人脑中的后悔中心

人类经常对自己做出的决定感到后悔。科学家现在确定了调节悔恨情绪的大脑区域为前额脑区底部。

据英国《自然神经学》杂志报道,法国国家科学研究中心认知学研究所的乔治·科里切利和同事们设计了一个功能性核磁共振试验,以监视人们做决定的过程和事后的感觉。研究小组向志愿者提供了两个选择,其中一个风险较大,但可能回报也大。在做出决定后,志愿者被告知其决定的结果。研究人员还告诉他们,如果做出不同的选择结果会怎样。在得知自己放弃的另一个方案更好后,志愿者的前额脑区底部活动明显增加,且活动量与后悔的程度有关。

当参与者被指定一个方案,因此他觉得自己对结果没有控制权时,研究人员就观察不到这种脑部活动。这表明,除了后悔情绪外,个人的责任感也有助于调节前额脑区底部的活动。

这一试验证实了此前的研究结果:前额脑区底部受到损伤的病人不会后悔,因此也不会为避免后悔而改变自己的行为。[摘自报刊]

Advertisements

量子力学历史笑话

一.
  故事发生在二十世纪初的法国。
  巴黎延续着千百年的灯红酒绿,香榭丽舍大道上散发着繁华和暧昧,红磨坊里弥漫着躁动与彷徨。
  而在此时的巴黎,有一个年轻人,名字叫做德布罗意,从他的名字当中可以看出这是一个贵族,事实上德布罗意的父亲正是法国的一个伯爵,并且是正是一位当权的内阁部长。这样一个不愁吃不愁穿只是成天愁着如何打发时光的花花公子自然要找一个能消耗精力的东西来磨蹭掉那些无聊的日子,德布罗意则找到了一个很酷的“事业”──研究中世纪史。据说是因为中世纪史中有着很多神秘的东西吸引着这位年轻人。  
  时间一转就到了1919,这是一个科学界急剧动荡动着的年代。就在这一年,德布罗意突然移情别恋对物理产生了兴趣,尤其是感兴趣于当时正流行的量子论。
  具体来说就是感兴趣于一个在当时很酷的观点:光具有粒子性。这一观点早在十几年前由普朗克提出,而后被爱因斯坦用来解释了光电效应,但即便如此,也非常不见容于物理学界各大门派。
  德布罗意倒并不见得对这一观点的物理思想有多了解,也许他的理解也仅仅就是理解到这个观点是在说“波就是粒子”。
  或许是一时冲动,或许是因为年轻而摆酷,德布罗意来到了一派宗师朗之万门下读研究生。  
  从此,德布罗意走出了一道足以让让任何传奇都黯然失色的人生轨迹。
 
二.
  历史上德布罗意到底花了多少精力去读他的研究生也许已经很难说清,事实上德布罗意在他的五年研究生生涯中几乎是一事无成。事实上也可以想象,一个此前对物理一窍不通的中世纪史爱好者很难真正的在物理上去做些什么。
  白驹过隙般的五年转眼就过去了,德布罗意开始要为他的博士论文发愁了。其实德布罗意大约只是明白普朗克爱因斯坦那帮家伙一直在说什么波就是粒子,(事实上对于普朗克大约不能用“一直”二字,此时的普朗克已经完全抛弃自己当初的量子假设,又回到了经典的就框架。)而真正其中包含的物理,他能理解多少大约只有上帝清楚。
  五年的尽头,也就是在1924,德布罗意终于提交了自己的博士论文。他的博士论文只有一页纸多一点,不过可以猜想这一页多一点的一份论文大约已经让德布罗意很头疼了,只可惜当时没有枪手可以雇来帮忙写博士论文。
  他的博士论文只是说了一个猜想,既然波可以是粒子,那么反过来粒子也可以是波。
  而进一步德布罗意提出波的波矢和角频率与粒子动量和能量的关系是:
      动量=普朗克常数/波矢
      能量=普朗克常数*角频率
      这就是他的论文里提出的两个公式
  而这两个公式的提出也完全是因为在爱因斯坦解释光电效应的时候提出光子的动量和能量与光的参数满足这一关系。
  可以想象这样一个博士论文会得到怎样的回应。在对论文是否通过的投票之前,德布罗意的老板朗之万就事先得知论文评审委员会的六位教授中有三位已明确表态会投反对票。
  本来在欧洲,一个学生苦读数年都拿不到学位是件很正常的事情,时至今日的欧洲也依然如此。何况德布罗意本来就是这么一个来混日子的的花花公子。
  然而这次偏偏又有些不一样──德布罗意的父亲又是一位权高望众的内阁部长,而德布罗意在此厮混五年最后连一个Ph.D都没拿到,双方面子上自然也有些挂不住。
  情急之中,导师朗之万往他的一个好朋友那里寄了一封信。
  当初的朗之万是不是碍于情面想帮德布罗意混得一个PhD已不得而知,然而事实上,这一封信却改变了科学发展的轨迹。
 
三.
  这封信的收信人是爱因斯坦。信的内容大致如下:

  尊敬的爱因斯坦阁下:
        在我这里有一位研究生,已经攻读了五年的博士学位,如今即将毕业,在他提交的毕业论文中有一些新的想法………………
  请对他的论文作出您的评价。
  另外顺便向您提及,该研究生的父亲是弊国的一位伯爵,内阁 的**部长,若您……,将来您来法国定会受到隆重的接待

                           朗之万

  在信中,大约朗之万的潜台词似乎就是如果您不肯给个面子,呵呵,以后就甭来法国了。不知是出于知趣呢,还是出于当年自己的离经叛道而产生的惺惺相惜,爱因斯坦很客气回了一封信,大意是该论文里有一些很新很有趣的思想云云。
  此时的爱因斯坦虽不属于任何名门望派,却已独步于江湖,颇有威望。有了爱因斯坦的这一封信,评审委员会的几位教授也不好再多说些什么了。
  于是,皆大欢喜。
  浪荡子弟德布罗意就这样“攻读”下了他的PhD(博士)。
  而按照当时欧洲的学术传统,朗之万则将德布罗意的博士论文印成若干份分寄到了欧洲各大学的物理系。
  大约所有人都以为事情会就此了结,多少年以后德布罗意那篇“很新很有趣” 博士论文也就被埋藏到了档案堆里了。
  德布罗意大约也就从此以一个PhD的身份继续自己的浪荡生活。。
  但历史总是喜欢用偶然来开一些玩笑,而这种玩笑中往往也就顺带着改变了许多人的命运。
  在朗之万寄出的博士论文中,有一份来到了维也纳大学。

 
四.
  1926年初。维也纳。
  当时在维也纳大学主持物理学术活动的教授是德拜,他收到这份博士论文后,将它交给了他的组里面一位已经年届中年的讲师。
  这位讲师接到的任务是在两周后的seminar(学术例会)上将该博士论讲一下。
  这位“老”讲师大约早已适应了他现在这种不知算是平庸还是算是平静的生活,可以想象,一个已到不惑之年而仍然只在讲师的位置上晃荡的人,其学术前途自然是朦胧而晦暗。
  而大约也正因为这位讲师的这种地位才使得它可以获得这个任务,因为德拜将任务交给这位讲师时的理由正是“你现在研究的问题不很重要,不如给我们讲讲德布罗意的论文吧”。
  这位讲师的名字叫做──薛定谔(Schrodinger)
  在接下来的两周里,薛定谔仔细的读了一下德布罗意的“博士论文”,其实从内容上来讲也许根本就用不上“仔细”二字,德布罗意的这篇论文只不过一页纸多一点,通篇提出的式子也不过就两个而已,并且其原型是已经在爱因斯坦发表的论文中出现过的。
  然而论文里说的话却让薛定谔一头雾水,薛定谔只知道德布罗意大讲了一通“波即粒子,粒子即波”,除此之外则是“两个黄鹂鸣翠柳”──不知所云。
  两周之后,薛定谔硬着头皮把这篇论文的内容在seminar上讲了一下,讲者不懂,听者自然也是云里雾里,而老板德拜则做了一个客气的评价:“这个年轻人的观点还是有些新颖的东西的,虽然显得很孩子气,当然也许他需要更深入一步,比如既然提到波的概念,那么总该有一个波动方程吧”
  多年以后有人问德拜是否后悔自己当初作出的这一个评论,德拜自我解嘲的说“你不觉得这是一个很好的评论吗?”
  并且,德拜建议薛定谔做一做这个工作,在两周以后的seminar上再讲一下。
  两周以后。薛定谔再次在seminar上讲解德布罗意的论文,并且为德布罗意的“波”找了一个波动方程。
  这个方程就是“薛定谔方程”!
  当然,一开始德布罗意的那篇论文就已经认为是垃圾,而从垃圾产生出来的自然也不会离垃圾太远,于是没人真正把这个硬生生给德布罗意的“波”套上的方程当一回事,甚至还有人顺口编了一首打油诗讽刺薛定谔的方程:欧文用他的泼赛,计算起来真灵通:泼赛代表什么呢?没人能够说得清!(欧文就是薛定谔,psi (泼赛)是薛定谔波动方程中的一个变量)
  故事的情节好像又一次的要归于平庸了,然而平庸偏偏有时候就成了奇迹的理由。
  大约正是薛定谔的“平庸”使得它对自己的这个波动方程的平庸有些心有不甘,他决定再在这个方程中撞一撞运气。

五.

  上面讲到的情节放到当时的大环境中来看就好像是湖水下的一场大地震──从湖面上看来却是风平浪静。
  下面请允许我暂时停止对“老”讲师薛定谔的追踪,而回过头来看一看这两年发生物理学界这个大湖表面的风浪。
  此前,玻尔由普朗克和爱因斯坦的理论的启发提出了著名的“三部曲”,解释了氢光谱,在这十几年的发展当中,由玻尔掌门的哥本哈根学派已然是量子理论界的“少林武当”。
  1925,玻尔的得意弟子海森堡提出了著名的矩阵力学,进一步抛弃经典概念,揭示量子图像,精确的解释了许多现象,已经成为哥本哈根学派的镇门之宝──量子届的“屠龙宝刀”。不过在当时懂矩阵的物理学家没有几个,所以矩阵力学的影响力仍然有限。事实上就是海森堡本人也并不懂“矩阵”,而只是在他的理论出炉之后哥本哈根学派的另一位弟子玻恩告诉海森堡他用的东西在数学中就是矩阵。
  再回过头来再关注一下我们那个生活风平浪静的老讲师薛定谔在干些什么──我指的是在薛定谔讲解他的波动方程之后的两个星期里。
  事实上此时的他正浸在温柔乡中──带着他的情妇在维也纳的某个滑雪场滑雪。
  不知道是宜人的风景还是身边的温香软玉,总之是冥冥之中有某种东西,给了薛定谔一灵感,而就是这一个灵感,改变了物理学发展的轨迹。
  薛定谔从他的方程中得出了玻尔的氢原子理论!

六.

  倚天一出,天下大惊。
  从此谁也不敢再把薛定谔的波动方程当成nonsense(扯淡)了。
  哥本哈根学派的掌门人玻尔更是大为惊诧,于是将薛定谔请到哥本哈根,详细切磋量子之精妙。
  然而让玻尔遗憾的是,在十天的漫长“切磋”中,两个人根本都不懂对方在说些什么。
  在一场让两个人都疲惫不堪却又毫无结果的“哥本哈根论剑”之后,薛定谔回到了维也纳,薛定谔回到了维也纳之后仍然继续做了一工作,他证明了海森堡的矩阵力学和他的波动方程表述的量子论其实只是不同的描述方式。
  从此“倚天”“屠龙”合而为一。
  此后,薛定谔虽也试图从更基本的假设出发导出更基本的方程,但终究没有成功,而不久,他也对这个失去了兴趣,转而去研究“生命是什么”。
  历史则继续着演义他的历史喜剧。
  德布罗意,薛定谔都在这场喜剧中成为诺奖得主而名垂青史。
 
尾声
  其实在这一段让人啼笑皆非的历史当中,上帝还是保留了某种公正的。薛定谔得出它的波动方程仅在海森堡的矩阵力学的的诞生一年之后,倘若上帝把这个玩笑开得更大一点,让薛定谔在1925年之前就导出薛定谔方程,那恐怕矩阵力学就根本不可能诞生了(波动方程也就是偏微分方程的理论是为大多数物理学家所熟悉的,而矩阵在当时则没有多少人懂)。如此则此前在量子领域已辛苦奋斗了十几年的哥本哈根学派就真要吐血了!
  薛定谔方程虽然搞出了这么一个波动方程,却并不能真正理解这个方程精髓之处,而对它的方程给出了一个错误的解释──也许命中注定不该属于他的东西终究就不会让他得到。
  对薛定谔方程的正确解释是有哥本哈根学派的玻恩作出的。(当然玻恩的解释也让物理界另一位大师──爱因斯坦极为震怒,至死也念念不忘“上帝不会用掷色子来决定这个世界的”,此为后话)。
  更基本的量子力学方程,也就是薛定谔试图获得但终究无力企及的的基本理论,则是由根本哈根学派的另一位少壮派弟子──狄拉克导出的,而狄拉克则最终领袖群伦,建起了了量子力学的神殿。

空军刘亚洲中将谈伊拉克战争 分析我军发展方向

 

  记者:在这场战争中,伊拉克人民好像一点也不支持萨达姆的政权。

  刘亚洲:完全不支持。1840年鸦片战争中英国军队在广州遇到的事情今天在伊拉克重演了。当时,英国舰队突破虎门要塞,沿着珠江北上的时候,江两岸聚集了数以万计的当地居民。他们以冷漠的、十分平静的神情观看自己的朝廷与外夷的战事,好似在观看一场与自己毫不相干的争斗。英军官兵目击此景,十分疑惑不解。今天,我们在伊拉克看到的情景有过之而无不及。美军一路猛进,如入无人之境。沿途路不破,桥不炸,雷不埋,有些地方甚至欢迎美军。我们的军事专家一再期待在伊拉克出现人民战争。人民战争固然好听,但它的前提是人民愿意为战争作出牺牲。现在很难说有几个伊拉克人民愿意为保卫萨达姆政权而战、而死。人民战争是指人心背向,更多的是一种政治概念。得民心者才能得人民战争。失民心者只能进行个人战争。萨达姆就是进行的一场个人战争。两伊战争如此,入侵科威特如此,两次海湾战争亦如此。野心家把人民驱入战争。战争最终又毁了野心家。

  记者:你讲的鸦片战争的情形令人惊心动魄。为什么会出现这种情形呢?

