Group items tagged

亚当·斯密认为是后者。人类在道德问题上的传统焦虑被宣布为庸人自扰，人尽可以放心大胆地追求自己的利益，根本不用担心“自利”会有损公共利益，相反，只有当个体专注于自己的利益的追求，在追求自利上精益求精（即“分工”），让自己的利益最大化时，一只看不见的手就会神奇地将个人的追求转化为社会的利益。“总体收益的结果，有别于创造收益的个体意向”。

1720年，曼德维尔出版了一本书，书名叫做《蜜蜂的寓言，或私人的恶行，公共的利益》。他把人类社会比喻为一个蜂巢：“这些昆虫生活于斯，宛如人类，微缩地表演人类的一切行为。”在“这个蜜蜂的国度”里，每只蜜蜂都在近乎疯狂地追求自己的利益，虚荣、伪善、欺诈、享乐、嫉妒、好色等恶德在每只蜜蜂身上表露无遗。令人惊异的是，当每只蜜蜂在疯狂追逐自己的利益时，整个蜂巢呈现出一派繁荣的景象。后来，邪恶的蜜蜂突然觉悟了，向天神要求让他们变得善良、正直、诚实起来。“主神终于愤怒地发出誓言：使那个抱怨的蜂巢全无欺诈。神实现了誓言……”接着，在整个蜜蜂的王国中，一磅贬值为一文，昔日繁忙的酒店渺无人迹，不再有人订货，全国一片萧条景象。 　　这就是说，私欲的“恶之花”结出的是公共利益的善果。这就是著名的“曼德维尔悖论”。从道德的角度看，以自利驱动的行为是应该受到谴责的，但如果想以“公共精神”的道德情怀来建立一种充满美德的繁荣社会，那只是一种“浪漫的奇想”，因为私欲和私欲支配的个人恶行恰恰是社会繁荣的能源，离开了这个能源，公共利益将是无源之水，无本之木。公益心和道德感这样的善之花，都将结出贫困和伪善的恶之果。 　　曼德维尔的“蜜蜂的寓言”是现代自由主义经济学和经济伦理的基本隐喻。其理论主旨是弘扬私欲，相信市场对私人恶行具有神奇的转化和净化力量，认定出于道德情怀的行为不仅不可行而且可能危及公共利益。

“公地的悲剧”包含的真实问题是：个体如何在利用产权不可能明晰的资源时避免资源的衰竭，从而导致公共利益的丧失？在人生活的世界上，有许多资源，而且是对人的生存最重要的资源（如阳光、空气等自然资源和良好的社会治安、社会道德氛围、文化资源）往往是难以确定产权的。在利用这些看似免费的资源时，我们如何才能避免“公地的悲剧”？

林地不仅生产木材，它从事的“生产”包括吸收二氧化碳、释放清新的空气、保持水土、为各种动植物提供生存环境等等，这些都是公共利益的一部分。当你因为木材价格暴涨而把整个林地砍伐尽净，获得了巨量的个人财富时，公共利益却受到损害。你不能说你对个人利益的追求促进了公共利益。

公共利益的总量并非私人在交易活动中获得利益的总和。我们得到的许许多多“好处”（比如呼吸清新的空气、感受到的良好的社会氛围）都不是从交易活动中来的，个体拥有产权的东西所带来的好处往往超出（有时是大大超出）我们从交易活动中得到的个人收益。

一、人们在寻求自己私欲的时候，既有可能是个体间的相互利用、交易、竞争甚至相互欺诈、掠夺，也有可能是没有节制地利用无人所有的资源，人们出于私利为他人生产时，既包含自己承担的成本，也包含看似免费的社会成本。

简言之，“公民”是一个既独立又不独立的概念，指的是一个有所属的个体而不是原子式的个体。所谓“企业公民”，就是自觉地把自己归属于社区共同体、社会共同体和人类共同体的企业，在核算成本时，将社会成本、环境成本考虑在内，在计算收益时将企业收益、社会收益和环境收益同时计算在内，在做投资决策时将市场、社会和环境的投资回报率计算在内。拥有“企业公民”身份和资格的企业，就是在“公地”上谋求生存和发展的同时守望、养护“公地”，力图避免“公地的悲剧”发生的企业。 　　英国学者约翰·埃尔金顿把这种企业描述为同时追求“三重盈余”——经济盈余、社会盈余和环境盈余的企业。企业公民意识的有无，首先表现在对企业的所有权的认知。没有企业公民意识的企业，认为企业的股东仅是为企业提供资金者，企业经营的目的，就是为股东的投资带来回报并且使回报最大化。但追求三重盈余的企业认为企业的股东至少有三个：自然环境、社会和投资人。企业经营者的真实身份是受托于这三个股东的“公民CEO”，他的经营行为是确保三个“出资人”同时受益，而不是为了一个股东利益的最大化而牺牲其他两个股东的利益。

一、蜜蜂型企业：影响力高且对环境的回报率高。蜜蜂为了酿蜜，就必须从各种植物中采集花蜜——这可以看作是对环境资源的索取。而它在采蜜的同时，它翅膀上粘附的花粉就会给花授粉。如果没有蜜蜂来采蜜，花也就成了不结果实之花。（经济学家张五常在深入调查的基础上写出了一篇著名的经济学论文《蜜蜂的寓言》，涉及到了到底是果农该付给养蜂人钱还是该向养蜂人收钱的问题。）曼德维尔只注意到蜜蜂间的生存竞争，没有看到蜜蜂与环境之间的这种索取回报的关系——在从环境中索取资源的同时回报环境，使自己的“盈利”空间获得了可持续性和成长性。蜜蜂的这种获利模式是一种远比曼德维尔的寓言深刻的隐喻。 　　二、蝴蝶型企业：对环境有回报但自身的成长性和影响力小的企业； 　　三、毛毛虫企业：对环境有损害但自身的成长性和影响力小的企业； 　　四、蝗虫型企业：破坏环境且由于其成长性和影响力大而对社会和环境有巨大破坏性的企业。（见图一：企业的四种类型）

