The Robot Revolution Will Be the Quietest One

The Robot Revolution Will Be the Quietest One

By LIU CIXIN DEC. 7, 2016

This is an article from Turning Points, a magazine that explores what critical moments from this year might mean for the year ahead.

Turning Point: Though the first fatal crash involving an autonomous car took place in July 2016, self­-driving vehicles have been adopted around the world. In 2016, self-driving cars made inroads in several countries, many of which rewrote their laws to accommodate the new technology. As a science­-fiction writer, it’s my duty to warn the human race that the robot revolution has begun — even if no one has noticed yet.

When a few autonomous test cars appeared on the roads over the last few years, we didn’t think of them as robots because they didn’t have the humanoid shape that science­-fiction movies taught us to expect. In 2016, they were adopted widely: as buses in the United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands, taxis in Singapore and private cars in the United States and China. There was a fatal accident in Florida involving an autonomous car, which caused some concerns, but this did not significantly affect our embrace of this technology. Instead of arming ourselves against this alien presence, as some of my fellow science-­fiction writers have fearfully suggested, we gawked as the vehicles pulled up to the curb.

The driverless vehicles, some of which had no steering wheels or gas pedals, merged into traffic and stopped at stop signs, smoothly taking us to our destinations. We lounged in comfort, occasionally taking selfies.

Machine learning has been an important tool for autonomous car companies as they develop the systems that pilot their vehicles. Instead of rigidly following programming as an app on your phone does, an A.I. system can try to learn to do a task itself, using techniques borrowed from human learning, like pattern recognition and trial and error, and may use hardware modeled on the architecture of a human brain.

Currently, the responsibilities of artificial intelligence are mostly limited to tasks like translating texts, helping with medical diagnoses and writing simple articles for media companies. But we can expect to see unimaginable progress in this field in future — and the widespread use of the autonomous car is going to accelerate that process as automobile and technology companies invest ever more resources in its development.

Let’s try to envision that future. As during every other technological revolution, the robots will first transform our economy. People who drive for a living will lose their jobs — around 3 million in the United States alone. Ecommerce may experience further booms because of automation, and car ownership is likely to become nearly obsolete as more targeted car sharing and public transportation systems are developed. Eventually, the robot cars could be integrated with other transportation systems. Say that you live in New York City and want to go to China’s Henan Province: You will enter the address into an app, a car will take you to your plane at the airport, and after you land, another will take you directly to your destination.

Robots will begin to creep into other areas of our lives — serving as busboys or waiters, for example — as our investments in robotic transport improve their prowess in areas such as environmental detection and modeling, hyper­-complex problem solving and fuzzy-­logic applications. With every advance, the use of A.I.­ powered robots will expand into other fields: health care, policing, national defense and education. There will be scandals when things go wrong and backlash movements from the new Luddites. But I don’t think we’ll protest very much. The A.I. systems that drive our cars will teach us to trust machine intelligence over the human variety — car accidents will become very rare, for example — and when given an opportunity to delegate a job to a robot, we will placidly do so without giving it much thought

In all previous technological revolutions, people who lost their jobs mostly moved to new ones, but that will be less likely when the robots take over. A.I. that can learn from experience will replace many accountants, lawyers, bankers, insurance adjusters, doctors, scientific researchers and some creative professionals. Intelligence and advanced training will no longer mean job stability. Gradually the A.I. era will transform the essence of human culture. When we’re no longer more intelligent than our machines, when they can easily outthink and outperform us, making the sort of intuitive leaps in research and other areas that we currently associate with genius, a sort of learned helplessness is likely to set in for us, and the idea of work itself may cease to hold meaning.

As A.I. takes over, the remaining jobs may dwindle to a fraction of what they were, employing perhaps 10 percent or even less of the total population. These may be highly creative or complex jobs that robots can’t do, such as senior management, directing scientific research or nursing and child care.

In the dystopian scenario, as jobless numbers rise across the globe, our societies sink into prolonged turmoil. The world could be engulfed by endless conflicts between those who control the A.I. and the rest of us. The technocratic 10 percent could end up living in a gated community with armed robot guards.

There is a second, utopian scenario, where we’ve anticipated these changes and come up with solutions beforehand. Those in political power have planned a smoother, gentler transition, perhaps using A.I. to help them anticipate and modulate the strife. At the end of it, almost all of us live on social welfare. How we will spend our time is hard to predict.

“He who does not work, neither shall he eat” has been the cornerstone of civilizations through the ages, but that will have vanished. History shows that those who haven’t had to work — aristocrats, say — have often spent their time entertaining and developing their artistic and sporting talents while scrupulously observing elaborate rituals of dress and manners. In this future, creativity is highly valued. We sport ever more fantastic makeup, hairstyles and clothing. The labor of past ages seems barbaric.

But the aristocrats ruled nations; in the A.I. era, machines are doing all the thinking. Because, over the decades, we’ve gradually given up our autonomy, step by step, allowing ourselves to be transformed into A.I.’s docile, fabulously pampered pets. As A.I. whisks us from place to place — visits to family members, art galleries and musical events — we will look out the windows, as unaware of its plans for us as a poodle on its way to the groomer’s.

