How fear drives American politics | David Rothkopf | TED Talks

翻译人员: Yolanda Zhang 校对人员: Xiaoya Song

What I'd like to do is talk to you a little bit about fear

今天我想跟大家谈谈恐惧

and the cost of fear

以及恐惧的代价

and the age of fear from which we are now emerging.

还有我们（美国）从中兴起的 那个恐怖的年代。

I would like you to feel comfortable with my doing that

在我演讲的过程中， 我并不想让大家感觉不适

by letting you know that I know something about fear and anxiety.

因此我想告诉大家，关于恐惧和焦虑 我是有发言权的。

I'm a Jewish guy from New Jersey.

因为我是一个来自新泽西州的犹太人。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

I could worry before I could walk.

我在会走路之前就已经学会了担忧。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Please, applaud that.

请给点掌声吧。

(Applause)

（掌声）

Thank you.

谢谢大家。

But I also grew up in a time where there was something to fear.

我成长于一个充满恐怖的时代。

We were brought out in the hall when I was a little kid

在我小的时候，我曾被带到一个大厅

and taught how to put our coats over our heads

有人教我如何将外套套在头上

to protect us from global thermonuclear war.

以保护我们躲过全球核战争的打击。

Now even my seven-year-old brain knew that wasn't going to work.

当然，尽管我当时只有七岁， 也知道那并没什么用。

But I also knew

但我也知道

that global thermonuclear war was something to be concerned with.

全球核战争并不是无稽之谈。

And yet, despite the fact that we lived for 50 years

尽管在核战阴云下，我们生活了

with the threat of such a war,

长达50年，

the response of our government and of our society

但我们的政府和社会为了应对核战威胁

was to do wonderful things.

却做了不少好事。

We created the space program in response to that.

我们发展了太空技术。

We built our highway system in response to that.

修建了高速公路。

We created the Internet in response to that.

发明了互联网。

So sometimes fear can produce a constructive response.

因此，恐惧有时候能激发正能量。

但有时候也会带来负面影响。

But sometimes it can produce an un-constructive response.

On September 11, 2001,

2001年9月11日，

19 guys took over four airplanes

19个人劫持了4架飞机

and flew them into a couple of buildings.

撞击了几幢大楼。

They exacted a horrible toll.

他们付出了可怕的代价。

It is not for us to minimize what that toll was.

我们并不是要把这代价降到最低。

But the response that we had was clearly disproportionate --

但我们做出的回应显然是过激了——

disproportionate to the point of verging on the unhinged.

过激到近乎疯狂的地步。

We rearranged the national security apparatus of the United States

我们重组了美国的国家安全机构，

and of many governments

其他许多政府也同样做了，

to address a threat that, at the time that those attacks took place,

目的是针对恐怖袭击发生时， 可能存在的威胁

was quite limited.

而实际上这种威胁很有限。

In fact, according to our intelligence services,

事实上，根据情报部门的数据，

在2001年9月11日，

on September 11, 2001,

there were 100 members of core Al-Qaeda.

“基地组织”的核心成员有100人。

There were just a few thousand terrorists.

恐怖分子也才数千人。

They posed an existential threat

他们对任何人的威胁， 远未到生死存亡

to no one.

的程度。

But we rearranged our entire national security apparatus

但我们却重组了我们整个国家安全机构，

是二战以来规模最大、程度最深的一次。

in the most sweeping way since the end of the Second World War.

We launched two wars.

我们发动了两场战争。

We spent trillions of dollars.

花费了数万亿美元。

We suspended our values.

丢弃了我们的价值观。

We violated international law.

违反了国际法。

We embraced torture.

我们滥用私刑。

我们坚信

We embraced the idea

that if these 19 guys could do this, anybody could do it.

如果这19个人能犯下如此罪行， 那么任何人都可能。

And therefore, for the first time in history,

因此，史无前例的，

我们将任何人都视作威胁。

we were seeing everybody as a threat.

结果怎么样呢？

And what was the result of that?

我们监控电子邮件和电话

Surveillance programs that listened in on the emails and phone calls

针对所有国家，

of entire countries --

针对数以亿计的人，

hundreds of millions of people --

setting aside whether those countries were our allies,

无论这些国家是不是我们的盟友，

setting aside what our interests were.