  刘亚洲:鸦片战争和伊拉克战争的事实告诉我们:凡是专制政府和贪官政府,一定是内战内行,外战外行。人民不知情时,民心士气尚可一用。人民一旦知情,加上外敌入侵,必定土崩瓦解。美国的心理战就是让伊拉克人民较早地知道了萨达姆是个什么样的人,他的复兴党是个什么样的货色。贪官体制必然造成本国百姓的不满,所以贪官政府的最大任务必然是压制国内的反抗,根本没有对外用兵的余力。从历史上看,贪官政府对外用兵也从来没有取胜的先例。我有过一句话请你记住:国不知有民,民就不知有国。

 

抗变态反应药

  变态反应也称为过敏反应。是机体受同一抗原物质再次刺激后引起的组织损伤或生理功能紊乱的异常免疫反应。变态反应一般分为:速发型变态反应,这类反应与抗体有关;迟发型变态反应,与抗体无关,而与致敏小淋巴细胞有关。按抗原与抗体或细胞反应的方式,以及补体是否参与等,又可将速发型分为I、II、III型变态反应,迟发型作为IV型变态反应。I型变态反应中形成的生物活性物质,主要有:组织胺、5-HT、缓激肽、慢反应物质(SRS-A)。
  组织胺具有使支气管、胃肠道平滑肌收缩、毛细血管扩张、通透性增加、胃酸分泌增加的作用。主要以结合形式贮存于各组织肥大细胞及血中的嗜碱性白细胞和血小板中。组织胺受体分为H1和H2受体。
  5-羟色胺(5-HT)又名血清素,存在于身体各组织,以脑、胃肠道、血小板和肥大细胞含量最高。5-HT具有强心作用于(心率加快、收缩力加强、心输出量增加),除骨骼肌血管和冠脉扩张外,对其他血管增收缩,对支气管、胃肠道、子宫、输精管等平滑肌具有兴奋收缩作用,哮喘病人对5-HT异常敏感。
  正常机体血浆中有激肽原(a2-球蛋白,无活性)。组织损伤时,释放蛋白酶,将激肽原分解产生缓激肽。缓激肽对支气管有很强的收缩作用,也是至今所知最强的血管扩张剂,扩血管和增加毛细血管通透性作用较组织胺强10倍,可刺激感觉神经,引起局部疼痛。
慢反应物质(SRS-A)是一种脂蛋白,通常以结合形式存在于肥大细胞及中性粒细胞中,当受过敏原刺激后即游离出来。生物活性极强,ng量即可发生作用。作用是收缩平滑肌,被认为是人类支气管哮喘发病中的主要生物活性物质,作用慢而持久。但不扩张血管,因而不引起血压下降。

 

表1 变态反应的分型

类 型
  变态反应名称
参与反应成分(除抗原外)
病 例
免疫产物 补体 必要的其它细胞
速发型
(体液免疫)
I 过敏反应 IgE 肥大细胞、嗜碱性白细胞、血小板 支气管哮喘(外源性)、过敏性休克、食物过敏、血清过敏、荨麻疹、枯草热
  II 溶细胞反应 IgG
IgM
+ 嗜中性白细胞、
巨噬细胞
溶血性贫血、粒细胞减少症、血小板减少性紫癜、输血反应、新生儿溶血、肺-肾综合症
  III 免疫复合物反应 IgG
IgM
+ 嗜中性白细胞、
血小板
支气管哮喘(内源性)肾小球肾炎、类风湿性关节炎、全身性红斑狼疮、血清病
迟发型
(细胞免疫)
IV 迟发型变态反应 致敏淋
巴细胞
巨噬细胞、嗜中性白细胞 接触性皮炎、组织移植排斥反应、某些自身免疫性疾病、肿瘤免疫、溃疡性结肠炎
  V 刺激型 IgG   甲状腺机能亢进症
  VI 杀伤型 IgG

K细胞(杀伤甲状腺细胞) 慢性淋巴性甲状腺炎

 

表2 组织胺受体在体内分布、效应及阻断药

组织胺受体
组 织
效 应
阻 断 药
H1
支气管平滑肌
胃肠道平滑肌
血管平滑肌
心房肌
房室结
冠状血管
收缩
收缩
扩张
收缩加强
传导减慢
扩张
抗组织胺药
(H1受体阻断药)
H2
胃壁细胞
血管平滑肌
窦房结
心室肌
胃酸分泌增加
扩张
心率加快
收缩加强
H2受体阻断药
(详见抗溃疡病药)

 

一、抗组织胺药:
1、苯海拉明(可他敏)Diphenhydramine,Benadryl:
抗组织胺药主要是指H1受体阻断药,大多数具有“乙基胺”结构,与组织胺竞争效应细胞上的H1受体而产生抗组织胺作用。本品可消除各种过敏症状,中枢抑制作用显著,可产生镇静催眠作用,但不及异丙嗪。有明显的抗晕止吐作用,这可能与其中枢抑制作用、抗胆碱作用及对前庭神经的抑制作用有关。其抗胆碱作用可缓解支气管痉挛。此外还有局麻作用,局部用于皮肤瘙痒。本品临床主要用于荨麻疹、皮肤瘙痒、过敏性皮炎、过敏性鼻炎、血管神经性水肿、枯草热、晕动病防治及耳源性眩晕等。本品常有嗜睡、头晕等等不良反应,长期应用可引起溶血性贫血,高空作业者不宜服用。
2、异丙嗪(非那根)Promethazine,Phenergan:抗组织胺作用比苯海拉明强而持久。尚有降温作用。临床用于各种过敏性疾病、镇静催眠、防治晕动病及各种原因引起的恶心、呕吐等。本品对支气管平滑肌有轻度松弛作用,又有抗组织胺作用,常作为复方止咳祛痰药的成分。
3、扑尔敏(氯苯吡丙胺)Chlorpheniramine:抗组织胺作用比苯海拉明、异丙嗪强,中枢作用和抗胆碱作用弱。嗜睡反应较轻。尚有抑制胃酸分泌和支气管分泌的作用。临床用于荨麻症、药疹、哮喘、过敏性鼻炎、接触性皮炎、枯草热、虫咬、皮肤瘙痒、感冒、血清病及预防输血反应等。
4、其它H1受体阻断药:氮异丙嗪Isothipendyl、右扑尔敏(右氯苯吡丙胺)Dexchlorpheniramine、安其敏(氯苯丁嗪)Buclizine、美其敏(敏克静,氯苯甲嗪)Meclizine、抗感明(苯吡丙胺)Pheniramine、溴抗感明(溴苯吡丙胺)Brompheniramine、苯茚胺(抗敏胺)Phenindamine、噻庚定Cyproheptadine、苯噻啶Pizotifen,Pizotyline等。
5、酞苦茂异喹Tritoqualine:本品为组织胺脱羧酶抑制剂,能抑制组织胺生成,而产生抗过敏作用。特点是:预防有效,无嗜睡。对已产生症状效果欠佳。适用于各种过敏症、局限性皮肤水肿、荨麻疹及晕动症等。
6、溴羟苄胺Brocresine:作用和用途同上,尚有多巴脱羧酶抑制作用。
7、组织胺球蛋白:本品为人血清丙种球蛋白与盐酸组织胺制剂。可促进体内产生抗组织胺抗体,从而增强血清灭活游离组织胺的能力。适用于荨麻疹、湿疹、局限性皮肤水肿、神经性皮炎、哮喘性支气管炎等过敏性疾病。

二、过敏介质释放抑制药:
1、色甘酸钠Disodium Cromoglycate:
本品稳定细胞膜,阻止胞膜裂解和脱颗粒,从而抑制组织胺、5-HT及慢反应物质的释放有人认为,在速发型过敏反应时,抗原与固着在肥大细胞上的抗体(IgE)相互作用,改变细胞蓦地Ca2+的通透性,打开了肥大细胞膜上的钙闸门,使Ca2+进入细胞,Ca2+与细胞内的ATP一起激活肌动球蛋白系统,促使颗粒中的组织胺与SRS-A等过敏物质释放。色甘酸二钠可能是通过抑制磷酸二酯酶,减少cAMP的分解,使细胞内cAMP水平增加,使Ca2+闸门关闭,即稳定肥大细胞膜,减少Ca2+转运入肥大细胞内,从而抑制组织胺、慢反应物质(SRS-A)等过敏物质的释放,发挥抗过敏作用。主要用于预防季节性哮喘发作,但本品奏效慢,数日甚至数周后才收到防治效果,对正发作哮喘病人无效。本品用于过敏性鼻炎和季节性枯草热,能迅速控制症状。外用于慢性过敏性湿疹及某些皮肤瘙痒症也有显著疗效。
2、酮替芬(甲哌噻庚酮)Ketotifen:作用机理与色甘酸钠相似,但较强。还有很强的抗组织胺作用,兼有阻断组织胺H1受体作用和抑制肥大细胞、嗜碱性白细胞释放组织胺、SRS-A的作用,产生很强的抗过敏作用。用于多种类型的支气管哮喘,均有明显疗效。对过敏性哮喘预防作用优于色甘酸钠。
3、其它:四唑色酮AA-344、丁氮菲酸Bufrolin等。

三、钙剂:
常用钙剂有葡萄糖酸钙、氯化钙、果糖酸钙、维丁胶性钙、乳酸钙、钙素母等。
[作用]
1、抗过敏。
钙离子能增加毛细血管的致密性,降低血管的通透性,减少血浆渗出,从而缓解过敏症状。
2、维持神经-肌肉正常兴奋性。低血钙时,神经肌肉兴奋性增加,易引起手足抽搐症。
3、加强大脑皮层的抑制过程。
4、构成骨骼的主要成分。小儿缺钙可产生佝偻病及软骨病。
5、解痉作用:高浓度钙离子具有松驰平滑肌的作用,静注可用于肾、胆、肠绞痛等。
6、高浓度Ca2+与Mg2+有竞争性拮抗作用。
7、Ca2+参与凝血过程。
[用途]
1、抗过敏:
可用于荨麻疹、湿疹、血清病、血管神经性水肿、接触性皮炎、皮肤瘙痒症等辅助治疗。其中葡萄糖酸钙对组织刺激性较小,而多用。
2、补钙:用于低血钙手足搐搦症、佝偻病、软骨病及大量输血所致的低血钙症。
3、镁盐中毒解救。
4、静注治疗肾、胆、肠绞痛。
[不良反应及注意事项]
氯化钙静注漏出血管外可引起组织坏死,禁用于肌注;钙剂具有心兴奋作用,注射过快可致心律失常;静注时有发热感。
注意葡萄糖钙(含5%氯化钙和25%葡萄糖)与葡萄糖酸钙的区别。

四、免疫抑制剂:
[作用原理]
通过对抗抗原的吞噬及处理、杀伤淋巴细胞及阻止其分化繁殖、抑制抗体合成、阻止补体参与反应及抑制免疫炎症反应等过程而发挥免疫抑制作用。免疫抑制剂既能抑制细胞免疫,也能抑制体液免疫;对初次免疫反应抑制作用较强,故对再次免疫反应剂量较大;作用很大程度上取决于给药时间与抗原刺激时间之间的关系。作用既与单次剂量大小有关,也与给药次数有关。
1、糖皮质激素类:具有较强的免疫抑制作用,可抑制变态反应的多个环节,对各型变态反应都有较好疗效,是抑制免疫反应的首选药物。详见肾上腺皮质激素。
2、环磷酰胺Cyclophosphamide:本品为烃化剂,能破坏DNA的结构和功能,进而抑制RNA和蛋白质的合成,抑制细胞增殖分裂,产生抗免疫作用。是各类药物中免疫抑制作用最强且持久的药物。对淋巴细胞选择性作用较强,可杀伤B淋巴细胞和T淋巴细胞,限制其转化为免疫母细胞,其中对B淋巴细胞作用尤为显著,对迅速增殖的T细胞亚群亦敏感,也能杀伤骨髓中巨噬细胞的母细胞。对体液和细胞免疫均有抑制作用,对抗原刺激前均有效。单时疗效优于甲基强的松龙和硫唑嘌呤,若三药合用疗效最佳。本品免疫抑制作用持久,而抗炎作用较弱,对迟发型超敏反应似乎不起作用。 主要用于治疗各种自身免疫性疾病(如,类风湿关节炎、全身性红斑狼疮、多发性肉芽肿、溃疡性结肠炎、特发性血小板减少性紫癜等),组织器官移植排斥等。不良反应主要是骨髓抑制引起的白细胞和血小板减少、出血性膀胱炎、脱发等。
3、硫唑嘌呤Azathioprine:在体内分解成6-巯基嘌呤,抑制DNA合成,从而抑制淋巴细胞增值。对T淋巴细胞抑制作用较强,小剂量抑制细胞免疫,较大剂量抑制抗体合成,从而抑制体液免疫。本品作用慢而持久。主要用于组织器官移植排斥、自身免疫性疾病。因其不良反应相对较多而严重,通常不作首选。
4、甲氨喋呤Methotrexate:为叶酸的拮抗剂,也是抑制DNA合成,选择性地抑制淋巴细胞增殖,阻止免疫母细胞进一步分裂增殖。在抗原刺激后立即给药,作用最强。尚有很强的抗炎作用。主要用于皮肌炎、多发性肉芽肿、红斑狼疮等自身免疫性疾病。
5、抗淋巴细胞球蛋白Antilymphocytic Globulin,ALG:本品是以人淋巴细胞作用免疫抗原,使马、兔等动物免疫后,分离抗淋巴细胞血清(ALS),再提纯抗体IgG,即为ALG。兔的ALG不良反应较少较轻。主要抑制T淋巴细胞,ALG(作为抗体)选择性地与循环中的淋巴细胞(作为抗原)相结合,在血清补体参与下,使淋巴细胞溶解破坏而减少,对T的抑制作用强于B。物点是对骨髓没有毒性。主要用于组织器官排斥反应,特别是肾移植。但主要是对急性排斥有效,对体液免疫所致的超急性排斥反应无效。也可用于自身免疫性疾病,但长期应用应慎重。
[附]脱敏制剂
1、异种免疫血清(抗毒素):
若皮试阳性,可采用小量多次脱敏注射法。小量过敏原与吸附于肥大细胞或嗜碱性粒细胞膜上的IgE结合,反应释放出少量组织胺、5-HT、SRS-A等生物活性物质,可及时被机体某些物质,如酶等分解。反复注射后,靶细胞上IgE大部分甚至全部被结合消耗,大量过敏原进入时,就不会发生过敏反应,达到暂时脱敏,称为特异性脱敏
2、菌苗制剂:应用金黄色葡萄球菌、绿脓杆菌等制成的自身菌苗或哮喘菌苗。机理可能是多次注射这类菌苗制剂,机体产生大量特异性IgG型循环抗体,使以后进入机体的过敏原先被体液中游离的IgG结合,阻断了过敏原与吸附在肥大细胞或嗜碱性粒细胞表面的IgE结合,从而防止变态反应的发生。用于防治有关的变态反应性疾病。
3、螨注射液Injectio Dermatophagoidei Farini:系由粉尘螨浸出液配制成的灭菌水溶液。为一强烈过敏原,通过少量多次地接触过敏原,使机体产生较多的特异性阻断抗体(IgG),占据肥大细胞及嗜碱性粒细胞抗体与抗原联接位置,产生免疫耐受性,经较长时期治疗后可使IgE减少而脱敏。对过敏性哮喘疗效显著,对异位性皮炎比一般抗组织胺药好。 适用于吸入型哮喘、过敏性鼻炎、异位性皮炎、泛发性湿疹、慢性荨麻疹等。

圈羊却不做栅栏

 
 没有一只羊不期望那碧绿的草原。
因为那里除了可口的青草,还有湛蓝的天。
如果说腐败出自于人的欲望驱使、本性使然,那么贪污受贿后赢得的就是惬意享受的乐园。
皇上道:纪晓岚,你看这密密麻麻的人群究竟有多少人,你给朕数数看。
纪晓岚说:两个,一个叫“名”,一个叫“利”。
皇上无语。因为他知道:世界上有多少人并不重要,重要的是这些人到世界上来干什么?
明白了这一点,皇上就掌握了控制人的诀窍:利益驱动。
这就产生了人与人之间的冲突和纷争。
于是,刀枪剑戟,金戈交鸣,血与火构成了人类族群血腥搏杀的发展史。
我敢说,任何胜利者掌控天下的秘诀都是利益诱使使用得当的结果,“得民心者得天下”口号的发明者,肯定是掌控天下的人,而不是匍匐在其脚下的蝼蚁子民。
因为这个口号的目的,不过是为了证明自己的合法性。从某种意义上来说,是个借口或者说招牌。
这就象凝聚人心的力量是共同利益一样,而不是某一句口号或者政治理念。
这样说的原因很简单:没有人会为一个未来的看不见、摸不着的光环去流血,去拼命。

就像知道羊群离开了栅栏必然会冲到大草原上去吃草的道理一样,无制约的官,必然会欲望膨胀,产生贪污受贿的念头和行为。
然而,我们养羊,我们却不去编制栅栏。
也许有人会说:有啊,我们那么多的法律、法规,你为何说没有“栅栏”?
我要问:你自己编制的那种栏杆“羊群”抬脚就过,那也叫“栅栏”?
我们的想象力太丰富了:老子监督儿子、哥哥监督弟弟、老婆监督丈夫……甚至是“幼儿园”里的娃娃监督父母的绝招都能想出来,就是看不见自己家族外的人。
为了制约官场的腐败,人类发展至今可谓搅尽了脑汁、穷尽了心思,勿庸置疑的是:成果一大堆皆可拿过来使用……但是我们看不见。
于是,口号连天响,腐败却日盛,只见增多不见减。
我不懂得是:为何不让我们来为你们编制栅栏?况且世界上质量更高更为坚固的“栅栏”产品多得是,完全可以拿过来!然而,“羊”儿们还在草原上驰骋,在悠闲的啃着青草。
久而久之,我似乎明白了:任何“栅栏”都不是孤立存在的,他们都是相互之间有机的紧密相联,扯动一根栅栏木,也许会倒下一大片……大约是出于这种惧怕心理,从而不想建栅栏。
我最愿意的事是:我是小人度君子,我这种联想时瞎掰。