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President 

Donald Trump is a man who dwells in bigotry, bluster and false promises.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD SEPT. 25, 2016

When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is.

They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counter-politician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well­being. Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.

A financial wizard who can bring executive magic to government? Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City. Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self­-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.

A straight talker who tells it like it is? Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters. Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti­-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.

He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions. Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight­-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.

An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders? His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-­steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets.

His tax­-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.

If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway.

Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.

A change agent for the nation and the world? There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security.

Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it. The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen.

 He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target. Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self­-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing.

The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy. Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD SEPT. 24, 2016

In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.

Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump. The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.

The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march. In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity.

The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle­class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families.

Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems. Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena. Mrs. Clinton’s work has been defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change. As a candidate, she has struggled to step back from a pointillist collection of policy proposals to reveal the full pattern of her record. That is a weakness of her campaign, and a perplexing one, for the pattern is clear. It shows a determined leader intent on creating opportunity for struggling Americans at a time of economic upheaval and on ensuring that the United States remains a force for good in an often brutal world.

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship.

As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.

Mrs. Clinton’s record of service to children, women and families has spanned her adult life. One of her boldest acts as first lady was her 1995 speech in Beijing declaring that women’s rights are human rights. After a failed attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system, she threw her support behind legislation to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than eight million lower-­income young people. This year, she rallied mothers of gun-­violence victims to join her in demanding comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and tighter reins on gun sales.

After opposing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants during the 2008 campaign, she now vows to push for comprehensive immigration legislation as president and to use executive power to protect law-­abiding undocumented people from deportation and cruel detention.

Some may dismiss her shift as opportunistic, but we credit her for arriving at the right position. Mrs. Clinton and her team have produced detailed proposals on crime, policing and race relations, debt-­free college and small-­business incentives, climate change and affordable broadband. Most of these proposals would benefit from further elaboration on how to pay for them, beyond taxing the wealthiest Americans.

They would also depend on passage by Congress. That means that, to enact her agenda, Mrs. Clinton would need to find common ground with a destabilized Republican Party, whose unifying goal in Congress would be to discredit her.

Despite her political scars, she has shown an unusual capacity to reach across the aisle. When Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as a senator from New York in 2001, Republican leaders warned their caucus not to do anything that might make her look good. Yet as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she earned the respect of Republicans like Senator John McCain with her determination to master intricate military matters.

Her most lasting achievements as a senator include a federal fund for long­-term health monitoring of 9/11 first responders, an expansion of military benefits to cover reservists and the National Guard, and a law requiring drug companies to improve the safety of their medications for children.

Below the radar, she fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration’s unilateralism. She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration’s foreign-­policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial. She led efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran, which eventually pushed it to the table for talks over its nuclear program, and in 2012, she helped negotiate a cease­fire between Israel and Hamas.

Mrs. Clinton led efforts to renew diplomatic relations with Myanmar, persuading its junta to adopt political reforms. She helped promote the Trans­-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election­-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt.

Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to reset relations with Russia, though far from successful, was a sensible effort to improve interactions with a rivalrous nuclear power. Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls, but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests and be true to its values, which include helping others escape poverty and oppression

Mrs. Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, governed during what now looks like an optimistic and even gentle era. The end of the Cold War and the advance of technology and trade appeared to be awakening the world’s possibilities rather than its demons. Many in the news media, and in the country, and in that administration, were distracted by the scandal du jour — Mr. Clinton’s impeachment — during the very period in which a terrorist threat was growing. We are now living in a world darkened by the realization of that threat and its many consequences.

Mrs. Clinton’s service spans both eras, and she has learned hard lessons from the three presidents she has studied up close. She has also made her own share of mistakes. She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it.

Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-­show proportions, as we’ll argue in detail on Monday. Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown­up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work.

下一波高教海嘯成形：機器人時代

下一波高教海嘯成形：機器人時代

2016-07-29 03:33 聯合報 劉維公（東吳大學社會學系副教授）

在今年四月的時候，荷蘭阿姆斯特丹展出一幅「林布蘭」最新的人像畫油畫作品。林布蘭，被世人讚譽為荷蘭最偉大的畫家，是十七世紀的藝術家。在去世將近三百五十年之後的今天，怎麼可能會有他「新」的作品問世？

創作這幅畫的當然不是林布蘭本人，而是人工智慧。它是一項名為「下一個林布蘭」計畫的結晶。該計畫推動者是由美術館、保險、軟體、大學等組織所組成的團隊。團隊人員將林布蘭三四七幅作品輸入電腦之中，接著運用大數據分析方法，將其畫作分解成非常細的演算單位（亦即繪畫技巧），例如眼睛、頭髮等。由於具備精密的演算能力，什麼樣的創作題材都將難不倒電腦。

此次展出的中壯年男子人像畫，即是應用將近十七萬個演算單位，構成一幅高達近一點五億像素的作品。為了表現出畫布顏料的層次感，團隊特別採用３Ｄ列印技術，印出一幅有十四個層次的油畫。

