Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

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

    今天我要做的是 和各位稍微談談恐懼這件事,

  • and the cost of fear

    以及恐懼的代價,

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

    還有正在浮現的恐懼時代。

  • I would like you to feel comfortable with my doing that

    如果我告訴你們我對恐懼 和焦慮有所瞭解的話。

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

    希望這可以讓你們感到舒服些

  • I'm a Jewish guy from New Jersey.

    我是個來自紐澤西的猶太人。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • I could worry before I could walk.

    在我學會走路之前就學會憂慮了。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • Please, applaud that.

    請為此給點掌聲。

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • Thank you.

    謝謝。

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

    但是我的確在一個令人憂慮的時代長大。

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

    在我還是個小孩時, 我們就被帶到門廊,

  • and taught how to put our coats over our heads

    大人教導我們如何把外套套在頭上,

  • to protect us from global thermonuclear war.

    以保護自己在全球熱核 戰爭中免受侵害。

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

    現在想想,即使我七歲的腦袋, 都知道那沒用。

  • But I also knew

    但我同時也知道,

  • that global thermonuclear war was something to be concerned with.

    全球熱核戰爭確實是需要擔憂的事情。

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

    但是,儘管我們有50年的時間

  • with the threat of such a war,

    都活在這個戰爭的威脅裡,

  • the response of our government and of our society

    我們的政府和社會對此的回應

  • was to do wonderful things.

    卻是做出一些很棒的事。

  • We created the space program in response to that.

    作為回應,我們建立了太空計畫

  • We built our highway system in response to that.

    作為回應,作為回應, 我們我們建造了公路系統

  • We created the Internet in response to that.

    網際網路作為回應,我們創造了網際網路

  • So sometimes fear can produce a constructive response.

    所以恐懼有時能促使 一些建設性的回應。

  • But sometimes it can produce an un-constructive response.

    但有時也會產生無用的的回應。

  • On September 11, 2001,

    2001年9月11日,

  • 19 guys took over four airplanes

    19個人劫持了四架飛機,

  • and flew them into a couple of buildings.

    將他們開向幾棟大樓。

  • They exacted a horrible toll.

    他們帶來了恐怖的傷亡。

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

    這傷亡並非我們所能減少的。

  • But the response that we had was clearly disproportionate --

    但我們的回應卻很明顯地 與此不成比例 --

  • disproportionate to the point of verging on the unhinged.

    不成比例到幾乎要精神分裂。

  • We rearranged the national security apparatus of the United States

    我們重整美國國家安全的機關

  • and of many governments

    和許多相關的政府單位

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

    來對付像當時這樣的恐怖攻擊,

  • was quite limited.

    這樣有限的威脅。

  • In fact, according to our intelligence services,

    事實上,根據我們的情報局,

  • on September 11, 2001,

    在2001年9月11日,

  • there were 100 members of core Al-Qaeda.

    蓋達組織的核心成員數是100人。

  • There were just a few thousand terrorists.

    恐怖分子的人數也只有幾千人。

  • They posed an existential threat

    而他們對誰有著持續存在的威脅?

  • to no one.

    沒有。

  • But we rearranged our entire national security apparatus

    但我們在二次世界大戰後, 就用最全面徹底的方式

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

    重整我們整個國家安全機關。

  • We launched two wars.

    我們發動了兩個戰爭。

  • We spent trillions of dollars.

    我們花了好幾兆美金。

  • We suspended our values.

    我們擱置了自己的價值觀。

  • We violated international law.

    我們違反了國際法。

  • We embraced torture.

    我們信奉酷刑這套。

  • We embraced the idea

    我們接受這個想法:

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

    如果有19個人做這種事, 全世界的人都有可能做這種事。

  • And therefore, for the first time in history,

    也因為這樣,歷史上頭一遭,

  • we were seeing everybody as a threat.

    我們把每個人都視為威脅。

  • And what was the result of that?

    這麼做的結果是什麼?

