进化就是一种器官形成。始于两三百万年前的人化过程，也是外在化的开始，即人的身体开始产生体外器官，而体外器官就是人造器官：非有机的器官。我也称之为器官学意义上的器官。
A living being is an organism, as it was said by Lamarck, and the evolution of these organisms is an organogenesis. Hominisation, which begins between two and three million years ago, is also the beginning of an exosomatisation where the human body begins to produce exosomatic organs, that are artificial organs—non-organic organs—I call also organological organs.
这就是通常所说的技术。现在，如果我们同意任何事物作为这种外在化、外化或客观化的产物都是技术性的，那么我们就必须说，因为语言是一种社会生产，所以它属于外在化。从这个意义上说，语言也属于技术。
This is what is generally called technics. Now, if we agree to say that every thing that is the product of such an exosomatisation, of such an ex-teriorisation, or ex-ternalisation, is technical, then, we must say that language, as it is a social production, belongs to exosomatisation, and in this sense, belongs to technics.
而我试图用我称之为一般器官学和药理学的一些概念来思考技术。
Technics is what I try to think with the concepts of what I call:
1. general organology and
2. pharmacology.
作为进化的一个阶段，作为器官形成的目标，在这个意义上，也作为借助有序的无机物组织而实现的生命——一种有机物组织——的延续，技术必然属于这样一个过程，即自从埃尔温·薛定谔以来就被称为否定的愤或负熵的过程。现在，
1. 为了说明负熵，我们必须首先理解什么是熵；
2. 我们必须考察一下有序的无机物组织是否打开了某种不同于熵和负熵的东西的可能性。
As a stage of evolution, as the pursuit of the organogenesis, and, in this sense, as the continuation of the life—an organisation of matter as organic matter—by an organization of matter as organised inorganic matter, technics necessarily belongs to this process that is called, since Erwin Schrodinger, the negative entropy, or negentropy. Now,
1. to think negentropy, we must first understand what is entropy.
2. We must check whether organised inorganic matter opens the possibility of something that is different from entropy as well as negentropy.
埃尔温·薛定谔（1887-1961），奥地利物理学家、量子力学奠基人之一。曾获诺贝尔物理学奖（1933）、马克斯·普朗克奖章（1937）。苏黎世大学、柏林大学和格拉茨大学教授。其代表作有：《波动力学四讲》（1928/1952）、《生命是什么？——活细胞的物理面貌》（1946）等。
这里值得注意的是，相对于海德格尔，马克思不可能知道负熵概念。即使恩格斯在《自然辩证法》中谈到熵，他也不会想到它的新内涵。至于海德格尔，他绝不会在关于存在与生成的思想中考虑到熵和负熵。
Here it is very important to notice that, contrary to Heidegger, Marx couldn't know the concept of negentropy. Now, even if Engels will talk about entropy in his Dialectics of nature, he will not really take its novelty into account. As to Heidegger, Heidegger will never consider entropy and negentropyin his thought of being and becoming.
这次研讨课的目的是重新思考政治经济学，即一种从所谓的人类纪——它是生物圈中熵率的巨大而迅速的增长——的语境和我所说的逆人类纪的角度而展开的新政治经济学批判。
The goal of this seminar is to rethink political economy, a new critic of political economy, in the context of what one calls the Anthropocene—a huge and fast increasing of the rate of entropy in the biosphere—and in the perspective of what I will call the Neganthropocene.
我们的目标就是在由熵与负熵在我们的外在化的生命形式领域中所打开的问题域下，通过重新阅读马克思和海德格尔来达到这一概念——而我们外在化的生命形式就是我们生活在地球上的人类在人类纪时代，亦即在海德格尔所说的座架的具体化时代的中断之中[所经历的存在形式]。
The goal is to reach such a concept through a new reading of Marx and Heidegger under the light of the questions opened by entropy and negentropy in the sphere of the exosomatic form of life that is ours—as humankind living on the earth and in the era of Anthropocene, that is, also, in the disruption, which is the age of the concretisation of Heidegger called the Gestell.
人类纪是一种地质学新纪元，已有250年的历史。随着工业化和资本主义的发展，这种存在也进入外在化历史的新阶段。
我将尝试说明，这个新纪元为什么和怎样能够被克服而且必须被克服。
Anthropocene is a geological era, that appeared two hundred and fifty years ago, with industrialisation and capitalism, this being also a new stage in the history of exosomatisation.
l will try to show you why and how this era can and must be overcome.