機器人正在改變世界。從「下一個林布蘭」案例，我們清楚看到，甚至原本被認為是人類所獨特擁有的能力，也就是創造力，如今電腦機器也能夠做得到，儘管藝術家不一定苟同。

與機器人生活在一起，此一時代十年之內即將全面來臨。我們將會享受到機器人為人類所帶來的進步果實，包括醫療照顧、生活便利等。但，如果未做好充分準備，我們也將承擔其對社會發展所造成的嚴重衝擊。

就業機會的消失，正是其中一項極為嚴峻的威脅。為了讓人可以深刻感受此一威脅的嚴重性，我們用底下一個對比做說明：在一九九○年代，通用汽車相當風光，獲利可以達到一一○億美元，當時該公司僱用了八十四萬名員工；在今日，拉風的則是電動車製造公司特斯拉，新款Model 3開放預約前三天，全球即有超過廿七萬件訂單，其生產卻是僅靠一六○個機器人，每周組裝約四百輛汽車。

在過去，機器往往被認為只是「工具」，幫助勞動者提高生產力。如今，機器人就是「勞動者」。從藍領到白領，機器人將徹底轉化工作的性質，改寫專業的定義，以及重新分配就業機會。

長期以來，教育部一直認定少子化是危害高教生存的大海嘯。其實，真正的大海嘯，亦即機器人時代，才正在逼近中。少子化影響到各個學校的招生情形，而具有人工智慧的機器人衝擊到的是更根本的問題：大學存在的價值。

我們缺乏一個具有機器人時代意識的高等教育政策。面對與機器人競爭的挑戰，大學生能夠在學校學到未來職場上可以用到的一技之長嗎？如果大學制度與內容不改革，我們得到的一定是否定的答案。如果我們教育政策還是不斷糾纏在如何併校減校或世界排名，學位無用論將是我們不得不接受的墓誌銘。

（作者為東吳大學社會學系副教授）

The Democrats Win the Summer

The Democrats Win the Summer

David Brooks JULY 28, 2016 PHILADELPHIA —

Donald Trump has found an ingenious way to save the Democratic Party. Basically, he’s abandoned the great patriotic themes that used to fire up the G.O.P. and he’s allowed the Democrats to seize that ground. If you visited the two conventions this year you would have come away thinking that the Democrats are the more patriotic of the two parties — and the more culturally conservative.

Trump has abandoned the Judeo­-Christian aspirations that have always represented America’s highest moral ideals: toward love, charity, humility, goodness, faith, temperance and gentleness. He left the ground open for Joe Biden to remind us that decent people don’t enjoy firing other human beings. Trump has abandoned the basic modesty code that has always ennobled the American middle class: Don’t brag, don’t let your life be defined by gilded luxuries. He left the ground open for the Democrats to seize middle­class values with one quick passage in a Tim Kaine video — about a guy who goes to the same church where he was married, who taught carpentry as a Christian missionary in Honduras, who has lived in the same house for the last 24 years.

Trump has also abandoned the American ideal of popular self­-rule. He left the ground open for Barack Obama to remind us that our founders wanted active engaged citizens, not a government run by a solipsistic and self­-appointed savior who wants everything his way. Trump has abandoned the deep and pervasive optimism that has always energized the American nation. He left the ground open for Michelle Obama to embrace the underlying chorus of hope that runs through the American story: that our national history is an arc toward justice; that evil rises for a day but contains the seeds of its own destruction; that beneath the vicissitudes that darken our days, we live in an orderly cosmos governed by love.

For decades the Republican Party has embraced America’s open, future-oriented nationalism. But when you nominate a Silvio Berlusconi you give up a piece of that. When you nominate a blood­-and­-soil nationalist you’re no longer speaking in the voice of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and every Republican nominee from Reagan to McCain to Romney.

Democrats have often been ambivalent about that ardent nationalistic voice, but this week they were happy to accept Trump’s unintentional gift. There were an unusually high number of great speeches at the Democratic convention this year: the Obamas, Biden, Booker, Clinton, the Mothers of the Movement and so on. These speakers found their eloquence in staving off this demagogue. They effectively separated Trump from America. They separated him from conservatism. They made full use of the deep nationalist chords that touch American hearts.

Trump has allowed the Democrats to mask their deep problems. A Democratic administration has presided over a time of growing world chaos, growing violence and growing anger. But the Democrats seem positively organized and orderly compared to Candidate Chaos on the other side.

The Sanders people have 90 percent of the Democratic Party’s passion and 95 percent of the ideas. Most Sanders people are kind­ and open­hearted, but there is a core that is corrupted by moral preening, an uncompromising absolutism and a paranoid unwillingness to play by the rules of civic life. But the extremist fringe that threatens to take over the Democratic Party seems less menacing than the lunatic fringe that has already taken over the Republican one.

This week I left the arena here each night burning with indignation at Mike Pence. I almost don’t blame Trump. He is a morally untethered, spiritually vacuous man who appears haunted by multiple personality disorders. It is the “sane” and “reasonable” Republicans who deserve the shame — the ones who stood silently by, or worse, while Donald Trump gave away their party’s sacred inheritance.

The Democrats had by far the better of the conventions. But the final and shocking possibility is this: In immediate political terms it may not make a difference. The Democratic speakers hit doubles, triples and home runs. But the normal rules may no longer apply. The Democrats may have just dominated a game we are no longer playing.

