爱吱声

标题: 中美位置的交换 [打印本页]
作者: indy    时间: 2025-7-24 03:12
标题: 中美位置的交换

在曾經與蘇聯的冷戰中，美國領導人以自信姿態發揮人才優勢搶佔先機。如今我們身處第二次冷戰，這一次面對的對手則是中國。

而21世紀以來，中國正以自信的姿態搶佔未來，尤其在創新和思想領域，美國卻走上了相反的道路，不僅沒有展現出決心與競爭力，反而陷入焦慮與退縮。

（本文為時報專欄文章，作者是David Brooks。）

https://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/2 ... china/zh-hant/dual/



[groupid=238]龙的天空[/groupid]
作者: indy    时间: 2025-7-24 03:13


[size=1.5625]

觀點與評論

[size=1.5]




專欄作者中國正在搶佔未來，美國卻陷入焦慮與退縮Trump Is Winning the Race to the BottomDAVID BROOKS2025年7月23日



[size=0.875]Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times[size=1.125]Confidence. Some people have more of it and some people have less. Confident people have what psychologists call a strong internal locus of control. They believe they have the resources to control their own destiny. They have a bias toward action. They venture into the future.

[size=1.125]自信這東西，有的人多一些，有的人少一些。自信的人擁有心理學家所說的強大內控力。他們相信自己有能力掌控命運。他們傾向於付諸行動。他們敢於開拓未來。


[size=1.125]When it comes to confidence, some nations have it and some don’t. Some nations once had it but then lost it. Last week on his blog, “Marginal Revolution,” Alex Tabarrok, a George Mason economist, asked us to compare America’s behavior during Cold War I (against the Soviet Union) with America’s behavior during Cold War II (against China). I look at that difference and I see a stark contrast — between a nation back in the 1950s that possessed an assumed self-confidence versus a nation today that is even more powerful but has had its easy self-confidence stripped away.

[size=1.125]國家亦然。有些國家有自信，有些則不然；有些曾經擁有，後來卻失去了。上週，喬治梅森大學的經濟學家亞歷克斯·塔巴羅克在自己的部落格「邊際革命」(Marginal Revolution)中，讓我們對比美國在第一次冷戰（對蘇聯）與第二次冷戰（對中國）中的行為有何不同。在我看來，兩者形成了鮮明反差——上世紀50年代的美國帶著理所當然的自信，而今天的美國雖更強大，卻已失去了曾經的從容。


[size=1.125]In the 1950s, American intelligence suggested that the Soviet Union was leapfrogging U.S. capabilities across a range of military technologies. Then on Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik, into space.

[size=1.125]20世紀50年代，美國的情報部門認為，蘇聯在多項軍事技術領域正在超越美國。隨後在1957年10月4日，蘇聯將第一顆衛星「斯普特尼克」送入太空。


[size=1.125]Americans were shocked but responded with confidence. Within a year the United States had created NASA and A.R.P.A. (later DARPA), the research agency that among other things helped create the internet. In 1958, Dwight Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act, one of the most important education reforms of the 20th century, which improved training, especially in math, science and foreign languages. The National Science Foundation budget tripled. The Department of Defense vastly increased spending on research and development. Within a few years total research and development spending across many agencies zoomed up to nearly 12 percent of the entire federal budget. (It’s about 3 percent today.)

[size=1.125]震驚之餘，美國以自信姿態回應。一年之內，美國宇航局和高級研究計劃局（也就是後來的美國國防部高級研究計劃局）就成立了，後者催生了互聯網等重大成果。1958年，艾森豪威爾簽署了《國防教育法案》，這是美國在20世紀最重要的教育改革之一，加強了在數學、科學及外語方面的人才培養。國家科學基金會的預算增加了兩倍，國防部大幅增加研發支出。短短數年，聯邦政府研發總投入激增至預算的近12%（今天約為3%）。






[size=1.125]America’s leaders understood that a superpower rivalry is as much an intellectual contest as a military and economic one. It’s who can out-innovate whom. So they fought the Soviet threat with education, with the goal of maximizing talent on our side.

[size=1.125]美國領導人深知，超級大國較量是軍事經濟之爭，更是智力競賽。比拼的是創新能力。他們用教育手段來對抗蘇聯的威脅，目標是最大限度地發揮我們的人才優勢。


[size=1.125]“One reason the U.S. economy had such a good Cold War was that the American university had an ever better one,” the historian Hal Brands writes in his book “The Twilight Struggle.” Federal support for academic research rose to $1.45 billion in 1970 from $254 million in 1958. Earlier in that century, American universities lagged behind their “best” European peers, Brands observes; by the end of the Cold War, they dominated the globe.

