科技創新讓世界變得更美好了嗎？

Every day， innovative companies promise to make the world a better place. Are they succeeding？

Here is just a sampling of the products， apps and services that have ever come across my radar：

A service that sends someone to fill your car with gas.

A service that sends a valet on a scooter to you， wherever you are， to park your car.

A service that will film anything you desire with a drone.

A service that will pack your suitcase — virtually.

A service that delivers a new toothbrush head to your mailbox every three months.

A service that delivers your beer right to your door.

A "smart" button and zipper that alerts you if your fly is down.

An app that lets us brew our coffee from anywhere.

A refrigerator advertised as "the Family Hub" that promises to act as a personal assistant， message board， stereo and photo album.

An app to locate rentable driveways for parking.

An app to help you understand "cause and effect in your life".

An app that imparts wisdom.

And a new proposal to create an app designed to stop police killings.

We are overloaded daily with new discoveries， patents and inventions all promising a better life， but that better life has not been forthcoming for most. In fact， the bulk of the above list targets a very specific （and tiny！） slice of the population. As one colleague in tech explained it to me recently， for most people working on such projects， the goal is basically to provide for themselves everything that their mothers no longer do.

He was joking — sort of — but his comment made me think hard about who is served by this stuff. Im concerned that such a focus on comfort and instant gratification will reduce us all to those characters in Wall-E， bound to their recliners， Big Gulps in hand， interacting with the world exclusively through their remotes.

When everything is characterized as “world-changing”， is anything？

Clay Tarver， a writer and producer for the painfully on-point HBO comedy Silicon Valley， said in a New Yorker article： "Ive been told that， at some of the big companies， the P.R. departments have ordered their employees to stop saying ‘Were making the world a better place， specifically because we have made fun of that phrase so mercilessly. So I guess， at the very least， were making the world a better place by making these people stop saying theyre making the world a better place.”

O.K.， thats a start. But the impulse to conflate toothbrush delivery with Nobel Prize-worthy good works is not just a bit cultish， its currently a wildfire burning through the so-called innovation sector. Products and services are designed to “disrupt” market sectors （a.k.a.bringing to market things no one really needs） more than to solve actual problems， especially those problems experienced by what the writer C. Z. Nnaemeka has described as “the unexotic underclass” — single mothers， the rural poor， veterans， out-of-work people over 50 — who， she explains， have the “misfortune of being insufficiently interesting”.

If the most fundamental definition of design is to solve problems， why are so many people devoting so much energy to solving problems that dont really exist？ How can we get more people to look beyond their own lived experience？

In Design： The Invention of Desire， a thoughtful and necessary new book by the designer and theorist Jessica Helfand， the author brings to light an amazing kernel： "hack"， a term so beloved in Silicon Valley that its painted on the courtyard of the Facebook campus and is visible from planes flying overhead， is also prison slang for "horses ass carrying keys".

To "hack" is to cut， to gash， to break. It proceeds from the belief that nothing is worth saving， that everything needs fixing. But is that really the case？ Are we fixing the right things？ Are we breaking the wrong ones？ Is it necessary to start from scratch every time？

Empathy， humility， compassion， conscience： these are the key ingredients missing in the pursuit of innovation， Ms. Helfand argues， and in her book she explores design， and by extension innovation， as an intrinsically human discipline — although one that seems to have lost its way. Ms. Helfand argues that innovation is now predicated less on creating and more on the undoing of the work of others.

"In this humility-poor environment， the idea of disruption appeals as a kind of subversive provocation"， she writes. "Too many designers think they are innovating when they are merely breaking and entering."

In this way， innovation is very much mirroring the larger public discourse： unabashed confidence in ones own judgment shifts solutions away from fixing， repairing or improving and shoves them toward destruction for its own sake.

Perhaps the main reason these frivolous products and services frustrate me is because of their creators insistence that changing lives for the better is their reason for being.

Ms. Helfand calls for a deeper embrace of personal vigilance： "Design may provide the map"， she writes， "but the moral compass that guides our personal choices resides permanently within us all".

Can we reset that moral compass？ Maybe we can start by not being a bunch of hacks.

