寄托天下
楼主: lynnuana
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[主题活动] [1010G]Economist阅读帖 by lynnuana [复制链接]

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
46
发表于 2010-5-16 09:30:37 |只看该作者

Globalization

本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-5-18 10:53 编辑

Globalization (or globalisation) describes a process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.[1] However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors.[2] The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.

Measuring globalization

Looking specifically at economic globalization demonstrates that it can be measured in different ways. These center around the four main economic flows that characterize globalization:
  • Goods and services, e.g., exports plus imports as a proportion of national income or per capita of population
  • Labor/people, e.g., net migration rates; inward or outward migration flows, weighted by population
  • Capital, e.g., inward or outward direct investment as a proportion of national income or per head of population
  • Technology, e.g., international research & development flows; proportion of populations (and rates of change thereof) using particular inventions (especially 'factor-neutral' technological advances such as the telephone, motorcar, broadband)
As globalization is not only an economic phenomenon, a multivariate approach to measuring globalization is the recent index calculated by the Swiss think tank KOF. The index measures the three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political. In addition to three indices measuring these dimensions, an overall index of globalization and sub-indices referring to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information flows, and data on cultural proximity is calculated. Data is available on a yearly basis for 122 countries, as detailed in Dreher, Gaston and Martens (2008).[34] According to the index, the world's most globalized country is Belgium, followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The least globalized countries according to the KOF-index are Haiti, Myanmar, the Central African Republic and Burundi.[35]
A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine jointly publish another Globalization Index. According to the 2006 index, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark are the most globalized, while Indonesia, India and Iran are the least globalized among countries listed.

Effects of globalization

Globalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways such as:
  • Industrial - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies. Particularly movement of material and goods between and within national boundaries. International trade in manufactured goods increased more than 100 times (from $95 billion to $12 trillion) in the 50 years since 1955.[36] China's trade with Africa rose sevenfold during 2000-07 alone.[37][38]
  • Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for borrowers. By the early part of the 21st century more than $1.5 trillion in national currencies were traded daily to support the expanded levels of trade and investment.[39] As these worldwide structures grew more quickly than any transnational regulatory regime, the instability of the global financial infrastructure dramatically increased, as evidenced by the Financial crisis of 2007–2010.[40]
  • Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.[44] The interconnectedness of these markets, however, meant that an economic collapse in any one given country could not be contained.[citation needed]
  • Health Policy - On the global scale, health becomes a commodity. In developing nations under the demands of Structural Adjustment Programs, health systems are fragmented and privatized. Global health policy makers have shifted during the 1990s from United Nations players to financial institutions. The result of this power transition is an increase in privatization in the health sector. This privatization fragments health policy by crowding it with many players with many private interests. These fragmented policy players emphasize partnerships, specific interventions to combat specific problems (as opposed to comprehensive health strategies). Influenced by global trade and global economy, health policy is directed by technological advances and innovative medical trade. Global priorities, in this situation, are sometimes at odds with national priorities where increased health infrastructure and basic primary care are of more value to the public than privatized care for the wealthy.[47]
  • Political - some use "globalization" to mean the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among governments and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization.[49] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers, in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power.[50]
  • Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations. Arguably this is a technological change with the advent of fibre optic communications, satellites, and increased availability of telephone and Internet.
  • Language - the most popular language is Mandarin (845 million speakers) followed by Spanish (329 million speakers) and English (328 million speakers).[51]
    • About 35% of the world's mail, telexes, and cables are in English.
    • Approximately 40% of the world's radio programs are in English.
    • About 50% of all Internet traffic uses English.[52]
  • Competition - Survival in the new global business market calls for improved productivity and increased competition. Due to the market becoming worldwide, companies in various industries have to upgrade their products and use technology skillfully in order to face increased competition.[53]
  • Ecological - the advent of global environmental challenges that might be solved with international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Since many factories are built in developing countries with less environmental regulation, globalism and free trade may increase pollution. On the other hand, economic development historically required a "dirty" industrial stage, and it is argued that developing countries should not, via regulation, be prohibited from increasing their standard of living.
  • Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to increase one's standard of living and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture". Some bemoan the resulting consumerism and loss of languages. Also see Transformation of culture.
    • Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g. through the export of Hollywood and, to a lesser extent, Bollywood movies). Some consider such "imported" culture a danger, since it may supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity or even assimilation. Others consider multiculturalism to promote peace and understanding between people. A third position gaining popularity is the notion that multiculturalism to a new form of monoculture in which no distinctions exist and everyone just shift between various lifestyles in terms of music, cloth and other aspects once more firmly attached to a single culture. Thus not mere cultural assimilation as mentioned above but the obliteration of culture as we know it today.[54][55]
    • Greater international travel and tourism. WHO estimates that up to 500,000 people are on planes at any one time.[citation needed][56] In 2008, there were over 922 million international tourist arrivals, with a growth of 1.9% as compared to 2007.[57]
    • Greater immigration,[58] including illegal immigration.[59] The IOM estimates there are more than 200 million migrants around the world today.[60] Newly available data show that remittance flows to developing countries reached $328 billion in 2008.[61]
    • Spread of local consumer products (e.g., food) to other countries (often adapted to their culture).
    • Worldwide fads and pop culture such as Pokémon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami, Idol series, YouTube, Orkut, Facebook, and MySpace. Accessible to those who have Internet or Television, leaving out a substantial segment of the Earth's population.
    • Worldwide sporting events such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games.
    • Incorporation of multinational corporations in to new media. As the sponsors of the All-Blacks rugby team, Adidas had created a parallel website with a downloadable interactive rugby game for its fans to play and compete.[62]
  • Social - development of the system of non-governmental organisations as main agents of global public policy, including humanitarian aid and developmental efforts.[63]
  • Technical
  • Legal/Ethical
  • Religious
    • The spread and increased interrelations of various religious groups, ideas, and practices and their ideas of the meanings and values of particular spaces.[64]
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
47
发表于 2010-5-16 09:32:00 |只看该作者

