21世纪工程硕士研究生英语-综合教程(下册)Unit5课文翻译

UNIT 5

2. Workers of the world, get out your crystal balls. Just as the last decades have brought immense changes to the workplace—the influx of women, the advent of computers, the decline of organized labor, the rise of the service sector—the decades ahead will bring changes just as dramatic. Trying to make refined predictions of what work will look like decades from now is an exercise in folly, economists say, since the biggest changes will probably come from technological innovations we can only dream about. “To try to predict technology, you really go out on a limb,” says David Bills, author of The New Modern Times, a book on the past and future of work. But what lies ahead is not completely unpredictable. Demographers can tell us much about what the work force will look like 10 or 15 years out. Charting other changes is a matter of extrapolating from existing trends while hoping not to be embarrassed.

全世界的劳动者们，拿出你们占卜用的水晶球来预测下未来。正如过去几十年来在工作场所发生的诸如女性工作者的涌入，计算器的出现，公会的衰落，服务业的兴起等巨大的变化一样，未来几十年也会发生引人注目的变化。经济学家们说，试图对几十年后的工作做精确的预测是愚蠢的行为，因为最大的变化可能源于我们只有在梦中才能想象到的技术革新。“想预测技术，你真是太冒险了，”《The New Modern Times》的作者David Bills说，这本书是写过去和未来工作的。但是未来并不是完全不可预测的。人口学家可以告诉我们很多关于10或15年后的劳动力构成状况。描绘其他变化需要从目前的趋势做推测，同时希望不要让我们身处困境。

3. On the second floor of a Washington, D.C., office building, a group of 45 economists is hard at work on the government’s sketch of tomorrow’s workplace. Every other December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its employment projections. The paperback guide, a standard accessory in high-school guidance offices, predicts which occupations will grow and shrink over the next decade. The hot growth areas: health care and computer-related work. Things look less rosy for bookkeepers, typists, copy-machine operators—and anyone whose job can be vaporized by automation. Other changes are obvious. With longer life spans and the cash-strapped Social Security fund, working into old age will become more common. The workplace, like the country, will be home to many more immigrants. And if you work in a factory today, you—or your children—are more likely to work in an office tomorrow.

在华盛顿政府办公大楼二层，有一个由45名经济学家组成的小组，他们在为政府对未来的工作场所的蓝图而努力工作。每隔一年的十二月份，美国劳工局都会发布就业预测分析。这本平装的指南是高中就业指导办公室中基本的派发品，它预测下一个几十年中哪些职业会增长哪些会萎缩。热门增长的区域有：健康保健以及和计算机相关的工作。不乐观的职业是簿记员、打字员、复印机操作员，以及其他会被自动化替代的职业。其他的变化也是很明显的。随着人寿命的增长和社会保障资金的现金短缺，退休后仍然继续工作将变得更为普遍。将有更多的外国移民定居我们国家，和我们一起工作。而且如果你现在是在工厂上班，未来你或你的孩子更有可能会在办公室里工作。

4. That last change may be the most profound. In the future, says Robert Reich, the former Labor secretary who’s arguably the nation’s foremost contemplator of the future of work, we won’t be able to classify workers under the blue-collar/white-collar division of yore. We also won’t see so many Americans with only a high-school

education earning comfortable middle-class wages. In Reich’s view, the upper crust of today’s white-collar workers will be classified as something that he calls “symbolic analysts.” That rubric will include jobs—like lawyers, doctors, investment bankers and some teachers—that usually require graduate degrees. These will be well-paid positions involving “some of the most intensive knowledge work in the New Economy,” he says. At the bottom of the ladder will be the so-called personal-service workers, the remaining low-pay jobs that haven’t moved overseas or been replaced by a computer. Think of the fast-food worker as the epitome of this job segment.