Both conventions featured one grieving parent after another. The fear of violent death is on everybody’s mind — from ISIS, cops, lone sociopaths. The essential contract of society — that if you behave responsibly things will work out — has been severed for many people. It could be that in this moment of fear, cynicism, anxiety and extreme pessimism, many voters may have decided that civility is a surrender to a rigged system, that optimism is the opiate of the idiots and that humility and gentleness are simply surrendering to the butchers of ISIS. If that’s the case then the throes of a completely new birth are upon us and Trump is a man from the future. If that’s true it’s not just politics that has changed, but the country. 

Artificial Intelligence Swarms Silicon Valley on Wings and Wheels

Artificial Intelligence Swarms Silicon Valley on Wings and Wheels

By JOHN MARKOFF JULY 17, 2016 SUNNYVALE, Calif. —

For more than a decade, Silicon Valley’s technology investors and entrepreneurs obsessed over social media and mobile apps that helped people do things like find new friends, fetch a ride home or crowdsource a review of a product or a movie. Now Silicon Valley has found its next shiny new thing. And it does not have a “Like” button. The new era in Silicon Valley centers on artificial intelligence and robots, a transformation that many believe will have a payoff on the scale of the personal computing industry or the commercial internet, two previous generations that spread computing globally.

Computers have begun to speak, listen and see, as well as sprout legs, wings and wheels to move unfettered in the world. The shift was evident in a Lowe’s home improvement store here this month, when a prototype inventory checker developed by Bossa Nova Robotics silently glided through the aisles using computer vision to automatically perform a task that humans have done manually for centuries. The robot, which was skilled enough to autonomously move out of the way of shoppers and avoid unexpected obstacles in the aisles, alerted people to its presence with soft birdsong chirps. Gliding down the middle of an aisle at a leisurely pace, it can recognize bar codes on shelves, and it uses a laser to detect which items are out of stock.

Silicon Valley’s financiers and entrepreneurs are digging into artificial intelligence with remarkable exuberance. The region now has at least 19 companies designing self­-driving cars and trucks, up from a handful five years ago. There are also more than a half­-dozen types of mobile robots, including robotic bellhops and aerial drones, being commercialized. “We saw a slow trickle in investments in robotics, and suddenly, boom — there seem to be a dozen companies securing large investment rounds focusing on specific robotic niches,” said Martin Hitch, chief executive of Bossa Nova, which has a base in San Francisco.

Funding in A.I. start­ups has increased more than fourfold to $681 million in 2015, from $145 million in 2011, according to the market research firm CB Insights. The firm estimates that new investments will reach $1.2 billion this year, up 76 percent from last year. “Whenever there is a new idea, the valley swarms it,” said Jen­Hsun Huang, chief executive of Nvidia, a chip maker that was founded to make graphic processors for the video game business but that has turned decisively toward artificial intelligence applications in the last year. “But you have to wait for a good idea, and good ideas don’t happen every day.”

By contrast, funding for social media start­ups peaked in 2011 before plunging. That year, venture capital firms made 66 social media deals and pumped in $2.4 billion. So far this year, there have been just 10 social media investments, totaling $6.9 million, according to CB Insights. Last month, the professional social networking site LinkedIn was sold to Microsoft for $26.2 billion, underscoring that social media has become a mature market sector.

Even Silicon Valley’s biggest social media companies are now getting into artificial intelligence, as are other tech behemoths. Facebook is using A.I. to improve its products. Google will soon compete with Amazon’s Echo and Apple’s Siri, which are based on A.I., with a device that listens in the home, answers questions and places e­commerce orders. Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chief executive, recently appeared at the Aspen Ideas Conference and called for a partnership between humans and artificial intelligence systems in which machines are designed to augment humans.

The auto industry has also set up camp in the valley to learn how to make cars that can do the driving for you. Both technology and car companies are making claims that increasingly powerful sensors and A.I. software will enable cars to drive themselves with the push of a button as soon as the end of this decade — despite recent Tesla crashes that have raised the question of how quickly human drivers will be completely replaced by the technology.

Silicon Valley’s new A.I. era underscores the region’s ability to opportunistically reinvent itself and quickly follow the latest tech trend. “This is at the heart of the region’s culture that goes all the way back to the Gold Rush,” said Paul Saffo, a longtime technology forecaster and a faculty member at Singularity University. “The valley is built on the idea that there is always a way to start over and find a new beginning.”

The change spurred a rush for talent in A.I. that has become intense. “It’s ridiculous,” said Richard Socher, chief scientist at the software maker Salesforce, who teaches a course at Stanford on a machine intelligence technique known as deep learning. “The number of people trying to get the students to drop out of the class halfway through because now they know a little bit of this stuff is crazy.”

The valley’s tendency toward reinvention dates back to the region’s initial emergence from the ashes of a deep aerospace industry recession as a consumer-electronics manufacturing center producing memory chips, video games and digital watches in the mid­1970s. A malaise in the personal computing market in the early 1990s was followed by the World Wide Web and the global expansion of the consumer internet. A decade later, in 2007, just as innovation in mobile phones seemed to be on the verge of moving away from Silicon Valley to Europe and Asia, Apple introduced the first iPhone, resetting the mobile communications marketplace and ensuring that the valley would — for at least another generation — remain the world’s innovation center.

