怪谈张丹丹不需要道歉_我的网站
A | By Anna Dalla Valle (CNS)-- Forward-looking mindset: whole-system and life cycle thinking My work is centred on the environmental sustainability of buildings over the entire life cycle and beyond in view of the circular economy: from design and construction to use and reuse, up to final disposal or, preferably, recovery for a second life. Here, the paradigm shift is twofold, because a whole-system thinking is needed not only to consider the entire life cycle, but also to envision what happens next. The ultimate goal is to minimize environmental impacts and to drive both sustainability and innovation. To be more explicit, the first shift involves keeping in mind the entire life cycle – from the early design stages – moving beyond the traditional focus on construction and energy efficiency during use. It is to select building products looking back to the supply chain, such as recycled content, locally sourced and bio-based solutions, while also looking ahead to performance decay, maintenance needs and the potential for extending service life. Moreover, the second shift press to move beyond the linear building process – as traditionally practiced – in which we extract raw materials, we build, we use, and eventually we demolish. Indeed, this model has reached its limits, undermining planetary resources with adverse environmental and social effects. Interconnected choices: designing decisions that create shared value A life cycle perspective matched with circularity inevitably challenges this linearity, wondering from the very beginning about what happens when assets become obsolete and fall into disuse, to design buildings as part of a continuous loop of resources. Accordingly, design, construction, daily use (energy and water consumption), maintenance, replacement and end-of-life turn out to be regarded not as isolated steps but interconnected with each other. In fact, at each stage, choices can either preserve or destroy value. For example, if construction solutions are carefully selected, they can be reused in the future, either in their entirety, as whole products, or through disassembly into components, or even by separating materials. In this way, they may maintain the same function (e.g. a window reused as it is) or serve different purposes (e.g. glass cullet used as input for glass wool insulation). If technological systems are designed flexibly, buildings can reach different business segments and host concurrently different activities, resulting easily adaptable from housing to office and vice versa, instead of being demolished. If building processes integrate digital tools, data can guide smarter decisions over decades, provided that data infrastructure is ensured, followed by constant monitoring and analysis of the collected data and the update and dissemination of results across industry and practitioners as well as policymakers. Thinking this way means making choices future-oriented, ready to embrace innovation while respecting planetary boundaries, namely limiting the environmental impact at every stage and in every region – to avoid burden shifting – not just at the beginning but along the whole (first-second) life cycle. Certainly, a demanding but exciting challenge: one I am proud to take on and in my little to contribute to. Beyond appearances: close-up process for understanding what lies behind In daily life, we often say to "look beyond appearances". Usually, this expression pertains to people, to underline the risk of avoiding judging someone solely by what can be