Thursday, 02 July 20262026年7月2日，星期四
The home and personal computing revolutions of the 70's, 80's, and 90's put the power of computing in the hands of the masses. For those of us that grew up with these machines, it can be hard to reconcile the computer culture of our youth with the industry we find ourselves in today. But at some point, a threshold was crossed and increasing computing power no longer translated to increased autonomy. Quite the opposite.70、80 和 90 年代的家庭与个人计算革命，将计算能力交到了大众手中。对于我们这些伴随着这些机器长大的人来说，很难将我们年轻时的计算机文化与今天所处的行业联系起来。但在某个时刻，我们跨越了一个临界点，计算能力的增长不再意味着自主权的增加，反而恰恰相反。
In 1973, before the first commercially successful home computer, and with the Western world in the beginnings of an energy crisis, Ivan Illich wrote an essay titled 'Energy and Equity'. In it, he argued that - above a certain threshold - energy had marginal disutility. And that applying more of it would yield negative returns.1973 年，在第一台商业上成功的家用计算机问世之前，正值西方世界能源危机伊始，伊万·伊里奇（Ivan Illich）写了一篇名为《能源与公平》（Energy and Equity）的文章。他在文中指出，能源超过一定阈值后会产生边际负效用，投入更多反而会带来负面回报。
What is generally overlooked is that energy and equity can grow concurrently only to a point. Below a threshold of per capita wattage, motors improve the conditions for social progress. Above this threshold, energy grows at the expense of equity. Further energy affluence then means decreased distribution of control over that energy.人们通常忽略的一点是，能源与公平只能在一定限度内同步增长。在人均瓦数阈值以下，发动机能改善社会进步的条件；一旦超过这个阈值，能源的增长便以牺牲公平为代价。能源越是充裕，对能源的控制权分配就越是分散。
To make his argument concrete, he applied this theory to traffic and speed:为了让论点更具体，他将这一理论应用于交通和速度：
Beyond a certain velocity, motorized vehicles create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them only for a few.超过一定速度后，机动车辆创造了唯有它们自己才能缩短的遥远距离。它们为所有人制造了距离，却只为少数人缩短了距离。
And he singles out speed, not the form of conveyance, as the factor driving transport inequality.他特别指出，导致交通不平等的因素是“速度”，而非交通工具的形式。
Accelerating speed inevitably concentrates horsepower under the seats of a few and compounds the increasing time-lack of most commuters with the further sense that they are lagging behind.速度的提升不可避免地将马力集中在少数人的座椅之下，并加剧了大多数通勤者的时间匮乏感，让他们感到自己正在落后。
Eventually, in 1974, the UK - feeling the pinch of the oil crisis - did introduce restrictions on vehicle speed to more equitably ration fuel.最终，1974 年，英国在石油危机的压力下，确实对车速进行了限制，以更公平地分配燃料。
Slowly and reluctantly, we have continued to constrict vehicle speed ever since.从那时起，我们一直缓慢而勉强地不断限制车速。
But while we still fall short of the "low-energy, convivial modernity" imagined by Ivan Illich, politically determined limits on what a vehicle is technically capable of are accepted as necessary.虽然我们距离伊万·伊里奇所设想的“低能耗、宜人的现代性”还有差距，但从政治层面限制交通工具的技术能力已被视为必要之举。
In computing, however, we are at the very beginning of this legal and political journey. Restrictions on the industry tend to focus on data processing and accountability rather than limiting the power of our machines. But imagine the effect of a maximum hard drive size, CPU clock frequency, or network speed.然而在计算领域，我们才刚刚踏上这条法律与政治之路。对该行业的限制往往集中在数据处理和问责制上，而非限制机器本身的性能。但试想一下，如果对硬盘大小、CPU 时钟频率或网络速度设定上限，会产生什么影响？
