YouTube 杰弗里·萨克斯和约翰·米尔斯海默意见分歧的地方
Here's Where Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer Disagree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojwHRTCWls
Here's Where Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer Disagree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojwHRTCWls&t=10s
2024年8月15日
杰弗里·萨克斯的世界观与约翰·米尔斯海默等现实主义者的世界观有何不同？
杰弗里·萨克斯认为和平与国际合作至关重要且可以实现。他和约翰·米尔斯海默的不同之处在于，他认为在政府无政府关系中，悲剧是不可避免的。他的观点是，由于无政府世界中存在如此多的不安全感，大国不仅必然会相互争斗，而且还会争夺主导地位。如果两个国家争夺主导地位，那么一个赢，一个输。这是一个零和博弈，或者说是负和博弈。事实上，他的书名《大国政治的悲剧》暗示了一场负和博弈，在这种博弈中，斗争不断，在某种意义上，灾难随之而来。
约翰因准确的预测而备受赞誉，比如他预测美国对俄罗斯的外交政策，特别是在乌克兰的外交政策将导致我们走向对抗。他因此备受赞誉，因为他在 2014 年就非常清楚这一点，并且从那时起就一直如此。他还做出了一个更有力的预测，早在 2001 年、2002 年他的巨著出版时，他就说过：“美国和中国的关系是良性的，但随着中国继续发展，它们将发展为敌对关系。”
问
你对国际体系的本质有何看法，例如，像约翰·米默这样的人认为它是无政府的，你的看法是什么？
杰弗里·萨克斯
你可能已经猜到了，我不喜欢标签，因为我认为它们过于简单化，所以我喜欢在段落、文章或书籍中描述事物，但基本上我相信和平与国际合作是至关重要且可以实现的，我和约翰·米默之间的区别在于，我非常钦佩他，非常喜欢他，无论是作为个人还是作为私人朋友，他认为在无政府的政府关系中，悲剧是不可避免的，他的伟大著作被称为大国政治的悲剧，他的观点是，因为在一个无政府的世界中，安全问题如此之多，大国不仅必然会相互竞争，而且还会争夺主导地位，如果两个国家争夺主导地位，一个赢一个输，那么这种局面就是零和博弈，或者说是负和博弈，事实上，悲剧这个标题暗示了一场负和博弈，在这场博弈中，斗争在继续，在某种意义上灾难随之而来，所以他相信我相信合作是可能的，也是至关重要的。
在我看来，约翰的预测非常准确，我可以提到几个，但我想提到的两个是，他预测美国对俄罗斯的外交政策，特别是在乌克兰问题上，会导致我们陷入对抗。他因此而备受赞誉，因为他在 2014 年就非常清楚这一点，从那时起就一直如此。他还做出了一个预测，这个预测在某种程度上比他在 20012 年出版他的巨著时更有力，他说美国和中国之间的关系是良性的，但随着中国继续发展，它们将发展成敌对关系。
如果你在20年前问我，我会说，拜托，约翰，没有理由保持这种敌对关系。20年后，他的预测是准确的，所以我给了他很多预测的赞誉，但我们真正的分歧在于，我个人不能接受悲剧是事态和不可避免的结果。
我认为我们可以做得更好，当然还有很多在我们自己的生活中，在我们的社区、我们的城市、我们的州和我们的国家，我相信这也可以适用于全球。另一个观点是，作为一名经济学家，我对此持不同意见，有两个基本观点。
一是我相信贸易会带来巨大的收益，这在经济思想中根深蒂固，它最清晰的最初陈述可以追溯到亚当·斯密在 1776年的《国富论》中，但此后无数的理论和实证研究都证明了这一点，所以我希望世界能够相互联系，因为我认为这是件好事。
二是，我相信世界不可避免地在深远重要的挑战上相互联系，例如海洋的生存、生物多样性、生态系统和自然环境，这些都因人类活动的规模而受到严重破坏，现在每年的活动规模超过一百万亿美元，我们需要合作，我们不能让无政府状态盛行，还有一个更重要的观点，那就是自从热核时代来临以来，人们可以说自从核时代来临以来1945年原子时代，但自从热核武器诞生以来，我们肯定被困在自我毁灭的边缘，我们物种的真正灭绝，我非常认真地对待这一点，所以虽然我们在历史上经历过悲剧。
Here’s Where Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer Disagree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojwHRTCWls
2024年8月15日
How does Jeffrey Sachs' worldview differ from that of realists like John Mearsheimer?