盐酸西替利嗪

【品名】盐酸西替利嗪

【英文名】Cetirizine Hydrochloride

【国外商品名】

【化学名】(±)-2-[2-[4-[(4-氯苯基)苯甲基]-1-哌嗪基]乙氧基]乙酸二盐酸盐

【化学结构式】

【分子式】C21H25ClN2O3·2HCl

【分子量】461.8

【类别】化学药品4类

【适应症】适用于呼吸系统、皮肤和眼部过敏性疾病

【项目简介】

本品适用于呼吸系统、皮肤和眼部过敏性疾病,包括常年性变态反应性疾病,如过敏性皮肤病、寻麻疹、 过敏性鼻炎、眼瘙痒、眼结膜炎和哮喘等。本品还用于治疗各种类型皮肤科过敏性疾病。如用于慢性、人工性、寒冷性、迟发压力性、日光性寻麻疹及异位皮炎等的治疗。本品还是蚊虫叮咬引起的速发性风团和速发性丘团及瘙痒的有效药物。

随着现代工业的发展,空气污染日益严重,外界有害物质如种种有害气体、粉尘、致敏微生物和致敏原直接吸入肺部,使呼吸系统疾病(特别是过敏性鼻炎和哮喘)发病率和死亡率都在增加。有统计显示:高达25%的世界人口患有不同类型的过敏性疾病。

盐酸西替利嗪是第二代H1抗组胺药,为长效的具选择性的口服强效抗变态反应药。H1受体拮抗剂具有良好的抗变态反应,常用于过敏性鼻炎、过敏性皮肤瘙痒、结膜炎等。盐酸西替利嗪与其同类药如苯海拉明、异丙嗪、扑尔敏相比,其分子具有极性,极少透过血脑屏障,因而大大减少了中枢镇静作用又因选择性作用于H1 受体,对毒覃碱样胆碱受体和5-HT受体作用甚微,故于抗胆碱能活性相关的副反应也很少。从国内外有关该品使用情况来看,本品具有强抗变态反应活性,对缩小组胺引起的风团面积,本品10mg一片与特菲那定60mg三片等效。本品抑制由组胺介导的变态反应“早期”,并进一步减少与变态反应“晚期”相关的炎症细胞移行和介质释放。花粉过敏引起的病人口服10或15mg ,一日2次,可有效地减少哮喘、呼吸困难和咳嗽症状,且较特非那定60mg,一日2次疗效强。本品起效较阿司咪唑(国内商品名:息斯敏)快,基本不被代谢,耐受性良好。

由于盐酸西替利嗪具有良好的抗过敏作用副反应少且可耐受,具有良好的临床应用前景。但其进口品售价昂贵,不能为广大患者所普遍接受。因此若能通过国内生产,降低其成本,将带来可观的经济利益和社会效益。

本品采用分散片剂型。与其它口服固体制剂相比,分散片集服用方便、吸收快、生物利用度高、不良反应小等优点。它遇水可迅速崩解形成无均匀的混悬液或溶液,但又与泡腾片不同。它的迅速分崩解依赖于崩解剂的选择和使用,未采用泡腾片的泡腾辅料,因此生产和贮存时,对环境因素的要求大大降低,制备工艺也随之简化。目前分散片剂型已成为近来新开发药物剂型选择的一种趋势。

本品于1987年首先在比利时上市,上市18个月后市场占有率已达27%。接着在卢森堡、法国、荷兰、丹麦、爱尔兰、希腊、英国及德国上市,并在意大利、西班牙、瑞士、美国获准注册。

我国已分别以“仙特敏”的商品名从比利时UCB公司和以“赛特赞”的商品名从印度太阳药业有限公司进口盐酸西替利嗪片,故开发研制本品不涉及专利或行政保护事宜。

比较 苏芬战争 中国抗战

 
 
       抗战是我们民族历史上代价空前昂贵的一场战争,光死亡人数就达到了2000万人以上,战争持续了八年,人民流离失所、财产丧失殆尽的不在少数。几乎所有的国内媒介都把民族遭受到的这种惨痛损失归结为中日两国的实力悬殊,好象中国能打到这个地步已经很不错了,我原来也深以为然,直到了解到苏芬战争的情况,了解到芬兰这个远比当时的中国要弱小的小国,面对比日本要强大得多的超级大国苏联的入侵,仍能够抵抗侵略、保卫国家独立的事实以后,才知道大谬不然。我现在为大家列出苏芬战争和中国抗战的比较,请大家也思考一下,对比芬兰这个远比当时的中国要弱小的小国,中国的抗战是不是应该打得更好一些:
    
     1、从敌人(苏联和日本)方面比较:
    
     (1)从军队的武器先进程度方面比较:苏联军队实力和国力远胜与日本,武器也要比日本先进得多,这从苏联和日本步兵师的编制就可以看出:按照苏军1939 年的编制,一个步兵师战时编有16797人,除了3个步兵团外,还编有两个炮兵团为师提供火力支援,整个师共有大、中口径火炮78门、45毫米反坦克炮 36门、76或47毫米高射炮12门、迫击炮30门,各类火炮的总数达到156门,另外,苏军一般的步兵师每个师还配有一个坦克连,拥有坦克17辆,而摩托化步兵师配有一个坦克营,拥有坦克54辆。而日本即使按装备最精良的17个常设师团的配备来看,一个常设师团虽然拥有21945人,但师属的炮兵联队(相当于团)只有一个,整个师团只装备有野山炮64门、步兵炮44门,只有苏联一个步兵师火炮总数的2/3(但苏联一个步兵师比日本一个师团人数要少,人均火力日本与苏联相差就更大了),连反坦克炮、高炮也没有装备,更不用说直属步兵师的装甲车和坦克了;再从单兵装备来讲,日本装备的是三八式步枪,这种步枪的火力之弱,连国军的“中正式”也比不上,而苏联很早就进行了冲锋枪的开发研究,1936年西蒙诺夫冲锋枪就开始量产装备部队,到二战时更成为步兵的普遍装备。从上面的比较可以看出,苏联军队的机械化程度和火力要远远高于日本,而造成这一情况的主要原因就是日本穷,虽然和当时的中国比,小日本可能够强大了,可和其他欧美列强比,实在就差远了,对比苏联1830万吨的钢产量,日本每年只能出产区区400万吨劣质钢,并且大多数钢铁和军费要用来建设海军,这是造成日本陆军装备十分落后的根本原因。日军虽然可以在装备落后的中国步兵面前耀武扬威,但在张鼓峰和诺门坎战役中,面对苏联机械化部队的打击就露了本来面目。在装备精良的苏军装甲部队面前,日军简直不堪一击,甚至出现了以人肉炸弹去对付苏军坦克的绝望举动。在诺门坎战役中,苏军轻而易举就歼灭了日本最精锐的关东军(第6军)数万人,缴获12000余支步枪,200余门火炮,苏日两国陆军的差距由此可见一斑。    
    
     (2)从苏联日本两国用于侵略的人数比较:苏联为了进攻芬兰作了部份性的动员,兵员总数达到54万人,坦克2400辆,大炮1980门,飞机近700架,摆开的是想把芬兰一口吞掉的驾势。1940年11月28日与芬兰绝交,11月30日就开始进攻,到后期更增加到七个集团军120万人,大炮2800门以上,飞机2000架。而日本“七七事变”时在华北只有一个旅团,兵力只有5700余人(注5);在华中的上海驻有海军陆战队4000余人,合计“七七事变”时日军在华北、华南总兵力只有一万人左右,以后逐步增加,到1938年初日军在中国用于对国军作战的总兵力也一共只有15个师团6个旅团50万人左右,比苏联第一次攻击芬兰的兵力还要少,但苏联第一次攻击芬兰动用兵力54万人,屡屡损兵折将,连芬兰的边境也突破不了,而日军仅仅50万人,就可以长驱直入,仅几个月时间,接连占领我国河北、察哈尔、绥远、山西、山东、江苏、浙江的大片领土,连首都南京也被日军占领。到八年抗战结束,日军针对中国作战的总人数也只有36个师团、41个独立旅团,总兵力108万人,坦克只有383辆,飞机堪用者只有291架,不仅人数还不如侵略芬兰的苏军最后的兵力,技术装备更是大大不如。
    
     (3)从投入的突然性上比较:苏联攻打芬兰时,1939年11月28日与芬兰断交,11月30日立刻就发动54万大军从四个方向攻击,根本不给芬兰喘息的机会。而日本攻打中国由于军方和政府意见不一,是逐步增加力量,采用的是添油战术:“七七事变”时华北日军只有一个旅团,到7月28日才增援一个师团到达平津,“八一三”时上海日本驻军只有海军陆战队5000余人,8月23日才增援2个师团在吴淞一带登陆,10月1日再增援3个师团到上海,11月又在金山投入三个师团、在吴淞投入一个师团,日军15个师团是逐步到位的,这种兵力投入实在是兵家大忌,不仅给了中国军队充分的准备时间,而且也极易给国军各个击破。
    
       2、从已方的实力(芬兰和中国)比较:
    
     (1)从国家的历史条件比较:中国有五千年文明历史,而芬兰1060年时还处于原始社会,与中国文明不可同日而语。1840年以后中国进入半殖民地社会,可是,国家的基本本主权仍然存在,芬兰在1809年就被最野蛮的帝国主义国家沙皇俄国占领,环境比中国恶劣得多,通过不断的斗争才在1917年沙皇俄国崩溃后获得独立,立国第一天就遭遇苏联干涉,内战打了3年,可以说,中国的历史条件比芬兰要好的多。
    
     (2)从军队的数量和装备比较:中国抗战前有正规军就有182个师,总兵力超过200万人,而芬兰全国人口只有370万人,国防军总数只有33000人,只有中国军队的六十分之一。而从装备看,中国军队经过抗战前德国顾问不断的整训,武器装备已相当可观:在轻武器方面,1935年国军开始大量装备毛瑟枪,这种枪即使在二战中也是德军主要装备,其性能比日军的三八枪好得多;日军的歪把子机枪也不如国军的好用,后来日军都改装相似的九六式轻机枪;日军的九二式重机枪弹板供弹,必须两人才能射击,且易卡壳,而国军的各类马克辛除需水冷外,可靠性好得多,可见从步兵枪械看,国军是不亚于日军的;在火炮这方面,中国的现代后装火炮制造始于清末,到民国时期,火炮改进不少,称为民式火炮,如沪厂出的七五野战炮等,总之,抗战前夕,中国在生产和装备了各国火炮,其口径为七十五轻型火炮居多,除了数量不如日本陆军装备得多以外,在性能上是毫不逊色的。再加上1934年后大量的德国重装备开始运到中国,充实了中国部队的实力。而反观芬兰陆军的装备,还停留在一次大战的水平上,大炮大部份是1900年前后的轻炮,坦克只有二十八辆一次大战时法国雷诺战车,和十辆左右比较现代的轻战车,芬兰唯一比较先进的只有在步兵轻武器方面,配备的是30型步枪,准确性较高;另外还有不少苏米冲锋枪。可见,无论从军队的数量还是装备来看,中国都要胜过芬兰。
 
     (3)从国家的军事潜力比较:中国国土广大,人口众多,当时人口45000万人,领土面积1140万平方公里,地理环境复杂,地势险要,地域广大,可以以空间换时间,为抗战留下了充分的周旋空间;人口众多,为动员提供了充分的人力来源,备战条件优越。而芬兰全国领土面积只有44万平方公里,人口只有370 万人,且国土的大部分地区位于北极圈内,人口大量集中的南部沿海又是苏联重点打击的目标,国土狭小,根本没有战略空间;人口不多,无法提供足够的兵源,条件比中国恶劣得多。
 
     (4)从准备时间看:中国抗日,从1931年“九一八”到1937年,有6年时间准备,抗战前中国利用德国援助,除地方部队外,共完成了15个调整师和 24个整理师的整编,30万官兵接受了德式装备。1937年“七七事变”以后,在日本对平津发起大规模进攻前,也还有20天时间可以应变。而苏联攻打芬兰时,1939年11月28日与芬兰断交,11月30日即发动54万大军从四个方向越过国境线向芬兰进攻,根本不给芬兰喘息的机会,芬兰根本无从准备。
  
      3、结果比较:
    
       从以上分析,芬兰起点比我国低,人口和军队比我国少得多,国土狭小,根本没有战略空间,而敌人苏联又远比日本强大,军队机械化程度高,人数也多,又是突然袭击,条件比我国抗战要恶劣得多。然而,芬兰抗击苏军,自1940年11月到次年3月和约签订,不过四个月,使苏军遭到了惨重的损失,莫洛托夫向最高苏维埃报告的红军伤亡数字为:死亡48745人,伤158863人,这还只是一个大大缩水的数字,根据赫鲁晓夫的回忆录透露,苏军实际在苏芬战争中损失上百万人,死亡20万人以上,苏军全建制被芬军歼灭的就有苏军第163师、第44师、第18师、第34坦克旅、西伯利亚滑雪旅,第54师、第168师,第122 师和第88师被芬军歼灭大半,而芬兰军队只23150人阵亡,47550人受伤。更可贵的是,芬军通过战争,彻底打消了苏联企图吞并芬兰的企图,苏联一开始进攻芬兰是志在必得,连傀儡政府也准备好了,就想把芬兰象其它波罗的海国家一样吞掉,但苏芬战争的惨重代价使苏联不得不正视现实,,重新与芬兰政府谈判和约。芬兰通过战争避免了与其它波罗的海国家一起被并入苏联的命运,最后虽对苏联作出一些妥协,但基本保证了国家的独立和人民的自由,战后,芬兰凭自己的力量发展起来,目前已成为世界上人民生活水平最高、福利条件最好的国家之一。而日本原来对并吞中国心里没底,“七七事变”后日本政府一直在要求军方不要扩大战线,但日军的长驱直入刺激了日本政府的侵略野心,日军1937年7月开始陆续增加到15个师团,在4个月左右的时间里竟然能连占河北、察哈尔、绥远、山西、山东、江苏、浙江各省的大片领土,1937年12月攻占了首都南京,日本因此得寸进尺妄图灭亡中国,1938年1月,日本政府正式宣言不与蒋介石政府举行和平谈判,妄图通过扶植傀儡政权一举控制中国,抗战一直打了八年,中国军队节节败退,1944年甚至出现十万日军狂追几千里,从河南一直追到贵州独山的豫湘桂大溃败,最后靠苏联进军东北和美国的原子弹打倒日本,中国才算是获得了抗战胜利。但抗战期间中国共伤亡3500万人,财产的损失更是不可胜记,尤其抗战期间软弱涣散的军队,不仅刺激了日军的侵略胃口,连苏联也觉得可以来趁些便宜,结果苏联借进军东北的机会以索取援助中国抗战的代价为由要求中国承认外蒙古独立及苏联在东北的特权,中国的领土面积因此减少了150万平方公里公里,是芬兰丧失领土的30倍以上,旅顺、大连、南满铁路还被苏联强行租借。中国抗战一共付出了3500万人伤亡(其中绝大部分是平民)和150万平方公里土地损失的巨大代价,国军在正面战场却才杀伤日军53万人,杀死日军的数目更是在20万以下,也就是说,中国几百万国军抗战八年,付出了3500万同胞伤亡的惨重代价,结果杀伤敌人的数字连芬军在苏芬战争中4个月时间内杀伤的敌军人数都不到,而芬军付出的代价只有不到七万军人伤亡,平民的损失就更小了,只有1800人死于轰炸。
  
 4、我们的思考:
    
