2015年12月发表的文章(25)

[微言]大师温床

【2015-09-05】

@whigzhou: 自从公开谈论旧石器食谱之后,我才发现,要做大师真是太容易了,因为你很难说服他们相信你不是大师,就算你反复说“我们这套迷信”,并声明完全不懂代谢学和营养学,他们大概也会觉得这是大师常有的谦逊风范。

@whigzhou: 在贵国,谈点自己的想法、介绍点新思想之类的事情,也总是有类似遭遇,无论追捧者还是嘲讽者,往往都会基于“你是把它当作科学定论或权威观点来谈论的”这样一种假定来评价你的言辞,他们压根就不相(more...)

标签: |
6395
【2015-09-05】 @whigzhou: 自从公开谈论旧石器食谱之后,我才发现,要做大师真是太容易了,因为你很难说服他们相信你不是大师,就算你反复说“我们这套迷信”,并声明完全不懂代谢学和营养学,他们大概也会觉得这是大师常有的谦逊风范。 @whigzhou: 在贵国,谈点自己的想法、介绍点新思想之类的事情,也总是有类似遭遇,无论追捧者还是嘲讽者,往往都会基于“你是把它当作科学定论或权威观点来谈论的”这样一种假定来评价你的言辞,他们压根就不相信一个人可以只是谈论自己觉得有点道理或有点意思的想法,根本没兴趣教导、说服或改变你们。 @真玄兔:那你何必要对别人说呢,你把这话说出来之后,是否教导说服改变别人就不是你能决定得了的了。要对自己的话负责。平时我哪怕在网上随便发条评论有拿不准的地方都会先查一下 @whigzhou: 你把菜刀卖出去之后,人家是否拿去切鸡鸡就不是你能决定得了的。要对自己的刀负责。哪怕卖刀也要确保它切不动肉  
[微言]同性恋:遗传基础与制度宽容

【2015-08-26】

@调皮的王登科 看到 @李银河 的文章里写到,同性恋是基因遗传的,我就开了个脑洞,所有支持同性恋婚姻合法的国家,岂不是会让该国的同性恋灭绝么?所有反对同性恋的,反而会让同性恋延续,而支持同性恋的,则加速了同性恋的消失。不知道是不是这个道理。

@Ent_evo:1″同性恋是遗传的”其实是一个宣传口号,现实中性取向和所有其他属性一样都是先后天共同作用的结果;2自然界并没有任何立法禁止同性恋,但自然界中同性性行为一点都不罕见;3对于如此复杂的性状,区区一项政策十代之内都未必能看得见效果。

@whigzhou: A1)这说法确有遗传决定论之嫌,但原帖结论不依赖遗传决定论,恰恰相反,原帖结论的前提必须是性向表现由“先后天(more...)

标签: |
6393
【2015-08-26】 @调皮的王登科 看到 @李银河 的文章里写到,同性恋是基因遗传的,我就开了个脑洞,所有支持同性恋婚姻合法的国家,岂不是会让该国的同性恋灭绝么?所有反对同性恋的,反而会让同性恋延续,而支持同性恋的,则加速了同性恋的消失。不知道是不是这个道理。 @Ent_evo:1"同性恋是遗传的"其实是一个宣传口号,现实中性取向和所有其他属性一样都是先后天共同作用的结果;2自然界并没有任何立法禁止同性恋,但自然界中同性性行为一点都不罕见;3对于如此复杂的性状,区区一项政策十代之内都未必能看得见效果。 @whigzhou: A1)这说法确有遗传决定论之嫌,但原帖结论不依赖遗传决定论,恰恰相反,原帖结论的前提必须是性向表现由“先后天共同作用”,否则制度/文化怎么起作用? //@Ent_evo: 1"同性恋是遗传的"其实是一个宣传口号,现实中性取向和所有其他属性一样都是先后天共同作用的结果; @whigzhou: A2.1)偶发的、错误认知所导致的异常行为,不同于偏好或固有倾向,偶尔把尸体错当成活体异性,不等于恋尸癖;A2.2)没禁止也不罕见不等于立法禁止不能造成改变,1%和0.1%都不算罕见,但差了一个数量级 //@Ent_evo: 2自然界并没有任何立法禁止同性恋,但自然界中同性性行为一点都不罕见; @whigzhou: A3)这倒有可能,但也未必,如果文化/制度改变造成的同性恋生育率差异达到两位数百分点,并且遗传基础对此性状的贡献率很高,几代之内即可看到变化,当然,究竟能否看到,还要等经验数据 //@Ent_evo: 3对于如此复杂的性状,区区一项政策十代之内都未必能看得见效果。 @whigzhou: 生物学家会倾向于认为这样一个文化因素不足以在几代人中产生明显效果,这我能理解,因为对于一般生物,有着太多远更重要的其他因素影响遗传成就,而且在强大选择压力的持续作用下,这些因素的种内个体间差异不会很大,选择效果很难在短期表现出来 //@Ent_evo: 3对于如此复杂的性状,区区一项政策十代之内都未必能看得见效果。 @whigzhou: 可是现代人类(特别是发达国家居民)的条件很特别了,妨碍生育的其他压力都很松弛,偏好和意愿成为成为压倒性因素,而且事实表明,在不同文化的影响下,生育意愿的个体差异极大 @whigzhou: 说句题外话,考虑当前男性所面临的选择压力之结构,以及在此压力结构下的相对遗传优势,并据此推测未来变化时,高大上精英女性尤其是知识分子女性的偏好基本上可以忽略,因为她们基本上不生孩子,起了绝大部分作用的,是中低收入的、读书不多的、不大会在媒体上写文章的那些女性的偏好。 @暴走的羊驼君:还有一个道德评价让我感到困惑,如果命题,同性恋是由于基因遗传导致的,所以同性恋不是一种疾病。那其他的遗传病为什么又能算作病呢? @whigzhou: 呵呵,我也纳闷,其实我可以教他们一种更合理的说法:凡是当事人自己了解情况之后不觉得是个问题的事情,咱都别把它叫病 @孤胆鹰雄芯:这有个问题,就是比如精神分裂症这种精神疾病,患者的自知力是受到损害的,他们觉得自己没病,但是又缺乏自由意志,得被监护起来,那这算病吗? @whigzhou: 这样你就认为他没有“了解情况”并表达他“不觉得是个问题”的意志能力嘛 【参考】宽容是同性恋的坟墓?  
[微言]计件工资与工资刚性

【2015-08-26】

@研二公知苗 请教个问题,张五常认为失业是因为禁止计件工资的合同安排导致的,是不是可以说他的失业理论实际上就是黏性工资理论的另一个版本?

@Stimmung:我觉得差不多,只不过一个是说价格,一个说合约结构。一个宏观一个微观

@whigzhou: 区别还是蛮大的,张五常说的是,因为禁止计件工资,即便劳动价格在边际上有利可图,生产者也不敢雇佣,因为固定工资带来较高上头成本

@whi(more...)

标签: | |
6391
【2015-08-26】 @研二公知苗 请教个问题,张五常认为失业是因为禁止计件工资的合同安排导致的,是不是可以说他的失业理论实际上就是黏性工资理论的另一个版本? @Stimmung:我觉得差不多,只不过一个是说价格,一个说合约结构。一个宏观一个微观 @whigzhou: 区别还是蛮大的,张五常说的是,因为禁止计件工资,即便劳动价格在边际上有利可图,生产者也不敢雇佣,因为固定工资带来较高上头成本 @whigzhou: 而工资粘性说的是,由于工资议价很难将价格往下压,所以当供求水平向下变化时,均衡只能通过减少雇佣来恢复;在微观上,这也是两种完全不同的机制
[微言]细软跑和配套优势

【2015-08-26】

@whigzhou: 现在做个细软基金正是时候。

@小野猪君:可人民币都跌了呀

@whigzhou: 跌这点算什么,而且美股跌的更多啊,足偿有余

@whigzhou: 宏观经济学是很不靠谱,各种预测也是胡扯居多,但有一条还是非常确定的:每次炸坑的时候大家都往美国逃,这个不会错

@鬼Dora:美中现在强捆绑,一条船上的蚂蚱,不存在谁崩盘谁独善其身。

@whigzhou: 没那么强,今天的产业生态和过去很不同了(more...)

标签:
6389
【2015-08-26】 @whigzhou: 现在做个细软基金正是时候。 @小野猪君:可人民币都跌了呀 @whigzhou: 跌这点算什么,而且美股跌的更多啊,足偿有余 @whigzhou: 宏观经济学是很不靠谱,各种预测也是胡扯居多,但有一条还是非常确定的:每次炸坑的时候大家都往美国逃,这个不会错 @鬼Dora:美中现在强捆绑,一条船上的蚂蚱,不存在谁崩盘谁独善其身。 @whigzhou: 没那么强,今天的产业生态和过去很不同了,有了像富士康这么强大的供应链组织者,产业搬家已变得很容易,全球市场会受点冲击,但很快会缓过来 @whigzhou: 在经历集装箱革命和供应链革命之后,跨国公司在全球重新配置产业链的能力已大幅提升,转移起来很快,比多数人想象都要快  
[微言]旧石器与肉食

【2015-08-25】

@whigzhou: 一个基本历史背景:旧石器时代晚期(也叫中石器时代),人类经历了一次认知革命(也叫文化大爆炸),除其他进步之外,狩猎能力大幅提升,很可能与弓箭的发明有关,导致人类种群及地理分布的又一次大扩张,不像第一波走出非洲时紧贴海岸线,这次扩张横扫欧亚大陆腹地,后来又竖刷美洲大陆……

@whigzhou: 这一过程伴随着大批大型哺乳动物灭绝,而此时人类尚无力破坏动物栖息地,这些动物只能是被吃掉的,所以至少在那几万年里,我们祖先(more...)

标签: |
6387
【2015-08-25】 @whigzhou: 一个基本历史背景:旧石器时代晚期(也叫中石器时代),人类经历了一次认知革命(也叫文化大爆炸),除其他进步之外,狩猎能力大幅提升,很可能与弓箭的发明有关,导致人类种群及地理分布的又一次大扩张,不像第一波走出非洲时紧贴海岸线,这次扩张横扫欧亚大陆腹地,后来又竖刷美洲大陆…… @whigzhou: 这一过程伴随着大批大型哺乳动物灭绝,而此时人类尚无力破坏动物栖息地,这些动物只能是被吃掉的,所以至少在那几万年里,我们祖先着实吃了很多肉,直到新仙女木到来,吃肉条件恶化,然后一部分族群转向农业,但从农业起源到谷物变成绝对主食,还要过好几千年,而有些族群从未转向谷物…… @从不造谣自干五:美洲的马为啥会被吃掉 @whigzhou: 马最早都是捉来吃的,欧亚也是,马被驯化后的最初几千年里,也是宰了吃的,后来才用来驮物、拉车,再后来才用于骑乘,较普遍的骑乘历史只有三千多年 @whigzhou: 据说早期的马过于矮小,不适合骑乘,而且方便的骑乘还要很多马具,都有待一样样发明出来  
[微言]可得材料与方法论

【2015-08-15】

@whigzhou: 历史学(按年代和文明而分的)各领域,方法论差异极大,乃至形成不同学派,这种分化的主要原因,依我看,是可得材料的数量和性质差异,材料少的可怜时,研究者必须放宽视野,从更一般原理做推断,拟构出最合理的假说,材料多而难懂时,则侧重于解码,材料多而质量差时,则重考据,至于量化研究……

@whigzhou: 那些在特定领域选定或创造了适当方法论的历史学家,便有机会成为该领域之宗师,(more...)