作为一个巨大的、系统的和极其快速的熵的增长过程，人类纪必然会导致所有生命的毁灭，而人类生命则首当其冲。此外，作为正在破坏一切社会系统的数字化中断，即贝特兰·吉尔和尼克拉斯·卢曼意义上的用超级控制技术（即所谓的算法治理术）取代社会系统，人类纪的目的也是试图推行一种新的意识形态，即超人类主义。
As a huge, systemic and extremely fast process of increasing of entropy, the Anthropocene necessarily leads to the destruction of all kind of life, and first, of the human life. Besides, as the digital disruption that is currently destroying all kinds of social systems, in the sense of Bertrand Gille and Niklas Luhmann, replacing them by technologies of hypercontrol, that is called algorithmic governmentality, the end of the Anthropocene is also the attempt to impose a new ideology, that is called transhumanism.
贝特兰·吉尔（1920-1980），法国技术史学家。提出技术系统理论，曾任法国巴黎第一大学教授。其代表作有：《技术史》（1978）等。
尼克拉斯·卢曼（1927-1998），当代德国著名社会学家、社会系统论的创新者。其代表作有：《社会系统》（1984）、《社会的社会》（1998）等。
超人类主义是一种关于新的外在化阶段的话语，这种新的外在化阶段也是一种新的内在化，比如利用神经技术从外部转化到大脑的内部——后面我会回到这个话题。超人类主义不仅是一种意识形态，也是一种新的市场营销，它有自己的大学，即奇点大学，它想使市场成为外在化即进化的唯一标准来源。
Transhumanism is a discourse concerning a new stage of exosomatisation, that is also a new kind of endosomatisation, using for example neurotechnologies for transforming the interior of the brain from the exterior—I will come back to this topic later. Transhumanism is not only an ideology, but also a new kind of marketing, that has its own university, called the university of the Singularity, that want to make the market the unique source of criteria for this evolution that exosomatisation is.
克服人类纪就要反对这种意识形态，反对这种市场营销，进而实现这样一种外在化的市场和经济革命运动，我称之为逆人类纪的到来。
我认为，这样一种解读是可能和必要的，即把海德格尔的座架和生成概念理解为人类纪意义上的外在化，将生成理解为逆人类纪。
And I will try to show you that it is possible and necessary to interpret Heidegger's concepts of Gestell and Ereignis as exosomatization in the Anthropocene and Ereignis as Neganthropocene.
逆人类纪是一种对经济的新理解。在这种经济中，原始价值是负熵，也就是说，组织既建立在多样性生物多样性不断增长的基础之上，也建立在非多样性，比如知识的不断增长的基础之上。知识的确至少是负熵的。但是，我们可能还可以说，知识不仅是负熵的，而且是负人类的。
Neganthropocene is a new understanding of what is economy. In such an economy, the primordial value is negentropy—the organisation as it is based on the increasing of diversity-biodiversity as well as no diversity, that is, as knowledge. Knowledge is indeed, at least, negentropic. But we will see that we could say that knowledge is neguanthropic and not only neguentropy.
马克思和恩格斯是提出外在化的第一代思想家：这就涉及他们在《德意志意识形态》中所论述的内容，我们将在下一次课上回到这个文本。现在我们要说的是，作为一种器官形成的延续，作为一种生命的延续和负熵的延续，外在化不是器官的，而是器官学的，这意味着由外在化产生、并作为外在化的人造器官，既是负熵的，又是熵的。
Marx and Engels were the first thinkers of exosomatisation, this is what is described in The German Ideology, and we of course will go back to this text in the next courses. Now, exosomatisation, as a continuation of the organogenesis, that is of life, and then, of neguentropy, is not organic, but organologic, and this means that the artificial organs that are produced by and as exosomatisation are both negentropic and entropic.
体外器官的双重结构意味着，这些器官就是古希腊苏格拉底所说的药。这就带来了两个问题：
1. 从负熵——正如负人类———即外在化的角度重新诠释马克思何以可能？
2. 正如人造器官也是熵的一样——有时它也被称为人类活动，从人造器官的两面性所引出的药理学问题角度，重新诠释马克思何以可能？
This double-sided structure of the exosomatic organs means that these organs are pharmaka , as it is said in ancient Greece by Socrates. And here appear to us two questions.
