작성중

	영문
	THE CHALLENGE OF THE FUTURE	未来的挑战 Wèilái de tiǎozhàn
	WHENEVER I INTERVIEW someone for a job, I like to ask this question:	每当我面试应聘者时，都会问这样一个问题： Měi dāng wǒ miànshì yìngpìn zhě shí, dūhuì wèn zhèyàng yīgè wèntí yǒu bùtóng kànfǎ?”
	“What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”	：“在什么重要问题上你与其他人 有不同看法？” “Zài shénme zhòngyào wèntí shàng nǐ yǔ qítā rén yǒu bùtóng kànfǎ?”
	This question sounds easy because it’s straightforward	这个不绕弯子的问题听上去很容易回答， Zhège bù ràowānzi de wèntí tīng shàngqù hěn róngyì huídá
	Actually, it’s very hard to answer.	其实不然 Qíshí bùrán
	It’s intellectually difficult because the knowledge that everyone is taught in school is by definition agreed upon.	它挑战智力，因为每个 人在学校接受的知识都是已被肯定的，一定被人赞同 Tā tiǎozhàn zhìlì, yīnwèi měi gè rén zài xuéxiào jiēshòu de zhīshì dōu shì yǐ bèi kěndìng de, yīdìng bèi rén zàntóng
	And it’s psychologically difficult because anyone trying to answer must say something she knows to be unpopular.	它也挑战心理，因为每个 努力去回答的人都必须说一些他们明知道并不为众人认同的看法，这需要勇气。
	Brilliant thinking is rare, but courage is in even shorter supply than genius.	出彩的回答很少，相对于智慧，这些想法缺少的更是勇气。 Chūcǎi de huídá hěn shǎo, xiāngduì yú zhìhuì, zhèxiē xiǎngfǎ quēshǎo de gèng shì yǒngqì.
	Most commonly, I hear answers like the following:	通常，我听到的回答都是这样的： Tōngcháng, wǒ tīng dào de huídá dōu shì zhèyàng de:
	“Our educational system is broken and urgently needs to be fixed.”	“我们的教育体制存在弊端，亟待改革。” Wǒmen de jiàoyù tǐzhì cúnzài bìduān, jídài gǎigé
	“America is exceptional.”	美国是非凡的 Měiguó shì fēifán de
	“There is no God.”	世界上不存在上帝 Shìjiè shàng bù cúnzài shàngdì
	Those are bad answers.	这些回答都不 Zhèxiē huídá dōu bù
	The first and the second statements might be true, but many people already agree with them.	第一和第二个陈述可能是对的,但有许多人已经表示赞同了 Dì yī hè dì èr gè chénshù kěnéng shì duì de, dàn yǒu xǔduō rén yǐjīng biǎoshì zàntóngle
	The third statement simply takes one side in a familiar debate.	而第三个只简单套用了常见辩论中一方的观点 Ér dì sān gè zhǐ jiǎndān tàoyòngle chángjiàn biànlùn zhōng yīfāng de guāndiǎn
	A good answer takes the following form:	好的回答应该按照下面这种模式 Hǎo de huí dā yìng gāi ànzhào xiàmiàn zhè zhǒng móshì
	“Most people believe in x, but the truth is the opposite of x.”	大多数人相信X，但事实却是X的对立面 Dà duōshù rén xiāngxìn X, dàn shìshí què shì X de duìlìmiàn
	I’ll give my own answer later in this chapter.	我之后会在本章给出自己的回答。 Wǒ zhīhòu huì zài běnzhāng gěi chū zìjǐ de huídá.
