Friday Focus: NATO Fallout – Google Thuggery
发布时间 2023-07-14 19:09:22 来源
When you're a journalist and people don't trust you, it's always your fault. These people need to be represented. They are Canadian. They deserve to have a voice and a seat at the table. It is time to go back to the office and the time is now. Russia had reasons to be concerned. They had reasons to be fearful. We're at an absolute turning point in reproduction. This is the problem with realism. They just treat all countries the same.
当你是一名记者，人们不相信你的时候，总是你自己的错。这些人需要被代表，他们是加拿大人。他们应该有发言权和一个席位。现在是回到办公室的时候了。俄罗斯有理由感到担忧。他们有理由感到恐惧。我们处在一个绝对的生育转折点上。这就是现实主义的问题。他们只是把所有国家都一视同仁。
Hello Monk listeners. Roger Griffiths here, the executive director of the Monk Debates. Welcome to this, our regular Friday Focus podcast on the 14th of July. As we are each and every edition of Friday Focus joined by Janice Grostine, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs, an internationally renowned scholar and author. Janice, great to be in conversation with you. How's your summer going? Is your July living up to expectations? Not yet, Roger. Not yet. I think August is going to be better than July this year. Okay. To explain why to our devoted listeners. I have a cast on my arm, which is getting in the way of my summer leisure activities, but it should come off very soon. Excellent. I'm pushing you a speedy recovery on that. And thank God you're not an avid golfer, Jess. So you don't have to torture yourself looking out over golf legs. You can watch baseball, which you love. That's right. And that's coming back tonight. And we had, by the way, for all our listeners, we did have one great moment. Toronto Blue Jays star won the home run Derby. Now on the international roster of great sports events, the home run Derby is at the very bottom of it even makes it. But we still want to Vladimir Guerrero Jr. is the champion of the home run Derby for at least a year. Right. So I learned something new every day.
大家好，我是罗杰·格里菲斯（Roger Griffiths），“僧人辩论会”（Monk Debates）的执行董事。欢迎大家收听我们的常规节目——7月14日发布的“焦点星期五”播客。和往常一样，我们邀请到了国际知名学者和作家、“僧人全球事务学院”的创始主任珍妮丝·格罗斯廷（Janice Grostine）。珍妮丝，很高兴能和你进行对话。你的暑假过得如何？7月份达到了你的预期吗？
还没有，罗杰。还没有。我觉得今年8月份会比7月份好一些。
好的。请向我们忠实的听众解释一下原因吧。
我手上戴着石膏，这妨碍了我夏季的休闲活动，但它很快就会取下来了。
太好了。我祝愿你尽快康复。还好你不是一个狂热的高尔夫球手，否则你会很痛苦地盯着高尔夫球场看。你可以看你喜欢的棒球比赛。
没错。而且今晚棒球比赛将回归。顺便说一句，对于我们所有听众来说，我们确实有一个很棒的时刻。多伦多蓝鸟队球员获得了本次全垒打大赛的冠军。就国际体育赛事来说，全垒打大赛的地位可以说是非常低的，甚至可以说是最低的。但我们还是要为弗拉迪米尔·格雷罗小子能在全垒打大赛中成为冠军而感到骄傲，至少可以保持一年。
是的，我每天都会学到一些新的东西。
Well, let's start, Janice, with a debrief on what happened at NATO, the kind of fallout from the meeting, a series of new seemingly portentous decisions for the Biden administration, the allies related to the future course of this war.
好的，那么，让我们开始吧，珍妮丝，先从北约会议上发生的事情进行简报，讨论一下这次会议的后果，以及拜登政府和盟友在未来战争路线上所作出的一系列看似重要的决定。
What was your big takeaway from the summit in terms of something we've learned, something new that could give us a sense of the shape of the conflict to come?
在这次峰会上，你对我们所学到的内容有什么重要收获？有没有什么新的发现能让我们对未来的冲突形势有一个概念？
You know, we're sitting back for just a minute and looking at the results of that summit. You have to say the Biden administration and many NATO allies are between a rock and a hard place here. And they are looking for an inch to maneuver within a Biden adamant that Ukraine cannot come in to NATO. Let's be blunt. He won't even consider it because he said really clearly, you know, states are going to war with Russia. And we do not want to preside over the outbreak of World War three. Okay.
你知道，我们稍微放松一下，看看那次峰会的结果。不得不说，拜登政府和许多北约盟友陷入了进退两难的境地。他们正在寻找一个可以操作的空间，但拜登坚决表示乌克兰不能加入北约。坦率地说，他甚至不会考虑这一点，因为他明确表示，国家与俄罗斯开战是他不愿意见到的，我们也不想成为第三次世界大战爆发时的主宰。好吧。
But then you have to find some formulation and here's where they were dancing on the edge of a pin. Yes, Ukraine, you will be a member of NATO when the conditions are right. When you meet them, when is that? I don't know. Have we been talking about this for 13 years? Yes. Has much changed? No, it left everybody frustrated and out of it came an outpouring of commentary from raiders both in the United States and the ball things.
但是接下来你必须找到一些表述方式，这就是他们在尖端舞动的地方。是的，乌克兰，当条件成熟时，你将成为北约的成员。到底是什么时候符合条件呢？我不知道。我们已经谈论了13年了吗？是的。有多少改变了吗？没有，这让每个人都感到失望，也引发了来自美国和其他地方的一片评论浪潮。
What a cowardly solution is this is.
这真是一个懦弱的解决方案。
On the one hand too, he made the only decision that he could make. Now I'm in that second camp, but I'm not blind to how agonizing this is. Most of all free crane, frankly.
另一方面，他也做出了他唯一能够做出的决定。现在我就处于那个第二方的阵营，但我并不盲目地忽视这是多么痛苦。最重要的是，自由起重机，坦率地说。
Jasmine, explain to people that, you know, qualified for NATO is not simply about how many tanks or airplanes or troops you have. There are a whole series of prerequisites that bit like EU membership around transparency, democratic processes and institutions. And demonstrably, Ukraine struggled on those fronts before the war. They're non-existent right now because there is a war.