[size=1.125]歷史學家哈爾·布蘭茲在《暮光之戰》(The Twilight Struggle)一書中指出：「美國經濟在冷戰中之所以表現出色，其中一個原因在於美國的大學表現更出色。」從1958年至1970年，聯邦學術研究資助從2.54億美元飆升至14.5億美元。布蘭茲注意到，在上世紀早些時候，美國的大學落後於歐洲頂尖學府，到冷戰結束時，美國大學已雄踞全球之巔。


[size=1.125]Today we are in a second Cold War. For the first couple of decades it wasn’t clear whether China was a rival or a friend, but now it’s pretty clear that China is more a rival than a friend. As the scholar Robert D. Atkinson argued in The Times this year, for the Chinese regime, the desire to make money is secondary. “Its primary goal is to damage America’s economy and pave the way for China to become the world’s pre-eminent power,” he wrote.

[size=1.125]如今我們身處第二次冷戰。過去二十年難辨中國是敵是友，而今其對手身份已昭然若揭。學者羅伯特·阿特金森今年在《紐約時報》撰文稱：對中國政權而言，賺錢的慾望是次要的，「首要目標是損害美國經濟，為中國成為世界頭號強國鋪路。」


[size=1.125]China is a country that, according a 2024 House committee inquiry, was directly subsidizing the manufacture and export of fentanyl materials, even though drug overdose is the leading cause of death among Americans 18 to 44.

[size=1.125]根據2024年眾議院委員會的一項調查，中國直接補貼吩坦尼前體生產出口，而吸毒過量已成美國18至44歲人群首要死因。


[size=1.125]Since the beginning of the 21st century, China has moved — confidently — to seize the future, especially in the realm of innovation and ideas. China’s total research and development funding has grown 16-fold since 2000. Now China is surging ahead of the United States in a range of academic spheres. In 2003, Chinese scholars produced very few broadly cited research papers. Now they produce more “high impact” research papers than Americans do, and according to The Economist, they absolutely dominate research in the following fields: materials science, chemistry, engineering, computer science, the environment and ecology, agricultural science, physics and math.

[size=1.125]21世紀以來，中國正以自信的姿態搶佔未來，尤其在創新和思想領域。自2000年以降，中國研發總投入增長了16倍，現已在多個學術領域超越美國。2003年，中國學者鮮有廣受引用的論文，如今其「高影響力」論文數量已超美國。《經濟學人》雜誌指出，中國在材料科學、化學、工程學、計算機科學、環境與生態學、農學、物理及數學領域佔據絕對主導地位。


[size=1.125]These achievements of course lead directly to China’s advantages across a range of high-tech industries. It’s not just high-tech manufacturing of things like electric vehicles, drones and solar panels. It’s high-tech everything. In the years between 2003 and 2007, according to a study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the United States led the way in 60 of 64 frontier technologies — stretching across sectors such as defense, space, energy, the environment, computing and biotech. By the period between 2019 and 2023, the Chinese led among 57 of those 64 key technologies, while the United States led in only seven.

[size=1.125]這些成就當然直接轉化為中國在眾多高科技產業的競爭優勢。不僅是電動汽車、無人機、太陽能板等高端製造，更是全方位技術突破。澳洲戰略政策研究所的一項研究顯示：在2003年至2007年間，美國在64項前沿技術（涵蓋國防、航天、能源、環境、計算及生物技術等領域）中領先60項；到2019年至2023年，中國在57項關鍵技術上居於領先地位，而美國僅主導七項。




[size=1.125]The Chinese gains in biotech are startling. In 2015 Chinese drugmakers accounted for just under 6 percent of the innovative drugs under development in the world. Ten years later, Chinese drugmakers are nearly at parity with American ones.

[size=1.125]中國在生物技術領域的進步令人震驚。2015年，中國製藥商在全球在研創新藥中所佔比例還不到6%；而十年後，中國藥企幾乎已經與美國同行平起平坐。


[size=1.125]Then along came A.I. Americans overall are fearful about it. Last year, the polling organization Ipsos asked people from 32 countries if they were excited for the A.I. future or nervous about it. Americans are among the most nervous people in the world. The countries most excited by the prospect of that future? China, South Korea, Indonesia and Thailand. The fact is that nobody knows what the A.I. future holds; people’s projections about it mostly reflect their emotional states. Americans used to be the youthful optimists of the globe. Not right now.

