下一個全球超級大國不是你想的那樣
The Next Global Superpower Isn't Who You Think | Ian Bremmer | TED
譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友：誰在統(tǒng)治世界？政治學(xué)家伊恩-布雷默（Ian Bremmer）認為這并不像過去那么簡單。他對領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的本質(zhì)提出了一些令人大開眼界的問題，要求我們思考不斷演變的全球秩序的影響，以及我們作為未來民主參與者的選擇。
正文翻譯
下一個全球超級大國不是你想的那樣
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 10 )
收藏
下一個全球超級大國不是你想的那樣
誰在統(tǒng)治世界？政治學(xué)家伊恩-布雷默（Ian Bremmer）認為這并不像過去那么簡單。他對領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的本質(zhì)提出了一些令人大開眼界的問題，要求我們思考不斷演變的全球秩序的影響，以及我們作為未來民主參與者的選擇。
No matter who is in power; the world is losing morality, we are becoming polarised and greed is the new superpower.
無論誰掌權(quán)，世界都在失去道德，我們正變得兩極分化，貪婪成為了新的超級大國。
If we are going by the term "greed" then that's always been the case. Since the time of the inception of human cooperation in what we call "civilization".
如果我們使用“貪婪”這個詞，那么情況一直都是這樣。自從人類開始合作，形成我們所謂的“文明”開始。
Summary: Bremmer argues that we now live in a leaderless world, but he predicts that the future will consist of three overlapping orders a unipolar security order dominated by the US, a multipolar economic order with various influential players, and a digital order shaped by technology companies.
摘要：布雷默認為，我們現(xiàn)在生活在一個沒有領(lǐng)袖的世界，但他預(yù)測未來將由三種重疊的秩序組成：由美國主導(dǎo)的單極安全秩序、由各種有影響力的參與者組成的多極經(jīng)濟秩序，以及由科技公司塑造的數(shù)字秩序。
"...The US increasingly didnt want to be the world's policeman, or the architect of global trade, or even the cheerleader for global values..." said without even a hint of irony! Amazing!
“......美國越來越不想成為世界警察，不想成為全球貿(mào)易的設(shè)計師，甚至不想成為全球價值觀的啦啦隊長...... "說這話時，他甚至沒有一絲諷刺意味！太神奇了。
isn't this true? Americas seem to think foreign wars aren't good, nor getting involved in other governments much.
這不是真的嗎？美國人似乎認為對外戰(zhàn)爭不好，也不太愿意卷入其他國家的內(nèi)政。
I am from Amsterdam, Netherlands, so some of my experiences may be a little different from most of you here.
When I was in my teens, I was a punk and DIY was a very important part of it. This was in sharp contrast with the disco-kids, who were following fashion as much as they could. As a disco-kid you had to wear either Nikes or Adidas, Cool Cat, Kappa, etc etc. When I look back at this, it feels like if we were in some giant social research program. As if we were studied to see how easily we would adopt brands. How we would embrace a certain brand of shoes and next tell everybody about how much better these new shoes were. It turned out we were largely willing to be advertisement poles. We actually thought we were part of a higher species if we were able to buy the more expensive brands. I think this is where it all started.
If I look at how willing people are to buy a new smartphone by Apple or Samsung and spend an incredible amount of money on a device, while you have exactly the same functions in a device which is ? of the price, but doesn't have the brandname on it. And when you point this out to them, they will defend their choices with a lot of religious sounding reasons, as if they are Jehowa Witnesses. Sometimes these more expensive phones have options that maybe handy, but it turns out they are hardly ever used. Or they want these highly annoying digi-watches, that are so convenient. I really hate it when I am together with someone, who's constantely checking his wrist. Back in the days, when you looked at your wrist, it meant you were getting bored, and were trying to use time to get away. Sometimes you don't even need such a watch. People are always staring at their screens, and I feel like shouting: "Hey, I am here!!! In real life! On the seat next to you!" But there's always something "important" they are afraid to miss.
Then on these phones there are apps. People hardly ever check what kind of personal information is stored by the companies that make those apps. I remember the conspiracy thinkers during Corona, who were afraid the government were to inject chips in them through the vaccination program. While those same conspiracists walked around with a smartphone in their pockets.
