walkaround

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@lafakakan 中国台南人能飞

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@zhousheng6688 @Jueshengshenlan @ClausTahler 鸡蛋哥

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@jxzdmzw 其实九零后之前的中国人还是非常崇洋媚外没有足够自信的，但是这也让我们其实非常甚至是过度谦虚了几十年☺️傲慢是进步的绊脚石，而现在已经是西方傲慢晚期，东方大多数人其实还没习惯或者理解自己是怎样的利维坦

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@TweetsOfSumit 你这名字也不是德国人啊

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@PatLeLion237 只是说大实话已经是大师级课程了吗🤔

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@Valnoxxx 然后他们除了不喜欢之外无能为力

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@Valnoxxx 说明了我们真的赢了几千年😎

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@mike_d1213 实事求是上了名校后忘了实事求是

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@PingFu1999 新冠本来应该解决这个问题

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@Jakatuki1984 @santoulang @grok 吉雪霏

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

@Sadik0707 是各国不想学么，还是学不来

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

A follow-up to my ranking of today's contradictions. I left out three that may be even more fundamental than anything on that list.

1. Technological power vs. our capacity to govern it. Nuclear weapons, AI, synthetic biology: for the first time, a handful of people can cause civilization-level damage, while our institutions were designed for a much slower world. This is wider than "humans vs. AI"; AI is just one case. If US–China rivalry decides whether there is a war, this one decides whether there is anyone left after it.

2. Humanity vs. the planet's carrying capacity. Climate, energy, resources. It ignores borders and classes, and it runs on physics, which doesn't negotiate. Great-power rivalry and overproduction both ultimately hit the ceiling of energy and environment.

3. Demographics. Collapsing birth rates and aging in East Asia and Europe, while Africa's population keeps growing. It will reshape labor, pensions, migration and the balance of power, and it is almost impossible to reverse within decades.

Why weren't these on the first list? Because they are slow and quiet. They don't trend, nobody posts about them in anger, and no algorithm rewards them. But slow contradictions are often the ones that set the stage on which all the loud ones play out.

If I had to pick one, I'd put technology vs. governance above everything, US–China included. It's the only contradiction that could make all the others irrelevant.

———

补充一条，接着上次的矛盾排序。有三个矛盾我没列进去，但它们可能比榜单上的任何一个都更根本。

1. 技术力量与治理能力的矛盾。核武器、AI、合成生物，人类第一次进入少数人就能造成文明级破坏的时代，而我们的制度却是为一个慢得多的世界设计的。它比"人类与 AI"更宽，AI 只是其中一例。如果说中美矛盾决定会不会打仗，那这个矛盾决定的是打完之后还有没有人。

2. 人类与地球承载力的矛盾。气候、能源、资源。它不分国界、不分阶级，遵循的是物理规律，而物理规律不谈判。大国竞争也好，生产过剩也好，最终都会撞上能源和环境的天花板。

3. 人口结构的矛盾。东亚和欧洲少子化、老龄化，非洲人口仍在增长。它会重塑劳动力、养老、移民和大国实力对比，而且几十年内几乎无法逆转。

为什么第一次没把它们列进去？因为它们又慢又安静。不上热搜，没人愤怒地转发，算法也不奖励它们。但慢的矛盾，往往才是搭起舞台的那个，所有喧嚣的矛盾都在它上面演出。

如果只能选一个，我会把技术与治理的矛盾放在最前面，甚至排在中美之前。因为它是唯一一个可能让其他所有矛盾都失去意义的矛盾。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

Mao's "On Contradiction" makes a simple but powerful point: at any stage, there are many contradictions, but only one is the principal contradiction. Grasp it, and the rest fall into place.

Today, AI and the internet have finished building the Tower of Babel. Every idea and every conflict now collides at a speed and scale never seen before. So which contradictions actually matter most? Here's my ranking, using three tests: how many people it affects, whether it generates other contradictions, and whether it can decide war or peace.

1. US–China rivalry for world leadership. This is today's principal contradiction. It decides whether there is war or peace, it shapes the AI race, trade, technology and alliances, and almost every other conflict gets pulled into its orbit.