茉莉，向人们解释一下，获得北约资格并不仅仅与你拥有多少坦克、飞机或部队有关。这需要满足一整套像欧盟成员资格那样的先决条件，包括透明度、民主过程和机构。可是，在战争爆发之前，乌克兰在这些方面曾经遇到了困难。现在，这些条件已经不存在了，因为正在进行战争。
And I was just struck by just the extent to which the commentary just thought, well, you know, let's use whatever rules existed, NATO, just chuck them out the window and give Ukraine membership, as you say, to then what have Ukraine invoke Article 5 the next day? Yeah. And require NATO troops to cross the Ukrainian NATO border to then face off against Russia. It's crazy. This chess thumping and frankly, kind of warmongering, not on the part of the traditional hawks that are out there that I would expect from this, you know, in the past, the Donald Rumsfelds of the world. But instead, the people that I once thought were the doves.
我非常震惊地发现，评论界竟然认为，就让我们抛开所有现有的规则，比如北约规则，让乌克兰加入北约，然后第二天乌克兰就会启动第五条款？是的。并要求北约军队跨越乌克兰北约边界与俄罗斯对峙。这太疯狂了。这种自以为是的行为，坦白说，有些像战争贩子，但并非我过去所期望的传统鹰派，比如唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德这样的人。而是我曾经认为是鸽派的人。
People like Michael McFaul, his former monk debater, former ambassador to Russia, Stanford, celebrated Stanford professor of international relations, there's all these people that I just, I feel have done this bizarre flip flop in their whole view of international relations, America's role in the world, the desirability of, you know, an aggressive, you know, stance on the part of the West of vis-a-vis its perceived enemies. It really is striking.
就像迈克尔·麦克福（Michael McFaul）这样的人，他是我的前辩手、前驻俄罗斯大使、斯坦福大学国际关系学的知名教授，还有很多其他人，我觉得他们在对国际关系、美国在世界中的角色以及对西方与所谓敌人采取积极立场的可取性等方面，表现出了令人难以理解的翻转态度。这确实令人震惊。
If you, Nicholas Christoph, whom I think most of us would put on the left and the center left, came out with this logic-defying beliefs, spending op-ed in the New York Times as you described, Richard, we just need to admit Ukraine, to NATO. That is the only way we can guarantee Ukraine's security. Nothing else's work. We tried everything else. And here's the one, he didn't make the point, but he showed him.
如果你，尼古拉斯·克里斯托弗，我认为我们大多数人会把你放在左翼和中左翼的位置上，出来支持这种违反逻辑的观点，就像你在《纽约时报》的专栏中所描述的那样，理查德，我们只需要承认乌克兰加入北约。这是我们唯一能够保证乌克兰安全的方式。其他方法都无效。我们已经尝试了其他一切。虽然他没有明确提出这点，但他已经表明了这一点。
Here's the one argument I'm sympathetic to, Rudder. We would almost have been better off never discussing this than what we did, frankly. We're in the worst of three worlds. One is in the door. That's the worst. For the reason you just mentioned that, in the door, go to war. Simple. Six worlds. That's what that one means. There's no, not a lot. You have to. Many blanks you have to fill in. Second one, where we are now, which is, okay, you're not coming in until this war is over, because that's really what we're saying. Ooh, says Vladimir Putin, as he sits in the crowd.
以下是我同情的一个观点，鲁德尔。坦率地说，我们几乎比从未讨论过这个问题更好。我们处在三个世界中最糟糕的一个位置。第一个是在门口。那是最糟糕的。就像你刚才提到的那样，进门就打仗。简单来说，六个世界。那就是那个意思。没有很多，你必须填补很多空白。第二个是我们现在所处的位置，也就是说，在这场战争结束之前，你们不会被允许进来，因为这实际上就是我们在说的。普京坐在人群中，心想哦。
What he does not want is Ukraine and NATO. Okay. I get, I get, I get how I get there. I keep this war going forever. And what we did, that's why I'm unhappy. What we did in Vilnius is fix that in his mind and in his calculation. Just keep it going at whatever level you can sustain, because as soon as it ends, keep us in the door.
他不想要的是乌克兰和北约。好吧，我明白了，我知道了，我知道了，我明白如何到达那里。我让这场战争永远持续下去。而我们所做的，这就是为什么我不满意的原因。我们在维尔纽斯所做的正是在他的心灵和计算中进行修正。尽量以任何可持续的水平保持战斗持续下去，因为一旦战斗结束，我们就无法进入这扇门。
The third, my far biggest preference would be, don't talk about this, but you can't do that among democratic states. You have to have a conversation. We landed in the worst possible spot, I think, except the first.
第三，我最大的偏好是不要谈论这个问题，但在民主国家之间却无法做到。我们必须要进行对话。我认为，除了第一种选择外，我们所处的位置是最糟糕的。
Now, one of the fallout it seems from the summit is that as a, as an un-notable alternative, but as a, as some kind of suck or to Ukraine for not being in any way explicit or clear about membership. The Biden administration is back at mulling over the transfer of, we can talk about cluster immunizations because that's now agreed, but they're now mulling over the transfer of longer range missile systems that previously, even just a matter of a few weeks ago, they indicated that they opposed sending on the basis that they, because they're ranges so long, they could be used to attack within Russia or the somewhat untested, you know, flashpoint of this whole conflict really could be Crimea.
现在，峰会的一个后果似乎是，乌克兰因没有在成员资格方面做出任何明确或清晰的表态而受到了某种程度的责备或吸引。拜登政府正在重新考虑转让更长程导弹系统，我们可以谈谈群体免疫，因为这已经达成了一致，但他们现在正在重新考虑之前坚决反对转移这些导弹系统的立场。因为这些导弹的射程非常远，它们有可能被用来攻击俄罗斯境内，或者这整场冲突的不确定因素克里米亚。
And if there were large scale missile strikes deep into Crimea, the Russians may look at Crimea in ways that the rest of the world doesn't, i.e., this is the territory of Mother Russia and we perceive attacks on Crimea as the same as attacks on the motherland. So I want to get your sense of where this is going and Janice, isn't there, I don't know, is it logical to assume that one can steadily escalate again and again and again? And I don't mean escalate in a overt and aggressive way, but escalate in terms of the, the scale and the sophistication and the power of the weapon systems that you're transferring and not at some moment, understand that you're going to get closer and closer and then potentially cross a red line that you may not be aware of what that red line is.
如果有大规模的导弹袭击深入克里米亚，俄罗斯人可能会以与世界其他地方不同的方式看待克里米亚，即这是祖国俄罗斯的领土，我们将把对克里米亚的攻击视为对祖国的攻击。所以，我想知道你对这个问题的看法，简尼斯，难道不是逐步升级一次又一次地合乎逻辑吗？我不是指以公然和侵略的方式升级，而是指在转移武器系统的规模、技术水平和威力方面逐渐升级，直到某一时刻，认识到你会越来越接近并有可能越过一条你可能没有意识到的红线。
Are we getting closer here, Janice, in your view to a red line? That's been a worry of mine all along with an administration that is a cautious experimenter, with a little bit, which moves a little bit, but you can unknowingly cross a red line and you only find out after you crossed it, right here, that's the problem.
