从"标准人"到"最不利者"——技术—效率治理的达尔文主义批判 ——从数字通知、红绿灯配时与AI"先上再说"谈起(From the "Standard Person" to the "Least Advantaged": A Darwinian Critique of Techno-Efficiency Governance — Starting from Digital Notices, Traffic Signal Timing, and AI's "Ship First, Fix Later")

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

摘要: 本文提出"标准人假设"与"制度性淘汰"两个概念,用以指认当代技术—效率治理中一种反复出现的排斥逻辑:系统以健全、数字化、高响应能力的"标准人"为默认用户,把不符合默认者当作例外,并要求其自行消化系统未予准备的差额。本文区分社会达尔文主义式治理逻辑、技术达尔文主义与效率达尔文主义,避免概念泛化;以高校数字通知、城市交通信号配时、生成式AI"先发布后治理"三个场景为经验对象,追踪同一机制链:默认规则→排除→适应成本转嫁→污名化→灰色策略→旁观者防御性冷漠→公共性瓦解→制度自身被淘汰。本文进一步指认三种合法化话语——自然化、经济化与滞后性——的分工,并特别论证"滞后性"话语是一种策略性时间套利:以现在的拖延换取自身的免责。本文同时处理技术包容与监管领先等反例,指出包容不是技术问题而是权力问题。本文的核心主张是:制度性淘汰不是自然规律,而是可修改的人为选择;批判的任务不是提出方案,而是在方案之前,先把被掩盖的问题掀开。 关键词: 标准人;制度性淘汰;三种默认;时间套利;滞后性话语;防御性冷漠;最不利者;公共性 Abstract: This paper proposes two concepts — the standard-person assumption and institutional elimination — in order to name a recurring logic of exclusion within contemporary techno-efficiency governance: the system takes the able-bodied, digitized, highly responsive "standard person" as its default user, treats anyone who does not fit that default as an exception, and requires that person to absorb on their own the difference the system never prepared for. In order to avoid conceptual overreach, the paper distinguishes social-Darwinist-style governance logic, technological Darwinism, and efficiency Darwinism. Taking three scenarios as its empirical objects — digital notices at universities, urban traffic signal timing, and generative AI's "ship first, govern later" — it traces a single mechanism chain: default rules → exclusion → transfer of adaptation costs → stigmatization → grey strategies → bystanders' defensive indifference → the collapse of publicness → the institution eliminating itself. The paper further identifies the division of labor among three legitimizing discourses — naturalizing, economizing, and lag discourse — and argues in particular that "lag discourse" is a form of strategic time arbitrage: it trades present-day delay for its own exemption from blame. The paper also addresses counterexamples such as technological inclusion and regulatory leadership, arguing that inclusion is not a technical question but a question of power. Its central claim is this: institutional elimination is not a law of nature but a modifiable human choice; and the task of critique is not to propose solutions, but — before any solution — to tear the lid off the problem that has been covered up. Keywords: the standard person; institutional elimination; the three defaults; time arbitrage; lag discourse; defensive indifference; the least advantaged; publicness