In the most recent shift, the A.I. idea emerged first in Canada in the work of cognitive scientists and computer scientists like Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun during the previous decade. The three helped pioneer a new approach to deep learning, a machine learning method that is highly effective for pattern recognition challenges like vision and speech. Modeled on a general understanding of how the human brain works, it has helped technologists make rapid progress in a wide range of A.I. fields.

How far the A.I. boom will go is hotly debated. For some technologists, today’s technical advances are laying the groundwork for truly brilliant machines that will soon have human-­level intelligence. Yet Silicon Valley has faced false starts with A.I. before. During the 1980s, an earlier generation of entrepreneurs also believed that artificial intelligence was the wave of the future, leading to a flurry of start­ups. Their products offered little business value at the time, and so the commercial enthusiasm ended in disappointment, leading to a period now referred to as the “A.I. Winter.”

The current resurgence will not fall short this time, said several investors, who believe that the economic potential in terms of new efficiency and new applications is strong. “There is no chance of a new winter,” said Shivon Zilis, an investor at Bloomberg Beta who specializes in machine intelligence start­ups. John Shoch, a veteran venture capitalist at Alloy Ventures in Palo Alto, Calif., said deep learning has made a difference to the potential success of A.I. companies. “You get a new set of tools that let you attack a new set of problems, which let you push the boundary out,” he said. For others, like Jerry Kaplan, who helped found two A.I. companies in the 1980s — Symantec, which became a security company, and Teknowledge, which ultimately shut down — the Valley’s new enthusiasm is troubling because it suggests an unfounded optimism similar to earlier eras in which the field overpromised and under-delivered. “Sometimes when I hang around with A.I. enthusiasts here in the valley, I feel like an atheist at a convention of evangelicals,” he said.

從英國脫歐 看反智主義與「厚」經濟的興起

從英國脫歐 看反智主義與「厚」經濟的興起

2016年07月09日

台新投信董事長吳火生

「歐盟完了，歐盟死了！」帶著喜悅又詫異的心情，英國獨立黨黨魁奈吉‧法拉吉（Nigel Farage）興奮地振臂吶喊。喜悅的是他鼓吹了17年的脫歐行動終於開花結果，詫異是因為他幾個小時前還認為留歐派會獲勝。然而，當天震驚的不只他一人，全球金融市場都驚呆了。這個超乎市場預期的結果不僅造成英鎊斷崖式的貶值，6/24當天全球股市總市值就蒸發了約3.3兆美元，遠遠超過雷曼兄弟破產時的1.7兆美元。

這次的英國退歐對於市場衝擊如此之大，是因為代表少數人智慧的「賭盤」，還有反映多數人意見的「民調」，及象徵集體智慧的「金融市場」在投票前都是反映留歐。綜觀近幾年全球政局的轉變，從美國茶黨的崛起，到歐洲極端主義的盛行，及全球民族主義和民粹主義的波濤洶湧來看，英國脫歐反映的不單只是金融市場失準，更確立了「反智主義」浪潮的趨勢。

所謂的「反智主義」（Anti-intellectualism） 指的是人們對事情的判斷不是出自於理智，而是來自於激情、偏見。套用在政治上來看，當人民對於現狀不滿時，會開始表達對於政治精英的厭惡和不信任，參與投票往往只是為了出一口氣，而非做出最有利的選擇。簡單來說，「我的無知和你的智慧一樣有價值」。

反智主義在近年又逐漸興起有幾個主要原因：第一，經濟復甦不符大眾期待。2008年金融危機之後，世界各國透過了大規模的貨幣和財政撙節政策，逐漸將經濟活動拉回常軌，但隨著股市和房地產等風險資產價格的上漲，同時也造成貧富差距愈拉愈大，與經濟指標好轉型成諷刺的對比。《二十一世紀資本論》的作者湯瑪斯‧皮凱提（Thomas Piketty）就點出這個所得分配不均的現象。因此對大部分經濟情況並無改善甚至過得更糟的民眾來說，對於政府和政治人物不只灰心且懷怨在心。

其次，族群衝突加深對立。原先被視為第4波民主化的中東茉莉花革命，在陷入失序的內戰後，反而演變成為近代最大的難民危機。自2010年以來，每年皆有超過150萬的難民進入歐盟，幾年下來，對於歐洲人來說，除了工作權被外來移民搶走之外，治安也亮起了紅燈，這間接刺激了歐洲極右派政黨的快速成長。包含法國國民陣線和德國另類選擇，都以極激進排外的民族主義和民粹主義訴求獲得不少的支持。這次英國的退歐，難民議題也是導致最後選情逆轉的關鍵因素。

政黨惡鬥令人厭惡，產生情緒性投票，也是問題之一。歐巴馬上任以後的大政府主張加深了和共和黨之間的摩擦，從2012年財政懸崖危機到2013歐巴馬健保，以及去年因為墮胎議題而導致國會停擺，這些不斷地爭議都讓民眾對於政治人物感到失望。這種對於傳統精英階級的不滿以及反彈，也在這次美國總統初選徹底地展現出來，言語直白帶有民粹主義的唐諾德‧川普（Donald Trump）意外獲得許多不滿現狀的藍領階級的支持，讓今年美國總統大選增添許多變數。

