寿星-
TEXT A
Achieving sustainable environmentalism
实现可持续性发展的环保主义
1
Environmental
sensitivity
is
now
as
required
an
attitude
in
polite
society
as
is,
say,
belief
in
democracy or disapproval of plastic surgery. But now that everyone from Ted Turner to George H.
W.
Bush
has
claimed
love
for
Mother
Earth,
how
are
we
to
choose
among
the
dozens
of
conflicting
proposals,
regulations
and
laws
advanced
by
congressmen
and
constituents
alike
in
the
name
of
the
environment?
Clearly,
not
everything
with
an
environmental
claim
is
worth
doing. How do we segregate the best options and consolidate our varying interests into a single,
sound policy?
在上流社会，
对环境的敏感就如同信 仰民主、
反对整容一样，
是一种不可或缺的态度。
然而，
既然从泰德·特纳到 乔治·
W.H.
布什，每个人都声称自己热爱地球母亲，那么，在由议员、
选民之类的 人以环境名义而提出的众多的相互矛盾的提案、
规章和法规中，
我们又该如何做
出选择 呢？显而易见，
并不是每一项冠以环境保护名义的事情都值得去做。
我们怎样才能分
离 出最佳选择，并且把我们各自不同的兴趣统一在同一个合理的政策当中呢？
2 There is a simple way. First, differentiate between environmental luxuries and environmental
necessities. Luxuries are those things that would be nice to have if costless. Necessities are those
things we must have regardless. Call this distinction the definitive rule of sane environmentalism,
which stipulates that combating ecological change that directly threatens the health and safety of
people is an environmental necessity. All else is luxury. 有一种简便的方法。
首先要区分什么是环境奢侈品，
什么是环境必需品。
奢侈品是 指那些无
需人类付出代价就能拥有的给人美好感受的东西。
必需品则是指那些无论付出什么代价 ，
都
一定要去拥有的东西。
这一区分原则可以被称为理性环保主义的至高原则。
它规定，
对那些
直接威胁人类健康与安全的生态变化采取应对措施是环境保护的必需品，而其他则都属于奢
侈品。
3
For
example,
preserving
the
atmosphere
—
stopping
ozone
depletion
and
the
greenhouse
effect
—
is an environmental necessity. Recently, scientists reported that ozone damage is far
worse than previously thought. Ozone depletion has a correlation not only with skin cancer and
eye problems, it also destroys the ocean's ecology, the beginning of the food chain atop which we
humans sit.
例如，
保护大气层——阻止 臭氧损耗及控制温室效应——是环境保护的必需品。
近来，
科学
家报告说臭氧层遭受破 坏的程度远比我们先前认为的要严重得多。
臭氧损耗不仅与皮肤癌及
眼疾有关，
而且它 还会破坏海洋生态。
而海洋生态是食物链的起点，
人类则位于该食物链的
顶端。
4 The possible thermal consequences of the greenhouse effect are far deadlier: melting ice caps,
flooded
coastlines,
disrupted
climate,
dry
plains
and,
ultimately,
empty
breadbaskets.
The
American Midwest feeds people at all corners of the atlas. With the planetary climate changes,
are
we
prepared
to
see
Iowa
take
on
New
Mexico's
desert
climate,
or
Siberia
take
on
Iowa's
moderate climate?
温室效应所可能引发的热效应 是非常具有毁灭性的：
冰川融化、
海岸线被淹没、
气候遭受破
坏、平原干涸，
最终食物消失殆尽。
美国中西部地区的粮食供养着全世界。
随着全球气候的
变 化，
我们难道准备看到衣阿华州变成新墨西哥州的沙漠气候，
而西伯利亚变成衣阿华州的
温和气候吗？
5 Ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are human disasters, and they are urgent because
they directly threaten humanity and are not easily reversible. A sane environmentalism, the only
kind
of
environmentalism
that
will
strike
a
chord
with
the
general
public,
begins
by
openly
declaring
that
nature
is
here
to
serve
human
beings.
A
sane
environmentalism
is
entirely
a
human
focused
regime:
It
calls
upon
humanity
to
preserve
nature,
but
merely
within
the
parameters of self- survival.
臭氧损耗和温室效应是人类的灾难，
而且是需要紧急处理的灾难，
因为它们直接威胁到人类，
且后果很难扭转。理性环保主义——唯一能够引起公众共鸣的环保主张—— 首先公开声明，
自然是服务于人类的。
理性环保主义是一种完全以人类为中心的思想。
它号召人类保护自然，
但是是在人类自我生存得到保证的前提之下。
6 Of course, this human focus runs against the grain of a contemporary environmentalism that
indulges in overt earth worship. Some people even allege that the earth is a living organism. This
kind of environmentalism likes to consider itself spiritual. It is nothing more than sentimental. It
takes,
for
example,
a
highly
selective
view
of
the
kindness
of
nature,
one
that
is
incompatible
with the reality of natural disasters. My nature worship stops with the twister that came through
Kansas
or
the
dreadful
rains
in
Bangladesh
that
eradicated
whole
villages
and
left
millions
homeless.