标签: |
6384
【2015-08-15】 @whigzhou: 历史学(按年代和文明而分的)各领域,方法论差异极大,乃至形成不同学派,这种分化的主要原因,依我看,是可得材料的数量和性质差异,材料少的可怜时,研究者必须放宽视野,从更一般原理做推断,拟构出最合理的假说,材料多而难懂时,则侧重于解码,材料多而质量差时,则重考据,至于量化研究…… @whigzhou: 那些在特定领域选定或创造了适当方法论的历史学家,便有机会成为该领域之宗师,与其方法论所对应的禀赋、旨趣、特长、技术,塑造了这门学科的气质,一旦确立,与之不合者便不为其所容,于是一个学派便固化了下来,革新力量只能来自外部。  
[微言]贫富差距与统计幻觉

【2015-08-11】

@海德沙龙 【焦点议题】有关贫富差距的数字常令公众大吃一惊,但许多抓人眼球的惊人“差距、变化”,其实往往是统计假象,其背后根本没有人们以为它所揭示的事实,同一组数据,平凡还是惊艳,更多取决于如何组织和表述它,本文分析了其中一例,今后我们还会介绍更多 http://t.cn/RLmCHik

@whigzhou: 所以在对统计数字发出感慨之前,最好先弄清楚统计指标是怎么设计的,然后再想想差异或变化到底是不是你打算感叹的那个因素造成的。举个简单例子,假如(more...)

标签: | |
6382
【2015-08-11】 @海德沙龙 【焦点议题】有关贫富差距的数字常令公众大吃一惊,但许多抓人眼球的惊人“差距、变化”,其实往往是统计假象,其背后根本没有人们以为它所揭示的事实,同一组数据,平凡还是惊艳,更多取决于如何组织和表述它,本文分析了其中一例,今后我们还会介绍更多 http://t.cn/RLmCHik @whigzhou: 所以在对统计数字发出感慨之前,最好先弄清楚统计指标是怎么设计的,然后再想想差异或变化到底是不是你打算感叹的那个因素造成的。举个简单例子,假如收入基尼系数以家户为统计单位,那么仅仅年轻人提早离家单过、家户规模缩小这一个因素,即可显著提高基尼系数。 @用户3548260260:这篇。。。完全就是逆向恰亚诺夫循环呀。之前在秦晖桑书上说到一个俄国民粹派专家叫恰亚诺夫,他推崇俄国传统村社经济,要反驳西化派关于乡村不平等的批判,就找出了年岁变换这个要素。据他研究,一个家庭中,有小孩时就会成本上升, @whigzhou: 家户规模是我举的例子,原文是有关时间偏好的 @用户3548260260:是的,不过我想他们都指向一点,就是也许贫富差距不一定是意味着社会分层,也蕴含着其它可能,而常常被好心人士忽略咯,就像你说的一样,也像常说的一句话:统计是门语言,不是科学 @whigzhou: 嗯嗯  
[微言]理想对话者

【2015-08-11】

@熊观七路:辉格老师所持的无镇腹主义更倾向于大卫.弗里德曼吗?

@whigzhou: 比较能相容,但也有很大不同,哲学基础上,他是功利主义,虽然是我比较能接受的版本,但和我们契约主义还是有着深层区别,现实问题上,他大概接受不了我的很多亲保守派主张,但无论如何,对我来说,他都符合最理想对话者的条件

@whigzhou: 所谓理想对话者,就是三分钟内即可hedge出各自论点,找出分歧(more...)

标签: |
6380
【2015-08-11】 @熊观七路:辉格老师所持的无镇腹主义更倾向于大卫.弗里德曼吗? @whigzhou: 比较能相容,但也有很大不同,哲学基础上,他是功利主义,虽然是我比较能接受的版本,但和我们契约主义还是有着深层区别,现实问题上,他大概接受不了我的很多亲保守派主张,但无论如何,对我来说,他都符合最理想对话者的条件 @whigzhou: 所谓理想对话者,就是三分钟内即可hedge出各自论点,找出分歧所在,并在五分钟内将讨论转向经验事实的认定方面(这方面的分歧总是难以也不应指望在短时间内消除),相反,碰到糟糕对话者,大伯我就只好把精力都花在剃头上了。
[微言]哲学、主义和主张

【2015-08-11】

@黄章晋ster:因为他们俩大致属于同一个生态位。

@tertio:右边这个判断错得太离谱了吧,这等于说安兰德与哈耶克一个生态位

@whigzhou: 教官说的是事实,虽然我对这一事实何以出现也是大惑不解。刚花了十几分钟想了想,这似乎揭示了有关政治生态、政治光谱,以及政治倾向如何结晶成派系的某些一般模式

@whigzhou: 为说明这情况,我需要先做一点预备性论证。对个人而言,从哲学基础,到主义(或者叫政治信条,表现为一组标签),再到具体的政治主张(more...)

标签: | |
6378
【2015-08-11】 @黄章晋ster:因为他们俩大致属于同一个生态位。 @tertio:右边这个判断错得太离谱了吧,这等于说安兰德与哈耶克一个生态位 @whigzhou: 教官说的是事实,虽然我对这一事实何以出现也是大惑不解。刚花了十几分钟想了想,这似乎揭示了有关政治生态、政治光谱,以及政治倾向如何结晶成派系的某些一般模式 @whigzhou: 为说明这情况,我需要先做一点预备性论证。对个人而言,从哲学基础,到主义(或者叫政治信条,表现为一组标签),再到具体的政治主张,可以形成一个连贯而自洽的体系,但从群体表现看,事情不是按这个逻辑发生的,光谱、主义、派系,可以在这三个层次的任意一个上汇聚结晶,结果就是若干团乱麻。 @whigzhou: 因为绝大多数人不会将自己的反思深入到哲学层次,所以,除了一小撮有哲学兴趣的人之间,结晶通常发生在后两个层次上 @whigzhou: 至于后两个层次哪个优先,取决于特定制度环境下,表达机会和参与机会之前的相对关系,假如表达机会很多,参与机会很少,则结晶倾向于在第二个层次(即主义层次)上发生,反之,若参与机会相对较多,则结晶更多发生在第三层次(即主张层次)上 @whigzhou: 注意:我说的参与机会并不直接对应结铛或投票的机会,而是更一般的指,以自身行动改变政治进程的可能性,比如同样是票决制或代议制,越是下层的地方性事务,个人参与就越大,而在联邦层面,大部分以为自己在参与的人,其实不过是在表达 @whigzhou: 问题是,第二个层次上的共同点,虽然在站队(更贴切说是虚拟站队)时最具号召力,却往往是最肤浅也最没用的,举个较纯粹的例子,罗斯巴德和大卫·弗里德曼常被一起归为Libertarian和市场无镇腹主义,但这两位无论在哲学基础上,还是现实主张上,可以说毫无共同之处(除了都用英语写作之外) 。 @whigzhou: 草,对付关键词屏蔽花了二十分钟,本来还想多说几句,太麻烦,算了~
[微言]历史哲学与历史学

【2015-08-10】

@冬川豆 “在可以预见的未来,认同政治的历史影响将会凌驾于共识政治之上。我之所以要给读者提供认知训练,就是为了让他们在即将来临的决断时刻正确判断形势。骰子落地以前,机会千金难买;骰子一旦落地,坐失良机者必定后悔莫及。”《读史早知今日事——<经与史>跋》 http://t.cn/RLEXoZc

@whigzhou: 我来概括一下吧,本文大概表达了三点意思。A)我们需要某种历史哲学吗?需要。这点 我完全同意,理由见托马斯·库恩(more...)

标签: |
6376
【2015-08-10】 @冬川豆 “在可以预见的未来,认同政治的历史影响将会凌驾于共识政治之上。我之所以要给读者提供认知训练,就是为了让他们在即将来临的决断时刻正确判断形势。骰子落地以前,机会千金难买;骰子一旦落地,坐失良机者必定后悔莫及。”《读史早知今日事——<经与史>跋》 http://t.cn/RLEXoZc @whigzhou: 我来概括一下吧,本文大概表达了三点意思。A)我们需要某种历史哲学吗?需要。这点 我完全同意,理由见托马斯·库恩,如我常说的:1)不戴上某副眼镜,你啥也看不见,2)眼镜质量严重影响观看效果;3)假如你以为自己没戴眼镜,那其实只是因为你对自己所戴眼镜缺乏自省,而这往往意味着你那副眼镜质量很差 @whigzhou: B)第二点意思可以用我的两勺旧鸡汤概括:1)等科学证据来了再行动(或判断),是很不科学的;2)一个理性的人,会利用任何线索(无论有多微弱)来调整自己的判断和行动,以不合科学评审标准而放弃这样的机会,是很不理性的 @whigzhou: 好,现在最精彩的部分来了,C)那么历史哲学究竟价值何在?答:它把历史学变成了狗屎,正如科学哲学把科学变成了狗屎,历史哲学是文明曙光,历史学则是文明朽坏之际发出的腐臭 #神奇大逆转# @whigzhou: #大伯剃头学#  
[微言]最低工资法

【2015-08-06】

@海德沙龙 自去年奥巴马开始发起提高最低工资的运动以来,康涅狄格率先响应,立法要求最低时薪两年内提高至$10.10,此后一些城市也迅速跟进,其中以加州城市最为积极,目前流行的口号是15美元,西雅图也于去年6月通过了法案,本文介绍了最低工资法的一种荒唐后果 http://t.cn/RLYmuRB

@whigzhou: 最低工资法是常见干预措施中最恶劣的一种(我本来想用恶毒/卑劣/无耻等道德意味更明确的词汇,不过想想还是算了,总不能完全排(more...)

标签: | | | |
6374
【2015-08-06】 @海德沙龙 自去年奥巴马开始发起提高最低工资的运动以来,康涅狄格率先响应,立法要求最低时薪两年内提高至$10.10,此后一些城市也迅速跟进,其中以加州城市最为积极,目前流行的口号是15美元,西雅图也于去年6月通过了法案,本文介绍了最低工资法的一种荒唐后果 http://t.cn/RLYmuRB @whigzhou: 最低工资法是常见干预措施中最恶劣的一种(我本来想用恶毒/卑劣/无耻等道德意味更明确的词汇,不过想想还是算了,总不能完全排除愚蠢的可能),它把最脆弱无助但又愿意通过自身努力改善生活的人残忍的驱逐出了劳动市场。正因其荒谬和恶劣程度,它也是观察公共政策氛围已恶化到何种程度的一个风向标。 @whigzhou: 对于无知起哄者,最低工资法是表达其伪善的最廉价方式,其主张无异于宣称,为改变穷人命运,你无须任何努力,只要改改数字就行,就像以为只要在脸书上点点赞就能帮助非洲难民,而这种廉价良心安慰法,正是某些政客最乐意兜售的 @whigzhou: 对于某些精明政客,借助最低工资法将最弱势群体驱逐出劳动市场,也为其继续兜售福利主义政策创造了需求,这一手法类似于秃蚣当年在农村发动割命时,通过破坏刻意农民的生计基础、制造仇恨,来为自己创造“群众基础”和炮灰来源 @lion_kittyyyyy:最低工资在美国历史上第一次出现就是为了挤出劳动力的。1911年在马塞诸塞州,妇女的收入在每周5刀-7刀,低于当时的最低生活标准。于是,最低工资倡议者H. LaRue Brown写道:“我们付出社会最宝贵的财富…(劳动)毁掉了那些本该成为高效的美国公民的女孩的身体。” @lion_kittyyyyy:1912年,马塞诸塞州通过了全国第一个最低工资法案,仅针对妇女与18岁以下儿童。
[译文]波士顿市民为何拒绝奥运会

Why Boston’s Sports Fans Rejected the Olympics Boondoggle—and L.A. Said Bring It On
为什么波士顿的体育迷拒绝承办劳民伤财的奥运会——而洛杉矶却说我来办

作者: Garrett Quinn @ 2015-9-15
译者: Who视之(@Who适之)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源: Reason,https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/15/why-bostons-sports-fans-rejected-the-oly

The long, sad history of overspending on the international games.
国际性赛事超支的心酸历史

As the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) submits the city of Los Angeles as the country’s official nominee to host the 2024 Summer Games, sports fans in Boston are whooping it up like they did after the Red Sox finally won another World Series.

