如果你去問問硅谷的那些工程師和夢想家們，特別是那些35歲以上的人，他們八成都會承認自己是科幻文學的粉絲。科幻電影、漫畫和小說在20世紀上半葉紅極一時，在20世紀下半葉也熱度不減——如今的大多數工程師也正是在這一時期誕生的。并不是說現在科幻文學如今已經過氣了，從《西部世界》和《怪奇物語》等美劇的爆紅就可以看出，我們對科幻題材依然抱有極度的熱忱。而且科幻文學從某種程度上，也在影響著那些塑造科技本身的人。

筆者就是一個出生在20世紀后半葉的人，和很多科技界的朋友一樣，我也很喜歡各種題材的科幻作品。我們喜歡那些狂想的未來主義理念，沉迷于科幻作品的宏大預言。但有一類題材總是會讓我感到困惑，那就是科技的發展到了失控的地步，并且開始反噬它的創造者。在大多數作品中，一旦發生了這種情況，故事就變成了一個戲劇性的謎題，要解決這個難題，主角就要歷盡千辛萬苦，要么毀掉它，要么制服它。我讀了瑪麗·雪萊的《弗蘭肯斯坦》后，曾經連續做了幾個月的噩夢。

我參與過很多科技項目，但我不得不承認，在設計和商業討論環節中，我們很少會花時間探討這個項目會世界帶來哪些潛在的負面影響。相反，我們在進行發明創造時，往往只是本著一個極為簡單的理念：“我們之所以創造它，是因為我們能。”在多數情況下，我們之所以發明了新技術，是出于某種需求，或者是為了解決一個問題。但是有時從事后來看，我們反而是創造出了新的問題。

我最近與網絡安全領域的幾個知名高管見了面。在數據世界之中，大概沒有其他領域比網絡安全領域更能體現科技的黑化帶來的惡果了。這些IT高管們告訴我，目前，網絡安全占出已經占到了他們的IT預算的25%左右。每天我們都能聽到黑客們又黑掉了哪些用戶的賬戶、攻陷了哪些銀行和電網。我們的PC、筆記本電腦和手機中病毒已經成了家常便飯，見怪不怪了。有些惡意軟件甚至還強迫用戶支付贖金，才肯替他們恢復數據。

上世紀60年代，美國國防部高級研究計劃局等若干科研機構的大牛們湊在一起，暢想出了互聯網的雛形。當時他們只是想建立一個能在全球范圍內快捷地分享科研數據和其他信息的媒介平臺。然后隨著互聯網的進化，它事實上已經成為了一切通訊和商業交易的載體，和一切網絡攻擊的渠道，

這也是一個前所未有地令人分心的時代。我最近有一次開車從紐約市去埃爾邁拉。我在高路上看到一個牌子，上面寫著：“離下一個發信息的地點還有三英里，請勿一邊駕駛一邊發信息。”美國的大多數州已經明令禁止了開車發信息這種危險行為，然而我們每周幾乎都聽到司機朋友邊開車邊玩手機，結果不幸出了車禍的消息。

科技對精力的蠶食已經到了有史以來最高的水平。上個月我在夏威夷的毛伊島度假時，我驚訝地發現，人們徜徉在美麗的拉海納鎮的海灘上，然而他們卻都在看手機。手機的吸引力簡直像萬有引力一樣無處不在。有天晚上，我們老兩口跟兒子兒媳婦和兩個孫女在海邊的一家餐廳吃晚飯，在等待上菜的時間里，大家都在低頭看手機，對近在眼前的美景卻孰視無睹。

我覺得喬布斯和蘋果公司肯定想不到，iPhone或者智能手機有朝一日會如此占用人們的精力。馬克·扎克伯格在創辦Facebook時也肯定想不到，有朝一日Facebook會變得如此令人上癮。《精靈寶可夢Go》的出品人Niantic公司也肯定沒想過，有人會因為玩他們的游戲而丟了性命。（就在2016年7月該游戲上線后不久，有兩個人在“捉妖”的時候掉下了懸崖。）我妻子在“捉妖”的過程中，也與樹木和路燈有過好幾次“親密接觸”。

在《哈佛商業評論》近日刊登的一篇名為《數據時代的人文藝術》的文章中，作者JM·奧勒賈爾茲指出，呆板的工程思維只會帶來短視的創造，因而我們更應該強調人文藝術的重要性。如今的工程師們把創造新技術看得過重了，因而他們的短期目標很有可能帶來存在一定風險的長期結果。雖然一些公司已經聘請了專業的倫理學工作者——比如英特爾，但這樣的公司畢竟是極少數。在這一點上，所有重視社會道德的科技公司都應該聘用一些具有人類學、心理學和哲學背景的人才。