2. Humans vs. AI. The fastest-rising contradiction. Right now it's still secondary, but it may become the principal one within a decade or two. When machines can do most labor and thinking, the question of what humans are worth stops being philosophy and becomes politics.

3. Inequality, overproduction and weak demand. This is the deep economic engine underneath everything. Wealth piles up at the top, demand stalls, and internal pressure gets exported as trade wars and nationalism. AI will make it sharper.

4. Sea power vs. land power. Maritime civilizations led by capital, continental civilizations led by the state. This isn't a separate fight so much as the long historical root of #1. It moves slowly, but it explains why each side finds the other's model so alien.

5. Boomers vs. millennials. This is #3 playing out across time. One generation holds the assets, the other lives on wages in an economy where assets grow faster than wages.

6. Ethnic conflicts. Locally, they can be the most violent of all. Globally, they're mostly secondary, and often used as levers by the bigger powers in #1.

7. Men vs. women. The loudest online, but mostly a projection of #3 and #5: housing costs, childcare costs, job insecurity. Algorithms amplify it because it drives engagement, not because it drives history.

That last point matters. In the age of Babel, the loudest contradiction is rarely the biggest. Algorithms reward what's emotional and personal, so the minor ones look huge and the structural ones look abstract.

And as Mao also said, contradictions transform into each other. Today's principal contradiction is US vs. China. Tomorrow's may be humans vs. AI. The skill is not picking a side in every fight, but seeing which fight is driving all the others.

———

毛泽东在《矛盾论》里讲过一个简单而有力的道理：在任何一个阶段，矛盾有很多，但主要矛盾只有一个。抓住了它，其他矛盾就迎刃而解。

今天，AI 和互联网已经把巴别塔建成了。所有思想、所有冲突，都在以前所未有的速度和规模碰撞。那么，到底哪些矛盾最重要？我用三个标准来排序：影响多少人、会不会派生出其他矛盾、能不能决定战争与和平。

1. 中美世界霸权之争。这是当前的主要矛盾。它决定战争还是和平，塑造 AI 竞赛、贸易、技术和同盟格局，几乎所有其他矛盾都会被卷进它的引力场。

2. 人类与 AI 的矛盾。上升最快的矛盾。眼下它还是次要矛盾，但可能在一二十年内变成主要矛盾。当机器能做大部分劳动和思考，"人的价值是什么"就不再是哲学问题，而是政治问题。

3. 贫富差距、生产过剩与需求不足。这是一切之下的深层经济引擎。财富向顶端堆积，需求停滞，内部压力被转化为贸易战和民族主义输出到外部。AI 会让它更尖锐。

4. 海洋文明与大陆文明。资本主导的海洋文明，权力主导的大陆文明。它与其说是一场独立的斗争，不如说是第一条矛盾的历史根源。它变化很慢，但能解释为什么双方都觉得对方的模式如此陌生。

5. 婴儿潮一代与千禧一代。这是第三条矛盾在时间轴上的展开。一代人握着资产，另一代人靠工资生活，而资产涨得比工资快。

6. 民族矛盾。在局部，它可能是最暴力的；在全球层面，它大多是次要矛盾，而且常常被第一条矛盾里的大国当作杠杆。

7. 男女两性矛盾。网上声音最大，但它很大程度上是第三条和第五条的投影：房价、育儿成本、就业不安全感。算法放大它，是因为它能带来流量，而不是因为它推动历史。

最后这一点很重要。在巴别塔时代，声音最大的矛盾很少是最大的矛盾。算法奖励情绪化和个人化的东西，所以次要矛盾看起来很巨大，结构性矛盾反而显得很抽象。

毛泽东还说过，矛盾会相互转化。今天的主要矛盾是中美，明天的可能是人类与 AI。真正的功夫不是在每一场争吵里选边站，而是看清哪一场矛盾在驱动其他所有矛盾。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

Most great-power wars start the same way: two rising claims, one fixed pie.

That's why I think the US–China race in AI and space might be one of humanity's few real sources of hope right now.

Competition doesn't have to mean war. A race can also open up new frontiers. AI could unlock a new wave of productivity. Space could open up new resources, new industries, and literally new room. When the pie grows fast enough, rivals have more to gain from building than from destroying each other. The energy that would have gone into a collision goes into a race instead.

