| 作者 |
 [原创]高处不胜寒之二: Frontier Visionary Interview with Alvin Toffler |
 |
积极生活态度
头衔: 海归中校
声望: 学员
性别:  年龄: -1356
加入时间: 2009/05/30
文章: 525
来自: 3rd World
海归分: 56593
|
|
|
作者：积极生活态度 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
Frontier Visionary Interview
Alvin Toffler , Futurist and Writer
- The Next Wave with Alvin Toffler
Frontier Journal (FJ): Mr. Alvin Toffler is the world’s most influential futurist, and author. He co-authored with his wife, Heidi Toffler, a series of best sellers, including Future Shock, the Third Wave, Powershift, and Revolutionary Wealth.
I have a couple of questions. My first question would be, it is amazing, when I was preparing my set of questions after I went over again, with your books handy, I found a lot of answers of my questions could be found in your book. So how come you made your predictions so precise?
Alvin Toffler (AT): Well, nobody knows the future with perfection. It’s impossible. But we can determine some broad historical changes that are taking place. And instead of looking just at our own particular job, or our own particular family, or household, we have to look at the larger society, and we have to look beyond that to what’s happening globally, because what’s happening globally, then affects us individually very often. And what’s happening is with the speedup of the change, which as you know wrote about in Future Shock so many years ago, the more rapid the changes are in society, in business, and in technology, and all these different fields. The more rapid those changes are, the more the knowledge inside our brains in obsolete, and we have to catch up, because our pictures of the world, our pictures of what’s going on around us, are increasingly obsolete as a result of the speedup.
FJ: So, you and your wife, in the following questions, in brief, I just mention you. You and your wife invented the words “prosume,” and “prosumer.”
AT: Yes, yes.
FJ: Which precisely predicted the “prosume trend” decades ago. And -
AT: I didn’t hear that. The prosume?
FJ: The prosume trend decades ago.
AT: Yes.
FJ: Outsourcing as consumption, and the DIY as production becomes more and more popular.
AT: Correct.
FJ: Not only in business world, but also in our daily life.
AT: Correct.
FJ: So to be economically efficient, how should an organization be a good prosumer, and how can business leap from the prosume trend?
AT: Well that’s interesting. What’s happening is, that the connections between prosuming, and six systems. One is producing and consuming as separate activities, a combination of those activities, “I produce what I need, and I consume the same thing.” So prosuming is the creation of value, and frequently economic value, for ourselves, our own purposes.
What’s happening is that with the advance of technology, and the growing global competition, the regular economy, the money economy, is producing more and more tools that people can use to turnout value by themselves. For example, we in the U.S. when I was young, a kid, if you wanted to take a photograph of your family you had to go to a drugstore and buy film. Then you took your pictures, and you then went back to the drugstore, and the drugstore sent the roll of film to Rochester, New York, where Kodak developed it and then they sent it back to the drugstore. And a week later you had the picture of your family.
Well now of course, we don’t send the films to be developed by somebody else. The power to do that is in our camera already, our digital camera. So that we now have the power to create value that would have been worth money, and would have taken much longer in the traditional money economy, but this is now a function that’s been transferred to the non-money economy, the prosumer economy. And what we see therefore is more, and more technologies, powerful technologies, coming into the hands of users to create value for themselves. And I think we’re going to see an explosion of this, a further explosion of this.
For example, if you look in the catalogs of products available to people who suffer from different diseases. Well there are many, many, many products that are used in the homes to help, to take care of people who are ill for example. So you don’t necessarily have to go to the doctor everyday in order to test your blood pressure. I have a blood pressure machine, so when I finish exercising I go to my own blood pressure machine, and brrrp. When the doctor would take my blood pressure, I would pay money for that function. Now I don’t have to. I do it myself.
FJ: So that’s outsourcing versus DIY. I see.
AT: So what we’ve going to see is an explosion of new additional technologies that people can use by themselves to create value for themselves. And that has a big impact on the money economy. Even though there’s no transfer of money, in this prosumer economy.
FJ: I see, I see. So as you mentioned in one of your books, you mentioned a minority power. You know it’s ridiculous that a high school dropout can have the same voting power as a post-doctor. So in that case, the minority power may not be good. So what will be a viable replacement of the current majority power based political system?
