# 注意力經濟： 網路時代的自然經濟 - Michael Goldhaber

Michael Goldhaber 的文章 [The Attention Economy and the Net](https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440) 闡述網路時代的新經濟法則。

本頁面由噗友 Penut85420 採用 [Taiwan LLaMa2](https://huggingface.co/spaces/yentinglin/Taiwan-LLaMa2) 機器翻譯， 再經眾人手工修改。 更多討論及連結請見 [這個討論串](https://www.plurk.com/p/pdfy6s)。 如果你覺得哪裡翻得不好， 請順手修正。 **請以意譯、通順為主**； 請避免為了逐字翻譯而失去順暢的中文甚至失去作者原意。 可以伴隨本文閱讀的一篇文章： [「注意力經濟」 觀點看台灣政治](https://ckhung0.blogspot.com/2023/09/attention-in-politics.html)

## 摘要

If the Web and the Net can be viewed as spaces in which we will increasingly live our lives, the economic laws we will live under have to be natural to this new space. These laws turn out to be quite different from what the old economics teaches, or what rubrics such as "the information age" suggest. What counts most is what is most scarce now, namely attention. The attention economy brings with it its own kind of wealth, its own class divisions - stars vs. fans - and its own forms of property, all of which make it incompatible with the industrial-money-market based economy it bids fair to replace. Success will come to those who best accommodate to this new reality.

如果網路和網路可以被視為我們將逐漸生活的新空間，那麼我們將生活在其中的經濟法則必須是適應這個新空間的自然法則。這些法則與舊經濟學教導的，或者像「訊息時代」這樣的分類標準建議的法則不同。在這個新現實中，最重要的是什麼？關注度！注意力經濟帶來了它自己的一種財富類別，即明星與粉絲，以及它自己的形式，這些都使它與以工業、金錢和市場為基礎的經濟體系不相容，這個經濟體系正是它試圖取而代之的。成功將歸屬於那些能夠最好適應這個新現實的人。

Explanatory note: This article began as a draft of a conference[ * ] presentation, and has been left pretty much in that form. Another version was actually presented.

註釋：這篇文章本來是一篇會議的演講草稿，並且保持了相當原始的形式。實際上有另一個版本被呈現出來。

## 大家好呀 [Greetings]

This is a conference on the \"Economics of Digital Information.\" My guess is that most of the speakers, and most of the listeners interpret that title to mean that while \"digital information\" requires special consideration enough to justify a special conference, the basic meaning of the word \"economics\" can be taken for granted.

這是一個名為「數位資訊的經濟學」的會議。我的猜測是，大多數演講者和大多數聽眾會將標題解釋為「數位資訊」需要特殊考慮，足以舉辦一個特殊會議，而「經濟學」的基本含義可以被認為是可以理解的。

What we are to be concerned with is how prices, costs, productivity, and so forth apply to digital information.

我們關心的是數位資訊的價格、成本、生產力等應用如何進行。

My vantage point is quite different. What we mean by economics cannot be taken for granted if what we are talking about is the economics which applies, say, to the Internet, or more generally to cyberspace, or more generally still, to life in the foreseeable future.

我的觀點與他們不同。如果我們談論的經濟學與網際網路經濟學等相關話題不同，那麼經濟學的意義就不能被輕易假設。在未來可預見的未來，生活在網路空間或更廣泛的網路空間中是一個與他們不同的觀點。

We are moving into a period wholly different from the past era of factory-based mass production of material items when talk of money, prices, returns on investment, laws of supply and demand, and so on all made excellent sense.

我們正走向與過去以工廠生產物品的時代完全不同的時期，那個時代談論資金、價格、投資回報、供需法則等等都非常合理。

We now have to think in wholly new economic terms, for we are entering an entirely new kind of economy. The old concepts will just not have value in that new context.

我們現在需要以全新的經濟概念來思考，因為我們正在進入一個全新的經濟體系。舊的概念在那個新的背景下將完全無關緊要。

Of course, there is nothing so new about the insight that the Internet is part of a revolutionary change in the way we do things and also in why we do them.

當然，網際網路的觀念並不新鮮，它只是反映了我們生活和工作方式的革命性變化。

Many names for the new era have been invoked: the information age, the Third Wave, the move towards cyberspace, all of which point, vaguely at least to the fact that new patterns of activity and of interrelationships among people are now emerging.

許多新時代的新名稱已被引用：資訊時代、第三波浪潮、向網際網路的趨勢、所有這些都暗示著人們之間新的模式和活動方式的出現。

The trouble with that insight is that it is so vague that you can easily agree with it without feeling the necessity of changing your economic thinking in the least. My effort over the past several years - it's embarrassing to admit how many - has been to overcome that vagueness, to come up with specifics about what this revolution actually implies. My conclusions are that we are headed into what I call the attention economy.

那個觀點的問題在於它太模糊了，以至於你很容易同意它，而不覺得有必要改變你的經濟思維。過去幾年來，我一直在努力克服這種模糊性，得出具體結論，即我們正在進入所謂的「注意力經濟」。

## 改變 [Change Happens]

Before offering any details about the new economy itself I want to deal with a feeling you no doubt have. \"Economics is economics; it really can't change.\" Even if you are not saying that in so many words, I feel fairly confident it is somewhere in your mind at this point.

在我提供有關新經濟本身的任何細節之前，我想先處理一種你們毫無疑問已經擁有的感覺。「經濟學是經濟學，它確實無法改變。」即使你們沒有用這些話來表達，我相信你們的心中某個地方一定有這種感覺。

To try to convince you at least to have some doubts about that certainty, let me invoke two different analogies. Since it is obviously beyond my capabilities to explain the full workings of an entire new economy in the brief time available here, getting you to take the thought of it seriously would not be a useless accomplishment.

為了至少讓你對那種確定性產生一些懷疑，讓我引用兩個不同的類比。由於我在這裡所提供的有限時間內無法解釋整個新經濟的完整運作方式，讓你認真考慮這個想法不是一件徒勞無功的成就。

The first analogy comes from science. Most scientists would agree that early in its existence, the planet Earth held no life. There were various kinds of minerals, volcanoes, sea water, chemicals in solution - lots going on, but all of it understandable in terms of the laws of physics, chemistry, geology.

第一個類比來自科學。大多數科學家會同意，在地球早期存在時，地球上是沒有生命的。地球上有各種各樣的礦物、火山、海水、化學物質 - 這一切都在運作，而且都可以用物理學、化學、地質學的法則來理解。

Then, fairly suddenly, some chemical molecules began to commingle in a new way, capable of growing and reproducing. Life had emerged, and, in its tremendous variety, grew and flourished according to completely new laws, the laws of molecular biology, of physiology, of ecology and so on.

然後突然地，一些化學分子開始混合在一起，具有生長和繁殖的能力。生命出現了，並根據分子生物學、生理學、生態學等方面的全新法則，展現出無窮的變化和繁榮。

To try to understand life solely on the basis of the old laws of physics and chemistry, would be an enormous, crippling mistake; you couldn't talk about the most obvious things, like sex or aging or digestion or species or parasites, since those are all biological concepts that have no place in physics or chemistry.

要僅僅依靠物理學和化學的老規則來理解生命，將會是一個巨大且癱瘓性的錯誤；你無法談論最明顯的事情，如性徵、衰老、消化、物種或寄生蟲，因為這些都是生物概念，在物理學或化學中沒有地位。

The parallel I want to draw is that the new kinds of connection that the Net and cyberspace make possible also demand a whole new way of thinking if you are to understand what is going on between people, the kinds of organized effort that are now possible, the motivations that most matter, and a host of other facets of life.

我想要繪製的平行是，新的連接類型正是網際網路和互聯空間所能實現的，這也要求一種全新的思考方式來理解人與人之間的發生了什麼，組織化的努力現在變得可能，各種動機成為主要驅動因素，以及生活的許多其他方面。

This analogy is imperfect in one way though. I don't mean to imply that the new concepts of economics we need come on top of or in addition to the old concepts. Rather, economics is about the overall patterns of effort and motivation that shape our lives, and it is these patterns and motivations that are changing. That implies a wholly new set of economic laws that replace the ones we all have learned.

這個類比在一個方面是不完美的。我並不是暗示新經濟學的概念是在舊概念之上或者另外加上的，而是經濟學是關於我們生活中整體的模式和動機，這些模式和動機正在改變。這意味著需要完全取代我們所有人都學過的新經濟法律。

## 封建思想 [A Feudal Hope]

My second analogy should make this point more clearly. It also involves looking back to an earlier time, but, instead of billions of years ago we now must think back a mere five centuries. The expansion into cyberspace now underway parallels the expansion of European civilization into North and South America that followed Columbus's discoveries, exactly 498 years before Tim Berners-Lee discovered, or rather invented, the Web.

我的第二個類比將使這個觀點更加清楚。它也涉及到過去的某個時候，但不是數十億年前，而是僅僅五個世紀前。擴展到網路空間現在正在進行，這與歐洲文明擴展到北美和南美，隨著克里斯托弗·哥倫布的發現，距離蒂姆·伯納斯-李發現（或者發明）網路只有498年。

Europe back then in the 15th century was still ruled pretty much on feudal lines, and the feudal lords took it for granted that the new world would be a space for more of a feudal economy, with dukes and counts and barons and earls ruling over serfs throughout the newly discovered continents. They did in fact begin to set up that system, but it was not what turned out to flourish in the new space.

那時歐洲是在15世紀，仍然大部分由貴族統治，而貴族們認為新世界將成為一個更多貴族經濟的空間，杠上公爵和侯爵，男爵和女爵統治著臣民在新發現的大陸上。他們確實開始建立這個體系，但這個體系在新的空間中並沒有繁榮起來。

Instead, the capitalist, market-based industrial economy, then just starting out, found the new soil much more congenial. Eventually it grew so strong in North America that, when it re-crossed the ocean, it finally completed its move to dominance in Western Europe and then elsewhere in the world.

相反，資本主義市場導向的工業經濟，當時才剛剛起步，發現這片新土地更加適合。最終，它在北美洲變得如此強大，當它再次穿越大洋時，它終於完成了在西歐獲得主導地位的遷移，然後在世界其他地方也取得了主導地位。

Contemporary economic ideas stem from that selfsame market-based industrialism, which was thoroughly different from the feudal, subsistence-farming-based economy that preceded it. We tend to think, as we are taught, that economic laws are timeless.

當前的經濟思想源於相同的市場導向工業主義，與以封建、耕作為生的舊經濟形成鮮明對比。我們常常被教導經濟法則是不變的。

That is plain wrong. Those laws hold true in particular periods and in a particular kind of space. The characteristic landscape of feudalism, dotted with small fields, walled villages, and castles, differs markedly from the industrial landscape of cities, smokestack factories and railroads, canals, or superhighways.

這是明顯錯誤的。這些法律在特定時期和特定類型的空間中有效。封建主義的特徵景觀，點綴著小田地，有圍牆的村莊和城堡，與工業景觀的城市，煙囪工廠和鐵路，運河或超高速公路有顯著的不同。

The \"landscape\" of cyberspace exists only in our minds, perhaps, but even so it is where we are increasingly coming to live, and it looks nothing like either of those others. If cyberspace grows to encompass interactions between the billions of people now on the planet, those kinds of interaction will be utterly different from what prevailed for the last few centuries, or ever before.