詹妮丝，在你看来，我们是否正在接近一个红线？对我来说，这一直是一个担忧，因为这个政府是一个谨慎的试验者，取得一点点进展，但有时会稍稍后退，而你可能在不知不觉中越过了一个红线，只有在你越过之后才发现，这就是问题所在。
The attackums, ATACAM, the missiles you're describing, Zolensky has wanted these and asked for them in your absolutely right up until now, the Biden administration said, no way. Well, I'll bet you anything, if they're going to say yes now. And again, it's in this context of not being able to meet that demand that Ukraine come in. The NATO so let's do something else that will, in a sense, quiet the clamor. The only mildly comforting story here, right here, is that what Britain and France have already sent Ukraine. Their missiles have a range of about 150 kilometers. These American missiles, 190 kilometers. We're talking about 40 kilometers more. Now it's material in the sense of that, as you rightly say, reach Crimea, but it's not a huge difference.
袭击武器，ATACAM，你所描述的导弹，Zolensky一直想要并在你提到的时候一直要求它们，拜登政府说绝对不行。嗯，我敢打赌，他们现在会说是的。而且，正是在无法满足这一需求的背景下，乌克兰加入了北约，所以让我们做一些其他可以在某种程度上安抚这种喧嚣声的事情。在这里仅有的稍微令人安慰的故事是，英国和法国已经向乌克兰发送了导弹。它们的射程约为150公里。而这些美国导弹的射程为190公里。我们谈论的是多出来的40公里。现在这在物质上，正如你所说，可以覆盖克里米亚，但这并不是一个巨大的差别。
My senses were reaching the end of the road here now with a strategy by the Biden administration. There's not much more they can provide. And you put your finger on a big one. The cluster munitions, these are bomblets that when you drop them, they explode into multiple clusters. And they're really terrible. We ban them, Canada, because not all of them explode. They're duds. They stay in the field and they injure and main people three years later. And that's why we ban them. Why did the Biden administration agree to that? Because they're out of ammunition, the Ukrainians. And the Western world does not have the industrial capacity, the manufacturing capacity. You're like, kind of the oldest stuff you could talk about to manufacture rounds of ammunition.
我的感官在拜登政府的战略面前已经到了尽头。他们几乎不能再提供更多的帮助了。而你指出了一个重要的问题，即集束炸弹。这些炸弹会在投放后分裂成多个簇体爆炸，非常可怕。我们禁止使用它们，因为其中并非所有都会爆炸，有些是失效品。这些弹头会留在战场上，三年后还会伤害和伤残人们。这也是为什么我们禁止使用这些弹头的原因。那么为什么拜登政府同意使用它们呢？因为乌克兰人已经没有弹药了。而西方国家没有足够的工业和生产能力来制造弹药。你可以说，这已经是我们可以谈论的最老旧的事物之一了。
The war is eating up ammunition at such an incredible rate that if the Biden administration had not agreed, it was conceivable that the Ukrainian army would run out of ammunition in the next few months. So they were driven to the wall and that. But we're at the end of this. There's nothing more. They've agreed to jet fighters. They're going to agree to the missiles. There's literally nothing more qualitatively that the United States and NATO can do. They can, and how fast can you amp up your manufacturing capacity? You know, right here, that's slow. That's an industrial strategy. And manufacturers want some guarantee that somebody's going to buy that ammunition two or three years from now, not just now. Really tough.
战争以令人难以置信的速度耗尽弹药，以至于如果拜登政府没有同意，可以想象乌克兰军队在接下来的几个月内将会用尽弹药。所以他们被逼无奈。但我们已经到了尽头。再没有其他选择了。他们同意提供喷气式战斗机。他们将同意提供导弹。美国和北约已经没有其他更多具有实质性的行动了。他们可以加快制造能力，但那需要时间。这涉及到工业战略。制造商们希望有人能保证未来两三年还会购买这些弹药，而不仅仅是现在。真的很困难。
What jazz do you think the red line could be for Russia? We've seen Lavrov recently, the Russian foreign minister expressing the view that the transfer of F-16 fighters to Ukraine, fighters that Lavrov contends. And I think what I've seen from defense analysts, his claim is supported that these fighters are configured in such a way that they have the technical capacity to carry a nuclear weapon, a missile or a bomb. So in effect, they are a delivery system for a nuclear attack that could be carried out using these fighters into and on Russia.
你认为红线会对俄罗斯有什么影响？最近我们见到了俄罗斯外交部长拉夫罗夫表达了这样的观点，他认为F-16战斗机的转交给乌克兰是一种威胁。根据我从防务分析师那里获得的信息，他的说法得到了支持，这些战斗机的配置使其具备携带核武器、导弹或炸弹的技术能力。因此，实际上它们是俄罗斯可能受到攻击的核打击手段，可以通过这些战斗机对俄罗斯进行袭击。
Now it's not as if anyone's transferring a nuclear weapon to Ukraine anytime soon, but now, Delta Russians in a sense have a little bit of a point here, which is that with something like these fighters, you're introducing greater levels of uncertainty into the power relationship and relative balance of forces, not simply between Ukraine and Russia, but between NATO and Russia.
现在并不是说有人会很快将核武器转移到乌克兰，但是对于俄罗斯人来说，现在他们有一点道理，即使用这些战斗机，你会给权力关系和力量相对平衡引入更多不确定性，不仅仅是乌克兰和俄罗斯之间，还包括北约和俄罗斯之间。
Is that a red line? Is Crimea, would large scale rocket attacks on Crimea be a red line? Where do you think we could be starting to push up against a risk that there would suddenly be a Russian reaction to something, which again, we may not understandably be able to anticipate?
这是一条红线吗？克里米亚是一条红线吗？如果发生大规模的火箭袭击事件，你认为我们可能会开始冒险触及俄罗斯的反应边界，而我们可能无法理解地预料到这种情况？
This is a great question, Ruddert. And the honest answer and very few advisors give political leaders an honest answer when they're asked that question. The honest answer is, nobody knows, not even sure the Putin himself knows until he's very close to the situation. Nobody really knows what his red line is and it's a moveable target.
