I have a big question. Which is, who runs the world?
我有個大哉問: 「到底是誰在統治這個世界?」
It used to be an easy question to answer. If you're over 45 like me, you grew up in a world that was dominated by two giants. The United States called the shots on one side of the Wall, the Soviets set the rules on the other. And that was a bipolar world. It's very simple.
以前這個問題很好回答。 如果你跟我一樣是 45 歲以上, 你就是活在雙強鼎立的世界: 在牆的一邊,美國對別國發號施令, 牆的另一邊,蘇俄嚴格管理自己領土。 那曾是個兩極的世界, 非常好理解。
If you're under 45, you grew up when the Soviet Union had already collapsed, and that left the United States as the sole superpower, dominating global institutions and also exerting raw power. And that was a unipolar world.
如果你還沒 45 歲, 你在蘇聯已瓦解的時代長大, 蘇聯的垮台使美國成為單獨巨頭, 支配多數國際機構,施展政經權力。 這就是個單極的世界。
And then about 15 years ago, things got a little more complicated. The United States increasingly didn't want to be the world's policeman or the architect of global trade or even the cheerleader for global values. Other countries were becoming more powerful, and they could increasingly ignore many of the rules they didn't like, sometimes even setting new rules themselves.
大約 15 年前開始, 局勢又變得更複雜了。 美國越來越不想當「世界警察」, 不想掌控國際貿易, 也不想擁護全球性的價值。 其他國家正在蓬勃發展, 漸漸藐視他們不喜歡的規則, 有時甚至自己制定新規則。
What happened? Three things. Number one, Russia was not integrated into Western institutions. A former great power now in very serious decline and they are angry about it. We can argue about whose fault that is, but we are where we are. Number two, China was integrated into US-led institutions on the presumption that as they got wealthier and more powerful, they would become Americans. Turns out, they're still Chinese.
究竟發生什麼事呢? 有三件事。 第一, 俄羅斯沒有被吸收進西方勢力, 前強權的勢力嚴重下滑, 他們自己也感到懊惱。 是誰的錯還有爭論空間, 但這就是我們目前的處境。 第二, 中國曾被納入美國主導的組織 是基於一個假設, 即隨著他們變得更富有和更強大, 他們會變成美國人。 但結果他們還是中國人。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And the United States is not particularly comfortable with that. Number three, tens of millions of citizens in the United States and other wealthy democracies felt left behind by globalization. This has been ignored for decades. But as a consequence, they felt that their governments and their leaders were more illegitimate.
美國也對這件事情感到不高興。 第三, 幾千萬名美國公民 和其他富裕民主國家人民們 覺得被全球化拋在了後頭。 這件事被無視幾十年。 無視的報應是 人民認為他們的政府 和國家領導人更不合法。
Now if you look at all the headlines in the world today, driving all of this geopolitical tension and conflict, over 90 percent of them are because of these three reasons. And that's why today we live in a leaderless world. But as we know, that's not going to be with us for long.
現在去看看世界各國新聞頭條, 那些催化地緣政治緊張和爭執的頭條, 有超過九成是以上三個原因。 所以我才會說,我們現在 活在一個沒有領導人的世界。 但我們知道, 這情勢不會持續太久。
So what comes next? What kind of a world order might we expect over the next ten years? Some of what I might say I think will surprise you. Because we're not going to have a bipolar or a unipolar or even a multipolar world. If we don't have one or two superpowers, we don't have a single global order. No, instead, we will have three different orders, a little overlapping, and the third will have immense importance for how we live, what we think, what we want, and what we're prepared to do to get it.