     芬兰是以寡敌众,结果不仅及时制止了苏联的侵略,保卫了国家民族的独立,而且还杀伤了大量敌人,为国家在国际上赢得了声誉,自己平民的损失也不大;而中国以众击寡,总兵力是日本的几倍,却连战连败,不断刺激日本侵略的胃口,抗战打了八年,结果虽然靠苏联进军东北和美国的原子弹打倒日本获得了胜利,但却被自己的盟国苏联敲诈丧失了外蒙古150万平方公里土地,更重要的是付出了比芬兰多500倍的代价,牺牲了同胞3500万人,其中绝大部分是平民,而换来杀伤日军的战果只有53万(指正面战场),我们扪心自问,抗战是不是如“一寸山河一寸血”里所说是“实力悬殊太大”、“我们已尽了全力”。如果说实力悬殊太大,我们和日本与芬兰和苏联比哪一个悬殊大,而我们已尽了全力云者,与芬兰的战果相比,我们作得真是太不够了。
    
    芬兰能打的比中国好,主要是因为芬兰真正把国民当人看,真正爱护人民。芬兰在独立之初,与中国一样是个农业国,农业人口在独立之初占百分之六十六,而这百分之六十六的农业人口中无地佃农又占百分之七十六,贫富极其悬殊。芬兰国家独立以后,无地农民就成了政府重点关怀的对象,1918年,政府公布了土地改革法案,规定由政府先垫付资金向土地所有者买下土地交给耕种的佃农,再由佃农分年偿还,土地改革法案彻底改变了芬兰农村贫富悬殊的局面,到1930年,农村小土地占有者占总农业人口的百分之九十四,彻底解决了无地佃农的问题。而对一般居民,芬兰于1917年国家一独立就公布了八小时工作制的法律,不久,关于工伤事故、年老和残废者的保险、产妇补助、贫穷儿童的照管和失业救济等一系列的法律也制订了,有人担心政府没有钱来支付这一庞大的福利计划,问当时力主该计划的曼内海姆将军钱从那里来,将军回答说把军队从10万人降低到1万人,节约了军费自然就有钱了,那人大为担心,担心军队少了苏联会乘机打进来,将军回答:“苏联人来了,我们大家和他拼命就是了,总不能让他们伤害到人民。但如果现在不实行福利制度,那我们与苏联人又有什么区别呢,国家等于是还没有建立,又谈何保卫呢”。在芬兰国家独立后的二十年时间里,国家关怀每一个公民,尽一切努力去帮助他,真正尽到国家的责任,芬兰的经济不断发展、社会日益平等,到 1939年,社会一半的财富掌握在工人、农民手里,芬兰被称为“工人和农民的社会”、“一般劳动者的共和国”,国家能作到真正由普通的劳动者来管理,人民还有什么不放心的呢。所以到1939年苏联进攻时,芬兰人民就象保卫家一样保卫国家,因为芬兰真正是他们自己的国家。他们保卫芬兰,实际就是在保卫自己的八小时工作制、义务教育制度、国民生老病残全面保险福利制度。这种制度激发出来的强大力量,即使是强大如苏联强硬如斯大林者也抵挡不住,斯大林摊上这么一个生而自由的芬兰邻居真是倒了八辈子霉了。
    
    而当时中国的情况则完全不同,当时统治中国的,是腐败买办官僚集团,这个集团一方面要抗日,要维护民族的尊严,其实也就是他们自己的尊严;另一方面,这个集团平时却过惯了腐化堕落、贪污受贿的日子,该拿的地方他们是一点也不肯少拿的。1942年2月7日美国国会批准无条件向中国贷款5亿美元,到1943年底,中国政府提取了约一半的2.4亿美元,但根据美国财政部的调查资料,中国政府提取的2.4亿美元中有8000万美元已经存入了孔祥熙等人的个人帐号上,美国人对中国官员“公私不分”使用国家资金的方式非常恼火,结果蒋介石要求的10亿美元贷款1分也没有得到,而且罗斯福还决定,美国用于中国战场的开支每月将限制在2500万美元以内。中国抗战并非真的没有钱。据美国方面调查,当时中国富人在美国银行的存款约有33亿美元,如把这些富人的存款拿出来充作军用,足够再抗战5年,但支持重庆国府的腐败买办阶层不肯自己出钱打仗,却利用战争向美国伸手要钱,这让美国人十分反感,美国国会自1942年2月批准向中国无条件贷款5亿美元后,再也没有批准向中国贷款一美元。1942 年6月美国与中国签订《租借协定》,向中国提供价值为35亿美元的军用物质,但这些援助物质,被腐败的政府官员们视为“唐僧肉”,大家都试图从这里捞一把,装满战略物质的卡车从印缅公路开进中国后,有很大一部分便下落不明了,不久这些战略物质就出现在黑市上,不少军用物资还通过走私的方式卖给了日本人。史迪威把国民党政府对军用物质的走私贪污称为“二战中最大的丑闻”。统治集团这么腐败,其他官员上行下效,乘战争之机搜刮民财,甚至军队也不例外。一个不关心自己国民的国家,能得到其它国家的尊重吗,一个腐败贪婪的统治阶级,能领导全民族进行殊死的抗战吗,一个只知道搜刮掠夺国民却从不知道关心照顾国民的国家,国民会对他效忠吗。
    
    其实,从芬兰和中国对国民的不同态度上,已经可以得出这两场战争结果迥然不同的原因了。苏芬战争结束后,对国民在战争中的损失,包括人民在战争中自发坚壁清野的损失和从苏占区搬出的难民被迫放弃的资产,由芬兰政府包赔,其中损失在6500芬兰马克以下的政府全额赔偿,金额往上则赔偿比例逐级递减,100万芬兰马克以上赔偿10%,这才是真正为国民着想、视国民为主人的国家,这样的国家,没办法不富裕、没办法不繁荣、没办法不强大。

Talk at Bellcore, 7 March 1986

Richard Hamming
 
 
The title of my talk is, "You and Your Research.” It is not about managing research, it is about how you individually do your research. I could give a talk on the other subject– but it’s not, it’s about you. I’m not talking about ordinary run-of-the-mill research; I’m talking about great research. And for the sake of describing great research I’ll occasionally say Nobel-Prize type of work. It doesn’t have to gain the Nobel Prize, but I mean those kinds of things which we perceive are significant things. Relativity, if you want, Shannon’s information theory, any number of outstanding theories– that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
 
Now, how did I come to do this study? At Los Alamos I was brought in to run the computing machines which other people had got going, so those scientists and physicists could get back to business. I saw I was a stooge. I saw that although physically I was the same, they were different. And to put the thing bluntly, I was envious. I wanted to know why they were so different from me. I saw Feynman up close. I saw Fermi and Teller. I saw Oppenheimer. I saw Hans Bethe: he was my boss. I saw quite a few very capable people. I became very interested in the difference between those who do and those who might have done.
 
When I came to Bell Labs, I came into a very productive department. Bode was the department head at the time; Shannon was there, and there were other people. I continued examining the questions, “Why?” and “What is the difference?” I continued subsequently by reading biographies, autobiographies, asking people questions such as: “How did you come to do this?” I tried to find out what are the differences. And that’s what this talk is about.
 
Now, why is this talk important? I think it is important because, as far as I know, each of you has one life to live. Even if you believe in reincarnation it doesn’t do you any good from one life to the next! Why shouldn’t you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I’m not going to define it – you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I’ve been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science.
 
In order to get at you individually, I must talk in the first person. I have to get you to drop modesty and say to yourself, “Yes, I would like to do first-class work.” Our society frowns on people who set out to do really good work. You’re not supposed to; luck is supposed to descend on you and you do great things by chance. Well, that’s a kind of dumb thing to say. I say, why shouldn’t you set out to do something significant. You don’t have to tell other people, but shouldn’t you say to yourself, “Yes, I would like to do something significant.”
 
In order to get to the second stage, I have to drop modesty and talk in the first person about what I’ve seen, what I’ve done, and what I’ve heard. I’m going to talk about people, some of whom you know, and I trust that when we leave, you won’t quote me as saying some of the things I said.
 
Let me start not logically, but psychologically. I find that the major objection is that people think great science is done by luck. It’s all a matter of luck. Well, consider Einstein. Note how many different things he did that were good. Was it all luck? Wasn’t it a little too repetitive? Consider Shannon. He didn’t do just information theory. Several years before, he did some other good things and some which are still locked up in the security of cryptography. He did many good things.
 
You see again and again, that it is more than one thing from a good person. Once in a while a person does only one thing in his whole life, and we’ll talk about that later, but a lot of times there is repetition. I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, “Luck favors the prepared mind.” And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn’t. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not.
 
For example, when I came to Bell Labs, I shared an office for a while with Shannon. At the same time he was doing information theory, I was doing coding theory. It is suspicious that the two of us did it at the same place and at the same time – it was in the atmosphere. And you can say, “Yes, it was luck.” On the other hand you can say, “But why of all the people in Bell Labs then were those the two who did it?” Yes, it is partly luck, and partly it is the prepared mind; but `partly’ is the other thing I’m going to talk about. So, although I’ll come back several more times to luck, I want to dispose of this matter of luck as being the sole criterion whether you do great work or not. I claim you have some, but not total, control over it. And I will quote, finally, Newton on the matter. Newton said, “If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results.”
 
One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them. For example, Einstein, somewhere around 12 or 14, asked himself the question, “What would a light wave look like if I went with the velocity of light to look at it?” Now he knew that electromagnetic theory says you cannot have a stationary local maximum. But if he moved along with the velocity of light, he would see a local maximum. He could see a contradiction at the age of 12, 14, or somewhere around there, that everything was not right and that the velocity of light had something peculiar. Is it luck that he finally created special relativity? Early on, he had laid down some of the pieces by thinking of the fragments. Now that’s the necessary but not sufficient condition. All of these items I will talk about are both luck and not luck.
 
How about having lots of `brains?’ It sounds good. Most of you in this room probably have more than enough brains to do first-class work. But great work is something else than mere brains. Brains are measured in various ways. In mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, typically brains correlates to a great extent with the ability to manipulate symbols. And so the typical IQ test is apt to score them fairly high. On the other hand, in other fields it is something different. For example, Bill Pfann, the fellow who did zone melting, came into my office one day. He had this idea dimly in his mind about what he wanted and he had some equations. It was pretty clear to me that this man didn’t know much mathematics and he wasn’t really articulate. His problem seemed interesting so I took it home and did a little work. I finally showed him how to run computers so he could compute his own answers. I gave him the power to compute. He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department, but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field. Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways. Certainly he became much more articulate.
 
And I can cite another person in the same way. I trust he isn’t in the audience, i.e. a fellow named Clogston. I met him when I was working on a problem with John Pierce’s group and I didn’t think he had much. I asked my friends who had been with him at school, “Was he like that in graduate school?” “Yes,” they replied. Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage.
One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can’t, almost surely you are not going to. Courage is one of the things that Shannon had supremely. You have only to think of his major theorem. He wants to create a method of coding, but he doesn’t know what to do so he makes a random code. Then he is stuck. And then he asks the impossible question, “What would the average random code do?” He then proves that the average code is arbitrarily good, and that therefore there must be at least one good code. Who but a man of infinite courage could have dared to think those thoughts? That is the characteristic of great scientists; they have courage. They will go forward under incredible circumstances; they think and continue to think.
 
Age is another factor which the physicists particularly worry about. They always are saying that you have got to do it when you are young or you will never do it. Einstein did things very early, and all the quantum mechanic fellows were disgustingly young when they did their best work. Most mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and astrophysicists do what we consider their best work when they are young. It is not that they don’t do good work in their old age but what we value most is often what they did early. On the other hand, in music, politics and literature, often what we consider their best work was done late. I don’t know how whatever field you are in fits this scale, but age has some effect.
 
But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, “I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.” Well I said to myself, “That is nice.” But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems.
 
When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn’t the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren’t good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
 
This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks – they did some of the best physics ever.
 
I give you a story from my own private life. Early on it became evident to me that Bell Laboratories was not going to give me the conventional acre of programming people to program computing machines in absolute binary. It was clear they weren’t going to. But that was the way everybody did it. I could go to the West Coast and get a job with the airplane companies without any trouble, but the exciting people were at Bell Labs and the fellows out there in the airplane companies were not. I thought for a long while about, “Did I want to go or not?” and I wondered how I could get the best of two possible worlds. I finally said to myself, “Hamming, you think the machines can do practically everything. Why can’t you make them write programs?” What appeared at first to me as a defect forced me into automatic programming very early. What appears to be a fault, often, by a change of viewpoint, turns out to be one of the greatest assets you can have. But you are not likely to think that when you first look the thing and say, “Gee, I’m never going to get enough programmers, so how can I ever do any great programming?”
 
And there are many other stories of the same kind; Grace Hopper has similar ones. I think that if you look carefully you will see that often the great scientists, by turning the problem around a bit, changed a defect to an asset. For example, many scientists when they found they couldn’t do a problem finally began to study why not. They then turned it around the other way and said, “But of course, this is what it is” and got an important result. So ideal working conditions are very strange. The ones you want aren’t always the best ones for you.
 
Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode’s office and said, “How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?” He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, “You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.” I simply slunk out of the office!
 
What Bode was saying was this: “Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.” Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity – it is very much like compound interest. I don’t want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode’s remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don’t like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There’s no question about this.
 
On this matter of drive Edison says, “Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.” He may have been exaggerating, but the idea is that solid work, steadily applied, gets you surprisingly far. The steady application of effort with a little bit more work, intelligently applied is what does it. That’s the trouble; drive, misapplied, doesn’t get you anywhere. I’ve often wondered why so many of my good friends at Bell Labs who worked as hard or harder than I did, didn’t have so much to show for it. The misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough – it must be applied sensibly.
 
There’s another trait on the side which I want to talk about; that trait is ambiguity. It took me a while to discover its importance. Most people like to believe something is or is not true. Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you’ll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won’t get started. It requires a lovely balance. But most great scientists are well aware of why their theories are true and they are also well aware of some slight misfits which don’t quite fit and they don’t forget it. Darwin writes in his autobiography that he found it necessary to write down every piece of evidence which appeared to contradict his beliefs because otherwise they would disappear from his mind. When you find apparent flaws you’ve got to be sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep an eye out for how they can be explained or how the theory can be changed to fit them. Those are often the great contributions. Great contributions are rarely done by adding another decimal place. It comes down to an emotional commitment. Most great scientists are completely committed to their problem. Those who don’t become committed seldom produce outstanding, first-class work.
 
Now again, emotional commitment is not enough. It is a necessary condition apparently. And I think I can tell you the reason why. Everybody who has studied creativity is driven finally to saying, “creativity comes out of your subconscious.” Somehow, suddenly, there it is. It just appears. Well, we know very little about the subconscious; but one thing you are pretty well aware of is that your dreams also come out of your subconscious. And you’re aware your dreams are, to a fair extent, a reworking of the experiences of the day. If you are deeply immersed and committed to a topic, day after day after day, your subconscious has nothing to do but work on your problem. And so you wake up one morning, or on some afternoon, and there’s the answer. For those who don’t get committed to their current problem, the subconscious goofs off on other things and doesn’t produce the big result. So the way to manage yourself is that when you have a real important problem you don’t let anything else get the center of your attention – you keep your thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious starved so it has to work on your problem, so you can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the morning, free.
 
Now Alan Chynoweth mentioned that I used to eat at the physics table. I had been eating with the mathematicians and I found out that I already knew a fair amount of mathematics; in fact, I wasn’t learning much. The physics table was, as he said, an exciting place, but I think he exaggerated on how much I contributed. It was very interesting to listen to Shockley, Brattain, Bardeen, J. B. Johnson, Ken McKay and other people, and I was learning a lot. But unfortunately a Nobel Prize came, and a promotion came, and what was left was the dregs. Nobody wanted what was left. Well, there was no use eating with them!
Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, “Do you mind if I join you?” They can’t say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, “What are the important problems of your field?” And after a week or so, “What important problems are you working on?” And after some more time I came in one day and said, “If what you are doing is not important, and if you don’t think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?” I wasn’t welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring.
 
In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, “Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven’t changed my research,” he says, “but I think it was well worthwhile.” And I said, “Thank you Dave,” and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, “What are the important problems in my field?”
 
If you do not work on an important problem, it’s unlikely you’ll do important work. It’s perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem’ must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn’t work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It’s not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don’t work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn’t believe that they will lead to important problems.
 
I spoke earlier about planting acorns so that oaks will grow. You can’t always know exactly where to be, but you can keep active in places where something might happen. And even if you believe that great science is a matter of luck, you can stand on a mountain top where lightning strikes; you don’t have to hide in the valley where you’re safe. But the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn’t produce much. It’s that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea.
 