这是个很好的问题，鲁德特。说实话，很少有顾问能够在被问到这个问题时给予政治领导人一个诚实的答案。诚实的答案是，没有人知道，甚至连普京自己在接近这个情况之前都不确定。没有人真的知道他的底线是什么，而且这是一个难以确定的目标。
What I can't tell you is what I'm most worried about is we're seeing an increasingly loud morale crisis in the Russian army among the senior generals. It was an incredible speech that General Popov gave after he was fired by the chief of the Russian general, Staff Gorasimov, in which he said these, they traitorously stabbed you in the back from far behind the lines. Now you have to be worried about this when you're never mind-progosion. You have to be worried about this decorated commander that is so well regarded.
我无法告诉你的是，我最担心的是我们正目睹俄罗斯军队的高级将领中逐渐加剧的士气危机。在被俄罗斯总参谋长戈拉西莫夫解职后，波波夫将军的演讲非常震撼人心。在演讲中，他说这些人背后背叛了你，而你却不知道。现在你必须担心这一点，即使你是一位备受赞誉的指挥官。
The thing that I think would most likely push Putin to do something frankly stupid is if he's worried about morale in the army, if he's worried about the loyalty of commanders, if he wants some big major destruction, which he thinks might unify the commanders. So if you put that together with some new longer-range weapons that might consumely attack Crimea, that to me.
我认为最有可能促使普京做出愚蠢行为的事情是他担心军队的士气，担心指挥官的忠诚度，以及他希望进行一些重大破坏，他认为这可能会统一指挥官们的行动。所以，如果你将这些与一些新的更远程武器结合起来，可能会对克里米亚进行攻击，对我来说就是这样。
I can't tell you this with confidence. I haven't talked to Putin lately. I'm not close to anybody who's talked to him lately, which is what we really need to do to get a better sense of where the guy is. Lavrov doesn't speak for him, frankly, nobody speaks for him. That's really the problem. He deliberately plays on the uncertainty and the worry that everybody has.
我不能以确信的态度告诉你这件事。我最近没有与普京交谈过。我也不和最近与他交谈过的人有亲近的关系，而这正是我们真正需要做的，以更好地了解他的位置。拉夫罗夫并不代表他，坦率地说，没有人能代表他。这正是问题所在。他刻意利用所有人都有的不确定性和担忧。
So I can honestly say we're just in uncharted territory here, but I am paying attention to what these Russian generals are saying and doing. That's always scares authoritarian leaders. A number of them are being questioned, or taking a rest. Detained. That being detained. You feel the mess up. So that's pretty remarkable. It's not just the General Armageddon, the Syrian commander who seems to have been aligned with the Pragosian. It seems that there are others that have been caught up in this questioning, which then goes back to what we discussed in the previous show, which is that the Pragosian march on Moscow wasn't just a crazed lone mercenary commander. He knew that he had some tacit and high level support within the broader military, probably around commanders' frustrations with how the war was proceeding and either the lack of strategy, munitions, all the things that generals in the field complain about.
所以我可以坦率地说，我们现在是在未知领域中，但我正在关注这些俄罗斯将军们说和做的事情。这总是让威权领导人感到恐惧。其中一些人正在接受审问或休息。被拘留。被拘留的感觉很糟糕。所以这是相当了不起的。不仅仅是总决战军的叙利亚指挥官似乎与普拉戈西安有所联合。看起来还有其他一些人被卷入了这种质问之中，这再次回到我们在之前的节目中讨论过的问题，即普拉戈西安对莫斯科的进军不仅仅是一个疯狂的孤立雇佣指挥官所为。他知道他在更广泛的军队中有一些心照不宣的高级支持，可能是指挥官对战争进展方式以及战略、军火等方面的不满。
Let's take a break and we'll come back on the other side with our monk donors to have another chapter in the ongoing saga of government of Canada, VS big tech. There are some new interesting developments that for me and what your take on this to Janice suggest, a kind of dystopian world emerging as big tech flexes its AI muscle over national governments. We've got this for you right after the break.
让我们休息一下，在回来时与我们的僧侣捐赠者一起继续加拿大政府和大型科技公司之间的正在进行的长篇故事。有一些新的有趣进展，对我来说，以及对珍妮斯来说，是一种反乌托邦世界正在出现，大型科技公司正在通过其人工智能的力量左右国家政府。休息结束后，我们将为您提供最新情况。
For a reminder to our Monk Debate supporters and curators, right now on our website www.munkdebates.com you can access a high definition video version of the entire main stage, Monk Debate on artificial intelligence, which took place recently at Roy Thompson Hall. Simply log on to the website using your membership credentials, go to the page for the artificial intelligence debate, you'll see a big red arrow there, click on it, you've got 90 minutes of in-depth insight and analysis of artificial intelligence.
亲爱的《僧侣辩论》支持者和策展人们，我们想提醒您，目前在我们的网站www.munkdebates.com上您可以观看高清视频版的《僧侣辩论》主舞台完整版，该辩论是关于人工智能议题的，最近在Roy Thompson Hall举行。只需使用您的会员凭证登录网站，进入人工智能辩论页面，您会看到一个大红箭头，请点击它，您将可以获得90分钟深入洞察和分析人工智能的内容。
If you are not already a supporter or a curator and you'd like to get access to on-demand versions of not just the artificial intelligence debate but our 10 plus year archive of debates, dialogues and conversations, do that right now by becoming a Monk Debate supporter or curator, we'll also throw in advanced ticketing privileges to all of our in-person debates and other great perks and privileges.
如果你还不是我们的支持者或策展人，而且你想要获得不仅仅是人工智能辩论的点播版本，还包括我们10年以上辩论、对话和交流的档案，那么请立即成为一名“僧侣辩论”的支持者或策展人，我们还将赠送您参加我们亲自辩论以及其他特权的优先购票权。
Again, you can do that right now on our website www.munkdebates.com. Now back to our program.
再次强调，您现在可以在我们的网站www.munkdebates.com上进行操作。现在回到我们的节目。
Welcome back to the Friday Focus podcast, Rudyard Griffiths here, executive director of the Monk Debates. I'm joined by Jaz Rousstein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs.
