A modular tool for vulnerability study

The DIVA (Dynamic and Interactive Vulnerability Assessment) tool is a modular "discussion-making" tool developed by the EU funded [DINAS-COAST](http://www.dinas-coast.net/) project. The tool is used to facilitate the assessment of vulnerability in coastal areas. It tries to address these drawbacks of similar tools and models:

* Low resolution and obsolete data sources;
* Limited number of scenarios;
* Unable to identify causes of vulnerability except for sea-level rise;
* Not considering social-nature interaction and feedback;
* arbitrary and simplistic assumptions about adaptation.

The main characters of the DIVA tool are:

* Integration of multiple disciplines in the study and simulation of vulnerability issues;
* Modular architecture allows constant update and evolution of the tool, to adapt to changing contexts and adaptation/succession;
* Non-expert friendly interface, designed to help answer questions asked by stakeholder and researchers from a wide range of groups.

Using a relational geospatial information database as its foundation, the DIVA tool can be considered as a set of modules, each addressing a process contributing to the vulnerability of coasts, governed by a framework that describes the conceptualization of the system in question. Only processes that conform to the general conceptualization can be modelled.

The development of the tool is an interesting case study of distributed software engineering. The authors of the modules belong to different institutions all over the Eurasia continent, and collaboration has to be carried out with email, Internet and phone. During development, the developers cannot even tell what the interfaces of the modules would be. To coordinate the efforts, the whole consortium used an ontology (conceptualization) of the system, and stored it as XML in a central location. The ontology then guides developers to establish algorithms and data structures. The module then goes to a stand-alone mode test. Finally, the linkage of the module with others and the whole model are tested.

Judging from the difficulties of developing such a complicated project, the DIVA tool is an exceptional success. However, the modular approach also have its own problems. The most significant one is that one module's underlying theory and implementation are often not concerned by other experts, and the relationships between modules are not always well understood. This perhaps is why the author of [the article](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.03.002) calls the DIVA tool "transdisciplinary" instead of "interdisciplinary".

An important issue in vulnerability studies is [the cross-scale interactions](http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465). The DIVA tool cannot address this issue well, but the authors are pretty sure that the modular structure of the tool allows these features to be easily added. It is natural to consider the possibility to expand the tool to other vulnerability problems, such as desertification or energy dependency, but this may need a new framework. It is also not clear whether the DIVA framework supports modelling of long-range interactions.

The authors do not expect the DIVA tool to answer all vulnerability questions. They call it a "discussion-making" tool instead of a "decision-making" tool. The ability to better incorporate stakeholders in vulnerability study is eagerly needed in all kinds of socio-ecological systems. It would be wonderful to see more DIVA-style tools appear.

Hinkel, J., & Klein, R. (2009). Integrating knowledge to assess coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: The development of the DIVA tool Global Environmental Change, 19 (3), 384-395 DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.03.002

Adger, W. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24 (3), 347-364 DOI: 10.1191/030913200701540465

Ocean acidification below the surface

The climate change deniers say that climate change and relevant concerns are a fad. Well they must be wrong. From my personal experience I was reminded of [the climate change scenario](http://www.jstor.org/action/doAdvancedSearch?q0=global+warming&f0=all&c0=AND&q1=&f1=all&c1=AND&q2=&f2=all&c2=AND&q3=&f3=all&wc=on&sd=1980&ed=1989&la=&jo=&Search=Search) in 1980s -- right, before I went out of the kindergarten -- and that was like 20 years ago. And scientists today are using data that are accumulated continuously in the past 20 years to study the impact of climate change.

One instance is this [preprint](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/07/24/0906044106.abstract) published on the PNAS website. The authors creatively used the fixed-temperature pH data, avoiding problems like the change of H₂CO₃ equilibria with temperature, and making the seasonal trend pronounced. It is pointed out that there is a trend of decreasing pH at sea surface, and more importantly, the seasonal pattern of water change between surface and sub-surface zones of the ocean may be a profound factor in a more complicated ocean acidification picture.

There are drivers at different scales at play here, causing diurnal, seasonal and annual variabilities of the ocean acidity. The authors mentioned a strong pH negative anomaly in 1998, which causes me to think whether there could be some cross-scale interactions, such as El Nino, also at play.