企业的利益相关方，除了三重盈余对应的三个“股东”外，还有客户、员工和合作伙伴（包括供应商）。它寻求所有这六个利益相关方（“持股人”）的平衡。企业是股东的，也是员工的，是社会的也是自然环境的……公民行为体现为六个“善待”：一、善待股东；二、善待员工；三、善待客户；四、善待环境和资源；五、善待合作伙伴（供应商）；六、善待整个社会。企业公民行为就呈现为一个六边形，这正好是一个蜂巢的形状。（见图二：企业公民行为的六个利益相关方）

Blogger Oliver Ding has set up a community space on SlideShare for those affected by and working against the damage done by the earthquake, one of the many ways to help the earthquake victims that in turn is being shown support on Digg.

Support for relief efforts from English-language bloggers has been equally swift and thorough. Overall support for Red Cross China has been so strong that accessing the Red Cross website for the past several days has been difficult due to the high volumes of traffic it has been receiving. In no particular order, here are just a few of the many blog posts foreign and English-language bloggers in China have given us in just a few hectic days: http://www.ifgogo.com/80/how-to-donate/ http://cnreviews.com/uncategorized/china_earthquake_relief_and_donation_guide_-_will_update_20080514.html http://cupofcha.com/2008/05/16/ways-to-donate-to-earthquake-relief.html http://www.chinavortex.com/2008/05/how-chinese-websites-are-helping-donations-for-sichuan-earthquake-victims/ http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/13/red_cross_society_earthquake_sichuan.php http://beijingbookworm.com/whatsnew.htm http://www.pandapassport.com/chinese-internet/donate-for-adspace/ http://www.lostlaowai.com/commentary/blog/2008/05/15/add-a-quake-relief-donation-badge-to-your-blogsite/ http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/05/help-chinas-qua.html http://chinesepod.com/earthquake_relief http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/16/green_scene_how.php

On the other hand designers now have seemingly limitless opportunities to promote themselves. On a portfolio site, a blog post or a Facebook page, designers are free to make their own assertions about their contribution to a given project. This was not the case when the only opportunities for recognition were only a handful of contests and publications each year. Now every designer has their own "catalog" site and design work circulates in a fairly unregulated way even within the design press.

In films, for example, credit is acknowledged once and for all and in detail at the end of a film. There is a great deal of horse-trading, arguing, and appeasement regarding the credits for any film project, but by opening night everything’s printed on film, the modern equivalent of being set in stone.

Film credits have been instrumental in codifying the labor hierarchy in the film industry, institutionalizing a shared vocabulary of job titles and responsibilities. No such standard has evolved in design — for example the term Art Director means something vastly different in an in-house design department than it does at an advertising agency.

Rather than wade into such ambiguous waters, it is easier to simply not credit anyone. Many large design studios have reached a similar conclusion and simply credit any work done at the studio to the studio entity. Frequently the mainstream press simply leaves works of design unattributed as if they were produced out of thin air.

Part of the problem is that attribution only becomes an issue after a work has become enduring or “important” and by that time it’s hard to recreate exactly how it came about.

In fact, the vast majority of graphic design is still done by unknown designers for unknown clients. It is a testament to the increasing influence of design that people care at all who animated a network interstitial or laid out a signage system. Perhaps this enhanced profile has made an unrealistic expectation that designers should get credit at all in a field with a blurry notion of authorship. Or perhaps the proliferation of design media channels simply offers more opportunities for half-truths and situational ethics when it comes to giving credit (and taking it).

Great post. It is a never ending battle to try to make sure that everyone who had some influence on a project be name-checked, and it is the right thing to do to give credit where credit is due, and we try very hard to do so. I recently scoured my records to try to credit a photographer for a project we worked on over 10 years ago. It was the one and only time our office ever worked with this person, and for the life of me I can not remember her name. I feel terrible about it, but there it is, I tried but came up short. If and when I come up with the photographers name I will certainly try to rectify the situation.As for work you're not especially proud of, I love the Alan Smithee idea. Posted by: Mark Kaufman on 05.20.08 at 01:20

有人说中国人非常积极地进行西方媒介内容的引介翻译工作，也包括翻译一些关于协作文化的东西，但他们自己接受采纳这些文化的步调却甚是缓慢。还有人解释道，中国人从互联网上取走了很多，但奉献的不多。

显然作为youtube上业余媒介内容创造者的后舍男孩不会被我们错过。 但我被告知，他们（中国人）在杂糅与改造（re-mix and modding）的实践、及创建同人志（fan fiction）方面都曾远为落后，尽管也有人说这一切正在迅速改变。

关于中美青少年对待数字环境的不同方式的一种假设是：美国青少年不太注意他们向网上发布自创内容的潜在后果，他们表现得大大咧咧或有些幼稚，既不顾近期可能的知识产权纠纷，也不怕未来雇主或者学校因此如何看待他们。而活在完全不同的政治和文化语境下的中国年轻人，看起来不那么愿意冒风险，对潜在后果也十分小心，他们看来更为珍视自己在网上找到的自由，因他们深知在行使这些自由时所冒的风险是什么。 另一原因则是在线世界的语言壁垒。中国年轻人更擅长于英译中的技能，有更强的动机去接触西方的内容；他们也感觉到，西方对他们不得不说的东西并不感兴趣，又无意通过翻译中国的内容来弥补这样的鸿沟。