seen. Now the interesting thing is that the same advice can be applied to architecture, obviously without undermining the importance of aesthetic beauty, at the core also of the New European Bauhaus initiative together with sustainability and inclusion. Nonetheless, as an architect expert in sustainable technology, I have learned to extend it to the built environment, by seeing buildings not merely as visible structures (walls, roofs, windows), but as living parts of a larger and complex system. In this sense, architecture can be compared to a plant. Plants are anchored in the soil by roots; buildings are anchored in the ground by foundations. Plants capture sunlight, absorb water, accommodate small animals, and interact with other organisms; buildings consume energy, deplete water, host human life, and interact with their surroundings. Both are deeply connected to their ecosystem. However, to fully understand them, both must be looked beyond appearances, through a "close-up" process taken to the extreme. It is not simply a matter of focusing on details, as happens in photography and cinema fields; the intention is to delve deeper and deeper to the fuller extent: an in-depth analysis of whatever is behind, starting from the exterior to gradually shift to construction technologies, materials, up to their chemicals. The latter is, of course, not the responsibility of architects, but it lies at the heart of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), analyses that I usually perform during the decision-making at the different process stage to help building stakeholders minimize environmental impacts across the entire – potentially multiple – life cycle. For architectural technology, for example, it is a matter of addressing, alongside conventional requirements (e.g. performance, safety, usability, well-being), the specific requirements of environmental sustainability (e.g. the rational use and optimization of materials, energy, water), taking into account the technical feasibility and evaluating the entire life cycle. At the utmost, it is to look into everything that underlies the presence of that specific material in that exact spot, its behaviour and interrelationships when in service, and its post-use journey, setting up the necessary network to actually close the loop in practice. Material-immaterial synergy: the invisible foundations of sustainable architecture To embrace this vision, the idea of resources is to be extended compared to the ordinary sense. Certainly, buildings are made and calls for a set of tangible resources, such as money to be started, bricks, steel, or timber to be erected, tools and equipment to be managed including in the long-term. The issue that often runs out is that buildings rely heavily as well on intangible resources, namely knowledge, skills, processes, organisation, information flows and network. These two dimensions – tangible and intangible – are closely connected and interdependent on each other. Without appropriate eco-design knowledge, even the best materials are wasted; without materials, knowledge has no application. In such a mindset, architecture becomes a remarkable expression of the synergy between tangible resources and intangible resources: a space where East and West can successfully meet, building a bridge across cultures through openness and inclusiveness. Indeed, it is well recognized that different traditions bring different perspectives and, when combined, generate the best and more holistic solutions. The "living building" is both a technical and