无根之根

TEDx SYSU 将于北京时间2009年6月14日下午2:30正式开幕，欢迎各位TED粉丝到现场或通过网络关注我们的活动：

活动豆瓣页面：http://www.douban.com/event/10707355/

饭否直播：

http://fanfou.com/tedxsysu

twitter直播：

http://twitter.com/tedxsysu

今天一连接触到了好多个关于教育的想法与行动，实在忍不住，于是想到在这里简单写几句：

早上的时候，我去搜 El Sistema（委内瑞拉少儿乐团）这个东西，发现这个组织或者说这个创意，正在被其他地区复制。它是由荷塞·阿布吕尔（Jose Abreu）发起的一个社区性质的音乐教育体系，诞生于1975年，1977年获得了委内瑞拉政府的资助，随后几十年里，尽管委内瑞拉国内政局动荡，但是，在荷塞·阿布吕尔的坚持与带领之下，乐团得以在委内瑞拉扎根，不但让古典音乐成为一种人人皆有机会接触的东西，而且还通过这样的教育成功的帮助那里的孩子（特别是穷人的孩子）找到了自我，也学会了许多做人的品格。还有些年轻人正是从那里走到世界一流交响乐团，当上了专业的指挥。前几年，有一位导演把这个故事拍成了一部纪录片，通过镜头讲述这一故事，影片推出以后，美国音乐界对发生在委内瑞拉的这个创举感到吃惊。毕竟委内瑞拉是一个发展中国家啊，但是他们已经做出了世界一流的音乐教育，其他国家可以从中学到些什么？纽约市的一班音乐家于是决定要做点事情，他们就自发的成立了一个行动者联盟，组织专题研讨会，探讨适合纽约市的发展思路，还收集在线签名，通过自下而上的行动，唤起政府对于这样的事情的关注……咱们中国是否也能从中学到一点有益的东西？

中午的时候，去了一趟图书馆，刚好见到了一本 Science 杂志（2009年1月2日出版），其封面主题就是 Education & Technology，里面有多篇文章介绍了世界各地在将科技融入到教育当中的一些做法与研究，很多个文章都挺值得看的，特别推荐以下几个 (subscription required)：
NSF Rethinks Its Digital Library

Computers As Writing Instructors

A Personal Tutor for Algebra

晚上到逸夫楼上课，这次是梁晓燕老师主讲。梁老师是自然之友的发起人之一，之前曾在大学当教师，也曾在媒体界工作。2000年前后，她开始专注于乡村教育。她先是去美国考察了那里的农村小学的一些做法，在美国小学看到的东西真可谓是让梁老师大开眼界，她发现，原来小学教育也可以这么做的。回来后，梁老师先是到北京天下溪工作，而后转到西部阳光农村发展基金会，专门搞乡村教育这一块。她们看到乡村教育存在的种种弊端，非常希望能够从教育理念出发，来改变这样的现状。但是，她们很快发现，要做结构上的调整是极其困难的事情，于是决定从小事做起。她们把目光放到了编写教材这个细节上。很长时间以来，中国大陆各地都是使用统编教材，但是这样的教材通常是假定城市孩子为默认的受教育者人群，但是在这样的思维之下编写出来的教材放到西部农村去就不能反映到现实了。很多孩子会抱怨说，书本上讲的东西都是 ridiculous 的——但这样的声音却一直得不到教育界的关注。梁晓燕和她的团队决定以教材作为切入口，开展她们的工作。事实表明，她们根据地方实际编写出来的乡土教材更容易让学生接受，学生学起来也更带劲。后来，她们把这样的做法向其他的NGO推广，现在已经有200多个NGO在搞这样的事情了。

但单单有教材还是不够的，毕竟在中国这个大语境之下，一切教育都是在围绕着考试这根指挥棒在转。很多家长也看不出读书意义之所在，很多孩子因为各种原因（其中最突出的一点是厌学）而辍学，作为老师也很少会想到去探索更优的教学方法。于是，西部阳光组织了一次教师培训，把山东省最优秀的50位乡村教师请到甘肃，让她们给当地的老师做培训。经过培训以后，那里的老师发现，原来课还可以这样上！马上受到启发，并将自己想到的拿出来与别人交流——they are not shy, they just don't know that another way is possible.