People accept cookies without giving it a second thought. Why do you think there's so much money involved in these tracking-companies. And why are there so many of these companies. And moreover, WTF is Legitimate Interest?
Last week my (dutch) bank send me a notice. They're going to stop "contact free payment" and replace it with "google pay". Why on earth do they think I would like some company like google, to serve my payments? Google already knows more than enough about me, and they have no right to peek into my spendings to personalize advertisement (which I think it the whole idea). But I am fairly sure that just about everybody will accept this because they either don't really think about the consequences or feel like they are powerless.
To cut a long story short: it is just us humans, addicted to consumerism and supposed luxury, who gave all the power to these companies.
我來自荷蘭阿姆斯特丹，所以我的一些可能與在座的大多數(shù)人有些不同的經(jīng)歷。
我十幾歲的時候是個朋克，DIY是其中非常重要的一部分，這與迪斯科小子們形成了鮮明的對比，因為他們盡可能地追隨時尚。作為迪斯科小子，你必須穿耐克或阿迪達斯、酷貓、卡帕等等等等。當(dāng)我回首往事時，感覺我們就像是在進行一項巨大的社會研究計劃，就好像我們在被研究，看我們有多容易接受品牌。我們會如何接受某個品牌的鞋子，然后告訴大家這雙新鞋有多好，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)我們在很大程度上都愿意接受廣告。我們實際上認為如果我們能夠購買更昂貴的品牌，我們就是高等物種的一部分。我認為這就是一切的起源。
看看人們是多么愿意購買蘋果或三星的新款智能手機并在設(shè)備上花費令人難以置信的巨額資金，而你的設(shè)備擁有完全相同的功能，價格卻只有它的?，但卻沒有品牌名稱。當(dāng)你向他們指出這一點時，他們會用很多聽起來像宗教一樣的理由為自己的選擇辯護，好像他們是耶和華的見證人一樣。有時，這些更貴的手機會有一些可能很方便的功能，但事實證明這些功能幾乎用不上?；蛘?，他們想要那些非常令人討厭但卻非常方便的數(shù)字手表。我真的很討厭和一個人在一起時，他總是不停地看自己的手腕。在過去，當(dāng)你看著自己的手腕時，就意味著你開始感到無聊并試圖利用看時間來逃避。有時，你甚至不需要這樣一塊手表。人們總是盯著他們的屏幕，我覺得自己就像在大喊：“嘿，我在這里??！在現(xiàn)實生活中！就在你旁邊的座位上！” 但他們總是害怕錯過一些“重要”的東西。
手機上還有各種應(yīng)用程序。人們幾乎從不檢查制作這些應(yīng)用程序的公司儲存了哪些個人信息。我還記得大流行期間的陰謀論者，他們擔(dān)心政府會通過疫苗接種計劃向他們體內(nèi)注入芯片，而這些陰謀論者的口袋里卻裝著一部智能手機。
人們不假思索地接受了Cookie。你覺得這些追蹤公司為什么會有這么多錢？為什么會有這么多這樣的公司？此外，什么是合法權(quán)益？
上周，我的荷蘭銀行給我發(fā)了一份通知。他們要停止“免接觸支付”，取而代之的是“谷歌支付”。他們憑什么認為我會喜歡谷歌這樣的公司為我提供支付服務(wù)？谷歌對我的了解已經(jīng)綽綽有余了，他們無權(quán)窺視我的消費情況來推送個性化廣告（我認為這正是他們的目的）。但我相當(dāng)肯定幾乎所有人都會接受這一點，因為他們要么沒有真正考慮過后果，要么覺得自己無能為力。
長話短說：是我們這些沉迷于消費主義和所謂奢侈的人類把所有的權(quán)力都交給了這些公司。
" It used to be just nature and nurture determining our identities , now its nature, nurture & Algorithms " Well said !!