反智主義還有一大風險在於它存在著「連鎖效應」，各國的非主流政治可以自我助長，甚至跨境呼應。另外一點便是「集體智慧失效」，本應是金融市場基石的集體智慧，在未來預測普選型政治投票的能力會逐漸失準，因為金融市場的主要玩家是理智的、較富裕的階層，而普選投票者卻對立端的另一階層，兩端距離太遠，使得預測的有效性大幅度降低，進而使長尾風險會更常出現，而這些因為反智主義所帶來的地緣政治風險也會增加市場的波動性。

在這樣的環境下，我們的投資策略該如何調整因應？首先，試著將資產配置多元化，透過不同區域和不同資產之間的低度關聯性，來降低單一政治／社會事件所帶來的風險，同時透過動態的調整和靈活的配置來因應變化快速的國內外情勢。再者，主動避開反智主義的熱區。目前看來，歐洲在未來幾年仍會是地緣政治風險最高的區域，包含接下來奧地利的總統大選，義大利的公投，明年法國和德國的大選，再加上英國要會如何執行退歐的流程，都為歐洲帶來很大的不確定性。

我們建議可以將資金逐漸移轉至「厚經濟」（THICK）國家：台灣（Taiwan）、香港（Hong Kong）、印度（India）、中國（China）、韓國（Korea），這些亞洲國家不僅沒有難民相關議題，政治局勢相對穩定，而且估值也相對偏低，台灣股市還有世界數一數二的高現金殖利率，在未來「負利率」越來越普遍的環境下將越發凸顯吸引力。

(工商時報)

中產階級下流化不關我的事？

中產階級下流化不關我的事？

2016年07月07日

丁學文

大家都說英國脫歐會很慘、英鎊會暴跌，大不列顛會變成小英格蘭！可是我很窮，即使利己損人，我也要賭一把，所以6月23日英國老百姓公投決定脫歐；大家都說罷工會被公司開除，公司形象會崩壞，很多人搭不到飛機很可憐！可是我很窮，即使利己損人，我也要賭一把，所以6月24日華航空服員決定罷工；大家都說這幫人不懂政治，只會口出狂言！可是我很窮，即使利己損人，我也要賭一把，所以柯P大人以及川普大亨橫空出世。這個世界瀰漫著一股不滿現狀、急思突破的怒氣，難怪最新一期經濟學人要以〈憤怒政治學〉（The politics of anger）來形容現今全球反骨的現象。

曾經日不落的大不列顛，一直溫良恭儉讓的台灣，怎麼會這樣？我覺得真正原因就是大家窮怕了。看看台灣，工資20年鐵打不動，已經變成琅琅上口地理所當然，卻沒有人可以提出解決方法，愛台灣的人越來越無奈，越來越失落。原因何在？除了台灣經濟高速增長的年代不再，更因為在資本為王的時代，你不是既得利益者、富二代或官二代，你就會發現賺錢越來越難。問題是沒有可以期待的未來，沒有可以改變這種狀態的機會，曾經的激情慢慢被消磨成憤怒，終於陷入「可是我很窮，即使利己損人，我也要賭一把」的不得不。

這很奇怪，大家用著比過去更好的手機，有著比過去更夯的娛樂享受，為什麼卻有很窮的感覺？這是長期寬鬆貨幣環境下，資產畸形上漲的結果。如果你是趕上泡沫盛宴的一群，擁有不動產、有價證券，你就可以靠房價、資本利得、房租擁有穩定、不斷現金流的生活。但一般人即使工作多年，如果未持有資產，就會越來越窮。這說明什麼？說明資產比人力更值錢。人賺錢難、錢賺錢易，反映出人力資源所得回報竟然比資產低，新政府必須想方設法讓逐利資本願意追逐人才，千萬別再以台灣人才物美價廉而洋洋得意，唯有讓資本回頭爭奪人才，企業資本支出才會增加，股市動能方能重啟，人力回報一旦上升，大家就會有更多向上流動的機會。

清末，曾國藩曾說，社會大亂之前，必有三種前兆：其一是無論何事，均黑白不分。其二是善良的人越來越客氣，無用之人越來越猖狂。其三是所有問題明明嚴重惡化，卻都被合理化及默許，還以不痛不癢、莫名其妙的方式虛應一番，卻不見人願意為這艘破船補補窟窿，甚至還假裝沒有看見。憑藉台灣過去的累積，原本大家想在體制內成功，只要像狗，忠誠可靠，恪盡職守，會看家護院、保護主人就會平步青雲；想在體制外奮鬥，只要像狼一樣，靈敏快捷，願意奮鬥冒險, 就會突圍而出。在既得利益者的刻意不作為下，現在的台灣，狗不再一定有人養著，還常勞力勞心，裡外不是人。而狼再狠，面對沒有獵物的戰場，早已不再是狼和食物的較量，而是狼與狼之間的撕咬。既然體制內吃不飽還會餓肚子，體制外拚死拚活還搶不到食物，當然最後只剩哭窮及憤怒了。