梁老师还讲了一个她个人的从教故事。她07年的时候去了广西的一所乡村小学，并且住在学校里，体验当地的一切。她不是去给学生上主课，而是给她们上“课外拓展”这类性质的课程。她教的是五年级的学生，但是那里的孩子都不敢在别人面前说话，于是，梁晓燕给她们开了一个叫“学说话”的课外班。就是通过游戏以及诱导等方式来教会孩子大胆的发表个人看法。这个课甚至还吸引了一些老师过来旁听，毕竟这样的上课形式对于他们而言也太新鲜了。一个学期下来，梁晓燕发现，孩子的语文成绩得到了提高，因为他们在口头表达的训练中也训练了组织句子的能力，这样的能力对于他们写作文是大有帮助的，但是在语文课堂上却从来没有教。

演讲完了以后有一个问答环节，其中有个问题是这么问的：“作为大学生，我们能够做点什么？”相信很多朋友心底也有类似的困惑，我们不妨看看梁晓燕老师是怎么答的：“大学生去参与乡村教育很好，但我们不主张他们直接代替当地的老师去上课，因为这样一来会打乱正常的课程规律，二来大学生本身不一定能够很好的担任教师这个角色。但是，我们鼓励大学生在假期的时候，到乡村去，给孩子做拓展性学习（用通俗话说，就是跟那里的孩子玩）——当然，这个我们是需要有6周的时间来培训的，就是告诉你怎么跟孩子玩，并且玩出水平。要有目的，有方向的去跟孩子玩，在玩的过程当中让孩子感受到你的爱，这也是很好的教育。“

假如你认为玩不过是小儿科的事情，那不妨看看Stuart Brown的这个TED演讲，你会发现，很多时候，我们恰恰是缺乏一种“玩”的想法与行动呢！

梁老师的讲座有一句话让我颇为印象深刻，她说，你做NGO，就不要把自己看作是起决定作用的那个人，这样子反而更容易把事情做得更好。相信这句话对于阅读这篇博客的朋友而言也有同等的启发意义。

记得去年的网志年会过后，草莓周刊有过一个专题报道，说那是一个“理想主义的聚会“ 。我不大清楚“理想主义”的确切内涵，但自广州归来之后，我在想，与其大谈理想，不如好好实干。（有朋友说，所谓理想，就是理性地想）

15 号那天下午有一个以维基百科为主题的圆桌讨论，我老早就跑了过去。那个 session 谈及不少有趣的话题，但是，在场的听众里头对于维基百科有较完整认识的人似乎还是少数。有人提到了一些像“维基百科上的中文资源不够用”这样的问题，其 实，这样的问题的答案无非就是两个：你可以直接看英文条目，或者是自己花点时间写个中文条目。无论哪一个，都要求我们具备一种乐于贡献的参与精神。那天还 看到了 ZoomQuiet ，跟他聊了几句，他有一句话最让我感到很过瘾：”只要你去做，不就有了吗？你不要等别人去给你做啊？！“没错，实干才是咱们最缺乏的品质之一。说到这里，还得对中文维基百科的早期传播者表示敬意，是他们的努力换来了中文维基今日的地位，来得不容易。



15号那天晚上有 Punch Party 节目，做得异常精彩。尤其欣赏史萊姆/陳力 的演讲（Carol 说他“一个人能顶五个人“）：陳力主要是讲他和朋友在台湾搞的“胖卡”项目（Puncar ）。他们用的是一辆老爷车，而传播 的却是最新的科技动态，用实际行动，通过点点滴滴的努力来缩短城乡之间的数字鸿沟。（这不由使我想到 OLPC 和 Book Mobile ）

Big questions for new media creations, by Jonathan Harris:

Can it make someone gasp or cry?

Does it feel as special as a love letter?

Does it truly represent our time?

Will it still feel relevant in 25 years?

Does it say something that’s never been said before?

Does it compare to the masterpieces of other mediums?