過去是天性和教養(yǎng)決定了我們的身份，現(xiàn)在是天性、教養(yǎng)和算法決定了我們的身份！說得好。
There was one incident in Bangalore, India, where in a man from one community responded by mocking another persons religion as his was mocked by this other person, it all happened on Facebook, soon the posts were shared rapidly, one community took major offence and burnt down an entire police station because of all this, that is what social media can do
在印度班加羅爾發(fā)生的一起事件中，一個社區(qū)的男子以嘲笑另一個人的宗教作為回應(yīng)，因為他的宗教遭到了另一個人的嘲笑，這一切都發(fā)生在 Facebook 上，很快這些帖子就被迅速分享，一個社區(qū)因此感到非常憤怒并燒毀了整個警察局，這就是社交媒體的威力。
Humans did this long before electronic or digital social media. Newspapers were the new technology once and long before that, the good old fashioned grapevine.
早在電子或數(shù)字社交媒體出現(xiàn)之前，人類就已經(jīng)這樣做了。報紙曾經(jīng)是新技術(shù)，而在那之前，老式的小道消息也曾是新技術(shù)。
We are getting to the point where we can’t trust ANYTHING we see online anymore. Words, pictures or videos. Very, very scary!!
我們已經(jīng)到了不能再相信我們在網(wǎng)上看到的任何東西的地步，無論是文字、圖片還是視頻。真是非常非?？膳?。
Propaganda has existed for decades, you have always needed a filter when reading a news source
宣傳已經(jīng)存在了幾十年，你在閱讀新聞來源時總是需要一個過濾器。
As a Russian, who is constantly confronted with the propaganda of the United States and Ukraine, which has nothing to do with how things really happen in my country and how people live here, I have long understood this...
作為一名俄羅斯人，我經(jīng)常面對美國和烏克蘭的宣傳，而這些宣傳與我國的實際情況和人們的生活方式毫無關(guān)系，我早就明白了這一點......
Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people?
Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all.
馬丁-吉倫斯（Martin Gilens）教授（普林斯頓大學(xué)）和本杰明-佩吉（Benjamin I. Page）教授（西北大學(xué)）研究了20多年的數(shù)據(jù)，回答了一個簡單的問題：政府是否代表人民？
他們的研究采用了近2000項民意調(diào)查的數(shù)據(jù)并將其與最終成為法律的政策進行了比較。換句話說，他們將公眾的愿望與政府的實際行動進行了比較。他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)非常令人不安：90%的美國人的意見基本上沒有任何影響。
It has already become difficult for us to accept the concept of democracy, considering that for some time now, rulers are not actually chosen for their administrative abilities, but for their influence. The fact is that "democracy" is, in practice, a choice exercised by the owners of financial power, enhanced with the rise of bigtechs.
我們已經(jīng)很難接受民主的概念，因為一段時間以來，統(tǒng)治者的選擇實際上并不是因為他們的管理能力，而是因為他們的影響力。事實上，“民主”實際上是金融權(quán)力所有者的一種選擇，隨著大型科技公司的崛起而進一步增強。
It's interesting to hear this lecture. The funny thing that you did not mention is that none of these so-called powerful individuals, groups, governments, know what will happen in the next five (5) minutes. So, people worry about what those who are not in charge will do, whilst completely ignoring who is in complete control. Amazing!
聽這個講座很有意思。有趣的是，你沒有提到的是這些所謂的有權(quán)勢的個人、團體、政府都不知道接下來的五（5）分鐘會發(fā)生什么。因此，人們擔(dān)心那些不當(dāng)家的人會做什么，卻完全忽視了誰在完全掌控一切。太神奇了。
Even before technology, multi-nationals were separate uncontrollable power. Tech has made that stronger.
即使在技術(shù)出現(xiàn)之前，跨國公司也是獨立的、不可控制的力量?？萍甲屵@一切變得更加強大。
I remember while getting my MBA over 45 years ago, the author of the book, "The Global Reach", lectured at our graduate school and said pretty much the same thing as Ian just said about multi-national corporations. Bought the book and poured over it at the time. What it and Ian stated has been progressing all this time, and quite possibly will come completely true some day. After being around as long as I have, I highly doubt I'll still be alive when it happens though.
我記得，45年前我在攻讀工商管理碩士學(xué)位時，《全球影響力》一書的作者在我們的研究生院講課，他對跨國公司的看法與伊恩剛才說的差不多。我當(dāng)時買了這本書并仔細研讀。這本書和伊恩所說的一直在進步，很有可能有一天會完全實現(xiàn)。雖然我已經(jīng)活了這么久，但我很懷疑當(dāng)這一切發(fā)生時，我是否還活著。
We’re screwed. I’m 70 and all I see are people only interested in money and power. Narcissism is at an all time high. I’m not optimistic about the future.