Along those lines at some urging from John Tukey and others, I finally adopted what I called “Great Thoughts Time.” When I went to lunch Friday noon, I would only discuss great thoughts after that. By great thoughts I mean ones like: “What will be the role of computers in all of AT&T?”, “How will computers change science?” For example, I came up with the observation at that time that nine out of ten experiments were done in the lab and one in ten on the computer. I made a remark to the vice presidents one time, that it would be reversed, i.e. nine out of ten experiments would be done on the computer and one in ten in the lab. They knew I was a crazy mathematician and had no sense of reality. I knew they were wrong and they’ve been proved wrong while I have been proved right. They built laboratories when they didn’t need them. I saw that computers were transforming science because I spent a lot of time asking “What will be the impact of computers on science and how can I change it?” I asked myself, “How is it going to change Bell Labs?” I remarked one time, in the same address, that more than one-half of the people at Bell Labs will be interacting closely with computing machines before I leave. Well, you all have terminals now. I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things.
 
Most great scientists know many important problems. They have something between 10 and 20 important problems for which they are looking for an attack. And when they see a new idea come up, one hears them say “Well that bears on this problem.” They drop all the other things and get after it. Now I can tell you a horror story that was told to me but I can’t vouch for the truth of it. I was sitting in an airport talking to a friend of mine from Los Alamos about how it was lucky that the fission experiment occurred over in Europe when it did because that got us working on the atomic bomb here in the US. He said “No; at Berkeley we had gathered a bunch of data; we didn’t get around to reducing it because we were building some more equipment, but if we had reduced that data we would have found fission.” They had it in their hands and they didn’t pursue it. They came in second!
 
The great scientists, when an opportunity opens up, get after it and they pursue it. They drop all other things. They get rid of other things and they get after an idea because they had already thought the thing through. Their minds are prepared; they see the opportunity and they go after it. Now of course lots of times it doesn’t work out, but you don’t have to hit many of them to do some great science. It’s kind of easy. One of the chief tricks is to live a long time!
 
Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don’t know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, “The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.” I don’t know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing – not much, but enough that they miss fame.
 
I want to talk on another topic. It is based on the song which I think many of you know, “It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it.” I’ll start with an example of my own. I was conned into doing on a digital computer, in the absolute binary days, a problem which the best analog computers couldn’t do. And I was getting an answer. When I thought carefully and said to myself, “You know, Hamming, you’re going to have to file a report on this military job; after you spend a lot of money you’re going to have to account for it and every analog installation is going to want the report to see if they can’t find flaws in it.” I was doing the required integration by a rather crummy method, to say the least, but I was getting the answer. And I realized that in truth the problem was not just to get the answer; it was to demonstrate for the first time, and beyond question, that I could beat the analog computer on its own ground with a digital machine. I reworked the method of solution, created a theory which was nice and elegant, and changed the way we computed the answer; the results were no different. The published report had an elegant method which was later known for years as “Hamming’s Method of Integrating Differential Equations.” It is somewhat obsolete now, but for a while it was a very good method. By changing the problem slightly, I did important work rather than trivial work.
 
In the same way, when using the machine up in the attic in the early days, I was solving one problem after another after another; a fair number were successful and there were a few failures. I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn’t happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another. After quite a while of thinking I decided, “No, I should be in the mass production of a variable product. I should be concerned with all of next year’s problems, not just the one in front of my face.” By changing the question I still got the same kind of results or better, but I changed things and did important work. I attacked the major problem – How do I conquer machines and do all of next year’s problems when I don’t know what they are going to be? How do I prepare for it? How do I do this one so I’ll be on top of it? How do I obey Newton’s rule? He said, “If I have seen further than others, it is because I’ve stood on the shoulders of giants.” These days we stand on each other’s feet!
 
You should do your job in such a fashion that others can build on top of it, so they will indeed say, “Yes, I’ve stood on so and so’s shoulders and I saw further.” The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class.
 
Now if you are much of a mathematician you know that the effort to generalize often means that the solution is simple. Often by stopping and saying, “This is the problem he wants but this is characteristic of so and so. Yes, I can attack the whole class with a far superior method than the particular one because I was earlier embedded in needless detail.” The business of abstraction frequently makes things simple. Furthermore, I filed away the methods and prepared for the future problems.
 
To end this part, I’ll remind you, “It is a poor workman who blames his tools – the good man gets on with the job, given what he’s got, and gets the best answer he can.” And I suggest that by altering the problem, by looking at the thing differently, you can make a great deal of difference in your final productivity because you can either do it in such a fashion that people can indeed build on what you’ve done, or you can do it in such a fashion that the next person has to essentially duplicate again what you’ve done. It isn’t just a matter of the job, it’s the way you write the report, the way you write the paper, the whole attitude. It’s just as easy to do a broad, general job as one very special case. And it’s much more satisfying and rewarding!
 
I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. `Selling’ to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It’s very ugly; you shouldn’t have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you’ve done, read it, and come back and say, “Yes, that was good.” I suggest that when you open a journal, as you turn the pages, you ask why you read some articles and not others. You had better write your report so when it is published in the Physical Review, or wherever else you want it, as the readers are turning the pages they won’t just turn your pages but they will stop and read yours. If they don’t stop and read it, you won’t get credit.
 
There are three things you have to do in selling. You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks. We had a lot of so-called `back room scientists.’ In a conference, they would keep quiet. Three weeks later after a decision was made they filed a report saying why you should do so and so. Well, it was too late. They would not stand up right in the middle of a hot conference, in the middle of activity, and say, “We should do this for these reasons.” You need to master that form of communication as well as prepared speeches.
 
When I first started, I got practically physically ill while giving a speech, and I was very, very nervous. I realized I either had to learn to give speeches smoothly or I would essentially partially cripple my whole career. The first time IBM asked me to give a speech in New York one evening, I decided I was going to give a really good speech, a speech that was wanted, not a technical one but a broad one, and at the end if they liked it, I’d quietly say, “Any time you want one I’ll come in and give you one.” As a result, I got a great deal of practice giving speeches to a limited audience and I got over being afraid. Furthermore, I could also then study what methods were effective and what were ineffective.
 
While going to meetings I had already been studying why some papers are remembered and most are not. The technical person wants to give a highly limited technical talk. Most of the time the audience wants a broad general talk and wants much more survey and background than the speaker is willing to give. As a result, many talks are ineffective. The speaker names a topic and suddenly plunges into the details he’s solved. Few people in the audience may follow. You should paint a general picture to say why it’s important, and then slowly give a sketch of what was done. Then a larger number of people will say, “Yes, Joe has done that,” or “Mary has done that; I really see where it is; yes, Mary really gave a good talk; I understand what Mary has done.” The tendency is to give a highly restricted, safe talk; this is usually ineffective. Furthermore, many talks are filled with far too much information. So I say this idea of selling is obvious.
 
Let me summarize. You’ve got to work on important problems. I deny that it is all luck, but I admit there is a fair element of luck. I subscribe to Pasteur’s “Luck favors the prepared mind.” I favor heavily what I did. Friday afternoons for years – great thoughts only – means that I committed 10% of my time trying to understand the bigger problems in the field, i.e. what was and what was not important. I found in the early days I had believed `this’ and yet had spent all week marching in `that’ direction. It was kind of foolish. If I really believe the action is over there, why do I march in this direction? I either had to change my goal or change what I did. So I changed something I did and I marched in the direction I thought was important. It’s that easy.
 
Now you might tell me you haven’t got control over what you have to work on. Well, when you first begin, you may not. But once you’re moderately successful, there are more people asking for results than you can deliver and you have some power of choice, but not completely. I’ll tell you a story about that, and it bears on the subject of educating your boss. I had a boss named Schelkunoff; he was, and still is, a very good friend of mine. Some military person came to me and demanded some answers by Friday. Well, I had already dedicated my computing resources to reducing data on the fly for a group of scientists; I was knee deep in short, small, important problems. This military person wanted me to solve his problem by the end of the day on Friday. I said, “No, I’ll give it to you Monday. I can work on it over the weekend. I’m not going to do it now.” He goes down to my boss, Schelkunoff, and Schelkunoff says, “You must run this for him; he’s got to have it by Friday.” I tell him, “Why do I?”; he says, “You have to.” I said, “Fine, Sergei, but you’re sitting in your office Friday afternoon catching the late bus home to watch as this fellow walks out that door.” I gave the military person the answers late Friday afternoon. I then went to Schelkunoff’s office and sat down; as the man goes out I say, “You see Schelkunoff, this fellow has nothing under his arm; but I gave him the answers.” On Monday morning Schelkunoff called him up and said, “Did you come in to work over the weekend?” I could hear, as it were, a pause as the fellow ran through his mind of what was going to happen; but he knew he would have had to sign in, and he’d better not say he had when he hadn’t, so he said he hadn’t. Ever after that Schelkunoff said, “You set your deadlines; you can change them.”
 
One lesson was sufficient to educate my boss as to why I didn’t want to do big jobs that displaced exploratory research and why I was justified in not doing crash jobs which absorb all the research computing facilities. I wanted instead to use the facilities to compute a large number of small problems. Again, in the early days, I was limited in computing capacity and it was clear, in my area, that a “mathematician had no use for machines.” But I needed more machine capacity. Every time I had to tell some scientist in some other area, “No I can’t; I haven’t the machine capacity,” he complained. I said “Go tell your Vice President that Hamming needs more computing capacity.” After a while I could see what was happening up there at the top; many people said to my Vice President, “Your man needs more computing capacity.” I got it!
 
I also did a second thing. When I loaned what little programming power we had to help in the early days of computing, I said, “We are not getting the recognition for our programmers that they deserve. When you publish a paper you will thank that programmer or you aren’t getting any more help from me. That programmer is going to be thanked by name; she’s worked hard.” I waited a couple of years. I then went through a year of BSTJ articles and counted what fraction thanked some programmer. I took it into the boss and said, “That’s the central role computing is playing in Bell Labs; if the BSTJ is important, that’s how important computing is.” He had to give in. You can educate your bosses. It’s a hard job. In this talk I’m only viewing from the bottom up; I’m not viewing from the top down. But I am telling you how you can get what you want in spite of top management. You have to sell your ideas there also.
 
Well I now come down to the topic, “Is the effort to be a great scientist worth it?” To answer this, you must ask people. When you get beyond their modesty, most people will say, “Yes, doing really first-class work, and knowing it, is as good as wine, women and song put together,” or if it’s a woman she says, “It is as good as wine, men and song put together.” And if you look at the bosses, they tend to come back or ask for reports, trying to participate in those moments of discovery. They’re always in the way. So evidently those who have done it, want to do it again. But it is a limited survey. I have never dared to go out and ask those who didn’t do great work how they felt about the matter. It’s a biased sample, but I still think it is worth the struggle. I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion.
 
I’ve told you how to do it. It is so easy, so why do so many people, with all their talents, fail? For example, my opinion, to this day, is that there are in the mathematics department at Bell Labs quite a few people far more able and far better endowed than I, but they didn’t produce as much. Some of them did produce more than I did; Shannon produced more than I did, and some others produced a lot, but I was highly productive against a lot of other fellows who were better equipped. Why is it so? What happened to them? Why do so many of the people who have great promise, fail?
 
Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don’t have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We’re talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition.
 
The second thing is, I think, the problem of personality defects. Now I’ll cite a fellow whom I met out in Irvine. He had been the head of a computing center and he was temporarily on assignment as a special assistant to the president of the university. It was obvious he had a job with a great future. He took me into his office one time and showed me his method of getting letters done and how he took care of his correspondence. He pointed out how inefficient the secretary was. He kept all his letters stacked around there; he knew where everything was. And he would, on his word processor, get the letter out. He was bragging how marvelous it was and how he could get so much more work done without the secretary’s interference. Well, behind his back, I talked to the secretary. The secretary said, “Of course I can’t help him; I don’t get his mail. He won’t give me the stuff to log in; I don’t know where he puts it on the floor. Of course I can’t help him.” So I went to him and said, “Look, if you adopt the present method and do what you can do single-handedly, you can go just that far and no farther than you can do single-handedly. If you will learn to work with the system, you can go as far as the system will support you.” And, he never went any further. He had his personality defect of wanting total control and was not willing to recognize that you need the support of the system.
 
You find this happening again and again; good scientists will fight the system rather than learn to work with the system and take advantage of all the system has to offer. It has a lot, if you learn how to use it. It takes patience, but you can learn how to use the system pretty well, and you can learn how to get around it. After all, if you want a decision `No’, you just go to your boss and get a `No’ easy. If you want to do something, don’t ask, do it. Present him with an accomplished fact. Don’t give him a chance to tell you `No’. But if you want a `No’, it’s easy to get a `No’.
 
Another personality defect is ego assertion and I’ll speak in this case of my own experience. I came from Los Alamos and in the early days I was using a machine in New York at 590 Madison Avenue where we merely rented time. I was still dressing in western clothes, big slash pockets, a bolo and all those things. I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to myself, “Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad time’. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this. When a slot appears, they’ll rush to find someone to slip in, but they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven’t mistreated them.” Answer, I wasn’t dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that – I wasn’t dressing properly. I had to make the decision – was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get better service than other people.
You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about. An enormous number of scientists feel they must assert their ego and do their thing their way. They have got to be able to do this, that, or the other thing, and they pay a steady price.
 
John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen. For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It’s wasted effort! I didn’t say you should conform; I said “The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.” If you chose to assert your ego in any number of ways, “I am going to do it my way,” you pay a small steady price throughout the whole of your professional career. And this, over a whole lifetime, adds up to an enormous amount of needless trouble.
 
By taking the trouble to tell jokes to the secretaries and being a little friendly, I got superb secretarial help. For instance, one time for some idiot reason all the reproducing services at Murray Hill were tied up. Don’t ask me how, but they were. I wanted something done. My secretary called up somebody at Holmdel, hopped the company car, made the hour-long trip down and got it reproduced, and then came back. It was a payoff for the times I had made an effort to cheer her up, tell her jokes and be friendly; it was that little extra work that later paid off for me. By realizing you have to use the system and studying how to get the system to do your work, you learn how to adapt the system to your desires. Or you can fight it steadily, as a small undeclared war, for the whole of your life.
 
And I think John Tukey paid a terrible price needlessly. He was a genius anyhow, but I think it would have been far better, and far simpler, had he been willing to conform a little bit instead of ego asserting. He is going to dress the way he wants all of the time. It applies not only to dress but to a thousand other things; people will continue to fight the system. Not that you shouldn’t occasionally!
 
When they moved the library from the middle of Murray Hill to the far end, a friend of mine put in a request for a bicycle. Well, the organization was not dumb. They waited awhile and sent back a map of the grounds saying, “Will you please indicate on this map what paths you are going to take so we can get an insurance policy covering you.” A few more weeks went by. They then asked, “Where are you going to store the bicycle and how will it be locked so we can do so and so.” He finally realized that of course he was going to be red-taped to death so he gave in. He rose to be the President of Bell Laboratories.
 
Barney Oliver was a good man. He wrote a letter one time to the IEEE. At that time the official shelf space at Bell Labs was so much and the height of the IEEE Proceedings at that time was larger; and since you couldn’t change the size of the official shelf space he wrote this letter to the IEEE Publication person saying, “Since so many IEEE members were at Bell Labs and since the official space was so high the journal size should be changed.” He sent it for his boss’s signature. Back came a carbon with his signature, but he still doesn’t know whether the original was sent or not. I am not saying you shouldn’t make gestures of reform. I am saying that my study of able people is that they don’t get themselves committed to that kind of warfare. They play it a little bit and drop it and get on with their work.
 
Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody’s has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist.
 
On the other hand, we can’t always give in. There are times when a certain amount of rebellion is sensible. I have observed almost all scientists enjoy a certain amount of twitting the system for the sheer love of it. What it comes down to basically is that you cannot be original in one area without having originality in others. Originality is being different. You can’t be an original scientist without having some other original characteristics. But many a scientist has let his quirks in other places make him pay a far higher price than is necessary for the ego satisfaction he or she gets. I’m not against all ego assertion; I’m against some.
Another fault is anger. Often a scientist becomes angry, and this is no way to handle things. Amusement, yes, anger, no. Anger is misdirected. You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time.
 