cultural artefact, an expression of human creativity that must not overstep the planetary boundary. Strategic imperative: cross-border and cross-disciplinary cooperation Evidence is found in international collaborations such as Joint Schools, where universities from different countries join forces to promote shared research and training. A concrete example of Sino-foreign cooperation is the XJTU-POLIMI Joint School, opened in Xi'an (China) in 2019 through a partnership between Politecnico di Milano and Xi'an Jiaotong University. As POLIMI's first campus outside Italy, it serves as an international platform dedicated to education and research as well as technology transfer and business incubation. This initiative, like others currently in place, aims to take the best of each part to foster shared growth and mutual learning. Italy brings its strong polytechnic culture, its multidisciplinary approach and focus on design quality, together with the European emphasis on social and environmental responsibility. China, in turn, is a leader in fast-evolving business, in the integration capacity of digital technologies and in large-scale engineering projects, pulled by top-down policies that allow fast implementation. In conjunction, these strengths can create fertile ground for innovation and speed up the transformation process within the Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector, always been acknowledged as resistant to change, due to its intrinsic complexity and fragmented nature. Rethinking the built environment: buildings as resource-driven assets The effort is to move beyond the concept of buildings as "material banks" – namely repositories where resources are temporarily stored – to rethink them and push the vision further of buildings as "resource-driven assets". While the first construct is earmarked for physical goods, that proposed calls for careful consideration of both tangible/material/visible resources and intangible/immaterial/invisible resources, taking care that everything is optimised and nothing is wasted, to preserve their value over time. In practice, this means looking at what goes into buildings, such as materials, systems and the energy required to transform and assemble them, but also, for instance, the set of expertise, skills and specialization of practitioners involved during design. Similarly, starting from the outset, it means looking at what comes out throughout buildings life, like emissions, waste, and decommissioned materials, but also knowledge gained from monitoring and lessons learned from operations. To ignore either side of the equation (inputs-outputs) would be a missed opportunity. If we want buildings to truly act as resource-driven assets, we must synergise, map, understand, and manage the full spectrum of in- and out- flows, both tangible and intangible. On the tangible side, this requires a deep understanding of material, energy and water flows across the entire life cycle. Which resources are extracted, transported, and assembled? How much energy is consumed, and how is it sourced? How do materials degrade over time, and how can they be reused or recycled without losing quality? These questions are essential to reduce impacts and to design systems that are both efficient and resilient. On the intangible side, equally important are the flows of information and knowledge that connect all actors in the construction value chain. Long before a building is erected, crucial questions are: How is data exchanged among stakeholders? Is communication efficient