当美国奥委会正式提名洛杉矶代表美国申办2024年夏季奥运会,波士顿的体育迷欢呼雀跃,好似红袜队又拿下了一场世界系列赛。【译注:美国棒球联盟和全国棒球联盟优胜者之间的年度比赛

And with good reason. Earlier this year, the USOC had picked Boston to represent America in the Olympics-host sweepstakes. Then the sports-mad fans of the Red Sox, the Bruins, the Celtics, and the Patriots told city fathers—especially Mayor Martin J. Walsh—to pound sand when it came to hosting the Olympic Games with tax dollars.

他们这么高兴是有道理的。今年早些时候,美国奥委会挑选波士顿代表美国参加奥运会主办城市的赌赛。那些红袜队、棕熊队、凯尔特人队和爱国者队的死忠们告诉市府大员们——特别是市长Martin J. Walsh——若是用纳税人的钱来办奥运会,就要把这主意掐死。

How Boston’s rabid sports fans rejected the Olympics—and how chumps in Los Angeles enthusiastically stepped up to potential bankruptcy—is a tale worth understanding, especially the next time your city or state tries selling voters on a new stadium or venue for billionaire sports team owners.

为啥波士顿的狂热体育迷拒绝奥运会,而洛杉矶的呆逼们兴高采烈地踏上潜在的破产之旅,这事值得弄弄明白,特别是下次你的城市或州政府为身家亿万的球队老板们着想,试图向选民们兜售新的体育场馆时。

The Summer Games routinely use billions of taxpayer dollars to throw the equivalent of a three-week-long international party that ends with a trashed house and a financial hangover that lasts for years. Montreal hosted the games in 1976 and built a stadium that was called the Big O. ­­Since it took fully 30 years to pay off the municipal debt that underwrote the Games, locals dubbed it “the Big Owe.”

夏奥会一贯会花费纳税人几十上百亿美元,举办为期三周的国际大趴,结局是一地垃圾和延续若干年的财务宿醉症。蒙特利尔1976年承办了夏奥会,建了一座叫Big O的体育场。由于用了整整30年才还清为承办奥运会而发行的市政债,当地居民给这个体育场起了个“Big Owe”的外号【译注:Owe是欠账的意思】。

As sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has noted, the Summer Games might generate $6 billion in total revenue, half of which goes to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) while costing the host city $20 billion (London) or even $40 billion (Beijing). And don’t think that any new stadiums or infrastructure will have much of an economic afterlife. Indeed, the main achievement of the 2004 Athens games was to create modern ruins to match the ancient ones that actually (more...)