'Methuselah' gene

本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-5-19 01:31 编辑

Why Call It Methuselah?

[size=-1]One of the Bible'spre-flood patriarchs and Noah's grandfather is Methuselah. He holds thedistinction of being the oldest man whose age is mentioned in theBible. According to biblical text, Methuselah lived to the ripe old ageof 969! Descended from Adam and Eve through their son Seth and his sonHenoch, Methuselah eventually met his maker during the great deluge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is there truth to the claim that shorter people have longer life spans? The short answer is maybe. In only a few special instances can a direct relationship be claimed. In most situations, there is no catch-all predictor for how long a person will live.

  Support of the short-stature, long-life claim can be found in people who possess what is being referred to as the Methuselah gene. Researchers have discovered that some people have a rare genetic mutation that decreases their cells' use of a particular growth hormone: insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1). As a result, these people tend to be smaller and also live a longer-than-average life span. Many animals' sizes are also controlled by differences in their IGF1-release, with a corresponding increase or decrease in life span. For example, smaller breeds of dogs have less IGF1 than larger breeds and tend to live longer.

But the final analysis? Height (or the causes of height variation) may be a factor, especially in some instances, like for those people who carry the Methuselah gene. However, there are many other dynamics involved in determining how long a person will live. These factors can include genes, lifestyle, birth weight, early childhood care and nutrition, vaccinations, antibiotics, diet and income level.

These factors seem to have an interweaving effect on what the quality of life will be like for however many years a person will live. For instance, some researchers studied the medical records of large populations of people who lived a few centuries ago. Those studies found strong links between a person's health as a fetus and baby (the first two years of life) with his or her state of health as a middle-aged adult. These links were stronger than factors such as someone's lifestyle as an adult. People born and raised under favorable conditions show substantially lower rates of chronic and fatal diseases later in life.