Another thought that occurred to me is that the dissolved organic carbon may be a slow variable in the ocean system. Of course I am not an oceanographer and this is just a wild guess. But if there is any oceanographer reading, would you care to explain the circulation of inorganic carbon in the ocean? We all know the acidity in the ocean is slowly increasing, but if there is an accumulation process of inorganic carbon that we do not know, one day it is going to give us a bigger surprise given adequate temperature and mixing conditions.

John E. Dore, Roger Lukas, Daniel W. Sadler, Matthew J. Church, & David M. Karl (2009). Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0906044106

What is truly adaptive management?

Folke et al. (2002) argued that active adaptive management can help resilience-building in social-ecological systems. Active adaptive management, by their definition, considers policy as a set of experiments designed to reveal underlying processes that build or maintain resilience. They pointed out that to achieve active adaptive management the managing institution should be open and flexible governance bodies that can "learn, generate knowledge and cope with change".

In real life scenarios, the problem with active adaptive management is what should the decision makers and stakeholders learn from the experiments and what kind of institution is really "adaptive".

[A new article](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001) appearing in Global Environmental Change is another attempt to tackle these questions. The author argues that often policies are not adaptive in that they are just trying to adjust actions according to the effect, without further questioning the underlying constraints and contexts of the action. To be adaptive and help build resilience, the governing regime should adopt multiple levels of learning, starting from refinement of actions, to questioning the frame of reference and underlying assumptions, to transform the structure of context and established values and norms. If the institution is only limited to the first loop of learning, it may finally encounter some restraints that limit its adaptive capacity. As a result, in the face of larger environmental or socioeconomic changes the institution will fail to maintain the resilience of the complex system.

The author further points out that a government-dominated institution would not be flexible enough to adopt the second- or third-loop learning, which requires the change of the whole actor network, regulations and the structure of the institution. As a complement of the "formal" institution, the "informal" institution featuring stakeholder participation, more flexible regulation, and local knowledge should be introduced. It is noted that such kind of informal institutions often lack a voice or ability to take actions in large-scale projects, thus a hybrid institution combining the executive power of formal institutions and the flexibility of informal institutions is called for.

The trend of more active informal network, or "shadow network", may see the hierarchy in environmental management more diminished. How to guarantee the voice of the informal institutions heard may not be a major problem in industrialised countries, but will be one for minority groups and marginalised communities in developing countries. To establish a context around their point of view will be an interdisciplinary challenge.

Claudia Pahl-Wostl (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes Global Environmental Change, 19 (3), 354-365

Carl Folke, Steve Carpenter, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance Gunderson, C S Holling, & Brian Walker (2002). Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations Ambio, 31 (5), 437-440

北美蝴蝶物种多样性的统计研究

今天在学校听了来自 UC Irvine 的 [Bradford A. Hawkins 教授](http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4562)的一个讲座。 据说Hawkins 是生物地理学和宏观生态学方面的大牛，可惜听讲前自己没有做足功课，虽然讲座是近期少见的信息量大、富启发意义的题目，却没有听得太明白。 好在回来搜论文找到了 Hawkins 等即将发表的关于同一个研究的[论文](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02119.x)。

Hawkins 等人使用了墨西哥以北的北美地区夏季和冬季的蝴蝶物种丰度资料，将蝴蝶亚科按照分布范围分成热带和非热带两部分进行讨论。从物种丰度在纬度方向上的梯度看，热带类型的蝴蝶物种明显地表现出夏季向北迁徙或者 recolonize 的趋势；而非热带类型的蝴蝶则很少表现出有长距离的迁移。而以亚科在包括弄蝶总科 Hesperioidea 和凤蝶总科 Papilionoidea 的整个谱系树上的遗传距离（Mean Root Distance, MRD）来看，北美地区靠近热带的南部物种间的距离较短。 如果蝴蝶起源于热带的假设成立，这说明非热带物种多是适应了较寒冷气候的进化支。

根据对 8 个可能因素的回归分析，热带物种的丰度跟温度正相关，与热带地区的距离成负相关。非热带物种丰度与温度的关系更复杂一些。虽然夏季温度还是与物种丰度正相关，冬季温度较高的地区物种丰度却不一定更高。作者提出的解释是对于适应了较寒冷环境的蝴蝶物种，冬季温度有一个最适范围，高于这个范围的温度可能会扰乱休眠期的蝴蝶的生理活动，导致其数量减少甚至局部灭绝。一些对北半球气候变化造成的物种向北迁移的现象可以作为这个观点的一个注脚。