So the real question of our era may be a timing question: will the breakthroughs in AI and space arrive before the next world war does?

I hope they do. But even if they win that race, there's a second contradiction waiting behind it, and it may be even harder.

AI is getting more capable faster than any technology in history. For most of human history, a person's value in the economy came from their labor and their thinking. If machines can do more and more of both, what happens to the bargaining power of ordinary people? How is wealth shared when it no longer depends on human work?

We've seen a smaller version of this before. The Industrial Revolution created enormous wealth, but it took decades of upheaval, labor movements, revolutions and wars before societies worked out new arrangements like unions, public education and the welfare state.

The AI transition could be bigger and faster than that. Which means the old ways of distributing value may break before new ones are ready. Finding a new model may take a period of disruption and struggle unlike anything we've seen.

So humanity is running two races at once. One is between breakthroughs and war. The other is between machine capability and our ability to redefine what humans are worth.

The first race is about survival. The second is about what kind of civilization survives.

———

大国战争的起点往往是同一个：两个都在上升的诉求，争夺一块不变的蛋糕。

所以我觉得，中美在 AI 和太空探索上的竞赛，可能是当下人类为数不多的真正希望。

竞争不一定意味着战争。一场竞赛也可以打开新的疆域。AI 可能带来新一轮生产力爆发，太空可能带来新的资源、新的产业，以及字面意义上新的空间。当蛋糕做大得足够快，对手之间去建设的收益就会大于互相毁灭的收益。原本会用于碰撞的能量，就被转进了竞赛里。

所以我们这个时代真正的问题，也许是一个时间问题：AI 和太空的突破，能不能先于下一场世界大战到来？

我希望能。但即使赢了这场赛跑，后面还有第二个矛盾在等着，而且可能更难。

AI 能力的进步速度超过了历史上任何一种技术。在人类大部分历史里，一个人在经济中的价值来自他的劳动和思考。如果机器能做越来越多的劳动和思考，普通人的议价能力会变成什么样？当财富不再依赖人的工作，它又该如何分配？

我们见过这件事的一个小号版本。工业革命创造了巨大的财富，但社会花了几十年的动荡、工人运动、革命和战争，才摸索出工会、公共教育和福利国家这样的新安排。

AI 带来的转变可能比那次更大、更快。这意味着旧的价值分配方式可能会在新的方式准备好之前就先崩掉。找到新的分配模式，可能需要一段前所未有的动荡和斗争。

所以人类同时在跑两场赛跑。一场是突破与战争之间的赛跑，另一场是机器能力与我们重新定义人的价值之间的赛跑。

第一场关乎能不能活下来，第二场关乎活下来的是一个什么样的文明。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

Hegel had an idea about tragedy that I think explains most human conflict.

Real tragedy, he argued, isn't good versus evil. It's right versus right.

His favorite example was Antigone. Antigone insists on burying her brother, because family and the gods demand it. King Creon forbids it, because the law of the city demands it. Both are right. Both have good reasons. And precisely because neither is wrong, neither can back down, and the collision destroys them.

Most human struggles look like this up close. Nations, civilizations, ideologies. Each side has its history, its wounds, its logic, and from the inside, every one of those reasons is valid.

But the world doesn't have room for every valid reason at once. Land, resources, power and the right to tell the story are limited. So two sides that are both right can still end up trying to eliminate each other.

That's the hard part to accept. Conflict doesn't need a villain. It only needs two legitimate claims to the same space.

If you understand this, you stop asking "who's the bad guy?" and start asking "what are they both protecting, and is there any way for both to survive?"

Sometimes there is. Often, history decides there isn't, and the stronger side writes the next chapter.

That's not cynicism. That's tragedy, in Hegel's sense: right against right.