欢迎回到《星期五聚焦》播客节目，我是鲁德亚德·格里菲斯，蒙克辩论会的执行主任。今天我与贾兹·罗斯坦一同加入，他是蒙克全球事务学院的创始院长。
Well Janice, let's pick up on our conversation last week where we were discussing the fallout from a piece of legislation in Canada that mirrors attempts somewhat successful in Australia to get big tech, most notably meta and Google to kind of subsidize news and journalism production inside Canada. I'm not going to get into the intricacies of the act except to say that the platforms kind of have rebelled against the legislation in a sense opting out saying, well, we're not going to post any news on our platform so we're not subject to the act. The government kind of walking back, watering down some provisions allowing in kind and other contributions to journalism organizations to be acknowledged at fair value, generally giving a floor on the potential liability of the cost of posting links. So we'll have to see how these negotiations, I think they are negotiations, proceed. But what I want your comment on is something that really struck me as ominous this week.
嗯，珍妮丝，让我们继续上周的谈话，我们当时在讨论加拿大一项法案产生的影响，该法案在某种程度上与澳大利亚的类似尝试相似，即要求大型科技公司（尤其是Meta和谷歌）在加拿大内部为新闻和新闻出版物的生产提供资助。我不打算深入探讨这项法案的复杂性，只是要说，这些平台在某种程度上对该法案进行了抵抗，选择退出，并表示我们不会在我们的平台上发布任何新闻，因此不受该法律的约束。政府在回应中有所退缩，削弱了一些规定，允许以等值和其他方式对新闻机构进行承认，一般上限制了发布链接的潜在责任成本。所以我们需要看看这些谈判，我认为它们是谈判，如何进行。但我想听听你对这周让我感到不祥的事情的评论。
Google, the trillion dollar plus company has its own chatbot. Some people say superior to chat GPT-4 called Bard. And Bard has been rolled out in 293 countries by as of the time of the recording of the show with the exception of Afghanistan, North Korea, Russia, and guess who? Canada. Don't you love it, Roger? What a great group to be in. And the argument that Google has said is while there's uncertainty around this act, we feel that we can't provide access to Canadians to this chatbot. Janice, let's get your take on this. I have a view. I bet you do, Roger.
Google这家市值超过一万亿美元的公司有自己的聊天机器人。有人说它比名为巴德的聊天GPT-4要好。截至节目录制时，巴德已经在293个国家推出，只有阿富汗、朝鲜、俄罗斯还有猜猜是谁？加拿大除外。罗杰，你喜欢吗？真是个了不起的小团体。谷歌表示，尽管对这个行为存在不确定性，但我们觉得不能为加拿大人提供访问这个聊天机器人的权限。简妮丝，让我们听听你的看法。我有自己的看法。我打赌你有，罗杰。
So this is a surprise of the kind of lively debate that we had last week. And I got some mail, Roger, from critical listeners who said, well, I don't get where you're coming from at all. Well, where I was coming from is, in fact, the details mattered here. It's not that the companies, in this case, refused to pay new sources, anything for what they repost it. But there was a big argument, as you just said, Roger, about the level and frankly about how they could do this voluntarily rather than be regulated. So the details were everything here. So I felt that I was on really virtuous ground when that government backed down.
所以这是我们上周进行的热烈讨论所带来的意外。我收到一些来信，Roger，是来自批评性的听众，他们说，我完全不理解你的观点。实际上，我的观点是，这里的详细情况很重要。并不是说这些公司拒绝为重新发布的新闻付费。但正如你刚才所说，Roger，在页面转载问题上存在着很大的争议，而且实际上是关于他们如何自愿去做而不是被监管。所以这里的细节至关重要。所以当政府退步时，我觉得我的立场非常正义。
Well, when I heard that story about Bard, aptly named after Shakespeare, one might say, which is itself astonishing. I lost the high ground in a minute, frankly, and I see this is the kind to be blunt of blackmail that really powerful actors, whether they're China or they are Google and that's not a good company for Google to be in. They throw their weight around. Yes, there's dispute with a government of Canada about how much and what way Google should compensate news media when they repost Canadian articles. Okay, that is not World War III. Don't respond that way because it's got to get everybody's hackles up when you throw your weight around like that. I just think this is a huge, ungo by Google.
嗯，当我听到有关巴德（适当地以莎士比亚命名）的故事时，可以说这本身就很令人惊讶。坦率地说，我一分钟内就丧失了道义优势，我认为这是一种非常强大的敲诈手段，不管是中国还是谷歌，这对谷歌来说都不是好兆头。他们拿出强硬态度。是的，加拿大政府与谷歌之间关于谷歌在转发加拿大文章时应该如何补偿新闻媒体存在争议。好吧，这不是第三次世界大战。不要那样回应，因为当你这样强硬表态时，它会激怒每个人。我只是认为这对谷歌来说是一个巨大的过失。
Well, look, no debate from me today on that, Jaz. 100% agree with you. And to me, in this way, like your views, it's ominous in the extent to which it starts to indicate a kind of dystopian future where there are a few very powerful companies that have these moats around them.
好吧，听着，Jaz，今天我对此没有任何争议。我完全同意你的观点。在我看来，就像你所说的，这种情况开始显示出一种不祥的趋势，往后可能形成一种反乌托邦的未来，即只有少数几家非常强大的公司被保护在堡垒之中。
And what I mean by a moat is that they have a unique market positioning that allows them to develop AI. What is that moat? It's access to tons of data. So Google has all of our search, all of our, if you're on Google email, it's scanning all your emails all the time. If you're on Google conferencing software, it's listening to your words and your voice, again, all anonymized, but nonetheless, massive data. And then it has years of investment in IP and the acquisition of smaller companies to build out its own AI unit.
我所指的护城河是指它们拥有独特的市场定位，使其能够发展人工智能。这个护城河是什么呢？就是大量的数据。所以，谷歌拥有我们的所有搜索记录，如果你使用谷歌的电子邮件，它会一直扫描你的邮件。如果你使用谷歌的视频会议软件，它会监听你的语言和声音，虽然是匿名的，但是数据量庞大。此外，谷歌还进行了多年的知识产权投资，并收购了一些小公司来构建自己的人工智能部门。
And all of this creates technology that is very difficult for anyone else to replicate. And then what are they doing? And I agree, Jaz, such an own goal here. They're saying to a government that they're having, frankly, a minor, it's a minor context of Google's over all avenues and all the other issues they're facing. They're saying, Canada, we are grouping you with North Korea, Russia, I think I don't know, was a ran on that list Afghanistan, Afghanistan, the Taliban. And we are not going to allow you in a sense to have the gains, the benefits of this technology until in the threat is you comply with our demands vis-a-vis legislation.