也无论这么做是不是符合我们的利益。

I would argue that 15 years later,

我认为，15年过去了，

恐怖分子反倒越来越多，

since today there are more terrorists,

more terrorist attacks, more terrorist casualties --

恐怖袭击越来越多， 造成的伤亡越来越大，

——这是美国国务院统计的结果——

this by the count of the U.S. State Department --

since today the region from which those attacks emanate

恐怖袭击的发源地区

is more unstable than at any time in its history,

处于有史以来最不稳定的时期，

即便从大洪水时代开始算起，

since the Flood, perhaps,

we have not succeeded in our response.

我们此次的应对并不成功。

Now you have to ask, where did we go wrong?

你肯定会问，那我们错在哪里？

我们做错了什么？ 具体犯了哪些错误？

What did we do? What was the mistake that was made?

And you might say, well look, Washington is a dysfunctional place.

也许你会说，你看， 华盛顿正在失去话语权。

There are political food fights.

充斥着政治斗争。

We've turned our discourse into a cage match.

我们的竞选辩论成为了笼中摔跤赛。

的确如此。

And that's true.

But there are bigger problems, believe it or not, than that dysfunction,

无论你信不信， 还有比华盛顿失权更严重的问题，

even though I would argue

尽管我坚信，

that dysfunction that makes it impossible to get anything done

这种失权会导致我们 这个世界上最富裕最强大的国家

无法做成任何事情，

in the richest and most powerful country in the world

is far more dangerous than anything that a group like ISIS could do,

而这种危害比“伊拉克和沙姆伊斯兰国” 这种组织造成的危害要大得多，

because it stops us in our tracks and it keeps us from progress.

因为它会让我们偏离轨道， 阻止我们进步。

But there are other problems.

然而还有其他问题存在。

And the other problems

这些问题

came from the fact that in Washington and in many capitals right now,

来源于一个事实，无论是在华盛顿， 还是其他国家的首都，

we're in a creativity crisis.

我们都遭遇到了创新危机。

In Washington, in think tanks,

华盛顿，智库，

where people are supposed to be thinking of new ideas,

本该是大家提出新想法的地方，

you don't get bold new ideas,

然而没有人这么做，

因为一旦你提出个什么新想法，

because if you offer up a bold new idea,

not only are you attacked on Twitter,

不但会在推特上被骂得体无完肤，

but you will not get confirmed in a government job.

甚至都没法再在政府部门混下去了。

因为我们受竞选政治毒害颇深，

Because we are reactive to the heightened venom of the political debate,

政府部门里派别对立严重，

you get governments that have an us-versus-them mentality,

tiny groups of people making decisions.

而做决定的是一小群人。

When you sit in a room with a small group of people making decisions,

当你和一小撮人一起做决策的时候，

会发生什么？

what do you get?

你会陷入“团体迷思”的怪圈。

You get groupthink.

Everybody has the same worldview,

（这个小团体中）每个人的世界观都一样，

and any view from outside of the group is seen as a threat.

任何来自这个小圈子之外的 观点都会被视为威胁。

That's a danger.

这很危险。

You also have processes that become reactive to news cycles.

你也会有一个对新的想法和环境反应的一个过程。

And so the parts of the U.S. government that do foresight, that look forward,

因此美国政府中那些需要 做预测，需要向前看的部门，

that do strategy --

战略部门——

包括其他国家政府中 有这项职能的部门 — 不能如此行事，

the parts in other governments that do this -- can't do it,

because they're reacting to the news cycle.

因为一旦他们开始进入新循环。

And so we're not looking ahead.

我们也就无法向前看了。

在“911”事件时，我们经历了危机， 因为我们思考的方向有误。

On 9/11, we had a crisis because we were looking the wrong way.