AT: Oh, that’s a really good question, and of course, a big and dangerous question for everybody because we don’t know yet. The unfortunate thing is that our political systems, certainly mine, which is of course the one I’m most familiar with, is hopelessly behind what’s happening.
A few months ago I was asked by our democratic party to attend a private closed meeting of 185 members of our House of Representatives, our Congress, and I did. I opened the meeting by saying, “that I am not a democrat. My wife and I are not democrats, but we’re also not republicans.”
FJ: Oh.
AT: And we said “That the democrats represent the party of old ideas. And the only thing that saves them is the fact that the republicans are also a party of old ideas.” We have an election campaign coming up in America, and we discuss all kinds of issues; healthcare, and education, many issues. But nobody, either democrat or republican, talks about the larger picture of change, this whole fantastic revolution in all of our books, and so they’re debating old issues. And what really makes me concerned is that only in the last couple of years has the high-tech community become politicized. You have more, and more young people, and many people in Silicon Valley and so fourth, who are now becoming political, which is fine, which is good. I’ve been proposing that.
When I listen to the program that they present, and what it is they’re asking the democrats or the republicans to do, it’s the same old stuff. It’s not new and creative, and innovative changes that we will need.
FJ: I see, I see. So in talking about educational reform, you are a great supporter of education reform. Actually you promote educational revolution, not just reform.
AT: Right, right.
FJ: And as you know, personalized and customized education is going to be very expensive. And the cost of revolution is much higher than that of evolution. So in current education systems, learning is emphasized too much. Kids lack the drive to study harder, and work harder in order to have a bright future nowadays. Since they don’t - do not do it in that way, they might still have a decent life in developing countries, in the U.S., Canada, in Western World. So what is your opinion on that issue?
AT: I’m not clear as to what you just said about the young people.
FJ: In motivating kids…
AT: In most…
FJ: In motivating them.
AT: Motivating?
FJ: For motivation, yes. Not just for learning.
AT: Right.
FJ: So what’s your opinion about this issue on how to motivate kids to work hard, study hard, instead of just for learning?
AT: Yes, yes. Well I think that the fundamental problem that we have, and this is - there are many countries of course, that don’t even have the minimal education for their kids.
FJ: Yes.
AT: But certainly in the U.S., which I’m most familiar with obviously, but also I think in Japan, and China, and many other countries, you have educational systems that were designed for the industrial age. And if you look closely at how the schools operate, they share most of the characteristics of an industrial factory.
Before the industrial revolution, if you worked with your family in the fields and you came late, a few minutes late for the field that you had to work on, well some member of your family would take your place for a few minutes. On an assembly line if you come late, you stop 1000 people from working. So everybody becomes “time sensitive,” and everybody is pressured to arrive on time. So as we went to an industrial stage, the schools became industrialized. And the employers said in English, literally these words. “We want industrial discipline.” So what does that mean? That means millions, and tens of millions - hundreds of millions of children around the world, are treated as though they’re in a daily factory. They have to show up on time. They do the same job over, and over, and over again. And they’re being prepared for lives on an assembly line, and the assembly lines may not be there in the future. So that’s why we need not just a reform, as Bill Gates said, “We need more than a reform. We need a transformation of the system.”
FJ: Right.
AT: Now, if we in the economy, we’re going toward greater and greater diversity, of product and techniques, and choice for the consumer, and so fourth, and so on. We need schools and education systems that prepare young people to live in a world of much greater variety, diversity, choice, complexity, etc., etc. And the schools don’t deliver that. I don’t have a precise formula for how to deal with that, because it will be different for every country, and every community.
FJ: Yes.
AT: But that, therefore I’m in favor of almost, not every, but almost every attempt to diversify education systems, to have multiple forms of education. Why should everybody start school at the same age? Maybe one child should start at age three, and another one at age seven. Maybe they should not all - I made my point about the uniformity of the current system. The opposite of uniformity is diversity in this conversation. And that we need a far greater diversity, and more experiment with forms of education.
FJ: Sure.
AT: And there are ways of connecting the education to prosuming, and there are ways of connecting education to economic activity itself. I hesitate to say that because of the terrible history that China itself had, when the schools were closed, and so forth, and so on. But we do need radical changes in the way education is now done.
