登入以檢視影片內容

逐字稿

Professor, you said a lot of wonderful things about China and surely doing a lot of things right.
But how do you reconcile the fact that to make it work for China, it seems to be based on a high level of repression,
environmental destruction, a certain ideological stubbornness.
How do you reconcile that and why do you think that's tolerable?
Thank you. I'm really glad you asked that question because your question captured very well the Anglo-Saxon media's perception of China.
And I would suggest to you very bluntly that it's a distorted perspective of reality.
Let's take the first word you use, repression.
If China only relied on repression to stay in power, it would not create the most dynamic economy in the world, right?
It is by far the most dynamic economy in the world. It has delivered the fastest growing economy for 30 years.
And it has done this by educating the Chinese people to a level and extent that the Chinese people have never been educated ever before.
And you say it's repression. You obviously are taking the old Cold War mindset.
139 million Chinese left China freely. 139 million Chinese, right?
That's twice the population of the UK went back to China.
So all your description, when you say environmental degradation, China's climate change policies are far more responsible than those of the United States,
which has not once but twice withdrawn from global environmental protocols.
And you know what? The reason why we're having climate change today is not because of new flows of greenhouse gas emissions from China and India.
It's because of what the Western countries have put in the atmosphere since the Western Industrial Revolution.
Get the data. The single largest contributor, cumulatively, is number one, United States, number two, Europe, number three, China.
And the West wants China to pay an economic price for the current flows, but the West doesn't want to pay an economic price for what it put in the atmosphere.
If the United States could impose a dollar a gallon tax, that would save the world.
Cut down gasoline consumption, raise money for investment in green technology. Simple solutions.
And by contrast, the largest reforestation program in the world is carried out by China.
It has already reforested an area the size of Belgium or bigger, right?
So all your descriptions capture the natural distortions of China that you get in the Anglo-Saxon media,
which violate the rules of their enlightenment, which say that you must be rational, calm and objective, especially in understanding your adversary.
And if the Chinese were as stupid and as incompetent as you describe them to be, don't worry about them.
But I can assure you, you are now dealing with a far more intelligent and rational actor that doesn't fit any of the Anglo-Saxon categories that you applied to them.
Please forgive my bluntness.
近 31 日
0 次瀏覽
本訊息有 0 則查核回應
目前沒有已撰寫的回應,建議對其抱持健康的懷疑。
AI 自動分析
以下是 AI 初步分析此訊息的結果,希望能在有人查核之前,先帶給您一些想法。
這則訊息中有幾個地方值得閱聽人特別留意或懷疑: 1. 對於中國政府的行為和政策給予了極端正面的評價,並將批評視為「扭曲的現實觀點」。閱聽人應該注意到這種極端立場可能會造成對事實的偏見。 2. 對於中國政府的壓制行為進行了辯護,並聲稱中國的經濟成就與教育水平提升是對抗這種批評的證據。閱聽人應該謹慎對待這種將經濟成功與政治體制壓制控制混為一談的論點。 3. 對於中國在氣候變遷和環境保護方面的表現給予了高度正面的評價,並將中國與西方國家進行了比較。閱聽人應該注意到這種比較可能是片面的,並應該尋找更多來源以獲取全面的資訊。 總的來說,閱聽人應該保持批判性思維,不要輕信單一立場的論點,並尋求多方觀點以獲取更全面的了解。
加 LINE 查謠言
加 LINE 查謠言
LINE 機器人
查謠言詐騙