Could it have gone further?

 

Watch Jonathan's talk on revealing the web's secrets on TED.com:

 

Ethan Zuckermann 是一位典型的奇客 ，他20岁大学毕业后到加纳学习加纳音乐，后来爱上了这个国家。在硅谷创业成功之后，他想到了非洲，想到了加纳。于是他着手创建了一个名为Geekcorps 的组织，把那些身怀绝技，又渴望拓宽视野、认识更广世界的美国青年带到非洲，帮助非洲的政府和企业进行技术建设。后来由于项目运作花费的资金实在是非常巨 大，Ethan不得不退出该项目，但是他心里依然在想，是否有什么途径可以把生活在不同地方的人联系起来。不仅仅是说在美国能买到中国制造的衣服或玩具那 么简单——那是弗里德曼所讲的平坦化的世界 ，可是在Ethan看来，那不过是物质层面的平坦化而已，就精神层面而言，我们还远远没有走到平坦化的路途上，甚至我们在很多时候对于异国发生的一切根本就不闻不问。Ethan认为，我们这个世界需要更多热爱异国的人 (英文叫xenophile)，他在博客上写道 ：

It’s my theory that xenophiles are going to be very powerful in the future. We’re living in a world that the pro-globalization folks refer to as “flat”. That’s bullshit， obviously. The world is flat as far as stuff is concerned. In my hometown of 3000 people， I can get water from Fiji and fish from Chile， but I’m not going to encounter any Fijians or Chileans. I’m not even likely to encounter information from those countries， news， opinion or cultural influences like films or TV… not unless I very actively go looking for it. So the world’s flat in terms of stuff， but not in terms of human interaction. It’s flat， but in the least important ways - in the ways that matter， in the ways that would allow us to connect with people from other cultures， allow us to share ideas and solve problems together， the world is disconnected. It’s lumpy.

互联网的出现，尤其是 Web2.0 时代之兴起，为我们提供了接触外部世界的更多可能。但是，尽管有了这样的平台和工具，我们由于天生的群聚性 (homophily)，也不太可能自觉地去关心自己所属群体以外的人，除非异国发生的事情与我们面临的某个问题息息相关。为了走出群聚性的陷阱，Ethan 决定要创建一个网站，让世界不同地区的人都能够在那上面找到一个与世界进行对话的窗口。全球之声 (Global Voices Online )就是在这样的理念支撑下产生的。全球之声为全世界不同地区的人提供了一个发声的平台，比方说，志愿者会把中国博客圈里记载的当日要闻翻译成英文，然后再 由别的志愿者从英文翻成别的文字。正是通过这样的方式，Ethan 希望能够为发展中国家的人民带来一个发声的窗口。（不妨读一读“玻利维亚之声一周年回顾”这篇文章 ）

写到这里，我想到咱们的国家。我不由自问:我对生活在我的圈子以外的人有足够的关心吗?我是否也受到了群聚性的影响而只顾埋头干自己的事情?我们在电视上 不断的看到各种冲突(包括国内的和国外的)，假如我们对那些生活在我们的视野以外的人多几分了解，多几分关切，多几分同情，多几分谅解，我们是不是可以减 少，甚至是避免这类事件的发生？我们能否认识到不同的人选择不同的生活方式，都应当得到尊重 ？

世界还不是平的。但是我们不再是生活在孤岛上的人家，我们都渴望与人沟通，都希望别人能听得到我们的声音——为什么我们不先倾听一下别人的声音？

Jamais Cascio在奥巴马成功获得民主党总统候选人提名当天在他的博客上这样写道：

“不管你支持的是奥巴马还是其他人，今天对于我们大家都是一个具有历史意义的转折点。这是多年前我们作出的承诺的一次兑现，尽管有人或许已经忘记了这个承诺。它是一个信号，我们可以从中看到改善自我的希望——我们总还是有能力去作出那些好的改变。” 

 

（原文如下：

Doesn't matter whether you were for him or for someone else, today is truly an inflection point in history. It's the delivery of a promise made in the years long past and sometimes thought abandoned. It's a sign that we can make ourselves better, that transformation for the good remains in our grasp.）

Original text is found here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

 

Nobel Lecture, Oslo, 10 December 2007.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life's work, unfairly labeling him "The Merchant of Death" because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, t he inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: "Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel's time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, "We are evaporating our coal mines into the air." After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth's average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless – which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented – and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: "Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago,scientistscalculated thatnuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world's resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent "carbon summer."