作者在文末指出形成北美蝴蝶多样性梯度的根本原因在于蝴蝶的热带起源和第三纪中期以来的长期气候变化模式。Hawkins 今天在讲座中进一步指出在欧洲、澳大利亚、智利、南非等地区也都发现了类似的梯度分布，可见他的观点具有相当强的解释力。这一研究不仅能用来解释北美现有的蝴蝶多样性梯度，也有可能被用来进一步研究蝴蝶各亚科和物种的进化和迁徙模式。这种研究方法理论上说也应该可以应用于其它起源于热带的物种，但对于蝶科的生活史、习性和物种分布的完整研究是做出这样研究的前提条件，不知道在无脊椎动物中还有哪些物种有这样完整的研究记录。

这一研究也揭示了气候变化引起的冬季温度变化将会给非热带蝴蝶物种带来的问题。从北美地区来看，热带物种可能不会仅仅因为温度上升就迁往更朝北的地区，但非热带物种聚集的地带可能会向北移动，欧洲也是如此，甚至有可能在热带和非热带物种区之间形成一个空白地带，也许会对这些地区的农业和林业产生影响。

Hawkins, B., & DeVries, P. (2009). Tropical niche conservatism and the species richness gradient of North American butterflies Journal of Biogeography DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02119.x

Capturing cross-scale interactions

People studying ecological resilience talk about cross-scale interactions a lot. Yet people often claim that cross-scale interaction is in play without quantitative evidence. [Researchers from Argentina](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0091-9) in 2005 proposed to use regression on data sets collected in different years to identify the existence of cross-scale interactions.

The approach cannot tell what really is cross-interacting with other variables, yet. And being a statistical method, it requires a huge amount of data. Perhaps by regression of multiple series and types of data, and with the aid of conceptual models, this approach can bring more insight into the system.

Emacs 的 UTF-8 字符集替代模式

我的 Emacs 版本是 GNU Emacs 22.3.1 (i386-apple-darwin9.6.0, Carbon Version 1.6.0) of 2009-01-03 on seijiz.local。

今天试图重新配置一下 Emacs 的字体，用 [Inconsolata](http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html) 和华文黑体配合显示英文和简繁体中文，使用 UTF-8 作为 language-environment。在 .emacs 里设置后重启，发现有些字符总是使用 japanese-jisx0208 或 japanese-jisx0212 字符集，导致我为中文 UTF-8、BIG-5 和 GB2312 设置的字体和 Emacs 默认的 japanese-jisx* 字体混杂在一起。

搜索了一下，在[这里](http://www.downloadpipe.com/forums/linux/Bug-328196-emacs-snapshot-gtk-mis-detecting-charset-ftopict37467.html)看到类似问题的讨论，试用了一下讨论中建议的 (utf-translate-cjk-load-tables) 函数，没有变化。查看了一下该函数和 utf-translate-cjk-mode 的文档，原来 Emacs 对于 Korean，Chinese-GB/Big5 之外的 language-environment 默认都以 jisx 为默认首选字符集，当字符在多个字符集中有重复时，优先以 jisx 字符集显示。大概是因为使用日文的开发者对于 Emacs/Unicode 的贡献较大的缘故？这个行为大概可以在 lisp/international/utf-8.el 里面改，不过我不打算搞这种难以维护的修改。

倒倒苦水

这篇本来要发豆瓣日记的，结果“本功能暂停使用”。

最近在医师的指导下用认知行为疗法治疗自己的 low self-esteem 和一系列相关问题。今天看到[这样](http://www.douban.com/review/2129677/)的一篇评论，我就想我的无力感和自卑是不是有一部分要归功于这样的观点和那些气候变化否定论以及气候变化人因否定论以及气候变化人类干预有效否定论啊。这些人怀疑个人对环境有什么影响；我怀疑我个人写的这么一篇回复对ta们能有什么作用，久而久之就感到万分沮丧，甚至开始怀疑人生……

作为一个学环境出身的人，看到人物理学家说个“场”字都被民科们争相引用，人天文学家说冥王星不是行星它就不是了，我们搞环境和气象的在学科内部有争议也就算了，学科内达成基本一致的结论，拿出来却要被政客忽略，被公民误解，被否定论者歪曲……心里真有些不平。

至少在豆瓣上，多数人是在找各种各样的理由想办法把“难以忽视的真相”过滤掉的，少数人是搅浑水的，更少数人是感到痛心的。

下次看见类似的评论，哪怕口水嚼成丸药，还是会写东西反驳，哪怕没有人看，哪怕得罪人。

Crowd-Sourced Science

In [an article](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017) published on TREE, J. Silvertown from the Open University, UK notes a trend that various ecological and evolution studies are engaging non-scientists in a unique way: by letting them collect and analyze data these projects are turning "lay people" into "citizen scientists".