對于科技創新還會帶來哪些后果，我不做想象。作為父親和爺爺，我承認我需要更積極地進行自我約束。我的希望是，我們所有人都能在這個方向上更進一步，創造出既有影響力又有思想性的技術，進而更好地造福我們的生活和整個世界。（財富中文網）

本文原載于Time.com。

蒂姆·巴嘉林是業內頂尖的行業顧問、分析師和未來主義者，他的研究領域主要包括個人電腦和消費科技。他是Creative Strategies, Inc公司總裁，自1981年起，他就在這家公司工作了。當時他作為咨詢顧問，曾為業內多數知名軟硬件廠商提供過分析。

譯者：樸成奎

If you talk to the engineers and dreamers in Silicon Valley, especially anyone over 35, they'll probably admit to being into science fiction. This genre of movies, comic books and novels was huge in the first half of the last century and remained strong through its second half, when most of today's engineers were born. That's not to say science fiction's allure has faded — if anything, the popularity of shows like Westworld and Stranger Things suggests we're as fascinated as ever — but to point out that it had a great influence on those creating today’s technology.

I was born in the latter part of the last century, and like many of my geek friends, was into science fiction at all levels. We loved its heady futuristic ideas and reveled in its high-minded prophesies. But there is one theme in science fiction that always troubled me: when technology runs amok and subverts its creators. Usually when this happens, the story becomes a dramatic puzzle, whose solution involves the protagonists expending tons of creative energy in an effort to either destroy their mutinous creation or contain it. I had nightmares for months after I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

I've been involved in dozens of technology projects, but I have to admit that seldom in our design or business discussions do we spend much time on the potential negative impact of our work on the world. Instead, we abide by an engineering mantra often embodied in the concept "We create it because we can." Indeed, in most cases we create technology because we see a need, or to solve a problem. But sometimes in hindsight it seems we wind up creating new ones.

I recently spent time with key execs in the security and cybersecurity space. Perhaps no other area in our digital world underlines the flip side of technological progress. IT execs tell me that security is now about 25% of their IT budget spend. Each day we hear of hackers targeting user identities, financial networks and power grids, and malware routinely targets PCs, laptops and smartphones, holding them hostage till users pay a ransom fee to recover their data.

When the folks at DARPA and other agencies blueprinted the Internet in the 1960s, the idea was to have a medium in which to share scientific data and other information quickly and on a global scale. But as the Internet has evolved, it's become the de facto medium for just about any type of communication, commercial transactions, and yes, hacking that impacts us for better and worse.

It's also been responsible for an unprecedented age of distraction. I was recently in New York and had to drive from northern New York City to the Elmira area on the state's freeways. For the first time, I saw signs that said "Next texting stop is 3 miles ahead. Don’t text and drive." Most states have already outlawed texting while driving, and yet we hear almost weekly of traffic accidents cased by oblivious drivers tapping blithely on smartphones.

The level of distraction caused by technology (driving or no) is at an all-time high. While on vacation in Maui, Hawaii last month, I was stunned to see people pulling out their smartphones and checking them while walking around beautiful Lahaina and other areas of the island. The gravitational pull of these devices is ubiquitous. During a dinner with my wife, my son and his wife and our two granddaughters at a beachside restaurant, I caught all of us looking at our phones as we waited for our food, paying no heed to the gorgeous scenery right in front of us.

I don’t believe Steve Jobs and Apple dreamed the iPhone or smartphones in general would engender this level of diversion. I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg, when he created Facebook, foresaw how distracting and addictive Facebook would become. And I don’t think Niantic, the creators of Pokémon Go, fully thought through the tectonic fantasy-reality collisions of their augmented reality app (shortly after its launch in early July 2016, two people playing the game walked off a cliff). My wife has had close encounters with trees and light posts herself while chasing down some of the game's secretive critters.

In a recent Harvard Business Review piece titled "Liberal Arts in the Data Age," author JM Olejarz writes about the importance of reconnecting a lateral, liberal arts mindset with the sort of rote engineering approach that can lead to myopic creativity. Today's engineers have been so focused on creating new technologies that their short term goals risk obscuring unintended longterm outcomes. While a few companies, say Intel, are forward-thinking enough to include ethics professionals on staff, they remain exceptions. At this point all tech companies serious about ethical grounding need to be hiring folks with backgrounds in areas like anthropology, psychology and philosophy.

I have no illusions about the cat being out of the bag (it's hence shacked up with YouTube), and as a parent and grandparent, admit I need to be proactive about self-policing. My hope is that we can all move a little more in that direction, creating technology that is both impactful and thoughtful in its engagement with our lives and the world.

This article was originally published at Time.com

Tim Bajarin is recognized as one of the leading industry consultants, analysts and futurists, covering the field of personal computers and consumer technology. Mr. Bajarin is the President of Creative Strategies, Inc and has been with the company since 1981 where he has served as a consultant providing analysis to most of the leading hardware and software vendors in the industry.