我們完蛋了。我已經(jīng)70歲了，但我看到的都是只對金錢和權(quán)力感興趣的人。自戀達到了歷史最高點。我對未來并不樂觀。
I find the argument of the digital companies acting as a third power pole and, at the same time, a medium very convincing, but I think that their power is less guaranteed than what he suggests. Technology companies rely on infrastructure and investment that can be monopolised or meddled with by states. The Chinese internet, for example, or deep sea fiber optic cables that can be destroyed by the a navy.
我覺得數(shù)字公司作為第三極同時又是媒介的說法很有說服力，但我認為它們的力量并沒有他所說的那么有保障?？萍脊疽蕾嚨幕A(chǔ)設(shè)施和投資可能會被國家壟斷或干預(yù)。例如，中國的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)或深海光纜就有可能被海軍摧毀。
To be a superpower you have to be a team - not politically fractured. To be a superpower all segments of the economy have to work to improve the country - not tear it down or cash out healthy companies for a payday putting millions out of work. Soldiers have to believe in what they are fighting for. Soldiers have to know their country has their back. Citizens must believe in their country and shed a tear now and again when national anthem is played. Personally, I feel the United States is struggling on all these requirements.
要成為超級大國，你必須是一個團隊--而不是陷入政治分裂。要想成為超級大國，所有經(jīng)濟部門都必須努力改善國家--而不是搞垮國家，或者為了發(fā)薪日而將健康的公司套現(xiàn)并導(dǎo)致數(shù)百萬人失業(yè)。士兵必須相信他們?yōu)橹畩^斗的目標，士兵必須知道他們的國家是他們的后盾。公民必須相信自己的國家并在國歌奏響時不時流下眼淚。就我個人而言，我覺得美國在所有這些要求上都舉步維艱。
We have lost control of ideologies, what we think of each other, and our humanity due to technology. Everyone thinks they are on the outside looking in and it really astounds me how far off the average person is. This was a really good Ted talk.
科技讓我們失去了對意識形態(tài)的控制，失去了對彼此的看法，也失去了人性。每個人都認為自己是局外人，而普通人的想法卻大相徑庭，這著實讓我震驚。這是一場非常精彩的TED演講。
This is a hot take. This government has been nowhere near the idea of letting other countries be, we've tried to dominate the world
這是一個熱門話題。這屆政府根本沒有讓其他國家參與的想法，我們試圖主宰世界。
As a computer scientist, I disagree to an extent. While technology has an overwhelming level of control over ideologies and politics, a technology company cannot function without electricity, headquarters, network, and servers. Now guess who has control over these resources, governments! I think the control of a tech company will have to align with the host country, which brings us back to the unipolar or bipolar world where a lot of compute resources were assigned to certain few countries from the start.
作為一名計算機科學(xué)家，我在一定程度上不同意這種觀點。雖然科技對意識形態(tài)和政治有著壓倒性的控制力，但一家科技公司的運作離不開電力、總部、網(wǎng)絡(luò)和服務(wù)器。現(xiàn)在猜猜誰能控制這些資源，那就是政府！我認為科技公司的控制權(quán)必須與東道國保持一致，這又讓我們回到了單極或兩極世界，大量計算資源從一開始就被分配給了少數(shù)幾個國家。
I think there needs to be a strong global regulatory frxwork set in place to hold big tech accountable and prevent them from exerting undue power over our societies, and also prevent them from becoming convenient tools for authoritarians. Though obviously that is much easier to say than to do.
我認為需要建立一個強有力的全球監(jiān)管框架，讓大型科技公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任，防止它們對我們的社會施加不當(dāng)權(quán)力，同時也防止它們成為專制者的便利工具。雖然這顯然說起來容易做起來難。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
During the revolution of my native Argentina for independence from Spain, there was a phrase that became famous: "we, the people, need to know what this is about", and I think it is very applicable to the intent of digital companies regarding their methods and data nowadays.