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, " Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice." Either, he notes, "would suffice."

But neither need be our fate.It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11^th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; thatProvidence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penaltiesfor ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called "Satyagraha" – or "truth force."

In every land, the truth – once known – has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between "me" and "we," creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step "ism."

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun's energy for pennies or invent an engine that's carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, "It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship."

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the "Father of the United Nations." He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. I n that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull's generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, "crisis" is written with two symbols, the first meaning "danger," the second "opportunity." By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they've taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters – most of all, my own country – that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish toredeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, "Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk."

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures – each a palpable possibility – and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, "One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door."

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn't you act? "

Or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

 

Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 2007

今天整理浏览器收藏夹时，发现自己曾收藏过一个名字叫"Open Cafe"的网站。那其实是一家在南非的独具特色的网吧兼咖啡馆，它主要服务于社区，提供与Internet相关的咨询与培训服务。Open Cafe的一大突出特点是它所有的服务器都是用Ubuntu，在这个咖啡馆里，他们只用开源软件，并且大量的使用基于Creativecommons授权的其他资料，借此大力宏扬开放共享协作的理念。他们还曾围绕着开源这一主题理念搞过一系列活动（如Barcamp, 自由软件日庆祝等）通过让人们亲身参与来感受开源应用的魅力所在。

有兴趣的朋友可以浏览他们的网页，看看人家在南非（同样是发展中国家）是怎样做FOSS的宣传的。

Open Cafe: http://www.opencafe.org.za

昨晚看了著名影片《死亡诗社》，对于片中的中学教师基丁( Keating )非常敬佩。基丁任教的威尔顿学校是一所以尊重传统以及纪律严明著称的私立中学，它的毕业生有75%都会进入Ivy League，但是多年来一直在沿用的教学材料以及教学模式很明显难以跟得上时代跳动的脉搏，也不可能满足年轻人那种好奇心和创造欲。作为语文教师，基丁上课的第一天把学生带到了教师外的走廊上，让他们仔细看放在橱窗里的旧照片。照片上的年轻人一个个看起来都非常的有活力，但他们却是在虚无中度过他们人生的黄金时期。基丁警示他的学生要“抓紧时间” ( seize the days)，这样的劝言在那班好玩的年轻人眼里不过是老调重弹，但是，至少他们发现他们的这位语文教师具有某些与众不同之处。更大的发现是在后期，基丁老师上“诗歌鉴赏课”的时候，让他们把课本的整个序言部分都撕下，因为基丁要教会他的学生去用自己的眼光去鉴赏诗歌，而不是某某教授如是说。学生们发现这个老师确实有点不一样的来头，后来有位学生竟从图书馆里弄来一份基丁老师年轻时的档案，上面写到基丁当时是“死亡诗社”的成员，他们每周五晚上在一个山谷里搞诗会，朗诵诗人的诗，或自己写的诗，而诗会本身却是秘密组织。学生们从基丁老师的口里得知这个秘密后决定重建诗会，于是由Neil发起，一班人在一个周五的晚上拿着手电跑到郊外的一个山谷，重新点燃死亡诗社的火种。也许是基丁老师独特的教学方式给予了他们更多的思考，也许是死亡诗社本身独特的魅力，这群年轻人在山谷那里虽然没能按原来的样子重建诗会，但是他们有着自己的想法：诗会其实只是一个象征，他们心底里渴望的是摆脱种种套在他们身上的约束着他们思考和成长的枷锁。诗是人发自内心的真情的表达，它和激情、爱情一样，是我们生活的意义之所在。这群年轻人在第一次诗会以后就愈加喜爱基丁老师和他的诗歌鉴赏课。在课上，基丁要求同学们一个个上台朗诵自己写的诗。轮到安德森时，他说“我没写”，基丁没有骂他，而是婉言要求安德森把自己肚子里的诗念出来。安德森在全班的众目睽睽之下可谓惊恐至极，基丁让他仰望挂在墙上的惠特曼的肖像，描述闪过脑海的瞬时感受。当安德森把自己的感受先是一字一吐，而后如洪水喷发般道出来时，立刻博得全班的一片掌声。基丁让全面最腼腆的安德森都有机会在台上表演一番，这样的课同学们自然是越来越喜欢。但是传统的势力在威尔顿学校里还是一股不可小觑的力量，家长们送他们的孩子来这里上学，为的不是让他们学会思考、学会做人，而是以此作为一块踏板，跳入哈佛的“鲤鱼门”并由哈佛走向“成功”。这样的想法使得Neil的父亲不能理解他的孩子坚持参加戏剧演出的做法。Neil后来选择了自杀，而Neil的死则促使威尔顿学校的校长对整个事情展开深入的调查。死亡诗社被告密了，基丁老师被解雇，临走前基丁回到教室收拾行李，在场的学生纷纷以他们独特的方式默送基丁，而拿着教科书不放的老校长尽管龙颜大怒，却也不可奈何……