If we still had the machines of the 80's or 90's, would we face the same problems we have today? Could you build Meta or Anthropic on the backs of Amigas and Acorn Archimedes? If not, technological capability plays a role. So how many of our problems derive from the inherent inequity of increased computing power?如果我们仍在使用 80 或 90 年代的机器，还会面临今天的问题吗？你能仅靠 Amiga 或 Acorn Archimedes 计算机构建出 Meta 或 Anthropic 吗？如果不能，那么技术能力确实起到了作用。那么，我们有多少问题源于计算能力增长所带来的固有不平等？
Of course, there's no sense dragging everyone back to the 70's to re-run the home computing revolution. But I'd like to highlight a technology in a different category that is defined by its restraint: the e-bike.当然，把所有人拉回到 70 年代重演家庭计算革命毫无意义。但我希望能强调一种不同类别的技术，它以“克制”为定义：电动自行车。
In the UK and Europe, the motor of the 'electrically assisted pedal cycle' (EPAC) cuts out at 15 mph [25 km/hour]. This is not a technological limitation but a legal and political choice that slots it neatly into the infrastructure built for the regular human-powered bicycle. That rule might have been a convenience, but I think, surprisingly, it's now the e-bike's most radical intervention.在英国和欧洲，“电动助力自行车”（EPAC）的电机在达到 15 英里/小时（25 公里/小时）时会自动断电。这并非技术局限，而是一种法律与政治选择，使其能完美融入为普通人力自行车构建的基础设施中。那条规则最初可能只是为了方便，但我认为，令人惊讶的是，它现在成了电动自行车最激进的干预手段。
The speed is what's important. Because, when Ivan Illich attempted to determine a threshold for the disutility for speed, he observed the following:关键在于速度。因为当伊万·伊里奇试图确定速度的负效用阈值时，他观察到以下现象：
From our limited information it appears that everywhere in the world, after some vehicle broke the speed barrier of 15 mph [25 km/hour], time scarcity related to traffic began to grow.根据我们有限的信息来看，世界各地在某种交通工具突破 15 英里/小时（25 公里/小时）的速度壁垒后，与交通相关的时间匮乏感便开始增长。
In other words, he believes we maximise utility for all by travelling at the speed of a bicycle. And because it is the speed and not the effort of your legs that is crucial, the e-bike increases access to transport (for those who cannot pedal unassisted) without increasing the 'time-lack' of others. It is a new application of energy capable of furthering social progress.换句话说，他认为通过以自行车速度出行，我们能实现全社会效用的最大化。而且，由于关键在于速度而非腿部付出的努力，电动自行车在不增加他人“时间匮乏”的前提下，提高了交通的可及性（针对那些无法在无辅助情况下骑行的人）。这是一种能够促进社会进步的能源新应用。
The pedal assisted e-bike is also exempted from many of the restrictions we place on motorbikes and cars thanks to its low speed. It is a whole class of product defined by its energy restraint. And, in the UK, you do not need a license or mandatory insurance to ride one.得益于其低速特性，电动助力自行车还免除了许多针对摩托车和汽车的限制。它是一类以能源克制为定义的完整产品。在英国，骑行这种自行车不需要驾照，也不强制要求购买保险。
In computing, however, we have no comparable machine. Where governments have attempted to apply legal and political constraints to technology - in an attempt to stymie our loss of autonomy to big tech - the collateral damage has been the loss of real community infrastructure that cannot meet their demands.然而在计算领域，我们还没有类似的机器。当政府试图对技术施加法律和政治约束——以遏制我们向大科技公司让渡自主权时——其附带损害往往是那些无法满足监管要求的真实社区基础设施的消亡。
So, could we make space for a restrained class of computer? A category of machine designed to attract fewer laws and offer some "low-energy, convivial modernity" by its use?那么，我们能否为一类“克制型”计算机留出空间？设计一类通过使用就能提供某种“低能耗、宜人现代性”且能吸引较少法律监管的机器？
What limits would it have, this bicycle for the mind?这种“思维的自行车”应该设有哪些限制呢？