FJ: So future education also should prosume.
AT: Well part of it, yes.
FJ: Part of it, yes.
AT: Yes, sure.
FJ: In your book titled Revolutionary Wealth, you said there are three dimensions of wealth in knowledge economy, namely temporal(for timer), spacial, and knowledge.
AT: Right.
FJ: And as the revolution appears to be rapidly changing. So regarding knowledge in today’s world, we are surrounded by too much information, too much knowledge. Actually what we lack is called “knowledge of how to create knowledge.”
AT: Yes, we need knowledge about knowledge, and we certainly have knowledge about knowledge. There are many things about knowledge, about which we’re all very ignorant.
FJ: Yes, yes.
AT: So one fact, as I said earlier, is that most of what we think is based on obsolete knowledge, because the world is changing out from under our assumptions. We make assumptions and we act on those assumptions, and we need to, but we have to understand that even as we’re making decisions based on these assumptions, the world is changing. And so therefore, the assumptions need to be continually reexamined.
FJ: Yes, so Mr. Toffler, if you speak that the knowledge is the source of both power and wealth, so knowledge creation might be driven by innovation. My question is, what are the causes and effects of innovation in general.
AT: Well, I think that we have - there are some rather simple minded ideas about it that - I think we have an economic and industrial system, which assumes that most people are not creative. And that only a handful of human beings are creative, and that is not necessarily true. As far as policy for producing, for creating greater innovation in the economy which every country in the world is now saying we need, then that’s ideas about how to produce that are not very attractive, or valuable.
I think the education - first of all, the change in the education system is crucial. Second, you need to reward innovate- to being not just inside a company, but inside a government and country. If you have a system in which - I want to talk, I’m not going to talk about China. I’m going to talk about the old Soviet Union.
FJ: Sure.
AT: The old Soviet Union - no, first of all, if you work in an organization, or in a factory, and you come up with new idea, good idea for improving some function, or some activity, your always going to have opposition. Because all innovation threatens somebody, or somebody’s old way of doing something, so any new idea, in any organization, and we have to assume that’s the case.
Now in a Soviet factory under the system that existed if you came up with a good idea, you would, of course, faced opposition, but you had a very high risk. Soviet factory, you not only got your paycheck from the factory, but you got your doctor, you got your housing, you got your ability to travel or not travel. All kinds of things depended on your job. And as a result, when you challenged anybody in your company, any superior, or said, “I’ve got a great idea,” you are risking not just losing your weekly paycheck, but losing all these other forms of reward that you otherwise depend on. So, it’s better to keep your mouth shut, and keep your innovation to yourself than to risk you losing so much.
Now contrast that with Silicon Valley. And by the way, let’s say you do persuade, you’re good to change some function that you’re working on, and do it better, you don’t get anymore money. You just get the same paycheck as everybody else got in that system. Contrast that with Silicon Valley. It’s the exact opposite. In Silicon Valley - same as everybody else, you had the risk, but you didn’t have as much risk as you had in a Soviet factory. And in fact, we saw this incredible outpouring of innovation that transformed the world, coming out of young people in an economy which to them could reward them incredibly. Make them into millionaires and billionaires if they had a good idea. So besides that risks - but one side rewards the risk with a lot of potential payoff, and the other side doesn’t. And one side it’s more risk and less reward, and in Silicon Valley, the exact opposite.
FJ: I see. So talking about human perception of reality, whether we believe in intelligent design or we believe in natural selection, human perception of reality has its natural flaws, because the reality and the perception can not be 100 percent exactly the same. So how can we reduce the gap between the two so that we -
AT: Reduce the…?
FJ: Reduce the gap between the human perception of the world, and the reality of the world. When we judge this world, we model the world with…
AT: When we model the world?
FJ: Yes, modeling the world with scientifically, or philosophically, or socially, but as you know, the human perception of reality, and the world reality are different.
AT: Well I think that we are getting more, and more, obviously, getting more, and more tools that can help us go deeper into various aspects of reality. I don’t believe it’s possible for anybody, or even any society to grasp the entirety of reality, and especially made more difficult now than ever because it is changing faster, and faster as I’ve repeated. So when you finally do learn something, it’s already half obsolete. So this is a problem that earlier civilizations did not face.