	What does this contrarian question have to do with the future?	那么，这个反主流的问题和未来有什么关系呢 Nàme, zhège fǎn zhǔliú de wèntí hé wèilái yǒu shé me guānxì ne
	In the most minimal sense, the future is simply the set of all moments yet to come.	从小处看，未来只是还没有 到来的时刻的集合 Cóngxiǎo chù kàn, wèilái zhǐshì hái méiyǒudàolái de shíkè de jíhé
	But what makes the future distinctive and important isn’t that it hasn’t happened yet,	但是真正使未来如此独特和重要的并非因为未来没有发生， Dànshì zhēnzhèng shǐ wèilái rúcǐ dútè hé zhòngyào de bìngfēi yīnwèi wèilái méiyǒu fāshēng,dàolái de shíkè de jíhé
	but rather that it will be a time when the world looks different from today.	而是未来的世界会与此刻不同 Ér shì wèilái de shìjiè huì yǔ cǐkè bùtóng
	In this sense, if nothing about our society changes for the next 100 years, then the future is over 100 years away.
	If things change radically in the next decade, then the future is nearly at hand.
	No one can predict the future exactly, but we know two things:
	It’s going to be different, and it must be rooted in today’s world.
	Most answers to the contrarian question are different ways of seeing the present;
	good answers are as close as we can come to looking into the future.
	ZERO TO ONE: THE FUTURE OF PROGRESS	从0到1:进步的未来 Cóng 0 dào 1: Jìnbù de wèilái
	When we think about the future, we hope for a future of progress.	进步的未来 Wǒmen qídài de wèilái shì jìnbù de 进步可以呈两种形式 Jìnbù kěyǐ chéng liǎng zhǒng xíngshì
	Horizontal or extensive progress means copying things that work—going from 1 to n.	第一，水平进步，也称广泛进步，意思是照搬已取得成就的经验——直接从1跨越到n Dì yī, shuǐpíng jìnbù, yě chēng guǎngfàn jìnbù, yìsi shì zhàobān yǐ qǔdé chéngjiù de jīngyàn——zhíjiē cóng 1 kuàyuè dào n
	Horizontal progress is easy to imagine because we already know what it looks like.	水平进步很容易想 象，因为我们已经知道了它是什么样 Shuǐpíng jìnbù hěn róngyì xiǎng xiàng, yīnwèi wǒmen yǐjīng zhīdàole tā shì shénme yàng
	Vertical or intensive progress means doing new things— going from 0 to 1.	第二，垂直进步，也称深入进步，意思是要探索新的道路——从0到1的进步 Dì èr, chuízhí jìnbù, yě chēng shēnrù jìnbù, yìsi shì yào tànsuǒ xīn de dàolù——cóng 0 dào 1 de jìnbù
	Vertical progress is harder to imagine because it requires doing something nobody else has ever done.
	If you take one typewriter and build 100, you have made horizontal progress.
	If you have a typewriter and build a word processor, you have made vertical progress.
	At the macro level, the single word for horizontal progress is globalization	从宏观层次看，可用一个词代替水平进步，即全球化 Cóng hóngguān céngcì kàn, kěyòng yīgè cí dàitì shuǐpíng jìnbù, jí quánqiú huà
	— taking things that work somewhere and making them work everywhere.	把某地的有用之物 推广到世界各地 Bǎ mǒu dì de yǒuyòng zhī wù tuīguǎng dào shìjiè gèdì
	China is the paradigmatic example of globalization;
	its 20-year plan is to become like the United States is today.
	The Chinese have been straightforwardly copying everything that has worked in the developed world: 19th-century railroads, 20th-century air conditioning, and even entire cities.
	They might skip a few steps along the way—going straight to wireless without installing landlines, for instance—but they’re copying all the same.
수직적 진보는 기술이라는 한 단어로 요약되기도 합니다.	The single word for vertical, 0 to 1 progress is technology.	垂直进步也可以用一个词来概括，即科技 Chuízhí jìnbù yě kěyǐ yòng yīgè cí lái gàikuò
	The rapid progress of information technology in recent decades has made Silicon Valley the capital of“technology” in general.	近数十年信息技术的迅猛发展， 已经给硅谷冠上了“科技之都”之名
그러나 기술은 컴퓨터 기술에만 국한되지 않습니다.	But there is no reason why technology should be limited to computers.	但科技不仅限于计算机技术 Dàn kējì bùjǐn xiànyú jìsuànjī jìshù
	Properly understood, any new and better way of doing things is technology.	任何新方法，任何可以使事情更易完成的方法都是科技，这才是对科技的正确理解
	Because globalization and technology are different modes of progress, it’s possible to have both, either, or neither at the same time.