「虛擬空間的風景」僅存在於我們的心中，或許如此，但我們越來越接近在這個星球上生活的地方，它看起來與其他兩者完全不同。如果虛擬空間擴展到包括地球上現在數十億人之間的互動，那麼這種互動將與過去幾個世紀或以前所統治的完全不同。

If you want to thrive in this new world, it behooves you not to mistake it for a place where the dukes and earls of today will naturally continue to prosper, but rather to learn to think in terms of the economy natural to it.

如果你想在這個新世界中茁壯成長，你不應該把它當作今天的杯酒釋卷，而是要學會以這個新世界的自然經濟為思考。

## 新的自然經濟 [The New Natural Economy]

So, at last, what is this new economy about? Well if the Net exemplifies it, then you might guess it has less to do with material things than with the kinds of entity that can flow through the Net. We are told over and over just what that is: information.

所以，最後，這個新經濟到底是什麼意思呢？如果說網路最能代表這個新經濟，那麼你可能會猜到它與物質事物相對比較少，而更多地與可以通過網路傳遞的那種實體實相相關。我們一再被告知這是什麼：資訊。

Information, however, would be an impossible basis for an economy, for one simple reason: economies are governed by what is scarce, and information, especially on the Net, is not only abundant, but overflowing. We are drowning in the stuff, and yet more and more comes at us daily.

然而，資訊對經濟來說卻是一個不可能的基礎，因為經濟最重視的是稀缺，而資訊，特別是網際網路上的資訊，不僅是稀缺的，而且是實在太多了，以至於我們正在淹沒在這些資訊中，每天還有更多更多的東西被加到我們身上。

That is why terms like \"information glut\" have become commonplace, after all. Furthermore, if you have any particular piece of information on the Net, you can share it easily with anyone else who might want it.

這就是為什麼像「資訊爆炸」這樣的詞語已經普遍流行了，畢竟。此外，如果你有任何特定的在網際網路上的資訊，你可以輕鬆地與其他可能想要它的人分享。

It is not in any way scarce, and therefore it is not an information economy towards which we are moving. What would be the incentive in organizing our lives around spewing out more information if there is already far too much?

這並不稀缺，因此它並不是一個資訊經濟，我們向哪個方向移動是一個問題。如果已經有太多，那麼有什麼激勵我們組織生活，圍繞著噴出更多資訊呢？

Well, my title gives it away, of course. There is something else that moves through the Net, flowing in the opposite direction from information, namely attention. So seeking attention could be the very incentive we are looking for.

嗯，我的頭銜當然已經洩露了答案。除了資訊之外，還有其他東西在網路中流動，這就是所謂的注意力。所以，尋求注意力可能就是我們正在尋找的強大激勵因素。

Parenthetically, I have now rejected both parts of the conference title; no economics in the conventional sense, and not digital information either. You might conclude I am speaking at the wrong conference. I would rather say it has the wrong title. Except the title did serve its purpose. It did get your attention, and that was something, in fact a lot.

在這個情境下，我現在已經拒絕了這次會議的兩個部分，一個是沒有經濟學的傳統意義上，另一個是沒有數位資訊。你可能會認為我在這個會議上講錯了話。我寧願說這個標題本身是錯誤的。除了標題達到了它的目的，它確實引起了你們的注意，這是一點實質上的東西。

Attention, at least the kind we care about, is an intrinsically scarce resource [4]. Consider yours, right now. You are reading this paper, or more likely, since it is intended to be delivered at a conference, listening to me speaking it.

注意力，至少是我們關心的這種，是一種內在稀缺的資源。請考慮你們現在所擁有的，正在閱讀這篇論文，或者更有可能的是，因為這篇論文是在一個會議上交付的，正在聆聽我為你們傳達這篇論文。

You have a certain stock of attention at your disposal, and right now, a large proportion of the stock available to you is going to me, or to my words. Note that if I am standing in front of you it is difficult to distinguish between paying attention to me and paying attention to my words or thoughts; you can hardly do one without doing the other.

你們目前的注意力庫存正處於你們的掌控之中，而此刻大部分的注意力庫存正在被我或我的話語所佔用。請注意，如果我站在你們面前，很難區分出是在注意我還是在注意我的話語或思想；幾乎無法做到其中之一而不做其中之二。

If you are just reading this, assuming it gets printed in a book, the fact that your attention is going to me and not just to what I write may be slightly less obvious. So it is convenient to think of being in the audience at this conference in order to consider what attention economics is all about.

如果你只是剛剛讀到這裡，假設它會被列印在一本書中，你的注意力將會屬於我而不僅僅是我所寫的可能會稍微不那麼明顯。所以，參加這次會議的觀眾是很方便的，以考慮注意力經濟學的問題。

First of all, if this talk is not a total bust, at this moment I am getting attention from a considerable audience. There is a net flow of attention towards me. If this is a reasonably polite group, there may be no great competition for your attention at the moment, but nonetheless, if there were, you would have to choose, or someone else, say the chair, would.

首先，如果這次演講不是一次完全的災難，目前我正在引起一個相當大的觀眾的注意。目前有一個網路般的注意力向我聚集。如果這是一個禮貌的群體，可能沒有太多競爭對你的注意力，但無論如何，如果有，你們兩個都需要選擇，或者主席也需要選擇。

The assembled audience cannot really pay attention to very many people speaking at once, usually not to more than one, in fact. Which is another way to say that the scarcity of attention is real and limiting.

在場的觀眾很難同時專注於很多人講話，通常只有一個人，實際上可以說注意力的稀缺是真實存在且有限的。

Now this might not matter if attention were not desirable and valuable in itself, but it is. In fact, it is a very nice feeling to have respectful attention from everybody within earshot, no matter how many people that may include.

如果注意力不是可取且有價值的，這或許就不重要了，但事實上並非如此。無論耳朵內的每個人如何，都能夠得到尊重的關注，這是一種非常美好的感覺。

We have a word to describe a very attentive audience, and that word is \"enthralled.\" A thrall is basically a slave. If, for instance, I should take it in my head to mention panda bears, you who are paying attention are forced to think \"panda bears,\" a thought you had no inkling would come up when you decided to listen to this talk. Now let me ask, how many of you, on hearing the word \"panda\" saw a glimpse of a panda in your imagination? Raise your hands, please. Thank you. ... A ha.

我們有一個詞來描述非常認真的觀眾，那個詞是「入迷」。一個入迷的人基本上是一個奴隸。如果，比如說，我應該在我的頭腦中提到貓熊熊，你們認真聽的人被迫思考「貓熊熊」，這是一個你們從未有過印象的想法，當你決定聽我講話時。現在，讓我問一下，你們聽到「貓熊」這個詞時，有多少人在你們的想像中看到了一隻貓熊？請舉手。謝謝。...哦，我知道了。

What just happened? I had your attention and I was able to convert it into a physical action on some of your parts, raising your hands. It comes with the territory. That is part of the power that goes with having attention, a point I will have reason to return to.

那剛才發生了什麼？我剛剛有你的注意，並且能夠通過一些你的部分將其轉化為實際行動，舉起手來。這是領土的一部分，這也是有注意力時的力量的一部分，我以後會有機會再談論這個問題。

Right now, it should be evident that having your attention means that I have the power to bend your minds and your bodies to my will, within limits that in turn have to do with how good I am at enthralling you. This can be a remarkable power.

目前，應該可以明顯看出，擁有您的注意力意味著我有能力使您的思想和身體屈服於我的意志，在一定的限制範圍內，這與我能夠迷住您有關。這可以是一種非常了不起的力量。

When you have superb control over your own body, so that you can perform great athletic feats, it feels great; likewise, it feels good when your mind feels focused and powerful; how much more wonderful then to be able to have the minds and bodies of others at your disposal!

當你對自己的身體有絕對的控制，可以做出偉大的運動成就時，感覺很棒；同樣地，當你的心智感到專注且強大時，也會感到很棒；如果能夠擁有他人的思想和身體，那該有多好啊！

On the rather rare occasions when I have felt I was holding an audience \"in the palm of my hand, hanging on my every word,\" I have very much enjoyed the feeling, and of course others who have felt the same have reported their feelings in the same terms.

在我感覺自己握有觀眾的時候，無論這種感覺是否真實存在，我都非常享受這種感覺，其他人也有過同樣的感覺，並用相同的詞語來描述。

The elation is independent of what you happen to be talking about, even if it is to decry something you think is horrible.

無論你談論什麼，這種興奮都是獨立的，即使你在譴責你認為是可怕的某事。

## 驅動力 [A Driving Force]

This is not a particularly huge audience, but it is possible to enthrall any number of people if you can reach them and if you are good enough at it. So having attention is very, very desirable, in some ways infinitely so, since the larger the audience, the better. And, yet, attention is also difficult to achieve owing to its intrinsic scarcity.

這不是一個特別大的觀眾，但如果你能夠觸及他們並且足夠出色，任何觀眾都可以被娛樂。因此，擁有注意力非常、非常令人渴望，在某種程度上是無限的，因為隨著觀眾變大，效果也會更好。然而，注意力也很難實現，因為它具有內在的稀缺性。

That combination makes it the potential driving force of a very intense economy. Of course, not everybody necessarily wants a great deal of attention, just as in a money economy not everybody wants a great deal of money or many of the material goods that money can buy.

這種結合使其成為一個潛在的強大驅動力的非常激烈的經濟。當然，不是每個人都一定想要很多關注，就像在金錢經濟中，不是每個人都想要很多錢或金錢可以買到的許多物質財富一樣。

But, just as in a money economy practically everyone must have some money to survive, so attention in some quantities is pretty much a prerequisite for survival, and attention is actually far more basic. This has always been the case for tiny babies.

但是，就像在一個金錢經濟中幾乎每個人都必須有一些錢才能生存一樣，在某種程度上，關注是幾乎必要的，而關注實際上遠遠更基本。這一直是對於微小嬰兒的情況。

bout the only thing they can get for themselves, or can give, is attention, which they begin to do within a half hour of birth, by smiling at those who smile at them. Without attention an infant could never satisfy its material needs, for food, warmth, fresh diapers, being burped, and so on.

寶寶剛出生的時候，他們能得到的唯一東西就是關注，這在他們出生後的半小時內就開始了，因為他們開始對那些對他們微笑的人微笑。沒有關注，寶寶是無法滿足自己的物質需求的，比如食物、溫暖、乾淨的尿布、被抱怨等等。

At a slightly later stage infants and toddlers need attention if they are to develop any sense of themselves as persons, and neither of those needs ever completely goes away. So even if you do not especially make a point of reaching for attention, even if you are very shy and reclusive, you still probably cannot do without some minimum, which however reluctantly, you may have to fight for.