所有这些都创造出了其他人很难复制的技术。然后他们在做什么呢？我同意，贾斯，这是一个失误。他们向一家政府表示，这只是谷歌面临的众多问题中的一个小问题，他们将加拿大与朝鲜、俄罗斯、我不知道的阿富汗等国家划为一类。他们以某种程度上不允许你从这项技术中获益，直到威胁你遵守我们的要求，即法律立法方面。
Maybe it wasn't the best legislation. Maybe it was foolhardy on the part of the government, but it is legislation that came through our democratically elected officials and institutions. And I think this is a scary, scary precedent, Jaz. Yeah. Yeah. It's really, unless we are in agreement on this, right? But it's such a strategic mistake on part of Google. So why would they do it, Jaz? Because you get a sense that this isn't just some Canadian general manager making this decision.
也许这并不是最好的立法。也许政府的行为有些鲁莽，但这是经过我们民主选举产生的官员和机构制定的法律。我认为这是一个非常可怕的先例，杰斯。是的。是的。除非我们对此达成一致，否则真的很可怕，对吧？但这对于谷歌来说是一个战略错误。那么他们为什么会这样做呢，杰斯？因为你可以感觉到这并不仅仅是一位加拿大总经理做出的决定。
No. This is somebody, Sergey Brin, or somebody at the very high level of this company saying, we are going to make an example of Canada. And we're not only going to fight them, I don't know, through whatever regulatory or other lobbying means, we're going to take this technology that's getting all this attention and it's accrued all this value to Google in the last six months as a share price is rocketed in this AI craze. And we're going to say we're excluding you in sense from the productivity gains that this technology could achieve for you until you comply with what we want in terms of your democratically constituted legislation, bizarre. It really is bizarre, especially by the way surprising because Eric Schmidt, the former CEO who's still very well connected into Google, has a long history with Canada. It's all I'm just astonished they did this.
不是这样。这是谷歌的某个人，塞尔盖·布林，或者是这个公司非常高层次的人说的，我们打算以加拿大为例。我们不仅要通过法规或其他游说手段与他们斗争，我们还要拿走这项技术，这项技术在过去六个月里给谷歌带来了巨大的价值，股价也在人工智能热潮中飙升。我们要宣布，我们将排除你们，不让你们从这项技术所能带来的生产力提升中获益，直到你们按照我们对民主立法的要求来全面遵守。真是太奇怪了，特别是因为谷歌的前CEO埃里克·施密特与加拿大有着悠久的历史关系。我真是感到震惊，他们竟然这样做。
You know, it does bring to mind. I'm not kidding. It does bring to mind the way China reacted when we at the request of the Department of Justice, the tamed Meng Wanjiu in a tradition hearing the daughter of CEO Huawei, which is founder and she's a chief financial officer. She's certainly a highly visible person of interest in China. There's no question, but we didn't have a lot of degrees of freedom. And then they just they did the stupidest thing you could imagine China, which is they arrested to Canadians to Michael's very arbitrary process, which you can only describe as hostage tanking. It was interesting because just yesterday I was looking at public opinion data about China again. Where's the break?
你知道的，这确实让人联想到一些事情。我不是在开玩笑，真的让人联想到当我们应美国司法部的请求，通过一个传统的听证会制服了华为CEO的女儿、华为创始人，也是首席财务官孟晚舟时，中国做出的反应。她在中国无疑是个备受关注的人物。毫无疑问，我们的操作自由度并不大。然后他们就做了中国可以想象到的最愚蠢的事情，他们逮捕了两位加拿大人迈克尔，以一个非常随意的程序，你只能把它描述为扣押人质。有趣的是，就在昨天我刚刚研究了一些有关中国的舆论数据。哪里出了问题呢？
Where do we get that radical change in Canadian public opinion towards China right after that arrest and arbitrary detention and there's no going back, right? So it has boxed in the Canadian government in terms of the options it can use when Google does something like this and can you wake up and figure out, Oh boy, we're in the same group as North Korea, Russia and Afghanistan and consumers vote with their mouses or their mice, as we say on their computers, right? There's a capacity here for public outrage, which will stiffen the governments back, frankly, in this, but not only in Canada, the Australia is that the European Union looks at this and says, Hey, hey, wait a minute here. They've brought out their attack of missiles or a minor fight. Is this what we're in for?
这次逮捕和任意拘留之后，加拿大公众对中国的态度出现了根本的改变，这是无法回头的，对吧？因此，当谷歌（Google）做出类似举动时，加拿大政府在采取行动时的选项受到了限制。你能够意识到并明白，哦天啊，我们和朝鲜、俄罗斯以及阿富汗处于同一阵营了，消费者会通过他们的鼠标在电脑上投票，对吧？公众可以表达愤怒，这将在这方面坚定政府的立场，不仅仅是加拿大，澳大利亚也是一样，欧盟也在关注此事并表示：“等一下，他们展开了导弹攻击或仅仅是小小争斗？这是我们未来会面临的吗？”
So it's just, you know, and why again, let's let's just try to put our heads in the mind space of Google. Why would you do this? And because what worries me is you would only do this if you were supremely confident in your ability to in a sense carry through the threat and for the threat to be real and for you to in a sense be be impervious to whatever counter criticisms, which I think are real and urgent that would come from this kind of, as you say, technological kind of hostage taking again, not on the part of some minor company or I don't know, some piece of, you know, cellular phone stuff like with Huawei, this is this is AI.
所以，你知道，再问一次，我们试着进入谷歌的思维空间。为什么要这样做呢？而我担心的是，你只会这样做，如果你对自己能够完全信心满满，能够实际执行威胁并且威胁是真实存在的，并且对于任何反对的批评都可以无动于衷，我认为这些批评是真实和紧迫的。这种威胁再次不是来自某个小公司或者某个手机制造商（比如华为），而是涉及到人工智能。
This is going to be, you know, the cutting edge technologies that allow for not just productivity gains, but you know, the relative power and positioning of corporations, individuals and governments vis-a-vis one another in Google's in a sense dropping the gauntlet here and saying, we're going to arbitrate this. We're going to control this. We're going to decide who the winners and losers are in the brave new world of AI. And I don't think you do that just as a one off on a Friday afternoon. I think you thought this through and you want to pursue that position of dominance with not only within the technology, but in terms of the application of the technology and your ability to choose favorites and punish your opponents and wield this as a stick, as just raw power to pursue your interests.