How is it possible to reinterpret Marx,
1. under the light of negentropy—even as neguanthropy—that is the exosomatisation?
2. as the pharmacological question posed by the double-sided of artificial organs as they are also entropic—and that is sometimes also called anthropisation?
我们将结合今天正在发展着的、不可或缺的和普遍的自动化的语境，回到《大纲》中关于机器和自动化的章节来探讨这些问题。现在，我就来谈一下这种语境，介绍一下这种历史学的和具有历史性的境况，在这种境况中，我们今天必须阅读马克思。
所有这些都将引导我们从新的角度来阅读海德格尔。
We will go to the chapter on machines and automation in the Grundrisse to situate those questions in our context of integral and generalized automation that is currently rising. And l will talk now about this context, in order to introduce the historical and geschichtlich situation in which we must read Marx today.
All of this will lead us to read Heidegger in a new light.
我之前在准备这次研讨课时，就决定稍微改变一下它的课程安排——具体来说，我觉得改变一下开场讲座的顺序，即首先概述讲座语境的主要特点，并提出我们要讨论的话题——其目的是向我的听众提一个特别的建议：从事跨学科研究，这是由作为人类纪、工业革命和资本主义所带来的技术突变所提出的要求。
Hurrying at the last moment to finish the preparations for this seminar, I have decided to slightly rearrange its schedule—to be specific, I have decided to change the order of the opening sessions, and to begin with a description of the main features of the context within which I propose the topics that will here be addressed—with the aim of introducing my audience to a specific proposal: to undertake the transdisciplinary work that is required as a result of those technological mutations brought about by the Anthropocene, the industrial revolution, and capitalism.
这个建议是为了便于理解我所说的一般器官学。它本身被理解为这样一种理论平台，即用来具体说明在每一知识场的不同学科之间的可通约的各种术语。这个平台从三个平行的、但不可分离的层面界定了分析、思考和规定人类事实的规则，这三个层面是：
1. 心理的层面，即有机器官的体内的层面；
2. 人造的层面，即器官学意义上的器官的体外的层面；
3. 社会的层面，即机构组织或团体的组织性的层面。
This proposal is for what I call a general organology, itself understood as a theoretical platform specifying the terms of an agreement between the disciplines in every field of knowledge. This platform defines the rules for analysing, thinking and prescribing human facts at three parallel but in dissociable levels:
1. the psychosomatic, which is the endosomatic level of organic organs;
2. the artifactual, which is the exosomatic level of organological organs;
3. the social, which is the organisational level of institutional organisms or of corporations.
因此，这就包含了对有机器官、技术器官和社会组织之间的关系的分析——实际上，我们的出发点内含着这样一种观点：人类的心理器官总是与人造器官相联系而存在，而这种联系又总是被社会组织所规定着，同时社会组织本身又被同一人造器官及其与人类心理器官的安排所过度决定着。
Hence this involves an analysis of the relations between organic organs, technical organs and social organizations given that our point of departure consists in the claim that a human psychosomatic organ always exists in a relationship with artificial organs, and that this relationship is always prescribed by social organisations, where the latter are themselves overdetermined by those same artificial organs and their arrangement with human psychosomatic organs.
这里，我必须补充一下——当然，我会在接下来的课中做进一步说明——这样一种情况总是有可能的，即心理器官和人造器官之间的安排会变得对有机器官，进而对有机器官所栖居的身体产生毒性和破坏性。也就是说，一般器官学就是一种药理学。
I must add here—and I will of course develop this in the coming sessions—that it is always possible for the arrangements between these psychosomatic and artifactual organs to become toxic and destructive for the organic organs, and hence also for the body within which they dwell. In other words, a general organology is a pharmacology.
前面已经说过，在做进一步解释之前，让我们对我们现在的[时代]语境做一个说明。这是人类所从属的一个新纪元，它从克鲁岑开始就被指认为人类纪。
This having been said, and before explaining these points any further, let's engage ourselves with a specification of our current context, as humans who belong to an era that since Crutzen has been referred to as the Anthropocene.