标签: | |
6371
Why Boston's Sports Fans Rejected the Olympics Boondoggle—and L.A. Said Bring It On 为什么波士顿的体育迷拒绝承办劳民伤财的奥运会——而洛杉矶却说我来办 作者: Garrett Quinn @ 2015-9-15 译者: Who视之(@Who适之) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源: Reason,https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/15/why-bostons-sports-fans-rejected-the-oly The long, sad history of overspending on the international games. 国际性赛事超支的心酸历史 As the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) submits the city of Los Angeles as the country’s official nominee to host the 2024 Summer Games, sports fans in Boston are whooping it up like they did after the Red Sox finally won another World Series. 当美国奥委会正式提名洛杉矶代表美国申办2024年夏季奥运会,波士顿的体育迷欢呼雀跃,好似红袜队又拿下了一场世界系列赛。【译注:美国棒球联盟和全国棒球联盟优胜者之间的年度比赛】 And with good reason. Earlier this year, the USOC had picked Boston to represent America in the Olympics-host sweepstakes. Then the sports-mad fans of the Red Sox, the Bruins, the Celtics, and the Patriots told city fathers—especially Mayor Martin J. Walsh—to pound sand when it came to hosting the Olympic Games with tax dollars. 他们这么高兴是有道理的。今年早些时候,美国奥委会挑选波士顿代表美国参加奥运会主办城市的赌赛。那些红袜队、棕熊队、凯尔特人队和爱国者队的死忠们告诉市府大员们——特别是市长Martin J. Walsh——若是用纳税人的钱来办奥运会,就要把这主意掐死。 How Boston’s rabid sports fans rejected the Olympics—and how chumps in Los Angeles enthusiastically stepped up to potential bankruptcy—is a tale worth understanding, especially the next time your city or state tries selling voters on a new stadium or venue for billionaire sports team owners. 为啥波士顿的狂热体育迷拒绝奥运会,而洛杉矶的呆逼们兴高采烈地踏上潜在的破产之旅,这事值得弄弄明白,特别是下次你的城市或州政府为身家亿万的球队老板们着想,试图向选民们兜售新的体育场馆时。 The Summer Games routinely use billions of taxpayer dollars to throw the equivalent of a three-week-long international party that ends with a trashed house and a financial hangover that lasts for years. Montreal hosted the games in 1976 and built a stadium that was called the Big O. ­­Since it took fully 30 years to pay off the municipal debt that underwrote the Games, locals dubbed it "the Big Owe." 夏奥会一贯会花费纳税人几十上百亿美元,举办为期三周的国际大趴,结局是一地垃圾和延续若干年的财务宿醉症。蒙特利尔1976年承办了夏奥会,建了一座叫Big O的体育场。由于用了整整30年才还清为承办奥运会而发行的市政债,当地居民给这个体育场起了个“Big Owe”的外号【译注:Owe是欠账的意思】。 As sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has noted, the Summer Games might generate $6 billion in total revenue, half of which goes to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) while costing the host city $20 billion (London) or even $40 billion (Beijing). And don’t think that any new stadiums or infrastructure will have much of an economic afterlife. Indeed, the main achievement of the 2004 Athens games was to create modern ruins to match the ancient ones that actually draw tourists to Greece. 体育经济学家Andrew Zimbalist注意到,夏奥会可能产生了60亿美元的总收入,其中一半归国际奥委会,而主办城市会花费200亿美元(伦敦),甚至400亿美元(北京)。不要以为那些新的运动场馆和基础设施在会后能有什么经济效益。实际上,2004年雅典奥运会的主要成就,就是兴建了一批现代废墟来配合真正吸引游客到希腊去的古代废墟。 On top of all that the Olympics have an established reputation for bringing graft, a draconian security state, and horrific traffic and business disruption everywhere they go. "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to participate," declared the creator of the modern Games, the Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin, who obviously wasn’t stuck paying any of the bills. 不仅如此,奥林匹克运动已经建立起这样一个名声:它走到哪,哪就会有贪腐、苛刻的安保,以及严重的交通和商务混乱。现代奥林匹克创始人,法国人顾拜旦宣称:“奥运会重在参与而不是取胜。”这人显然不管付账。 Earlier this year, Boston seemed up for the challenge and was selected to be the city that the USOC would put forward to host the 2024 Games. To its slim credit, the IOC had reformed some of its practices after a stunning show of disinterest from western democracies in hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics (an even bigger money-loser than the Summer Games). The reforms, known as Agenda 2020, are designed to make hosting the games less financially burdensome and will be applied for the first time during the bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics. 今年早间,波士顿看着像要去挑战一下,被美国奥委会选为竞办2024奥运会的城市。得承认,在西方民主国家对举办2022年冬奥会(这是个比夏奥会更能亏钱的玩意)显示了令人震惊的冷淡之后,国际奥委会对其做法进行了一些改革。这些改革称为“2020议程”,将在竞办2024年夏奥会时实施,目的是让承办奥运会的经济负担不至于过分沉重。 After Boston’s bid was initially approved by the USOC, more and more details of the financing started dripping out and the city’s enthusiasm went softer than one of Tom Brady’s footballs. While it’s true that the people of Boston are diehard, always-annoying sports fans you want to punch in the neck, they are not suckers and have a long, proud history of telling team owners and elected official to take a hike when it comes to paying for sports venues. 波士顿的竞办申请被美国奥委会批准后,越来越多的融资细节开始泄露,市民的热情变得比Tom Brady【译注:美式橄榄球四分卫】的某个传球还弱。虽然波士顿人是死硬的、让人讨厌的、欠揍的体育迷,但这些人一点不蠢;如果球队老板和民选官员想让纳税人掏钱建体育场馆,波士顿人对这种想法的回答有着长久的光荣传统:您哪凉快哪呆着去。 In the 1990s the Patriot and Red Sox sought to build waterfront stadiums on the South Boston Waterfront as part of project dubbed the MegaPlex. The plan only required a tiny commitment from taxpayers but it was still too much to placate the dialed-in citizens of Boston. The plan eventually died when late Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino turned against it. 1990年代,爱国者队和红袜队想在波士顿南部滨水地带兴建滨水体育场,作为名为MegaPlex项目的一部分。这个计划只需要纳税人一点微小的承诺,但仍然不能安抚那些打电话反对的市民。该计划在已故市长Thomas M. Menino转而反对后夭折。 Now, the once vacant area is home to a booming innovation district and soaring residential towers. When the Bruins and Celtics replaced the rat infested Boston Garden with a new building in 1995, it was build with private money after much public handwringing. 现如今,那片原先的空地上建起了生机勃勃的创新产业园区和高高的住宅楼。棕熊队和凯尔特人队在1995年把鼠患猖獗的波士顿花园重建,在公众表示很大关注之后,花的是私人老板的钱。 In 2015, a rag-tag group of activists and young professionals organized against the 2024 bid in an extremely effective manner that put pressure on elected officials to stop the games and created a climate of intense negativity around Boston’s Olympic bid. It was a remarkable display of activism. It pitted the city’s captains of industry against a group of activists with little more than pennies to rub together and smartphones. 2015年,一群由活动分子和年轻的专业人士组成的草根组织了一次非常有效的反申奥活动,使民选官员受到阻止赛会的压力,并为波士顿的申办活动创造了极为负面的气氛。这群除了几块钱和智能手机外啥都没有的活动分子,得以和波士顿的行业大佬们叫阵。 The group pushing the bid had their hands tied by various USOC decrees and limitations. They couldn’t respond quickly and effectively to their opponents and they committed all sorts of unforced errors that stoked the anti-Olympics sentiment: Property owners were caught off guard about venue locations, residents were not contacted before the plan was devised, and community stakeholders were only included in the process when it was all but too late. 支持申办的团体受到美国奥委会各种条例和限制的约束。他们未能及时有效地回应反对者,犯下很多本可避免的失误,使得反奥运情绪如火上浇油:业主们被场馆选址弄得猝不及防,居民们在规划设计之前没有得到通知,而利益相关的社区成员直到时机已过才被纳入进程中去。 The bid’s biggest public supporter, Mayor Martin J. Walsh, was often forced to publicly chastise the USOC and bid organizers for not releasing information in a timely or transparent manner. For many, the announcement that former Governor Deval Patrick was being paid $7,500 a day as a consultant on the project was the straw that broke the camel’s back. 申办活动最大的公共部门支持者,市长Martin Walsh,经常被迫公开批评美国奥委会和申办组织者没有及时透明地公开信息。对很多人来说,前任州长Deval Patrick每天可以得到7500美元的项目顾问费这一消息,是压断骆驼的最后一根稻草。 Opinion poll after opinion poll showed the public just did not trust the organizers to be honest about how much it would all cost locals. Boston’s bid conformed to the reforms outlined in the IOC’s reform agenda but the final sticking point was something that is still Olympic policy: Host cities must take a binding pledge that puts taxpayers on the hook for any cost overruns. 一个接一个的民意调查显示,公众就是不相信组织者对当地人需付总价的估算。波士顿的申办符合国际奥委会做出的改革,但最后胶着点仍然是奥林匹克的这个态度:主办城市必须做出有法律约束的保证,让纳税人为任何成本超支付账。 It wasn’t just Boston-area residents who soured. Elected officials across Massachusetts like Governor Charlie Baker and House Speaker Robert DeLeo balked at the idea of being on the hook and said publicly that they would not sign a taxpayer guarantee for the Olympics. Period. The USOC grew tired of the local reluctance and eventually pulled the bid on July 29, after Walsh said he would not sign a taxpayer guarantee at a hastily called city hall press conference carried live on all local TV stations. 不仅仅是波士顿地区的居民对此不开心,马萨诸塞州各处的民选官员,比如州长Charlie Baker和众议院议长Robert DeLeo,都对做出这种承诺迟疑不决,公开说他们不会为奥运会签署纳税人的担保,这事没得谈。在一场面向所有当地电视台直播的匆忙召集的市府新闻发布会上,Walsh说他不会签署纳税人的保证,美国奥委会受不了波士顿的勉强,最后在7月29日撤回了竞办。 Meanwhile, all the way across the continent, a two-time Olympic host city waited in the wings to pick up the torch as soon as Boston threw it down: Los Angeles. 与此同时,横跨美国大陆的另一边,一个曾经两次举办奥运会、伺机而动的城市在波士顿放弃申办后,马上接棒了。洛杉矶来了。 The City of Angels hosted the Summer Games in 1932 and in 1984. Memories of those latter games are especially warm and fuzzy for Angelenos. In many ways, the ’84 Games were the coming-out party for L.A., a city that had grown rich in post-war America while never quite being taken seriously in America, much less the rest of the world. To this day and despite the city’s standing as the second-largest metropolis in the country, it nurses a cultural inferiority complex bigger than the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. 天使之城在1932和1984举办过夏奥会。后一次的奥运会对洛杉矶人来说尤其感觉温馨可人。在很多方面,1984年奥运会是洛杉矶的成年派对,这座城市在战后美国富裕了起来,却一直没有被美国人认真对待过,更不要说在全世界了。直到今天,尽管洛杉矶是美国第二大城市,它的文化自卑情结比一场好莱坞大片的预算还要大。 In 1984, the tremendous performances of Carl Lewis, Mary Lou Retton, and both the men’s and women’s swim teams—along with a boycott by the Soviet Union, East Germany, and other Eastern bloc countries—resulted in the U.S. winning more than three times as many medals as any other country. More important to the current debate, the games were supervised by Peter Uberroth, who insisted on using existing facilities whenever possible, exercised ultra-rare but effective financial discipline, and leaned hard on local philanthropies to kick in lots of free money. The result was what is still widely hailed as "the most successful games ever," at least from a public accountant’s point of view. 1984年,美国的Carl Lewis,Mary Lou Retton,男女游泳队发挥卓越,加上苏联和东欧国家的抵制,美国得到的奖牌数比第二名的三倍还多。对于当前争议而言,更重要的是,这次运动会由Peter Uberroth主管,他坚持尽量使用现有设施,表现出少有但有效的财务纪律性,依靠当地的慈善力量,省下很多钱。结果是这届奥运会被称为“最成功的奥运会”,至少从会计角度看是这样。 In the ‘80s, L.A. and California were booming. Things are different this time around. The recession was not kind to Los Angeles and the city continues to amass debt, lose jobs, struggle to provide basic services, and hang on to its middle class. California in general is struggling to pay its bills, too, while keeping the lights on. 在80年代,洛杉矶和加州欣欣向荣,可这次情况不同了。经济衰退对洛杉矶毫不客气,该市一直在堆积债务,流失就业机会,忙于提供基本服务,求助于中产阶级。加州基本上也是在让灯亮着的同时挣扎着付清账单。 Yet this time around, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support Mayor Eric Garcetti’s pursuit of the Games even though it means putting the city’s taxpayers on the line for any kind of cost overruns. And the state government has a history of coming to the city’s rescue. During their pursuit of the 2016 games, the California legislature set aside $250 million in state funds to help Los Angeles’s bid (it lost out to Rio de Janeiro). California Gov. Jerry Brown has not officially committed to financially backing the games but that did not stop bid organizers in Los Angeles from saying he was on board anyway. 可是这一次,洛杉矶市议会投票一致支持市长Eric Garcetti申办奥运会,尽管这意味着纳税人要为任何成本超支买单。该州政府有搭救市府的传统。在申办2016运动会时,加州议会拨出2.5亿美元州资金来帮助洛杉矶申办(最后不敌里约热内卢)。加州州长没有正式承诺在财务上支持运动会,但这并未阻止洛杉矶的申办者宣称州长和他们站在一起。 The rosy-colored view of the games is not limited to the California political elite. Sports columnists such like Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times tend to be uncritical boosters of Southern California and are enthusiastically on board. In Boston, there was almost uniform opposition to the games in the press and the reception from the sports media was more vicious than the drunks in the Fenway Park bleachers when the Yankees are in town. Even the limited polling on the games shows Los Angeles actually wants the games. Over 81 percent of respondents in a recent poll sponsored by the USOC said they backed the games. 对奥运会玫瑰色的展望并未局限于加州的政治精英,体育专栏作家们,如《洛杉矶时报》的Bill Plaschke,都是南加州不加批评的支持者,对申办全心支持。在波士顿,报界几乎一致反对奥运会,体育媒体的反应,比纽约扬基队来叫阵时,Fenway公园露天看台上醉鬼的骂声更加邪恶。有限的民意测验显示,洛杉矶人确实想申办奥运会。在最近一个美国奥委会组织的调查中,超过81%的受访者说他们支持。 So it seems that Los Angeles and its residents appear far more willing to mortgage their future to host a three-week party in 2024 for the world’s elite than Boston was. Come 2017, when the IOC will announce the winning city from applicants that include Paris, Toronto, Budapest, Hamburg, and Rome, Hollywood may well be breaking ground on yet another boulevard of broken dreams. That is, if Los Angeles is selected to host the game for a third time. 看来洛杉矶和它的居民比波士顿更加愿意把他们的未来抵押在2024年为世界精英们举办一次为时三周的国际派对。2017年奥委会将宣布巴黎、多伦多、布达佩斯特、汉堡、罗马这些申办城市中的胜者。如果洛杉矶第三次获选举办奥运会,好莱坞很可能要为另一条碎梦大道破土动工。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]拜托,别再帮助我们了

‘Please Stop Helping Us’
“请不要再帮助我们”

作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2014-6-08
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:National Review,http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382135/please-stop-helping-us-thomas-sowell

A new book brilliantly explains how policies designed to help blacks end up harming them.
有本新书极为出色地解释了,旨在帮助黑人的政策如何最终反而伤害了他们。

Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience. “Please do not do any more good in my country,” he said. “We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done.”

在不列颠帝国的鼎盛时期,一位殖民地来客曾在伦敦发表演说。“请不要再到我的国家去做好事了。(more...)