  • Surveillance programs that listened in on the emails and phone calls

    監控程式不斷監聽電子郵件和電話,

  • of entire countries --

    針對全世界所有國家 --

  • hundreds of millions of people --

    好幾億人口 --

  • setting aside whether those countries were our allies,

    不顧那些國家是否是我們的同盟國,

  • setting aside what our interests were.

    不顧國家利益在哪裡。

  • I would argue that 15 years later,

    我認為在未來的15年,

  • since today there are more terrorists,

    從今天開始世上會有更多恐怖份子,

  • more terrorist attacks, more terrorist casualties --

    更多恐怖攻擊行動、更多不幸傷亡

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

    --來自美國國務院的統計--

  • since today the region from which those attacks emanate

    今天之後恐怖攻擊發送的區域

  • is more unstable than at any time in its history,

    會比歷史上任何時刻更不規則,

  • since the Flood, perhaps,

    恐怕在這波恐怖浪潮之後,

  • we have not succeeded in our response.

    我們還沒有成功做出過回應。

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

    現在你們得問,我們哪裡做錯了?

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

    我們做了什麼? 犯了什麼錯?

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

    然後你可能會說,看吧, 華府就是個功能失調的地方。

  • There are political food fights.

    存在許多政治鬥爭。

  • We've turned our discourse into a cage match.

    我們把許多對談變成鐵籠格鬥。

  • And that's true.

    這是事實。

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

    但不管你信不信, 還有比這種功失調更大的問題,

  • even though I would argue

    儘管我主張

  • that dysfunction that makes it impossible to get anything done

    這種讓世上最富裕、最強盛國家

  • in the richest and most powerful country in the world

    無法完成任何事情的功能失調,

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

    遠比任何像ISIS這樣的組織 所做的事更加危險,

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

    因為這讓我們脫離軌道、無法進步。

  • But there are other problems.

    但還有其他問題。

  • And the other problems

    而這些問題

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

    來自華府與許多重要城市,

  • we're in a creativity crisis.

    現在面臨的創意危機。

  • In Washington, in think tanks,

    在華府的智囊團裡,

  • where people are supposed to be thinking of new ideas,

    原本人們應該不斷想出新主意,

  • you don't get bold new ideas,

    但現在你不會看到任何大膽的新主意,

  • because if you offer up a bold new idea,

    因為每當你提出大膽的新主意,

  • not only are you attacked on Twitter,

    不只會在推特上遭到抨擊,

  • but you will not get confirmed in a government job.

    還可能無法繼續在政府體系工作。

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

    因為我們需要顧慮政治鬥爭的遺毒,

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

    我們的政府都有選邊站的心態,

  • tiny groups of people making decisions.

    都是小團體在進行決策。

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

    當你坐在一個房間裡, 少數一群人做決策,

  • what do you get?

    你會得到什麼?

  • You get groupthink.

    你得到集體思維。

  • Everybody has the same worldview,

    每個人有著一樣的世界觀,

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

    而任何群體外的人的觀點都被視為威脅。

  • That's a danger.

    這是很危險的。

  • You also have processes that become reactive to news cycles.

    你也正在經歷被 新聞連播牽著走的過程。

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

    所以當部分美國政府 在長遠規畫、在向前看、

  • that do strategy --

    在做策略時--

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

    其他政府都可以做的事情-- 將無從施展,

  • because they're reacting to the news cycle.

    因為他們需要顧慮媒體言論。

  • And so we're not looking ahead.

    所以我們並沒有在向前看。

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

    在911,我們的危機來自 過去沒看到正確方向。

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

    今天我們的危機來自, 因為911的緣故,

  • we are still looking in the wrong direction,

    我們還是沒看到正確的方向,

  • and we know because we see transformational trends on the horizon

    而且我們知道因為我們看見 即將來臨的變革趨勢

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

    遠比我們在911中看到的更重要;

  • far more important than the threat posed by these terrorists;

    遠比任何恐怖份子的威脅更重要;

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

    甚至遠比任何動盪--

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

    正在世界上某些地方遭受的動盪重要。

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

    事實上,這部分我們所見的世事

  • may be symptoms.

    可能只是一些症狀而已。

  • They may be a reaction to bigger trends.