.最后的变化可能是最深刻的。Robert Reich，前劳工部秘书长，是对国内未来职业思考最为深刻的沉思者,他认为，未来我们不能再像以往一样将工作者分为白领或蓝领，也看不到这么多只有高中学历的美国人轻松地挣着中产阶级的收入的现象。以Reich的观点，今天白领工作者的顶层会被归类成如他所称的“象征性的分析师”。那类包括的工作有律师、医生、投资银行家和一些教师――这些职位通常需要研究生学位。他说这些高收入的职位包括“一些在新经济中知识密集型最高的工作”。在这个阶梯的底端是那些所谓的人员服务工作者，残存的还没有被移到海外或被计算机所替代的低技能低收入工作。想象一下，快餐店的服务生就是这类工作的缩影。

5. If the lives of the folks at the top and bottom of the ladder don’t sound much different from what they lead today, that’s because the greatest changes face workers in the middle, whom Reich calls, mercifully, “the new middle class.” The rise of a middle class in America was largely a blue-collar phenomenon, and despite overseas competition, there are still millions of workers earning more than ＄35,000 a year on an assembly line. Those jobs will dwindle on years to come. “Jobs bending metal or doing the machining in a factory will become fewer and fewer,” Reich says. Tomorrow’s middle class will be made up largely of “technicians,” he says, whose jobs will usually require training on top of a high-school diploma. They will be the plumbers of the computer age. The technician class will include everyone from inventory managers to paralegals to high-tech auto mechanics like Andy Yano. “Almost all ‘technician’ jobs involve computers,” Reich says. “You’ll have to have more education than the old middle class.”

如果生活在工作阶梯最顶层和最底层的工作者没有感觉到不同于他们现在所过的生活，那是因为中间阶层的工人面领着巨大的变化。R称这些人为，仁慈的，新中产阶级。在美国新增的中产阶级是大量的蓝领工人，尽管有来自海外移民的竞争，在装配线上数以百万计的工人可以挣到一年超过3.5万美元的收入。这些工作将减少。在工厂钣金或操作设备的工作将越来越少。R说。未来的中产阶级将有大量的技术工人构成。这些工作将通常在高中毕业后需要继续培训。他们将是电脑时代的水暖工。技术工人将包含从仓库管理到律师助理到像AY这样高级汽车修理人员的每个人。几乎所有的技术工作都需要电脑。R说，与过去的中产阶级比较，你将需要更多的教育。

6. Ed Lotterman, a regional economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, already sees the changes. At local foundries, print shops and cabinetmaking plants, he sees many jobs that require more than the on-the –job training that sufficed in years past, but less than a college degree. Community colleges will train many of these workers, some of whom may receive proposed federal grants for two years of higher education. And there may be a boom in privately run training schools.

Ed Lotterman是Minneapolis Federal Reserve银行的地区经济师，他已经看到了这

样的变化。在当地的铸造厂、印刷厂和橱柜生产厂，他注意到在过去几年许多只要通过在职培训就能胜任的职位，现在需要进行一些大学课程的培训才能满足工作需要。社区大学对这类工人中的许多进行培训，部分工人将得到联邦教育拨款以资助他们两年的大学教育。私立培训学校将得到蓬勃发展。

7.Even the knowledge workers—those highly educated, high-earning professionals who should thrive in the new economy—face some big changes. In the wake of the early-1990s downsizing, it seemed as though nearly every laid-off executive had to call himself a consultant lest he admit to being permanently unemployed. But freelance talent-for-hire will become more the norm than the exception, experts say. A research project by the Human Resource Institute found that just 61 percent of the large companies it surveyed expected more than three quarters of its work force to consist of full-time, regular employees a decade from now, down from 84 percent today. While that may sound scary, Wharton professor Mike Useem says the midcareer executives he works with are already becoming comfortable with the notion of bouncing between employers and assignments rather than climbing the ladder at a single employer. Of course, they have no choice.

