同志社大學で2014年に出題された問題です。月曜日と金曜日に、パラグラフ毎に解説して參ります。ただし、1、2パラグラフは一緒に扱ひます。
次の文章を読んで設問に答えなさい。[＊印のついた語句は注を参照しなさい。]
How can we avoid completely surrendering to the new technology? The key is learning to differentiate between “good smart” and “bad smart.”
Devices that are “good smart” leave us in complete control of the situation and seek to (a)enhance our decision-making by providing more information. For example: An Internet-jacked kettle that alerts us when the national power grid is overloaded* （中略） doesn’t prevent （あ）（い）（う）（え）（お） cup of tea, but it does add an extra ethical dimension to that choice. Likewise, a grocery cart that can scan the bar codes of products we put into it, informing us of their nutritional benefits and country of origin, enhances ― rather than impoverishes ― our autonomy（中略）.
Technologies that are “bad smart,” ( U ), make certain choices and behaviors impossible. Smart gadgets in the latest generation of cars ― breathalyzers* that can check if we are sober, steering sensors that verify if we are drowsy, facial recognition technologies that confirm we are who we say we are ― seek to limit, not to expand, what we can do. This may be an acceptable price to pay in situations where lives are (b)at stake, such as driving, but (ア)we must resist any attempt to universalize this logic. The “smart bench” ― an art project by designers JooYoun Paek and David Jimison that aims to illustrate the dangers of living in a city that is too smart ― cleverly makes this point. Equipped with a timer and sensors, the bench starts tilting* after a set time, creating an incline that eventually dumps its occupant. This might appeal to some American mayors, but it is the kind of smart technology that degrades the culture of urbanism ― and our dignity.
Projects like BinCam* fall somewhere between good smart and bad smart, depending on how they’re executed. The bin doesn’t force us to recycle, but by appealing to our base instincts ― Must earn gold bars and rewards! Must compete with other households! Must win and impress friends! ― (イ)it fails to treat us as autonomous human beings, capable of weighing the options by ourselves. It allows Facebook to do our thinking for us.
The most worrisome smart-technology projects start from the assumption that designers know precisely how we should behave, so the only problem is finding the right incentive. A truly smart trash bin, by contrast, would make us reflect on our recycling habits and contribute to (c)conscious deliberation ― say, by letting us benchmark* our usual recycling behavior against other people in our demographic*, ( V ) trying to shame us with point deductions and peer pressure.
There are many contexts in which smart technologies are unambiguously useful and even lifesaving. Smart belts that monitor the balance of the elderly and smart carpets that detect falls seem to fall in this category. The problem with many smart technologies is that their designers, in the quest to (d)root out the imperfections of the human condition, ( W ) stop to ask how much frustration, failure and regret is required for happiness and achievement to retain any meaning.
It’s great when the things around us run smoothly, but it’s even better when they don’t do so by default. That, after all, is how we gain the space to make decisions ― many of them undoubtedly wrongheaded ― and, through ( X ), to mature into responsible adults, tolerant of compromise and complexity.
Will those autonomous spaces be preserved in a world (e)replete with smart technologies? Or will that world, to borrow a metaphor from the legal philosopher Ian Kerr, resemble Autopia ― a popular Disneyland attraction in which kids drive specially designed little cars that run through an enclosed track? Well, “drive” may not be the right word. ( Y ) the kids sit in the driver’s seat and even steer the car sideways, a hidden rail underneath always guides them back to the middle. The Disney carts are impossible to crash. Their so-called “drivers” are not permitted to make any mistakes. Isn’t it telling that one of today’s most eagerly anticipated technologies is a self-driving car, now on its way to being (f)rolled out by Google? （中略）
Creative experimentation propels our culture forward. That our stories of innovation tend to glorify the breakthroughs and edit out all the experimental mistakes doesn’t mean that mistakes play a trivial role. As any artist or scientist knows, (ウ)without some protected, even sacred space for mistakes, innovation would cease.
With “smart” technology in the ascendant, it will be hard to resist the allure* of a frictionless*, problem-free future. When Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman, says that (エ)“people will spend less time trying to get technology to work, because it will just be seamless,” he is not wrong: This is the future we’re headed toward. But not all of us will want to go there.
A more humane smart-design paradigm* would happily acknowledge that the task of technology is not to liberate us from problem-solving. ( Z ), we need to enroll* smart technology in helping us with problem-solving. What we want is not a life where frictions and frustrations have been carefully designed out, but a life where we can overcome the frictions and frustrations that (g)stand in our way.
