扎克伯格夫婦如何爲下一代操心
Every parent knows the biological intoxication — at least for a few weeks — of having your first child. That, plus living in California and being a technology idealist, may account for the somewhat sappy tone of Mark Zuckerberg’s letter this week to his new daughter Max, in which he announced that he will devote 99 per cent of his $45bn wealth to good works.
父母在迎來第一個寶寶時都會感受到一種生物性的興奮——至少頭幾個星期如此。這種初爲人父的喜悅，加上住在加利福尼亞州，再加上身爲一個科技理想主義者，或許能解釋爲什麼馬克丠克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)會在本週給他纔出生的女兒麥克斯(Max)寫下那封充滿溫情的信，在信中他宣佈將把自己450億美元的財富捐出99%給慈善事業。
The Facebook founder’s pledge, with his wife Priscilla Chan, of “a moral responsibility to all children in the next generation” is no doubt deeply felt and genuine. It also has a coolly rational outcome — that he can demerge two things that have been mixed up in a single corporate structure: Facebook and philanthropy. The “social mission” he declared at Facebook when it went public in 2012 now has another outlet.
這位Facebook創始人與他的妻子普莉希拉陳(Priscilla Chan)許諾要“對下一代所有孩子肩負起道義上的責任”，夫妻二人這份承諾無疑是由衷和真情實意的。他們的承諾還會帶來一個理性的結果，扎克伯格可以將一直混合在一個企業架構裏的兩件事——Facebook和慈善事業分離開來。2012年Facebook上市時，扎克伯格在Facebook上宣稱的“社會使命”現在有了另一個實現途徑。
Warren Buffett has no higher social purpose for Berkshire Hathaway than achieving strong returns for shareholders; nor did Bill Gates for Microsoft when he was running it. The $41bn Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to which Mr Buffett has promised to donate much of his wealth, is their main vehicle for venture philanthropy, impact investing, or call it what you will. Like Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google’s founders, Mr Zuckerberg has until now combined running a corporation, investing in offbeat ideas and making the world a better place. His letter to investors in Facebook’s initial public offering was more sober than this week’s missive but shared some of the same idealism, with its talk of creating “more direct empowerment of people”.
沃倫巴菲特(Warren Buffett)對伯克希爾哈撒韋公司(Berkshire Hathaway)抱有強烈的社會目的，但他同樣強烈地想爲股東實現豐厚回報。比爾蓋茨(Bill Gates)在執掌微軟(Microsoft)期間也是如此。他們進行公益創投或影響力投資（或隨便你怎麼叫）的主要工具是比爾及梅琳達蓋茨基金會(Bill-Melinda Gates Foundation)，該基金會擁有多達410億美元資金，巴菲特也承諾要將大部分財產捐贈給這個基金會。扎克伯克此前也與谷歌(Google)創始人謝爾蓋布林(Sergey Brin)和拉里槧奇(Larry Page)一樣，將經營企業、投資另類創意以及讓世界變得更美好的抱負混合在一起。他在Facebook首次公開發行(IPO)時給投資者的信比本週給女兒的這封信更嚴肅冷靜，但兩封信在理想主義方面有一些共同之處，前一封中談到要“讓民衆享有更直接的權力”。
Mr Page unveiled his unbundling in August by placing Google under Alphabet, a holding company that will take “moonshot” bets on new ventures such as high-altitude balloons to spread internet access to poor countries and remote areas. They are long-term investments of the kind Mr Zuckerberg’s new venture can make, although Alphabet is not philanthropic.
佩奇在8月公佈了他的分拆計劃，將谷歌納入控股公司Alphabet旗下，後者將把對“登月”計劃的投資延伸到新的風險項目上，比如發射高空氣球向貧窮國家及偏遠地區提供互聯網接入服務。扎克伯格的新公司想做的可能也正是這類長期投資項目，雖然Alphabet不是慈善機構。
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative — the quaint title for their joint venture, which will seek profits as well as making donations — goes a step further. The Chan-Zuckerbergs will attempt to “advance human potential” and promote social equality with measures that will include “long-term investments over 25, 50 or even 100 years”.
“陳-扎克伯格行動”(Chan Zuckerberg Initiative)——他們爲這一聯合經營公司起了個古樸的名字——則更進了一步，該公司在進行捐贈的同時也會追求利潤。陳-扎克伯格行動將嘗試“提高人類潛能”，促進社會平等，其手段包括進行“長達25年、50年甚至100年的長期投資”。
This is a simpler way to aim at such outcomes than including them as an ancillary target for a company that is focused on other things, whether social networking or search. An ambitious ethical stance is bound to make investors uneasy because they do not know what it involves — does linking communities mean manufacturing mobile phones or drilling a tunnel through the centre of the earth? Facebook’s mission will no doubt stay in place but this takes the pressure off. Mr Zuckerberg has been wooing China — learning the language and making frequent visits — although his IPO letter included a call for “more accountability for officials,” which probably goes down badly there. Dividing Zuckerberg the chief executive from Zuckerberg the political idealist may help.