保罗·约瑟夫·克鲁岑（1933-2021），荷兰大气化学家、诺贝尔化学奖得主（1995）。自2000年首次提出“人类纪”概念以来，该思想已对地质学、环境科学、人类学以及技术哲学等众多领域产生广泛影响。其代表作有：《人类纪》（2000）、《人类地质学》（2002）等。
我认为，十年前我们就已经进入了超级工业时代，这是一个严重象征性贫困的纪元。它导致欲望的结构性毁灭，也就是说，它摧毁了力比多经济，即投机的市场营销，而已经变得具有霸权性，并系统性地利用各种驱力，而这些驱力的一切附属物都被剥夺了。
l argued ten years ago that we have entered the hyper-industrial age, that ours is an epoch of great symbolic misery, and that this leads to the structural destruction of desire, that is, it ruins the libidinal economy speculative marketing, having become hegemonic, systematically exploits the drives, which are divested of every attachment.
象征性贫困源于所谓的感性的机械转向（尼古拉斯·杜宁有着同样的说法），这是一种器官学意义上的变化，即把个人的感性生活置于大众传媒的永恒控制之下。
Symbolic misery derives from what, with Nicolas Donin, we call the mechanical turn of sensibility, that is an organological change, which places the sensory life of the individual under the permanent control of the mass media.
象征性贫困的原因和欲望的毁灭既是经济学的，也是器官学的：它既与那种消费主义模式有关，也与20世纪初期借助文化工业和大众传媒来俘获和控制消费者的注意力的各种工具有关。这些由市场营销控制的工具绕过消费者关于如何生活的知识，使他们在这些方面发生短路。
The causes of symbolic misery and the destruction of de-sire are both economic and organological—it is a matter both of the consumerist model, and of those instruments that capture and harness consumer attention, implemented by the culture industries and the mass media at the beginning of the twentieth century. These instruments, controlled by marketing, bypass and short-circuit the savoir-vivre of consumers, their knowledge of how to live.
由此，消费者就被无产阶级化了，正如19世纪的生产者被使关于如何做的知识发生短路的工具所无产阶级化一样，后者在20世纪早期就被彻底完成了。
Consumers are thereby proletarianized, just as producers had been proletarianized in the nineteenth century by instruments that short-circuited their savoir-faire, their knowledge of how to make and do, this being fully accomplished at the beginning of the twentieth century.
在生产和消费中，这种工业性的捕获注意力也改变了这种注意力：
1. 注意力是通过教育，通过认同（这是在弗洛伊德意义上而言的第一认同和第二认同）过程而塑造的，关于如何生活的知识占据着代际关系的核心，而构成这种代际关系的教育是精致而复杂的；
2. 养育子女就是以独特的方式传递一种关于如何生活的知识，然后子女会接着将这种教育以独特的方式传递给他或她的伙伴、朋友、家庭以及无论远近的同辈人；
3. 通过教育的一切途径——包括教学——所塑造的东西正是工业性的捕获注意力所系统性地改变的东西。
In production as well as in consumption, this industrial capture of attention also deforms this attention.
1. Attention is formed through education, via processes of identification (in the sense of Freud, that is, as primary and secondary identifications), an education which constitutes intergenerational relations at the core of which the knowledge of how to live is elaborated.
2. To raise a child is to singularly transmit a savoir-vivre, which they will singularly transmit in their turn—to his or her comrades, friends, family and peers, both near and distant.
3. What is formed through all the pathways of education—including teaching—is that which the industrial capture of attention systematically de-forms.
欲望经济是通过认同和超个体化的过程而形成的，并与作为通过转移驱力的社会投资目标来约束驱力的诸多能力的代际关系相互交织着。注意力的工业性变形和转移绕过了这些认同和超个体化的过程，并使它们发生短路。这样一来，由去符号化的消费者资本主义导致的象征性贫困就不可避免地导致力比多经济的毁灭。
The economy of desire is formed through processes of identification and transindividuation, woven in the course of intergenerational relations as the set of capacities to bind the drives by diverting their aims towards social investments. The industrial deformation and diversion of attention short-circuits and bypasses these processes of identification and transindividuation. As such, the symbolic misery imposed by consumer capitalism, which amounts to de-symbolization, leads inevitably to the destruction of the libidinal economy.