那接下來會是什麼情況呢? 未來十年的世界秩序 可能會變成什麼樣子呢? 有些我將要說的 可能會讓你感到驚訝, 因為我們不會再見到 兩極化、單極化 甚至多極化的世界了。 沒有一個或兩個全球性強權, 代表不可能只有單單一種世界秩序, 而是會有三種不同的世界秩序, 有些會些許重疊, 第三種則會大大影響 我們的生活方式、思考方式、需求, 以及我們要得到這些東西必須怎麼做。
But first things first. Today, we have a global security order. And as you see from the map, the United States and its allies are the most powerful players on it. The US is the only country in the world that can send its soldiers and its sailors and its military equipment to every corner of that world. No one else is close. China is growing in its military capabilities in Asia, though nowhere else. Lots of American allies in Asia are concerned about that. And as a consequence, they're becoming more dependent on the United States for a security umbrella. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, US allies in Europe are becoming more concerned and dependent on the United States and a US-led NATO.
首先, 今天我們有全球安全秩序。 從地圖上可以看出 美國和其同盟國家擁有最強勢力。 美國是世界上唯一一個 可以派遣自家兵隊、水手,和軍事器材 到世界各地的國家。 其他國家差得遠了。 中國在亞洲的兵力部署日益增長, 但在其他地區則不然。 許多亞洲地區的美國盟友 對此相當憂心。 因此,這些盟友國越來越依賴美國, 向美國尋求保護。 俄羅斯侵略烏克蘭之後, 美國盟友及歐洲越發憂心, 因此日漸依靠美國, 和美國主導的北大西洋公約組織。
The Russian military, of course, has been a greater global concern, much less so today, especially as they've lost over 200,000 troops and all of that equipment and with sanctions making it extremely hard for them to rebuild. Now, Russia and China and others have nuclear weapons, but thank God it is still suicide to use them. And as a consequence, our security order is a unipolar order and it is likely to remain so for the next decade.
當然俄國軍隊對全球來說 一直以來是莫大的威脅, 但如今已經少多了, 尤其是因為俄國失去 二十多萬名士兵和裝備, 而且制裁使他們難以重建。 俄國、中國和其他國家持有核武, 但幸好使用核武對大家都沒好處。 結果呢, 世界的安全秩序走向單極化, 下個十年應該也是如此。
Now at the same time that there's a security order, there's also a global economic order. And here, power is shared. The United States is still a very robust global economy. But the US can't use its dominant position militarily to tell other countries what to do economically. The United States and China are enormously economically interdependent and so they can't control each other. You may be surprised to hear this, but today US-China trade relations are actually at their highest level in history.
除了安全秩序以外, 還有國際經濟秩序。 在國際經濟部分,權力就 不集中在單一對象手裡了。 美國仍是很堅強穩固的經濟體, 但美國不能以武力優勢 威嚇他國做出特定經濟交易。 美國和中國在經濟方面相當依賴彼此, 所以他們沒辦法互相制衡。 你聽到這可能會很驚訝, 但現在的美中貿易關係 可說是有史以來最密切。 其他國家
Now, other countries in the world, a lot of them want access to US military muscle, but they also want access to the Chinese market, soon, by 2030, likely to be the largest in the world. And you can't very well have a cold war if the US and the Chinese are the only two that are prepared to fight it. Yes? Yes.
大多想要依靠美國的強大軍事力, 同時也想打進中國的大基數消費市場, 估計中國在 2030 年 將達到世界最大。 全世界只有美國和中國有本錢開戰, 那怎麼能開啟冷戰呢? 對吧? 對。
So the European Union has the largest common market and they set the rules. And if you want to do profitable business there, you listen to those rules. India is playing a greater role economically on the global stage. Japan still matters, too. And over the next ten years, there will be a rise and fall of the relative capacities of these economies. But the global economic order is and will remain a multipolar order.
歐盟成為美中以外最大的消費市場, 所以他們可以訂立規則。 想要在歐盟做大筆的生意, 就得遵守那些規則。 印度慢慢展現實力, 成為世界經濟要角; 日本的實力也依然健在。 下一個十年內, 這幾個經濟體的相對實力 會有很大的變動。 但國際經濟秩序是多極的,以後也是。
Now, between these two orders are tensions because the United States will use its power in national security to try to bring more of the world's economies towards it. And we already see this starting to happen in semiconductors and in critical minerals and maybe soon in TikTok. The Chinese are trying to use their dominant commercial position to align more of the world diplomatically. And Japan and Europe and India and everyone else will do their damnedest to ensure that neither of these two orders dominate the other. And they will mostly succeed.