这将是，你知道的，前沿技术，它不仅能带来生产力的提升，还能在谷歌的背景里调整公司、个人和政府之间的相对力量和地位，所以可以说谷歌在这里挑战了其他人。他们要去仲裁这个问题，控制这个问题，决定在人工智能的新世界中谁是胜者、谁是失败者。我不认为他们会只为了一个周五下午就这样做这个决定。我认为他们仔细考虑过，想要追求这种统治地位，不仅在技术领域内，而且在技术应用和他们选择支持对象、惩罚对手的能力上。他们将这个作为一种权力工具，追求自己的利益。
Here's what I know, Rudyard, from looking at a lot of really dumb decisions that leaders make both in government and in the private sector. We tend to think they're well thought out, often they're not. They make ill considered decisions. They don't have a red team that says that's around, that feels comfortable. Hey, wait a minute here. What do you do? What have you thought this through? This is not uncommon that very big governments or big companies just make decisions. When you look at them afterwards, oh my, where was their head? What were they thinking about? There's a great saying in my business, which is if you have to choose between stupidity and conspiracy, choose stupidity, you're going to be right 99% of the time. I'm going to describe this as a stupid decision by Google. They're going to have to walk it back, but they're going to pay a price for this because you're not the only one that sat up and took notice and said, who's this gorilla in the room now willing to throw its weight around like this? This is outrageous.
根据我对政府和私营部门的许多愚蠢决策的观察，我了解到以下情况，Rudyard。我们往往认为这些决策经过深思熟虑，但实际上往往并非如此。他们常常做出欠考虑的决策，没有一个红队（用来辅助决策的团队），没有人提出质疑、详细思考过。这不罕见，很多大型政府或大公司都会做出决策。当你事后回顾这些决策时，会惊叹他们当初是怎么想的。在我这行业里有一句很有道理的话，就是如果你必须在愚蠢和阴谋之间做出选择，选择愚蠢，你在99%的情况下都是对的。我将描述Google的决策为愚蠢之举。他们将不得不收回这个决策，但他们会为此付出代价，因为你不是唯一一个觉得不可思议、认为这家公司如此嚣张的人。
Janice, let's talk about how do we address this. I would think the Prime Minister should be on the phone to the Biden administration, to European allies and say, look guys, especially the Biden administration, which could exert some persuasion forced on Google saying, you may have done this for whatever set of reasons, mistaken or otherwise. I may be a little more sinister and conspiratorial than you are, Janice. But regardless, the point is that, as you mentioned in the last podcast, we need allies here. If I was another government in Europe, or even if I was a Biden administration, I would think this is somewhere where I've got to start to lean in because nation states have got to get on top of this.
珍妮丝，让我们讨论一下我们如何解决这个问题。我认为，总理应该给拜登政府和欧洲盟友打电话，告诉他们，看，伙计们，尤其是拜登政府，可以对谷歌施加一些说服力，告诉他们，你们可能出于一系列原因，无论是错误还是其他。珍妮丝，我的想法可能比你更阴险和阴谋论。但不管怎样，重点是，正如你在上一期播客中提到的，我们需要盟友。如果我是欧洲的另一个政府，即使我是拜登政府，我会认为这是我必须要介入的领域，因为各国必须掌控这个问题。
As I say, the mode is so big around these companies in terms of the exclusive nature of their development and utilization of this technology that barring something short of nationalization, maybe that's ultimately where we have to go with AI to protect the sovereignty of nation states. Nation states are allowed to have nuclear weapons. We don't let corporations have nuclear weapons. If you believe that AI is as powerful in different ways as the development of the Manhattan Project and everything that flew from that, then I would say at the end of the day, we're going to have to get to nationalization.
正如我所说的，就独家开发和利用人工智能这项技术而言，这些公司在模式上是如此巨大，除非出现类似国有化的情况，否则保护国家主权也许最终只能采取这样的方式。国家允许拥有核武器，但我们不允许企业拥有核武器。如果你相信人工智能在不同方面的强大程度与曼哈顿计划以及由此带来的一切发展相当，那么我认为，说到底，我们最终将不得不走向国有化。
Well, it's pretty hard. First of all, I think governments, as I said, are going to sit up and take notice, just as I did on China. When China bullied, that was kind of the lit match into the haystack. The Europeans came on board and the Australians were already on board and you got a coalition of the willing because people got the following message, Richard. You're not going to cherry pick. You're not going to knock us off one by one with bowling pins. And the only way to do this is through a coalition. And that's frankly what happened. And I think that's where Google has put itself now. And the European Union is already there. It's got the toughest regulatory regime. And it's fine Google billions of dollars. It's not a hard call for the prime minister to make, to Ursula, and one laden, frankly, and others. This is on their agenda anyway. And I'm sure that that's being done. But it is, boy, it is. It's a sobering moment.
嗯，这相当困难。首先，我认为政府们会像我一样开始关注，尤其是对中国的问题。中国的霸凌行为就像是引发了一堆干草上的一根火柴。欧洲已经开始支持这个行动，澳大利亚也加入了，你得到了一个愿意合作的联盟，因为人们明白了一条信息，理查德。你不能挑挑拣拣颠覆我们，一一打倒像保龄球一样的我们。唯一的解决办法就是通过联盟。而这正是发生的事情。我认为谷歌现在就是这样做的。欧洲联盟已经采取了最严格的监管制度，对谷歌施以了巨额罚款。对于首相向乌苏拉、拉登和其他人提出这个要求，并不是一个难以做出的决策。无论如何，这也是他们的议程之一。我相信他们正在进行这方面的工作。但这是一个令人警醒的时刻啊。
Listen, Richard, you had a great debate on AI. Recently, the month debate was just terrific. Maybe we can put in the show notes a really sobering kind of article this morning that was by David Brooks, who's also been on the month dialogues, kind of critical, not just similar to yours, about AI and how he is waking up now, or just ragged, we worry about what it means to be human in this world of AI that is racing ahead. It's a great personal piece. I thought it's in today's New York Times. Just layer onto that that we've invented technology here that is unprecedentedly powerful and it's controlled by three or four big companies. And the reason it's controlled, let's explain why, is it takes so much compute power, which costs unimaginable amounts of money to build. So everybody else, but the giants builds on top of what the giants have already built. That's the world we're in now.
