Technology is to make humans into pigs?

Evolution and evolution are fundamentally different.

Evolution does not have a clear direction-if it is hard to say, it is guaranteed to survive, as a species survives, and as an individual survives.

But the theory of evolution does have an obvious directionality, that is: into. The progressive, is always under a certain benchmark than the original more "good".

Because of its historical tradition, China prefers to say "evolution", rather than its original "Evolution theory". Perhaps the Chinese people want to live better than in the past, but often hold such ideas, will go to the north.

Of course, this thing is not going to be too tangled up in terms of these two biological sources, but rather to discuss a problem

The first thing I thought about this was the day before yesterday when I took a taxi to the lab whisky bar.

Their whisky is really good, although I do not know the wine people, of course, not a drink, but I still think this wine is very good.

Well, digress.

In the taxi, the driver was broadcasting.

On the radio, the host is talking about a new product, seems to call the driving treasure or what, is in the middle of the steering wheel has a viscous hanging groove, you can put the phone on top, so you do not have to use your hand to take the phone, you can see the phone directly on the things, very convenient

Another nickname for this thing is called the driver killer.

Because he lets the driver see the handset to be more convenient, therefore causes the inevitable result is the driver will spend more thought to look at the handset the information, may more conveniently drive the Micro Bo. In short, drivers are more likely to be distracted and more prone to accidents.

The accident is also calculated, more because it is located in the center of the steering wheel, and that's Where the airbag pops up, which means that when the airbag pops up, the phone and the driving treasure will be ejected together--so, you know, high-speed impact, you were supposed to be cushioned by airbags, Now is the airbag popped out of the hand sword stabbed, glorious sacrifice.

This is the driver of the killer.

In this thing, the killing part for the moment, I am more concerned about: it is more convenient for drivers to use mobile phones, but also increased the risk factor.

Let's think of a scenario in which a new generation of driving treasures is not placed in the airbag position, but, for example, Googleglass. As long as we adjust the pupil focus to close range, GG is automatically activated, beginning to display information on the retina, and then according to your eye movement to calculate the point of view position, to operate. The whole process does not require the participation of the hand, only need to move the eye and point of view, that is more convenient ah.

Such GG obviously will not incarnate as the airbag player sword, so will not become a driver killer so intuitive existence.

But is it really safe?

It makes it easier for the driver to trance, more simply desertion, more convenient soul to swim the Sihai, then the driving will be safe?

So we can understand why Google launched the GG and also in the launch of driverless cars-because if people's attention in the "perfect online" (I sf), the car naturally have no time to mind, so it is prone to problems, The absence of an unmanned car makes up for the flaw.

Of course, I'm not here to advertise for Google, but to consider the question of whether High-tech, while bringing more convenient living habits, is also reducing the risk of opportunity costs in other ways.

In contrast, it was recently seen in design design that mentions the design of a four-corner toilet paper barrel designed by the architect Shigeru.

The common toilet paper reel is cylindrical, very convenient to roll, so it is convenient to take paper. Ban Mao's Four corners of toilet paper reel, as the name suggests, is the four-corner shape, so the rolling inconvenient (we do not consider the constant width of the curve such as Rolles triangle), paper also has some obstacles.

So why did the architect Shigeru Design this inconvenient design?

Because the theme of this design is "environmental protection", is "saving the use of wood"-and, inconvenient toilet paper reel, to a certain extent, so that users no longer wanton use of toilet paper, but a certain amount of savings, and this kind of savings is not convenient to bring.

In other words, by properly increasing the use of difficulty and the threshold of use, deliberately design from the mainstream of the expected "convenient" way to pull back, than the use of the object more important "environmental" intention to be demonstrated.

If we compare the driving treasure and the Four Corners reel, we will find that the former jaybird on the "more convenient" evolutionary path, while the latter goes against the "more inconvenient" rebellious road.

But if you let me say who is more "good", then my choice is probably the latter, the more inconvenient things.

Finally, we raise the question:

Should technology, in the end, satisfy our jaws for "convenient living", or should it be truncated or even poured back to the right level?