标签: |
6369
‘Please Stop Helping Us’ “请不要再帮助我们” 作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2014-6-08 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:National Review,http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382135/please-stop-helping-us-thomas-sowell A new book brilliantly explains how policies designed to help blacks end up harming them. 有本新书极为出色地解释了,旨在帮助黑人的政策如何最终反而伤害了他们。 Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience. “Please do not do any more good in my country,” he said. “We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done.” 在不列颠帝国的鼎盛时期,一位殖民地来客曾在伦敦发表演说。“请不要再到我的国家去做好事了。”他说,“你们之前做的所有那些好事,已经令我们受尽折磨。” That is essentially the message of an outstanding new book by Jason Riley about blacks in America. Its title is Please Stop Helping Us. Its theme is that many policies designed to help blacks are in fact harmful, sometimes devastatingly so. These counterproductive policies range from minimum-wage laws to “affirmative action” quotas. 这实质上就是Jason Riley关于美国黑人的最新杰作所要传达的信息,书名叫做《请不要再帮助我们》。该书的主题是,诸多旨在帮助黑人的政策实际上反而有害,有时甚至是毁灭性的伤害。从最低工资法到“平权行动”配额,在在都能见到这种事与愿违的政策。 This book untangles the controversies, the confusions, and the irresponsible rhetoric in which issues involving minimum-wage laws are usually discussed. As someone who has followed minimum-wage controversies for decades, I must say that I have never seen the subject explained more clearly or more convincingly. 这本书理清了人们讨论最低工资法相关事务时经常遭遇的争议、困惑和不负责任的华丽辞藻。作为一个数十年来一直在跟踪最低工资争议的人,我也必须承认,此前还没有见过任何人曾将这一问题解释得如此清楚、如此令人信服。 Black teenage-unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum-wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum-wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s. 过去60年间,黑人青少年失业率一直徘徊在20%到50%之间。许多人对此已习以为常,以至于都没有留意到:在最低工资法出现之前,情况并非如此,哪怕是在通胀对最低工资法的效用有所抵消的年份,如1940年代末,情况也非如此。 Pricing young people out of work deprives them not only of income but also of work experience, which can be even more valuable. Pricing young people out of legal work, when illegal work is always available, is just asking for trouble. So is having large numbers of idle young males hanging out together on the streets. 为年轻人定价过高,以至令他们失去工作,这种政策不仅剥夺了他们的收入,而且也剥夺了他们的工作经验,而后者价值甚至可能更高。为年轻人定价过高,以至于他们失去合法的工作机会,但又总是可以找到非法工作,这种政策就是自讨苦吃。让大量无所事事的男青年成群结队在街上游荡,也是自讨苦吃。 When it comes to affirmative action, Jason Riley asks the key question: “Do racial preferences work? What is the track record?” Like many other well-meaning and nice-sounding policies, affirmative action cannot survive factual scrutiny. 对于平权行动,Jason Riley提出了如下关键问题:“种族优惠是否行之有效?往绩如何?”跟许多其它好心好意且悦耳动听的政策一样,平权行动经不起事实检验。 Some individuals may get jobs they would not get otherwise, but many black students who are quite capable of getting a good college education are admitted, under racial quotas, to institutions whose pace alone is enough to make it unlikely that they will graduate. (有了平权行动,)某些人也许确实会得到他们本来得不到的工作。但许多黑人学生本来完全有能力得到良好的大学教育,却在种族配额制下被一些不适宜的学校录取,而单是这些学校的教学进度就足以使得他们无望毕业。 Studies that show how many artificial failures are created by affirmative-action admissions policies are summarized in Please Stop Helping Us, in language much easier to understand than in the original studies. 已有许多研究表明,平权行动的录取政策人为制造了许多失败,《请不要再帮助我们》用十分易懂的语言综述了相关研究。 There are many ponderous academic studies of blacks, if you have a few months in which to read them, but there is nothing to match Jason Riley’s book as a primer that will quickly bring you up to speed on the complicated subject of race in a week, or perhaps over a weekend. 如果你愿意花上几个月去读的话,研究黑人的冗长学术著作有很多。不过作为入门读物,Jason Riley的这本书无可匹敌。只要一周,甚至只要一个周末,它就能迅速让你跟上有关种族这一复杂课题的最新研究。 As an experienced journalist, rather than an academic, Riley knows how to use plain English to get to the point. He also has the integrity to give it to you straight, instead of in the jargon and euphemisms too often found in discussions of race. The result is a book that provides more knowledge and insight in a couple of hundred pages than are usually found in books twice that length. Riley是位经验丰富的记者,而不是学者,因此他知道如何用简单易懂的语言表达论点。而且他很诚实,立论坦率直接,不会使用那些在种族问题讨论中常见的行话切口和委婉表达。得益于此,他这本两三百页的书所提供的知识和见解,比一般厚度两倍于它的书还要多。 Unlike academics who just tell facts, Riley knows which facts are telling. 与只知道说明事实的学者不同,Riely知道哪些事实能说明问题。 For example, in response to claims that blacks don’t do well academically because the schools use an approach geared to white students, he points out that blacks from foreign, non-English-speaking countries do better in American schools than black, English-speaking American students. 比如,有人宣称,黑人学业成绩不好是因为学校使用的是适合白人学生的教学方法。针对这种论断,Riley就指出,在美国的学校里,母语非英语的外国黑人比说英语的美国黑人学生表现更优。 Asian students do better than whites in schools supposedly geared to whites. In all three of New York City’s three academically elite public high schools — Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech — there are more than twice as many Asian students as white students. 在据称特别适合白人的学校里,亚裔学生比白人学生表现更好。纽约市的全部三所学业优异的公立高中——史岱文森高中、布朗士科学高中、布鲁克林技术高中,在校亚裔学生数量是白人学生的两倍以上。 So much for the theory that non-whites can’t do well in schools supposedly geared to whites. 在据称特别适合白人的学校里,不是白人就无法表现良好,这种论调可以休矣。 On issue after issue, Please Stop Helping Us cites facts to destroy propaganda and puncture inflated rhetoric. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of racial issues — from crime to family disintegration — explored in this book. Pick up a copy and open pages at random to see how the author annihilates nonsense. 针对一个个议题,《请不要再帮助我们》挨个引用事实来推翻那些宣传口号、戳穿那些言过其实的花言巧语。此处不可能一一点到该书所论述的各类种族议题,它们跨度甚大,从犯罪到家庭解体都有。捡起一本,随便翻几页,看看作者是如何灭掉那些胡说八道的吧。 His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, “Having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home.” 他的简洁评论常常一针见血。比如这句,“白宫椭圆办公室里坐着个黑人,可不如家里坐着个黑人那么重要。” (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

权力积木#1:距离与速度

权力积木#1:距离与速度
辉格
2015年11月21日

国家最初源自若干相邻酋邦中的最强者所建立的霸权,而这些酋邦则由专业武装组织发展而来;霸权当然首先来自压倒性的武力优势:霸主能够轻易击败势力范围内的任何对手,并且所有各方都十分确信这一点,因而甘愿向它纳贡称臣,也愿意在自身遭受威胁时向它求助,卷入纠纷时接受其仲裁,发生争霸挑战时站在它那一边。

然而,武力是起落消长多变的,仅凭一时之战斗力而维持的霸权难以长久,要将围绕霸权所建立的多边关系常规化和制度化,需要更多权力要素;要理解这些要素如何起源,以及它们在支撑国家权力中所履行的基础性功能,我们最好从多方博弈的角度出发,考虑其中的利害权衡。

通常,霸主最需要担心的是这样几种情况:1)在属邦遭受攻击时不能及时提供援助,丧失安全感的属邦可能转而投靠其他霸主,2)当一个属邦反叛并攻击其他属邦时,若不能及时加以制止,便可能引发连锁反应,3)当足够多属邦联合协调行动发动叛乱时,霸主的武力优势被联合力量所压过。

无论何种情况,当事方对霸主行动速度的预期都是关键所在,若遭受攻击的弱小属邦预期得不到及时救援,便可能放弃抵抗而选择投降,若邻近敌邦预期能在援兵到达之前得手并及时撤离,便更可能发动攻击,若潜在叛乱者预期自己有能力在霸主赶来镇压之前连克多个属邦并吸引到足够多追随者,便更可能发动叛乱,而当叛乱实际发生时,那些骑墙观望的属邦,若预期霸主无力及时平定叛乱,便更可能加入叛军行列,特别是当他们原本就心怀不满,或与反叛者关系亲密,或早有争霸野心时。

所以,对于维持霸权,仅有强大战斗力是不够的,还要有机动性,能够将兵力及时投送到需要的地方,速度要比对手快;设想这样一种简化的情形:霸主甲位于属邦乙的南方60英里,敌邦丙由北向南进攻乙,位于乙之北60英里的边境哨所得到敌情后向甲和乙汇报,假如所有人的行动速度都是每天10英里,那么丙就会早于甲的援军至少6天到达乙地,假如乙预期撑不过6天,就可能早早选择投降。

但是,假如报信者每天能跑60英里,而甲的行军速度是2倍于敌军的每天20英里,加上一天的集结时间,援军仍可与敌军同时到达,换句话说,上述情境中,只要通信速度6倍于敌军行军速度,己方行军速度2倍于敌方,霸主便能有效保护属邦,若机动优势降至1.5倍,也只需要属邦能抵抗一天,或者,即便机动优势只有1.2倍,霸主也完全来得及在敌军得手撤离之前追上它并实施报复,而及时报复能力是对潜在侵犯者的有力威慑。

这虽然是简化虚构,但离现实并不太远,古代军队的行军速度很慢,晴天陆地行军速度一般不超过每天10英里,雨天则几乎走不动,而无论是青铜时代的城邦霸主,还是铁器时代的大型帝国,机动优势都构成了其霸权的核心要素。

公元前15世纪的埃及战神图特摩斯三世(Thutmose III)在其成名之战米吉多战役(Battle of Megiddo)中,在9天内将2万大军投送到250英里之外的加沙,将近3倍于常规速度;从波斯、马其顿到罗马,这些辉煌帝国的一大共同点是:都有能力以2到3倍于对手的速度大规模投送兵力,同时以5至10倍于常规行军的速度传递消息。

古代行军速度慢,不是因为人跑的慢,相反,人类特别擅长超长距离奔跑,大概只有袋鼠、鸵鸟和羚羊等少数动物能与人媲美,长跑也是早期人类狩猎技能的关键,我们的脊柱、骨盆、腿骨、颈部肌肉、脚趾、足弓和汗腺,都已为适应长跑而大幅改造,运动生理学家发现,对于长距离奔跑,两足方式比四足方式更加高效节能,尽管后者能达到更高的瞬间速度。

卡拉哈里的桑族猎人经常在40度高温下连续三四小时奔跑三四十公里直至将猎物累垮,美国西南部的派尤特(Paiute)印第安人逐猎叉角羚时,澳洲土著追逐大袋鼠时,也采用类似方法;当距离超出100公里时,人的速度便可超过马;居住在墨西哥高原奇瓦瓦州的美洲土著塔拉乌马拉人(Tarahumara)很好的展示了人类的超长跑能力,在他们的一项传统赛跑活动中,参赛者可以在崎岖山路上两天内奔跑300多公里。

拖慢行军速度的,是后勤补给负担,这一负担因国家起源过程中战争形态的改变而大幅加重,原因有三个:首先,大型政治实体的出现成倍拉大了作战距离,在前国家的群体间战争中,作战者通常可以当天往返,无须携带补给品,在酋邦时代,相邻酋邦之间相距几十公里,军队也最多离家一两天,但广域国家的军队常常需要到数百上千公里外作战,短则几(more...)