即使是知识工作者—那些将在新经济中健壮成长的高学历、高收入的专业人士，也面临着巨大的变革。在经历过1990年初那场大裁员之后，似乎每个下岗的主管都自

称是顾问，以免承认自己永久失业。专家们坦言，待岗的自由职业人才将成为更正常现象，而非例外。人力资源研究院的一个研究项目显示在被调查的大型企业中只有61％预计10年之后它们3／4的员工将由全职、常规人员组成，而现在这些人员的

比例为84％。尽管这听上去令人惊慌，沃顿商学院的Mike Useem教授说，他所共事的那些正处于职业生涯中期的管理人员已经心平气地接受频繁更换雇主和工作，而不是那种在一个老板下从一而终的观念了。当然，他们也别无选择。

8. According to Watts Wacker, a futurist with SRI International, the talent-for-hire trend of the next century is a return to the guild system of the Middle Agese, in which tradesmen traveled from town to town practicing their craft for a variety of clients. Many knowledge workers will telecommute to their various offices.

斯坦福研究所的未来学家Watts Wacker认为，下个世纪人才待岗趋势是向中世纪

的行业公会制度的回归。那时候，手艺人走乡串镇用自己的手艺为各种各样的客户服务。未来，许多知识工作者将通过与他们多个办公室相联的计算机终端远程办公

9. Even without telecommuting, if you believe one school of thought, we won’t be seeing our colleagues much in tomorrow’s workplace. So say folks like Jeremy Rifkin, author of the best-seller The End of Work, a discussion of how technology will take the place of many mass laborers. While it sounds like a chilling scenario with lots of painful unemployment, Rifkin argues it will free us up for more cultural activities and nonprofit work. “There’s no reason we shouldn’t move to a 30-hour workweek now and a 25-hour workweek 10 years from now, with higher pay and benefits,” Rifkin says. Economists scoff at the notion—if anything, they say, today’s unemployment rate and wage pressure show that we face a shortage not a surplus, of skilled labor. But Rifkin has sold more than 100,000 books and keeps a full speaking schedule, suggesting that there will always be ample work for futurologists.

即便没有远程办公，将来我们也不会象现在一样花如此多的时间和同事在一起上班,如果你相信某一学派的观点的话。某些象Jeremy Rifkin的人也是这么认为的。Jeremy Rifkin是《The End of Work》一书的作者，在这本书中他探讨了将来技术是怎样取代大量的劳动力的问题。尽管它听起来是个有许多痛苦失业者的让人心寒的故事，Rifkin辩论说，这可以解放我们去参与更多的文化活动和公益事业。“我们现在每周工作30个小时,十年后缩短为每周20个小时，并且挣得更多,福利更好,这是毫无疑问的。” Rifkin说。经济学家们嘲笑这个观点――他们认为，恰恰相反，我们现在所面临的失业率和工资压力并不是由于有技能的劳动力过剩引起的，而是这类劳动力的短缺。可Rifkin的书已经卖出了超过10万册，他的讲演时间表也是排得满满的。这说明未来学家还总是有充足的工作去做的。

10 Not everything will change. Michael Tavoletti has learned that lesson well. It’s no secret that farming has been a dying occupation for a century, but Tavoletti won’t give up his 500 acres in central Ohio without a fight. Many of the rhythms of his job haven’t changed in years: he still feeds his 100-plus head of cattle each morning and tends to fields of corn, hay and wheat each afternoon. But when it comes time to breed his cattle, Tavoletti now uses a computer to analyze what the potential of the offspring might be if he breeds, say, cow 17 with Bull 8. someday, he expects, the computers will help him optimize his planting, fertilizing and harvesting. “［I’m just］a guy who knows that technology is the key to keeping the farm in the family,” he says. He’s also a walking reminder that no matter what forecasters say, someone has to milk the cows.

并不是一切都会改变。MT对此深有体会。众所周知，一个世纪以来，耕作在逐渐衰落，但是T没有不战而败放弃在O中心的500英亩土地。多年来，他的许多生活方式都没有改变。他每天早上仍喂养他的100头牛，每天下午去照料玉米地，甘草地，麦地。但是当给他的牛配种时，T使用计算机去分析，比如说17号母牛和8号公牛进行配种产下的小牛的潜力怎么样？他期望电脑将帮助他优化种植，施肥及收割。我个人认为是技术是保住我家庭农场的关键。他说：我是个活生生的例子告诉我们不论预言家说什么，总要有人去挤牛奶。

Unit 6 Saving Nature，But Only for Man

仅为人类拯救自然

Charles Krauthammer

1. Environmental sensitivity is now as required an attitude in polite society as is,

say, belief in democracy. But now that everyone from Ted Turner to George Bush, Dow to Exxon has professed love for Mother Earth, how are we to

choose among the dozens of conflicting proposals, restrictions, projects,

regulations and laws advanced in the name of the environment? Clearly not

everything with an environmental claim is worth doing. How to choose?