There have been some long-standing projects (starting from early 20th century) that has managed to help scientists collect a huge set of data, most of which related to bird observation. It is pointed out that more data collection projects aided by improved field and software tools are on the horizon to help scientists better understand ecology and evolution of various systems in Europe and North America.

But it is important to note that although collecting data is an important scientific activity, merely doing so hardly qualifies one as a scientist. Arguably, the real meaning of "citizen science" can only be recognized when non-professional people actually take part in proposing hypotheses and analysis of data. The [Evolution MegaLab](http://www.evolutionmegalab.org/) project seems promising enough in this aspect.

The author also mentioned the potential of mobile devices as an instrument for collecting data and as a field guide. The camera and GPS functions of many of today's cellphone, for instance, should be extremely helpful if citizen scientists want to collect species distribution data.

Unfortunately the author did not mention any such project in other parts of the world, nor can I find any in short time. Given the history and experience of some of the citizen science projects, many countries in Asia, to say the least, should now have the capability to establish an environmental/ecological data collecting network. It will both benefit the professional scientists' studies and the science education of thousands of people.

Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science Trends in Ecology & Evolution DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017

读书笔记：No Logo by N. Klein

### 品牌、单边经济与单边政治

[i-D 杂志](http://www.idmagazine.com/)（这是一本时尚杂志！）2001 年对作者 Naomi Klein 的评语是“Chomsky 年轻醒目的女继承人”，不过我觉得，Klein 这本书的对资本主义和品牌文化的探讨的价值和深度是赶不上 Chomsky 那些为大众市场写的同类书籍的。倒是在 2005 年版本的后记 *Two Years on the Streets* 里 Klein 开始有了一些 Chomsky 的范儿，将品牌与全球化时代的经济和布什时代的美国政治联系起来，使得这本书不再是单纯的反公司读物。她在这篇后记中指出，在全球化时代，我们熟知的企业通过将制造业外包，自己转向相对无形的金融交易、市场推广和知识产权和品牌的制造等行业，从而继续维持了在全球经济中的权力地位。这种通过品牌建立起来的权力在国内造成了公共空间和公共事业的被压缩和边缘化，在国外则为大公司肆意滥用发展中国家提供的优惠条件，掠夺资源和无视公司社会责任的做法提供了基础——“低层次”的制造业和原材料供应链必须为品牌服务，而它们提供的产品不过是推广品牌这个无形概念的有形载体，早已不处于经济的中心地位。

Klein 暗示，这种以发达国家的品牌企业为中心，发展中国家的制造业“众星捧月”的经济格局，也造成了布什时期美国在国际政策中的单边主义倾向。无论是入侵伊拉克前对联合国和国际法的无视，还是大公司对其他国家人权和劳动法律的漠视和对基层利益团体的打压，都为原教旨主义和恐怖主义的滋生提供了温床。原书里这一段颇有 Chomsky 甚至 David Harvey 的风范。Klein 主张，反公司和财阀运动的重点，应该转移到宣传多边主义，在两极对立之外还有其他的选择等等。但她自己也承认，将众多分散的反品牌运动集中起来发出这样的声音，影响一国的政策，并非易事。

### No Logo 和 No-Logo

Klein 在书的第四部分“No Logo”里，介绍了发达国家和发展中国家如火如荼开展的对大公司、大品牌的舆论攻势和抵制或抗议活动，但她也反复提到，有时候这些运动反而会被它们反对的品牌或其竞争品牌所利用，或者其概念被品牌的营销业务“借鉴”。日本某品牌甚至把“No-Logo”当成了其品牌理念之一。在后记中，Klein 也提到，无论是把大白菜倒在快餐店门口还是在 G8 会议门外喊口号，对资本主义企业和政府的议题都不会有太大影响，都只是一种符号化的表达方式，而符号化的表达必将被同为符号的品牌所利用。她主张，反公司运动从90年代发展到现在，应该从以符号化的抗议为主，转而谋求对品牌造成的不平等状况的实际改变。