Another thing you should look for is the positive side of things instead of the negative. I have already given you several examples, and there are many, many more; how, given the situation, by changing the way I looked at it, I converted what was apparently a defect to an asset. I’ll give you another example. I am an egotistical person; there is no doubt about it. I knew that most people who took a sabbatical to write a book, didn’t finish it on time. So before I left, I told all my friends that when I come back, that book was going to be done! Yes, I would have it done – I’d have been ashamed to come back without it! I used my ego to make myself behave the way I wanted to. I bragged about something so I’d have to perform. I found out many times, like a cornered rat in a real trap, I was surprisingly capable. I have found that it paid to say, “Oh yes, I’ll get the answer for you Tuesday,” not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday. I often put my pride on the line and sometimes I failed, but as I said, like a cornered rat I’m surprised how often I did a good job. I think you need to learn to use yourself. I think you need to know how to convert a situation from one view to another which would increase the chance of success.
 
Now self-delusion in humans is very, very common. There are enumerable ways of you changing a thing and kidding yourself and making it look some other way. When you ask, “Why didn’t you do such and such,” the person has a thousand alibis. If you look at the history of science, usually these days there are 10 people right there ready, and we pay off for the person who is there first. The other nine fellows say, “Well, I had the idea but I didn’t do it and so on and so on.” There are so many alibis. Why weren’t you first? Why didn’t you do it right? Don’t try an alibi. Don’t try and kid yourself. You can tell other people all the alibis you want. I don’t mind. But to yourself try to be honest.
 
If you really want to be a first-class scientist you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults, like my egotism. How can you convert a fault to an asset? How can you convert a situation where you haven’t got enough manpower to move into a direction when that’s exactly what you need to do? I say again that I have seen, as I studied the history, the successful scientist changed the viewpoint and what was a defect became an asset.
 
In summary, I claim that some of the reasons why so many people who have greatness within their grasp don’t succeed are: they don’t work on important problems, they don’t become emotionally involved, they don’t try and change what is difficult to some other situation which is easily done but is still important, and they keep giving themselves alibis why they don’t. They keep saying that it is a matter of luck. I’ve told you how easy it is; furthermore I’ve told you how to reform. Therefore, go forth and become great scientists!
 

人性善恶论对社会的影响

 
 人性是什么,不外四种看法:第一,人性本善。第二,人性本恶。第三,人性即善又恶。第四,人性非善非恶。其中,第四个观点是对人性及人性问题讨论的否定,它可以和第三个观点划为一类,因为都认为人的善恶不是内在的,而是由外在环境所决定的。他们的最终结论是,人可以通过教育学习,达到至善之美的境界。而这一结论在客观上又与第一种观点殊途同归,不谋而合,他们对社会改造的实践也最终会走在一起,不知觉中,第三、第四种观点成了人性善的另两种说法和版本。因此,从社会实践的角度看,社会中对人性的看法大体上就两种:人性善和人性恶。

法家认为性本恶,主张实行严刑峻法,高压恐怖。结果是恶上加恶,恶性循环。秦皇执政12年,被处宫刑的人就多达70多万人……。秦亡,酷刑、文字狱、连坐、户口制度等恶的锁链代代相传,严重摧残了中国人的身心健康。法家的“人性恶”理论不彻底,他们认为皇帝是善的,这样一来,就陷入自相矛盾,“人性恶”理论就崩溃了。

儒教认为“人之初,性本善”(《三字经》)。“人性之善也,犹水之就下也。人无有不善,水无有不下”(《孟子•告子上》)。即:人一生下来是善的,随着年龄的增长,在社会的种种不良风气的影响下、诱惑下,才慢慢地学坏了,变恶了。因此,只要不断地学习,将沾染在自己身上的坏习气去除掉,人就能恢复他本来的纯洁面目——善。

儒教人性论的后果是:

1)复古主义与排外主义

仲尼祖述尧舜,宪章文武(中庸)。孔子认为最高典范就是远古的尧舜和周朝的文王武王了。他一味地怀古、恋古、思古、述古、信古、法古、玩古、学古、教古、吃古、卖古、忠古、孝古……凡是古的,就是好的,而且是绝对的好!为了使中华文化不致消沉堕落,只有一个办法:不许改革,不许创新。如果有人大胆改革创新呢?立刻打压!完全扑灭!

孟子“道性善,言必称尧舜”。又曰:尧舜既殁,圣人道衰,暴君代作(孟子滕文公下)。意为:尧舜以后,圣人之道就衰落了,所出的都是暴君了。这样搞下去,国家还有希望吗?

孟子说:要想国家大治吗?有办法!恢复古制,用周文王的典章文物和制度,五、七年的功夫就可大治了。至于个人,则要尽量返回到本性中去,把先天就已具有的善性给发掘出来。“人皆可以为尧舜”,“万物皆备于我矣”;哪需要向外学习?满足于现有成就。视外国人为野蛮民族。以为自己都是好的,外国的都是坏的,而停滞自误 。

 
 
 2)导致了等级特权和虚伪败德

儒家认为人在善恶上有等差格局之分,性善说导致人自高自大,以圣贤、君子、好人自居。少数人被定为圣人君子,被豁免了作恶的可能性,从而置身于法律和众人之上;因此,自由、平等、博爱观念无法产生。

由于性善论,中国人认为通过努力学习就能成为至善、完美的范例;于是“学而优则仕”的官僚们自然便是善的典范;而不学习、不识字或学而不优的的平民百姓自然成了恶的刁民;于是善良的大人君子们对小人刁民们进行人治就是天经地义;官僚们拥有“刑不上大夫”的特权,不需要监督制约,结果是善良的官僚们在缺乏监督的状态下,干尽了坏事。

为了维护官僚们的“善”的形象,儒生们使出了看家本领——造假:编造尧、舜、禹等假人物、假事迹,并为掩盖历史真相而删削诗经、篡改春秋;孔丘是造假的鼻祖,儒生成为最早的造假集团;使得中国人说假话、办假事、造假货源远流长,泛滥成灾。

美国有一项科学测试发现:现代社会中的成年男性平均每24分钟就会想到性。这意味着当种种高尚的奋斗动机、理想由于种种原因遭你抛弃后,性欲,将最终成为你奋斗的唯一一个不体面、但最强有力的动机。或者说高尚动机、理想仅仅只是幌子;幌子下面,你正在作为性欲的奴隶,自觉不自觉地在受着性欲的驱使。不让上帝做你的主,情欲必做你的主。

由于儒家的性善论,使得中国人对“性”不敢正视,将“性”掩着、盖着、藏着、掖着;使得中国人迫害女性;使得中国人拥有表面仁义道德,背后男盗女娼的虚伪。

事实上,人从娘胎里一出生,就具有抢夺、妒忌、贪婪等自私自利的天性,只不过程度轻微罢了。儒生们硬说那是孩子的恶作剧,视为可爱,那就是自欺欺人的虚伪。

中国的俗语是:手心手被都是肉,儿是娘身上掉下的一块肉。许多中国人只有肉体,没有灵魂,没有精神,眼里只有钱;中国人心中没有神信仰与监督,所以时常偏离正道。譬如:吐痰、闯红灯等……只追求肉体快乐——吃喝玩乐、房中术、……导致了无数的犯罪。

 
 3)不存在一个独立的个人自治领域,政府可深入社会生活的所有领域。它的人性基础是:上智下愚。上等的“圣人之性”先天就善,不需要教育;“中民之性”和 “斗筲之性”需要教化、改造,方可臻于完善。因此,“内圣外王”的统治者以“修齐治平”、“化民成俗”为己任,强制改造人性。政府对个人生活无孔不入的干涉,剥夺了个人的隐私和良心自由。譬如:给女人裹小脚;康有为认为“民智未开”,主张开明专制,用皇权教化人民;民国时期呼唤救世主和好人政府的运动;毛通过洗脑运动来塑造社会主义“新人”等。

4) “性善论”必然导致对人治即贤人政治的重视;对法律、法治的忽视。孟子说:“君仁莫不仁,君义莫不义,君正莫不正,一正君而国定矣”。孔子倡导“德主刑辅”,对良民以仁政、对刁民诉诸刑罚。这导致了对多数人的蔑视和虐待。在儒看来,法律仅意味着:驭民的工具,而掌权者自身是超乎法律之上的。法律的目标是维护统治秩序而非个人自由权利。突出公民服从义务和牺牲精神,保障人权的民法,进不了儒家的视野;因此刑法最为发达。

英国的享利•梅因说:一个国家文化的高低,看它的民法和刑法的比例就能知道。大凡半开化的国家,民法少而刑法多;进化的国家,民法多而刑法少。他这几句话被西方的学者奉为至理名言。日本有的法学家据此发挥说,中国古代只有刑法而没有民法,是一个半开化的、文化低落的国家。在我国,也有少数学者对此持赞同态度。

 
 5)从人性至善进而相信人的理性能力,相信人类能掌握规律,相信存在一个完善的社会状态,并笃信为实现这个完善的社会而存在一个至善的万能政府,从而加强了社会政治和意识形成的一元化管理趋势。自戊戌变法以来,儒教的人性善与西方舶来的理性主义结合,更加坚信人力无边、人定胜天、人应该宰制万物、征服自然。既然人的理性具有如此至上性,对天、对神的敬畏就不复存在,所谓用自然法来约束世间的权力就更无能为力了。

这些人自诩掌握了唯一正确的规律并宣称人类有驾驶自然的能力,而一旦拥有了足够的力量(或曰暴力),他们会把人间变为“美好社会”的试验场,从而也有了正当的理由来镇压不同政见者。长期受科学万能教育的中国人,很难认识到人的有限性。

6)对人性的错误认识,必然会得出错误的结论:正如柏拉图幻想哲学王的统治,中国的儒家性善论者一直盼望明君的出现,并没有致力于建构限制罪人的政治和法律架构。

儒教人性的至善性使制度设计者相信“人好一切都好”,关注权力的归属而轻权力的运行监控。中国的意识形态一直强调“克己复礼”,注重的只是“太子”个人内在的修行,并不注重社会制度的建构;并把无限的权力赋予某个人[王]或组织,这是罪人的狂妄之举。

儒教早把掌权者假设为以天下为公的圣贤了,对最高权力的控制就没有想过了。因此,自西汉到晚清二千年间未曾产生过实质性的分权制衡机制,无独立的司法审查制度(行政司法合一)、无类似于英国古老的“自然公正原则”的程序制度。百年宪政建设的焦点始终停留在“谁掌握了权力”以及掌权者如何通过宪法去巩固“胜利果实”这个层面上,因此创造了不到80年而颁布14部宪法典(草案)的世界奇迹。

 
 
 
 基督教认为人性恶,一无良善。亚当和夏娃经不住诱惑而偷食了禁果,这是人第一次违背上帝的命令,因而犯下了必须世代救赎的罪孽。

1) “原罪面前,人人平等”!《圣经》里有个故事:有妇人犯通奸罪,依摩西的法律当乱石砸死。法利赛人把这案子交给耶稣。耶稣说,你们中间谁是没有罪的,谁就可以拿石头砸她。人们听了这话,从老到少一个一个都离去了。结果,没有一个人敢把手中的石头砸向这妇人,耶稣放了她。假如那人群中掺杂着一个中国人,这妇人就遭殃了,准有一块石头击中她的命门,叫她一命呜呼。

中国人不承认人人有罪,只承认“个别人是没有罪的”[人非圣贤,孰能无过,即圣贤无罪过,这是中国谎言文化的根源]。为证明自己没罪,最直接的办法就是诬陷别人。仇恨、争斗就难以避免。愈窝里斗,愈发罪孽深重。最终有一个人会让天下人知道他是最清白、最高尚的,此人就是皇帝。自古皇帝加尊号,可以用十几个最好的词藻,九五至尊以造假自我神化为乐。此等教化下,普通百姓也无自我反省之心。一块石头,在《圣经》里是检验人皆有罪的试金石,在中国却进入了一个很不光彩的成语:“落井下石”。

正如马丁.路德所言:“罪人不愿承认自己是罪人,这就是罪的最终形式。”

西方的圣人使徒保罗虽是基督教最伟大的神学家,他说:“在罪人中我是个罪魁”(提摩太前书第一章十五节)。不但自认是罪人,而且是最大的罪人。彼得被公认是耶稣的大门徒,他也说:“主啊,我是个罪人”(路加福音5:18)!

 
 2)信靠上帝,向上提升。由于原罪,单靠自己是战胜不了人性中的恶的,必须依靠耶稣基督,用他的宝血与上帝重新立约,将自己的信心建立在流淌着基督宝血的十字架上,才能战胜人性中的恶,才能逐渐洗刷身上的罪恶,获得永生。

信徒们知道自己不行,所以谦卑地祈求上帝的拯救,并且天天追求长进,对罪恶敏感到极点、恨恶到极点,每时每刻依靠上帝的能力,才能战胜邪恶的私欲和外界的引诱。他们的榜样是绝对的完全的上帝,不是不完全的人。

人性是恶的,但自知丑陋,又去追求善。——这就是《圣经》告诉我们的人性真相。承认自己是罪人,藉着神的拯救,就可以达到完满成熟的地步;不断地吸收神性,使人性向神性发展。所以人性是向上发展的、是越来越好,最好的永远在将来(盼望新天新地和与神一样丰盛的生命)。于是西方人在这两种观念下,向外追求,带动了文明的迅速跃升。

3)人为什犯原罪?基督教认为:因为上帝造人时赋予了人自由意志,人有选择自由,但人受肉体支配后易偏离上帝的正道,就犯罪了。罪的肇端就是人的贪婪和对自由的滥用;亚当夏娃滥用了自由而犯罪。人的罪不能根除,堕落的趋势是无限的,随时可能发生。人可以得救,却永远不能变得象神那样完美无缺。因此,永远不能神化人。

基督教伦理本质上是一种罪恶──救赎的过程伦理,是容忍撒旦的伦理。基督教在宣布人性恶的时候,其实已承认并容忍了人性恶,承认了人的不完善性。中国人凭极容易把“罪恶“与“乱臣贼子”联系在一起,罪恶应严厉制裁。这样,“罪”、“恶”的合理性就被抹杀了。因为人性是而是应该是“善”的,所以罪与恶是无法让人接受的,所以,在这个“仁爱”的国度里,改道后的妓女依然受歧视(见电影《红尘》),有过污点的人很难翻身(见刘恒《黑的雪》)。人们害怕创新、害怕犯错误──犯了错误就成了污点难以抹去。

基督教认为,人是尊贵的,享有一系列不可剥夺的权利;人又是有罪的和有限的,绝不能放任其利欲的泛滥。我们心中时时刻刻要有神监督,就比较不容易犯罪。

 
 4)民主分权制恶。原罪暗示:人性不可靠,权力在人手中很容易“泛滥成灾”;所以应通过制度、组织机构建设来制恶。美国宪法之父,清教徒汉弥尔顿(Alexander Hamilton)曾告诉美国公民:“(在考虑联邦宪法的权力配置时)我们应该假定每个人都是会拆烂污的瘪三,他的每一个行为,除了私利,别无目的。”

正因为人的罪性,人人皆有犯罪作恶的可能,必须用制度来制约个人的权力,防止掌权者滥用权力。罪人若是拥有绝对的立法权,他的私欲就会上升为法律;罪人若是拥有绝对的司法权,他会判决世界都归他所有;罪人若是拥有绝对的行政权,他就会把全世界踩在脚下。所以对由一群罪人建立的政府(组织的权力)一定严加防范,不能信任;不管他们是由圣君贤臣,或者是由人民选举产生,都必须像防强盗一样的防范他们,把他们关在笼子里。政府必须由人民选举产生,做到三权分立,保护人民的自由。基督徒顺从的,是神不是人;所以,人们有反抗暴政的权利。

对美国人来说,“抵挡专制就是顺服神”。“顺服神不顺服人”,既高扬个体自由,更使人敬畏秩序。没有信仰,社会没有能力在自由和秩序之间获得均衡,能够制定善法并敬守之。顺应神的人或邦国将得荣耀,弃绝神的将被弃绝。基督信仰确立了人的自由和责任,并为人类指明了通向解放和永福的“反应”方式。