在当今文明社会中，对环境的敏感性就像对民主的信仰一样是一种不可或缺的态度。但是现在从TT到BU,从D到EXXON的每个人都表达了对地球的热爱。我们如何在以环境之名提出的许多相互矛盾的建议，约束，提案，中进行选择？显而易见，并不是每件冠以环境之名的提议都值得去尝试，我们该如何选择呢？

2. There is a simple way. First, distinguish between environmental luxuries and

environmental necessities. Luxuries are those things it would be nice to

have if costless. Necessities are those things we must have regardless.

Then apply a rule. Call it the fundamental axiom of sane environmentalism:

Combatting ecological change that directly threatens the health and safety

of people is an environmental necessity. All else is luxury.

这里有一种简便的方法，首先，要区分什么是保护环境的奢侈品，什么是保护环境的必需品。奢侈的东西是那些不需要付出什么代价而能够拥有就好的东西。必需品是我们无论如何都必须要拥有的东西。其次，应用一条规则，我们可以称它为一个理智的环保主义的的基本公理：与直接威胁人类身体健康和安全的生态变化的斗争是环保的必需品。而其他的都是奢侈的行为。

3. For example: preserving the atmosphere --- stopping ozone depletion and

the greenhouse effect --- is an environmental necessity. In April scientists

reported that ozone damage is far worse than previously thought. Ozone

depletion not only causes skin cancer, it also destroys plankton, the

beginning of the food chain atop which we humans sit.

例如：保护大气层-阻止臭氧破坏及温室效应-就是必须性环保。5月份科学家报告称臭氧的破坏比我们原先现象的要严重的多。臭氧破坏不仅导致皮肤癌，而且也对处在食物链底层的浮游生物造成破坏。

例如：保护大气层-阻止臭氧层破坏和温室效应-是必须性环保。据四月份科学家报告，臭氧层的破坏远比我们原先认识的要严重的多。臭氧层的破坏不仅会造成皮肤癌，也会破坏处于人类食物链底层的浮游生物。

例如：保护大气层――阻止臭氧层的破幻和温室效应――就是必须环保。据科学家们四月份的报告,臭氧层破坏程度比我们先前认识的要严重得多。臭氧层的破坏不仅仅会引发皮肤癌，而且会摧毁4人类需要的食物链的底层的浮游生物。

4. The reality of the greenhouse effect is more speculative, though its possible

consequences are far deadlier: melting ice caps, flooded coastlines,

disrupted climate, parched plains and, ultimately, empty breadbaskets. The

American Midwest feeds the world. Are we prepared to see Iowa acquire

New Mexico’s desert climate? And Siberia acquire Iowa’s?

温室效应的真实影响都是建立在推测的基础上的，尽管它的结果可能更致命。冰川融化，海岸线被淹没，气候反常，平原干涸，最终导致大饥荒。美国中西部是世界的大粮仓。我们是否愿意看到

温室效应的现实影响更多的是建立在推测的基础上，但其可能的结果确实是致命的：正在融化冰盖，已经被淹没的海岸线，气候失常，平原干涸，最后，导致饥荒。美国的中西部是世界的大粮仓。难道我们愿意看到依阿华州变成新墨西哥州那样的沙漠气候？还是西伯利亚的气候变的象依阿华州？

5. Ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are human disasters. They

happen to occur in the environment. But they are urgent because they

directly threaten man. A sane environmentalism, the only kind of

environmentalism that will win universal public support, begins by declaring

that nature is here to serve man. A sane environmentalism is entirely

anthropocentric: it enjoins man to preserve nature, but on the grounds of

self-preservation.