enough to speed up the workflows? How can design capabilities evolve into maturity, meaning quality achieved through best practice? Then, as more buildings themselves add to this immaterial layer through sensors, smart meters, and digital platforms that produce valuable insights, another set of questions follows: How is this information managed, shared, and preserved? How to ensure that data supports predictive maintenance and reverse logistics? How to activate new business models based on sharing and collaboration? Just as materials should not be wasted, neither should information. Data and knowledge must be treated as resources that enrich our collective know-how, building an "infodump bank" that not only improves current performance but also informs future decisions, guides new designs and strengthens subsequent projects. The correlation between tangible and intangible resources is ever closer: managing them together ensures that nothing is wasted and that the embedded value is preserved across time. In that respect, "no waste of resources" also means "no waste of value", since every material, every bit of data, and every piece of knowledge carries potential that, if carefully handled, can extend usefulness, inspire innovation, and create lasting benefits well beyond the life of a single project. Global impact: construction sector as global lever for planetary sustainability Through joint research and cross-border exchange programmes, the construction sector proves to be an extraordinary testing ground and given its global impact in terms of emissions and resource consumption, it clearly stands as a priority for change. Furthermore, never forget that buildings are everywhere and shape our daily lives, leading mindful planning crucial not only for preserving the natural environment but also human well-being. In this framework, architects, engineers, designers, scientists and all necessary professionals can work side by side to explore new possibilities, even creating new synergies across key business sectors. Imagine if constructions integrate materials from unexpected sources such as fashion and/or food waste. Fast-fashion clothing and textile scraps, invasive plants and agricultural by-products, or even organic waste – which are currently a significant environmental burden with serious social effects – can be rethought as valuable inputs for new building solutions. In this way, the concept of waste disappears, as it serves as input resources from another industrial sector, consequently, contributing to lower material intensity (virgin material reduction), greater industrial symbiosis (new business opportunities), and implementing smarter ways to manage resources. At the same time, digital technologies and artificial intelligence can support this process, helping to track resources, optimise flows, and potentially update in real-time the expected environmental impacts in relation to what actually happens. The ambition is to create architecture that is resource efficient and socially valuable in the long term. Considering the key role of construction, even small changes, when scale up to thousands of buildings and millions of people, can make a big difference for the planet. At this point, the key role of China is beyond question. As the world's largest construction market and major exporter, its choices strongly affect global trends, making environmental awareness and transparency in its building sector essential. Indeed, in a globalised economy, what is produced in one region may be assembled in