内容发布更新时间 : 2024/5/20 18:29:04星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. When the threat to humanity is lower in the hierarchy of necessity, a more modest accommodation that balances economic against health concerns is in order. But in either case the principle is the same: protect the environment - because it is humanity's environment.
13 The sentimental environmentalists will call this saving nature with a totally wrong frame of mind. Exactly. A sane and intelligible environmentalism does it not for nature's sake but for our own.
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。 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。
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。
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。
只有当人类的命运与自然的命运密不可分时，人类才应该作出让步。当人类栖息地的完整性（比如大气层或维持地球核心的基本地质状况）受到威胁时，人类就必须立即调整自己的行为。而当人类受到的威胁不大，不太需要对自己的行为进行调整时，恰当的做法是平衡考虑经济方面和与之相对的健康方面的因素，以便作出适度的调整。但是，无论是哪种情况，其遵循的原则是一致的：保护环境，因为这是我们人类的环境。
感情用事的环保主义者会说这种拯救自然的思路是完全错误的。的确是这样。理性、明确的环保主义保护环境是为了人类自身，而不是为了自然。 Unit 5
Speaking Chinese in America
Once, at a dinner on the Monterey Peninsula, California, my mother whispered to me confidentially: \(brother's wife) pretends too hard to be a polite recipient! Why bother with such nominal courtesy? In the end, she always takes everything.\
My mother acted like a waixiao, an emigrant, no longer patient with old taboos and courtesies. To prove her point, she reached across the table to offer my elderly aunt from Beijing the last scallop from the garlic seafood dish, along with the flank steak and the cucumber salad.
Sau-sau frowned. \zhen b'yao!\she cried, patting her substantial stomach. I don't want it, really I don't.
\\\
Sau-sau sighed, acting as if she were doing my mother a favor by taking the scrap off the tray and sparing us the trouble of wrapping the leftovers in foil.
My mother turned to her brother, an experienced Chinese magistrate, visiting us for the first time. \the old rules of etiquette and say you want it, they won't ask you again.\
My uncle nodded and said he understood fully: Americans take things quickly because they have no time to be polite. 在美国说中文
有一次，在加州蒙特雷半岛上用餐时，我母亲私下悄悄地对我说：“嫂嫂想做个彬彬有礼的客人，但是装得太厉害了！何必费劲讲究形式上的客套呢？到最后她还是什么都要。”
我母亲行事像个“外侨”，即一个移民国外的侨民，因为她已经不耐烦老一套的禁忌和礼数了。为了证明她刚才的观点，她手伸过桌子，把蒜香海鲜拼盘里的最后一个扇贝，连同牛腩排及黄瓜沙拉一起，递给我从北京来的年长舅妈。 嫂嫂皱起了眉头，“不要，真不要！”她一边大声说一边拍着自己已经吃得很饱的肚子。我不要了，真的不要了。
“拿去吧！拿去吧！”我母亲用中文责备道。预料到她就会这样，就像月亮盈亏周期似的。
“饱了，我已经饱了，”嫂嫂低声嘀咕着，眼睛却瞟着扇贝。 “哎！”我母亲感叹着说，“没人愿意吃，只能让它坏掉了！”
嫂嫂叹了口气，从碟子上拿去了那个扇贝，就好像是帮了我母亲一个大忙，并省去了我们用箔纸将剩菜打包的麻烦似的。
我母亲转头看着她兄长——一位经验丰富的中国地方法官，这是他初次来看我们。她说：“在美国，一个中国人可能会饿死。要是你不打破老一套的礼数说你要吃，他们就不会再问你了。”
我舅舅点点头，说他完全理解：美国人待人接物快速迅捷，因为他们没有时间客气来客气去。
I read an article in The New York Times Magazine on changes in New York's little cultural colony of Chinatown, where the author mentioned that the interwoven configuration of Chinese language and culture renders its speech indirect and polite. Chinese people are so \words for \
Why do people keep fabricating these rumors? I thought. They describe us as though we were a tribe of those little dolls sold in Chinatown tourist shops, heads moving up and down in contented agreement!
As any child of immigrant parents knows, there is a special kind of double bind attached to knowing two languages. My parents, for example, spoke to me in both Chinese and English; I spoke back to them in English. \\
\\
\
If I consider my upbringing carefully, I find there was nothing discreet about the Chinese language I grew up with, no censorship for the sake of politeness. My parents made everything abundantly clear in their consecutive demands: \become a famous aerospace engineer, they prodded.\And yes, a concert pianist on the side.\
It seems that the more forceful proceedings always spilled over into Chinese: \that way! You must wash rice so not a single grain is lost.\
Having listened to both Chinese and English, I'm suspicious of comparisons between the two languages, as I notice the reciprocal challenges they each present. English speakers say Chinese is extremely difficult because different words can be denoted by very subtle variations in tone. English is often bracketed with the label of inconsistency, a language of too many broken rules.
我在《纽约时报杂志》上读到过一篇文章，描述的是纽约市内的中国城这一小块文化聚居地的变迁。作者在文章中提到，中国语言与文化错综交织，使中文十分委婉和客套。中国人是如此“谨慎和谦虚”，文章开头写道，以至于他们都没有词语来表达“是”和“不是”。
我思索着，为什么人们会不断地编造这样的谣言呢？他们把我们描述得就像是唐人街旅游品商店里出售的一批小布娃娃。那些布娃娃的头不停地上下晃动，似乎对一切都心满意足，完全赞同。
生于移民家庭的孩子都清楚，有一种特殊的两难境地与说两种语言的生活联系在一起。比如我父母，他们和我说话时中文和英文都用，但我和他们说话时只用英文。
“艾米啊！”他们会这样责备我。 “怎么啦？”我会回问道。
“我们叫你时，不要对我们反问，”他们会用中文训斥道。“这是不礼貌的！” “你们什么意思？”
“哎！我们不是刚刚说过，叫你不要反问吗？”
仔细想想自己的成长过程，我发现，我从小到大所接触到的中文并不是什么特别谨慎的语言，也不存在出于客气而对所说的话进行仔细检查的现象。我父母向我提一连串的要求时，总是把一切都表述得清清楚楚：“你当然会成为著名的航空工程师，”他们会鼓励我说，“对了，你业余时间还要做音乐会的钢琴师。” 似乎更加强硬的事情总是通过中文倾泻出来：“不能那样！你淘米的时候，必须一粒都不漏。”