标签: | | | | |
6365
权力积木#1:距离与速度 辉格 2015年11月21日 国家最初源自若干相邻酋邦中的最强者所建立的霸权,而这些酋邦则由专业武装组织发展而来;霸权当然首先来自压倒性的武力优势:霸主能够轻易击败势力范围内的任何对手,并且所有各方都十分确信这一点,因而甘愿向它纳贡称臣,也愿意在自身遭受威胁时向它求助,卷入纠纷时接受其仲裁,发生争霸挑战时站在它那一边。 然而,武力是起落消长多变的,仅凭一时之战斗力而维持的霸权难以长久,要将围绕霸权所建立的多边关系常规化和制度化,需要更多权力要素;要理解这些要素如何起源,以及它们在支撑国家权力中所履行的基础性功能,我们最好从多方博弈的角度出发,考虑其中的利害权衡。 通常,霸主最需要担心的是这样几种情况:1)在属邦遭受攻击时不能及时提供援助,丧失安全感的属邦可能转而投靠其他霸主,2)当一个属邦反叛并攻击其他属邦时,若不能及时加以制止,便可能引发连锁反应,3)当足够多属邦联合协调行动发动叛乱时,霸主的武力优势被联合力量所压过。 无论何种情况,当事方对霸主行动速度的预期都是关键所在,若遭受攻击的弱小属邦预期得不到及时救援,便可能放弃抵抗而选择投降,若邻近敌邦预期能在援兵到达之前得手并及时撤离,便更可能发动攻击,若潜在叛乱者预期自己有能力在霸主赶来镇压之前连克多个属邦并吸引到足够多追随者,便更可能发动叛乱,而当叛乱实际发生时,那些骑墙观望的属邦,若预期霸主无力及时平定叛乱,便更可能加入叛军行列,特别是当他们原本就心怀不满,或与反叛者关系亲密,或早有争霸野心时。 所以,对于维持霸权,仅有强大战斗力是不够的,还要有机动性,能够将兵力及时投送到需要的地方,速度要比对手快;设想这样一种简化的情形:霸主甲位于属邦乙的南方60英里,敌邦丙由北向南进攻乙,位于乙之北60英里的边境哨所得到敌情后向甲和乙汇报,假如所有人的行动速度都是每天10英里,那么丙就会早于甲的援军至少6天到达乙地,假如乙预期撑不过6天,就可能早早选择投降。 但是,假如报信者每天能跑60英里,而甲的行军速度是2倍于敌军的每天20英里,加上一天的集结时间,援军仍可与敌军同时到达,换句话说,上述情境中,只要通信速度6倍于敌军行军速度,己方行军速度2倍于敌方,霸主便能有效保护属邦,若机动优势降至1.5倍,也只需要属邦能抵抗一天,或者,即便机动优势只有1.2倍,霸主也完全来得及在敌军得手撤离之前追上它并实施报复,而及时报复能力是对潜在侵犯者的有力威慑。 这虽然是简化虚构,但离现实并不太远,古代军队的行军速度很慢,晴天陆地行军速度一般不超过每天10英里,雨天则几乎走不动,而无论是青铜时代的城邦霸主,还是铁器时代的大型帝国,机动优势都构成了其霸权的核心要素。 公元前15世纪的埃及战神图特摩斯三世([[Thutmose III]])在其成名之战米吉多战役([[Battle of Megiddo]])中,在9天内将2万大军投送到250英里之外的加沙,将近3倍于常规速度;从波斯、马其顿到罗马,这些辉煌帝国的一大共同点是:都有能力以2到3倍于对手的速度大规模投送兵力,同时以5至10倍于常规行军的速度传递消息。 古代行军速度慢,不是因为人跑的慢,相反,人类特别擅长超长距离奔跑,大概只有袋鼠、鸵鸟和羚羊等少数动物能与人媲美,长跑也是早期人类狩猎技能的关键,我们的脊柱、骨盆、腿骨、颈部肌肉、脚趾、足弓和汗腺,都已为适应长跑而大幅改造,运动生理学家发现,对于长距离奔跑,两足方式比四足方式更加高效节能,尽管后者能达到更高的瞬间速度。 卡拉哈里的桑族猎人经常在40度高温下连续三四小时奔跑三四十公里直至将猎物累垮,美国西南部的派尤特([[Paiute]])印第安人逐猎叉角羚时,澳洲土著追逐大袋鼠时,也采用类似方法;当距离超出100公里时,人的速度便可超过马;居住在墨西哥高原奇瓦瓦州的美洲土著塔拉乌马拉人([[Tarahumara]])很好的展示了人类的超长跑能力,在他们的一项传统赛跑活动中,参赛者可以在崎岖山路上两天内奔跑300多公里。 拖慢行军速度的,是后勤补给负担,这一负担因国家起源过程中战争形态的改变而大幅加重,原因有三个:首先,大型政治实体的出现成倍拉大了作战距离,在前国家的群体间战争中,作战者通常可以当天往返,无须携带补给品,在酋邦时代,相邻酋邦之间相距几十公里,军队也最多离家一两天,但广域国家的军队常常需要到数百上千公里外作战,短则几周,长则数月,必须随身携带大量消耗性补给品。 其次,军队的大型化使得就地补给变得不可靠,对于数十上百人的小股部队,只要拥有武力优势,沿路打劫村落便可获得补给,但数千上万人的大部队就很难依靠这种方式,而攻取拥有大量存粮的设防城镇则会大幅拖慢行程,并为任务带来不确定性,所以,尽管古代军队很大程度上利用就地补给(说难听点就是一路抢过去),但在两个可靠补给点之间,不得不携带足够粮草。 据估算,长途行军者粮食补给的最低需求约为每人每天1.5公斤谷物,若穿越水源不足的干旱地区,还需另加2.5公斤水,按携带15天粮食(这是罗马军团的标准配置)和3天饮水算,单兵负重便达30公斤,这还没算上武器装备;因为要在外吃饭过夜,还须携带燃料、灶具、铺盖和帐篷;如此负重之下,奔跑就只能改成行走。 以古代行军效率最高的罗马军团为例,其常规行军模式是,单兵负重20-30公斤,步伐每分钟120步,每步75厘米,每天可走5-6小时(夏天长一些),合计30公里左右;当然,若放弃辎重、不考虑补给,一两天内的短途轻装奔袭可以快得多,然而对于陆地长途行军,每天30公里构成了古代军队机动性的极限,那些强大帝国的优势便在于,它们能够最大程度上接近这一极限。 构成机动障碍的第三个原因是军队的重型化,从青铜时代开始,战争就始终在向重资产方向发展,随着新型武器不断出现,装备也变得越来越重,仍以罗马军团为例,罗马方盾([[Scutum]])重达10公斤,重标枪([[pilum]])每支3-5公斤,每人配备1-2支,一套锁子甲([[lorica hamata]])约16公斤,鳞片甲([[lorica segmentata]])9公斤,这样,仅单兵基本装备就占满了20-30公斤的行军负重,其他补给品只能另想办法。 对后勤构成更大压力的是消耗性材料和重型装置,由于投射型武器日益增多,且发射功率越来越大,它们使用的耗材也大幅增加;传统猎人和部落战士虽然也使用弓箭,但通常只携带很少几支箭,重量在30克左右,但在大型阵地战出现后,连续密集齐射成为一种火力压制和近身接战之前的主要杀伤手段,弓箭手在一次战斗中常携带50-100支箭,后勤储备更数倍于此,而随着弩机的使用,箭也增大变重了,出土的秦代青铜弩箭重达100多克。 另一种单兵投射武器是投石索([[sling]]),用于抛掷鹅卵石,每颗重几百克,投掷者背囊里的几十颗弹丸将为他带来近十公斤负重;从手持式轻弩,脚踏式和腰张式重弩,重型{{床弩}},到能够发射几十公斤重箭或石块的大型扭力绞盘投射机([[ballista]]),投射装置和它们所抛掷的耗材都越来越重,所有这些装备和材料,都无法指望由单兵背负。 解决这一运输难题的最初办法是使用驼畜,主要是驴,后来还有骆驼,驴的问题是负重太小,走的也太慢,一头负重50公斤的驴每天能走25公里,但它每天需要消耗3公斤粮草,所以当行程超出15天时,有效负载就接近零了,而且它驼不了太重的东西,所以只适合于轻装队伍短程行军。 有了轮子后,牵畜逐渐取代了驼畜,牵引力最强的是公牛,据色诺芬([[Xenophon]])记载,希腊军队中一辆单牛二轮车可以拉650公斤货物,相当于13头驴,而16头公牛合力更可牵引一部6吨多重的攻城塔车;但牛的问题是速度太慢,只能以2英里时速每天走5小时,而且牛的食量很大,约为马的5倍,这就进一步减少了有效负载。 所以大部分古代军队(除了最强大的那些)行军速度难以突破每天10英里的主要原因,就是被辎重牛车拖了后腿,要突破这个瓶颈,必须用马代替牛,据计算,5匹马牵引的四轮马车,负载相当于两头公牛,而速度可提高至每小时4英里,每天走8小时,且食量只相当于一头公牛,这样,辎重车队的速度便可超过步兵。 马的问题是昂贵,特别是在那些缺乏草场的地方,中世纪西欧流行多圃轮作制,草场较充裕,但据一份中世纪后期的价格资料,一头公牛13先令,牵引马10-20先令,按同等牵引力算,马价约3倍于牛价,骑乘马则更贵,约为牵引马的5-10倍;根据公元前17世纪赫梯帝国的一份文献,公牛价7.5谢克尔([[shekel]]),牵引马10谢克尔,比价与中世纪欧洲相仿。 长途征战的大军对役畜的需求非常大,罗马军团的每个8人小队([[contubernium]])共享一个帐篷、一套灶具(包括一个石磨)和一头骡子,外加专门的后勤辎重队伍所需;菲利普二世([[Philip II of Macedon]])在改革马其顿军队的后勤系统时,通过清理闲杂人员(家属、仆人、妓女等),并提高单兵负重,将一支5万人军队的役畜削减了6千多头,可见总数之庞大。 因为数量太多价格太贵,只有那些财力最雄厚的军队才能配备足够多马车从而消除牛车瓶颈;同时,为了尽可能避免用牛车,并节约马匹,铁器时代两位著名军事改革家马略([[Gaius Marius]])和菲利普二世都十分强调提高单兵负重,而且不约而同的将标准设定在30公斤左右,这差不多就是现代化步兵的标准负重,拿破仑战争期间英军步兵负重80磅,登陆诺曼底的美军步兵是82磅;将负重向单兵转移到倾向表明,机动瓶颈不在士兵行走速度,而是后勤辎重车队。 提高机动性也需要在组织训练和强化纪律上下功夫,像罗马军团那样每天数小时负重30公斤齐步行军,需要严格的训练,每天迅速及时安营和拔营,也需要完备的组织,参加过集体旅游的人都可以想象到,一群乌合之众,哪怕只有数十人,要让他们一致行动起来,有多么困难和耗时,要让五千人的军团趁天黑之前在两小时内井井有条的完成扎营、设岗、侦查、补充燃料和饮用水……,需要很强的纪律性。 克服后勤障碍的另一个手段,是利用水路便利进行快速投送,在火车出现之前,水上运输比陆地快得多,而且负载越大水路优势越明显,波斯帝国动辄在几千公里的跨度上投送数十万大军,便是充分利用了地中海的便利,能够运载如此大军的船队也非常庞大,需要雄厚实力才能供养。 然而,对于一个疆域辽阔的大型帝国,要将其军事控制覆盖境内每个角落,并且对任何要害地点皆可以接近极限的速度投送武力,终极手段是修建高速公路网,这一点只有罗马做到了,在罗马之前,各大帝国也致力于架桥修路等交通基础设施,但通常只限于开路、平整和压实等初级措施,保证道路勉强可用,但远远达不到全天候全速通行。 在公元前312年第二次萨莫奈战争([[Second Samnite War]])后的数百年间,罗马共修筑了40万公里道路,其中8万公里是精心铺设的硬化路面,有着土基、灰砂和石块三层铺设,以及路肩和排水系统,沿路设有大量路标、哨所、驿站和旅店,旅行者每隔20多英里便可找到休息和补给点地方,还有为通信兵换马的马栈。 正是这一高速公路网,确保了罗马军队可以在任何条件下以极限速度调往帝国任一角落,它构成了帝国权力的一大支柱,其所带来的陆地机动能力,直到美国南北战争期间才被火车所超越,同时,罗马大道也被商人和平民旅行者所利用,它将帝国疆域内的众多小社会连接成了一个大社会。  
[译文]列万廷的谬误

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy
人类遗传多样性之列万廷的谬误

作者:A.W.F. Edwards
翻译:小聂(@PuppetMaster)
校对:辉格(@whigzhou)
来源:Edwards, A. W. F. (2003). “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy”. BioEssays 25 (8): 798–801.

Summary

In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example.

概要

在那些淡化人类种群遗传差异的流行文章里面,一个常见的说法是:85%的遗传差异来自于种群内的个体间差异,而只有15%是来自于种群或种族间差异。因此,有人认为依靠遗传数据而将智人划分为不同群体,是不合理的。R.C.列万廷在1972年作出的该论断是缺乏根据的,原因在于:用于区分种群的大部分信息隐藏在遗传数据的相关性结构里,而不简简单单体现在单个因子的差异上。这背后的逻辑,在上世纪初就已被讨论,在这里用一个简单的遗传学范例来加以说明。

“When a large number of individuals [of any kind of organism] are measured in respect of physical dimensions, weight, colour, density, etc., it is possible to describe with some accuracy the population of which our experience may be regarded as a sample. By this means it may be possible to distinguish it from other populations differing in their genetic origin, or in environmental circumstances. Thus local races may be very different as populations, although individuals may overlap in all characters; . . .” R.A. Fisher (1925).