在較晚的階段，嬰兒和幼兒需要關注，如果他們要發展出任何對自己作為人的感覺，而這兩者都不會完全消失。因此，即使你不特別尋求關注，即使你很害羞和孤獨，你可能還是需要某種程度的關注，但這卻可能是你不情願地必須奮鬥爭取的。

And no matter how humble you now may be, at some time in your own childhood you certainly sought attention, or you wouldn't be here.

無論你現在有多麼謙虛，你的童年某個時候，你肯定曾經尋求過關注，否則你不會在這裡。

As we move towards an attention economy in a fuller sense, the ethos of the old economy which makes it often bad taste or a poor strategy to consciously seek attention seems to be giving way to an attitude that makes having a lot of attention rather admirable and seeking it not at all to be frowned upon.

隨著我們朝著更加全面的注意力經濟發展，老經濟的道德，使得它常常顯得壞味或成為不良策略的尋求注意力的往往趨向於讚揚擁有大量注意力而不需要尋求注意力本身並不被譴責的態度。

Think of the sorts of things people are now willing to admit about themselves just to get on the likes of Oprah or the Sally Jesse Raphael show. Even the President of the United States is willing to discuss his underwear on nationwide television.

想想人們現在願意在像歐普拉或莎莉·賈伊·萊菲爾的節目上談些什麼，即使總統也願意在全國直播的電視上談論內衣。

## 聊天，但不見得有主題 [Chatting, But Not Necessarily About Anything]

But I am running a bit ahead of myself. Before saying more about the workings of the attention economy and its ramifications, I have to offer you a bit more of an idea about how to view different situations in terms of the exchange of attention.

但是我在前面談論的問題上有些超前了。在談論注意經濟的運作以及其後果之前，我必須給你們一個對於如何看待不同情況的注意交換的概念。

Earlier I suggested that when information flows one way through the Net, attention has to be flowing the other. Now I want to say that it would be even better to think in terms of attention of some kind flowing both ways.

我稍早建議當資訊單向流經網路時，注意力必須流向另一個方向。現在我想說，將注意力視為兩個方向都能流動，會更加理想。

Consider an ordinary conversation. You could describe it as the exchange of information, but except in a highly technical sense that is rarely a very accurate description of what takes place. A conversation is primarily an exchange of attention.

考慮一次普通對話。您可以將其描述為資訊的交換，但在技術上如此準確的描述並不常見，這並不準確地描述了發生的情況。對話主要是一種注意力的交換。

When you say \"how are you?\" for instance, you don't really want to know, as a rule, but if whomever you're talking with chooses to say how he or she is, it is more to get attention from you than to convey information.

比如，當你說「你好嗎？」的時候，你並不真的想要知道，作為一般規則，但如果你和誰說話的人選擇說說他或她怎麼樣，那麼你比較想要得到關注，而不是傳達資訊。

Even if this person genuinely thought you did want to know about her/his health, in answering, s/he would be attempting to pay attention to you. And even if you, in turn genuinely did want to know, the usual reason would be to pay attention to her/him.

即使這個人真的認為你想要了解他/她的健康，在回答時，他/她也會試圖關注你。即使你真的想要了解，以往的常見理由也是為了關注他/她。

Information, in the sense of something not previously known to one of the parties or another is secondary, if present at all. If I want your attention for any reason, I might begin by asking you for information, such as who you are and what you do, not necessarily because that is of great interest to me, but because it is a good way to get your attention.

這句話的意思是：如果雙方中的任何一方對對方所知的資訊不多，那麼提供的資訊就是次要的，如果有的話。如果我想引起您的注意，我可能會從詢問您的姓名和職業等方面的資訊開始，這並不一定對我有很大的興趣，但這是一種好的方式來引起您的注意。

Children ask countless questions with this motive often patently obvious, and adults are not necessarily any different. Even if I am desperately searching for some fact that you happen to know, to get it from you I first have to get your attention.

孩子們常常用這種目的提出無數個問題，而成年人並沒有太大的區別。即使我絕望地尋找你們可能知道的某個事實，要從你們這裡得到這些資訊，我首先必須贏得你們的注意力。

So what really matters in every conversation is the exchange of attention -- an exchange that normally must be kept more or less equal if one party or the other isn't likely to lose interest.

所以，在每次對話中真正重要的是交換注意力的交流——一種通常必須在雙方之間保持相對平等的交流，否則其中一方或雙方都可能失去興趣。

## 虛擬注意力 [Illusory Attention]

Now, let us come back to the example of this conference, in fact the very interchange going on between me and you at this moment. If you are still paying attention, it is at least in part because what I am saying interests you; that is, to some extent I am addressing some need or desire that you now have.

現在，讓我們回到這個例子。事實上，我們目前正在進行的這次會議的實際交流，你和我之間的這個當下的交流。如果你仍然在聽，至少部分原因是因為我所說的內容引起了你的關注；也就是說，我至少部分地滿足了你現在所需要的或者渴望的某些東西。

Thus it appears, in a certain sense that I am paying each of you attention individually, even though I can't really be doing that. Of course, in this setting it helps that I have some idea of why you are here, but I obviously am not in a position to focus on your individual needs.

所以，在某種意義上，我似乎正在對每一位你們個別進行關注，即使我實際上無法做到這一點。當然，在這種情境下，我對你們為什麼在這裡有一個概念是有幫助的，但我明顯不處於能夠關注你們個別需求的位置。

If just the two of us were having a conversation, rather than my standing up here and reading this paper to this whole audience, you would be quite rightly incensed if instead of pausing to answer your questions or seeing whether you were still interested I just talked on and on in this fashion.

如果只有我們兩個人在對話，而不是我站在這裡向這個觀眾朗讀這份文件，你可能完全正當地因為我沒有停下來回答你的問題或看看你是否仍然感興趣，而繼續以這種方式講話。

As another sign of the asymmetry between us, if I leave the room after this talk, I would be extremely unlikely to be able to recognize a particular one of you three months from now, though you might well be able to recognize me.

作為我們不對稱的另一個標誌，如果我在這次演講後離開這個房間，我三個月後很難認識出你們中的任何一個，儘管你們可能能認識出我。

What I am trying to get at here is that while you would normally want a conversation to involve a more or less equal exchange of attention, in the special circumstances that you are listening to a speaker, your feelings about what is a fair exchange are altered.

我想要表達的是，在一般情況下，你希望對話能夠達到相互交流注意力的程度，但在特殊情況下，你正在聽一位演講者時，你對於公平交換的感受會有所改變。

What I would suggest is going on is less that I am providing you with information that you deem in advance will be of value, than that I am offering you individually the illusion of my full attention.

我建議的是，不如我為您提供一些您提前認為有價值的資訊，而不是我個人提供給您一種我所謂的全神貫注的幻覺。

I don't claim to be very good at this, but what I have done to some extent is to set up some expectations in you about what I will get to by the time the talk is finished, and any sense of progress towards that goal then feels as if I am filling your need, even though it is a need I have subtly created. Any speaker must somehow do this, of course, to hold attention.

我不聲稱自己在這方面很專業，但我所做的一些事情是在某種程度上為您設定期望，讓您對我到目前為止所達成的感到滿意。然後，任何朝著這個目標的進展都會讓您感覺到我正在滿足您的需求，即使這是一個我微妙地創造出來的需求。任何演講者都必須在某種程度上保持觀眾的注意力，尤其是這樣。

If rhetoric is the art of persuasive speech, then anyone who speaks or writes or seeks attention in any way has to become something of a success in the special rhetoric of persuading listeners, readers, and so on, that he or she is meeting their individual needs, when in fact some of these needs have been artfully set up in advance.

如果說說服的藝術是一種說服性的言辭，那麼任何人，無論是說話、寫作，還是以任何方式尋求關注，都必須成為在說服聽眾、讀者等方面的成功，他們正在滿足他們的個別需求，而事實上，一些這些需求已經精心設置。

You want to know what I am driving at, for instance, because I have already provided clues galore that I am driving at something that should matter to you.

你想知道我所指的是什麼，比如說，我已經給出了很多暗示，我所指的是對你來說很重要的事情。

My success, if any, in meeting these expectations I have myself set up in you will appear to be attention - call it illusory attention - that flows from me to you.That helps create an apparent equality of attention, and it can in fact go beyond that to create a feeling of obligation on your part or the part of other readers or listeners.

我在滿足這些期望方面的成功，如果有的話，將顯示為對你們的關注 - 叫它幻覺的關注 - 從我到你們流動。這有助於創造一種似乎平等的關注的幻覺，並且實際上可以超越這一點，創造出你們的一部分或其他讀者或聽眾的一部分的責任感。

The audience members can each feel they have not paid as much attention to a speaker as the speaker has paid personally to them, even though, in a very real sense the reverse is closer to the truth. The speaker may still not know them from Adam though they have the speaker's visage, voice, and thoughts permanently etched in memory.

觀眾成員可以感覺他們沒有像演講者那樣關注他們，即使演講者可能在個人上付出了更多的努力，這在很大程度上是不真實的。演講者可能還不認識他們，儘管他們有演講者的面容、聲音和思想永久地刻在記憶中。

## 觀眾效應 [The Effect of the Audience]

Much more is going on here. One thing is the question of why you started listening in the first place. Well one reason is that I was introduced by the chair, who had your attention already, she was paying attention to the committee that set up this conference, in particular to Brian Kahin.

這裡有更多的事情正在發生。一開始你聽我們的原因之一，其實是因為主席已經注意到我了，她正在關注這次會議的籌備工作，尤其是Brian Kahin。

He in turn paid attention to Esther Dyson, who gets paid a lot of attention. And indeed you possibly came here because you saw Esther's name on the organizing committee, and you already had gotten used to paying her attention.

他轉過身來對艾絲特·迪森（Esther Dyson）特別關注，她確實得到了很多關注。你可能甚至來這裡是因為你在組委會名單上看到了艾絲特的名字，並且已經習慣了給她關注了。

A key truth is that if you have the attention of an audience, you can then pass that on to someone else. For instance, if I happened to spot a friend of mine in the audience, or just chose someone at random, I could turn over all of your attention to that person.

一個關鍵的事實是，如果你能夠吸引觀眾的注意力，你就可以將這種注意力轉移到其他人身上。例如，如果我注意到觀眾中有一個朋友，或者只是隨機選擇某人，我就可以將所有的注意力轉移到這個人身上。

Now, the fact that attention can be passed on from someone who has it to someone else, and on and on, is of course a vital feature if there is to be anything resembling an economy. We will return to this general point.

現在，注意力可以從某人傳遞給其他人，然後又傳遞下去，這是然然是任何形式經濟的重要特徵，我們將在此抽象的點上再次討論。

But right now, I want to combine the idea that I could pass the whole audience's attention on to you with the thought I introduced before that you can feel in a certain sense that I am paying attention to you specifically - what I referred to as illusory attention.

但現在，我想結合我可能將整個觀眾的注意力都轉給你的想法，以及我之前提到的你可以在某種程度上感覺到我專門關注你的想法 - 我所提到的虛幻關注。

Since I observably do have at least a good fraction of the whole audience's attention, if I were to pay attention specifically to you in reality, by singling you out, I would of course be paying not only my own attention but that of everyone else here, and yet, it would seem to be arriving at you through me.

