今天做《星際關係概論》的小組作業。
題目是研究一個簽署《不見血協議》的文明，分析它們在資源枯竭與戰爭結束後，如何重新維持社會運作，再比較地球能學到什麼、又有哪些地方不能照搬。
我和路衡原本選擇那個文明，純粹是因為相關資料很多。
現在回頭看，這個理由似乎不太可靠。
地球媒體對它的描述大致有兩種。
第一種說法是，他們靠大型 AI 分配系統走出戰後混亂。模型替人分配工作、住房、教育和能源，效率很高，因此社會很快恢復穩定。
第二種說法則是，他們後來放棄了集中式分配，讓地方社群自行建立規則、保存紀錄，並選擇合作對象。
這兩種制度，不太可能是同一件事。
所以，我們透過我媽大學的訪客帳號，和那個文明的研究員及學生開了一場跨星際會議。
先說結論：兩種說法都不完全錯。
他們確實曾經依賴大型分配模型，而且一開始效果很好。飢荒減少了，能源供應變得穩定，城市秩序也逐漸恢復。問題不在模型算錯，而在於它太相信過去。
低資源地區的孩子，因為一開始取得的教育資源比較少，所以模型預測他們未來的投資效益較低；從事基層工作的人，因為被判定高度適配原本的職務，反而更難取得再訓練的資格。
系統沒有說誰比較差。
它只說，這樣安排最有效率。
路衡問了一個問題：既然規則不適合他們，為什麼不離開？
對方反問：離開去哪裡？
當居住權、工作資格、醫療紀錄、教育認證和交通配額都綁在同一套系統裡，離開就不只是換一個地方生活，而是把自己變成一個沒有紀錄的人。
他們後來沒有摧毀模型。
他們把模型從「唯一的決定者」改成工具，讓個人的紀錄可以被攜帶，讓地方有權拒絕不適合的分配方式，也讓新的規則可以被建立。
對方說了一句我記下來的話：
真正的自由，不是你可以選擇喜歡哪一條規則。
是當規則正在傷害你時，你不必先失去自己，才有資格離開。
今天早上，路衡問我：家離宿舍只有十二分鐘，為什麼還要住宿？
我回答：體驗生活、脫離家庭、方便。
現在想想，這是因為我隨時都有家可以回。
有些人沒有這種選項。對他們來說，離開一個地方、換一間學校或換一份工作，不只是多花一點時間，而是可能失去住房、收入、醫療，甚至重新開始的資格。
地球不缺技術。
我們很會做系統，也很會把效率做成漂亮的曲線。
但如果一套系統只讓人進去，卻不讓人帶著自己的東西離開；如果資訊只能被少數平台保存，其他人只能看見被選過的版本——那麼，它再有效率，也不算自由。
今天先記到這裡。
Today, we worked on a group assignment for An Introduction to Interstellar Relations.
The assignment was to study a civilization that had signed the Bloodless Protocol: to examine how it rebuilt the functioning of society after resource depletion and the end of war, and then compare what Earth could learn from it—and what it could not simply copy.
Lu Heng and I originally chose that civilization for one reason: there was a lot of information about it.
Looking back, that reason does not seem very convincing.
Earth’s media generally describes them in two different ways.
The first account says that they escaped the chaos of the postwar period through a large-scale AI allocation system. The model assigned people jobs, housing, education, and energy. It was highly efficient, so society quickly returned to stability.
The second account says that they later abandoned centralized allocation, allowing local communities to establish their own rules, preserve their own records, and choose whom to cooperate with.
Those two systems could not have been exactly the same thing.
So, through my mother’s university visitor account, we held an interstellar meeting with researchers and students from that civilization.
Here is the conclusion first: neither account was completely wrong.
They really had relied on a large allocation model, and at first it worked very well. Famine declined, energy supplies became stable, and order returned to the cities. The problem was not that the model calculated incorrectly. The problem was that it trusted the past too much.
Children from low-resource areas had initially received fewer educational resources, so the model predicted that investing in them would produce lower returns in the future. People working in basic-level jobs were judged to be highly suited to their original positions, which made it even harder for them to qualify for retraining.
The system did not say that anyone was inferior.
It only said that this arrangement was the most efficient.
Lu Heng asked a question: If the rules did not suit them, why did they not leave?
The other side asked in return: Leave for where?
When the right to housing, work qualifications, medical records, educational credentials, and transportation quotas are all tied to the same system, leaving is not simply moving somewhere else. It means turning yourself into a person with no records.
They did not destroy the model in the end.
They changed it from the “sole decision-maker” into a tool. They made it possible for individuals to carry their own records with them, gave local communities the right to reject unsuitable allocation methods, and allowed new rules to be created.
The other side said something I wrote down:
True freedom is not the ability to choose which rules you like.
It is not having to lose yourself first in order to be allowed to leave when the rules are hurting you.
This morning, Lu Heng asked me: If your home is only twelve minutes from the dormitory, why do you still live there?
I answered: To experience life, to separate myself from my family, and for convenience.
Now that I think about it, the reason is that I always have a home to return to.
Some people do not have that option. For them, leaving one place, changing schools, or changing jobs is not merely a matter of spending a little more time. They might lose their housing, income, medical care, or even the right to start over.
Earth does not lack technology.
We are very good at building systems, and very good at turning efficiency into beautiful curves.
But if a system only lets people enter and does not let them leave with what belongs to them; if information can only be preserved by a few platforms, while everyone else can see only the version that has been selected for them—then no matter how efficient it is, it is not freedom.
I will stop here for today.