理查德，你在AI方面进行了一场很棒的辩论。最近，那场辩论真的很棒。也许我们可以在节目注释中加上一篇今早的非常令人警醒的文章，作者是大卫·布鲁克斯，他之前也参与了这个辩论，他对AI持有一种批评的态度，与你的类似，关于智能技术如何在领先的同时，让人担忧人类在这个世界中的意义。这是一篇很好的个人评论。我记得它在今天的《纽约时报》上面。更重要的是，我们在这里发明了一种前所未有的强大技术，而它由三、四家大公司控制。关于为什么它们能够控制这些技术，我们要解释一下，它需要大量的计算能力，而这样的计算能力需要花费难以想象的巨额资金来建造。所以其他所有公司只能在巨头已经建立的基础上进行开发。这就是我们目前所处的世界。
Well, I think you mentioned last show. We got to start with antitrust. We did it with standard oil, a century before we go. With railways, we've got to start breaking these companies up. They are stifling competition. They snap up their competitors. And frankly, not Google, but a lot of them really botched, frankly, the rollout of social media and its impacts. And probably continue to allow a tragedy of the commons to unfold in ways that I think we don't accept from other polluters where we have polluter pays type legislation. So we haven't even started on those things. I'd like to see those steps, but I think we really need to push back. And I'm going to do that this week. There are other great browser providers like DuckDuckGo, Safari, Firefox. I'm getting off Google for the foreseeable future until they walk down. This is outrageous. They have grouped Canada, as you said, with Afghanistan, Russia, and North Korea to punish our. The global Rodriguez.
嗯，我记得你提到上一场节目。我们得从反垄断开始。一个世纪前，我们针对标准石油进行了反垄断。针对铁路，我们得开始拆分这些公司。它们扼杀了竞争。它们吞并了竞争对手。而且坦率地说，不是谷歌，但很多公司在社交媒体的推出和影响方面表现真的很糟糕。而且可能继续允许一种我们不接受其他污染者的“污染者付费”立法的公地悲剧发生。所以我们连这些事情都没开始做。我希望看到这些步骤，但我认为我们真的需要反击。我将在本周采取行动。还有其他很棒的浏览器提供商，比如DuckDuckGo、Safari、Firefox。在可预见的将来，我将不再使用谷歌，直到他们改正错误。这太荒谬了。他们把加拿大与阿富汗、俄罗斯和朝鲜并列，以惩罚我们。这是对全球罗德里格斯的不公。
The giant threat, the existential threat that Pablo Rodriguez represents to this trillion dollar plus corporation. This is unacceptable. We would be outraged if this was big oil. We would be outraged if any other company did this. It's time that all of us drop the veil from our eyes about these tech companies as somehow being benign actors that are just simply there to fulfill your needs, desires, and expectations vis-a-vis your digital life. They are not. They are, in this case, a bully and behaving in ways that I think are just deeply, deeply disturbing when you have these monopoly positions, not only on search, but increasingly on these transformative technologies like AI. It's unacceptable. I hope our governments act in unison with each other. We can all act individually as consumers and citizens to boycott Google, get off its products, and if it cleans up its act, I'm back. If it doesn't, goodbye, Sir Jabron. They're slogan. They're ridiculous. Greenwashing corporate slogan is, do no evil. Do no harm. Do no evil. I think it's do no evil. Come on, guys. This is evil. This is sinister, sinister stuff.
巨大的威胁，帕布罗·罗德里格斯对这个价值超过一万亿美元的公司所带来的存在威胁。这是不可接受的。如果这是大型石油公司，我们会感到愤怒。如果其他任何公司做了这样的事情，我们也会感到愤怒。是时候让我们把对这些科技公司的幻想剥去，认识到它们并不是仅仅为了满足你在数字生活中的需求、欲望和期望而存在的善良角色。在这种情况下，它们是霸凌者，以一种我认为是非常令人不安的方式行事，因为它们不仅垄断了搜索，还在越来越多的转型技术如人工智能上占据主导地位。这是不可接受的。我希望我们的政府能够一致行动。作为消费者和公民，我们都可以个体行动，抵制谷歌，停用它的产品，如果它改进了自己的行为，我会回来的。如果不改进，再见了，杰布龙爵士。他们荒谬的招牌口号是“不作恶”。不伤害。不作恶。我认为这是作恶了。拜托，伙计们。这是邪恶的。这是邪恶而且阴险的东西。
I have a little to add to that, Rudyard. We'll see where all this next week. This is going to be a fast-moving story. It's a big one. Okay. Thanks for a great show, Jess. Have a great week. Yeah, you too. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye now.
我有一点要补充的，Rudyard。我们下周会看到这一切将会发展如何。这将是一个快速变化的故事。它很重要。好的，谢谢你的精彩节目，Jess。祝你有个愉快的一周。是的，你也一样。再见。再见。再见。
Thank you for listening to this edition of the Friday Focus podcast. I'm Rudyard Griffiths, the chair of the Monk Debates who's joined on this program as I am each week by Janice Grostine, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs. Janice and I would love your reactions to what you heard on the program today. Also, your suggestions and ideas about future topics that we should cover on Friday Focus. Please send us your suggestions now to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's M-U-N-K debateswithands.com. This podcast is produced by Aiden Moskovich and generously underwritten by the Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundation. Please visit our website, www.munkdebates.com to access hundreds of podcasts, dialogues, and debates on all the big issues and ideas shaping our world. Again, you can do that right now at www.munkdebates.com. While you're there, consider if you're not already becoming a free Monk Debates member. You get all kinds of great benefits and perks as a complimentary Monk member. You can grab yours right now at www.munkdebates.com. Thanks for listening to this program. We'll do it all again soon. Bye-bye.
感谢您收听本期《星期五焦点播客》。我是鲁德亚德·格里菲斯，辩论之僧董事会主席，每周都有梵学全球事务学校的创办人贾尼斯·格罗斯汀女士加入我们的节目。贾尼斯和我期待着您对今天节目中所听到的内容的反馈。同时，也欢迎您就未来应该在《星期五焦点》节目中讨论的话题提出您的建议和想法。请立即将您的建议发送至podcast@monkdebates.com。这个播客由艾登·莫斯科维奇制作，并由彼得和梅兰妮·蒙克慈善基金会慷慨赞助。请访问我们的网站www.munkdebates.com，以获取关于塑造我们世界的所有重大问题和理念的数百个播客、对话和辩论。您可以立即在www.munkdebates.com进行访问。同时，考虑一下是否已成为免费的僧侣辩论会会员，您将获得各种优惠和特权。您可以立即在www.munkdebates.com获取您的会员资格。感谢您收听本节目。我们不久之后将再次回来。再见。