由於我可以看到觀眾的一個相當大的部分，如果我專注於你，這樣單獨指出你，那麼我將會專注於我自己和在場的每個人，但似乎我的注意力已經到達了你。

## 迷你模型 [A Miniature Working Model]

And now, just a few more quick points about this conference. First, the whole conference works pretty much as an attention economy. While you are here, your main concern is how you pay attention and where you pay it, perhaps whether you get enough in return to have a chance at being one of the conference stars, perhaps only through the brilliance of the questions you ask.

最後，讓我再強調一下這次會議。這個會議基本上是一個注意力經濟。在你們在這裡的期間，你們的主要關注點是你們如何分配注意力，也許你們能夠獲得足夠的注意力，有機會成為這次會議的明星，也許只能通過你們提出的優秀問題的光芒來突顯你們的存在。

Even between sessions, the exchange of attention is what mostly tends to occupy people at a conference. Of course, there are material considerations, such as having enough to eat, a comfortable chair, etc.

即使在會議期間，人們之間的交流也是佔據大部分時間。當然，這也會受到物質上的考慮，比如有沒有吃的，座位舒不舒服等等。

But they tend to be secondary issues, taken for granted, and not occupying much attention. We are living a temporary attention economy in miniature right at this moment. It bears repeating: We are living a temporary attention economy in miniature right at this moment.

但是這些問題往往被視為理所當然，並且沒有受到太多關注。我們現在正處於一種臨時注意力經濟的縮小版本，這一點再次重申：我們現在正處於一種臨時注意力經濟的縮小版本，這一點再次重申。

quoteIt should be evident by now that everyone has always lived with some degree of an attention economy, but through most of human history it hasn't been primary. Material needs and the production of material goods or the provision of purely material and basically impersonal services such as railways held sway.

到目前為止，應該已經明顯的顯示出每個人都一定程度上生活在注意經濟中，但在人類歷史的大部分時間裡，這並不是主導的因素。物質需求和生產物質商品或提供純粹物質且基本上不個人化的服務，例如鐵路，佔據了主導地位。

Even fifty years ago, the percentage of the American population that could take basic material needs for granted and didn't work directly in factories or on farms was much smaller than it is today.

即使五十年前，能夠輕易取得基本材料的美國人口比例要小得多，而且沒有在工廠或農場工作。

If you look at how you live your life when you are not attending this conference, you will probably see that quite a bit of what you personally do is better characterized as involving attention transactions than monetary transactions.

如果你觀察一下你在不參加這個會議的情況下的生活方式，你可能會看到你個人做的很多事情更多地被歸類為涉及關注交易而不是財務交易。

You most likely make many more decisions every day about where and towards whom your attention should now go than about where your or anyone else's money should go. It is an issue every time you get a phone call, receive a memo, see someone you know waving at you, decide whether to go to a movie, or surf the Web, to list just a few examples.

你可能每天都要做出更多關於你的注意力應該去哪裡和向誰去的決策，而不是你或其他人的錢該去哪裡。這是一個每當你接到電話、收到便條、看到你認識的人揮手打招呼、決定是否去看電影，或者瀏覽網路時，只是幾個例子。

You are probably quite concerned too with getting attention in one way or another, or perhaps helping someone else get it. In this you are typical of a growing proportion of our society, and indeed of almost every sizable society on this globe now.

您可能也和我一樣關心在某種程度上獲得關注，或者也許是幫助其他人獲得關注。在這方面，您代表了我們社會中越來越多的比例，甚至幾乎每個在這個星球上變得可衡量的社會都是如此。

## 傳統物質經濟因為太成功而自己身受其害 [A Material Economy Falls Victim to Its Own Success]

The simple fact, which I have no time to discuss at any length, is that compared with our capacity to produce material things, our net capacity to consume those things can no longer keep pace. Thus fewer and fewer of us, on a percentage basis are involved in producing standard items than ever before, and this is true despite the fact that per capita consumption of material goods keep rising.

這個事實，我沒有時間詳細討論，就是相對於我們生產物質商品的能力，我們消費這些商品的網路能力已經無法再跟得上了。因此，我們人口中的越來越少的人，以百分比來說，參與生產標準商品，即使每人消費物質商品的水平繼續上升，這是真實的。

It just cannot rise fast enough to keep pace with possible production. There just is not enough work of the older kinds to keep us as busy as we once were. So, for example, actual manufacturing employment as a fraction of the total population continues its slow decline.

它增長得太慢，無法跟上生產的可能性。各種工作的需求減少，特別是較老的工作，使我們無法像以前那樣忙碌。例如，實際的製造就業人數佔總人口的比例繼續下降。

Even in so-called developing nations, the Green Revolution in agriculture has led to the same sort of decline in the number employed producing material things, including food crops. Yet strangely, we are all busier than ever.

即使在所謂發展中國家，農業的綠色革命也導致同樣的數量減少，包括食物作物在內的生產材料的減少。然而，奇怪的是，我們都比以往更忙碌。

In fact, in the light of what I have been saying so far, that is not so odd. It is precisely because material needs at the creature comfort level are fairly well satisfied for all those in a position to demand them that the need for attention, or what is closely related to attention, meaning or meaningfulness of life, takes on increasing importance. In other words, the energies set free by the successes of what I refer to as the money-industrial economy go more and more in the direction of obtaining attention. And that leads to growing competition for what is increasingly scarce, which is of course attention. It sets up an unending scramble, a scramble that also increases the demands on each of us to pay what scarce attention we can.

事實上，根據我到目前為止所說的，這並不奇怪。物質需求在生活水平上相對舒適的人們身上大致上得到了滿足，因此，對關注度、或者說是關注的意義和重要性，即生活的意義和重要性，需求越來越大。換句話說，由我所稱之為金錢工業經濟的成功所釋放出的能量，越來越多地用於獲取關注度。這導致了對越來越稀缺的東西的競爭不斷增加，當然也包括關注度。這設立了一個無休止的瘋狂追逐，這也增加了我們每個人對於付出稀缺的關注度的需求。

And because we all need some attention, as competition for it rises, the effort begins to take on still more importance. When real attention of the right sort is unavailable, one has to make do to make do with the illusory kind, which comes through an increasing variety of media: paperback books, sound recordings, movies, radio, magazines, TV, video, and most recently computer software, CD-ROMs and the Web.

因為我們都需要一些關注，而關注的競爭越來越激烈，努力開始變得更加重要。當正確類型的關注不可得時，只好做做幻想類型的，這種類型通過各種媒體傳播：紙質書籍、音頻錄音、電影、廣播、雜誌、電視、視頻、最近的電腦軟件、CD-ROMs和網際網路。

## 無關生產力 [It's Not for Productivity]

But the longing to get real attention and lots of it is only intensified by that experience. If the average kid today at age twenty has seen over 30,000 hours of TV, and, if, as is often suggested, TV offers young viewers role models for acceptable behavior, then the one thing everyone visible on the tube has in common to model is going after attention and getting it.

但是那種渴望得到真正的關注和很多很多這種渴望只會因為那種經歷而加劇。如果二十歲的孩子平均已經看了超過三萬小時的電視，而且如果電視通常提供年輕觀眾可接受的行為模範，那麼在電視上可見的每個人都共同有一個模仿的對象，就是去追求關注並且得到它。

This is also what is universally modeled by rock stars, successful athletes, politicians, and to a lesser degree even by school teachers and college professors. So it is no coincidence that some of the most popular uses of computers, fax machines, networks, phone systems, etc., have more to do with getting attention than with directly aiding what they are supposedly about, increasing productivity of an organization or society as a whole.

這也是流行偶像、成功運動員、政治家和大學教授等所有人所遵循的模式，因此，一些最受歡迎的電腦、傳真機、網路、電話系統等的使用，其主要目的並不是為了直接幫助他們所謂的工作，而是增加組織或整個社會的生產力。

quoteFor an important truth is getting attention is of primary value to individuals rather than organizations, and attention also flows from individuals. This conference is sponsored by several organizations, most notably Harvard University, and quite possibly additional organizations have sent more than one attendee apiece. However, within the confines of the conference, attention flows primarily irrespective of organizational affiliation.

一個重要的事實是，獲得關注對於個人而言比對組織更為重要，而關注也從個人流向個人。這個會議是由幾個組織贊助的，最為顯著的是哈佛大學，而可能還有其他組織派遣了超過一名代表。然而，在會議的範圍內，關注主要不受組織背景的限制。

If you are after attention, you use whatever organization you are part of as a stage upon which to perform for as wide an audience as you can manage. The Web and the Internet fit well in this model.

如果你想引起注意，你可以利用你所屬的任何組織作為一個表演舞台，以便為最廣泛的觀眾表演。網路和網際網路在這個模型中表現得很好。

The physical walls and barriers that might once have defined a university, a government bureau or an industrial corporation, making outside and inside sharply distinct, are pretty much no barriers at all on the Web or the Internet, or even on a phone system equipped not with a central switchboard allowing an operator to direct every incoming call but, as most are today, with direct inward dialing.

將曾經將大學、政府機構或工業公司劃分開來的實體牆壁和障礙，使它們的內部外部明顯區分，現在在網際網路或網際網路上基本上沒有這些障礙，即使在沒有中央交換機的電話系統中，用戶只能直接撥打號碼進入，但今天大多數人都是這樣做的。

You often don't even know what organization goes with the number you are dialing, the e-mail message you are responding to or the particular Web site you have been linked to.

你經常不知道你撥打的號碼所屬的組織，你正在回覆的電子郵件訊息，或者你所訪問的特定網站。

In a full attention economy practically all organizations will be basically temporary, either communities in which attention is shared around pretty equally, or, more often, entourages of fans who form around one or a few stars to help them achieve the performances they are attempting.

在一個全神貫注的經濟中，幾乎所有的組織都將基本上是臨時的，無論是共享注意力的社區，每個人都有平等的注意力，或者更多地是圍繞一個或幾個明星形成的粉絲團，以幫助他們實現他們正在嘗試的表演。

Think of the groups that come together to make a movie or to create a new piece of software, etc. More often than not, a few stars dominate the process; in the case of a movie, it is not only the main actors, but the directors, writer, producer, and possibly the cinematographer, the chief editor, and a few others.

想想那些聚在一起創作電影或者創作新軟體等等的團隊，更多時候，這個過程中會有幾顆閃亮的星星；在電影的情況下，不僅有主演，還有導演、編劇、製片人，可能還有攝影師、主編，以及其他幾個人。

If the movie is to be made, everyone else involved focuses their attention on these stars; afterwards, the stars usually go their separate ways, bringing together different entourages for their next performance.

如果這部電影要拍攝的話，其他參與演出的人都會將注意力集中在這些明星身上；之後，這些明星通常會各自分道揚鑣，形成下一次表演的不同團隊。

## 很重要，再說一次，但也不要重複太多次 [A Point Worth Repeating, Though Not Too Often]

This might be good point to add that since it is hard to get new attention by repeating exactly what you or someone else has done before, this new economy is based on endless originality, or at least attempts at originality. By contrast, the old industrial economy worked on the basis of making interchangeable objects in huge numbers.