1992年1月美国副总统奎尔说:“世界历史上的专制暴政,并非人类不幸的根本原因。专制暴政有人类灵性上的根源,这就是不承认人的有限性,不承认人人都有原罪。哪里的人们把自己的命运和前途完全建立在对人的信赖之上,而没有超越个人、政党及其‘主义’之上的信仰作为文化的、心理的基础,哪里就难免滋生专制暴政。”对人的罪性和有限性不醒悟是专制的灵根;意识到人的罪性和有限性是民主的起源。

 
 

李香兰

   《国产007》当年在中国大陆是被禁放映,影片中存有一个敏感的中日历史的政治话题。

  袁泳仪在片子饰演的李香琴是李香兰的女儿。而且星星还在片中大唱张学友的《李香兰》。熟知《李香兰》这首歌是翻唱1991年日本富士电视台30周年纪念电视剧《Sayonara!李香兰》的主题曲《Ikanaide不走》,由玉置浩二谱写演唱。

  就是这个名字,李香兰,一个在中国人眼中曾冒充中国人为日本的远东政策效力的女明星。

  李香兰原名山口淑子,她的“李香兰时代”,正值日本侵华时期。《李香兰》的作者之一藤原作弥说,“她在祖国日本和故国中国之间的夹缝中受到命运捉弄,度过了非常苦恼的青春岁月。”

  山口淑子的祖父山口博自幼酷爱汉学,仰慕古老的中国文化,所以在(1906年)从日本来到中国,她1920年2月12日出生于中国辽宁省奉天(今沈阳)。1932年,平顶山事件中,由于父亲因“通敌”受到拘留,事后山口淑子一家迁居沈阳。13岁时,山口淑子认了父亲的中国同学、当时的亲日派沈阳银行总裁李际春为养父,她也因此有了一个好听的名字———李香兰。

  从1931年,日本侵占东北,成立伪满州国后,为了粉饰太平,弄个 “大东亚共荣圈”的假象,特别开设了“满洲电影制片厂”,山口淑子就是当时伪满洲电影片厂的第一批女演员,而且还是当家花旦,拍些风花雪月的娱乐电影,来宣传被日军占领的“沦陷区”人民也有娱乐消遣,好在国际上制造假象来掩饰他们侵略的事实,在日本奉天广播电台新节目《满洲新歌曲》中演唱了《渔家女》、《昭君怨》、《孟姜女》等中国歌曲,更以一曲《夜来香》而声名大噪。于是,“歌星李香兰”就这样被推上前台,并且迅速在歌坛和影坛走红,成为家喻户晓的 “超级巨星”。大红大紫之后,李香兰还陆续演了一些替日军宣传,或者粉饰日本侵略战争的电影。

  1937年,由“满铁”公司出资的电影公司“满映”成立,李香兰被聘为专职演员。她主演的第一部电影《蜜月快车》奠定了她“懂日语的中国少女影星”的地位,后又演出了《支那之夜》、《热砂的誓言》和《白兰之歌》等侮辱中国的电影。到1942年李香兰已经是东亚共荣国的巨星。追忆往事,山口淑子说:“在那个战争年代,为了生存,我的确是拼足了力气学唱歌”。她称,对那些曾为军国主义服务、歧视中国人的电影而感到内疚。因受不了“李香兰”身份的重压,她在1944年从“满映”辞职,客居上海。

  1945年日本战败,“伪满洲国”灭亡,全国上下一时兴起了讨伐汉奸的行动。李香兰被军事法庭以“汉奸罪”嫌疑审讯(另一有名的案例就是川岛芳子),后因公布了属于山口家的日本户籍,证明自己的日本人身份得以幸免。被判无罪。

  1946年2月,她被释放回国。但是,李香兰的名字及她的音乐、电影,却被刻意的遗忘在许多文献里,唯有香港对于这位曾经“演过”中国人的李香兰,还抱着友善的态度,60年代尚被邀请至香港卲氏访问、拍片。日后李香兰的自传说到这段,李香兰自己说到:“当时我还只是个十几岁的少女,只是按照大人们要求的去扮演交给我的角色。”

  1974年到1992年期间,李香兰连续获选担任日本国会议员,以政治家的身份活跃于社会舞台。同时她还写作自传《在中国的日子——李香兰:我的前半生》。通过这本自传,她勇敢地揭露了日本军国主义侵华战争给中国人民带来的巨大灾难,表达了“日中不再战,我们同是黑发黑眼睛”的和平挚愿。作为政治的牺牲者和历史的见证人,她还教育日本青少年牢记:“这全都是事实呀!” 1989年,日本富士电视台推出了据此改编的电视剧《再见,李香兰》。

  她在自传中曾描述过面对这种自相矛盾的无能为力和无比痛苦:“中国人不知道我是日本人,我欺骗了中国人。一种罪恶感缠绕着我的心,仿佛走进了一条死胡同,陷入了绝境。”她自己也几次下决心公布自己是日本人的事实,但都没有勇气去做。尽管如此,由于从小生活在中国,她对中国的感情还是十分真实的。她是日本军国主义侵华战争的历史见证人。她经历了“九·一八事变”、“卢沟桥事变”,目睹了“平顶山事件”,在一些日本人矢口否认这段罪恶历史的时候,她敢于在日本右翼的重压下郑重而又沉痛地宣告:日本应该向中国人民谢罪!

  追踪她的一生,人们难以理解为何她仅仅由于不自觉地唱歌和表演就险些被判处死刑。她本人单纯善良,希望中日友好,却被人利用、愚弄,成为日本侵华政策的工具,受到中国人民的仇视。由此看来,她不过是一个历史的牺牲者,后来的种种遭际,皆因时代所致。“一个被时代、被一种虚妄的政策所愚弄的人,如果噩梦醒来后,能够有机会对当时的行为反思,或者加以解释说明,也是幸福的。”她对伪满“宫廷挂”兼关东军参谋长吉岗中将说的这些话,也可以作为她对于自己前半生的说明。

 
 

厚黑学

    ·李宗吾·   (1879 – 1944)

  我自读书识字以来,就想为英雄豪杰,求之四书五经,茫无所得,求之诸子百家,与夫廿四史,仍无所得,以为古之为英雄豪杰者,必有不传之秘,不过吾人生性愚鲁,寻他不出罢了。穷索冥搜,忘寝废食,如是者有年,一旦偶然想起三国时几个人物,不觉恍然大悟曰:得之矣,得之矣,古之为英雄豪杰者,不过面厚心黑而已。

  三国英雄,首推曹操,他的特长,全在心黑:他杀吕伯奢,杀孔融,杀杨修,杀董承伏完,又杀皇后皇子,悍然不顾,并且明目张胆地说:“宁我负人,毋人负我。”心子之黑,真是达于极点了。有了这样本事,当然称为一世之雄了。

  其次要算刘备,他的特长,全在于脸皮厚:他依曹操,依吕布,依刘表,依孙权,依袁绍,东窜西走,寄人篱下,恬不为耻,而且生平善哭,做三国演义的人,更把他写得维妙维肖,遇到不能解决的事情,对人痛哭一场,立即转败为功,所以俗语有云:“刘备的江山,是哭出来的。”这也是一个有本事的英雄。他和曹操,可称双绝;当著他们煮酒论英雄的时候,一个心子最黑,一个脸皮最厚,一堂晤对,你无奈我何,我无奈你何,环顾袁本初诸人,卑鄙不足道,所以曹操说:“天下英雄,惟使君与操耳。”

  此外还有一个孙权,他和刘备同盟,并且是郎舅之亲,忽然夺取荆州,把关羽杀了,心之黑,仿佛曹操,无奈黑不到底,跟著向蜀请和,其黑的程度,就要比曹操稍逊一点。他与曹操比肩称雄,抗不相下,忽然在曹丞驾下称臣,脸皮之厚,仿佛刘备,无奈厚不到底,跟著与魏绝交,其厚的程度也比刘备稍逊一点。他虽是黑不如操,厚不如备,却是二者兼备,也不能不算是一个英雄。他们三个人,把各人的本事施展开来,你不能征服我,我不能服你,那时候的天下,就不能不分而为三。

  后来曹操、刘备、孙权,相继死了,司马氏父子乘时崛起,他算是受了曹刘诸人的薰陶,集厚黑学之大成,他能欺人寡妇孤儿,心之黑与曹操一样;能够受巾帼之辱,脸皮之厚,还更甚于刘备;我读史见司马懿受辱巾帼这段事,不禁拍案大叫:“天下归司马氏矣!”所以得到了这个时候,天下就不得不统一,这都是“事有必至,理有固然”。

  诸葛武候,天下奇才,是三代下第一人,遇著司马懿还是没有办法,他下了“鞠躬尽瘁,死而后已”的决心,终不能取得中原尺寸之地,竟至呕血而死,可见王佐之才,也不是厚黑名家的敌手。

  我把他几个人物的事,反复研究,就把这千古不传的秘诀,发现出来。一部二十四史,可一以贯之:“厚黑而己。”兹再举汉的事来证明一下。

  项羽拔山盖世之雄。咽鸣叱吒,千人皆废,为什么身死东城,为天下笑!他失败的原因,韩信所说:“妇人之仁,匹夫之勇”两句话,包括尽了。妇人之仁,是心有所不忍,其病根在心子不黑;匹夫之勇,是受不得气,其病根在脸皮不厚。鸿门之宴,项羽和刘邦,同坐一席,项庄已经把剑取出来了,只要在刘邦的颈上一划,“太高皇帝”的招牌,立刻可以挂出,他偏偏徘徊不忍,竟被刘邦逃走。垓下之败,如果渡过乌江,卷土重来,尚不知鹿死谁手?他偏偏又说:“籍与江东子弟八千人,渡江而西,今无一人还,纵江东父兄,怜我念我,我何面目见之。纵彼不言,籍独不愧于心乎?”这些话,真是大错特错!他一则曰:“无面见人”;再则曰:“有愧于心。”究竟高人的面,是如何长起得,高人的心,是如何生起得?也不略加考察,反说:“此天亡我,非战之罪”,恐怕上天不能任咎吧。

  我们又拿刘邦的本事研究一下,史记载:项羽问汉王曰:“天下匈匈数岁,徒以吾两人耳,愿与汉王挑战决雌雄。”汉王笑谢曰:“吾宁斗智不斗力。”请问笑谢二字从何生出?刘邦见郦生时,使两女子洗脚,郦生责他倨见长者,他立刻辍为之谢。还有自己的父亲,身在俎下,他要分一杯羹;亲生儿女,孝惠鲁元,楚兵追至,他能够推他下车;后来又杀韩信,杀彭越,“鸟尽弓藏;兔死狗烹”,请问刘邦的心子,是何状态,岂是那“妇人之仁,匹夫之勇”的项羽,所能梦见?太史公著本纪,只说刘邦隆准龙颜,项羽是重瞳子,独于二人的面皮厚薄,心之黑白,没有一字提及,未免有愧良史。

  刘邦的面,刘邦的心,比较别人特别不同,可称天纵之圣。黑之一字,真是“生和安行,从心所欲不逾矩”,至于厚字方面,还加了点学历,他的业师,就是三杰中的张良,张良的业师,是圮上老人,他们的衣钵真传,是彰彰可考的。圮上受书一事,老人种种作用,无非教张良脸皮厚罢了。这个道理,苏东坡的留候论,说得很明白。张良是有夙根的人,一经指点,言下顿悟,故老人以王者师期之。这种无上妙法,断非钝根的人所能了解,所以史记上说:“良为他人言,皆不省,独沛公善之,良曰,沛公殆天授也。”可见这种学问,全是关乎资质,明师固然难得,好徒弟也不容易寻找。韩信求封齐王的时候,刘邦几乎误会,全靠他的业师在旁指点,仿佛现在学校中,教师改正学生习题一般。以刘邦的天资,有时还有错误,这种学问的精深,就此可以想见了。

  刘邦天资既高,学历又深,把流俗所传君臣、父子、兄弟、夫妇、朋友五伦,一一打破,又把礼义廉耻,扫除净尽,所以能够平荡群雄,统一海内,一直经过了四百几十年,他那厚黑的余气,方才消灭,汉家的系统,于是乎才断绝了。

  楚汉的时候,有一个人,脸皮最厚,心不黑,终归失败,此人为谁?就是人人知道的韩信。胯下之辱,他能够忍受,厚的程度,不在刘邦之下。无奈对于黑字,欠了研究;他为齐王时,果能听蒯通的话当然贵不可言,他偏偏系念著刘邦解衣推食的恩惠,冒冒昧昧地说:“衣人之衣者,怀人之忧;食人之食者,死人之事。” 后来长乐钟室,身首异处,夷及九族。真是咎由自取,他讥诮项羽是妇人之仁,可见心子不黑,作事还要失败的,这个大原则,他本来也是知道的,但他自己也在这里失败,这也怪韩信不得。

  同时又有一个人,心最黑,脸皮不厚,也归失败,此人也是人人知道的,姓范名增。刘邦破咸阳,系子婴,还军坝上,秋毫不犯,范增千方百计,总想把他置之死地,心子之黑,也同刘邦仿佛;无奈脸皮不厚,受不得气,汉用陈平计,间疏楚君王,增大怒求去,归来至彭城,疽后背死,大凡做大事的人,那有动辄生气的道理?“增不去,项羽不亡”,他若能隐忍一下,刘邦的破绽很多。随便都可以攻进去。他忿然求去,把自己的老命,把项羽的江山,一齐送掉,因小不忍,坏了大事,苏东坡还称他为人杰,未免过誉?

  据上面的研究,厚黑学这种学问,法子很简单,用起来却很神妙,小用小效,大用大效,刘邦司马懿把它学完了,就统一天下;曹操刘备各得一偏,也能称孤道寡,割据争雄;韩信、范增,也是各得一偏,不幸生不逢时,偏偏与厚黑兼全的刘邦,并世而生,以致同归失败。但是他们在生的时候,凭其一得之长,博取王候将相,炫赫一时,身死之后,史传中也占了一席之地,后人谈到他们的事迹,大家都津津乐道,可见厚黑学终不负人。

  上天生人,给我们一张脸,而厚即在其中,给我们一颗心,而黑即在其中。从表面上看去,广不数寸,大不盈掬,好象了无奇异,但,若精密的考察,就知道它的厚是无限的,它的黑是无比的,凡人世的功名富贵、宫室妻妾、衣服车马,无一不从这区区之地出来,造物生人的奇妙,真是不可思议。钝根众生,身有至宝,弃而不用,可谓天下之大愚。

  厚黑学共分三步功夫,第一步是“厚如城墙,黑如煤炭”。起初的脸皮,好象一张纸,由分而寸,由尺而丈,就厚如城墙了。最初心的颜色,作乳白状,由乳色而炭色、而青蓝色,再进而就黑如煤炭了。到了这个境界,只能算初步功夫;因为城墙虽厚,轰以大炮,还是有攻破的可能;煤炭虽黑,但颜色讨厌,众人都不愿挨近它。所以只算是初步的功夫。

  第二步是“厚而硬,黑而亮”。深于厚学的人,任你如何攻打,他一点不动,刘备就是这类人,连曹操都拿他没办法。深于黑学的人,如退光漆招牌,越是黑,买主越多,曹操就是这类人,他是著名的黑心子,然而中原名流,倾心归服,真可谓“心子漆黑,招牌透亮”,能够到第二步,固然同第一步有天渊之别,但还露了迹象,有形有色,所以曹操的本事,我们一眼就看出来了。

  第三步是“厚而无形,黑而无色”。至厚至黑,天上后世,皆以为不厚不黑,这个境界,很不容易达到,只好在古之大圣大贤中去寻求。有人问:“这种学问,哪有这样精深?”我说:“儒家的中庸,要讲到‘无声无臭’方能终止;学佛的人,要讲到‘菩提无树,明镜非台’,才算正果;何况厚黑学是千古不传之秘,当然要做到‘无形无色’,才算止境”。

  总之,由三代以至于今,王候将相,豪杰圣贤,不可胜数,苟其事之有成,无一不出于此;书册俱在,事实难诬,读者倘能本我指示的途径,自去搜寻,自然左右逢源,头头是道。

别挡住我的阳光

      古希腊哲学家都爱晒太阳,第欧根尼也不例外。据说阳光能让人的理性清明,阳光与大海山峦的映象有助于揭示宇宙的本质。所以,面对太阳是哲学家思考问题的最佳角度。一天,第欧根尼正沉浸在这种难得的惬意之中,一位年轻人走到他的身边,怀着崇敬的心情俯下身去,诚恳地问道:

      “我能为您做些什么?”