another, used in a third and so on throughout the different stages of the life cycle, spreading responsibilities across several borders. For this reason, it is imperative to turn LCA into a standard practice, but also to regionalise results, to identify where the greatest impacts occur over the building life cycle, including in geographical terms. Here, China inevitably results in a central hotspot to concentrate efforts: improving practices there could deliver benefits worldwide, setting the chance to become an outstanding reference and reducing burdens far beyond its borders, (hopefully) without exceeding the limits of the planet. Yet – be warned – the focus is not solely on new construction, where starting from scratch makes everything easier: the real challenge (and greatest opportunity) stands in the existing building stock, because of representing the largest reserve of resources we already have. These artefacts embody vast amounts of materials, energy, and human effort that should not be wasted leaving unfinished and/or uninhabited. Instead of discarding them, we must be proactive to renew the existing buildings, extending their service life while improving performance to meet ever-evolving needs. Call to action: building bridges within planetary boundaries It is time to join forces, to move from theory to practice, from words to action. To succeed, we need lots more than technology. We need dialogue between cultures; we need young and open minds, trained to think across disciplines and borders, ready to learn from diversity, capable of working together toward a unified vision, think globally while acting locally. Green architecture should not be perceived as a trend, but as a common responsibility of the present for the future. These are just the premises to the most open question ever: "What if we built bridges between East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet?" I therefore invite everyone to begin offering practical responses, reframing global challenges as shared opportunities for innovation. Profile: Anna Dalla Valle is an Assistant Professor and Researcher in the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC) at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. She is an associate and active member of both the Italian LCA Network Association and the Italian Society of Architectural Technology. She represents Politecnico di Milano in the New European Bauhaus initiative and fully participates in various international organizations, including the LCA Working Group of the Italian Green Building Council, the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and the International Energy Agency’s working group on ' Ways to Implement Net-zero Whole Life Carbon Buildings'. 张丹丹那句“灵活本身就是一种福利”引发的舆情愈演愈烈,连胡锡进都下场了,要求张丹丹道歉。
B |
一、茅于轼、郑功成与张丹丹一个一直关注底层群体生存状态的学者,突然被一堆人骂,这一幕让我想起茅于轼的“廉租房无厕所论”和郑功成的“机器人交社保论”。十多年前,茅于轼说廉租房不要配私人厕所,有公厕就好了,被一堆人痛骂。
C | 但实际上,茅于轼才是帮穷人说话,廉租房建差一点,才不容易被寻租,而且以中国的现实,福利水平不宜过高,太高就不能覆盖到广大底层群体(比如现在体制内的养老待遇,太高本身就是问题)。而且一个重大差异是:茅于轼是站在农民工的角度考虑问题的,而很多批评他的人,甚至连想都没想过农民工也应该享受廉租房政策。去年年初,郑功成说:“流水线上的每个工人,企业都是要缴费(社保)的。机器替代人以后,企业要不要缴费?”当时也被一堆人批评,觉得这个砖家简直脑子进水了。但实际上,这是一个严肃问题,也是一个真问题。现在都在谈K型社会,AI芯片智能制造的高速发展,并不能辐射到底层群体。那么,未来社保资金的来源怎么办?如果AI大发展导致很多人失业,智能制造企业要不要承担更多的社保责任?这荒唐吗?郑功成这是有前瞻性的发言,绝非蠢货——蠢货会骂他是蠢货,偏偏郑还在帮容易失业的蠢货说话。为什么很多人会去骂帮他们说话的人?因为他们觉得自己的情感受到了伤害。在茅于轼这个案例中,很多人的第一反应是:难道穷人就不配拥有私人厕所吗?在郑功成这个案例中,很多人甚至会带入到机器人中:你们竟然连机器人都想让它们交社保?问题是:机器人跟你是一种人吗?你们是竞争关系还是同类?令人啼笑皆非,很多人就是不愿意多动一下脑子——没脑子和不高兴往往住在一起。张丹丹被大批判,同样也是冒犯了大众情绪——你居然说开滴滴送外卖是一种福利?但问题是,张丹丹对于灵活就业群体的社保具体建议是什么?现在批评她的人中,有人关心具体制度应该怎么设计吗?张丹丹说过“灵活就业是比稳定就业整体更好的选择”?还是说过“灵活就业群体就应该不享受社会保障”?都没有,正好相反,对于灵活就业群体的社保缺失,她提了诸多非常务实的建议,但现在批评她的人,有人愿意参与讨论吗?我为什么认可张丹丹的观点?现在关于如何解决灵活就业群体的社保,有两种常见倾向,很容易迷惑人,但有陷阱。
