论“老鼠上桌”

On "Rats at the Table"

“老鼠上桌”是一种尖刻的表述。为什么要谈到这个表述，是因为最近看到了一个和虚幻引擎5相关的讨论。印象中两三年前在网络上看到了虚幻5的一些展示视频，感到无比惊艳；但最近看到了一个游戏开发者聚堆的论坛，对虚幻5却是充满了高度恶意的评论。这些评论中涉及到的具体技术细节我也不是很清楚，故不在此展开。但有一类评论却让我印象深刻：“虚幻5让大量的老鼠都能上桌了”。大意是，由于虚幻5极大地降低了制作出极具真实感的游戏画面的门槛，使得原本需要极为精湛的技术才能做出的效果，现在连一个非资深的从业者都能够做到（当然，会附带很多副作用），从而严重破坏了整个开发圈的生态。

“Rats at the table” is a scathing phrase. I bring it up because of a recent discussion about Unreal Engine 5. I remember seeing some UE5 demo videos online two or three years ago and being absolutely amazed; but recently, on a forum where game developers gather, I saw comments filled with intense hostility toward UE5. I’m not very familiar with the specific technical points they raised, so I won’t get into them here. One kind of comment, however, stuck with me: “UE5 has let a lot of rats get a seat at the table.” The gist is that because UE5 has drastically lowered the barrier to producing ultra-realistic game visuals, effects that once required highly refined skills can now be achieved even by non-senior practitioners (albeit with many side effects), thereby seriously harming the ecosystem of the development community. 

进行了些许联想后，我立马意识到这是整个人类生态中一个反复出现的模式。往小了说，一些名校的本科生排斥研究生阶段才进入学校的校友，学界的“正统范式”排斥借助新技术、新方法进行发表的同行，“硬核游戏”玩家看不起“大众游戏”玩家；往大了说，20世纪后欧洲对于美国的心态，“老钱”对“新钱”的鄙夷，中老年人对年轻人文化的厌恶，所有的这些现象，从本质上全部都是“老鼠上桌现象”。如果要给出一个形而上的总结的话，那就是已经形成了相对固定的圈子、有相对固定的文化与价值观、且在整个社会价值体系中处于优势地位的群体，对于因为某些环境因素突然改变而大量涌入圈层内部的、原本在价值体系中处于“下位”的外人，本能地产生的一种厌恶与排斥。在很多情况下，这种排斥中既带有了对对方原本低阶的生态位的鄙夷，同时也带有一种自身优势被威胁的焦虑感。

After a bit of free association, I immediately realized this is a recurring pattern across the human ecosystem. On the small scale: some undergraduates at elite universities exclude or look down on peers who only joined the institution at the graduate stage; the “orthodox paradigm” in academia shuns colleagues who publish using new technologies or methods; hardcore gamers despise casual players. On the larger scale: Europe’s attitude toward the United States in the later twentieth century and beyond; old money’s disdain for new money; middle-aged and older people’s aversion to youth culture. All of these, in essence, are instances of the “rats at the table” phenomenon. Metaphysically speaking, the point is this: groups that have formed relatively stable circles, with relatively fixed cultures and values and a privileged position in the broader social value hierarchy, tend to feel an instinctive aversion and rejection toward outsiders—originally “lower” in that hierarchy—who, due to sudden changes in environmental conditions, flood into their circle. In many cases, this rejection blends contempt for the other side’s formerly lower ecological niche with anxiety that one’s own advantages are under threat. 

讲到这里，老鼠上桌现象似乎比较清晰了：这是貌似就是既得利益者的一种傲慢和自私自利，我们应该去抨击那些批判别人“老鼠上桌”的人。

At this point, the “rats at the table” phenomenon may seem clear: it appears to be nothing more than the arrogance and self-interest of vested interests, and we should denounce those who label others as “rats at the table.” 

然而，这样的判断带有强烈的价值倾向，而这种价值倾向会简化对问题的判断。一个很遗憾的事实是，在很多时候，既得利益者描述的“老鼠上桌”，其背后隐含的批判是基本符合实情的。究其根本，无论是掌握了高技术门槛的技术精英，掌握了符号资本的学历精英，还是掌握了大量社会资源的贵族，他们的安全感是有一定的保障的，他们之中的很多人需要平衡生活的各种诉求，因此这些圈层内会形成一种外部看上去或许虚伪、但却能缓冲内部紧张感的一种“松弛文化”。同时也要注意到，对于那些在价值链上处于弱势地位的圈层，其内部的文化很多时候也没那么残酷；这种文化并不完全与价值链相对位置相关。但是，这个社会中总是存在着数量庞大的另一种人，这种人对于自己当前所处的圈层非常不满意，眼睛里总是盯着更高的圈层。这类人更愿意用突破底线的方式来换取在价值金字塔上的爬升。一旦这样的人在短时间内大规模涌入某个圈层，让这个原本还有着某种“费厄泼赖”美德的小共同体迅速堕落为一个残酷无情的竞技场。类似的事情在历史上屡见不鲜，这里就不作详细展开了。

