谷歌、貝寶高管激辯“科技是否改變生活”

????過去30年間，技術改善了我們的生活嗎？答案取決于你問的對象是誰，因為硅谷一些名流對這個問題的看法堪稱爭鋒相對。

????谷歌（Google）執行總裁埃里克?施密特就認為，技術扮演了非常積極的角色，幫助20億人脫離了貧困，使地球上所有人都能獲得之前只有小部分人才能獲得的重要信息。他說，將來發達國家的人們預計將擁有“很長的壽命和非常富有成效的生活”。他還補充說，對于發展中國家的人們而言，“世界也將變得更美好”。

????然而，貝寶（PayPal）聯合創始人彼得?泰爾卻反駁說：“我覺得你為谷歌做了個很好的廣告?！碧柺枪韫茸畛晒Φ耐顿Y者之一。

????泰爾與施密特之間的這場辯論發生在《財富》雜志（Fortne）在美國科羅拉多州阿斯彭舉辦技術頭腦風暴會議期間的一場晚宴上。泰爾認為技術是唯一能改善人們生活的力量，但是卻沒有做到這一點。泰爾說，過去30年間，工資水平停滯不前，我們遭受了“能源創新的災難性失敗”，狹窄技術領域中取得的進展并沒有轉化成大眾的福利。

????泰爾 將過去30年與之前的40年進行對比，認為之前的40年間工資大幅上漲，汽車、航空、超音速噴氣機和電腦方面的創新都獲得了飛躍發展，而且切實改善了人們的生活。

????兩位高管的辯論多次變得激烈，兩人幾乎找不到一致的觀點。泰爾認為我們未能將綠色革命中糧食生產的成果持續下去，所以糧食價格上漲，從而引起“阿拉伯之春”。施密特則認為糧食價格上漲是由于政府誤導性的糧食政策，而“阿拉伯之春”主要是人們對暴虐政權忍無可忍的結果。（他們只有一個問題達成了共識，即社會媒體在使該地區劇烈動蕩的起義中只起到了很小的作用。）施密特認為由于人口老齡化問題，政府承擔了過多不可持續的福利項目。泰爾卻認為不存在人口問題。

????但兩人確實都認為政府已經破產，但對于背后的原因仍各持己見。泰爾著重批判高等教育費用急劇上漲。他認為上大學讓學生欠下堆積如山的債務，卻沒有給予學生更大的回報前景。泰爾認為高等教育就是“教育泡沫”，“教育債務正在將整整一代人變成受契約約束的仆人”。

????兩人的辯論以施密特的話結尾。他說：“按你的邏輯，接受高等教育的人會越來越少”。他又補充說：“維持競爭力的唯一途徑就是接受更多的教育?！?/p>

????這次辯論究竟誰贏誰輸，無法定論。但施密特最后一句話確實為他贏得了一輪掌聲，這倒不稀奇。

????Has technology improved our lives over the past 30 years? It depends who you ask -- and some of Silicon Valley's biggest luminaries couldn't disagree more.

????According to Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google (GOOG), technology has had an overwhelmingly positive role, lifting some 2 billion people out of poverty and spreading access to vital information from a relative small number to virtually all the people on earth. Going forward, people in the developed world can expect to have "extraordinarily long lives that are very productive," he said. And for those in developing countries, "the world gets better too," he added.

????The retort from Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal (EBAY): "I think you do a fantastic job as Google's minister of propaganda." Thiel is one of the Valley's most successful investors.

????Thiel, who debated Schmidt during a dinner conversation at Fortune's Brainstorm Tech conference in Aspen, Colorado, said that technology is the only thing that could improve people's lives, but it hasn't. Over the past 30 years, Thiel argued, wages have stagnated, we suffered from a "catastrophic failure of energy innovation," and progress in narrow areas of technology has not translated into general wellbeing.

????Thiel contrasted the last 30 years with the prior 40, when wages rose dramatically, and innovation in cars, aeronautics, supersonic jets and computers delivered giant leaps that translated into improvements in the lives of people.

????There was little that the two executives could agree on during a debate that got heated at times. To Thiel, the Arab Spring was caused by rising food prices caused by our inability to sustain gains in food production from the green revolution. To Schmidt, food prices have risen, but only because of misguided food policies by governments, and the Arab Spring was largely the result of people being fed up with oppressive regimes. (They did agree that social media only played a marginal role in the uprisings that convulsed the region.) To Schmidt, government is burdened by entitlement programs that are unsustainable given the aging population. Thiel denied there was a demographic problem.

????The two did agree that government was broken, but not on what is ailing it. And Thiel was particularly critical of higher education, the costs of which have risen sharply. Universities, he said, have burdened students with mountains of debt and not given graduates significantly larger earning potential. "The debts being imposed on people linked to education are turning and an entire generation into something close to indentured servants," Thiel said, calling the problems with higher ed an "education bubble."

????Schmidt had the last word. "Through that logic, fewer people would get educated," Schmidt said. He added: "The only way to maintain competitiveness is to get more education."

????It's not clear who, if anyone, won the debate. But perhaps not surprisingly, Schmidt's last line earned him a round of applause.