    可能只是反映更龐大的 趨勢的一些症狀。

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

    而如果我們只設法治癒這些症狀, 卻忽略更龐大的趨勢,

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

    就會有遠比現在更大的問題要處理。

  • And so what are those trends?

    所以,那些趨勢是什麼?

  • Well, to a group like you,

    對於像你們這樣的群眾來說,

  • the trends are apparent.

    這些趨勢很明顯。

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

    我們活在一個人類社會的結構

  • is being rewoven.

    正在被重新編織的時刻

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

    如果你有看到前幾天 《經濟學人》的封面,

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

    上面說地球上將有高達80%的人口

  • by the year 2020, would have a smartphone.

    在2020年時擁有智慧型手機。

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

    將會有個連結網路的 小電腦在他們口袋裡

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

    在非洲大部分地區, 手機的滲透率是80%。

  • We passed the point last October

    去年10月開始,

  • when there were more mobile cellular devices, SIM cards,

    世界上個人行動裝置、SIM卡的數量

  • out in the world than there were people.

    已經超過世界人口數了。

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

    我們活在對歷史影響最深遠的時代裡,

  • when effectively every single human being on the planet

    在這個時代裡,世界上每一個人

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

    實際上都是一個人造系統的一部份, 有史以來第一次。

  • able to touch anyone else --

    我們可以接觸任何人 --

  • touch them for good, touch them for ill.

    為好事接觸他們,或為壞事接觸他們。

  • And the changes associated with that are changing the very nature

    隨著這些改變而來的是它正在改變

  • of every aspect of governance and life on the planet

    地球上任何政府與任何生命的 每一個面相的本質,

  • in ways that our leaders ought to be thinking about,

    這是我們的領導人在思考當前威脅時

  • when they're thinking about these immediate threats.

    應該思考的事情。

  • On the security side,

    至於安全這方面,

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

    我們已經從冷戰裡出來 -- 因為核戰代價太高,

  • and so we didn't,

    所以我們沒這麼做--

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

    進入一個我稱為『涼戰』 的時期,也就是網路戰爭,

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

    因為衝突成本很低, 所以可能永遠不會停止。

  • We may enter a period of constant warfare,

    我們可能進入了一個持續交戰的時期,

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

    我們知道這點因為我們曾有多年經驗。

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

    但這次並沒有任何教條可以指點我們。

  • We don't have the basic ideas formulated.

    我們並沒有規劃出任何基本概念。

  • If someone attacks us with a cyber attack,

    如果有人對我們發動網路攻擊,

  • do have the ability to respond with a kinetic attack?

    我們是否有能力做出有力的回應?

  • We don't know.

    我們不知道。

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

    如果有人發動網路攻擊, 我們如何嚇阻他們?

  • When China launched a series of cyber attacks,

    當中國發動一連串網路攻擊時,

  • what did the U.S. government do?

    美國政府做了什麼?

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

    他們只說,我們要對 幾個中國人提出訴訟,

  • who are never coming to America.

    而這些人根本沒來過美國。

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

    他們甚至永遠不會到任何 接近執法人員的地方,

  • who's going to take them into custody.

    接近那些有可能拘留他們的人。

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

    這只是作勢而已--毫無威攝作用。

  • Special forces operators out there in the field today

    今天前線的特種部隊人員

  • discover that small groups of insurgents with cell phones

    發現少部分的叛亂團體用手機

  • have access to satellite imagery that once only superpowers had.

    就可以取得衛星影像, 這曾經是世界強權才拿得到的東西。

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

    事實上,只要你有手機,

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

    就能取得過去世界強權 無法擁有的力量。

  • and would have highly classified 10 years ago.

    獲得10年前還是高度機密的東西。

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

    在我的手機裡,有個程式可以告訴我

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

    地球上任何一架飛機在哪裡, 還有它的高度、它的速度,

  • and what kind of aircraft it is,

    還有它是哪種飛機,

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

    它的目的地是哪,將在哪裡降落。

  • They have apps that allow them to know

    他們擁有手機程式讓他們可以得知

  • what their adversary is about to do.