      被打断了思路的哲学家很不高兴,他抬起眼皮看看这个讨厌鬼,认出他叫亚历山大,对,就是那个威震欧亚的马其顿国王亚历山大大帝。老第连动都没动,坦率而又不失礼貌地回答:

      “请别挡住我的阳光。”

      于是,亚里士多德的学生,开创了希腊化时代的亚历山大,谦和地含笑点头,转身而退,让出了自己身躯遮住的那片阳光。

     西方人给予这个故事的诠释是:思想者和政治权力的拥有者应各据其位。思想者的位置是直面阳光,权力拥有者的位置是让出阳光,保证思想活动能够独立而不受干扰地进行。在思想的辞典里,没有政治权力的特权,如果后者想获得尊重,只有一个选择,老老实实守着自己的位置,保证思想者的充分自由。用独立宣言的话说,就是:政治社会的目的是保证人的天生的神圣的不可动摇的权利,其中最重要的是思想的权利。

     挡住阳光的权力者是绝对的越位,应该给与黄牌警告,哪怕他是无意的。强迫思想者离位的权力者是暴徒,已经不具备占有权力高位的资格。轻易逃跑的思想者是懦夫,他们会被思想者的群体长久驱除。那么回避阳光的思想者呢,无疑是骗子,占着位置不工作,简直是犯了渎职罪。

     错位是危险的。政治权力垄断了思想的阳光,阳光就变成了令万物枯萎的恶魔,思想视保护政治权力为己任,二者对人类生活的价值都荡然无存。错位的人通常不会有好的结局。意大利人墨索里尼曾指着他的同胞戈兰西说,我要让你这个大脑20年不能思想。结果,仅仅过了12年,他自己的尸体就被高悬于米兰广场示众。

       当然,所有这一切,都建立在思想者和权力者对双方位置的共同认知的基础上,所以,第欧根尼和亚历山大并没什么了不起,他们只不过是遵守了一个公认的契约而已。所以,墨索里尼实在是运气不好,谁让他是古希腊人的现代邻居。如果一个社会压根存在着另一种默契,权力拥有者把思想当成权力的奴隶,思想者把思想当成待价以沽的工具,那么,这个故事就完全是痴人说梦。正所谓:井龟不可言于海,夏虫不可语于冰。

 

美科学家发现第十大行星

 
新星与其他星体直径对比
 
 
 
 

  直径冥 王星的1.5倍

  美国加州理工学院行星科学教授迈克·布朗29日下午通过电话向新闻界发布:“拿起你们的笔,从今天开始改写教科书。”

  他说,他发现了第十大行星,这颗行星位于太阳系外围的柯伊伯带(由围绕太阳公转的一大群较小天体组成,离太阳距离为45亿公里以外),距离太阳约145亿公里。从亮度判断,它的直径至少相当于直径为2300公里的冥王星的1.5倍。

  布朗博士称:“如果冥王星能被接受为一颗行星,那么2003-UB313更有资格。”但目前他们还没能更精确地估算,只能确定其直径的上限可能为3000多公里。

  天文学家目前暂时将其命名为“2003-UB313”。布朗说,他已经为这颗新星拟好了名字,正等待国际天文学联合会批准。

  周期 绕太阳一圈560年

  这颗新星表面可能与冥王星类似,由固态甲烷构成。星体的轨道为椭圆形,环绕太阳周期是560年,最近点距太阳约53亿公里。

  布朗说,这颗行星之所以此前没有被注意,是因为它的轨道平面和其他行星的轨道平面成45度角,在地球上看来“出没无常”的缘故。现在,业余天文观测者可以在凌晨时分,在天穹东部的鲸鱼座看到这颗行星。

  内幕 抢先发布因黑客威胁

  布朗等人在2003年10月第一次拍到了这颗行星,原本他们准备在更精确地计算出它的尺寸和轨道后再宣布这一发现,但28日另一个天文学家小组宣布在柯伊伯带发现了高亮度的星体,同时他们发现保存研究资料的网站被黑客侵入,并威胁要将资料公布于世,于是在29日下午仓促发布消息。

  “第十行星” 引爆争议

  反对 美国“小行星中心”负责人布赖恩·马斯登称,如果冥王星也算行星的话,那么其他和它差不多大小的天体都应该被称做行星,根据该逻辑, “2003-UB313”的确算是行星,但它却要排在一系列以前发现的“行星”———包括“塞德娜”和“夸奥尔”之后,而不能称为“第十行星”。

  美国行星组成理论家阿兰·波斯对记者道:“将它们称作行星的话,对太阳系中的其他大家伙来说,显然太不公平了。”

  支持 NASA(美国国家宇航局)在一份官方声明中,强烈支持将“2003-UB313”称为第十行星的说法。

  

文明即驯化

“人类千万年的历史,最为珍贵的不是令人炫目的科技,不是浩瀚的大师们的经典著作,不是政客们天花乱坠的演讲,而是实现了对统治者的驯服,实现了把他们关在笼子里的梦想。因为只有驯服了他们,把他们关起来,才不会害人。我现在就是站在笼子里向你们讲话。”                       ——乔治. W .布什
南方周末1999年年终特刊文章:

文明即驯化:用宪政驯服统治者
作者:刘军宁

    人类对动物和普通成员的驯化取得了空前的成功,但对统治者的驯化堪称进展缓慢,只是在过去的一千年中才取得了一些实质性的进展。
     
    人类对野生动物的驯服,在文明史中已有了大量的记载。但是与这一进程同步进行的另一个进程,即人类对自身的驯化,却较少受到关注,而后者远比前者重要得多。一个社会,不论它把动物驯化得多么好,只要这个社会成员自身的野性未脱,这个社会仍然不能算是一个文明社会。
    
    统治者与政府是迄今为止所发明的驯化人类普通成员的最有效的手段。为了镇制普通民众身上的野性,统治者建立了一整套的暴力机器,对任意发作野性的人进行武力的强制。让政府用暴力的手段来压制野性,在政治学中被称为是"野蛮的发现"。但是,当人们成功地找到了驯服被统治者身上的野性的途径之后,却被一个更大的、空前的挑战所困扰:如何驯服自己的统治者?统治者及其操控的政府的确是统治和驯化普通民众的有效工具。可是,无论被神化到什么程度,统治者和政府成员都是凡人。统治者用政府约束凡人的野性,可是,一旦治人者野性发作,谁来约束、制止呢?历史一再表明,由于手中掌握著暴力工具,统治者的专横权力一旦失去控制,其所带来的灾难性后果,远非普通人的野性发作所能比拟。
    
    直至今日的人类的全部进化历史表明,人类既离不开统治者, 又不能不驯化统治者。一部人类政治史,在一定程度上就是从"猴王"到人王的进化史。灵长动物学研究表明,现在像猴子、猩猩、 狒狒、长臂猿等灵长动物,都过著人类的祖先曾经过著的那种群居生活。大多数灵长动物的社会,是围绕著一个可以称为首领的统治者而组织起来的,如猴子就是围绕著"猴王"来结群生活的。这样的首领通常至高无上。灵长动物社会的本质,就是在首领的暴力基础之上建立起来的,统治秩序的建立消除了自相残杀。人类社会中的政权最初也可以追溯到那个作为"君王"的统治者身上。由于不必再把精力浪费在自相残杀上,整个群体就能致力于合作性事物 ——采集食物和保卫地盘。这样,也就迈开了走向有组织的社会生活的第一步。
    
    然而,靠暴力建立起来的"君王"统治不可避免地通过暴力来更迭。从猿猴社会到二十世纪的专制政权都历来如此。猴王权力的更迭即便是流血的,却不大可能是致命的,更不会残害无辜者。而人类社会中行暴政的统治者们不仅制造流血,而且使千万无辜的人沦为受害者乃至丧失生命。这种政权便取代了猛兽而成为人类生存的最大敌人。猿猴过专制生活是为了最大限度地获得生存机会,而现代的暴政统治者是要最大限度地剥夺人类的生存机会。如果不能成功地驯服,"人王"比"猴王 "要野蛮得多。二十世纪中非统治者博卡萨在现代条件下居然保留著"食人"习性,就是最好不过的例证。博卡萨之所以可怕,正是因为他掌握的是整个国家的暴力机器。而且,越是这样的统治者越是想取得对暴力机器的彻底控制。 权力越专横,野性的成分就越多。
    
   直到有效地驯服统治者的手段发明之前,人们对统治者们的野性几乎束手无策。要么是以暴易暴,陷于恶性循环,要么是无力的道德说教。而对不中听的说教,统治者们轻则像齐宣王那样"顾左右而言他",重则像纣王那样让比干剖心而死。
    
    在人类的五千年文明中,在驯化方面取得的进展是很不均衡的。对动物和人类普通成员的驯化已经取得了空前的成功,并全面完成。对普通民众的驯化也早已走上了制度化的轨道。但是对统治者的驯化则进展缓慢,只是在过去的一千年中才取得了一些实质性的进展。而在全球范围内产生普遍的效果,不过是近三十年的事情。
    
   公元1215年,英国的一些地主共同联合起来,第一次把法 律的项圈成功地套到了国王的颈上。在历史上的大多数时候和大多 数地方,法律是统治者驯化百姓的武器,这一次,法律成了驯化统治者的武器。
    
   到了1688年,英国人通过发动光荣革命,对统治者的驯化取得了突破性的进展。人类文明化的过程是人类驯化自然和驯化自身的过程。《王位继承法》、《权利请愿书》、《人身保护法》等针对王权的法律的实施,使得君王再也难以犯下作乱。
    
   1787 年,美国在独立战争之后,制定了人类有史以来的第一部成文宪法,从而正式开辟了人类历史的宪政时代。宪法与以往任何法律的区别,就在于它是限制统治者和政府的专横权力的法 律。在无宪政的社会中,法律通常是统治者束缚普通民众的工具,而对统治者自己则鲜有束缚力,基本上是无效的驯化工具。历史证明,一般性的法律太容易被专横权力的野性所挣脱,故必须用特殊材料制成的特殊法律才能让野蛮的专横权力就范。这个法律便是宪法。其中的特殊材料,主要包括如下法律理念:对人的基本权利和自由的规定和保护、对统治者与政府的权力范围的限制、纵向与横向的制衡、司法独立、违宪审查、法律高于统治者意志等等。可以说,宪政的出现是人类文明的一个最重大的里程碑,因为它给人类所面临的最大课题————驯服统治者,提供了有效、可行的手段。
    
   到了十九世纪二十年代,自二千多年之前的雅典直接民主之后,出现了第一波旨在确立宪政民主的浪潮,普选的确立和选举权 的扩展彻底改变了传统的统治者产生机制,迫使统治者就范于民意,从而使这些权力精英出于对选票的顾虑,很难不顾民意去驰骋其野性的权力意志。
    
    第二次世界大战之后的纽伦堡审判和东京审判是人类驯服统治者史上的一个重大转折点。把那些挣脱法律与伦理的羁绊、用专横的权力为非作恶的统治者送交国际法庭进行审判,这在人类历史上还是头一遭。这一"殷鉴"是任何想步希特勒、墨索里尼和东条英 机后尘的统治者们所不能熟视无睹的。
    
   1948 年联合国发表《世界人权宣言》,这是人类历史上第一个超国家机构来给各国统治者的行动划上禁区,不仅拒绝让统治者进入个人享受自由与权利的领域,而且规定统治者有义务保护个人的这些自由和权利。是否承认并保护公民的基本权利已被看作各国是否接受人类文明基本准则的一个重要尺度,宪政作为驯服政治 统治者的最有效的制度手段,在二十世纪有了更大的发展,在世界上的各个角落扎下根来。
    
    宪政体制之所以能在二十世纪大行其道,就是因为迄今为止, 它是人类所发现的驯服统治者的最有效的工具。在这一体制下,权力不仅应该分享,而且应当被用来尊重人的自由、尊严和价值,因而应该受到制衡。对统治者的驯化程度也是衡量文明的尺度。一个宪政体制就是统治者能被有效驯化的体制。值得强调的是,对统治者的成功驯化,受益者固然是普通的民众,因为他们不再遭受专横权力的涂炭,但是,统治者们也同样能从中得到利益,首先是大大提高了政治这一行业的安全系数。在宪政体制下,统治者们虽然要忍受公众的挑剔和对手的责难,却不再会因为追逐权力而被竞争对手投入监狱或送上绞架,也无坐在火山口上之忧。在历史上,统治者们的身家性命从未比在宪政体制下得到更有效的保障。所以,从 对统治者的驯化这一历史过程中受益的,应该同时包括统治者与被 统治者。
    
    时值二十一世纪的前夕,有一点已经再清楚不过了:一个文明发达昌盛与否,表面上取决于经济的发展,实际上取决于对统治者的驯化,因为在不尊重个人的自由、生命与财产的地方,不可能有持久繁荣的经济。野蛮当道,人民就遭殃,如非洲,150年的历史,就有150次以上的政变。鉴于今天世界上的三分之二的国家已经在不同程度上用宪政来进行统治者驯化,可以预料,二十一世纪将是在全球范围之内驯化治人者的世纪。这可能意味著人类文明得以摆脱以杀戮和迫害为特征的野性残余,把文明阳光照到人类生活的每一个角落。


http://ruanqizhen.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_BlogPart_blogpart=blogentry&_c=BlogPart&_c02_owner=1&handle=cns!5852D4F797C53FB6!824

热门搜索Top50跑跑卡丁车          qq     101085          迅雷     8900          劲舞团     87          电影     8472          小说     7943          mp3     7376          音乐     6628          游戏     6231          王子变青蛙          图片     4293          bt     42492           美女     4042          酷狗     3758          问道     3533          泡泡堂     34          求佛     3330          征途     3172          dj     31062           梦幻西游               nba     3017          热血江湖               街头篮球               火影忍者               魔兽世界               千千静听               周杰伦     22          msn     2249          mtv     2086          秋天不回来          新闻     2027          pplive     19          疯狂的石头          博客     1931          香水有毒               霸王大陆               歌曲     1898          星座     1889          flash     16          诛仙     1648          不怕不怕               瑞星     1636          刘亦菲     15          卡巴斯基               cs1.5     15          连连看     15          笑话     1531          刘德华     15          传奇     1338          张含韵     13周厚安     1560     194                    我们结婚吧     1544                        公务员改革工资表                        李莹     1272     280                        凤舞天娇     1241     29                   查2006高考录取结果                   明道图片     1206     31                   暗算 黄依依     969                    陈澍     1665     175     0                  火影忍者漫画316     1                  日本偶像剧花样年华2                  电视剧笑傲江湖     143                  绝地战警2     1584     4                  2006年二本缺额院校5                  老公老公我爱你 mp36                  2006高考第二批录取7                  公主怀玉     848     498                  爱情复兴     829     519                  迅雷5官方网站下载 0                  哥德堡号     1611     181                  蓝球部落     788     542                  韶关     995     388     3                  王绍伟     763     574 4                  许纯美被打     1383     5                  董文语     1693     173 6                  autocad2006下载     7                  刘心武揭密红楼梦     8                  谈谈心恋恋爱     18889                  韩剧 女主播的故事 0                  那一天     696     665 1                  盖鸣晖     684     681 2                  成龙电影     681     683                  董方卓     1783     163 4                  七只水杯     670     715                  范家大院剧情介绍     6                  卫星地图下载     14707                  mina     651     734     8                  麻辣婆媳下载     819 9                  暗算剧情介绍     15470                  张可颐     759     577 1                  周杰伦2006新专辑     2                  王子变青蛙30集剧情3                  樱花草     876     469 4                  高考录取结果     753 5                  中国队勇夺世界杯bt6                  爱情全保     1997     137                  陈西贝     867     476 8                  何冲     609     818     9                  女演员吴越     607     0                  雨林木风     988     38