臭氧层的破坏和温室效应是人类的灾难。它们恰巧发生在环境中。但是它们是紧急的，因为它们威胁到人类。理智的环保主义，是唯一能够获得大众广泛支持的环保主张，首

先要强调自然是服务于人类的，理智的环保主义是完全的以人类为中心的，它要求人类去保护环境，但是仅仅是为了保护人类自己。

臭氧的耗尽和温室效应是人类的灾难。这些碰巧在自然界里发生。但是他们非常紧急，因为他们直接威胁到人类。明智的环保主义---唯一能赢取广泛的公众支持的环保主张--首先要强调自然是服务于人类的。明智的环保主张是完全以人类为中心的。它敦促人类保护环境。但是应以人类的自我保护为基础。

臭氧层耗尽和温室效应是人类的灾难。它们碰巧出现在环境中。非常紧急是因为其直接威胁到人类的生存。理智环保主义，这种唯一会赢得全体公众支持的的环境保护主义，出发点就是自然服务于人类。理智环保主义是完全以人类为中心的：它要求人类去保护自然，但仅仅是为了保护人类自身。

6. A sane environmentalism does not sentimentalize the earth. It does not ask

people to sacrifice in the name of other creatures. After all, it is hard enough

to ask people to sacrifice in the name of other humans. ( Think of the

chronic public resistance to foreign aid and welfare. )

明智的环境保护主义并不会以地球感情用事。它不要求人们为了自然界的其他物种而做出牺牲。毕竟，很难要求人们为了他人而做出牺牲。

明智的环保主义并不对地球感情用事。它不要求人类为了其他生物而做出牺牲，毕竟，很难要求人们为了他人而做出牺牲（想想公众对外援和福利的强烈抵触）

明智的环保主张并不是对地球的感情用事。它并不要求人类为了其他生物而做

出牺牲。毕竟，要求人们为了其他人做出牺牲也很难。（想想公众对外援和福利

的强烈抵触吧）

理智环保主义可不为了地球感情用事。它不要求人们为其他生物去做牺牲。毕竟，

要人们为其他人牺牲自我都是很难的。（想想公众因反对对外国进行援助和提供福利,而进行的长期抵制吧。）

7. Of course, this anthropocentrism runs against the grain of a contemporary

environmentalism that indulges in earth worship to the point of idolatry. One

scientific theory --- Gaia theory --- actually claims that 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 benignity of nature. My nature worship stops with the April twister that

came through Kansas or the May cyclone that killed more than 125,000

Bengalis and left 10 million homeless.

当然，这种人类中心说与当今把地球上升到偶像崇拜的环境保护主义是格格不入的。有一个科学理论-G理论-声称地球是活着的有机体。这种环境保护主义更侧重于精神方面。这不过是感情用事罢了。例如：它对地球是否仁慈的片面看法。

当然，这种人类中心说和现如今那类将地球上升到偶像来崇拜的环保主义是格格不入的。有一种科学理论――盖娅理论――事实上主张地球是一个活着的有机体。这类环境保护主义侧重于考虑精神层面的东西。这只不过是感情用事。比方说，这类环境保护主义对大自然是否友善的看法是非常具有片面性的。当四月份的飓风横穿堪萨斯州, 五月份的风暴使12.5万孟加拉国人丧生并导致1000万人（！）无家可归, 终止了我对自然的崇拜。

8. A nonsentimental environmentalism is one founded on Protagoras’ maxim

that “ Man is the measure of all things.” Such a principle helps us through

the thicket of environmental argument. Take the current debate raging over

oil drilling in a corner of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

Environmentalists, mobilizing against a bill working its way through the U.S.

Congress to permit such exploration, argue that Americans should be

conserving energy instead of drilling for it. This is a false either/or

proposition. The U.S. 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 lies one of the five

largest oil fields ever discovered in America.