[size=1.125]接著就是人工智慧時代的來臨。美國民眾普遍對其感到恐懼。民調機構益普索去年在32個國家做了一項調查，了解人們對AI的未來是感到興奮還是擔憂。結果顯示，美國人對AI未來的焦慮居全球前列。最期待AI未來的國家是哪些？中國、韓國、印尼與泰國。事實上，無人知曉AI將帶來什麼，人們的預測多反映情緒狀態。美國人曾是世界上年輕的樂觀主義者，但現在不是了。


[size=1.125]Still, America has its big tech companies filled with bright young things charging into the future, so you’d think our lead would be secure. But over the past year, Chinese firms like Alibaba, ByteDance and Tencent have produced A.I. models whose quality is nearly equal to that of American models. DeepSeek has produced a model that comes in at a fraction of the cost of American ones. In A.I., as in military and economic might generally, the United States retains a lead, but China has a lot of momentum.

[size=1.125]儘管如此，美國仍擁有很多大型科技企業，聚集了一群才華橫溢、勇闖未來的年輕人，所以你可能會認為我們的領先地位是穩固的。但在過去一年中，阿里巴巴、字節跳動和騰訊等中國公司已經推出了品質直追美國同類產品的人工智慧模型。DeepSeek的模型成本僅為美國模型的一個零頭。在人工智慧領域，以及在總體的軍事和經濟實力上，美國仍然保持領先，但中國的發展勢頭強勁。


[size=1.125]The A.I. race is perhaps the most crucial one, because it will presumably be the dominant technology of the next several decades. “The No. 1 factor that will define whether the U.S. or China wins this race is whose technology is most broadly adopted in the rest of the world,” Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, told a congressional hearing. “Whoever gets there first will be difficult to supplant.”

[size=1.125]AI競賽或許是最關鍵戰場，因為它很可能成為未來幾十年的主導技術。微軟總裁布拉德·史密斯在一次國會聽證會上直言：「決定中美勝負的首要因素在於誰的技術能被世界更廣泛採用。先發者將難以被取代。」


[size=1.125]So how is America responding to the greatest challenge of Cold War II? With huge increases in research? By infusing money into schools and universities that train young minds and produce new ideas? We’re doing the exact opposite. Today’s leaders don’t seem to understand what the Chinese clearly understand — that the future will be dominated by the country that makes the most of its talent. On his blog, Tabarrok gets it about right: “The DeepSeek Moment has been met not with resolve and competition but with anxiety and retreat.”

[size=1.125]那麼，美國是如何應對第二次冷戰這一最大挑戰的呢？大幅增加研究投入？向培養年輕人才、孕育新思想的學校和大學注入資金？我們所做的恰恰相反。如今的領導人似乎不明白一個中國人顯然明白的道理——未來將由最能充分利用自身人才的國家主導。塔巴羅克在他的部落格中說得很對：「面對『DeepSeek時刻』，我們沒有展現出決心與競爭力，反而陷入焦慮與退縮。」


[size=1.125]Populists are anti-intellectual. President Trump isn’t pumping research money into the universities; he’s draining it out. The administration is not tripling the National Science Foundation’s budget; it’s trying to gut it. The administration is trying to cut all federal basic research funding by a third, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A survey by the journal Nature of 1,600 scientists in the United States found that three-quarters of them have considered leaving the country.

[size=1.125]民粹主義者是反智的。川普總統沒有向大學注入研究資金，反而在抽走資金。政府沒有將國家科學基金會的預算增加兩倍，反而試圖大幅削減。據美國科學促進會稱，政府正試圖將所有聯邦基礎研究資金削減三分之一。《自然》雜誌對1600名美國科學家的調查發現，四分之三的人考慮過離開美國。






[size=1.125]The response to the Sputnik threat was to go outward and compete. Trump’s response to the Chinese threat generally is to build walls, to erect trade barriers and to turn inward. A normal country would be strengthening friendships with all nations not named China, but the United States is burning bridges in all directions. A normal country would be trying to restore America’s shipbuilding industry by making it the best in the world. We’re trying to save it through protectionism. The thinking seems to be: We can protect our mediocre industries by walling ourselves off from the world. That’s a recipe for national decline.

[size=1.125]當年應對斯普特尼克威脅時，我們選擇向外開拓、參與競爭。而川普應對中國威脅的總體策略是築牆、設置貿易壁壘、轉為內向。一個正常的國家會與除中國之外的所有國家鞏固友誼，而美國卻在四處樹敵。一個正常的國家會努力讓本國造船業成為世界一流，以此重振該行業。而我們卻試圖通過保護主義來挽救它。這種想法似乎是：我們可以通過將自己與世界隔絕來保護平庸的產業。這簡直是導致國家衰落的秘訣。


[size=1.125]The problem is not just Trump. China has been displaying intellectual and innovative vitality for decades and the United States has scarcely mobilized. This country sometimes feels exhausted, gridlocked, as if it has lost its faith in itself and contact with its future.

