??? 今年2月，我參加了CommonPitch活動，結果我的疑心更重了。這次活動邀請了面向協作消費的初創公司的創業者，讓他們向著名專家組成的小組闡述自己的想法。除了時間限制太短，無法真正解釋清楚他們的理念（更不用說他們關于減少浪費和公共建設的具體想法）之外，在他們的闡述中還存在著一個明顯的傾向。有些創業者不是在尋找重新思考消費方式以減少浪費的方法，而是在尋找以前在“真正的”浪費領域，有哪些賺錢的機會，但卻錯過了。只有當初創公司找到了創造或參與已有對等關系的正確方法時，他們才有可能賺到這些利潤。

????Common Pitch活動中有兩個這樣的例子特別突出：有個初創公司的想法是“在聚會上募集資金是件非常尷尬的事情，為什么不讓我們來處理這件事呢？”，而另一個公司的想法是“如果你可以把自己的自行車租出去掙錢，為什么還要讓它閑置呢？”。把創造類的擔憂（聚會和騎車）和經濟類的方法（將之貨幣化?。┙Y合起來，這真是奇怪！我在想，這真是雷切爾?波特曼在向全世界介紹協作消費這個概念時所贊揚的那種東西嗎？我回過頭，重新查看了TED大會上的講話。

????第二次查看時，幾個矛盾出現了，最明顯之處在于這場運動的口號以及“協作”（共同創造）和“消費”（攝取或破壞）對立面的結合。而且，通過Swaptree網站用《欲望都市》（Sex in the City）DVD交換《24小時》（24）DVD的人被波特曼稱為使用“令陌生人彼此信任”技術的“高能力協作者”。但這種說法很奇怪。信任不必依靠第三方的保障，比如有種系統，要是已經注冊該系統的交換方行為不端，那么這個系統就會確保他得到差評。難道不是這樣嗎？

????最令人不解的是這種觀點：分享是人的天性，因為“我們是猿進化而來，天生就是為了分享”，但“技術使得分享沒有了摩擦并變得有趣”，因為協作消費最終不是“在沙箱里做好人”。那么，分享到底是人類天生的傾向，還是我們天生拒絕分享，因此需要“快感”系統的幫助，我們才會做出正確的事？技術“帶來了信任”，正如人們深情地所說的那樣，還是說，它只是在強加責任？

????總體上說，我喜歡這些服務（Netflix極其方便，Airbnb提供了新的旅行方式，Skillshare以非傳統的方式把老師和學生聯系到了一起），但我懷疑，協作消費并沒有從根本上改變我們的消費方式，而只是改變了我們作為消費者看待自己的方式。正如許多人已經指出的那樣，我們的消費習慣早就已經塑造了我們的特性，這種特性的展現可能比消費本身的最初行為越來越重要。如今，很多人的個人購買力都在減退，協作消費這種方式是否只是跟以前的有機/可持續消費等“好”模式一樣，不僅根據我們購物的內容，還根據我們的購物方式來定義我們自己？如果“購買”變得更像是“分享”，我們是否就能感覺好點？另外，考慮到工作崗位短缺，難以滿足文科學位持有者的期望，出租多余物品的情況是否會變成現實，甚至“創造性”地解決不充分就業問題？

????交易、方便、效率、減少浪費，似乎協作消費為實現這些美好的東西帶來了新的可能性。然而，創造力、團結、分享和信任彼此來自于人性，而并不是主要來自于系統或者消費方式（這是《分享雜志》提出的觀點）。因為鄰居使用了你的鉆子而收點錢（盡管這確實很尷尬），通過使用Zipcar的服務來降低交通費用，或者通過郵遞交換DVD，這些都沒有什么錯，但我們不要因此就假裝自己是在拯救世界，是在做個更好的人，或者真的是在（因為關懷）而分享。

????譯者：千牛絮

????My skepticism grew sharper in February when I attended CommonPitch, an event which invited entrepreneurs with collaborative consumption-oriented start-ups to pitch their ideas to a celebrity panel of experts. Besides the fact that the time limits were too short for any real examination of the concepts (much less their implications for waste reduction and community building), there was a noticeable trend among the pitches. Rather than identifying ways to reconsider consumption to reduce waste, some entrepreneurs seemed to be identifying areas where the real waste was a missed opportunity for profit -- profit that a start-up might claim if only they could find the right way to create or insert themselves into an existing peer-to-peer relationship.

????Two such examples at Common Pitch stood out: a start-up based on the notion that "collecting money at a party is so awkward, why not let us handle the transaction?" and another along the lines of "why let your bike just sit there when you could rent it out for money?" It was an odd combination of creative class concerns (parties and bike rides) with a financial class approach (monetize it!). I wondered, is this really what Rachel Botsman was celebrating when she introduced collaborative consumption to the world? I went back and re-watched the TED talk.

????Upon second viewing, several contradictions stood out, the most obvious being the title of the movement and its union of opposites in "collaborate" (joint effort of creation) and "consume" (to ingest or destroy). Also, Botsman's description of people who trade DVDs of "Sex in the City" for "24" through Swaptree as "highly enabled collaborators" using technology that "enables trust between strangers," struck a strange note. Isn't the definition of trust not needing to rely on a third party's insurance, such as a system that ensures your fellow registered swapper will be subject to poor ratings should she misbehave?

????Most confusing were the assertions that sharing is natural because "we're monkeys, born and bred to share," but that "technology makes sharing frictionless and fun," because ultimately, collaborative consumption is not about playing "nicely in the sandbox." So, is sharing an innate human tendency, or do we inherently reject it and need "fun" systems to help us do what's right? Is technology "enabling trust," as it is so lovingly put, or really just enforcing accountability?

????While I'm a fan of these services in a general sense (Netflix is incredibly convenient, Airbnb offers new ways to travel, Skillshare brings teachers and students together in non-traditional ways), I wonder if collaborative consumption isn't fundamentally changing how we consume, just how we might see ourselves as consumers. As many have noted, our identities have long been shapedbyourconsumptionhabits, and increasingly, the display of that identity is possibly more important the original act of consumption itself. At a time when personal purchasing power is on the decline for many of us, is collaborative consumption, like the "good" form of organic/sustainable consumption before it, a way to define ourselves not only by what we buy but how we buy? If that "buy" becomes more like "share" do we feel better about it? Additionally, given the deficit of jobs to match the expectations of a vast class of liberal arts degree holders, does the prospect of renting out our extra stuff become a realistic, even "creative" solution to underemployment?

????Deals, convenience, efficiency, waste-reduction - there seem to be new possibilities for these wonderful things with collaborative consumption. Creativity, togetherness, sharing, and trust in each other, however, come from us -- human beings -- not primarily from systems or styles of consumption (apointmadeonShareable). There's nothing wrong with making a buck off your neighbor for use of your drill (however awkward that might actually be), or lowering your transportation costs by signing up for Zipcar, or trading DVDs through the mail; let's just not pretend we're saving the world, being better people, or truly sharing (in the caring sense) as a result.