Today we have a crisis because, because of 9/11,

而今天我们经历的危机， 正是因为在“911”时，

we are still looking in the wrong direction,

我们的思考方向不对，

and we know because we see transformational trends on the horizon

我们之所以这样认为 是因为我们看到了新的转型趋势

that are far more important than what we saw on 9/11;

而这比我在“911”时看到的更为重要；

far more important than the threat posed by these terrorists;

比恐怖分子制造的威胁更为重要；

甚至比世界上一些地区的不稳定更为重要，

far more important even than the instability that we've got

in some areas of the world that are racked by instability today.

尽管这些地区动荡不安，饱受摧残。

In fact, the things that we are seeing in those parts of the world

事实上，发生在这些地区的事件

may be symptoms.

只是表象。

They may be a reaction to bigger trends.

背后可能还隐藏着更大的问题。

And if we are treating the symptom and ignoring the bigger trend,

如果我们只是治标不治本，

then we've got far bigger problems to deal with.

我们麻烦只会越来越大。

And so what are those trends?

那问题的根源究竟是什么？

Well, to a group like you,

当然，对于你们而言，

the trends are apparent.

问题显而易见。

We are living at a moment in which the very fabric of human society

我们生活在一个全新的时代， 人类社会基础发生了

is being rewoven.

翻天覆地的变化。

If you saw the cover of The Economist a couple of days ago --

如果你还记得几天前出版的 《经济学人》的封面——

it said that 80 percent of the people on the planet,

说，到2020年，地球上80%的人

by the year 2020, would have a smartphone.

将拥有智能手机。

They would have a small computer connected to the Internet in their pocket.

人人口袋里将有一部 连接互联网的小型计算机。

In most of Africa, the cell phone penetration rate is 80 percent.

在非洲大部分地区， 手机的普及率为80%。

We passed the point last October

去年10月，我们跨过了一个临界点，

when there were more mobile cellular devices, SIM cards,

世界上的手机，SIM卡的数量

out in the world than there were people.

超过了人类的数量。

We are within years of a profound moment in our history,

我们正在经历人类历史中 非常重要的一段时期，

那就是地球上的每一个人类，

when effectively every single human being on the planet

is going to be part of a man-made system for the first time,

破天荒第一次，能够成为 一个人造系统的一部分，

有能力能联系上任何一个人——

able to touch anyone else --

无论这种联系是好是坏。

touch them for good, touch them for ill.

And the changes associated with that are changing the very nature

随之而来的变化改变了

of every aspect of governance and life on the planet

统治阶级和老百姓生活的方方面面。

in ways that our leaders ought to be thinking about,

领导者们不得不考虑，

when they're thinking about these immediate threats.

这会不会成为一种直接威胁。

On the security side,

从安全角度来看，

we've come out of a Cold War in which it was too costly to fight a nuclear war,

我们躲过了冷战， 因为核战争成本太高，

但我们没法躲过

and so we didn't,

to a period that I call Cool War, cyber war,

我称之为“次冷战”，网络战，

where the costs of conflict are actually so low, that we may never stop.

发动它们的成本很低， 我们肯定会一直这么干下去。

We may enter a period of constant warfare,

我们可能会进入一段连续作战的时期，

and we know this because we've been in it for several years.

我们之所以这么肯定， 因为我们已经开始好多年了。

然而，我们缺乏基本的理论引导，

And yet, we don't have the basic doctrines to guide us in this regard.

We don't have the basic ideas formulated.

没有成型的战法可以参考。

If someone attacks us with a cyber attack,

如果我们遭受网络攻击，

do have the ability to respond with a kinetic attack?

我们有能力进行反击吗？

We don't know.

谁也不知道。

If somebody launches a cyber attack, how do we deter them?

如果有人发起网络攻击， 我们如何阻止？

When China launched a series of cyber attacks,

当中国发起一系列网络攻击时，

what did the U.S. government do?

美国政府是怎么应对的？

It said, we're going to indict a few of these Chinese guys,

据说，我们会起诉这几个中国人，

who are never coming to America.

而这些人永远不会来美国。

They're never going to be anywhere near a law enforcement officer

他们才不会跑到美国警察局

who's going to take them into custody.

来束手就擒呢。

It's a gesture -- it's not a deterrent.

（起诉）只是一种形式，并不是威慑。

Special forces operators out there in the field today

今天在外执勤的特种部队队员

discover that small groups of insurgents with cell phones

发现一小群叛乱分子

have access to satellite imagery that once only superpowers had.