D | 一种是把灵活就业群体纳入现有职工养老保险制度,官方措辞是“国家进一步放宽了参保户籍限制,让大家能更方便地在就业地直接办理”,似乎这是一种“赋权”。但实际上,很多人都很清楚,在社保基金紧张的情况下,这更像是一种“开源”。你去看一下张丹丹的相关发言,她从来没有忽悠过这个群体,而是提供了大量实证资料,说明他们为什么不愿意交社保,以及他们的真正需求是什么。
E | 还有一种倾向是让平台完全承担起灵活就业群体的社保责任,这符合“一切都怪资本”的社会情绪。
F | 同样,张丹丹并没有迎合这种情绪,她的建议是由平台或政府提供20%-50%的社保补贴。注意,这里她提出了政府补贴,这一点和郑功成提议政府为农民提供养老社保补贴是完全一致的,背后的思路是:对于缺乏稳定雇主的群体(农民或零工群体),政府有义务扮演雇主角色。关于张丹丹的观点我就不展开了,会非常冗长。
G | 整体来看,张丹丹既不像一些主流学者那样粉饰现实忽悠弱势群体,也不像一些民间人士迎合民粹情绪博得大众喝彩,这是非常难得可贵的。所以,退一万步说,即便张丹丹那番话有表达不准确的地方,用得着上纲上线吗? 二、严肃的公共讨论应该是怎样的?前面都是铺垫,这才是我这篇文章最想讨论的议题。公共讨论应该是怎样的?是揪住一句话不放,还是去了解其完整观点?是只看字面意思,还是要看具体的语境?我前几天看了一篇文章,很有意思,他提到一个词叫steelman(钢人论证)。摘录如下:straw man是一个逻辑学里非常经典的观点,也是一个很有意思的辩论技巧,叫稻草人谬误。
H | 大概意思就是,两个人争论时,其中一个人故意把对方的观点说得特别蠢、特别极端、特别容易攻击,然后对着这个被篡改过的弱版本一顿输出。我相信大家日常生活里经常遇到到这样的人,这就是strawman,稻草人谬误,你真正的观点被削弱、扭曲了。后来英语里就出现了一个特别形象的反向说法:steelman。straw是稻草,软弱、一碰就倒。steel是钢铁,坚固、强壮、难以击败。
I | 于是,钢人论证法出现了,也就是steelman,它完全是稻草人谬误的反面,它要求你先替对方把论点补完整,把其中最合理、最难反驳的部分全部找出来,甚至说得比对方本人还好,然后再开始判断。(一个极度实用的深度思考Prompt,帮你挖出最本质的答案。)虽然他这篇是在谈如何使用AI,但用于公共讨论也是完全适用的。
J | 你可以针对这句话进行批评。你也可以针对这段话进行批评。你还可以针对这段话背后的问题以及论者的完整观点进行批评。
K | 举个例子,当初批评茅于轼的“廉租房无厕所论”,就有著名时评人说,茅于轼为农民工争取廉租房权益,这是全新的想法,这是多么大的建议,为什么不说清楚?在新闻中,茅于轼只说了一段很简短的话,但过往谈及廉租房的时候,他多次提到应该优先考虑农民工的需求——作为评论者,难道没有义务去了解茅于轼的完整观点?回到张丹丹这个案例:1、五天前,我就在微信群看到相关嘲讽视频,只引用了两三句话,第一感是不妥。2、我去查找了原始视频,因为这是整场访谈的其中一条拆条,我又浏览了比较完整的长视频。3、然后我查了张丹丹的相关报道,为了节约时间,我让AI帮我整理了张丹丹关于灵活就业群体的主要观点。所以,我最后写出来的文章没有纠缠那句“灵活就业本身就是一种福利”,而是回到张丹丹关注的现实问题,并引用了她的观点表示认可,最后把重点放在我个人的建议(普惠养老金制度)上面。非缴费型的普惠养老金还有一个优势,特别适合类似外卖、网约车等劳动密集型(labor-intensive)企业。正如前述,现在的职工养老保险制度对于劳动密集型企业压力巨大,因为员工多,利润薄,而对于高科技金融类企业来说毫无压力。
L | 普惠养老金由纳税人承担,资本密集型(capital-intensive)和技术密集型(technology-intensive)企业就可以承担劳动密集型企业的社保成本,这显然更为合理,因为劳动密集型企业解决了更多的就业。话说到这里,大家就能明白,并不是美团、滴滴不如腾讯、阿里有良心,而是企业类型不同使然,如果能通过制度让后者帮前者承担社保成本,这是更优的安排。(两亿零工的养老问题,其实没那么难解决)这篇我一点不觉得有下多大的功夫,在我写过的文章里,是耗时相对较少的。
M | 这不是高标准高要求,而是基本操作——你有时间写上千字的文章,没时间做基本的资料收集?还是说,并不是因为这有多难,而是你更喜欢稻草人论证(strawman)不喜欢钢人论证(steelman)?对着弱化版本一顿输出,有意思吗?为什么现在公共舆论场层次这么低?就在于充斥这类讨论,从一句话、一张截图出发,对于完整观点完全不感兴趣,连相关问题的基本常识都不具备,但整个舆论场已经沸腾起来了。
N | 三、公共舆论场与个人媒介素养我在之前那篇《像做媒体一样做自媒体》中写过一个现象,我称之为:“大事麻木化,小事巨婴化”。
o | 几亿人的养老权利、几亿人的路权,大家习以为常,熟视无睹,无动于衷。某个事情触碰了公众情绪,所有人暴跳如雷,觉得天都塌下来了,像个受了委屈的巨婴。(像做媒体一样做自媒体)我们经常说要理解公众情绪,要尊重公众情绪,所以公众情绪是什么东西?一群人平时被人视为蝼蚁,然后网上集合在一起,就好像海里的小鱼一样抱团虚张声势,就变得充满力量,不可触碰了吗?我完全不尊重这种情绪,更不想迎合这种情绪。我知道,有的人会说,你不能对普通人要求太高,要了解“福利”作为劳动经济学名词的含义与大众理解的不同,要了解一句话背后的问题意识和论者完整观点。
p | 我理解这需要门槛,但不理解那种巨婴式的自我宠溺。各种段子满天飞,你当然可以理解为弱者的反抗,我也理解其中的合理性。但你困在这种东西里面,是没有办法进行认真讨论的。它永远只是一个情绪出口,而不是思考的起点。
q | (像做媒体一样做自媒体)一提到媒介素养,似乎这是一个专业人士才拥有的技能。并不是这样的——也许过去是,但现在不是了。就好像开车一样,过去是一个专业技能,现在变成一个普通人的基本技能了。为什么?因为车多了。同理,现在这个信息爆炸时代,每一个普通人每天接收到的信息是过去十倍以上,那么,媒介素养也就成了一个基本技能,你不能以“普通人”为借口为自己开脱。尤其是当你要批评的时候,你就需要去了解真实的信源、完整的表达、具体的语境和相关的常识。当然,你也可以选择做一个巨婴,让别人给你投喂各种情绪。但注意了,别人给你做情绪按摩,你要付费的:天底下没有免费的东西,你总是要付出一些代价。就我的观察,有些学者,满脑子都是问题意识,有时候说话就不那么讲究,比如茅于轼、郑功成和张丹丹;而那种说话想着怎么让受众舒服,倒是很可能是巧言令色之徒,比如温铁军、郑秉文和胡锡进。你可以喜欢那些说话动听的人,批判那些说话冒犯你的人,但最后就是劣币驱逐良币:像张丹丹这样的真正关心底层的学者,因为不具备八面玲珑、滴水不漏的表达能力,最后就会消失在公众视野。帮你说话的人你骂个狗血淋头,哄你骗你坑你的人,你当成亲人一样看待,你不上当谁上当?这就是选择做巨婴的代价。
r |
Current article:http://cqj7w0.zanjionglangzhaizhizaxiying.buzz/1xv2weq/xaggst3.html Published on:22:12:10 |


。 
胡的完整发言我懒得全部截屏,有兴趣可以去看他的微博。胡是一个指标:意味着这件事的关注度足够高,流量足够大了。张丹丹的这段话我五天前就写过了,我有预感这句话要惹事,但直到昨天才真正发酵,无论左右,纷纷下场,一时之间,群情汹涌。我不觉得她有任何需要道歉的地方。她已经说了,是从“劳动经济学”的角度,此处的“福利”是专业术语,与大众理解有差异;她关注的灵活就业群体的社会保障问题,是一个重大的现实议题;她对于外卖员群体的社保建议,务实且接地气,我基本上都认可。















我为什么敢于冒天下之大不韪写这篇文章?因为我有道德加持啊。过去因为呼吁提高农民养老金,我积累了一些道德分(不至于被人骂丧尽天良),该消耗的时候就要消耗一下。所以,我觉得我有责任为张丹丹这样的学者辩白,不然整个舆论场成什么样子了?作者:彭远文