下一个全球超级大国不是你想的那样
The Next Global Superpower Isn't Who You Think | Ian Bremmer | TED
译文简介
网友：谁在统治世界？政治学家伊恩-布雷默（Ian Bremmer）认为这并不像过去那么简单。他对领导力的本质提出了一些令人大开眼界的问题，要求我们思考不断演变的全球秩序的影响，以及我们作为未来民主参与者的选择。
正文翻译
下一个全球超级大国不是你想的那样
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
评论翻译
很赞 ( 10 )
收藏
下一个全球超级大国不是你想的那样
谁在统治世界？政治学家伊恩-布雷默（Ian Bremmer）认为这并不像过去那么简单。他对领导力的本质提出了一些令人大开眼界的问题，要求我们思考不断演变的全球秩序的影响，以及我们作为未来民主参与者的选择。
No matter who is in power; the world is losing morality, we are becoming polarised and greed is the new superpower.
无论谁掌权，世界都在失去道德，我们正变得两极分化，贪婪成为了新的超级大国。
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".
如果我们使用“贪婪”这个词，那么情况一直都是这样。自从人类开始合作，形成我们所谓的“文明”开始。
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：布雷默认为，我们现在生活在一个没有领袖的世界，但他预测未来将由三种重叠的秩序组成：由美国主导的单极安全秩序、由各种有影响力的参与者组成的多极经济秩序，以及由科技公司塑造的数字秩序。
"...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!
“......美国越来越不想成为世界警察，不想成为全球贸易的设计师，甚至不想成为全球价值观的啦啦队长...... "说这话时，他甚至没有一丝讽刺意味！太神奇了。
isn't this true? Americas seem to think foreign wars aren't good, nor getting involved in other governments much.
这不是真的吗？美国人似乎认为对外战争不好，也不太愿意卷入其他国家的内政。
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 ⅓ 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.
我来自荷兰阿姆斯特丹，所以我的一些可能与在座的大多数人有些不同的经历。
我十几岁的时候是个朋克，DIY是其中非常重要的一部分，这与迪斯科小子们形成了鲜明的对比，因为他们尽可能地追随时尚。作为迪斯科小子，你必须穿耐克或阿迪达斯、酷猫、卡帕等等等等。当我回首往事时，感觉我们就像是在进行一项巨大的社会研究计划，就好像我们在被研究，看我们有多容易接受品牌。我们会如何接受某个品牌的鞋子，然后告诉大家这双新鞋有多好，结果发现我们在很大程度上都愿意接受广告。我们实际上认为如果我们能够购买更昂贵的品牌，我们就是高等物种的一部分。我认为这就是一切的起源。
看看人们是多么愿意购买苹果或三星的新款智能手机并在设备上花费令人难以置信的巨额资金，而你的设备拥有完全相同的功能，价格却只有它的⅓，但却没有品牌名称。当你向他们指出这一点时，他们会用很多听起来像宗教一样的理由为自己的选择辩护，好像他们是耶和华的见证人一样。有时，这些更贵的手机会有一些可能很方便的功能，但事实证明这些功能几乎用不上。或者，他们想要那些非常令人讨厌但却非常方便的数字手表。我真的很讨厌和一个人在一起时，他总是不停地看自己的手腕。在过去，当你看着自己的手腕时，就意味着你开始感到无聊并试图利用看时间来逃避。有时，你甚至不需要这样一块手表。人们总是盯着他们的屏幕，我觉得自己就像在大喊：“嘿，我在这里！！在现实生活中！就在你旁边的座位上！” 但他们总是害怕错过一些“重要”的东西。
手机上还有各种应用程序。人们几乎从不检查制作这些应用程序的公司储存了哪些个人信息。我还记得大流行期间的阴谋论者，他们担心政府会通过疫苗接种计划向他们体内注入芯片，而这些阴谋论者的口袋里却装着一部智能手机。
人们不假思索地接受了Cookie。你觉得这些追踪公司为什么会有这么多钱？为什么会有这么多这样的公司？此外，什么是合法权益？
上周，我的荷兰银行给我发了一份通知。他们要停止“免接触支付”，取而代之的是“谷歌支付”。他们凭什么认为我会喜欢谷歌这样的公司为我提供支付服务？谷歌对我的了解已经绰绰有余了，他们无权窥视我的消费情况来推送个性化广告（我认为这正是他们的目的）。但我相当肯定几乎所有人都会接受这一点，因为他们要么没有真正考虑过后果，要么觉得自己无能为力。
长话短说：是我们这些沉迷于消费主义和所谓奢侈的人类把所有的权力都交给了这些公司。
" It used to be just nature and nurture determining our identities , now its nature, nurture & Algorithms " Well said !!
过去是天性和教养决定了我们的身份，现在是天性、教养和算法决定了我们的身份！说得好。
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
在印度班加罗尔发生的一起事件中，一个社区的男子以嘲笑另一个人的宗教作为回应，因为他的宗教遭到了另一个人的嘲笑，这一切都发生在 Facebook 上，很快这些帖子就被迅速分享，一个社区因此感到非常愤怒并烧毁了整个警察局，这就是社交媒体的威力。
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.
早在电子或数字社交媒体出现之前，人类就已经这样做了。报纸曾经是新技术，而在那之前，老式的小道消息也曾是新技术。
We are getting to the point where we can’t trust ANYTHING we see online anymore. Words, pictures or videos. Very, very scary!!
我们已经到了不能再相信我们在网上看到的任何东西的地步，无论是文字、图片还是视频。真是非常非常可怕。
Propaganda has existed for decades, you have always needed a filter when reading a news source
宣传已经存在了几十年，你在阅读新闻来源时总是需要一个过滤器。
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...