  Two studies looked at people whose mothers were pregnant during times of strife战争, like Holland's Hunger Winter during World War II or 1918's influenza pandemic, compared with those who were pregnant right before or after these stressful times. The offspring of the former group were more likely to have chronic diseases upon reaching middle age than their peers of the latter group [source: Kolata].
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
48
发表于 2010-5-16 09:32:14 |只看该作者

How Should Justices Judge?

本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-5-24 01:48 编辑

How Should Justices Judge?
Striking a balance between liberal and conservative legal theories
Steve Chapman | May 20, 2010

In the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, Americans willhear a debate over how to interpret the Constitution. On one handare conservatives who preach strict adherence to the framers'intent. On the other are liberals who see a flexible entity thatmust adapt to a changing world.
But you don't have to wait to assess the competing theories.Rarely have they been more starkly opposed than in the SupremeCourt verdict that life without parole may not be imposed onjuveniles who have not killed. And rarely has each side done abetter job of exposing its own flaws.
The case involved Terrance Graham, a Florida juvenile jailed foran attempted armed robbery. Upon his release, the 17-year-old tookpart in an armed home invasion. Exceeding the recommendation ofprosecutors, a judge gave him life without parole.
But that sentence, concluded the Supreme Court, violated theEighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments." Fivejustices said putting a minor away for life is always excessive,and another (Chief Justice John Roberts) agreed it was in thisinstance.
The verdict exasperated Justices Clarence Thomas and AntoninScalia for the simple reason that the life sentence "would not haveoffended the standards that prevailed at the founding." Besides,Thomas wrote, the Eighth Amendment was meant to bar forms ofpunishment that involve torture, not penalties that are merelydisproportionate to the crime.
But as Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out, Thomas and Scalia"would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft bya 7-year-old," which according to them was permissible in 1789.
Executing a second-grader for stealing a video game, whileinsisting the penalty is not cruel and unusual? An interpretiveapproach that leads to such ludicrous conclusions has no real use.This single dissent cruelly exposes the limits of the "originalintent" school.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, however, does nearlyas much damage to his subjective style of interpretation. It'slarded with value judgments that seem only vaguely connected toconstitutional principles and precedents.
He complains that with a life-without-parole sentence, "thestate makes an irrevocable judgment about that person's value andplace in society." He laments, "A life without parole sentenceimproperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrategrowth and maturity."
So? Where does the Constitution guarantee violent felons theopportunity to "demonstrate growth and maturity"? Or the right toregular reassessments of their "value and place in society"?
A few years ago, the court wisely prohibited the death penaltyfor adolescents. "The most severe punishment," said Kennedy then,is appropriate only for criminals mature enough to be guilty of"extreme culpability." But now, without a persuasive explanation,the next most severe punishment is also off the table.
Most likely it should be, and Roberts' concurring opinion did afar better job of explaining why. He made a strong case that thecombination of Graham's age, the uncommon severity of thepunishment, and Florida's relative leniency toward adult murderersmade the sentence indefensible.
This judicious argument by Roberts, a conservative, offers a waybetween Thomas' rigid obedience to ancient assumptions andKennedy's indulgence of personal impulses. A similar one, from aliberal perspective, can be found in David Strauss' succinct andelegant new book The Living Constitution.
The author, a law professor at the University of Chicago,advocates a "common-law" mode of judging. It rests on respect forthe essential principles of the framers and for past decisions bycourts applying those principles to new circumstances.
This is "the constitution as it actually operates, in practice,"Strauss writes. "On a day-to-day basis, American constitutional lawis about precedents, and when precedents leave off, it is aboutcommonsense notions of fairness and good policy."
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
49
发表于 2010-5-16 09:32:30 |只看该作者

10 Reasons to Go to a Research University

本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-5-24 01:58 编辑

10 Reasons to Go to a Research University
April 28, 2010 03:57 PM ET | Lynn F. Jacobs, Jeremy S. Hyman | Permanent Link | Print