在我的祖國阿根廷為脫離西班牙而進行的獨立革命期間，有一句話廣為人知：“我們?nèi)嗣裥枰肋@是為了什么”，我認為這非常適用于當(dāng)今數(shù)字公司對其方法和數(shù)據(jù)的意圖。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
These predictions are based on his views and perspective of current trajectories. We've never really experienced anything like this before, so in short, we really don't know what it means, how it will impact us, how quickly we will advance... An exciting time, but the unknown is scary.
這些預(yù)測基于他對當(dāng)前發(fā)展軌跡的看法和觀點。我們從未真正經(jīng)歷過這樣的事情，所以簡而言之，我們真的不知道這意味著什么，會對我們產(chǎn)生怎樣的影響，我們的進步會有多快...... 這是一個激動人心的時刻，但未知也是可怕的。
After hearing the initial statement claiming that the US had no intention of exerting control over the world, I began to doubt the validity of everything said thereafter.
在聽到最初聲稱美國無意控制世界的聲明后，我開始懷疑之后所說的一切的真實性。
BRICS seeks to create a new currency, considering gold's historical role as a store of value and medium of exchange. However, the functionality and acceptance of a gold-backed currency in the current global financial system are uncertain. Creating a new currency requires careful consideration of economic, political, and logistical factors.
考慮到黃金作為價值儲存和交換媒介的歷史作用，金磚國家尋求創(chuàng)造一種新的貨幣。然而，在當(dāng)前的全球金融體系中，黃金支持的貨幣的功能和接受程度并不確定。創(chuàng)建新貨幣需要仔細考慮經(jīng)濟、政治和物流因素。
Government can also be a big player in digital order. One example is the Unified Payment Initiative (UPI) introduced by Indian Government owned Reserve Bank of India. It made Indians use more digital transactions than many other developed countries together. UPI so successful, many other countries want to use it.
政府也可以成為數(shù)字秩序的重要參與者。印度政府所有的印度儲備銀行推出的統(tǒng)一支付倡議（UPI）就是一個例子，它使印度人使用的數(shù)字交易量超過了許多其他發(fā)達國家的總和。UPI 如此成功，許多其他國家也想使用它。
This has all happened before: newspapers, radio and television served the same purpose of controlling what the masses think. I think the words of Marshall McLuhan will resonate for a surprisingly long time to come.
這一切以前都發(fā)生過：報紙、廣播和電視都有同樣的目的，那就是控制大眾的想法。我認為馬歇爾-麥克盧漢（Marshall McLuhan）的話在未來很長一段時間內(nèi)都會引起人們的共鳴。
AI is simultaneously the greatest advancement of human potential and the greatest risk to human culture. We will absolutely not get it right the first time, and we will suffer the consequences. It will be a process to get the situation under control, and there is some chance the effort will fail. Best of luck, humanity.
人工智能同時是人類潛能的最大進步，也是人類文化的最大風(fēng)險。我們絕對不會第一次就把它做對，我們將承擔(dān)后果。控制局面需要一個過程，而且有可能失敗。祝你好運，人類。
Ian Bremmer dramatically plays up the importance of tech companies in this ted talk. It's like he's trying to reassure the messianic vanity of tech CEOs currently in the room. He literally says that if it weren't for tech companies Ukraine would have already lost to Russia which feels a little like a slap in the face to all the people who are currently dying fighting to keep Ukraine sovereign.
伊恩-布雷默（Ian Bremmer）在這篇Ted演講中夸大了科技公司的重要性。他好像在試圖安撫在場科技公司首席執(zhí)行官們的救世主般的虛榮心。他簡直就是在說如果不是因為科技公司，烏克蘭早就輸給俄羅斯了，這感覺就像是在打所有正在為維護烏克蘭主權(quán)而獻身的人們的臉。
He’s either misinformed about the Ottawa “trucker riots” as he put it, or his political prejudice is showing. There was no riot, at all. It’s revealing that he didn’t mention the role of technology in fuelling the real riots in the summer of 2020.
他要么是對他所說的渥太華“卡車司機騷亂”有誤解，要么是他的政治偏見顯露無疑。因為根本就沒有騷亂。他沒有提到技術(shù)在2020年夏天真正的騷亂中起到的推波助瀾的作用，這一點很有啟發(fā)性。