作为一名俄罗斯人，我经常面对美国和乌克兰的宣传，而这些宣传与我国的实际情况和人们的生活方式毫无关系，我早就明白了这一点......
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.
马丁-吉伦斯（Martin Gilens）教授（普林斯顿大学）和本杰明-佩吉（Benjamin I. Page）教授（西北大学）研究了20多年的数据，回答了一个简单的问题：政府是否代表人民？
他们的研究采用了近2000项民意调查的数据并将其与最终成为法律的政策进行了比较。换句话说，他们将公众的愿望与政府的实际行动进行了比较。他们的发现非常令人不安：90%的美国人的意见基本上没有任何影响。
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.
我们已经很难接受民主的概念，因为一段时间以来，统治者的选择实际上并不是因为他们的管理能力，而是因为他们的影响力。事实上，“民主”实际上是金融权力所有者的一种选择，随着大型科技公司的崛起而进一步增强。
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!
听这个讲座很有意思。有趣的是，你没有提到的是这些所谓的有权势的个人、团体、政府都不知道接下来的五（5）分钟会发生什么。因此，人们担心那些不当家的人会做什么，却完全忽视了谁在完全掌控一切。太神奇了。
Even before technology, multi-nationals were separate uncontrollable power. Tech has made that stronger.
即使在技术出现之前，跨国公司也是独立的、不可控制的力量。科技让这一切变得更加强大。
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.
我记得，45年前我在攻读工商管理硕士学位时，《全球影响力》一书的作者在我们的研究生院讲课，他对跨国公司的看法与伊恩刚才说的差不多。我当时买了这本书并仔细研读。这本书和伊恩所说的一直在进步，很有可能有一天会完全实现。虽然我已经活了这么久，但我很怀疑当这一切发生时，我是否还活着。
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.
我们完蛋了。我已经70岁了，但我看到的都是只对金钱和权力感兴趣的人。自恋达到了历史最高点。我对未来并不乐观。
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.
我觉得数字公司作为第三极同时又是媒介的说法很有说服力，但我认为它们的力量并没有他所说的那么有保障。科技公司依赖的基础设施和投资可能会被国家垄断或干预。例如，中国的互联网或深海光缆就有可能被海军摧毁。
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.
要成为超级大国，你必须是一个团队--而不是陷入政治分裂。要想成为超级大国，所有经济部门都必须努力改善国家--而不是搞垮国家，或者为了发薪日而将健康的公司套现并导致数百万人失业。士兵必须相信他们为之奋斗的目标，士兵必须知道他们的国家是他们的后盾。公民必须相信自己的国家并在国歌奏响时不时流下眼泪。就我个人而言，我觉得美国在所有这些要求上都举步维艰。
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.
科技让我们失去了对意识形态的控制，失去了对彼此的看法，也失去了人性。每个人都认为自己是局外人，而普通人的想法却大相径庭，这着实让我震惊。这是一场非常精彩的TED演讲。
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
这是一个热门话题。这届政府根本没有让其他国家参与的想法，我们试图主宰世界。
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.
作为一名计算机科学家，我在一定程度上不同意这种观点。虽然科技对意识形态和政治有着压倒性的控制力，但一家科技公司的运作离不开电力、总部、网络和服务器。现在猜猜谁能控制这些资源，那就是政府！我认为科技公司的控制权必须与东道国保持一致，这又让我们回到了单极或两极世界，大量计算资源从一开始就被分配给了少数几个国家。
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.
我认为需要建立一个强有力的全球监管框架，让大型科技公司承担责任，防止它们对我们的社会施加不当权力，同时也防止它们成为专制者的便利工具。虽然这显然说起来容易做起来难。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
在我的祖国阿根廷为脱离西班牙而进行的独立革命期间，有一句话广为人知：“我们人民需要知道这是为了什么”，我认为这非常适用于当今数字公司对其方法和数据的意图。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
这些预测基于他对当前发展轨迹的看法和观点。我们从未真正经历过这样的事情，所以简而言之，我们真的不知道这意味着什么，会对我们产生怎样的影响，我们的进步会有多快...... 这是一个激动人心的时刻，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.
在听到最初声称美国无意控制世界的声明后，我开始怀疑之后所说的一切的真实性。
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.
考虑到黄金作为价值储存和交换媒介的历史作用，金砖国家寻求创造一种新的货币。然而，在当前的全球金融体系中，黄金支持的货币的功能和接受程度并不确定。创建新货币需要仔细考虑经济、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.
政府也可以成为数字秩序的重要参与者。印度政府所有的印度储备银行推出的统一支付倡议（UPI）就是一个例子，它使印度人使用的数字交易量超过了许多其他发达国家的总和。UPI 如此成功，许多其他国家也想使用它。
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.
这一切以前都发生过：报纸、广播和电视都有同样的目的，那就是控制大众的想法。我认为马歇尔-麦克卢汉（Marshall McLuhan）的话在未来很长一段时间内都会引起人们的共鸣。
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.
人工智能同时是人类潜能的最大进步，也是人类文化的最大风险。我们绝对不会第一次就把它做对，我们将承担后果。控制局面需要一个过程，而且有可能失败。祝你好运，人类。
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）在这篇Ted演讲中夸大了科技公司的重要性。他好像在试图安抚在场科技公司首席执行官们的救世主般的虚荣心。他简直就是在说如果不是因为科技公司，乌克兰早就输给俄罗斯了，这感觉就像是在打所有正在为维护乌克兰主权而献身的人们的脸。
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.
他要么是对他所说的渥太华“卡车司机骚乱”有误解，要么是他的政治偏见显露无疑。因为根本就没有骚乱。他没有提到技术在2020年夏天真正的骚乱中起到的推波助澜的作用，这一点很有启发性。