在20世纪下半叶，这个以工业方式捕获注意力的时代发生持续衰落：在60年代，未成年人的“可用大脑时间”成为视听大众传媒的首要目标。但是到了20世纪末，通过各种节目和特别频道——比如“宝贝第一”这档属于福克斯电视台的频道，婴幼儿的大脑时间被从情感环境和社会环境中转移出来而成为[大众传媒的新的]目标。
During the second half of the twentieth century, there was a continual decrease of the age at which attention was captured in an industrial way: in the sixties, juvenile “available brain time” constituted the prime target of the audiovisual mass media, but by the end of the century, it was infantile brain time that was being targeted and diverted from its affective and social environment, via all manner of programs and specialized channels—like “Baby First”, a channel belonging to Fox TV.
欲望的对象渴望能够颠覆支撑它的驱力的诸目标。但是它能够做到这一点，只是因为它不仅仅是存在着：它构成了自身，因此它不限制自身，即它超越了一切计算。欲望就是投入对象之中，体验它的一致性，因此，消灭欲望就是清除一切依恋和一切忠诚，即一切信任——没有这些，任何经济都是不可能的——从而最终清除一切信仰和一切信用。
The object of desire is desired to the point of inverting the goals of the drives that support it, but this is so only because it does more than just exist: it consists, and as such, it infinitizes itself, that is, it exceeds all calculation. To desire is to invest in an object, and to experience its consistence, and hence, to destroy desire is to liquidate all attachment and all fidelity, that is, all confidence-without which no economy is possible—and ultimately, it is to liquidate all belief, and therefore, all credit.
欲望的对象产生一种生命的自发的信仰，这种信仰通过这个具有超凡力量的对象来展现自身。在爱能够赋予那些没有生命的东西——通常没有生命的——以生命的意义上，所有的爱都是幻想性的。但是，因为这种爱的幻想，这种阿卜杜勒-卡比尔·哈提比所说的“aimance”（译为英文就是“爱之为爱”）的幻想使文明获得最持久的形式，所以那种真实美妙的爱的感情就成为一种生命不断超越自身的超凡性知识的化身——由此，生命通过超越生命而创造着，就像生命借助生命之外的途径，通过持续的、不断增长的手段的进化与丰富而追求着。
The object of desire gives rise to a spontaneous belief in life that presents itself through this object as its extraordinary power. All love is phantasmal in the sense that it gives life to that which is not—to that which is ordinarily not. But because the fantasy of love, and of what Abdelkebir Khatibi called “aimance” (translated in English as “lovence”), is that which grants to civilizations their most durable forms, the literally fantastic sentiment in which love consists is the incarnation of a knowledge of the extra-ordinariness of life that constantly surpasses life-whereby life invents by going beyond life, and as the pursuit of life by means other than life, through the incessant and ever-increasing profusion and evolution of artifices.
这就是我对人类学家安德烈·勒鲁瓦-古兰所描述的外化即外在化运动的解读，目的是分析通过生命之外的途径进行生命创造的人化过程——作为一种工艺学的、器官学的和药理学的进化，它构成了地球上人类的生命难题。我们无权逃避这一难题，而这一难题将不断被技术发明再生产出来。
This is how I have interpreted the movement of exteriorisation—of exosomatisation—described by the anthropologist Andre Leroi-Gourhan in order to analyse the process of hominization as an invention of life by means other than life-as a technological, organological and pharmacological evolution that constitutes the human problem of life on earth, and the responsibility that we have not to evade this problem, which is constantly being remade by technical invention.
我们知道，严格地说，爱是一种技巧经验。它对于迷恋我们所爱之物是至关重要的，当我们停止爱它们时，我们就会看到这种爱恋情境的人造性质，正如我们被残忍地带回到日常生活的平庸之中。
Love, as we all know, is strictly speaking the experience of artifice. It is essential to fetishize the one we love, and when we stop loving them, we are confronted with the artificiality of the amorous situation, as we are brought brutally back to the ordinariness of quotidian life.
两三百万年前，生命开始穿越非生命的技巧——第一次出现亚里士多德所说的智性灵魂，即爱的灵魂正如我们从柏拉图（《会饮篇》中的狄奥提玛那里所学到的一样）。
Two or three million years ago, life began to pass through the non-living artifice—there first appears what Aristotle referred to as the noetic soul, that is, the soul that loves (as we learn from Diotima in Plato's Symposium).