不过在我看来，Klein 的主张对于品牌的消费者并没有太大的指导意义。市场经济条件下消费者能做的，最多也就是用脚投票，希望对企业的经济压力能够对企业的经济策略产生影响。这样做当然还是一种符号化的行动，更不要说还有品牌背后的公司将风险和损失转嫁给外包企业和工人的可能。对于品牌产品的生产者所在的国家，仅仅设立免税区是不够的，因为单纯的免税政策引来的往往不是筑巢的凤凰，而是吃完了白食就跑的恶霸。我以前一直有的一个疑问是为什么台湾可以从做外包做到拥有世界一流的电子工业，为什么印尼做外包做了几十年还有 49% 的人口每天收入不到 2 美元（2006 年），现在看来一个解释是印尼做外包是在免税的出口加工区，区内是工厂，区外是贫民窟，而台湾做外包是在科技园区，而且台湾有十大建设，有鼓励本地经济发展的政策。Klein 提到某勾勾品牌当年迫于国内消费者压力，在短短一周时间内做出决定，撤出军政府统治下的缅甸。为什么它们可以跑得这样快？因为它们对当地政府和工人没有义务，设备拆毁运走，工人送回家种田，房子闲置长草，什么都不留下。FDI 是好事，但是投在当地的能力建设上，还是投在外国品牌自己的腰包里，是个跟品牌道德直接有关的问题。

### 自由市场与公共利益
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="75" caption="Friedrich von Hayek | via Wikipedia"][/caption]这本书前三部分都是对品牌在资本主义市场中产生的原因的分析和对品牌造成的公共空间被压缩，消费者选择减少，以及工人被剥削等现象的严厉控诉，不过我看读者并不能将其看作是一本 radical 的经济学/地理学著作，因为 Klein 为写书所做的研究，在书里反映出来的仅限于法规政策和案例搜寻方面，基本没有提到资本主义的生产理论，甚至连马老人家的 *Das Kapital* （或任何其他相关著作）都没有引用。但她在书中多次提出不能将公共空间和公共事业交托给自由放任的市场经济，以及品牌资本压缩公共空间的观点，确实与 David Harvey 和 Doreen Massey 等 radical geographer 的观点有相当明显的相似处。

我没有读过 Milton Friedman, 只知道他的[“吃蛋糕”](http://eatthestate.org/03-07/MiltonFriedmanGets.htm)事件是反全球化和反公司运动的场景之一。Klein 将他作为一个品牌趋势和资本主义不公平的全球化的象征和代表，但正如 Hayek 的《通往奴役之路》并不否认政府在经济活动中的必要性，Klein 也并未否认作为原则的市场经济体系。Klein 的根本观点与 Hayek 应该是一致的，即政府应作为一个规则制定者，保证市场活动的自由与公平，但她的书暴露了 Hayek 的时代还不突出的问题：当资本主义市场竞争从一国内不同企业的竞争转移到国际间以跨国公司为主体的竞争时，企业的行为怎样被国际法和多个相关的政府所规范。令人遗憾的是 Klein 并没能解决这个问题，这也并非一个学者甚至一个学派可以解决的问题。但她对建立工会组织的鼓励和对免税出口加工区的反对完全是符合自由市场精神的。只是这里的自由市场，应该不是拉美式和 Friedman 式的自由市场了。

*No Logo* 讨论的是一个马克思主义社会学关心的问题，提出的是自由市场下的解决方案。这本书和反公司运动大概会是 Marx 和 Hayek 在天之灵都会感兴趣的东西。

###我们为什么需要品牌

这应该是最容易写得政治不正确的部分。尽管 Klein 为写这本书所做的四年研究是有目共睹的，墨西哥工人争取自己权益的斗争是可歌可泣的，西方消费者抵制和鄙视某快餐连锁的努力是坚持不懈的，但我还是要在我的某水果品牌笔记本上敲下这样一句话：Klein 的书揭露了这样一个事实，即 Upton Sinclair 在他的《屠场》里描写的资本主义原始积累阶段剥削立陶宛难民的芝加哥牛肉托拉斯并没有消失，类似的事情只是换了在世界的另一个角落发生，被剥削的也从移民变成了当地人；但全球化时代已经被套牢的企业和消费者恐怕只有选择哪一个品牌的自由，而没有多少选择品牌与否的自由了。