“在测量「任何一种有机体的」大量个体的物理属性——重量,颜色,密度等——的时候,我们可以以特定的精确度来对该有机体的种群加以描述,虽然在经验上,他们可能只是样本而已。用这种方式,我们有可能把他们和其他种群在遗传起源上,甚至是在环境条件上,加以区分。这样一来,地区亚种之间在种群层面上可以有巨大的差别,尽管个体之间有可能高度重合……”R.A.菲舍尔(1925)。

“It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a bi(more...)

标签: |
6357
Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy 人类遗传多样性之列万廷的谬误 作者:A.W.F. Edwards 翻译:小聂(@PuppetMaster) 校对:辉格(@whigzhou) 来源:Edwards, A. W. F. (2003). "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy". BioEssays 25 (8): 798–801. Summary In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example. 概要 在那些淡化人类种群遗传差异的流行文章里面,一个常见的说法是:85%的遗传差异来自于种群内的个体间差异,而只有15%是来自于种群或种族间差异。因此,有人认为依靠遗传数据而将智人划分为不同群体,是不合理的。R.C.列万廷在1972年作出的该论断是缺乏根据的,原因在于:用于区分种群的大部分信息隐藏在遗传数据的相关性结构里,而不简简单单体现在单个因子的差异上。这背后的逻辑,在上世纪初就已被讨论,在这里用一个简单的遗传学范例来加以说明。 “When a large number of individuals [of any kind of organism] are measured in respect of physical dimensions, weight, colour, density, etc., it is possible to describe with some accuracy the population of which our experience may be regarded as a sample. By this means it may be possible to distinguish it from other populations differing in their genetic origin, or in environmental circumstances. Thus local races may be very different as populations, although individuals may overlap in all characters; . . .” R.A. Fisher (1925). “在测量「任何一种有机体的」大量个体的物理属性——重量,颜色,密度等——的时候,我们可以以特定的精确度来对该有机体的种群加以描述,虽然在经验上,他们可能只是样本而已。用这种方式,我们有可能把他们和其他种群在遗传起源上,甚至是在环境条件上,加以区分。这样一来,地区亚种之间在种群层面上可以有巨大的差别,尽管个体之间有可能高度重合……”R.A.菲舍尔(1925)。 “It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance”. R.C. Lewontin (1972). “很明显,我们对于人类种群或是亚种之间差异大于群内个体差异的理解,是一种偏见。并且,基于随机选定的遗传差异来看,人类种族和种群之间具有显著的相似性,迄今为止人类间差异的最大部分都源于个体差异。种族分类不仅没有社会价值,而且对人和社会的关系有着强烈的破坏性。既然现在看来这样的种族分类毫无遗传学和分类学根据,将其持续下去也是毫无必要的了。”R.C.列万廷(1972)。 “The study of genetic variations in Homo sapiens shows that there is more genetic variation within populations than between populations. This means that two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world. Although it may be easy to observe distinct external differences between groups of people, it is more difficult to distinguish such groups genetically, since most genetic variation is found within all groups.” Nature (2001). “对于智人遗传差异的研究表明种群内差异大于种群间差异。这意味着从同一族群中随机挑选的两个个体之间的差异几乎等同于世界上任何两个随机个体间的差异。尽管我们可以观测到族群间分明的外部特征区别,对他们在遗传上加以区分却困难得多,因为大部分遗传差异存在于所有的族群之内。”《自然》(2001)。 Introduction 导言 In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations it is often stated, usually without any reference, that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been suggested that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. People the world over are much more similar genetically than appearances might suggest. 淡化人类种群间遗传差异的流行文章里,一个常见的未加引用的说法是:85%的遗传差异源于种群内的个体间差异,而只有15%的差异来自于种群或是种族。因此以这些种群为智人分类是不被遗传数据支持的。世界各地的人们在遗传上的相似性远大于外表所显示出的那样。 Thus an article in New Scientist reported that in 1972 Richard Lewontin of Harvard University “found that nearly 85 per cent of humanity’s genetic diversity occurs among individuals within a single population.”“In other words, two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races.” In 2001, the Human Genome edition of Nature came with a compact disc containing a similar statement, quoted above. 正如《新科学家》的一篇文章所报道的,哈佛大学的理查德•列万廷在1972年“发现近85%的人类遗传差异产生于种群内的个体之间”、“换句话说,个体之所以不同是因为他们是不同的个体,而不是因为他们属于不同的种族。”2001年,《自然:人类基因组特刊》附带的压缩光盘内也包含类似的引述。 Such statements seem all to trace back to a 1972 paper by Lewontin in the annual review Evolutionary Biology. Lewontin analysed data from 17 polymorphic loci, including the major blood-groups, and 7 ‘races’ (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, S. Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines). The gene frequencies were given for the 7 races but not for the individual populations comprising them, although the final analysis did quote the within-population variability. 类似的陈述貌似都出自列万廷在1972年《进化生物学》年度综述中发表的一篇文章。列万廷分析了出自17个多态基因位点(包括主要的血型)和7个“种族”(高加索人,非洲人,蒙古人,南亚原住民,美洲印第安人,大洋洲人,以及澳洲原住民)的数据。尽管最终的分析引述了种群内多样性,对于基因频率,文章只给出了7个种族的数据,而没有给出组成这些种族的种群数据。 “The results are quite remarkable. The mean proportion of the total species diversity that is contained within populations is 85.4%.... Less than 15% of all human genetic diversity is accounted for by differences between human groups! Moreover, the difference between populations within a race accounts for an additional 8.3%, so that only 6.3% is accounted for by racial classification.” “结果很显著。在种群内包含的总物种多样性的比例平均可以达到85.4%……而只有不到15%的人类遗传多样性能被种群差异所解释!不仅如此,同一种族内部种群的差异在这里占8.3%,所以只有6.3%的差异能归结于种族划分。” Lewontin concluded “Since . . . racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance . . ., no justification can be offered for its continuance” (full quotation given above). 列万廷结论道:“既然如此……种族划分现在看来毫无遗传学或是分类学依据……延续它看来是毫无必要的”(上文已有完整引用)。 Lewontin included similar remarks in his 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change “The taxonomic division of the human species into races places a completely disproportionate emphasis on a very small fraction of the total of human diversity. That scientists as well as nonscientists nevertheless continue to emphasize these genetically minor differences and find new ‘scientific’ justifications for doing so is an indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge.” 在他1974年的书《进化改进的遗传学基础》种,列万廷加入了类似的评论。“将人类划分为种族的分类学方法将不成比例的注意力集中在人类总体多样性的零头上。科学家和大众对这种零星遗传差异的重视和坚持,甚至发现新的‘科学’证据来支持这种做法,显示出社会经济学意识形态的力量超越了本该是客观的知识。” The fallacy 谬误 These conclusions are based on the old statistical fallacy of analysing data on the assumption that it contains no information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis. The ‘taxonomic significance’ of genetic data in fact often arises from correlations amongst the different loci, for it is these that may contain the information which enables a stable classification to be uncovered. 之所以有以上定论,主要是出于一个陈旧的统计谬误,即认为除了基于单个位点的分析结论之外,数据不包含任何其它信息,并且只考虑基于这个假设的分析和它衍生出的结论。而所谓的“有分类学意义”的遗传数据实际上源自不同位点之间的相关关系,正是这些相关关系中可能包含的信息驱动了对于分类的发掘。 Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza coined the word ‘treeness’ to describe the extent to which a tree-like structure was hidden amongst the correlations in gene-frequency data. Lewontin’s superficial analysis ignores this aspect of the structure of the data and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the data do not possess such structure. The argument is circular. A contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, was presented by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Making no prior assumptions about the form of the tree, they derived a convincing evolutionary tree for the 15 populations that they studied. Lewontin, though he participated in the Congress, did not refer to this analysis. Cavalli-Sforza和 Piazza创造了“树性”这一词汇,用于描述一个树形结构在基因频率数据的相关关系中的隐匿程度。列万廷的肤浅分析无视了数据在这方面的特性,于是不可避免的得出结论认为该树形结构不存在。这是个循环论证。Cavalli-Sforza和Edwards于1963年的世界遗传大会发表了与之对应的对比分析,并使用了类似的数据。在不对树形做任何先验假设的情况下,他们在研究的15个种群中得出了一个令人信服的进化树结构。列万廷虽然参加了此次会议,但却没有提到这个分析。 The statistical problem has been understood at least since the discussions surrounding Pearson’s ‘coefficient of racial likeness’ in the 1920s. It is mentioned in all editions of Fisher’s Statistical Methods for Research Workers from 1925 (quoted above). A useful review is that by Gower in a 1972 conference volume The Assessment of Population Affinities in Man. As he pointed out, “...the human mind distinguishes between different groups because there are correlated characters within the postulated groups.” 早在围绕皮尔森在1920年代提出的“种族相似性的协同因素”的讨论中,人们就已经理解了相关的统计原理了。在菲舍尔所作的《给研究员的统计方法》的所有版本中,该原理都有被提及(本文开头亦有引用)。高尔于1972年在“人类种群亲缘关系评估”的会议出版物中提出了一个有用的评论,他指出:“……人类心智将人划分为不同的组别,原因在于在这些组别内存在具有相关性的特性。” The original discussions involved anthropometric data, but the fallacy may equally be exposed using modern genetic terminology. Consider two haploid populations each of size n. In population 1 the frequency of a gene, say ‘+’ as opposed to ‘-’, at a single diallelic locus is p and in population 2 it is q, where p + q = 1. (The symmetry is deliberate.) Each population manifests simple binomial variability, and the overall variability is augmented by the difference in the means. 原初的讨论涉及一些人体测量学数据,但是我们用现代遗传学术语也同样可以揭示这个谬误。考虑两个个体数量各为n的单倍体种群。在种群1中某基因在一个单独位点为“+”而不是“-”的频率为p,在种群2中该频率为q,且p + q = 1。(这种对称性是有意设定的。)各种群的多样性为简单二项式分布,且总体多样性由于两个种群间平均值的差异而得到加强。 The natural way to analyse this variability is the analysis of variance, from which it will be found that the ratio of the within-population sum of squares to the total sum of squares is simply 4pq. Taking p = 0.3 and q = 0.7, this ratio is 0.84; 84% of the variability is within-population, corresponding closely to Lewontin’s figure. The probability of misclassifying an individual based on his gene is p, in this case 0.3. The genes at a single locus are hardly informative about the population to which their bearer belongs. 很自然的,我们用方差分析来评估多样性,从中可以得出种群内平方和与总体平方和之比为4pq【译注:对于任一种群,种群方差为npq,种群平方和为n2pq;总和平方和为1/4•n2(p+q)2 = 1/4•n2;(n2pq)/( 1/4•n2)=4pq】。如 p = 0.3 而 q = 0.7,该比率为0.84,即84%的多样性来自于种群内,正好对应列万廷的结果。基于该基因对个体的分类误差率为p,即0.3。单个位点的基因几乎不包含关于该基因携带者属于哪个种群的任何信息。 Now suppose there are k similar loci, all with gene frequency p in population 1 and q in population 2. The ratio of the within-to-total variability is still 84% at each locus. The total number of ‘+’ genes in an individual will be binomial with mean kp in population 1 and kq in population 2, with variance kpq in both cases. Continuing with the former gene frequencies and taking k = 100 loci (say), the mean numbers are 30 and 70 respectively, with variances 21 and thus standard deviations of 4.58. With a difference between the means of 40 and a common standard deviation of less than 4.6, there is virtually no overlap between the distributions, and the probability of misclassification is infinitesimal, simply on the basis of counting the number of ‘+’ genes. Fig. 1 shows how the probability falls off for up to 20 loci. 