用手机获取了卫星图像， 这些图像曾经只掌握在超级大国手中。

In fact, if you've got a cell phone,

实际上，只要你手机在手，

you've got access to power that a superpower didn't have,

你就拥有了超级大国都不曾拥有的力量，

掌握那些在十年前还属于高度机密的信息。

and would have highly classified 10 years ago.

In my cell phone, I have an app that tells me

我的手机有一个程序，

能显示地球上每一架飞机的位置、航向、速度

where every plane in the world is, and its altitude, and its speed,

and what kind of aircraft it is,

飞机的型号，

and where it's going and where it's landing.

目的地是哪里，将在哪里降落。

他们（恐怖分子）只要安装了程序， 就能知道自己的对手下一步的行动。

They have apps that allow them to know

what their adversary is about to do.

They're using these tools in new ways.

他们（恐怖分子）找到了 使用这些工具的新方法。

When a cafe in Sydney was taken over by a terrorist,

一名恐怖分子占领了悉尼的一家咖啡馆，

he went in with a rifle...

带着一支步枪

和一个iPad。

and an iPad.

And the weapon was the iPad.

而iPad才是武器。

Because he captured people, he terrorized them,

因为他挟持人质，恐吓他们，

将iPad对准他们，

he pointed the iPad at them,

录下视频并传到网上，

and then he took the video and he put it on the Internet,

and he took over the world's media.

从而攻陷了全世界的媒体。

But it doesn't just affect the security side.

然而这不仅仅对安全产生了影响。

The relations between great powers --

（也影响了）大国间的关系——

we thought we were past the bipolar era.

我们本以为两极世界已经结束。

We thought we were in a unipolar world,

我们本以为我们进入了单极世界，

所有大问题都已经解决了。

where all the big issues were resolved.

还记得吗？那段历史已经结束。

Remember? It was the end of history.

But we're not.

然而并非如此。

We're now seeing that our basic assumptions about the Internet --

我们现在对于网络的基本假设－－

that it was going to connect us, weave society together --

它可以和整个社会和我们连结在一起－－

are not necessarily true.

已经不见的是对的了。

In countries like China, you have the Great Firewall of China.

像中国这种国家，他们拥有《长城防火墙》。

你会看到一些国家，说我们不允许各种网络 在国界里肆意妄为。

You've got countries saying no, if the Internet happens within our borders

we control it within our borders.

我们要在国界内对其加以控制。

We control the content. We are going to control our security.

我们要控制它的内容。 我们要保证我们的安全。

We are going to manage that Internet.

我们要管好网络。

我们要决定我们自己扮演的是什么角色。

We are going to say what can be on it.

We're going to set a different set of rules.

我们要设定一些不同的规则。

现在你可能在想，嗯，那只是中国。

Now you might think, well, that's just China.

其实不止是中国。

But it's not just China.

It's China, India, Russia.

中国，印度，俄罗斯，

沙特阿拉伯，新加坡，巴西。

It's Saudi Arabia, it's Singapore, it's Brazil.

After the NSA scandal, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians,

在国家安全局的丑闻后， 俄罗斯人，中国人，印度人，巴西人，

they said, let's create a new Internet backbone,

他们都说要创造自己的网络构架，

because we can't be dependent on this other one.

因为不能再信任别人的系统。

And so all of a sudden, what do you have?

所以一瞬间，你还有些什么？

你有一个新的强权对立的世界，

You have a new bipolar world

in which cyber-internationalism,

在这种网络国际主义的环境下，

我们的信念，

our belief,

is challenged by cyber-nationalism,

受到网络民族主义的挑战。

另一种信念。

another belief.

We are seeing these changes everywhere we look.

我们到处都可以看到这些改变。

We are seeing the advent of mobile money.

我们看到可流动货币出现

It's happening in the places you wouldn't expect.

在你想不到的地方。

It's happening in Kenya and Tanzania,

它发生在肯尼亚和坦桑尼亚。

where millions of people who haven't had access to financial services

那里有上百万人 没有机会使用金融服务，

now conduct all those services on their phones.