May 1 is a new holiday on the college calendar: National Candidate Reply Date, also referred to by many as Decision Day. That's the day by which more than 2 million students must decide where to go to college and tell the school of their choice. Some students will be choosing between a college that focuses on teaching and a university that emphasizes research. And many will think that a teaching college would always be the obvious best choice. After all, you're going there to learn, so why wouldn't you go to a college that emphasizes teaching? But there are some real advantages to the research university that might be worth your while to consider. Here are 10:

1. Top researchers can also be top teachers. It's often thought that professors who are serious about their research programs couldn't care less about teaching and/or are lousy teachers. Instead, many researchers carry their passion for the field into the classroom and are inspirational teachers and role models. Also, professors who do research generally understand the field better than ones who don't, so they can explain the material better to students—especially when it comes to more advanced courses and topics.

2. Courses at research universities often incorporate the latest research. Faculty who are engaged in research are more in touch with breaking developments in their field. And they're more likely to include this material—including discoveries too recent to make it into the textbook—in their classes. This makes for more exciting and up-to-date courses that are a whole lot more interesting than courses that are a remix of what's already in the book.

3. The faculty can be more energized. Faculty at research universities are often making genuine discoveries and receiving recognition for their work. Large salaries, prizes, publications in distinguished journals or at prestigious presses, participation in international conferences or workshops: all of these mean prestige to the professor and, simply, feeling good about him or herself. These good feelings can carry over to the classroom when the professor feels genuine excitement and meaning in sharing with the students what he or she has discovered.

4. There is the possibility of internships and collaborative research with experts. Studies have shown that some of the best educational experiences for college students take place not in the classroom, but in their interactions with professors outside the classroom, especially in the context of shared research activities. Such collaborative projects provide chances for students to themselves become researchers, and even sometimes coauthors of published papers or copresenters at conferences, either of which is a major feather in anyone's cap.

5. There tend to be more—and more fine-grained—majors. The large size of the research university may have its drawbacks, but one advantage is a larger faculty and a larger range of disciplines taught. This means that students get a lot more choices of majors. For example, at the University of California—Berkeley, you can choose from more than 300 majors and programs. Moreover, within a single field of inquiry, you'll find many fine-tuned variations: in the biological sciences at Berkeley, you can choose Integrative Biology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Immunology, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology. And then there are more obscure majors, too: you'll find Demography, Epidemiology, Media Studies, Folklore, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual and Transgender Studies, and Native American Studies. At a small college, on the other hand, you might find only 25 to 30 majors to choose from. Choice is good.

6. There are state-of-the-art facilities for research publication. Research universities have to provide top facilities so that their faculty can properly accomplish the research required of them. That means that the university has to invest in larger libraries and other equipment needed for research in various fields. In addition, the research faculty are able to, and at most research universities are expected to, win various kinds of grants from government, business and other agencies to pay for research costs. All this benefits the undergraduates who can then have access to the fancy lasers, rapid prototyping machines, or whatever else the faculty is playing with.

7. You can have contact with graduate students. The fact that research universities devote significant attention to training graduate students is often seen in a very negative light. Some people complain about grad students getting the bulk of faculty attention and, worse, about grad students doing lots of the teaching in undergraduate courses—and being inexperienced, bad teachers to boot. We don't deny that these can be problems. But undergraduate students can benefit from hanging out with grad students. Often grad students are willing to mentor and advise undergraduates about careers, and, yes, graduate school. And their devotion and serious involvement with learning sets a great example for undergrads to follow.

8. You get a chance to take graduate courses—if you're up to it. For a student who is really interested and serious about a field, there is nothing more rewarding than taking a graduate course. These courses are more advanced and specialized than any undergraduate course, and they give you a taste of what it's like to play in the big leagues. And this can be an opportunity for students to make the critical leap from just mastering a field to actually advancing the field through their own discoveries.