这种非生命的技巧为生命保存了一种西蒙栋在生物经济学意义上所说的生命个体化的踪迹，以前这种生命个体化会在死亡中永远消失。后来，令吉尔斯·克莱门特惊讶的生命的创造力成为保罗·瓦莱里所描述的思想或精神的生命——随着现代性和资本主义自身的发展，它也变成精神的政治经济学，这种精神的政治经济学建立于工业技术，而后者现在对踪迹工业来说已变得至关重要。
The non-living artifice conserves for life a trace of what, in the biological economy that Simondon called vital individuation, would previously have been lost forever in death. The inventive power of life that amazed Gilles Clement thus becomes what Paul Valéry described as the life of the mind (or spirit)—which, with modernity and capitalism itself, becomes the political economy of spirit, founded on industrial technology that has today become essential to an industry of traces.
吉尔斯·克莱门特（1943-），法国园艺师、景观设计师、植物学家和昆虫学家。1998年获得法国国家景观奖。
消费者的无产阶级化、去符号化、非认同化以及痛苦的分娩使一切独特性都屈从于可计算性。而可计算性使当今世界变成一片荒漠，置身其中会荒谬而日益强烈地感到，随着工业创造得越来越多，结果却是生活被创造得越来越少——这种境况发展到极点就是保罗·瓦莱里在1939年所描述的“精神价值”的陨落。
The proletarianization of consumers, their de-symbolization, their dis-identification and their confinement within drive-based misery, subjects all singularities to the calculability that turns the contemporary world into a desert in which one feels, paradoxically and increasingly, that as industry innovates more and more, it somehow turns out that life is being invented less and less—a situation that takes to the extreme what Paul Valéry described in 1939 as the fall in “spirit value.”
保罗·瓦莱里（1871-1945），法国诗人、散文家、哲学家。法兰西学院院士。其代表作有：《旧诗稿》（1890-1900）、《年轻的命运女神》（1917）等。
从20世纪80年代开始，国家的衰落、战略性的市场营销和金融化的霸权被推行到世界和社会的每一个角落。紧随这些变化而来的是基于驱力的痛苦和投资缩减，并毁灭欲望，产生各种形式的怀疑、异教信仰和信用缺失，它们一直困扰着每一种权力形式、机构和商业，最终导致破产，这就是我们都看到的2008年爆发的大崩溃。
The decline of the state, and the hegemony of strategic marketing and financialization, were imposed throughout the entire world, and in every part of society, beginning in the nineteen eighties. Along with these changes came drive-based misery and disinvestment, ruining desire and introducing forms of disbelief, miscreance and discredit that continue to afflict every form of authority, every institution and every business, eventually leading to the insolvency that the collapse of 2008 exposed for all to see.
当前和最近的踪迹工业试图通过基于社会网络建立的自动化和自动主义控制驱力。然而，驱力归根到底是不可控制的，因此又试图通过这样一种方式来引导驱力，即通过数学算法来运行一种自动化的社会控制形式。但这最终将无济于事，却将驱力带向极其危险的境地，即通过分化它们而使其变成菲利克斯·瓜塔里和吉尔·德勒兹所说的“分割体”。之后我可能会回到这个话题。
The current and much more recent hegemony of the industry of traces tries to take control of the drives, through automation and automatisms founded on social networks. The drives are, however, ultimately uncontrollable, and hence to try and channel the drives in this way, by mathematical algorithms to exert an automated form of social control, will in the end do nothing but carry the drives to an extremely dangerous level, by dis-integrating them, turning them into what Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze called “dividuals”—and I will go back to this topic later.（完）
苇草智酷简介——
苇草智酷（全称：北京苇草智酷科技文化有限公司）是一家思想者社群组织。通过各种形式的沙龙、对话、培训、丛书编撰、论坛合作、专题咨询、音视频内容生产、国内外学术交流活动，以及每年一度的互联网思想者大会，苇草智酷致力于广泛联系和连接科技前沿、应用实践、艺术人文等领域的学术团体和个人，促成更多有意愿、有能力、有造诣的同道成为智酷社区的成员，共同交流思想，启迪智慧，重塑认知。
苇草智酷好文推荐斯蒂格勒 | 在人类纪阅读马克思：从《德意志意识形态》到《资本论》
刘永谋：斯蒂格勒思想的自我总结