So we have more information, more knowledge, about more things, but it’s more temporary. We therefore need to really go deeper, and I have to say that, my wife and I are preparing now to work on a book precisely on these kinds of questions because I think they are, as you point out, really at the basis.
Now, in Revolutionary Wealth, as you know, we talk about truth. What do we mean by truth?
FJ: Yes.
AT: Well, we argue, and I’ll simply repeat a little bit about what’s in the book here, that most people decide on whether something is true or false on the basis of what we call “truth filters.” These are the criteria that most people use. One is consensus. So everybody says- the study is saying that, then it must be true.
Well, a very powerful example of the failure, and the fallaciousness of information, or knowledge based on consensus is what happened a few years ago in the Intelligence Agencies of the world. The U.S. argued that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, I had breakfast one morning at a conference, suddenly I found myself having breakfast with a guy from the CIA. And I said, “Well, how did we reach that conclusion?” He said, “Well, the French told us that, the Germans told us that. The Israelis told us that. Everybody, the UN said the same thing.” So that was one of the factors that made us believe what turned out probably to be incorrect, and so on. So consensus is not the test of truth. Everybody can believe the wrong thing, and most of the people around the world do.
Second thing, is that you can rely on other forms of criteria. Consistency, I you have a fact, and you develop a fact in the laboratory, let’s say, scientific data, if it is consistent with previous tests in other fields, or in an earlier stage of study in the particular subject, then if it’s consistent with the past, it has a better chance of being accepted as truth. But that is not, again, necessarily a test of truth. Then if the government says so, or the priest says so, or God says so, or somebody says so and they’re important, and therefore they must know, therefore, it’s true. Well that’s not a very good set of criteria. And there are many others of these what we call “filters” for truth. It’s an old idea. It’s been around for a thousand years. There must be something real about it, right?
FJ: Yes.
AT: Well not right, and so on. And that’s the importance of science because in the case of other methods of ascertaining truth, you are basically rewarded if you come up with ideas that fit with the old ideas. But in science, you can get a Nobel Prize for proving that old ideas are wrong. And nobody in the other fields is typically rewarded for challenging and proving that old ideas are wrong. In science you do, and that is one of the things that makes it such a vital, and fundamental activity that we have to support.
FJ: So actually there is no truth…actually there is only the testing of truth. According to George Soros it’s called “reflexity.” Anyway -
AT: It’s called?
FJ: Reflexity.
AT: Reflexity.
FJ: Yes, yes. So let me – in a series of your books co-authored by you and your wife, you claimed, predicted, organizations are changing, individuals are changing. On one hand technically we have the large advancement of Internet technology.
AT: Right.
FJ: For example, eCommerce ranging from B2B, B2C.
AT: Right, right.
FJ: Such as Amazon.com, C2C, such as eBay.com. So eCommerce becomes the mainstream, and 3C convergence makes us be able to work anytime, anywhere, in anyway.
AT: Right.
FJ: For example, if I have a - I use Smartphone I can work on the road, at home, or at work, doesn’t matter. On the other hand, business-wise, prosume, DIY combining with outsourcing in a viable business model, so, does that indicate in the foreseeable future, every individual could operate a serious business individually, and?
AT: Yes.
FJ: Every business can be operated by one individual, like one-man-shop.
AT: We see how new enterprises begin with a one-person-shop, but then they may become very valuable, they can become much larger. They have larger resources available. I think that we, yes, we’re moving toward increased diversity and complexity at every level of the social and economic structure. And we are like children entering this world because we haven’t previously been exposed to these levels of diversity, complexity, and so on. I think that we need to be open to experiment, to try things out. As far as every person their own entrepreneur, I think that is to some degree possible. I wouldn’t say everybody because some projects are so large, and require brainpower from not just one person, but from teams of people doing very complex stuff.
FJ: Yes.
AT: So I think that collective intelligence, so to speak, or the combination of intelligence from different sources will continue to be very important.
FJ: I see. So if human society and the goals of such pace of acceleration of change, will it be possible sooner or later we hit the end of modern civilization. If yes, how shall we stop such a rapid pace anyway, because in one of your books you mentioned that’s like a cancer in history, in your book Future Shock?
AT: Did I say that?
FJ: Yes.