[size=1.125]問題不僅僅在於川普。幾十年來，中國一直展現出知識與創新活力，而美國幾乎毫無行動。這個國家有時讓人感覺疲憊不堪、陷入泥潭，彷彿已經失去了對自身的信心，失去了與未來的聯繫。


[size=1.125]In the progressive era, America built new institutions like the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Reserve. During the New Deal, Americans created an alphabet soup of new agencies. By 1949, Americans had created NATO and the precursor to the World Bank. Where are the new institutions fit for today? Government itself is not great at innovation, but for a century, public sector money has been necessary to fuel the fires of creativity — in the United States, in Israel and in China. On that front, America is in retreat.

[size=1.125]在進步時代，美國建立了食品藥品監督管理局和美聯儲等新機構。新政時期，美國人創立了一系列以首字母縮寫命名的新機構。到1949年，美國人建立了北約和世界銀行的前身。如今，適合時代的新機構在哪裡？政府本身並不擅長創新，但一個世紀以來，公共部門的資金一直是創造力之火的必要燃料——無論在美國、以色列還是中國，都是如此。在這方面，美國正在退縮。


[size=1.125]Can confidence be restored? Of course. Franklin Roosevelt did it and Ronald Reagan did it. Is China’s dominance inevitable? Of course not. Centrally controlled economies are prone to monumental blunders.

[size=1.125]信心能夠恢復嗎？當然能。富蘭克林·羅斯福做到了，羅納德·雷根也做到了。中國的主導地位是不可避免的嗎？當然不是。中央集權的經濟體容易犯下重大錯誤。


[size=1.125]But the primary contest is psychological — almost spiritual. Do Americans have faith in the power of the human mind? Are they willing to invest to enlarge the national talent pool? Right now, no. Americans, on the left and the right, have become highly attentive to threat, risk-averse and self-doubting about the national project. What do you do with a country with astounding advantages but that no longer believes in itself?

[size=1.125]但這場競爭主要是心理層面的——幾乎是精神層面的。美國人是否相信人類思想的力量？他們是否願意投入資源來擴大國家的人才庫？目前來看，答案是否定的。無論是左翼還是右翼，美國人正變得高度關注威脅、規避風險，對國家發展計劃充滿自我懷疑。一個擁有驚人優勢卻不再相信自己的國家，該拿它怎麼辦？





[size=0.8125]David Brooks是《紐約時報》專欄作者，撰寫政治、社會和文化議題。歡迎在X上關注他：[size=0.8125]@nytdavidbrooks
[size=0.8125]翻譯：紐約時報中文網
[size=0.75]點擊查看本文英文版。





相關報導

最受歡迎





[size=0.875]免費下載 紐約時報中文網
iOS 和 Android App
點擊下載iOS App點擊下載Android App

© 2025 The New York Times Company.[url=]我们不再出售/分享您的個人資訊[/url]

作者: 孟词宗    时间: 2025-7-24 04:28
indy 发表于 2025-7-24 03:13
觀點與評論
  • 中

    • 这排版，看得俺好累。写这文章的是个不反MAGA但反川总的“理智派”。一堆陈辞滥调。还中国补贴芬太尼前体出口。这种原料又不是只能用来制造芬太尼。美国自己不控制芬太尼，不强制瘾君子戒毒，还大麻合法化，有需求才有供给，怪的了谁？

    里根时代还认真搞过禁毒。不但打击毒贩，还提倡“Just Say No”。现在则是吸毒贩毒没错，错的都是中国。真是甩锅大王。

    要说前苏联人才不如美国多，那也是胡说八道。前苏联搞出的科技成果不比美国少。就算是计算机领域也不比美国少也不比美国差。无非是苏联垮台后湮没在胜利者写的史书中罢了。
    作者: 龙血树    时间: 2025-7-24 08:47
    没钱了。为了减遗产税需要加关税。为了军工集团增加国防开支，放弃教育经费。为了民粹选票，驱逐移民。

    主义背后全是生意。
    作者: 五月    时间: 2025-7-24 10:50

    老美的政治制度以及进入死局阶段，进一步滑向暴民政治制度。

    美必输。





    欢迎光临 爱吱声 (http://www.aswetalk.net/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2