———

黑格尔对悲剧有一个看法，我觉得能解释大多数人类冲突。

他认为，真正的悲剧不是善与恶的冲突，而是对与对的冲突。

他最喜欢举的例子是《安提戈涅》。安提戈涅坚持要埋葬哥哥，因为家族伦理和神的律法要求她这样做。国王克瑞翁禁止她这么做，因为城邦的法律要求他这样做。两个人都是对的，都有充分的理由。正因为谁都没错，谁也不能退让，最后这场碰撞把双方都毁了。

人类的大多数争斗，走近了看都是这样。国家、文明、意识形态，每一方都有自己的历史、自己的伤口、自己的逻辑。站在它内部看，每一条理由都成立。

但世界没有足够的空间同时容纳所有成立的理由。土地、资源、权力，还有讲述历史的权利，都是有限的。所以两个都对的一方，仍然可能走到想要消灭对方的那一步。

这是最难接受的地方：冲突不需要坏人，只需要两个正当的诉求争夺同一块空间。

明白了这一点，你就不再问"谁是坏人"，而会去问"他们各自在守护什么？有没有办法让双方都活下来？"

有时候有。更多时候，历史判定没有，然后由更强的一方书写下一章。

这不是犬儒。这就是黑格尔意义上的悲剧：对与对的冲突。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

《道德经》里有一句我常常想起："反者道之动。"

这样看，意识形态的对抗并不是世界出了错，而是世界在运动。自由与秩序，个人与集体，东方与西方，每一方都在与对方的对立中定义自己，而这种张力正是推动历史前进的力量。"有无相生。"

甚至一场世界大战，也可以看作历史区块链上的一轮工作量证明（PoW）。双方所有没解决的矛盾不断累积，直到只能通过燃烧巨量的现实能量来结算。尘埃落定后，新的共识被写进账本，此后几十年，所有人都在这个区块上继续构建。

工作量证明证明的不是谁在道德上正确，而是谁能消耗最多、还依然站着。所以《道德经》也说"天地不仁"。历史不发判决书，只给出结果。

因此，对立的制度之间也许没有绝对的对错。但强弱依然存在，更强的一方最终会引领人类文明的方向，直到下一次"反"。

明白这一点不会让人犬儒，反而让人更平静。网上大多数争吵，根本不是在寻找真相。

一旦把个人和群体分开，把事实和身份分开，把概率和确定性分开，大多数争论要么变成可以解决的问题，要么变成毫无意义的部落表演。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

The Tao Te Ching has a line I keep coming back to: "Reversal is the movement of the Tao." (反者道之动)

Seen this way, ideological conflict isn't the world going wrong. It's the world moving. Freedom and order, the individual and the collective, East and West. Each defines itself against the other, and the tension between them is what drives history forward. "Being and non-being give rise to each other."

Even a world war can be read like a proof-of-work round on history's blockchain. Every unresolved contradiction between two sides piles up until it can only be settled by burning enormous real-world energy. When the dust clears, a new consensus is written into the ledger, and everyone builds on that block for the next few decades.

Proof of work doesn't prove who was morally right. It proves who could expend the most and still stand. That's why the Tao Te Ching also says "Heaven and earth are not benevolent." History doesn't hand out verdicts. It hands out outcomes.

So there may be no absolute right or wrong between rival systems. But there is still strong and weak, and the stronger side ends up setting the direction for human civilization, until the next reversal.

Knowing this doesn't make you cynical. It makes you calmer. Most of what people fight about online isn't a search for truth at all.

Once you separate individuals from groups, facts from identities, and probabilities from certainties, most arguments become either solvable questions or pointless tribal performances.

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

为什么中国和西方对自由、民主和秩序的排序如此不同？

我越来越觉得，这不是一方发现了真理、另一方没发现。每一种价值排序都是一种权衡，由一个文明曾经必须熬过的东西塑造而成。

欧洲几百年来都是一块拥挤的拼图：互相竞争的王国、教会、自由城市和商人。没有哪股力量能长期独大，所以它学到的教训是：集中的权力才是最大的危险，必须限制它。

中国历史上大部分时间是一个庞大、统一的农业国家，面对洪水、饥荒和来自草原的入侵。它最深的记忆是崩溃和混乱，所以它学到的教训是：失序才是最大的危险，必须把一切凝聚在一起。