Truly smart technologies will remind us that we are not mere automatons* who assist big data in asking and answering questions. Unless designers of smart technologies (h)take stock of the complexity and richness of the lived human experience ― with its gaps, challenges and conflicts ― their inventions will be destined for the SmartBin of history.
(From The Wall Street Journal 電子版, February 23, 2013)
[注]
overloaded 負荷がかかりすぎている breathalyzers 酒気探知機 tilting 傾く
BinCam 英独のデザイナーが構想した「スマート・ゴミ箱 (smartBin)」。ゴミが捨てられるたびに、上蓋に装着されたカメラにより撮影されたゴミの写真がFacebookに転送され、どれだけ自然環境に配慮した生活をしているかについてFacebook参加者同士で評価し合ったり、競い合うこともできる。
benchmark 基準に照らして評価する our demographic 人口統計学上われわれと似通ったグループ allure 魅力 frictionless 摩擦のない paradigm パラダイム. ものの考え方や認識の枠組 enroll奉仕させる automatons自動人形
Ⅱ－Ａ 空所(U)～(Z)に入るもっとも適切なものを次の１～４の中からそれぞれ一つ選びなさい。
(U) 1 at last 2 by contrast 3 in addition 4 of course
(V) 1 because of 2 for fear of 3 in spite of 4 instead of
(W) 1 always 2 often 3 seldom 4 sometimes
(X) 1 good and evil 2 hope and fear 3 joy and sadness 4 trial and error
(Y) 1 Because 2 Though 3 Unless 4 Until
(Z) 1 Also 2 Likewise 3 Nevertheless 4 Rather
Ⅱ－Ｂ 下線部(a)～(h)の意味・内容にもっとも近いものを次の１～４の中からそれぞれ一つ選びなさい。
(a) enhance
1 improve 2 introduce 3 prevent 4 reduce
(b) at stake
1 hopeless 2 in danger 3 on attack 4 wasted
(c) conscious deliberation
1 careful consideration 2 conscientious display 3 instant liberation 4 liberal democracy
(d) root out
1 exaggerate 2 increase 3 remove 4 underestimate
(e) replete with
1 devoid of 2 full of 3 in charge of 4 in search of
(f) rolled out
1 closed down 2 turned down 3 introduced as a new product 4 outmoded as an old product
(g) stand in our way
1 become our habits 2 disturb us 3 grow out of our lifestyle 4 lead to our goals
(h) take stock of
1 consider 2 eliminate 3 ignore 4 reject
Ⅱ－Ｃ 波線部(ア)～(エ)の意味・内容をもっとも的確に示すものを次の１～４の中からそれぞれ一つ選びなさい。
(ア) we must resist any attempt to universalize this logic
1 it is difficult not to accept the logical consequence that smart technologies will limit what we can do
2 it is not logical to resist using smart technologies when they are universally accepted as useful and effective
3 we cannot but recognize the fact that smart technologies have universal appeal for people living in a city
4 we should reject the idea that the kinds of smart technologies that limit our free choice for safety’s sake are always legitimate
(イ) it fails to treat us as autonomous human beings
1 BinCam can make appropriate decisions automatically without any human interference
2 BinCam is as human as we are in terms of independent decision-making
3 Projects like BinCam do not take into account the idea that we are capable of thinking and deciding for ourselves
4 projects like BinCam will never be possible unless we regard smart technologies as independent of our needs
(ウ) without some protected, even sacred space for mistakes, innovation would cease
1 if we are allowed to make mistakes freely, great innovation will never be brought about
2 if we were smart enough for great innovation, we wouldn’t have made any mistakes to begin with
3 innovation can be advanced where we are allowed and encouraged to make experimental mistakes
4 innovation is meaningless if it does not involve any mistakes
(エ) people will spend less time trying to get technology to work, because it will just be seamless
1 people will be able to save much time in the future, since the “smart” technology helps them move with less stamina
2 people will be able to use the “smart” technology less quickly in the future, as they will need more expertise to operate it
3 the less people meddle with the “smart” technology of the future, the more efficiently it will work
4 the “smart” technology of the future will be so perfectly consistent that its operation will require less effort on the human side
Ⅱ－Ｄ 二重下線部の空所(あ)～(お)に次の１～５の語を入れて文を完成させたとき、(い)と(お)に入る語の番号を記入しなさい。同じ語を二度使ってはいけません。
doesn’t prevent (あ)(い)(う)(え)(お) cup of tea
1 yet 2 boiling 3 from 4 another 5 us