The rhetoric of retreat is certainly not the first day to be put forward.

More also said there was a victory called retreat.

In the old article "what kind of environment, and what kind of people", I put forward a new point of view, that is, people and the environment is a synergistic evolution.

Or, further, it is possible to say that an evolutionary system is evolving in synergy with its variable external environment.

One of the trends of this synergistic evolution is that individuals tend to be more and more inclined to the state given by the environment, and the environment is increasingly tending to the individual's required state. The two sides compromise and eventually evolve to a stable state that can be reached on both sides.

What is observed in this process, like the most common in physics, is the evolution from high-energy states to Low-energy states, the "flow of water toward the lower", as the saying goes.

The more convenient state, is that people have to pay less labor state, so that is a more low-energy state, which is not in addition to the impact of the situation, the whole system will eventually evolve to the state.

It is the so-called technology innovation is to better lazy.

The advent of all technologies is almost invariably aimed at pushing humans toward a more lazy path.

In this process, the evolution of the individual is everyone, and the evolution of the environment is the science and technology and social ethics and public opinion of the structure of the whole.

The individual hopes life is more convenient, the social public opinion also will be more convenient as the science and technology evolution direction to propagate, the science and technology itself naturally also moves toward can let the person more convenient life direction to evolve.

So, the end result is, in the wall E "See that look--everyone lies in a fully automatic multi-functional high-tech couch, no longer exercise, no longer work, just need to have fun, eventually evolved into a head of a pig, just fine."

Humans have spent eons of time evolving, but in the end they seem to be just trying to evolve in the last thousand years into a hog that can do nothing without technology.

Well, that's a lopsided thing to say, but that's probably it.

You see, the core is: should technology help people to make life more and more convenient?

In my opinion, the answer is in the negative.

There is a physical term called truncation.

Of course, the emergence of the term itself is a helplessness-we find that our calculations become divergent as the scale of the calculation becomes smaller or the calculated energy level becomes higher.

Therefore, we artificially stipulate that in the calculation, below a certain scale or a certain level of energy above we do not forget-this man-made standard is called truncation, and this whole calculation process is the legendary normalization.

We're going to be yelling at a certain level, this is mandatory, and we believe there is a deeper reason behind it-for example, the deeper reason in condensed matter is that the scale of the substance is no longer the continuity of the theory, but the underlying physical content: the particles.

The idea of truncation is certainly not just in physics.

We are in a lot of times will artificially set a red line, once you step on the red line, it will be artificially truncated.

The synergetic evolution of science and technology should theoretically set up such a truncated energy standard.

When science and technology progress to a certain extent, it can no longer for the convenience of human evolution, should be set up appropriate gap, so that people can not unlimited to sink into the convenient prison.

But, theoretically, it is hard to do so, because in this system of co-evolution, man is the subject of evolution.

Human nature is greedy, so it is lazy, all diligence is to better lazy-human this large base of a few heretics we can naturally ignore.

So, if you have two devices, and you can do anything you want to do with just one thought, the other has to do a little bit of physical work, which one do you choose?

Most people will choose the first one.

Now stand in the merchant's angle, such two equipment, if the cost is equal, then you will choose vigorously sell which one?

Most businesses will choose the first one.

So, things are clear--the more lazy demand is the just need for human life, artificial design of the operating threshold, most people will not buy.

Therefore, when we stand in the whole society in the perspective of the case, the "unrestricted convenience" this model and "a certain threshold of convenience," the model because of the former has a smaller choice of pressure, so more easily retained.

Finally, if there is not some kind of artificial mandatory operation to standardize each person must choose a certain threshold of editing rather than unrestricted convenience, then unlimited convenience will eventually thoroughly swept the convenience of the threshold, the entire human society is the only one to survive the memes.

From this point of view, if there is no global coercive mechanism to regulate the evolution of the cut-off line of technology, then the end of mankind into a pig is almost a foregone conclusion.

And, from the beginning of life, it seems to have been written into genes.

At the same time, it is written into the whole Earth's memes.

Think of such a future, let a person feel

This roast pig a few money a catty ah?