同样的人类，不同的威胁，不同的优先级。

再加上历史的大周期。谁在赢，谁就有资格写理论。

西方在十九、二十世纪崛起时，它的成功就成了证据：自由和民主是我们富裕的原因，所有人都该学我们。中国在过去四十年崛起时，它的成功又成了反证：国家能力和稳定才是发展的前提。

双方做的是同一件事。先看结果，再建构一套理论，解释为什么自己的路导致了这个结果。

从这个意义上说，世界是贝叶斯的。每一方都把结果当作证据，更新自己的信念。只要结果足够强，人们就会围绕它搭起一整套意识形态，而且往往正好是对方的镜像。

问题在于，历史是一个很糟糕的数据集。样本极少，周期动辄几百年，还没有对照组。所以很多所谓的意识形态，其实只是贴合"眼下谁在上面"的一个故事。

这就是为什么这类争论永远没有尽头。它们与其说是在争哪种价值是真的，不如说是双方各自盯着最近的哪一段结果。

一个好的贝叶斯主义者，应该同时用双方的证据来更新，并对下一个周期保持谦卑。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

Why do China and the West rank freedom, democracy and order so differently?

I've come to think it's not that one side discovered the truth and the other didn't. Each value ranking is a trade-off, shaped by what a civilization had to survive.

Europe spent centuries as a crowded patchwork of rival kingdoms, churches, free cities and merchants. No single power could dominate for long, so the lesson it learned was: concentrated power is the main danger, so limit it.

China spent most of its history as a vast, unified agrarian state facing floods, famines and invasions from the steppe. Its worst memories are of collapse and chaos, so the lesson it learned was: disorder is the main danger, so hold things together.

Same species, different threats, different priorities.

Then add the big cycles of history. Whoever is winning gets to write the theory.

When the West rose in the 19th and 20th centuries, its success became the proof: freedom and democracy are why we're rich, so everyone should copy us. When China rose in the last 40 years, its success became the counter-proof: state capacity and stability are what made development possible.

Both sides are doing the same thing. They look at the outcome, then build a theory that explains why their way produced it.

In that sense, the world is Bayesian. Each side treats results as evidence and updates its beliefs. Give people a strong enough outcome, and they will construct a full ideology around it, often the mirror image of the other side's.

The catch is that history is a terrible dataset. The sample is tiny, the cycles last centuries, and there's no control group. So a lot of what passes for ideology is really a story fitted to whoever happens to be on top right now.

That's why these arguments never end. They're less about which values are true, and more about which recent results each side is looking at.

A good Bayesian should update on both sides' evidence, and stay humble about the next cycle.

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

为什么同一个问题，从微观看和从宏观看，常常得出相反的判断？

因为对一个人成立的事，不会自动对所有人同时成立。经济学家把这叫做"合成谬误"。

几个经典例子：

- 看演唱会时，你站起来就看得更清楚。可如果所有人都站起来，谁也没看得更清楚，大家还都更累了。
- 一个家庭多存钱，会变得更富有。可如果所有家庭同时多存钱，消费就会崩塌，收入下降，社会总储蓄甚至可能根本不增加。这就是凯恩斯说的"节俭悖论"。
- 一个储户把钱取出来，是谨慎。如果所有储户都去取，银行就会倒闭，而这恰恰是他们害怕的事。
- 一个司机发现一条新捷径，能更快到家。等所有人都走这条路，它就堵死了，有时整个路网反而更慢。

为什么会这样？三个原因：

1. 相互作用。在微观层面，你默认别人都不动；在宏观层面，别人也在行动，而他们的行动会改变你的结果。

2. 反馈。一个人的支出就是另一个人的收入。个体的选择会在系统里绕一圈回来，改变当初做选择时所依据的条件。

3. 涌现。系统会出现任何单个部分都没有的属性。堵车不是任何一辆车的属性，市场价格也不是由任何一个买家决定的。

反过来也一样。对一个群体平均成立的结论，并不能说明群体中某一个人怎样。这叫"生态谬误"。

所以当微观和宏观的判断冲突时，通常谁都没错。它们回答的是不同的问题："在别人既定的情况下，什么对我最好？"和"如果所有人都这么做，会发生什么？"

好的思考，就是两个问题都问。

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

Why does the same question often get opposite answers at the micro level and the macro level?