当然，
这种以人类为中心的主张与 当下盛行的环保主义是格格不入的，
后者已经沉溺于对地
球的公然崇拜。
有的人甚至声 称地球是一个活的生物体。
这种环保主义喜欢把自己看作是神
圣的，
其实它只是感情用 事而已。比如，
在自然是否友善的问题上，当下的环保主义采取了
高度选择性的片面的观点，< br>而这种观点与自然造成的灾难这一现实是不相协调的。
当龙卷风
肆虐堪萨斯州，
当瓢泼大雨袭击孟加拉国，
毁灭了整座整座的村庄，
使几百万人失去家园的
时候，我对 自然的崇拜便停止了。
7
A
non- sentimental
environmentalism
is
one
founded
on
Protagoras's
idea
that
is
the
measure of all things.
the dense forest of environmental arguments. Take the current debate raging over oil drilling in a
corner
of
the
Arctic
National
Wildlife
Refuge
(ANWR).
Environmentalist
coalitions,
mobilizing
against a legislative action working its way through the US Congress for the legalization of such
exploration, propagate that Americans should be preserving and economizing energy instead of
drilling for it. This is a false either-or proposition. The US does need a sizable energy tax to reduce
consumption.
But
it
needs
more
production
too.
Government
estimates
indicate
a
nearly
fifty-fifty chance that under the ANWR rests one of the five largest oil fields ever discovered in
America. It seems illogical that we are not finding safe ways to drill for oil in the ANWR. 非感情用事的环保主义是建立在普罗泰哥拉的格言
“人是万物的尺度”
的基础上的。
在建立
人类权威的过程中，
这条原则会帮助我们梳理各种错综复杂的关于环境保护的争议。< br>就以当
前关于是否在北极国家野生动物保护区的某一角落开采石油的激烈争论为例吧。
环 保主义者
联盟动员人们反对目前正在试图通过美国国会审议、
使这一开采行为变得合法化的一项 立法
行动。
他们散布说美国应该保护并且节约能源而不是开采能源。
这其实是一个错误 的非此即
彼的主张。
美国确实需要征收高额的能源税以减少能源消耗，
但同时也需要生 产更多的能源。
政府的估测表明，
在北极国家野生动物保护区的地下蕴藏着美国五大油田之一的 可能性几乎
到达
50
％。我们没有寻找安全的方法开采北极国家野生动物保护区地下的 石油，这看上去
是不符合情理的。
8
The
US
has
just
come
through
a
war
fought
in
part
over
oil.
Energy
dependence
costs
Americans
not
just
dollars
but
lives.
It
is
a
bizarre
sentimentalism
that
would
deny
oil
that
is
peacefully attainable because it risks disrupting the birthing grounds of Arctic caribou.
美国刚刚经历了一场战争，
其部分原因就是为了获取 石油。
对能源的依赖使美国不但付出了
金钱的代价，
而且也付出了生命的代价。
就因为可能破坏北美驯鹿的繁衍地而放弃能够以和
平手段获得的石油，这是一种十分怪异的感情用事。
9
I
like
the
caribou
as
much
as
the
next
person.
And
I
would
be
rather
sorry
if
their
mating
patterns were disturbed. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. And in the standoff of the
welfare of caribou versus reducing an oil reliance that gets people killed in wars, I choose people
over caribou every time.
我像别人一样喜欢驯鹿 。
如果他们的交配模式受到干扰，
我会感到非常遗憾。但是，鱼和熊
掌不能兼得。是要保护驯鹿，
还是要为了避免人们在战争中丧生而减少对石油的依赖，
面对
这一 僵局，我每次都会选择人类而不是驯鹿。
10
I
feel
similarly
about
the
spotted
owl
in
Oregon.
I
am
no
enemy
of
the
owl.
If
it
could
be
preserved
at
a
negligible
cost,
I
would
agree
that
it
should
be
—
biodiversity
is
after
all
necessary
to
the
ecosystem.
But we
must remember
that
not every
species
is
needed
to
keep
that diversity. Sometimes aesthetic aspects of life have to be sacrificed to more fundamental ones.
If
the
cost
of
preserving
the
spotted
owl
is
the
loss
of
livelihood
for
30,000
logging
families,
I
choose the families (with their saws and chopped timber) over the owl.
我对俄勒冈州的斑点猫头鹰的态度也 是一样。
我绝不是仇视猫头鹰。
如果花很少的代价就可
以保护猫头鹰，
我会赞 同它应受保护——毕竟，
生物多样性对生态系统是非常必要的。
但是，
我们必须记住，
保持生物多样性并不意味着要留住每一种物种。
有时候，
为了更加根本的利
益 ，
我们不得不牺牲一部分生活中美的东西。
如果为了保护斑点猫头鹰而让三万伐木工家庭
失去生计，我会选择伐木工家庭（包括他们的锯子和砍伐的木材）
，而不是猫头鹰。
11 The important distinction is between those environmental goods
that are fundamental and
those that are not. Nature is our ward, not our master. It is to be respected and even cultivated.
But when humans have to choose between their own well-being and that of nature, nature will
have to accommodate.
重要的是，
我们要区分哪些东西对环境保护是根本性的，
哪些是非根本性的。
自然受我们的
监护， 而不是我们的主人。我们应该尊重自然，也可以开发利用自然。但是，如果人类必须
在自身的福利和自然 的福利之间作出选择，自然则必须作出让步。
12 Humanity should accommodate only when its fate and that of nature are inseparably bound
up. The most urgent maneuver must be undertaken when the very integrity of humanity's habitat,
e.g., the atmosphere or the essential geology that sustains the core of the earth, is threatened.
寿星-
寿星-
寿星-
寿星-
寿星-
寿星-
寿星-
寿星-
本文更新与2021-01-21 20:17，由作者提供，不代表本网站立场，转载请注明出处：https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/545972.html