2. 考研
  3. For decades, apocalyptic environmentalists (and others) have warned of humanity’s imminent doom, largely as a result of our unsu

For decades, apocalyptic environmentalists (and others) have warned of humanity’s imminent doom, largely as a result of our unsu

admin2012-07-06  69
问题     For decades, apocalyptic environmentalists (and others) have warned of humanity’s imminent doom, largely as a result of our unsustainable use of and impact upon the natural systems of the planet. Yet, at the exact same time, humanity has never been better. (46) In the September issue of BioScience, a group of scientists attempts to reconcile the conflict and answer the question; "How is it that human well-being continues to improve as ecosystem services decline?"
    (47) The authors, led by geographer Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne of McGill University, offer four hypotheses for this "environmentalist’s paradox": humans are actually worse off than we think; the ability to grow food trumps all other ecosystem services as far as humans are concerned; technology has allowed us to transcend the environment; and the ill effects of environmental degradation lag its benefits, i. e. the worst is yet to come.
    First off, as far as anyone who has studied the issue can tell, despite vast differences, on the whole, humanity has never been better. (48) Yes, more people are now displaced by warfare than at any time since World War II, and yes, natural disasters affect more people than ever, but we’re far more prepared to deal with such things and therefore actual deaths as a result of them are going down. So that hypothesis is right out.
    As for farming, it’s pretty clear that it’s one of (if not the) most important ecosystem services humanity requires. (49) While there are costs associated with the loss of other ecosystem services—an example is the loss of wetlands that helped doom New Orleans to the ravages of Hurricane Katrina—our continued success at farming trumps them. And we are get-ting better at it, growing more crops on less land—a key technological innovation. However, new technologies hardly free humanity from, for example, the need for the fresh water provided by natural systems.
    So are we simply storing up trouble for the future, like the rising C02 levels in the atmosphere that have locked in some amount of global warming for the foreseeable future? Yes and no—climate change is a certainty, whether all of human society is headed for collapse is not. As the researchers put it: "While there are many important time lags in Earth’s systems. .. the consequences of those lags for human well-being are unclear. "
    (50) That’s not exactly comforting, nor is the fact that we cannot assume that the past is opening to the future. The potential for unexpected and sudden crises always looms, like the global economic collapse or food crisis in 2008. At the same time, there is the potential for technology to begin helping ecosystem services-engineering man-made systems that mimic natural ones and produce as many benefits-rather than hurting them. Beginning to design urban ecosystems holistically rather than piecemeal might alleviate some of the pressure on natural ecosystems. Management is no longer a luxury. We had better get good at it. [483 words]
选项
答案以麦吉尔大学地理学家席亚拉·劳德赛普·赫恩为首，作者们对这种“环保主义者悖论”做了四个假设：人类实际上要比我们想象的更糟糕；对人类而言，种植粮食的能力战胜了所有其他生态系统服务功能；科技已然使我们超越了环境的界限；环境退化的不良影响尚且小于它(给人类带来)的好处，即，最坏的结果还没有出现。
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Bvp4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)