	For example, 1815 to 1914 was a period of both rapid technological development and rapid globalization.
	Between the First World War and Kissinger’s trip to reopen relations with China in 1971, there was rapid technological development but not much globalization.
	Since 1971, we have seen rapid globalization along with limited technological development, mostly confined to IT.
	This age of globalization has made it easy to imagine that the decades ahead will bring more convergence and more sameness.
	Even our everyday language suggests we believe in a kind of technological end of history: the division of the world into the so-called developed and developing nations implies that the “developed” world has already achieved the achievable, and that poorer nations just need to catch up.
	But I don’t think that’s true.
	My own answer to the contrarian question is that most people think the future of the world will be defined by globalization, but the truth is that technology matters more.
	Without technological change, if China doubles its energy production over the next two decades, it will also double its airpollution.
	Americans already do—using only today’s tools—the result would be environmentally catastrophic.
	If every one of India’s hundreds of millions of households were to live the way Americans already do—using only today’s tools—the result would be environmentally catastrophic.
	Spreading old ways to create wealth around the world will result in devastation, not riches.
	In a world of scarce resources, globalization without new technology is unsustainable.
	New technology has never been an automatic feature of history.
	Our ancestors lived in static, zero-sum societies where success meant seizing things from others.
	They created new sources of wealth only rarely, and in the long run they could never create enough to save the average person from an extremely hard life.
	Then, after 10,000 years of fitful advance from primitive agriculture to medieval windmills and 16th-century astrolabes, the modern world suddenly experienced relentlesstechnological progress from the advent of the steam engine in the 1760s all the wayup to about 1970.
	As a result, we have inherited a richer society than any previous generation would have been able to imagine.
	Any generation excepting our parents’ and grandparents’, that is:
	in the late 1960s, they expected this progress to continue.
	They looked forward to a four-day workweek, energy too cheap to meter, and vacations on the moon.
	But it didn’t happen.
	The smartphones that distract us from our surroundings also distract us from the fact that our surroundings are strangely old:
	only computers and communications have improved dramatically since midcentury.
	That doesn’t mean our parents were wrong to imagine a better future—they were only wrong to expect it as something automatic. Today our challenge is to both imagine and create the new technologies that can make the 21st century more peaceful and prosperous than the 20th.
	STARTUP THINKING
	New technology tends to come from new ventures—startups. From the Founding Fathers in politics to the Royal Society in science to Fairchild Semiconductor’s “traitorous eight” in business, small groups of people bound together by a sense of mission have changed the world for the better.
	The easiest explanation for this is negative: it’s hard to develop new things in big organizations, and it’s even harder to do it by yourself.
	Bureaucratic hierarchies move slowly, and entrenched interests shy away from risk.
	In the most dysfunctional organizations, signaling that work is being done becomes a better strategy for career advancement than actually doing work (if this describes your company, you should quit now).
	At the other extreme, a lone genius might create a classic work of art or literature, but he could never create an entire industry.
	Startups operate on the principle that you need to work with other people to get stuff done, but you also need to stay small enough so that you actually can.
	Positively defined, a startup is the largest group of people you can convince of a plan to build a different future.
	A new company’s most important strength is new thinking:
	even more important than nimbleness, small size affords space to think.
	This book is about the questions you must ask and answer to succeed in the business of doing new things:
	what follows is not a manual or a record of knowledge but an exercise in thinking.
	Because that is what a startup has to do: question received ideas and rethink business from scratch.