Because what's true for one person isn't automatically true for everyone at once. Economists call this the fallacy of composition.

A few classic examples:

- At a concert, if you stand up, you see better. If everyone stands up, nobody sees better, and everyone is more tired.
- If one family saves more, it gets richer. If every family saves more at the same time, spending collapses, incomes fall, and total savings may not rise at all. This is Keynes's paradox of thrift.
- If one bank depositor pulls their money out, that's prudent. If every depositor does it, the bank fails, and that's exactly what they were afraid of.
- If one driver finds a new shortcut, they get home faster. Once everyone uses it, it's jammed, and sometimes the whole network gets slower.

Why does this happen? Three reasons:

1. Interaction. At the micro level, you assume everyone else stays the same. At the macro level, everyone else is also acting, and their actions change your outcome.

2. Feedback. One person's spending is another person's income. Individual choices loop back through the system and change the conditions those choices were based on.

3. Emergence. A system has properties none of its parts have. A traffic jam isn't a property of any single car. A market price isn't decided by any single buyer.

It works in reverse too. What's true on average for a group doesn't tell you much about any one person in it. That's the ecological fallacy.

So when micro and macro disagree, usually neither is wrong. They're answering different questions: "What's best for me, given everyone else?" versus "What happens when everyone does it?"

Good thinking means asking both.

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

左派和右派的根本区别到底是什么？

托马斯·索维尔的《A Conflict of Visions》给出了我见过最清晰的答案。区别不在具体政策，而在对人性的两种不同假设。

1. 受约束的视角（大致对应右派）
人性是有限的，基本不会改变。人是自利的，也没有人聪明到能从上往下设计整个社会。所以我们能做的最好的事，是建立能与人性缺陷共存的制度：市场、法治、传统、制衡。代表人物有亚当·斯密、伯克、汉密尔顿、哈耶克。

2. 不受约束的视角（大致对应左派）
人性是可塑的，可以被改善。社会问题来自糟糕的制度，而不是人本身。所以只要让聪明且善意的人来掌舵，社会就可以被重新设计，不公可以被消除。代表人物有卢梭、葛德文、孔多塞。

由此，所有分歧都顺理成章：

- 一方用"权衡"思考，另一方寻找"解决方案"。
- 一方信任没有人设计过的自发过程，另一方信任负责设计的专家。
- 一方按结果评判政策，另一方常常按动机评判。
- 对一方来说，贫穷是常态，繁荣才需要解释；对另一方来说，繁荣是常态，贫穷才需要解释。
- 一方认为平等是规则对所有人一样，另一方认为平等是结果一样。

索维尔想说的是，两边往往在各说各话。他们分歧的与其说是事实，不如说是"什么是可能的"。

正如他那句名言："没有解决方案，只有权衡取舍。"

你更倾向哪一种视角？

[walkaround @walkaroundx]

What's the real difference between the left and the right?

Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" gives the clearest answer I've found. It's not about policies. It's about two different assumptions about human nature.

1. The constrained vision (roughly, the right)
Human nature is limited and doesn't really change. People are self-interested, and no one is wise enough to plan society from the top. So the best we can do is build systems that work with human flaws: markets, rule of law, tradition, checks and balances. Think Adam Smith, Burke, Hamilton, Hayek.

2. The unconstrained vision (roughly, the left)
Human nature is malleable and can be improved. Social problems come from bad institutions, not from people. So if the wise and well-intentioned are put in charge, society can be redesigned and injustice eliminated. Think Rousseau, Godwin, Condorcet.

From there, everything follows:

- The constrained side thinks in trade-offs. The unconstrained side looks for solutions.
- One trusts processes that no one designed. The other trusts experts who design.
- One judges a policy by its results. The other often judges it by its intentions.
- For one, poverty is the natural state and prosperity needs explaining. For the other, prosperity is natural and poverty needs explaining.
- One sees equality as equal rules for everyone. The other sees equality as equal outcomes.

Sowell's point is that both sides usually argue past each other. They don't disagree on facts so much as on what is even possible.

As he put it: "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."

Which vision do you lean toward?