這可能是一個好的觀點來添加，自從很難通過重複別人之前做過的事情來獲得新的關注，這種新的經濟是基於無窮的原創性，或者至少是原創的嘗試。與此相反，舊的工業經濟是基於大量生產可互換的物品。

One could spend a lifetime of work in a factory, for instance, repeating the same motions over and over, polishing the same small area on car after car, for instance. And it was such repetition that allowed standard prices for things and standard wages for definite jobs to make sense.

例如，在工廠裡花一輩子的時間重複相同的動作，如汽車的打磨，重複相同的動作一次又一次，這種重複使得一些事物和一些工作的標準價格和標準工資才有意義。

The entire money system is based on the simultaneous inter-changeability of units of money, on the one hand, and of standardized goods on the other. One dollar is as good as another; one quart of non-fat milk is as good as another; both statements must be true, or non-fat milk will have no price.

整個貨幣體系都是基於同時互換單位貨幣，一方面，以及標準化商品，另一方面。一美元等於另一美元；一品脫非脂乳等於另一品脫；兩個陳述都必須為真，否則非脂乳將無價。

With the endless originality and diversity of the attention economy, that kind of exchange is no longer possible. Even though one can loosely compare amounts of attention paid to different performances, attention does not come in precise, indistinguishable units, and neither does the illusory attention for which it is exchanged.

在無窮的原創性和多樣性的注意力經濟中，這種交換已經不再可能。儘管可以大致比較不同表演的關注量，但關注並不以精確、不可區分的單位存在，也不存在用來交換的幻想關注。

## 透明化讓組織的重要性遞減 Organizations Diminish as Transparency Grows

Again, I digress. Let me return to the thread I have been trying to follow: the breakdown of organizational barriers. The Web and other media aid this development by allowing you to look behind the scenes as easily as at them.

再次，我要離題一下。讓我回到我一直在努力追蹤的主題：組織障礙的分解。網路和其他媒體通過允許你輕鬆地看到幕後情況，就像看幕後情況一樣，對這種發展起到了幫助。

Gossip, interviews, biographies of individuals involved in specific efforts, photos, videos of rehearsals, documentaries of pre-performance steps, all are visible or can be visible on the Web, taking equal status with the final performances themselves.

閒聊、與演出相關的個人訪談、演出參與者的傳記、排練照片和視頻、演出前的步驟紀錄片，這些都可以在網上看到，與最終演出享有同等的地位。

Documentaries about the production of movies are common by now; a movie about a movie is just as accessible as the first movie. This transparency will even more be the case in the very near future, and, as a result, organizations will diminish in importance at rapid pace, relative to the importance of the individuals who are temporarily in them.

電影的製作已經成為了常態，一部關於電影的電影同樣容易被接觸到，就像第一部電影一樣。這種透明度在未來將會更加明顯，因此，相應地，組織的重要性將會以快速的速度減少，相比於在這些組織中暫時存在的個體的重要性。

Even as stable and long-lasting an institution as Harvard will be less its familiar buildings and more the people in the buildings, and the networks of attention among them. And whether these people are physically at Harvard or somewhere else will matter less and less, until the institution loses all coherence, all distinctness from other universities or from any one of hundreds of other organizations which have audiences in common.

即使像哈佛這樣穩定而持久的機構，在它熟悉的建築物之外，更多的將是建築物內的人們，以及他們之間的關注網路。無論這些人是否身處哈佛或身處其他地方，這些都將逐漸變得不那麼重要，直到該機構失去所有的連貫性和與其他大學或任何其他數百個共同受眾的區別。

In a full-fledged attention economy the goal is simply to get either enough attention or as much as possible.

在一個全面的注意力經濟中，目標僅僅是獲得足夠的注意力，或者盡可能多的注意力。

Recall now what I pointed out earlier: if you have a person's full attention, you can get them to perform physical acts, ranging from moving their eyes to follow you, to raising their hands, to applauding, to bringing you a glass of water, to handing you a sandwich, or, as is not uncommon in the case of rock groupies or sports fans, having sex with you (to cite a notorious example).

現在讓你想起我之前提到的事情：如果你擁有一個人的全神貫注，你可以讓他們做各種身體動作，比如跟著你移動眼睛，舉手，拍手，甚至給你帶來一杯水，遞給你一個三明治，或者，像搖滾粉絲或運動迷很常見的情況一樣，與你發生性關係（舉個著名的例子）。

Just as a parent paying attention to a child fills its material wants and desires, so a fan, that is anyone paying attention can feel an obligation or a desire to do the same for whomever they are paying attention to.

就像一個關注孩子的父母會滿足其物質需求和慾望一樣，所有關注某人的人都會感受到一種責任或渴望來滿足其需求和慾望的感覺。

## 物質(需求)的再詮釋 [Material Things Reinterpreted]

In an attention economy as confined as a conference of this sort, the material goods such as a snack or a sandwich come from outside the system. If the whole world is an attention economy, then making material goods, growing food from scratch in a garden or on a farm, or obtaining resources in any other fashion, and ultimately turning these over to you can be a direct act of attention paying.

在像這樣的會議中這樣的注意經濟中，物質財產如零食或三明治等是從系統外部獲得的。如果整個世界都是注意經濟，那麼生產物質財產，如從頭開始在花園或農場種植食物，或者獲取任何其他資源，最終將其提供給你可以是一種直接的注意力付出行為。

Thus, if you have enough attention, you can get anything you want. If you don't have enough your options will be distinctly more limited, but supplying you with some range of items, produced in a fairly automated fashion, can also be a successful form of paying you illusory attention, in return for some real attention that you pay to whomever is apparently doing this for you.

因此，如果你有足夠的注意力，你可以得到你想要的任何東西。如果你沒有足夠的注意力，你的選擇將明顯有限，但提供你一些產品，通過相對自動化的方式生產，也可以成功地吸引你的注意力，以換取你對某人的一些真實關注，這個某人似乎是為你做這件事的人。

## 新形式的財富與財產 [Wealth and Property Take New Forms, Too]

One lesson to draw is that material goods and the acts of producing them are only secondary in an attention economy. quoteWhat is primary is attention in the form of hanging on your every word or gesture. Paying attention in that sense is not over when its over.

一個重要的教訓是材料和生產它們的行為在注意經濟中只是次要的。實際上，注意力的形式是您的每個言語或舉止的附著力。注意力在那種情況下並不隨著結束而結束。

If what I say to you today makes any impression at all, for instance, you will remember me as well as some of the message for some time, possibly even for the rest of you life. Even if you find what I say outrageous or stupid, it will be easier for you to tune into me the next time I come across your field of vision, however that might happen.

如果我今天對你們說的任何話能留下印象，比如說，你們會記住我和一些資訊，可能甚至記住我一生，即使你們認為我所說的是荒謬的或愚蠢的，也會使你們在下次我出現在你們視野中的時候更容易與我產生共鳴，無論何時發生這種情況。

That is, getting attention is not a momentary thing; you build on the stock you have every time you get any, and the larger your audience at one time, the larger your potential audience in the future. Thus obtaining attention is obtaining a kind of enduring wealth, a form of wealth that puts you in a preferred position to get anything this new economy offers.

這意味著，獲得關注並不是一時的事情；你每次獲得任何東西時都在積累，你的觀眾越多，你的潛在觀眾就越大。因此，獲得關注是獲得一種持久的財富，這是這個新經濟提供的一種財富形式，可以使你在獲得任何東西時處於有利地位。

Wealth that can endure and sometimes be added to is what we mean by property. Thus, in the new economy attention itself is property. Where is it? Primarily it is located in the minds of those who have paid you attention in the past, whether years ago or seconds ago.

那些經得起時間考驗且可能隨之增加的財富就是我們所稱之為財產的東西。因此，在新經濟中，注意力本身就是財產。它在哪裡？主要位於那些在過去曾經關注過你的人的心中，無論是過去的某個時刻還是短短幾秒鐘。

You may have forgotten all about some children's author whose books you had read to you as a child, but if you come across the book again, your memory will very likely be reawakened.

你可能已經忘記了一些兒童文學作家，他的書你曾經給孩子讀過，但如果你再次遇到這本書，你的記憶很可能會被喚起。

Likewise you will remember actors you saw on television, sports figures who captured your attention in the past, professors, teachers, politicians, business leaders, etc. Thus, attention wealth can apparently decline, only to revive later. It is rarely entirely lost.

像你看過的電視演員一樣，你在過去引起注意的運動人物，教授，教師，政治人物，商界領袖等也都會重新出現。因此，注意力財富似乎會下降，但只是後來會再次回升。它很少完全消失。

Seeing this kind of wealth as property suggests a strategy for maintaining and enlarging what you have that is far different from what is usually considered to be the case when dealing with ideas or information.

這種財富被視為財產的策略，與一般人在處理思想或資訊時所採取的策略是不同的。

Suppose you get attention through some text you send out over the Internet. Would you want your audience to copy this and pass it on to others who might pay attention in turn? Of course you would.

假設你通過網際網路向某人發送文本以獲得關注，你希望你的觀眾，如果他們注意到這一點，會將這些文本複製並傳遞給其他可能會注意到這一點的人。當然，你會希望這樣做。

It would be insane to want to stop or restrain such copying, since that would deprive you of much attention you could otherwise get. This is an area, clearly, where the new economy and the old are at sharp odds.

不要試圖阻止或控制這種複製，因為這將使你失去你本可以獲得的很多關注。這是一個明顯的領域，新經濟和舊勢力相互碰撞。

Thus the fight over intellectual property and rights to make copies is actually a struggle between the outlooks of the new economy and the old, a reason why they cannot both coexist forever, and thus a feature of the period of transition from old to new.

因此，關於知識產權和複製權的鬥爭實際上是新經濟觀與舊經濟觀之間的鬥爭，也是他們無法共存的根本原因，這就是為什麼新舊兩種經濟觀無法共存的根本原因，也是舊經濟觀向新經濟觀過渡的時期的一個特徵。

## 金錢和注意力 [Money and Attention]

So let's now take up the topic of this of transition, which has been underway for some time and will loom still larger in the next few years. I have described the attention economy itself without saying anything about the role of money in it, which was easy because in a pure attention economy money has no essential function, no real role to play.

所以，讓我們現在來談談這個轉型的話題，這個話題已經進行了一段時間，在未來幾年內還會變得更加顯著。我描述了注意力經濟本身，並沒有提到錢在這個過程中的作用，這是很容易的，在純粹的注意力經濟中，錢沒有必要的功能，沒有真正的角色可以發揮。

In the period of transition from old economy to new, however, the connection between money and attention is significant and needs examining. If you have a lot of attention, you are a star of one sort or another, and we all know that these days stars generally have little trouble obtaining money in large amounts.

在舊經濟轉向新經濟的過渡期間，關於錢和關注的聯繫是重要的，並且需要進行探討。如果你有很多關注，你無疑是某種明星，我們都知道這些日子以來，明星們通常在大筆金錢的獲取上遇到很少的困難。

Just think of the amounts that go to movie stars, sports stars, or even leading politicians or generals who retire to the lecture circuit or propose to oversee the ghostwriting of their memoirs. And if they have some pet project, such as a movie they want to make or a cause they want supported they can often influence their publics or bankers to cough up many millions more.