现在假设共有k个相似位点,都在种群1中和种群2中分别具有p和q的基因频率。在每个单个位点上,种群内多样性与总体多样性之比仍是84%。在每个个体上为“+”的基因数将呈二项式分布,其均值在种群1中为kp,在种群2中为kq,方差在两个种群中同为kpq。继续之前关于基因频率的假设【译注:即p = 0.3,q = 0.7】,设k = 100 个位点,则在两个种群中均值各为30和70,方差为21,因此标准差为4.58。在均值相差40的情况下,共同的标准差还不到4.6,因此这两个分布几乎没有任何重叠部分,所以基于“+”基因出现个数所作分类的误差可能性是无限小。图1显示了该分类误差率随位点数增加而下降的曲线,至20个位点。 #73-1 Figure 1. Graph showing how the probability of misclassification falls off as the number of gene loci increases, for the first example given in the text. The proportion of the variability within groups remains at 84% as in Lewontin’s data, but the probability of misclassification rapidly becomes negligible. 图1. 该图显示分类误差率随基因位点数增加而下降的曲线,用于文本中第一个例证。组内多样性占比依旧为列万廷数据揭示的84%,但分类误差率迅速下降至可以忽略的程度。【图表横轴:基因位点数;图表纵轴:分类误差率】 One way of looking at this result is to appreciate that the total number of ‘+’ genes is like the first principal component in a principal component analysis (Box 1). For this component the between-population sum of squares is very much greater than the within-population sum of squares. For the other components the reverse will hold, so that overall the between-population sum of squares is only a small proportion (in this example 16%) of the total. But this must not beguile one into thinking that the two populations are not separable, which they clearly are. 一种领会该结果的方式是将“+”基因的总数看成主成分分析法中的第一主成分(见框文1【编注:是对主成分分析(Principal components analysis,PCA)方法的介绍,译略,有兴趣可查看原文,或参见维基词条“主成分分析”】)。对于该成分,种群间平方和远大于种群内平方和。对于其他成分则反之,以至于对所有成分来说种群间平方和仅占总体平方和的一小部分(在这个例子里面为16%)。但这个结果不能诱使我们认为两个种群是不可分的,而实际上他们是清晰可分的。 Each additional locus contributes equally to the within-population and between-population sums of squares, whose proportions therefore remain unchanged but, at the same time, it contributes information about classification which is cumulative over loci because their gene frequencies are correlated. 每一个增加的位点都同样的增加种群内和种群间的平方和,导致它们之间的比率不变。但同时,关于分类的信息也增加了,而且这种增加在位点数量上是具有累加性的,因为位点之间的基因频率是相关的。 Classification 分类 It might be supposed, though it would be wrong, that this example is prejudiced by the assumptions that membership of the two populations is known in advance and that, at each locus, it is the same population that has the higher frequency of the ‘+’ gene. In fact the only advantage of the latter simplifying assumption was that it made it obvious that the total number of ‘+’ genes is the best discriminant between the two populations. 人们或可认为——虽然这么想是错的——这是个不太好的例子,因为假设了个体在两个种群的归属事先已知,并且在每个位点都是同一种群拥有较高的获得“+”的基因频率。实际上,后一个简化假设的唯一优势在于使得“+”基因的总数成为种群的明显最优判准。 To dispel these concerns, consider the same example but with ‘+’ and ‘-’ interchanged at each locus with probability 1⁄2, and suppose that there is no prior information as to which population each individual belongs. Clearly, the total number of ‘+’ genes an individual contains is no longer a discriminant, for the expected number is now the same in each group. A cluster analysis will be necessary in order to uncover the groups, and a convenient criterion is again based on the analysis of variance as in the method introduced by Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza. Here the preferred division into two clusters maximises the between-clusters sum of squares or, what is the same thing, minimises the sum of the within-clusters sums of squares. 为解除这些疑虑,设想同样的例子,但“+”和“-”在各个位点以1/2的概率互换,且没有关于个体归属的任何先验信息。显然,个体所拥有的“+”基因总数不能再作为判准,因为该数目的期望值在两组里面是一样的。在这种情况下需要用聚类分析来处理分组,且一个便利的分组条件仍然是基于方差分析的,其方法由Edwards和Cavalli-Sforza提供。这里对于聚类的优先分割会最大化聚类间平方和,或者说是最小化聚类内平方和,在这里是一样的意思。 As pointed out by these authors, it is extremely easy to compute these sums for binary data, for all the information is contained in the half-matrix of pairwise distances between the individuals, and at each locus this distance is simply 0 for a match and 1 for a mismatch of the genes. Since interchanging ‘+’ and ‘-’ makes no difference to the numbers of matches and mismatches, it is clear that the random changes introduced above are irrelevant. 正如这两位作者指出的那样,在二值数据里是很容易计算出这些平方和的,因为所有信息都可以体现为一个成对个体间的距离半矩阵。在每个位点上,配对时距离为0,不配对为1。既然互换“+”和“-”对于配对关系没有影响,那么显然以上引入的随机变化是无关的。 Continuing the symmetrical example, the probability of a match is p2 + q2 if the two individuals are from the same population and 2pq if they are from different populations. With k loci, therefore, the distance between two individuals from the same population will be binomial with mean k(p2 + q2) and variance k(p2 + q2)(1 – p2 – q2) and if from different populations binomial with mean 2kpq and variance 2kpq(1 – 2pq). These variances are, of course, the same. 继续这个对称性例子,对于来自同一种群的两个个体来说,单一位点配对的机率为p2 + q2;若来自不同种群,则为2pq。因此,对于k个位点,同一种群两个个体间距离呈二项式分布,均值为k(p2 + q2),方差为k(p2 + q2)(1 – p2 – q2);若来自不同种群,则均值为2kpq,方差为2kpq(1 – 2pq)。这两个方差显然是一样的【译注:p + q = 1 à p2 + q2 = 1 – 2pq】。 Taking p = 0.3, q = 0.7 and k = 100 as before, the means are 58 and 42 respectively, a difference of 16, the variances are 24.36 and the standard deviations both 4.936. The means are thus more than 3 standard deviations apart (3.2415). The entries of the half-matrix of pairwise distances will therefore divide into two groups with very little overlap, and it will be possible to identify the two clusters with a risk of misclassification which tends to zero as the number of loci increases. 像之前一样,取p = 0.3, q = 0.7 和 k = 100,则均值分别为58和42,相差16。方差为24.36,即两组的标准差都为4.936。这样一来两组均值之间则有超出3个标准差的距离。因此,这个成对个体距离半矩阵中的数值就可以被分成几乎没有重叠的两组,这样就有可能以较小的分类误差来识别两个聚类,且该分类误差率随位点数目增加逐渐趋向于0。 By analogy with the above example, it is likely that a count of the four DNA base frequencies in homologous tracts of a genome would prove quite a powerful statistical discriminant for classifying people into population groups. 同理可知,对于基因组同源区域的四个DNA碱基频率进行计数,这种方法很可能被证明是一个十分有效的进行种群分类的统计判准。 Conclusion 结论 There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification. It is not true that “racial classification is . . . of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance”. It is not true, as Nature claimed, that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world”, and it is not true, as the New Scientist claimed, that “two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races” and that “you can’t predict someone’s race by their genes”. Such statements might only be true if all the characters studied were independent, which they are not. 列万廷对于多样性的统计分析本身没错,错的是认为该分析与分类有关。那种认为“人种分类……毫无遗传学和分类学依据”的想法是错误的。类似《自然》杂志所声明的“两个来源于任何组别的个体之间的差异和两个来源于世界上任何地方的个体之间的差异几乎一样大”的想法是错误的。类似《新科学家》声明的“两个个体有区别是因为他们是两个个体,而不是因为他们从属于不同的种族”和“你无法通过基因来判断某人的种族”的想法也是错误的。这类声明唯有在所有被研究的特性都是独立分布的时候才成立,可它们并不是独立分布的。 Lewontin used his analysis of variation to mount an unjustified assault on classification, which he deplored for social reasons. It was he who wrote “Indeed the whole history of the problem of genetic variation is a vivid illustration of the role that deeply embedded ideological assumptions play in determining scientific ‘truth’ and the direction of scientific inquiry”. 列万廷利用他对于多样性的分析对人种分类发起了一场毫无根据的攻击,认为人种分类是社会因素造成的悲剧。正是他写道:“的确,遗传多样性问题的整个研究历史生动的向我们展示了深埋的意识形态假设是如何决定科学的‘真相’和科学探索的方向。” In a 1970 article Race and intelligence he had earlier written “I shall try, in this article, to display Professor Jensen’s argument, to show how the structure of his argument is designed to make his point and to reveal what appear to be deeply embedded assumptions derived from a particular world view, leading him to erroneous conclusions.” 更早之前在一篇发表于1972年的题为“种族与智能”的文章里他写道:“我会努力在本文向你展示詹森教授的论据,以及他如何构筑这些论据以说明他的论点的,并向你揭示那些深埋的假设是如何来自于一种特别的世界观,最终导致他得出一个错误的结论。” A proper analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter. But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality. One is reminded of Fisher’s remark in Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference “that the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments, which seems to be equally true in the intellectual and in the moral sense.” 对于人类数据的恰当分析揭示了有关遗传差异的大量信息。如何利用这些信息则是另外一回事。但将生物学上的相似性当作人类在道德上平等的前提是一个危险的错误,因为差异一旦被发现,就会被视作道德不平等的论据。我们应当铭记菲舍尔在《统计方法与科学推断》中的话:“最好的主张常常会吸引最差的理由,而这理由在智力上和道德上都一样不靠谱。” Epilogue 后记 This article could, and perhaps should, have been written soon after 1974. Since then many advances have been made in both gene technology and statistical computing that have facilitated the study of population differences from genetic data. The magisterial book of Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza took the human story up to 1994, and since then many studies have amply confirmed the validity of the approach. 这篇文章本可以——且应该——在1974年之后不久就写完。自那时起,基因技术和统计计算方面取得了诸多进展,为研究遗传数据中的种群差异提供了很大帮助。Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi和Piazza的权威著作将人类的故事带到了1994年,从那时起,众多研究广泛的证实了他们的方法。 Very recent studies have treated individuals in the same way that Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards treated populations in 1963, namely by subjecting their genetic information to a cluster analysis thus revealing genetic affinities that have unsurprising geographic, linguistic and cultural parallels. As the authors of the most extensive of these comment, “it was only in the accumulation of small allele-frequency differences across many loci that population structure was identified.” 一些晚近的研究用Cavalli-Sforza和Edwards处理种群的方法对待个体,即,将聚类分析运用到个体遗传信息的分析上,由此所揭示出的地理、语言、以及文化上的遗传亲缘性,并不出乎意料。正如在这些课题上之中涉猎最为广泛的作者所言:“只有当众多微小位点上等位基因的差异逐渐累积,种群结构才得以显现。” (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——