    他們的對手即將要做什麼

  • They're using these tools in new ways.

    他們正在用新方法運用這些工具。

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

    當恐怖份子控制雪梨一家咖啡廳時,

  • he went in with a rifle...

    他拿著一把來福槍...

  • and an iPad.

    還有一台iPad。

  • And the weapon was the iPad.

    他的武器就是那台iPad。

  • Because he captured people, he terrorized them,

    因為他幫裡面的人 拍攝照片、脅迫他們,

  • he pointed the iPad at them,

    他拿著iPad指向他們,

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

    然後錄影並放到網路上,

  • and he took over the world's media.

    攻佔了全世界的媒體。

  • But it doesn't just affect the security side.

    但它不只在安全方面有所影響。

  • The relations between great powers --

    世界強權之間的關係--

  • we thought we were past the bipolar era.

    我們認為兩大強權對立 的時期已經結束。

  • We thought we were in a unipolar world,

    我們認為現在世上只有一個強權,

  • where all the big issues were resolved.

    尤其在最大的麻煩都解決了之後。

  • Remember? It was the end of history.

    記得嗎? 這是那段歷史的終點。

  • But we're not.

    但我們還沒結束。

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

    我們現在對於網際網路 的基本假設 --

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

    它可以連結我們, 將整個社會織在一起 --

  • are not necessarily true.

    已經不見得是對的了。

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

    像中國這樣的國家, 他們擁有「防火長城」。

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

    你會看到一些國家,會說我們不允許 網際網路在國界內恣意流竄,

  • we control it within our borders.

    我們要在國界內對其加以控制。

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

    我們要控制它的內容。 我們要控制我們的安全。

  • We are going to manage that Internet.

    我們要管好網際網路。

  • We are going to say what can be on it.

    我們要決定自己可以在裡面扮演什麼。

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

    我們要設定一些不同的規則。

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

    現在你可能在想,嗯,那只是中國。

  • But it's not just China.

    但其實不只中國。

  • It's China, India, Russia.

    而是中國、印度、俄羅斯、

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

    沙烏地阿拉伯、新加坡、巴西。

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

    在國家安全局的醜聞後, 蘇聯人、中國人、印度人、巴西人,

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

    他們都說要創造自己的網路架構,

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

    因為不能再信賴別人的系統。

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

    所以一瞬之間,你還有什麼?

  • You have a new bipolar world

    你得到一個新的強權對立的世界,

  • in which cyber-internationalism,

    在此網路國際主義,

  • our belief,

    我們的信念,

  • is challenged by cyber-nationalism,

    受到網路民族主義的挑戰,

  • another belief.

    另一種信念。

  • We are seeing these changes everywhere we look.

    我們到處都可以看到這些改變。

  • We are seeing the advent of mobile money.

    我們看到行動貨幣正在來臨。

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

    它發生在你沒想到的地方。

  • It's happening in Kenya and Tanzania,

    它發生在肯亞和坦尚尼亞,

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

    那裡有上百萬人 還沒機會使用金融服務,

  • now conduct all those services on their phones.

    現在卻可以在他們的手機上享用。

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

    所以250萬無法獲得金融服務的人,

  • that are going to get it soon.

    很快就要得到了。

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

    有10億人很快地將得以透過手機

  • on their cell phone soon.

    取得這項服務。

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

    這不只讓他們即將有能力開戶存款,

  • It's going to change what monetary policy is.

    也即將改變貨幣政策,

  • It's going to change what money is.

    即將改變貨幣本身。

  • Education is changing in the same way.

    教育也在以相同的方式改變。

  • Healthcare is changing in the same way.

    醫療也在以相同的方式改變。

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

    政府服務如何履行 也在以相同的方式改變。

  • And yet, in Washington, we are debating

    但是在華府,我們還在爭論

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

    要叫那個已經控制敘利亞 和伊拉克的恐怖組織

  • ISIS or ISIL or Islamic State.

    ISIS還是ISIL還是伊斯蘭國。

  • We are trying to determine

    我們還在試著決定

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

    要在和伊朗人做核能交易的談判中