AT: I know I trust you, but I just don’t remember that line, but it is powerful, and it is affecting us. There is some limit, I think as we wrote in Future Shock, in the capacity of the individual to think - but with much of this change, especially when it becomes personal, and it affects family life, and structure, and daily activities, and so on, which it does. But the other way to think about it is, are we the ultimate humans?
FJ: Yes.
AT: Or are we going to in fact, increase technologically as well as philosophically, the capability of individuals to do more, and to develop more knowledge to change the knowledge, to move faster. Can we accelerate our own thinking? And I think someday we will. But for the time being, we’re now being bombarded by so many changes that we are frequently overloaded. And by the way, we invented the term “information overload.” We almost invented it, but it really came from a professor somewhere in California, way, way back, and we picked up that term and quoted it.
FJ: I see. So today’s globalized economy, countries nowadays are fighting for natural resources. So how about human resources competition in the near future?
AT: Oh well…
FJ: For every year, the U.S. and Canada, along with other countries, they recruit lots of graduate students from all over the world.
AT: Right.
FJ: And they offer lots of H1B Visas, and all so for. Yes, yes. How about the human resource competition in general?
AT: Well I think we are going to see a greater and greater competition for brainpower, and for other human capabilities. And that this is going to be a very intense struggle and that is one of the most important facts, or developments now taking place.
And nations are going to try to keep their brainpower imprisoned, shall we say, within their borders. And I think that will be a very dangerous and bad development. Because advance, and innovation will not just come from inside borders, but from crossing borders, and crossing cultures, and mixing cultures, and so on. I think there needs to be increased freedom for brainpower to move across what are now national boundaries. But indeed national boundaries themselves, not just in brainpower, but in many activities are becoming less certain. Countries want to keep out immigrants. They are finding more and more difficult.
Some countries want to keep out ideas. And that is more difficult, and so on. So I think we are seeing also the emergence of greater, stronger competition to nation states, and that competition is coming from multinational corporations. It’s coming from NGO’s, and from other institutions, and groupings in the world that are no longer just committed to a single set of boundaries.
We’re talking about globalization, but I hate to use that word because it’s frequently misunderstood, and misused. But in any case, I think that brainpower - during World War II, you actually did have the countries preventing their brains, or what they regarded as the scientific and military brains, from going outside the country. And after World War II, we in America know this, I don’t know how widespread the knowledge is in other countries, in Asia for example, but we kidnapped German scientists who were working, if we possibly could, were working on atomic energy, or other advanced weapons. We would kidnap them, and very often, after the war we brought them over even though they were Nazis. We hated their political activity, or in most cases, not so much their political activity as their acceptance of the Nazi world. But nevertheless, we brought some of them over.
And one of the earliest of these was Verna Von Braun. I don’t know if you remember that name, but we do. They were working on sending over into England and destroying London. So each country was trying to guard its scientific capability, and turn it to military use, and not let anybody else have it. But I think that’s going to be increasingly difficult to do.
FJ: I see. So Mr. Toffler, I have two more questions to go. So in brief, what’s your perspective on the fundamental human nature? Fundamental human nature, your perspective, because if we as human beings, our views toward the world, the world under constant change. So I would like to know your perspective on the fundamental human nature.
AT: Well, depends upon how far forward we -
FJ: Context.
AT: We look. I believe that we’re moving toward what I call “the great coming together,” the great “collision” and “interpenetration” of two incredible changes. And that within 50 years we’re going to see first of all, as a result of technological changes, and more knowledge about the brain, and so forth, I think we are going to put technology into the brain to broaden and increase it’s capabilities. I know this is science fiction, and for the moment we don’t understand what’s going on inside the brain, but I do believe we’re moving in that direction. So that human brainpower, particularly when we get down to the nano-level, and even below, we’re going to increase the human capabilities in many, many ways.
At the same time - so we will eventually change our family- if that’s not a big enough change in history, add to that the fact that we also are going to change our conception of the universe, and of the planets, and the solar system, and space in general as we get to know more, and more about the world of space. And when you put these two together, I believe it’s the greatest, probably, the coming together, or the greatest challenge to the human species to change itself, and change its conception of the world in which we live.