每一天，那些創新公司都在承諾著要讓世界變得更美好。他們做到了嗎？

下面是幾個產品、手機應用和服務的例子，都是我曾注意到的。

讓別人來幫你加滿油的服務。

在任何地方叫代泊車服務員踩著滑板車來幫你停車的服務。

用無人機幫你為任何東西攝像的服務。

幫你收拾行李的服務 —— 虛擬的。

每三個月把新的牙刷頭寄到你郵箱里的服務。

送啤酒上門的服務。

褲子拉鏈沒拉上時會提醒你的“智能”紐扣和拉鏈。

在任何地點都可以煮咖啡的手機應用。

一種在廣告宣傳中被定義為“家庭中樞站”的冰箱，承諾充當私人助理、信息板、立體音響和相冊。

尋找可供租用的私人停車位的手機應用。

幫你了解“人生因果”的手機應用。

傳遞智慧的手機應用。

最近還有人建議開發一種用來杜絕警察殺人的手機應用。

每一天，我們都被各種承諾要讓生活更美好的新發現、新專利和新發明所淹沒，但是對于大部分人來說，更美好的生活沒有到來。其實在上面的單子里，大部分項目都是針對一個特定（而且很小！）的人群。最近一個科技領域的同事向我解釋說，對于大多數研發這類項目的人來說，他們的目標基本上就是為自己提供各種媽媽不再為他們做的事情。

某種程度上，他是在開玩笑，但是他的話啟發我去深入思考那些使用這些服務的人。我擔心，這樣關注方便舒適和即時的滿足感，會把我們都變成《機器人瓦力》里的人，終日躺在躺椅上，拿著大杯飲料，只靠遙控器和世界互動。

當一切都被打上“改變世界”的標簽，到底有什么東西能真正改變世界？

作家克萊·塔弗是一針見血的HBO喜劇《硅谷》的編劇。他在《紐約客》的一篇文章中說：“我被告知，在某些大公司里，公關部門要求雇員不要再說‘我們在讓世界變得更美好這句話，主要是因為我們拿這句話開玩笑開得太狠了。所以至少我想，通過讓這些人停止說‘我們讓世界變得更美好，我們讓世界變得更美好了。”

好吧，這是個開始。但是，把寄送牙刷和諾貝爾獎級別的杰作混為一談的沖動，不只是一種宗教狂熱，而是像燎原野火般橫掃所謂的創新產業。很多產品和服務都旨在“擾亂”市場劃分（換言之，就是把根本沒人需要的東西推向市場），而不是用來解決真正的問題，尤其不能解決那些被作家C·Z·納埃梅卡稱之為“尋常的下層社會”所面臨的問題 —— 就是那些單親媽媽、鄉村貧窮人、老兵、年過50的失業人 —— 她解釋說，他們“很不幸，不夠有趣”。

如果設計的最基本定義是用來解決問題，為什么那么多人投入那么多精力，去解決根本不存在的問題？我們該怎樣讓更多人看到超越自身生活體驗之外的東西？

《設計：欲望的發明》是一本深思熟慮又非常有用的新書，作者是設計師兼理論家杰西卡·赫爾方。她解釋了那個驚人的內核“駭客”，這個詞為硅谷所深愛，被繪在Facebook園區的院子里，從飛機上都能看見。在監獄里，它是用來指代“獄警”的俚語。

做“駭客”就意味著切入、突擊、打破。它源自那種沒有任何事物值得保留，一切都需要被修理的信念。但是事實真的如此嗎？我們是在修理需要修理的東西嗎？我們是不是打破了不該打破的東西？每次都需要從零開始嗎？

赫爾方指出，共情、謙卑、同情、良心，這些關鍵成分都是追求創新的過程中所缺失的。她在書中把設計，當然也包括創新，從本質上作為一個人文學科來探討 —— 盡管這個學科似乎已經迷失了方向。赫爾方認為，如今，創新更多是基于毀掉別人的工作，而不是基于創造。

“在這樣一個缺乏謙卑的環境下，‘擾亂的概念顯得像是一種顛覆性的挑釁，”她寫道，“太多的設計師覺得他們是在創新，其實他們只是在破壞和闖入。”

在這層意義上，創新成了一段更宏大的公共話語的縮影：對自我判斷的自以為是，讓解決方案偏離了修補、修正或改善的目的，變成了為破壞而破壞。

或許這些微不足道的產品與服務令我煩惱的主要原因，是因為它們的創造者堅持認為，它們的存在就是為了讓生活變得更好。

赫爾方呼吁更多的個人警覺：“設計或許能夠提供地圖，”她寫道，“但是能夠指引個人選擇的道德羅盤卻永遠存在于我們每個人的內心。”

我們能重新校準我們的道德羅盤嗎？或許我們應該從不做駭客開始。

【詞匯積累】

innovative adj. 革新的；創新的

mercilessly adv. 無情地；殘忍地

impulse n. 沖動；一時的念頭；推動力

humility n. 謙虛，謙遜

undo v. 消除，取消，廢止（某事的影響）

vigilance n. 警覺；警惕；謹慎

vigilant adj. 警覺的；警戒的

colleague n. 同事，同僚

characterize v. 描述……的特征，描繪；

以……為特征

fundamental adi 根本的；基本的；必不可少的

by extension 自然地，當然地

discipline n. （大學里的）學科，科目

merely adv. 僅僅，只不過

permanently adv. 總是；持久地

bunch n. 一群，一伙（人等）