现在却可以在他们手机上享受这些服务。

There are 2.5 million people who don't have financial service access

所以2500万无法使用金融服务的人，

很快都能用上了。

that are going to get it soon.

A billion of them are going to have the ability to access it

有十亿人很快的将得以透过手机

on their cell phone soon.

获得这个服务。

It's not just going to give them the ability to bank.

这不只让他们可以开户存款，

It's going to change what monetary policy is.

已将改变货币政策，

It's going to change what money is.

和货币本身。

Education is changing in the same way.

教育也在以同样的方式改变着。

Healthcare is changing in the same way.

医疗也是。

How government services are delivered is changing in the same way.

政府服务也在改变着。

And yet, in Washington, we are debating

但是在华盛顿，我们还在争论

whether to call the terrorist group that has taken over Syria and Iraq

要称呼控制叙利亚和伊拉克的恐怖组织

ISIS or ISIL or Islamic State.

ISIS还是ISIL还是伊斯兰国。

We are trying to determine

我们还在试着决定

how much we want to give in a negotiation with the Iranians

在和伊朗的核能交易谈判中

on a nuclear deal which deals with the technologies of 50 years ago,

针对这项五十年前的技术到底要付多少。

when in fact, we know that the Iranians right now are engaged in cyber war with us

就在我们知道伊朗人事实上 正忙着和我们进行网络战的时候。

我们忽略了这个， 一部分原因是商界不希望

and we're ignoring it, partially because businesses are not willing

去谈论它们所受到的影响。

to talk about the attacks that are being waged on them.

And that gets us to another breakdown

而这为我们带来了另一次分离崩解，

这是决定性的，

that's crucial,

and another breakdown that couldn't be more important to a group like this,

对我们这样的群体而言， 没有比这个更重要的事情，

因为美国的发展以及真正的国家安全

because the growth of America and real American national security

and all of the things that drove progress even during the Cold War,

以及能让我们在冷战中得以进步的东西，

就是在科学，科技和政治之间， 政府和民间的合作，

was a public-private partnership between science, technology and government

是由坐在实验室的

that began when Thomas Jefferson sat alone in his laboratory

inventing new things.

独自发明着东西的托马斯杰斐逊开始。

But it was the canals and railroads and telegraph;

是运河，铁路，电报；

it was radar and the Internet.

是雷达和网络。

是果珍－－那种早餐饮料－－

It was Tang, the breakfast drink --

probably not the most important of those developments.

可能不是最重要的项目。

But what you had was a partnership and a dialogue,

但我们曾有的合作和对话，

and the dialogue has broken down.

现在已经瓦解。

It's broken down because in Washington,

因为在华盛顿，

less government is considered more.

人们认为政府介入越少越好，

因为，不管你信不信

It's broken down because there is, believe it or not,

in Washington, a war on science --

在华盛顿，竟然还有人和科学宣战－－

despite the fact that in all of human history,

尽管事实上在所有人类历史中，

every time anyone has waged a war on science,

若有任何人向科学宣战，

science has won.

科学都会获得最后的胜利。

(Applause)

（掌声）

But we have a government that doesn't want to listen,

但是我们有个不愿意倾听的政府，

that doesn't have people at the highest levels

不愿意让最高层的人，

去了解这些。

that understand this.

In the nuclear age,

在核武器时代，

when there were people in senior national security jobs,

那些在国家安全部门任职的人们，

they were expected to speak throw-weight.

被期待去谈论导弹负荷。

大家期待他们能够用听不懂的行话。

They were expected to know the lingo, the vocabulary.

现在如果你到美国政府最高层

If you went to the highest level of the U.S. government now

and said, "Talk to me about cyber, about neuroscience,

和他们说“跟我谈谈网络， 跟我谈谈神经学

about the things that are going to change the world of tomorrow,"

谈谈即将改变未来世界的事情。”

you'd get a blank stare.

你会得到一个白眼。

I know, because when I wrote this book,

我之所以知道这个， 因为我写这本书的时候，

I talked to 150 people, many from the science and tech side,

我曾和来自各类科学领域 的150名专家对谈，

who felt like they were being shunted off to the kids' table.