日本學者Miura Atsushi在《下流社會》一書提出中產階級下流化的概念，他認為一向穩定的中產階級正在萎縮，從中產躋身上流者鳳毛麟角，淪入下流者卻源源不斷，加上網絡和社交媒體的風行，哭窮成為一種政治正確，而炫富則被集體攻擊。最後只見社會處處負面情緒，累積爆發的就是憤怒。我覺得吧，人生一世，草木一秋。大家想追求的是活得積極、向上、有樂趣的日子，沒有人喜歡生活在負面情緒、憤怒哭窮的社會。台灣已經退無可退，政府一定要創造公平環境，提供機會，讓台灣人力得到合理定價，讓大家有可以改變命運的願想。

同時，必須去除攔住年輕人中產之路的門檻，比如收入不平等、通貨膨脹、房價上漲等。簡單來說，就是要讓現在的中產階級實現人盡其才、有限收入保值增值的機會，要讓下一代有公平競爭、躋身上流的機會。人生在世，要想毫不利己，太難；只會損人不利己，太蠢。最好是人己兩利，但窮怕了，就會出現寧願利己損人，也要賭一把的怪象，這樣的台灣不會與你我無關。

（作者為創投合夥人）

(中國時報)

Self­-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says

Self­-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says

By BILL VLASIC and NEAL BOUDETTE JUNE 30, 2016 DETROIT —

The race by automakers and technology firms to develop self­-driving cars has been fueled by the belief that computers can operate a vehicle more safely than human drivers. But that view is now in question after the revelation on Thursday that the driver of a Tesla Model S electric sedan was killed in an accident when the car was in self­-driving mode.

Federal regulators, who are in the early stages of setting guidelines for autonomous vehicles, have opened a formal investigation into the incident, which occurred on May 7 in Williston, Fla. In a statement, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said preliminary reports indicated that the crash occurred when a tractor­-trailer made a left turn in front of the Tesla, and the car failed to apply the brakes. It is the first known fatal accident involving a vehicle being driven by itself by means of sophisticated computer software, sensors, cameras and radar.

The safety agency did not identify the Tesla driver who was killed. But the Florida Highway Patrol identified him as Joshua Brown, 40, of Canton, Ohio. He was a Navy veteran who owned a technology consulting firm. In a news release, Tesla on Thursday described him as a man “who spent his life focused on innovation and the promise of technology and who believed strongly in Tesla’s mission.”

Mr. Brown posted videos of himself riding in autopilot mode. “The car’s doing it all itself,’’ he said in one, smiling as he took his hands from the steering wheel. In another, he praised the system for saving his car from an accident. A May obituary of Mr. Brown in The Greensburg Tribune Review in Westmoreland County, Pa., where he had formerly lived, said he had spent 11 years in the Navy and then founded a technology consulting company, Nexu Innovations. He is survived by his parents, Warren and Sueanne Brown, of Stow, Ohio, and his sister, Amanda Lee, the obituary said.

The Nexu Innovations website, describing Mr. Brown as founder and owner, said that in the Navy he had been on active duty as a “master explosive ordnance disposal technician,” including a stint with the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, which is commonly known as SEAL Team 6. Ricky Hammer, a retired Navy master chief who worked with Mr. Brown at the development group, said Mr. Brown had strong computer skills and “was the equivalent of an electrical engineer even though he didn’t have the degree.” In Iraq in 2006, he said, Mr. Brown played a crucial role in preparing captured explosive projectiles for shipment to the United States to support efforts to improve the armor on military vehicles. “He did it by being very aggressive,” Mr. Hammer said, noting that Mr. Brown helped to collect the projectiles after raids on bomb-­making shops and would X­ray them to determine their contents.

The traffic safety agency said it was working with the Florida Highway Patrol in the inquiry into Mr. Brown’s fatal accident. The agency cautioned that the opening of an investigation did not mean it thought there was a defect in the vehicle being examined. But the accident is a blow to Tesla at a time when the company is pushing to expand its product lineup from expensive electric vehicles to more mainstream models. The company on Thursday declined to say whether the technology or the driver or either were at fault in the accident.

In its news release it said, “Neither autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor-­trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.” The crash casts doubt on whether autonomous vehicles in general can consistently make split­-second, life­-or-­death driving decisions on the highway.

And other companies are increasing investments in self­-driving technology. Google, for example, recently announced plans to adapt 100 Chrysler minivans for autonomous driving. Earlier this year, G.M. acquired the software firm Cruise Automation to accelerate its own self­-driving applications.

Even as the companies conduct many tests on autonomous vehicles at both private facilities and on public highways, there is skepticism that the technology has progressed far enough for the government to approve cars that totally drive themselves.

The federal traffic safety agency is nearing the release of a new set of guidelines and regulations regarding the testing of self­-driving vehicles on public roads. They are expected to be released in July.

At a recent technology conference in Novi, Mich., the agency’s leader, Mark Rosekind, said self­-driving cars should at least be twice as safe as human drivers to result in a significant reduction in roadway deaths. “We need to start with two times better,’’ Mr. Rosekind said. “We need to set a higher bar if we expect safety to actually be a benefit here.”