Jeffrey Sachs believes that peace and international cooperation are vital and achievable. And the difference between him and John Mearsheimer is that he believes that in the anarchic relations of governments, tragedy is inevitable. His view is that because there is so much insecurity in an anarchic world, great powers are bound not only to jostle with each other but to struggle for dominance. And if two are struggling for dominance, one wins and one loses. The setup is a zero-sum, or I would say a negative-sum game. In fact, the title of his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, suggests a negative-sum game where the struggle goes on and in some sense, a disaster ensues.
John gets a lot of credit for accurate predictions, like his predictions that US foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia and specifically in Ukraine would lead us to confrontation. He gets a lot of credit for that because he was very clear on that point in 2014 and has been clear on that ever since. And he also made a prediction, which is in a way even more powerful, that back in 2001, 2002 when his great book was published, he said, "The relations between the US and China are benign, but as China continues to grow, they will develop into hostility."
Ask
what is your view of the nature of the International System for example someone
like John mimer views it as anarchic what is your conception？
Jeffrey Sachs
well as you can probably guess I don't love labels because I think that they oversimplify so I like to describe things either in paragraphs or articles or books but basically I believe that peace and international cooperation are vital and achievable and the differ between me and John mimer who I admire enormously and like very much as an individual and like as a personal friend is that he believes that in the anarchic relations of governments tragedy is inevitable his great text is called the tragedy of great power politics and his view is that because there is so much in Security in an anarchic World great powers are bound not only to jostle with each other but to struggle for dominance and if two are struggling for dominance one wins and one loses the setup is a zero sum or I would say a negative sum game in fact the title tragedy suggests a negative some game where the struggle goes on and in some sense there a disaster ensues so he believes that I believe that cooperation is possible and vital John gets a lot of credit in my view for accurate predictions uh and I can mention several but two that I would mention are his predictions that US foreign policy Visa Russia and specifically in Ukraine would lead us to frontation he gets a lot of credit for that because he was very clear on that point in 2014 and has been clear on that ever since and he also made a prediction which is in a way even more powerful that back in 20012 2002 when his great book was published he said the relations between the US and China are benign but as China continues to grow they will develop into hostility and if you would asked me back then 20 years ago I would have said ah come on John there's no reason for that hostility and 20 years later his prediction was accurate so I give him a lot of predictive credit but where we really differ is that I can't accept personally tragedy as being the State of Affairs and the inevitable outcome I think we can do better than that and certainly there is a lot of cooperation in the world in our own immediate lives in our neighborhoods and our cities and our states and our nation and I believe that that can apply globally as well another point though as an economist uh where I take exception to this is on two essential points one is that I believe that there are great gains from trade so that's pretty deeply embedded in economic thinking it goes back in its clearest initial statement to Adam Smith in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations but it's proved in innumerable theories and empirical studies ever since so I want the world to be interconnected because I think it is good but a second point is I believe the world is inevitably interconnected on profoundly important challenges such as the survival of our oceans our biodiversity our ecosystems our physical environment which is being deeply deranged by the scale of human activity now over a hundred trillion dollars per year scale of activity and we need to cooperate we're not in a position toow allow Anarchy to prevail there's one even more important point and that is that ever since the dawn of the thermonuclear age and one could argue ever since the dawn of the atomic age in 1945 but certainly since the dawn of thermonuclear weapons we are trapped on the edge of self-destruction literal annihilation of our species I take that very seriously so so while we've had tragedies in the past World War I World War II the 30 Years War innumerable tragedies that John mimer could explain very very well I believe we can't afford yet another tragedy of this kind because in the thermonuclear age everything is different.