只需想想電影明星、運動明星，甚至退役的政治家或將軍們，他們退休後前往講學或主持他們的回憶錄的幽靈寫作，如果他們有一些個人項目，比如電影想要製作或事業想要支持的，他們往往能夠影響公眾或銀行家，從而籌集到數百萬美元。

Within the framework I have suggested, there is little mystery as to why this should be. If fans are willing to do anything up to some limit for stars, such as wait in long lines to see them perform, avidly make sure to be there when they come to town, applaud them and sing their praises however they can, often paying more attention to stars than to members of their own families and so on, then it should come as no surprise that fans are also willing to pay out money at the stars' behest. It is just one more way to follow a star's wishes.

在我所建議的框架內，對於為什麼這樣做沒有太多神秘，如果粉絲們願意為了見偶像做任何事情，包括排長隊等候表演，熱情確保自己在他們到來時出現，為他們鼓掌喝彩，無論他們能做什麼，經常將更多注意力放在偶像身上，而不是自己的家庭成員等等，那麼這應該不令人驚訝，粉絲們也願意按照偶像的要求支付金錢。這只是一種跟隨偶像願望的另一種方式。

In other words, money now flows along with attention, or, to put this in more general terms, when there is a transition between economies, the old kind of wealth easily flows to the holders of the new.

簡單來說，錢現在與關注力一起流動，或者說，當經濟體系從舊的類型轉變為新的類型時，舊的財富很容易流向新的持有者。

Thus, when the market-based, proto-industrial economy first began to replace the feudal system of Western Europe, in which the prime form of wealth was aristocratic lineage and inheritance of land, both the noble titles and the lands that went with them soon ended up disproportionately in the hands of those who were good at obtaining what was then the new kind of wealth, namely money.

因此，當西歐的市場導向的新型工業經濟開始取代以貴族世襲和土地繼承為特點的西方歐洲貴族制度時，這兩種地位和附帶的土地很快就不成比例地落入那些擅長獲取新型財富的人手中，新型財富即金錢。

With considerable ease, the rising merchant and industrialist class could buy old titles, induce governments to grant them brand new ones, or marry into the old impoverished gentry. The parallel today, again, is that possessors of today's rising kind of wealth, which is attention, and whom we label stars of every sort, have an easy time getting money.

以相當的容易，上升的商人和工業家階級可以購買舊的頭銜，使政府授予他們全新的頭銜，或者娶入舊的貧窮貴族。今天的平行，我們今天所擁有的這種財富，即關注，並且我們將其標籤為各種明星，擁有這種財富的人很容易地獲得金錢。

But now let me point out that the other way round doesn't work nearly as easily. Contrary to what you are sometimes urged to believe, money cannot reliably buy attention. Suppose it did work that way. Then you could have been paid to sit here and listen closely even if I were to read you something as boring as the phone book or an unabridged dictionary.

但現在讓我指出另一個方向並不容易。與你有時被鼓勵相信的相反，錢無法可靠地買到關注。假設這種方式確實有效。那麼你可以被付錢坐在這裡聽我讀些乏味的東西，比如電話簿或一本未刪減的詞典。

Presumably it wouldn't even matter if I kept repeating the same few syllables over and over. If money could reliably buy attention, all I would have to do is pay you the required amount and you would keep listening carefully through all that, not falling asleep en masse, nor allowing your minds to wander.

假設金錢可以可靠地購買注意力，我只需要支付你們要求的金額，你們就會仔細聆聽，不會陷入沉睡，也不會讓你們的思緒漫遊。

In truth, even if you had been paid a huge sum, this would be most difficult, and if you did it, it would be a testament more to your own deep sense of principle than to a general condition in which another roomful of similar people could be expected to do equally well.

事實上，即使你已經得到了巨額的報酬，這也將是最困難的，而且如果你這樣做，它將更多地證明你自己的深刻原則的嚴謹性，而不僅僅是在另一個房間裡類似的人群中可以預期做得與你一樣好的一般條件。

Someone who wants your attention just can't rely on paying you money to get it, but has to do more, has to be interesting, that is must offer you illusory attention, in just about the same amounts as they would if you had instead been paying money to listen to them -- which by the way is closer to the case here. Money flows to attention, and much less well does attention flow to money.

有人想要你的注意，只能依靠給你錢是行不通的，而是要做更多，讓你感興趣，這是必須提供給你幻想的注意力，大致上是他們原本會給你聽的金額，但這種情況比較少見。錢流向注意力，而注意力對錢的流動卻不太好。

## 商業像是表演 [Business as Performance]

There are exceptions, if only in a peculiar way. Business is still a lively spectator sport for instance, and just as we care about who is the best or the record breaker in football or basketball or any other such game, so we are interested in who heads lists like the Forbes 400 of those with the most money.

例外情況只有在非常特殊的情況下才會出現，比如商業仍然被視為一項活躍的觀賽運動，我們也會關注誰是最好的或者打破紀錄的人，比如足球或者籃球或者其他類似的遊戲，我們也會關注誰會排在福布斯400這樣的排行榜的前列，這些人是最有錢的。

According to some, like Ted Turner, who are on that list, in fact the main motive for trying to earn still more boils down to wanting to be recognized as number one. Presumably, Bill Gates might want to hold the record for more annual first-place finishes than anyone else.

根據一些人的說法，比爾·蓋茨也在這個名單上，他們認為主要的賺錢動機實際上是為了獲得第一名的認可，也就是說，比爾·蓋茨可能想要保持年度第一的紀錄。

Even in this regard however, when the amount of monetary wealth you have draws attention to you, the price of such fame keeps going up. Even more literally does that happen in the well-known cases of the ultra-rich seeking political office.

即使如此，當你的金錢財富吸引了人們的注意時，名聲的價格就會繼續上升。而在超級富裕者尋求政治職位的情況下，這種情況更為直接。

The price they must pay per vote keeps rising, and no matter how good the advertising geniuses they hire, they have to be good at attracting attention on their own. Bill Gates is also a good example of how even monetary fortunes of his magnitude are in larger and larger measure just covers for stardom.

他們每次投票所需支付的價格不斷上升，無論他們如何雇用廣告天才，他們都必須擅長吸引人們的注意力。比爾·蓋茨也是一個很好的例子，即使他的財富如此巨大，他的名聲仍然只能通過更大更大的舉措來掩蓋。

A century ago, Gates' analog would have been John D. Rockefeller, leader and chief owner of the Standard Oil Trust. His wealth consisted chiefly of oil fields, oil wells, tanker cars, refineries, and so on -- material things that would have been worth just as much if someone else bought him out. Rockefeller could have sold his interests and still kept about the same net worth, which is what monetary net worth is supposed to mean.

一百年前，蓋茨的分析師應該是約翰·D·洛克菲勒，標準油業信託的領導者和首席擁有人。他的財富主要來自於油田、油井、油罐車、煉油廠等等——這些物質財富即使被其他人買走，價值也不會改變。洛克菲勒可以出售他的利益並仍保持相同的資產淨值，這是財務淨值的真正含義所在。

But the share value of a company such as Microsoft is already far more a result of attention-getting and the star process. Its future sales, for instance, largely depend on software that is yet to be completely designed.

但是像微軟這樣的公司的股票價值已經大多是由於它們的知名度和明星效應而產生的。例如，它們未來的銷售收入很大程度上取決於尚未完全設計的軟體。

If Gates were to decide to sell out and buy control of the XYZ Corp. instead of staying at the helm of Microsoft, as soon as he let this be known, his Microsoft stock would fall precipitously and XYZ's would rise.

如果Gates決定出售並購買XYZ公司而不是繼續掌控微軟，一旦他讓這個消息公開，他的微軟股票將大幅下跌，XYZ的股票將上漲。

His own net worth would plummet, at least temporarily, but such is the attention wealth he has, that as soon as he began to issue pronouncements from his new stage, XYZ's stock would probably rise further, and Gates' former monetary wealth might magically reappear.

他自己的資產淨值會暫時暴跌，但他擁有的財富確實如此，一旦他開始從新的舞台發布聲明，XYZ的股票價格很可能會再次上漲，而Gates的前金融財富可能會神奇地重新出現。

Despite the fact that the arena in which he made his mark happens to be business, it is already true that Gates' actual wealth, and that of many like him, is less in money or shares of stock than in attention.

儘管他確切地在商界取得了成功，但在注意力方面，比爾·蓋茨的實際財富，以及許多像他一樣的人的財富，比金錢或股票的數量更多。

# 更多預測 [Further Expectations]

I hope that by now you have some sense that there is far more to discuss here or to think about than I can conveniently explain or you can take in at one sitting. So let me now just summarize a few developments that seem reasonable to expect over the next decade or so: A continuing rapid rise in the number of people attached to the Web and trying to get attention through it.

我希望你現在已經意識到這裡有很多值得討論和思考的事情，而我無法方便地解釋或你無法在一次坐下時間內吸收。現在，讓我簡要概述一下未來十年或更長時間內可以合理預期發生的幾個發展：網路上附加人數的持續迅速增加和通過網路獲得關注。

A continuing growth in the capacity of those on the Web to send out multimedia or virtual reality signals, and thus to capture attention through all these means. Say you are primarily a writer of mere words, i.e. text; still, on the Web you will be able to supplement your writings with your picture, with video images, with recordings of your voice, with interviews or pieces of autobiography.

網際網路上持續增長的多媒體和虛擬實境信號發送能力，能夠通過這些方式來吸引人們的注意力。無論你主要是一個純文字的作家，也就是說你只能寫字，但是在網際網路上，你將能夠通過圖片、視頻圖像、音頻錄音、採訪或自傳來補充你的文字。

The advantage of doing that is that by offering potential readers a more vivid and rounded sense of who you are, you can both increase their sense of who it is who is offering them illusory attention, and have them have a clearer and more definite feeling than otherwise of what it is like to pay attention to you, rather than to some other writer of similar sounding words.

這樣做的優勢是，通過提供潛在讀者一種更生動全面的自我感知，你可以同時增加他們對給予他們幻想關注的人的感知，並讓他們對你有一種更清晰明確的關注感，而不是對其他聽起來相似的作家有這種感覺。

Both these effects can help you hold their attention better. This of course helps explain why authors' pictures are so commonly stuck on book jackets, and increasingly on the front cover rather than the back.

這些效果可以幫助你更好地保持他們的注意力。這當然也解釋了為什麼作者的照片通常會出現在書衣上，而且越來越多地出現在前面的封面上而不是背面。

All this and more will make the Web a better and better means of transmitting and circulating attention, a circulation that is essential for a full-fledged economy to emerge. To show that most strikingly, consider an author in the distant past, say the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.

所有這些都將使網路成為一個更好的傳播和傳播工具，這是一個必不可少的工具，以便實現完整的經濟體的出現。讓我們以古希臘哲學家亞里士多德為例，他生活在遙遠的過去。

Over the past than two thousand years and more, his writings have gotten the direct attention of probably millions of readers. Still, except for contributing to his \"immortality,\" the vast majority of that attention did him little personal good, since it came when he, along with all known descendants, had been long dead.