Karl Brauer, an analyst with the auto research firm Kelley Blue Book, said the accident served as a signal that the technology might not be as advanced and ready for the market as some proponents have suggested. “This is a bit of a wake­up call,” Mr. Brauer said. “People who were maybe too aggressive in taking the position that we’re almost there, this technology is going to be in the market very soon, maybe need to reassess that.”

Tesla said in its news release that it had informed the traffic safety agency about the accident “immediately after it occurred.” But the company reported it publicly only on Thursday, after learning that the agency had begun to investigate. In the past, Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive, has praised the company’s self­driving feature, introduced in the Model S last fall, as “probably better than a person right now.”

But in its statement on Thursday, the company cautioned that it was still only a test feature and noted that its use ‘‘requires explicit acknowledgment that the system is new technology.’’ It noted that when a driver activated the system, an acknowledgment box popped up, explaining that the autopilot mode “is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times.”

Correction: June 30, 2016 An earlier version of this article misstated the location of Williston, Fla. It is about 100 miles northwest of Orlando, not 100 miles northeast of it.

You Break It, You Own It

You Break It, You Own It

Thomas L. Friedman JUNE 29, 2016

The British vote by a narrow majority to leave the European Union is not the end of the world — but it does show us how we can get there.

A major European power, a longtime defender of liberal democracy, pluralism and free markets, falls under the sway of a few cynical politicians who see a chance to exploit public fears of immigration to advance their careers. They create a stark binary choice on an incredibly complex issue, of which few people understand the full scope — stay in or quit the E.U.

These politicians assume that the dog will never catch the car and they will have the best of all worlds — opposing something unpopular but not having to deal with the implications of the public actually voting to get rid of it. But they so dumb down the debate with lies, fear­mongering and misdirection, and with only a simple majority required to win, that the leave­-the-­E.U. crowd carries the day by a small margin. Presto: the dog catches the car.

And, of course, it has no idea now what to do with this car. There is no plan. There is just barking.

Like I said, not the end of the world yet, but if a few more E.U. countries try this trick we’ll have quite a little mess on our hands. Attention Donald Trump voters: this is what happens to a country that falls for hucksters who think that life can just imitate Twitter — that there are simple answers to hard questions — and that small men can rearrange big complex systems by just erecting a wall and everything will be peachy.

But I digress. Because although withdrawing from the E.U. is not the right answer for Britain, the fact that this argument won, albeit with lies, tells you that people are feeling deeply anxious about something.

It’s the story of our time: the pace of change in technology, globalization and climate have started to outrun the ability of our political systems to build the social, educational, community, workplace and political innovations needed for some citizens to keep up.

We have globalized trade and manufacturing, and we have introduced robots and artificial intelligent systems, far faster than we have designed the social safety nets, trade surge protectors and educational advancement options that would allow people caught in this transition to have the time, space and tools to thrive.

It’s left a lot of people dizzy and dislocated. At the same time, we have opened borders deliberately — or experienced the influx of illegal migration from failing states at an unprecedented scale — and this too has left some people feeling culturally unanchored, that they are losing their “home” in the deepest sense of that word.

The physical reality of immigration, particularly in Europe, has run ahead of not only the host countries’ ability to integrate people but also of the immigrants’ ability to integrate themselves — and both are necessary for social stability.

And these rapid changes are taking place when our politics has never been more gridlocked and unable to respond with just common sense — like governments borrowing money at near zero interest to invest in much-­needed infrastructure that creates jobs and enables us to better exploit these technologies.

“Political power in the West has been failing its own test of legitimacy and accountability since 2008 — and in its desperation has chosen to erode it further by unforgivably abdicating responsibility through the use of a referendum on the E.U.,” said Nader Mousavizadeh, who co-­leads the London­-based global consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners.

But we need to understand that “the issue before us is ‘integration’ not ‘immigration,’” Mousavizadeh added. The lived experience in most cities in Europe today, is the fact that “a pluralistic, multiethnic society has grown up here, actually rather peacefully, and it has brought enormous benefits and prosperity. We need to change the focus of the problem — and the solution — from the physical reality of immigration to the political and economic challenge of integration.” Schools, hospitals and public institutions generally will not rise to the challenge of the 21st century “if social integration is failing.”

Indeed, in my view, the countries that nurture pluralism the best will be the ones that thrive the most in the 21st century. They will have the most political stability, attract the most talent and be able to collaborate with the most people. But it’s hard work. Yet in an age when technology is integrating us more tightly together and delivering tremendous flows of innovation, knowledge, connectivity and commerce, the future belongs to those who build webs not walls, who can integrate not separate, to get the most out of these flows.

Britain leaving the E.U. is a lose-­lose proposition. I hope the “Regrexit” campaign can reverse Brexit and that Americans will dump Trump. Never forget, after the destruction of World War II, the E.U. project “emerged as a force for peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom in the world,” noted Eric Beinhocker, the executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford. “This is one of humankind’s great achievements. Rather than let it be destroyed we must use the shock of the Brexit vote to reimagine, reform, and rebuild a new Europe.”