我对 Klein 的书最大的不满在于品牌的形成和背后的驱动力被她一笔带过。从她的叙述看，品牌的出现是同质的企业在竞争中为了区别自己和对手而必须采取的手段，所以在市场经济条件下，品牌的出现无可厚非；全球化条件下，由于历史原因造成的各地经济水平不均，也决定了企业只要有条件必然寻求最有利的外包地点和市场。所以现有的品牌格局大概是不能避免的。从消费者角度来说，就算粮食自给自足的农民，在选化肥的时候都会选一个自己相信的品牌；我们这些不擅长比较和选择的人类，在一个物质丰富而没有品牌的世界里大概只会每天在选择的痛苦中过得生不如死。

Klein 显然也意识到了这一点，所以虽然不愿明确承认我们需要品牌而削弱这本书的信息力度，但也没有明确地说我们就是可以不要品牌。在后记前的最后一章里，她提出用 citizenship 对抗 consumerism。我们常说作为一个公民我们有这样那样的权利，但在对消费主义的斗争中我们也有义务。作为一个普通消费者来说，认识到自己除了广告里看到的品牌，自己还有其他的选择，或者有意识地关注企业的生产行为和劳动政策，会是有意义的第一步。

对于生产者来说，现在更是只能服从全球化的游戏规则，建立自己的品牌才谈得上竞争，否则只能做别人的承包商。但是很显然，消费者需要品牌，是因为需要实实在在的产品。金融危机也展示了全然与制造业脱节的经济是多么脆弱。保护最下游的承包商和工人的利益应该是品牌的责任。但对一个国家来说，要求品牌负起责任，需要国家有与品牌持有者谈判的筹码，即支持一系列运营自己品牌的企业的能力。台湾需要品牌，而且想法搞到了筹码，所以它们有了世界第一的自行车制造商和第一台 netbook。印尼也需要品牌，但是政府光顾看外商脸色而没有准备筹码，所以还在为别人打工。

### 品牌与中国

豆瓣上有篇书评说看了 *No Logo* 之后觉得人家花几十万买了一个成本可能就几十块的“没有元音的爱”的包包很荒谬，我觉得一个品牌有这么高的附加值固然比较荒谬，但这篇书评并没有说到 *No Logo* 的点子上。真正需要用广告渗透人们的生活，挤压公共空间和其他选择，以及建立血汗工厂满足消费者需要的，不是用户群较小且较固定的奢侈品品牌，而是可以通过极端的量产化压低产品制造成本和制造业地位，自身以市场营销为主业的所谓大众品牌。有几个品牌在 *No Logo* 里有点名而且中国消费者都很熟悉，可以说奠定了中国的消费主义的基础。我并不担心富太太们夹着“没有元音的爱”陪她们的煤老板丈夫去砸 XO 比富对社会文化和风气有什么影响，但我衣柜里的勾勾衣服，我的电脑，我的同学和朋友爱吃的薯条和鸡块，都在暗示着中国这个世界上最大的市场对消费主义的彻底接受和对品牌的迷信。如果说引进 *No Logo* 这本书应该有什么社会意义的话，但愿它的读者能够感到警醒，以及用更复杂的眼光看待品牌——不论是舶来的还是“民族”的。

写到引进图书，索性再写一写文化市场的状况。就我的观察而言，*No Logo* 这样出版于 2000 年的引进书籍，被我在 2009 年在北京的书店里买到的可能性不大，有做这一行的人也说在中国任一本图书都做不长，不像国外许多经典书可以一卖十几年。2001 年满书架的 LoTR，现在在北京的书店能找到几本？虽然其经典地位不可否认。而 2008 年一本写给青春期少女看的 Twilight 被发行商包装成了奇幻经典，就因为它在欧美畅销（购买者多是目标群体和她们的男朋友）而且电影正要上映。就文化市场而言，中国人对品牌不仅是相信，更是盲信。

一个学地理和社会学的人还能从 Klein 的书里生发出许多议论，比如品牌与种族，品牌与传媒，品牌与后殖民主义等等。但作为一篇书评和笔记，就到这里吧。休息，休息一下。