在過去的2000多年中，他的作品受到了數百萬讀者的直接關注。然而，除了為他的「不朽」做出貢獻外，這些關注對他本人並無太大益處，因為它們在他以及所有已知的後代都已經死亡之後出現了。

Very few of today's attention getters can expect to remain in the public eye for thousands of years, but they do have a far better shot at reaping the benefits of attention from millions of people through the Web while they are still alive. Thus they can live, and live well, in the new economy.

很少有今天的吸引力來源能夠在數千年間保持公眾視線，但他們至少有機會通過網際網路從數百萬人那裡獲取關注，而他們還活著的時候。因此，他們可以在新經濟中生存，並且過得很好。

Individual attention getters of all sorts will find it ever easier to get attention directly through the Web, without any corporate packaging necessary. They will also find diminishing advantage in trying to make use of money, since attention in a wider and wider a variety of forms, filling more and more of their needs will be able to flow to them either directly through the Web, or as a kind of adjunct to it.

各種形式的個人注意力獲取者將發現通過網際網路更容易獲得注意力，無需任何公司包裝。他們還將發現試圖利用金錢已經越來越沒有優勢，因為注意力以各種形式，滿足更多和更多的需求流向他們，無論是直接通過網際網路還是作為一種補充。

Companies of all kinds will have less definite and fixed structures, since they will be structured not by physical walls and buildings, but through the Net itself, and more and more of their proceedings will be done in the full glare of Web attention, as temporary and rapidly re-forming projects.

不同類型的公司將擁有不那麼明確和固定的結構，因為它們將通過網際網路來進行結構化，而不是通過實體的牆壁和建築物，並且越來越多的它們的工作將在網際網路的關注下進行，作為臨時且快速重組的項目。

This means that companies will be unable to provide even what loyalty they do now to their employees, or say, in the case of publishers, to authors who have signed with them. Just as baseball stars move around from team to team or TV stars from network to network, so employee loyalties to companies will decrease as well.

這意味著公司將無法提供員工甚至目前對待的忠誠，就像出版商無法提供作者那樣。就像棒球明星從隊到隊或電視明星從網路到網路一樣，員工對公司的忠誠度也將減少。

What will matter more for everyone is the stars one has particular loyalty to, or the Net communities of which one is a part and through which one gets attention. Attention transactions, which already are far more numerous than monetary transactions will come to dominate even further.

每個人比較關心的是你對哪些特定的星星有特殊的忠誠度，或者你所屬的Net社區，通過這些社區獲得關注。關注交易，這些交易已經比貨幣交易更加普遍了，將來會更加主導。

So even if you have lots of money, you will find it less and less convenient or worthwhile to bother to use it. As a result, our deeply ingrained desire for monetary recompense will begin to fade as well.

即使你有很多錢，你會發現它越來越不方便或值得去使用它。結果，我們深深植根的對於金錢補償的渴望也會開始消退。

## 關於過渡期的建議 [Advice for the Transition]

All this means that the changeover to total domination by the new economy, while by no means complete or about to be, is moving very rapidly and is already quite far along, and probably unstoppable. Any individual today who fails to take that into account in her or his personal plans may be in for a rude awakening.

這意味著新經濟的絕對主導，雖然絕不是完全或即將到來，正在快速變化並且已經有了相當長的一段路程，可能是不可阻擋的。任何今天不在個人計劃中考慮這一點的人可能會遭遇一個粗魯的驚醒。

Efforts that fit in with the overall flow of things are far more likely to work to your benefit than those that ignore them or are consciously opposed. Say for example you work for a book publisher today. If you have any sense, you understand your employer as temporary.

與事物的總體流動相符的努力比那些忽視它們或者有意與之對抗的努力更有可能對你有利。例如，如果你今天在一家書籍出版商工作，你應該明白你的雇主只是暫時的。

You will either strive to achieve stardom through what you do in your current job directly - say by being a great editor, a great marketer of books, a very visible cover designer or something of the sort - or (and this is not an exclusive but an inclusive or) you will want to be as visible and indispensable a part of what I call the entourages of bigger stars, so that through them you can get indirect attention.

你要麼直接通過你在當前工作中所做的事情來追求成名，比如成為一名優秀的編輯、一名優秀的書籍營銷人員、一名非常顯眼的封面設計師，或者是某些其他方面的出色人才；要麼（這並不是一個專屬的，而是一個包括或專屬的）你想成為大明星的伴侶，這樣可以間接地獲得關注。

Your interest in your company's success as such is like a Major League baseball player's interest in his current team's success, something that can help him shine, and valuable to the extent that it does, but less valuable if it keeps him from displaying what he does best.

你對公司的成功如此感興趣，就像一位大聯盟棒球選手對於他目前所在球隊的成功一樣，這有助於他發光發熱，並且對於他能夠盡情展現自己的能力有價值，但如果這使他分心，限制了他展現最佳表現的範圍，那麼這種價值就會降低。

Simply amassing money (say by investing a large chunk of your salary in stocks) is not necessarily the best strategy if you believe you can do that without bothering to capture and in some way maintain some attention of your own.

僅僅通過大量積累資金（例如投資大量股票）並不一定是最佳策略，如果你相信你可以不必關注並且在某種程度上維持自己的關注力。

Even if the stock market never goes down, money, like the aristocratic titles of the past, may turn out to be less and less meaningful in the future. A publisher also has to decide how to deal with the Internet.

即使股市永遠不下跌，錢，就像過去的貴族頭銜一樣，在未來可能會變得越來越沒有意義。出版商也必須決定如何應對網際網路。

At present, for instance, it is impractical to distribute books directly over the Net, though it is easy to foresee that need not be the case for long. We still do understand material things as objects that generally are to be bought and sold in exchange for money, but we also understand that more people are likely to pay attention to a book if they find out about it than if they don't.

例如，目前來說，直接通過網路分發書籍是不切實際的，儘管很容易預料這將不再是必要的。我們仍然理解物質事物為可以用錢購買和出售的物品，但我們也理解更多的人將會關注一本書，如果他們知道這本書的存在，而不關注它。

So in the case of a book, the Internet should now be viewed as a useful and free publicity mechanism. Let passages be freely copied and circulated on the Net, because most of the time, the more of copying that takes place, the more customers there will be for the physical printed version.

因此，對於一本書來說，網際網路現在應該被視為一種有用且免費的宣傳手段。讓網路上的內容自由複製和流通，因為大多數時候，複製的程度越多，實體書的銷售就越多。

If you have a Web site, don't charge for it, because that will only reduce the attention it gets. If you can't figure out how to afford it without charging, you may be doing something wrong.

如果你有一個網站，別收費，因為這只會減少它的關注度。如果你弄不清楚如何在不收費的情況下負擔得起，你可能做錯了什麼。

In due time, publishing companies as such will hardly be necessary, for actual physical books will be seen as cumbersome and quaint.

隨著時間的推移，出版公司將不再必要，因為實體書將被視為笨重而古怪。

quoteStill, many of the kinds of tasks once performed by publishing company employees such as acquisition and line editors, designers, publicists, and so, will still be done, but on much more ad hoc and free-lance, eventually even unpaid basis.

然而，許多曾由出版公司員工擔任的任務，如獲取和校對、設計、宣傳等，仍將繼續進行，但更多地以臨時和自由承包的方式，最終甚至可能是無報酬的方式進行。

All of this will take place over the Web. No one will earn monetary profits from it. And this disappearance of the involvement of capital will be equally the case for attention-getting objects of just about any sort.

所有這些都將在網路上發生。從中沒有人會獲得金錢利益。而這種資本的消失對於幾乎任何類型的關注對象都將是同樣的情況。

## 一個可能的結局 [A Closing Scenario]

Money will not necessarily fade in value, in other words inflation will not set in, in the old sense; neither will recession nor deflation. Instead, money will just lose importance, just as noble titles have over the past few centuries.

錢不一定會貶值，這意味著通脹不會發生，按照傳統的意義來說；也不會有衰退或通縮。相反，錢的重要性只是會變得無關緊要，就像過去幾個世紀貴族的地位一樣。

The stock market might not even fall; stockholders may simply lose interest, ceasing to sell and buy in equal ratio. Am I speaking about the far future? I think not. Already, if you are reading this, you are probably involved in far more organized person-to-person or audience-type situations where what is being exchanged is attention, real and illusory, than you are in direct monetary transactions or the direct production of material goods.

股市可能甚至不會下跌，股民可能只是失去興趣，停止賣出和購買，以相等比例進行。我是在談論遠大的未來嗎？我想不是。就連你現在正在閱讀的這個人，很可能已經參與了更多有組織的人對人或觀眾式的情況，其中所交換的不僅僅是關注，而且是真實的和想象的，而不是直接的金錢交易或物質商品的生產。

The fraction of time spent in pursuits more closely tied to the new economy is, even now, well above fifty per cent and rising. The new practices are already almost fully functioning for some, and more and more in place for others.

追求更緊密與新經濟相關的活動所花費的時間，即使現在，仍然相當高，大約超過五成，並且正在繼續上升。這些新實踐在一些地方已經幾乎完全發揮作用，而在其他地方則逐漸在發揮作用。

## 結束 [The End]

At the end of the feudal period, the pomp and display of the nobility reached a level never before attained; the most gorgeous armor, the most magnificent tournaments of knights, the most elaborate ceremonies between rival nobles, the most brilliant marriages, the greatest interest in noble lineage. But by then it had lost all real function or importance.

到了結束封建時期的時候，貴族的炫耀和展示達到了以前未曾達到的程度；最精美的盔甲，最壯麗的騎士旗幟賽，最精緻的貴族之間的禮節，最耀眼的婚姻，貴族血統的最大關注。但到那時候，它已經失去了任何現實的功能或重要性。

So today, when the stock market goes up and up, when money wealth itself seems a source of fame more than ever, when being number one on Forbes 400 list seems the height of perfection, when every basketball superstar wants a contract that is at least a million more than the last record one, we seem to be more dazzled by money than ever, just as we seem to be more intrigued by material goods than ever.

所以，當股市一直飆升，當金錢財富似乎比以往更受追捧，當成為福布斯400強榜首似乎是最高的完美，當每個籃球超級巨星都想要一份至少是百萬美元以上的合約，我們似乎比以往更被金錢所迷惑，就像我們似乎比以往更被物質財富所吸引。

But these interests are superficial and faddish. They are signs of decadence not of a glorious future for the money economy. Even in themselves they speak to the growing desire for attention, the need for it as well. Money is now little more numbers, one number among many, and as a source of lasting attention it can fade in an instant. The attention economy is already here, and more completely so every day.