對於一間專營其他業務（無論是社交網絡還是搜索引擎），但想實現上述目標的公司來說，比起將這些目標列爲公司的附帶目標，這是一種更簡單的辦法。在道德上擺出雄心勃勃的姿態必定會讓投資者感到不安，因爲他們不知道這代表着什麼，使人們互聯是意味着製造手機呢，還是在地球中心打通一條隧道？Facebook的使命無疑不會改變，但這樣做能消除壓力。扎克伯格一直在爭取中國市場，包括學習中文，頻繁訪華等，但他在IPO公開信中所呼籲的“官員應肩負起更多責任”，在那兒可能不會引起多大波瀾。如果扎克伯格能將他的首席執行官身份和政治理想主義者身份分割開來，可能會有幫助。
While separating public company from private philanthropy brings greater clarity and freedom of manoeuvre to both, it does not make the latter either simple or cheap. Mr Zuckerberg’s aside to his daughter that he knows $45bn “is a small contribution” to changing the world reads like a billionaire’s false humility, but he is right.
將上市公司與私人慈善事業分離，可以爲二者帶來更大的清晰度以及自由運作空間，而且並不會令後者變得更簡單或者更廉價。扎克伯格在對女兒的溫情告白中說他知道450億美元對改變世界來說“只是一筆小小的捐款”，這話聽來好像一個億萬富翁的假謙虛，但他說得沒錯。
In some ways, Mr Zuckerberg is following Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, who founded a network of 1,700 public libraries in the US. Carnegie argued in his essay, “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889), that industrialists should “busy themselves in organising benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage,” rather than leaving their money to their children.
在某些方面，扎克伯格正在效仿鋼鐵大王安德魯慍蕓基(Andrew Carnegie)，後者在美國建立了1700家公共圖書館。卡內基在《財富的福音》(The Gospel of Wealth, 1889年)一文中寫道，實業家應該“讓自己忙於組織慈善活動，讓廣大同胞都能從中獲得持久的優勢”，而非將財富留給自己的孩子。
The Chan-Zuckerbergs’ worries about inequality mirror those of Carnegie, who observed “the contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the labourer” in the age of US industrialisation. He concluded of capitalism: “It is here; we cannot evade it; no substitutes have been found; and while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race.”
扎克伯格夫婦對不平等的擔憂與卡內基類似，後者看到的是美國工業化時代“百萬富翁的豪宅與工人陋室之間的反差”。他對資本主義的結論是：“資本主義就在我們身邊：我們無法逃避；還沒有找到任何替代模式；雖然這種法則有時可能對個人顯得殘酷，但它對整個民族而言是最好的。”
They have set themselves a more complex task than Carnegie faced a century ago — namely, to find innovative ways of addressing intractable global issues. Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, wrote recently that Carnegie’s wealth was “a pittance in comparison with the world’s trillions of dollars of needs for food and housing, education, infrastructure and healthcare” (even if the foundation bearing his name is still making inroads into them).
扎克伯格夫婦爲自己設定的任務比卡內基一個世紀前所面臨的更加複雜——找到創新的方式解決難以應對的全球性問題。福特基金會(Ford Foundation)主席達倫茠克(Darren Walker)最近寫道：卡內基的財富“與全世界對食物、住房、教育、基礎設施及醫療保健的巨大需求相比只是杯水車薪”（即使以他的名字命名的基金會仍在爲此進行努力）。
Solving what Mr Zuckerberg tells Max will be “the biggest opportunities and problems your generation will face” is another order of challenge to managing Facebook. “The new generation of philanthropists wants to believe there is a clever ‘hack’ for every problem,” Sean Parker, the entrepreneur and former Facebook executive, wrote in June. For some problems, there is not.
解決扎克伯格對女兒麥克斯所說的“你們這代人面臨的最大機遇與問題”是有別於管理Facebook的另一層次的挑戰。“新一代的慈善家願意相信，每一個問題都有一種聰明的‘破解辦法’，”Facebook前高管、創業家肖恩帕克(Sean Parker)6月時寫道。對一些問題而言，沒有這樣的辦法。
Mr Zuckerberg has clearly learnt lessons from his $100m donation in 2010 to support reform of New Jersey schools, which soon ran into difficulty. Changing societies requires more time, more money and greater willingness to suffer frustration than launching a new product. It is hard enough for one organisation to do one, let alone both.
2010年，扎克伯格爲支持新澤西州的學校改革捐贈了1億美元，但改革很快陷入困境。很顯然，他已經從中吸取教訓。比起推出新產品，要改變社會，需要更多時間、更多資金以及更大的承受挫折的意願。對一個組織而言，做其中任一件事都已相當艱難，更遑論兩件了。
When Max grows up, her mother and father can teach her about that.
麥克斯長大後，父母可以向她傳授這方面的經驗。