這兩種秩序之間有點摩擦, 因為美國會動用強大的國力 升級國家防衛相關裝備, 吸引世界各經濟體來跟自己下訂單。 這現象已經發生在 半導體產業和稀有礦物產業, 以後在抖音產業也可能看見這個現象。 中國試著利用消費市場廣大這優勢 拉攏更多外交夥伴。 日本、歐洲、印度, 還有其他國家則會想盡辦法 不讓中國和美國領導的 其中一種秩序完全主導彼此, 且他們確實能控制好這平衡。
Now, so far I have spoken with you about the two world orders we already see, but there's a third that is coming soon that's even more important. And that is the digital order. And the digital order is not run by governments but by technology companies.
我到現在說了這麼多 有關這兩種世界秩序的內容, 但有一種秩序我還沒講, 而且比前兩種更重要, 就是「網路世界秩序」。 網路世界秩序不是由政府管理, 而是由科技公司管理。
We all know how much military support NATO countries have provided Ukraine during the war. But it's technology companies that provided the tools allowing Ukraine to defend itself from Russian cyber attack. It's technology companies that gave the Ukrainian leaders the ability to speak with their generals and their soldiers on the front lines. If it wasn't for those technology companies, Ukraine would have been fully offline within weeks of the war. And I don't believe President Zelensky would still be there today.
我們都知道在烏俄戰爭時期 北約提供多少軍武支援給烏克蘭。 但科技公司提供的工具讓烏克蘭 成功防下俄羅斯的網路攻擊。 科技公司提供的技術讓烏克蘭領導人 可以跟遠在前線的 軍人和將領遠距聯繫。 要是沒有科技公司的協助, 烏克蘭在開戰幾週內就會完全離線, 澤倫斯基想必也難逃一死。
Technology companies determine whether Donald Trump is able, in real time and without filter, to speak with hundreds of millions of people as he runs again for the presidency. It's social media platforms and their ability to promote disinformation and conspiracy theory. Without them, we do not have riots in the Capitol on January 6. We do not have trucker riots in Ottawa. We do not have a January 8 insurrection in Brazil.
科技公司可以決定要不要讓川普 實時且無過濾地 跟幾百萬名民眾聯繫交流, 在他要再次選總統的時期。 社交媒體平台和其強大的擴散力, 現已被用來傳播虛假消息和陰謀論。 沒有社交平台,就不會出現 2021 年 1 月 6 號的首都暴動、 渥太華的卡車司機抗議事件, 也不會有 1 月 8 日的 巴西三權廣場騷動。
Technology companies increasingly determine our identities. When I was growing up, it's nature or nurture. I mean, my deep and abiding emotional problems either come from how I was raised --
科技公司越來越能決定我們的身分。 我長大的時候,成為什麼樣的人 是看先天為人和後天教養, 你看嘛,我這深鎖心底、 不想觸碰的情緒問題, 只能是我被爸媽怎麼教,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Or some genetic failure.
或我的基因有問題, 其中一個導致的嘛。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Could be both.
也可能兩個都是啦。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But today, our identities are determined by nature and nurture and algorithm. If you want to challenge the system, you can't just question authority, as we were all told when we were growing up. Today, you have to question the algorithm, and that is a staggering amount of power in the hands of these technology companies. What are they going to do with that power? And that depends on who they want to be when they grow up.