明智的环保主义者是建立在PRO的格言“认识衡量万物的标注”的基础上的。这样的原则帮助我们梳理错综复杂的关于环境的争论。以在ANWR一角开采石油的争论为例。环境保护主义者发动大众去反对美国国会在商议通过的石油开采法案，他们认为美国应该储存能源而不是开采能源。这是个错误的非此即彼的命题。美国需要增收能源税来减少能源的消耗。但是美国也需要产出更多的能源。政府估计在ANWR地下储存有美国已探明五大油田之一的油量，可能性达55%.

非感情用事的环保主义是建立在Protagoras的格言“人是衡量万物的标准”基础之上。这个理论可以帮助我们理清那些错综复杂的关于环境保护的争论。以当前对于在阿拉斯加州国家野生动物保护区一角钻探石油持续的争论来说，环保主义者动员民众反对国会通过目前正在审议的批准此类石油勘探的议案。他们认为美国人应该保存能源，而不是开采能源。这是个错误的非此即彼的命题。美国是需要一个高额的能源税来减少能源消费。但美国也需要更多的能源产出。政府估计在ANWR下蕴含着美国已经探明的五个最大油田之一的石油量，其可能性高达50％。

9. The U.S. 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 calving grounds of Arctic caribou.

美国刚刚经历一场战争，部分原因是为了石油。能源依赖不仅要美国付出了金钱代价同时也付出了生命代价。这是种离奇的感情用事，仅仅因为会有破坏美国驯鹿的繁殖地的风险而放弃可以和平获得石油。

美国刚刚经历一场战争，部分原因是为了石油。对能源的依赖让美国不仅付出了金钱而且也付出了生命的代价。仅仅因为可能有破坏北美驯鹿繁衍生息的地，就放弃了和平获取石油，这是多么荒唐的感情用事！

美国刚刚经历一场战争，部分原因就是因为石油。对能源的依赖不但使美国付

出了金钱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，这是一种十分荒唐的感情用事。

美国刚刚经历了一场战争，这场战争部分起因就是为石油而战。能源依赖让美国人民不仅仅付出了金钱还有生命。明明能够以和平的方式获得石油，却因有破坏北美驯鹿繁衍地的风险而放弃，这真是怪诞的感情主义。

10. I like the caribou as much as the next man. And I would be rather sorry if their

mating patterns are disturbed. But you can’t have everything. And if the

choice is between the welfare of caribou and reducing an oil dependency

that gets people killed in wars, I choose man over caribou every time.

我像其他人一样热爱驯鹿。如果它们的繁衍模式受到打搅，我感到很抱歉。但是不能事事如意。如果在美国驯鹿和减少石油依赖，这种依赖会使人在战中丧生之间选择。物品选择人而不是驯鹿。

我像其他人一样喜欢驯鹿。如果驯鹿的繁衍方式被我打乱，我感到非常的抱

歉。但是不可能事事如意！如果在美国驯鹿和减少对石油依赖之间选择，而

这种依赖会使人在战中丧生，我会选择人类而不是驯鹿。

我象他人一样喜欢驯鹿，如果他们的繁衍模式受到干扰的话，我会感到非常的遗憾。但不可能事事如意。如果在北美训鹿和减少对石油的依赖之间作出选择，而这种依赖会使人丧生的话，我总会选择人类而不是训鹿。

11. Similarly the spotted owl in Oregon. I am no enemy of the owl. If it could be

preserved at no or little cost, I would agree: the variety of nature is a good, a

high aesthetic good. But it is no more than that. And sometimes aesthetic

goods have to be sacrificed to the more fundamental ones. If the cost of

preserving the spotted owl is the loss of livelihood for 30,000 logging

families, I choose family over owl.