《死亡诗社》让我想到很多东西。片中的年轻人得知死亡诗社的消息后当即决定要重建这个已被历史遗忘的诗会，而且说干就干，毫不犹豫，果断利落。我们今天中国的年轻人还有这种热情吗？我们身边还能找到基丁老师吗？我们的父母是不是也漠视年轻人自我表达的需要，而让发生在Neil身上的悲剧一再重演？

近日在豆瓣看到一则评论，讲述当代年轻人投身农村建设的事迹，情感颇为真切。下面是一段节选，全文见于此处：

“新乡村建设运动就在村民的渴望和大学生们的奋力推撵中艰难地延伸着。而就是这些推车的人，最后发现自己已经不仅仅是推车的人，最后发现不是自己在推车，而是车也在拉着自己跑，自己已经变成了车的一部分。所以当一个大学生说“农民挽救了我”（北理：陈乐乐）的时候，显然不是一句口号，而是替大家在陈述着一个往事。而讲述这个故事的也绝对不是一个人，他们是一群充满了渴望的生命。他们坚信“我们还有崇高的理想”（北师大：赵玲），坚信“我们的理想终将实现”（孙恒）。

　　2004年酷热的夏季，另一群大学生们则是带着这些梦想走上万里千村的自行车骑行。全国 各地的十几支队伍在几乎完全自费地奋力骑行，一个村一个村地宣传着中央一号文件，传递着一种爱心，一种理想。当这些脸上黝黑、筋疲力尽的宣传队员们仍然高唱着歌走进一 个又一个村庄时，哪里只有同情和心疼，你分明感受到了一次生命的冲动，经受到一种从没有过的感动和壮丽。你难道没有感到一种新的精神的到来？

　　有一种生存，叫高尚
　　也许在故事中让你更多地感到那些朦朦地远山，静静地山村。但是给你讲述高尚的意义的却绝对不只是一次次的行动，而是一个一个鲜活的生命，一个一个的亮丽的青春故事，而这些才更真切地昭示着一个新的时代的到来。

　　肖青，曾经也和其他青年人一样，大学毕业后一个人到深圳去寻找自己的梦。但是短短的三个月就让他自己感觉到优闲的生活、不错的工资，并不是自己梦的本真。而安徽南唐村的炎热的夏季则让他终于溶化了自己的已经构建的黄金屋――他一下子放弃了所有返回深 圳的可能，从此就变成了农村的儿子。所到之处，农民就仿佛听到了福音。

　　不知是相信理想的力量还是对一段真正的爱情的向往，另一个执着的女孩子白亚丽也放弃了已经没有生命的校园。她走进了肖青呆着的那个小山村。于是一个农民做主人的新山乡巨变的故事和一段感人的爱情也在这里发生。此后这样的巨变，这样地爱情故事又在其他 地方开始演绎。”