FJ: I see. So my last question. So your revolutionary ideas in your early books such as Third Wave had made the significant impact of the modernization in China during past decade or so, starting from probably 1980 or so. So I believe China is doing well because of -
AT: China will.
FJ: Yes, is due to leapflog effect, because in the beginning China has nothing, is basically -
AT: Right.
FJ: Second is because of the minority power. In China it’s not 100 percent pure democracy. So the elite group, they understand the technology, understand business, sometimes majority based democracy may not be a viable solution in someway, in certain way. So as the minority power also has its impact. So according to your observation, do you think China right now is on its right track?
AT: Wow. I believe that the outside world’s image of China, and certainly the American image of China, is of a society which is controlled from the top.
FJ: It is. Yes, it is.
AT: And that it controls everything from Beijing. But even I know that that’s not a good image. It’s not a correct image of the reality. You have enormous differences from region to region, and of work and you have old family names, and old family groupings that have - and so forth. So it’s not as simple as you got a communist party and the rules go out, and everybody does it. Clearly that’s not the case.
Right now, as you know, we have a case of the dying dogs, and we have the inadequate product safety and the question of how do you cure that problem is not as simple as somebody saying - issuing a command from Beijing.
FJ: Yes.
AT: So I think that China - and don’t believe in thinking about the future in terms of straight-line extrapolation. History doesn’t move in straight lines. And we in the West have been given the image that China is moving in a straight-line, up, up, up, up, up. And I don’t believe that that’s a good way of forecasting anything. So as we have written, by the way, I should say the Chinese edition of Revolution Wealth - did you read it in English or Chinese?
FJ: Actually I heard of your book The Third Wave, when I was at college. That’s probably more than a decade ago.
AT: When you were where?
FJ: At college.
AT: Yes.
FJ: Yes. I was there probably late 1980’s or something, but I did read it. I did get a copy yes. But now I have your Chinese copy. I order from online bookstore. Not from Amazon, from Chinese bookstore. Yes, I have four titles, Revolutionary Wealth, all in Chinese, The Third Wave, Revolution Wealth, yes, all of them. Future Shock, Future Shock.
AT: Revolutionary Wealth…
FJ: The most recent one, yes.
AT: But there is a chapter about China.
FJ: Yes, I know. I fully read it, yes. I also went to Amazon.com. I read all of the comments and reviews, or something. I did not get a chance to order from Amazon, because I didn’t get the time. But I did read all of the books in Chinese version. It’s mostly the same, yes.
AT: Well, it’s not almost the same.
FJ: Translation may produce errors
AT: The translation has a few adjustments.
AT: In any event, so I think that you might want to read the English editions as well
FJ: Yes. But those predictions, I was amazed, it wasvery precise, very precise, almost several decades ago you predicted exactly what happened today.
AT: Yes, we did very well
FJ: That was amazing, Especially prosume, that happens, outsourcing and DIY, consuming and producing
AT: Well, this is a big, great, this is one of the best, most intelligent interviews I have ever had long time
AT: Do we have? I am sure we have your email, so on. Because, perhaps we should continue this conversation
FJ: This is indeed a great interview, so I appreciate your time, thanks for your support, Mr. Toffler
AT: Great, I hopefully to have a chance to meet you some time
FJ: OK, my pleasure, OK, bye, bye
AT: Bye, bye
作者：积极生活态度 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
| 相关主题 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之三: Nobel Laureate Intervie...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-6-25 周四, 08:35 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之十一: Craig Newmark, Craigsli...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-7-03 周五, 22:31 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之十: Martin L. Perl, Nobel La...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-7-02 周四, 11:00 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之九:Bjarne Stroustrup, C++ In...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-7-01 周三, 00:06 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之七: Wikipedia Founder Jimmy ...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-6-28 周日, 23:54 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之六: Quantum Fund Co-found Ji...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-6-27 周六, 10:30 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之五: Leading VC Ann Winblad I...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-6-26 周五, 16:02 |
| [原创]高处不胜寒之四: Steve Wozniak, Apple Co-...
|
海归主坛 |
2009-6-26 周五, 00:46 |
| |
|
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
|
-
 [原创]高处不胜寒之二: Frontier Visionary Interview with Alvin Toffler -- 积极生活态度 - (30956 Byte) 2009-6-24 周三, 06:33 (1658 reads)
|
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|