同样的情况还有O的斑点猫头鹰。我并不是猫头鹰的敌人。如果不用花任何代价或

者不花代价，我同意：自然界的多样性是好的事情，具有高度的美学感，但是不过如此而已。有些时候具有美感的东西必须为最更本的东西做出牺牲。如果保护斑点猫头鹰的代价是让3万名伐木工人家庭失去生机。我选择家庭而不是猫头鹰。

在—斑点猫头鹰情况类似，我不是猫头鹰的敌人。如果能够不花代价或者是花很少代价可以保护它，我同意：自然界的多样性是件好事，具有高度美学感的好事。但是不过如此罢了。有的时候美学的东西要为最基本性的东西做出牺牲。如果保护斑点猫头鹰的代价是让3万伐木工家庭失去生计，我选择家庭而不是猫头鹰。

在俄勒冈州的斑点猫头鹰也一样。我决不是猫头鹰的敌人。如果花很少代价或不

需要代价可以保护它，我同意，自然的多样性是非常好的。是具有高度美感的好

事，但就仅此而矣。有时美的东西必须为更基础的东西做牺牲。如果为了保护

斑点猫头鹰而让3万伐木工家庭失去生计，我宁愿选择家庭而不是猫头鹰。

12. The important distinction is between those environmental goods that are

fundamental and those that are merely aesthetic. Nature is our ward. It is

not our master. It is to be respected and even cultivated. But it is man’s

world. And when man has to choose between his well-being and that of

nature, nature will have to accommodate.

在环境中的东西中，最大的区别是，那些是最基本的东西，那些仅仅是为美学存在的东西。我们保护自然，自然并不是我们的主人。我们要尊重自然善待自然，但是这是人的世界。当人类在自身的幸福和自然之间选择时，自然必须做出让步。

那些环境中好的东西，最大的区别是那些是最基本的东西，那些是仅仅为美感而存在的东西。我们保护自然，自然不是我们的主任。我们尊重自然，善待自然。但是这是人类的世界。当人类在自身的幸福和自然之间进行选择时，自然必须让步。

那些环境中的好东西，其重要区别在于哪些是基本性的东西，哪些是仅为美感而存

在的东西。自然受到我们的保护，不是我们的主人。我们应该尊重自然，善待自然。但这是人类的世界。当人类要在自身的幸福和自然之间作出选择时，自然就应该做出让步。

13. Man should accommodate only when his fate and that of nature are

inextricably bound up. The most urgent accommodation must be made

when the very integrity of man’s habitat --- e.g., atmospheric ozone --- is

threatened. When the threat to man is of a lesser order (say, the pollutants

from coal-and-oil-fired generators that cause death from disease but not

fatal damage to the ecosystem), a more modulated 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 man’s

environment.

只有当人类的命运和自然的命运紧密的联系在一起时，人类才需要改变。当人类栖息地的完整性--例如大气臭氧层--受到威胁，人类必须立即改变自身的行为方式。当人类受到的威胁不是那么大（如：燃煤和燃油发电机排出的废气导致患病死亡，但对生态系统并没有致命损害），恰当的做法是通过权衡考虑经济和健康因素进行适度的调节。但适应于这两种情况的原则是一样的：保护环境--因为它是人类的环境。

只有当人类的命运和自然紧密联系在一起时，人类才需要改变。当人类完整的栖息

地-如大气层中的臭氧-受到威胁时，人类才需要立即需要改变。当人类受到的威胁不是太大时，恰当的做法是权衡经济和健康因素进行适量调整，但是这两种情况都有一个共同的原则：保护环境-因为这是人类的环境。

只有当人类的命运与自然的命运紧密联系时人类才需要改变自己。当人类的栖息地的完整性--如大气中的臭氧---受到威胁时，人类必须立即改变自身的行为方式。而当人类受到威胁较小时（比如燃煤和燃油发电机释放的污染物导致患病死亡，但对生态系统无致命损害），恰当的做法应该是通过权衡考量经济和健康因素进行适度调整。但是适用于这两种情况的原则是一致的：保护环境，因为这是我们人类的环境。

14. The sentimental environmentalists will call this saving nature with a totally

wrong frame of mind. Exactly. A sane --- a humanistic --- environmentalism

does it not for nature’s sake but for our own.

感情用事的环保主义者会说这种拯救自然的思路是不正确的。的确，理智的---人

本主义的环保主义者保护环境从保护我们自身的角度出发，而不是为了大自然而

保护环境。