論工業社會及其未來-工業-技術社會不能被改革

111

前述的原則展現了要改革這個工業化的系統以防止它逐漸的限縮我們的自由是令人絕望地困難。

至少從工業革命後，就有科技不斷以犧牲個人自由以及地方自治為代價強化這個系統的趨勢。因此任何想要保護自由免於科技侵害的改變都會違背我們社會發展的基本趨勢。

因此，這種改變要不是暫時性的，很快的隱沒在歷史的潮流中，就是很巨大到足以永久改變我們整個社會的本質。這是前述的第一和第二原則。

此外，因為無法事先預測社會改變的方式（第三原則），改變伴隨巨大風險。大到可以讓社會持續傾向自由的改變不會發生，因為我們會意識到它們會嚴重的干擾系統。所以任何改革的嘗試會太溫和以至於無效。

即使改變大到可以造成持續的影響，當其破壞性的效果變得很明顯得時候，這個改變也會被廢止。

因此，支持自由的永久改變只能由準備好接受激進的、危險的以及不可預測的修改整個系統的人們起始。換句話說，透過革命而非改革。

112

那些想不犧牲科技所能帶來的益處又想拯救自由的人會提供一些天真的計畫，一些新型式的社會同時調和了自由和科技。先不說提供這些建議的人很少提出任何實際的方法讓這種新形式的社會得以建立，根據第四個原則，即使新型式的社會可以建立起來，它也會崩壞或產生和預期非常不同的結果。

113

因此廣泛地說任何調和自由和現代科技的社會改變都是極不可能的。接下來的幾節我們會提供更多更明確的原因論斷自由和科技進展是不相容的。

◈

INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED

111

The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one—soon swamped by the tide of history—or, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers.

112

People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make such suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.

113

So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.