However, that kind of judgment carries a strong value bias and tends to oversimplify the issue. A regrettable fact is that, in many cases, when vested interests describe “rats getting a seat at the table,” the implicit criticism behind it is largely true. At root, whether it’s technical elites who control high skill barriers, credentialed elites who command symbolic capital, or aristocrats who possess abundant social resources, they enjoy a certain degree of security. Many of them also need to balance various demands in life, so within these circles there often forms a kind of “relaxed culture” that may look hypocritical from the outside but helps cushion internal tensions. It’s also worth noting that among groups occupying weaker positions on the value hierarchy, their internal cultures are often not so ruthless; such cultures are not determined solely by relative position on the value ladder. Even so, there is always a large number of people in society who are dissatisfied with their current stratum, their eyes fixed on higher tiers. This type of person is more willing to break through the boundaries to climb the status pyramid. Once people like this pour into a circle in large numbers over a short period of time, a small community that once possessed a certain virtue of “fair play” can quickly degenerate into a harsh, merciless arena. History abounds with such cases, which I won’t expand on here. 

至此，对“老鼠上桌现象”的道德评价，就有了两种截然不同的立场。站在第一种立场之上，既得利益圈层本就享受了因处于高价值位阶而获得的各种红利，别人凭什么不能用你们“看不上”的手段去剥夺掉你们的优越感？但站在第二种立场之上，任何“老鼠上桌”都意味着这个社会中的一片“更和谐的净土”被一种残忍而恶劣的文化给侵蚀了，使得整个社会向着囚徒困境的方向又滑落了一步。两种立场之间的冲突是无解的，因为其涉及到不可调和的两种社会价值观，这两种价值观之间的斗争甚至可以说是人类近代史以来的一条暗线。

At this point, the moral evaluation of the “rats at the table” phenomenon splits into two sharply opposed positions. From the first standpoint, the privileged stratum already enjoys the dividends that come with occupying a high-value rank—so why shouldn’t others use methods you look down on to strip you of your sense of superiority? From the second standpoint, any instance of “rats at the table” means that a more harmonious “sanctuary” within society has been eroded by a cruel, malign culture, nudging the whole system one step further toward a prisoner’s-dilemma dynamic. The conflict between these two positions is insoluble, because it involves two irreconcilable systems of social values; the struggle between them could even be said to form an undercurrent running through modern history. 

从这个意义上来讲， “老鼠上桌”的问题，其根本并不在于上桌的到底是不是“老鼠”，而是在于：为什么要有桌子？毫无疑问，在相关的大部分场景中， “桌子”并不是一个实体，而是由所在的社会文化所建构的。只要一个社会之中有着非常明确的桌子和地板之分，那这个问题大概就是永远无解的。 “圣人不死，大盗不止”，这个古老的道理到今天也并不过时。

From this standpoint, the issue with “rats at the table” isn’t really about whether those who’ve taken a seat are in fact “rats,” but rather: why is there a table at all? In most of the relevant contexts, the “table” isn’t a physical object; it’s constructed by the surrounding social culture. As long as a society draws a clear line between the table and the floor, this problem is likely insoluble. “If the sage does not die, great bandits will not cease”—this ancient saying remains timely today. 

面对桌子无法在短时间内被摧毁这个现实，恐怕只能凭借一些德行和智慧来勉强抚慰“老鼠上桌”给各方带来的心理创伤。对于桌上的玩家来说，其美德便是：清醒地意识到自己能够在桌上是一种幸运，而不是自己永远应得的特权。而对于还没有上桌的玩家们来说，其智慧便是：“上桌游戏”并不是一个很好玩的游戏，想要拼命上桌的人大部分都会以悲惨的结局收场。

Given the reality that the “table” can’t be dismantled in the short term, the best we can do is lean on a bit of virtue and wisdom to ease the psychological bruises that “rats at the table” leaves on all sides. For those already seated, the virtue is this: be clear-eyed that your place at the table is a matter of luck, not an eternal entitlement. For those not yet at the table, the wisdom is this: the “get-to-the-table” game isn’t a very good one to play—most who fight desperately to get there end up with a miserable outcome. 

哦对，为了迎合时代主题，在本文最后也提一嘴：人工智能这个“老鼠上桌终极工具”已经降临了。

Oh, and to keep with the spirit of the times, let me end with this: artificial intelligence—the ultimate “rats at the table” enabler—is here.