但這些興趣是表面的和短暫的。它們是衰落的標誌，而不是金融領域光明的未來。即使在自己身上，它們都反映了人們對關注的不斷增長渴望，以及這種需求。現在，金錢已經不再是主角，而是許多主角之一，作為長期關注的來源，它可以在一瞬間消失。注意力經濟已經到來，並且每天都更加深入。

The Author\nMichael H. Goldhaber is completing a book on the attention economy. Formerly a theoretical physicist, a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D. C. and editor of Post-Industrial Issues, he is currently head of his own think tank, The Center for Technology and Democracy, and is a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley's Institute for the Study of Social Change.\nE-mail: michael [at} goldhaber [dot] org\n© Michael H. Goldhaber, 1997.

作者\nMichael H. Goldhaber正在完成一本關於注意經濟的書。他曾是一位理論物理學家，美國國家政策研究所的研究員和《後工業問題》的主編，目前是The Center for Technology and Democracy的負責人，並且是加州大學伯克利分校社會變革研究所的訪問學者。\n\n

# 註釋 [Notes]

The conference was on \"Economics of Digital Information,\" hosted by the Kennedy School of Government , Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., January 23-26, 1997.

這次會議的主題是「數位資訊的經濟學」，由哈佛大學政府學院主辦，麻薩諸塞州劍橋市，1997年1月23-26日。

一. To be more exact, in Western Europe as whole, feudalism as an economic system reached its high point around the eleventh or twelfth century (i.e. between 1000 and 1200).

一. 在西歐作為整體，貴族制度作為經濟制度達到了十一世紀或十二世紀（即在1000年至1200年之間）的高峰。

After that the market economy began its slow rise. But the outward forms and ways of thinking long remained feudal, certainly in the Iberian peninsula whence the first explorers came. In the Americas, where feudal systems hadn't previously existed, they were unable to compete with the new economic ways that most of the settlers brought with them.

然後，市場經濟開始了其慢慢上升。但是長期保留了貴族的外在形式和思維方式。在伊比利亞半島，也就是探險者們的起源地，貴族的思維方式和形式仍然保留著貴族的特點。在美洲，貴族的思維方式和形式尚未存在，他們無法與大部分定居者帶來的新經濟方式競爭。

As is most obvious in the case of the Puritan colonists in New England, many of these settlers quite consciously had come to escape the old forms of rule. The \"Puritan Ethic\" they brought with them was much more suitable to a capitalistic, market economy than to feudalism.

就像大多數新英格蘭的清教徒一樣，許多這些定居者是有意識地來逃避舊有的統治形式的。他們帶來的\"清教道德\"更適合資本主義、市場經濟，而不是部落主義。

The great text that argues the last point (though ignoring earlier economic history) is Max Weber, 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.

最後一點的最佳論點（忽略早期經濟歷史）是馬克斯·韋伯，1958年。《新教道德與資本精神》。紐約：Scribner。

二. Just as settlers in the Americas fashioned the geography they found to fit their purposes and values, so cyberspace is being shaped largely by those who want a space for their own new purposes.

二. 就像美洲的移民們塑造了他們發現的地理來滿足自己的目的和價值觀一樣，如今，許多人正在塑造著網路空間，以滿足自己的新目的。

As I suggest elsewhere (Michael Goldhaber, 1986. Reinventing Technology. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul) technology (such as that which goes into cyberspace) is shaped by the values of those who create it and it then helps promote those values, in the main, as it allows certain actions and not others.

如我在其他地方所建議的(Michael Goldhaber，1986年《重新想像技術》，Routledge & Kegan Paul)技術（如進入網際網路的技術）是由創造它的人的價值觀塑造的，並且它通常有助於促進這些價值觀，因為它允許某些行動而不是其他行動。

In the case of the kinds of technology (such as software) that make up cyberspace, the users play a very large role in deciding in what directions the technology as a whole will advance, and their underlying purposes and values are more in the direction of the new economy I will outline than the old.

在軟體等組成網路空間的技術類型中，使用者扮演著非常重要的角色，決定其發展的方向，而他們的潛在動機和價值觀更偏向於我將概述的新經濟，而非舊經濟。

三. Despite its seeming generality, the following definition, (Paul Samuelson, 1973. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 3) as read by millions of students of basic economics, shows why this new thinking must be very basic:

三. 儘管它似乎具有普遍性，以下定義（保羅·塞繆爾森，1973年《經濟學》，紐約：麥格羅希爾，第3頁），被數百萬名學生的基本經濟學課程所閱讀，顯示出為什麼這種新的思想必須非常基本：

Economics is the study of how men and society end up choosing, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resources that could have alternate uses, to produce various commodities and distribute them for consumption, now or in the future among various people and groups in society.

經濟學是研究人們和社會最終選擇，無論是否使用金錢，以僱用稀缺的生產資源，這些資源可以有其他用途，以生產各種商品並將其分配給人們消費，現在或在未來的某個時候，在社會的各個人群之間。

It analyzes the costs and benefits of improving patterns of resource allocation. As will become evident, \"employing scarce productive resources,\" \"produc[ing] various commodities and distributing them for consumption\" and \"improving patterns of resource allocation\" are simply not relevant for what I will argue is unfolding. Nor is this a particularly perspicacious way of examining older economies, .e.g. feudalism.

它分析了改善資源配置模式的成本和效益。如將顯示，\"雇用稀缺的生產資源\"，\"生產各種商品並分配它們作為消費\"和\"改善資源配置模式\"對我將要論述的內容來說根本不相關，也不是一種特別明智的方式來探討老經濟體，例如封建主義。

四. On attention's scarcity and its economic importance, see also Michael H. Goldhaber, 1989. \"Equality and Education in America Now,\" In: Education and the American Dream, H. Holtz, I. Marcus, J. Dougherty, J. Michaels, and R. Peduzzi (eds.), Granby, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, Chapter 6, pp. 70-76; Michael H. Goldhaber, 1992. \"The Attention Society,\" Release 1.0, ( 26 March), No. 3, E. Dyson (ed.), New York, EDventure Holdings, pp. 1-20; Michael H. Goldhaber, 1992. \"Attention: The System of Post Industrialism?\" Z papers, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April-June); and, Michael H. Goldhaber, 1996-97, Web site: http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/

四. 關於注意力稀缺性及其經濟重要性，請參考1989年Michael H. Goldhaber的文章《美國的教育和美國夢》，Granby, Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey，第6章，第70-76頁；1992年的《注意力社會》，第1.0版，（26日3月），第3號，紐約，EDventure Holdings，第1-20頁；1992年《注意力：後工業時代的系統》，Z卷，第1號，第2期（1992年4月-1992年6月）；以及1996-97年的網站：http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/

I still remember the thunderclap of insight that attention, not information is the key to the new system, a thought that struck me in 1984. While the details I present about the new economy stem from my own explorations, the fact that the following people, among others, have independently arrived at similar conclusions about the economic centrality of attention scarcity adds weight to the argument.

我仍然記得1984年我在思考中獲得的雷鳴般的領悟：注意力，不是資訊是新系統的關鍵，這個想法擊中了我。雖然我將要呈現的關於新經濟的觀點是基於我自己的探索，但是其他人獨立地得出了關於注意力稀缺經濟中心性的類似結論，這加強了我的論點。

See, for example, Richard Lanham, 1994. \"The Economics of Attention,\" Proceedings of 124th Annual Meeting, Association of Research Librarians, Austin, Texas, http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/ARL/Proceedings/124/ps2econ.html or W. Thorngate, 1988. \"On Paying Attention.\" In: Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology, W. Baker, L. Mos, H. VanRappard, and H. Stam (eds.), New York: Springer-Verlag, (pp. 247-264), or W. Thorngate, 1990. \"The Economy of Attention and the Development of Psychology,\" Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 31, pp. 262-271.

例如，請參考Richard Lanham, 1994年的《注意力經濟學》，《Association of Research Librarians年度會議論文集》，第124卷，http://sunite.berkeley.edu/ARL/Proceedings/124/ps2econ.html或W. Thorngate, 1988年的《關於注意力的支付》，《Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology》，W. Baker, L. Mos, H. VanRappard, and H. Stam (eds.), 新約克: Springer-Verlag, (pp. 247-264),或W. Thorngate, 1990年的《注意力的經濟學和心理學的發展》，《Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne》，Vol. 31, pp. 262-271.

五. The rhetorician Kenneth Burke (in his 1931 book Counter-Statement, New York: Harcourt, Brace, p. 157) describes literary form in a very similar manner: \"Form in literature is an arousing and fulfilling of desires.\"

五. 美國範式學家肯尼斯·伯克（在他1931年的書籍《反語陳述》（紐約：哈珀，布雷斯，p. 157）中）以類似的方式描述了文學形式：\"文學形式是一種激起和實現慾望的形式。\"

六. Controversy continues to swirl around this point. It is argued at length by Thomas K. Landauer ( in his 1995 book The Trouble with Computers, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press) among others. Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin Hitt (1995, \"Information Technology as a Factor of Production: The Role of Differences Among Firms,\" Econ. Innov. New Techn., Vol. 3, pp. 183-199) present data revealing an overall positive correlation between total amounts of spending on information technology and total output for Fortune 500 companies.

六. 爭議仍然在這一點上繼續膠著。這一觀點被包括托馬斯·K·蘭道（在他1995年的書《計算機的麻煩》劍橋、麻薩諸塞州：MIT Press）在內的幾位作者廣泛討論。埃里克·布林約夫松和洛林·希特（1995年，「資訊技術作為生產要素的作用：企業間差異的作用」，Econ. Innov. New Techn., Vol. 3, pp. 183-199）提供了數據，顯示資訊技術的總支出與財星500強企業的總產出之間存在積極相關。

However, they do not show an increase in labor productivity per se, as is commonly presumed to be the case. What is indisputable is in the two decades since the introduction of the personal computer and related technologies, national measured productivity growth was lower than in the two decades following World War II, when such technology was either non-existent or much more limited. That is totally the opposite from what intuitive estimates of the value of these technologies would suggest and what has repeatedly been predicted.

然而，他們並不顯示勞動生產力的增加，這是人們通常假設為此案例的情況。可以肯定的是，自個人電腦及相關技術引入兩個十年以來，國家測量的生產力增長低於兩個十年後的第二次世界大戰，當時這些技術非常有限或根本不存在。這完全與直覺估計這些技術的價值以及一再預測的相反。

While it would be impossible to thank everyone who has contributed to this lengthy project, I would like especially to thank Anatole Anton, Sandra Braman, Erik Brynjolfsson, Esther Dyson, Rishab Ghosh, William Gladstone, Nat Goldhaber, Peter Oppenheimer, Bruce Sterling, Edward Valauskas, and Terry Winograd for comments and/or encouragement that aided in the writing of this article.

雖然不可能感謝所有對這個長期項目做出貢獻的人，但我希望特別感謝 Anatole Anton，Sandra Braman，Erik Brynjolfsson，Esther Dyson，Rishab Ghosh，William Gladstone，Nat Goldhaber，Peter Oppenheimer，Bruce Sterling，Edward Valauskas 和 Terry Winograd 在本文撰寫過程中提供的意見和鼓勵。

In addition I would like to thank Ilene Philipson. No one on this list should be held responsible for anything said here, however.\n

此外，我還要感謝Ilene Philipson。在此之上所說的任何話都不應歸咎於此列表中的任何人。