Jeffrey Sachs 和約翰·米爾斯海默意見分歧

Jeffrey Sachs 和約翰·米爾斯海默意見分歧

YouTube 傑弗裏·薩克斯和約翰·米爾斯海默意見分歧的地方

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

傑弗裏·薩克斯的世界觀與約翰·米爾斯海默等現實主義者的世界觀有何不同？

傑弗裏·薩克斯認為和平與國際合作至關重要且可以實現。他和約翰·米爾斯海默的不同之處在於，他認為在政府無政府關係中，悲劇是不可避免的。他的觀點是，由於無政府世界中存在如此多的不安全感，大國不僅必然會相互爭鬥，而且還會爭奪主導地位。如果兩個國家爭奪主導地位，那麽一個贏，一個輸。這是一個零和博弈，或者說是負和博弈。事實上，他的書名《大國政治的悲劇》暗示了一場負和博弈，在這種博弈中，鬥爭不斷，在某種意義上，災難隨之而來。

約翰因準確的預測而備受讚譽，比如他預測美國對俄羅斯的外交政策，特別是在烏克蘭的外交政策將導致我們走向對抗。他因此備受讚譽，因為他在 2014 年就非常清楚這一點，並且從那時起就一直如此。他還做出了一個更有力的預測，早在 2001 年、2002 年他的巨著出版時，他就說過：“美國和中國的關係是良性的，但隨著中國繼續發展，它們將發展為敵對關係。”

問
你對國際體係的本質有何看法，例如，像約翰·米默這樣的人認為它是無政府的，你的看法是什麽？

傑弗裏·薩克斯

你可能已經猜到了，我不喜歡標簽，因為我認為它們過於簡單化，所以我喜歡在段落、文章或書籍中描述事物，但基本上我相信和平與國際合作是至關重要且可以實現的，我和約翰·米默之間的區別在於，我非常欽佩他，非常喜歡他，無論是作為個人還是作為私人朋友，他認為在無政府的政府關係中，悲劇是不可避免的，他的偉大著作被稱為大國政治的悲劇，他的觀點是，因為在一個無政府的世界中，安全問題如此之多，大國不僅必然會相互競爭，而且還會爭奪主導地位，如果兩個國家爭奪主導地位，一個贏一個輸，那麽這種局麵就是零和博弈，或者說是負和博弈，事實上，悲劇這個標題暗示了一場負和博弈，在這場博弈中，鬥爭在繼續，在某種意義上災難隨之而來，所以他相信我相信合作是可能的，也是至關重要的。

在我看來，約翰的預測非常準確，我可以提到幾個，但我想提到的兩個是，他預測美國對俄羅斯的外交政策，特別是在烏克蘭問題上，會導致我們陷入對抗。他因此而備受讚譽，因為他在 2014 年就非常清楚這一點，從那時起就一直如此。他還做出了一個預測，這個預測在某種程度上比他在 20012 年出版他的巨著時更有力，他說美國和中國之間的關係是良性的，但隨著中國繼續發展，它們將發展成敵對關係。

如果你在20年前問我，我會說，拜托，約翰，沒有理由保持這種敵對關係。20年後，他的預測是準確的，所以我給了他很多預測的讚譽，但我們真正的分歧在於，我個人不能接受悲劇是事態和不可避免的結果。

我認為我們可以做得更好，當然還有很多在我們自己的生活中，在我們的社區、我們的城市、我們的州和我們的國家，我相信這也可以適用於全球。另一個觀點是，作為一名經濟學家，我對此持不同意見，有兩個基本觀點。

一是我相信貿易會帶來巨大的收益，這在經濟思想中根深蒂固，它最清晰的最初陳述可以追溯到亞當·斯密在 1776年的《國富論》中，但此後無數的理論和實證研究都證明了這一點，所以我希望世界能夠相互聯係，因為我認為這是件好事。

二是，我相信世界不可避免地在深遠重要的挑戰上相互聯係，例如海洋的生存、生物多樣性、生態係統和自然環境，這些都因人類活動的規模而受到嚴重破壞，現在每年的活動規模超過一百萬億美元，我們需要合作，我們不能讓無政府狀態盛行，還有一個更重要的觀點，那就是自從熱核時代來臨以來，人們可以說自從核時代來臨以來1945年原子時代，但自從熱核武器誕生以來，我們肯定被困在自我毀滅的邊緣，我們物種的真正滅絕，我非常認真地對待這一點，所以雖然我們在曆史上經曆過悲劇。

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.