但現在, 我們長成怎樣的人 不只端看先天為人、後天教養, 還要看演算法。 要推翻社會機制的現狀, 不能只質疑當權者, 我們小時候都有被這樣教。 現在,你必須質疑演算法, 而演算法是種很驚人的力量, 由科技公司所持有。 科技公司的總裁們 想拿這驚人的力量來做什麼? 這就取決於他們長大時 期許自己成為什麼樣的人。
So if China and the United States work to exert much more power over the digital world and technology companies in those countries align with those governments, we will end up in a technology cold war. And that means the digital order will be split in two.
如果中國和美國想要 在網路世界裡動用自己的力量, 且科技公司服從各自的國家發展策略, 我們就會面臨網路世界版的冷戰, 網路世界的勢力版圖會被分成兩極。
If, on the other hand technology companies persist with global business models, and we retain competition between the digital and physical worlds, we will have a new globalization, a digital global order.
又,如果 科技公司執意 以一己之力囊括全球用戶, 在現實和網路世界裡 持續進行商業競爭, 那就會產生全新的全球化景象, 數位的世界秩序。
Or if the digital order becomes increasingly dominant and governments erode in their capacity to govern, and we've already seen the beginning of this, technology companies will become the dominant actors on the global stage in every way and we will have a techno-polar order. And that will determine whether we have a world of limitless opportunity or a world without freedom.
又如果網路世界秩序變得越來越強勢, 政府逐漸崩潰,無法控制情勢 —我們也已目睹這樣的狀況— 科技公司將會主宰 全世界的方方面面, 「科技極」秩序就此誕生, 這會決定我們未來的世界 充滿著機遇,還是限制。
Now at this point in my speech, I'm supposed to talk about the good news.
現在你可能會覺得 我該講點好消息了吧。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But those of you that have heard this know that that is not coming.
但聽完這些之後,我相信你們都知道 接下來不會有好消息。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
There is no pause button on these explosive and disruptive technologies. I don't know if you know this, there are over 100 people in the world today with the knowledge and the technology to create a new smallpox virus.
科技爆炸性的進步和發展 已經無法停下腳步。 不知道各位有沒有聽過, 現在世界上有超過一百人 擁有知識和技術能做出新的天花病毒。
Honestly, I don't have answers, but I have a few questions for the people that do. Because these technology companies are not just Fortune 50 and 100 actors. These technology titans are not just men worth 50 or 100 billion dollars or more. They are increasingly the most powerful people on the planet with influence over our futures. And we need to know, are they going to act accountably as they release new and powerful artificial intelligence? What are they going to do with this unprecedented amount of data that they are collecting on us and our environment? And the one that I think should concern us all right now the most: Will they persist with these advertising models driving so much revenues that are turning citizens into products and driving hate and misinformation and ripping apart our society?
其實我也沒有解決方案。 我有問題想問那些知道解決方案的人。 科技公司不再只是 《財星》五十大跟百大企業, 這些科技巨頭們不再只是 身價五百億或一千億的人, 他們逐漸成為有力量改變世界、 能夠影響人類未來的重要人物。 我們必須要知道 他們在釋出新的人工智慧技術時, 會不會遵守科技倫理。 他們會怎麼處理 從使用者身上和生活周遭 取得的大量資料? 我認為現在最困擾我們的問題是 他們會不會堅持使用這種廣告手法, 將民眾視為搖錢樹牟取暴利, 放任仇恨、虛假言論橫行, 破壞社會和諧呢?
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
When I was a student back in 1989, and the Wall fell, the United States was the principal exporter of democracy in the world. Not always successfully. Often hypocritically. But number one, nonetheless. Today, the United States has become the principal exporter of tools that destroy democracy. The technology leaders who create and control these tools, are they OK with that? Or are they going to do something about it? We need to know.
1989 年時我還是學生, 柏林圍牆倒塌, 當時美國是全世界的 主要民主輸出國, 儘管並非每次都成功, 經常偽善, 到底還是第一。 現在,美國反而是 破壞民主的主要輸出國。 製造並控制科技工具的科技巨頭們 真能接受嗎? 打算採取行動嗎? 我們必須知道。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Cheers and applause)
(歡呼聲、鼓掌聲)