他们都觉得自己被分配到儿童桌。

Meanwhile, on the tech side,

与此同时，在科技领域，

we have lots of wonderful people creating wonderful things,

很多很棒的人在制作很棒的东西，

but they started in garages and they didn't need the government

但是他们是从车库开始的－不需要政府，

and they don't want the government.

他们不想要政府。

很多人有一个政治思想，

Many of them have a political view that's somewhere between

libertarian and anarchic:

在自由派和无政府派之间：

leave me alone.

别打扰我。

But the world's coming apart.

但是世界正在崩溃。

All of a sudden, there are going to be massive regulatory changes

突然之间，即将会有很大范围的管理改变

巨大的冲突、

and massive issues associated with conflict

巨大的安全与隐私隐患。

and massive issues associated with security and privacy.

And we haven't even gotten to the next set of issues,

我们甚至还没提到下一个问题：

which are philosophical issues.

哲学问题。

If you can't vote, if you can't have a job,

如果你在没有网络的情况下 不能投票，工作，做金融，用医保，

if you can't bank, if you can't get health care,

if you can't be educated without Internet access,

接受教育，

is Internet access a fundamental right that should be written into constitutions?

那么网络连接 不应该被写进宪法的基本权利吗？

If Internet access is a fundamental right,

如果网络是权力，

is electricity access for the 1.2 billion who don't have access to electricity

那么对于1.2亿没有电用的人口来说，

a fundamental right?

电力供应是个基本权利吗？

These are fundamental issues. Where are the philosophers?

这些都是基础问题。哲学家在哪里？

Where's the dialogue?

对话在哪里？

And that brings me to the reason that I'm here.

这些是我今天来的原因，

我住在华盛顿，可怜可怜我吧。

I live in Washington. Pity me.

（笑）

(Laughter)

The dialogue isn't happening there.

在那里并没有对话发生。

These big issues that will change the world,

这些会改变世界，

change national security, change economics,

改变国家安全，经济，

创造机会，制造威胁的重大议题，

create hope, create threats,

can only be resolved when you bring together

只有在你将懂科学，科技

groups of people who understand science and technology

的群体聚集在一起 恢复和政府的合作时，

才能解决。

back together with government.

Both sides need each other.

互相需要。

唯有在我们重新建立联系，

And until we recreate that connection,

做一些可以帮助美国 和其他国家成长的事情后，

until we do what helped America grow and helped other countries grow,

then we are going to grow ever more vulnerable.

我们才不会越来越脆弱。

The risks associated with 9/11 will not be measured

911所带来的风险

in terms of lives lost by terror attacks

不会被以伤亡而衡量

or buildings destroyed or trillions of dollars spent.

或者被摧毁的大楼 或者几亿的资产损失。

而是被以让我们从重要事务上分心 所造成的代价而衡量。

They'll be measured in terms of the costs of our distraction from critical issues

and our inability to get together

以及无法聚集起来

scientists, technologists, government leaders,

科学家，科技学家和政府领导人－－

at a moment of transformation akin to the beginning of the Renaissance,

在这样的转变下， 类似于文艺复兴的开端的时刻，

类似于地球上许多

akin to the beginning of the major transformational eras

重要事情的开端。

that have happened on Earth,

and start coming up with, if not the right answers,

我们要有一些答案， 如果不是正确的答案，

then at least the right questions.

或者至少想到正确的问题。

我们还没有做到这点，

We are not there yet,

但是像这样的讨论，这样的观众，

but discussions like this and groups like you

are the places where those questions can be formulated and posed.

是这些问题得以被提及的地方。

这就是为什么我相信像TED演讲的地方，

And that's why I believe that groups like TED,

地球上类似这样进行讨论的场合，

discussions like this around the planet,

are the place where the future of foreign policy, of economic policy,

是外交政策，经济政策，

of social policy, of philosophy, will ultimately take place.

社会政策，哲学思想的未来。

这就是为什么和你们交流这么愉快。

And that's why it's been a pleasure speaking to you.

Thank you very, very much.

非常，非常感谢。

（掌声）

(Applause)