9. You could get an advantage for admission to graduate and professional schools. Graduate and professional schools tend to think that students from research universities will be better trained than students coming from smaller colleges, especially when the research universities have faculty members who are well known in the field. Graduate and professional schools put extra faith in letters of recommendation that come from professors whose names they know. It's the top researchers in the field who have the best name recognition.

10. You can network with distinguished and well-placed people in the field. Researchers generally have great connections and can help their students get networked with key players in the field. These days many researchers will take students with them to conferences and introduce them around. This is a great way to get established in a field and launch yourself in a job or career.

One final note: We do not mean to suggest here that no faculty teaching at colleges are engaged in research and that every faculty member at a research university is doing research. There are fantastic researchers who work at colleges, and faculty at research universities who view tenure as their license to loaf. Nevertheless, in general, research universities expect faculty to spend a large portion of their time on research, while colleges generally expect less research.
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
50
发表于 2010-5-25 23:47:18 |只看该作者

Morality and Politics

by David Kelley

A nation's political trends are governed by several factors--the state of the economy, the vested interests of politicians and bureaucrats, the attitudes of the media, and many others. But the fundamental factor is moral: the beliefs people have about right and wrong, good and bad; their aspirations for their lives; the virtues they practice and vices they denounce; the responsibilities and obligations they accept; the things they feel entitled to; the standards that govern their sense of fair play; the ideals that shape their sense of what is worthy.

Social Security
The impact of morality on politics is obvious for many of the issues on the political front burner today, such as sex and violence in popular entertainment, or the alleged decline of "family values." But these are just the tip of the iceberg. To understand the broader and more pervasive impact of morality, consider another issue on the front burner: Social Security reform.
On its face, the plan to privatize the government retirement system is not a moral issue but an economic one. Advocates of the plan argue that because Social Security is a "pay as you go" system, in which current benefits are paid by current taxes rather than by returns on funds invested in the past, the system is headed for financial disaster as the number of retirees increases in proportion to the number of workers supporting them. Opponents claim that the problems can be fixed by relatively minor adjustments to the retirement age, payroll tax rates, and benefit levels.
Opponents of the privatization plan also claim that investing retirement funds in the stock market is too risky a proposition for most people; too many would end up destitute in old age. Advocates of privatization argue that the market trends upward over the long-term, and that the returns people get over an extended period will far exceed what they can expect from Social Security.
So where in the debate over Social Security does morality enter the picture?
Everywhere.
Social Security was created in 1935 as the centerpiece of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Imagine that 150 years earlier, someone had proposed to the Founding Fathers, at the Constitutional Convention where they were creating a new federal government, that the government pay for every citizen's retirement by taxing a portion of every citizen's earnings. It would have been denounced as a system of universal dependence and universal slavery, an insulting attempt to treat free men like the mob in ancient Rome. What made Social Security possible in 1935 was not economic change. It was not the Depression. There had been depressions before, and absolute standards of living were still much higher in the 1930s than in previous generations, despite the increase in relative poverty.
What made Social Security possible was the growth of collectivist thinking among intellectuals and cultural leaders during the preceding century. The ground was prepared by critics of individualism who taught that solidarity and equality are more important than freedom. As I noted in my 1998 book A Life of One's Own, thinkers like Thomas Hill Green and L.T. Hobhouse in England and John Dewey in America explicitly rejected the tenets of individualism. They attacked the pursuit of self-interest as selfish, insisting that individualists must be made to serve the public interest. They attacked the culture of self-reliance, insisting that individuals are creatures of their social environment. During the decades prior to the New Deal, advocates of the welfare state claimed that the poor are not responsible for their condition; they attacked private charity organizations for trying to teach "bourgeois" virtues to the poor. They argued that the old rights of life, liberty, and property had to be supplemented with new rights to economic security provided by the government.
Roosevelt was relying on this cultural background when he crowed that the New Deal represented "an appeal from the clamor of many private and selfish interests . . . to the ideal of the public interest," and when he spoke of "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be secured for all." These moral assumptions were essential to the creation of Social Security and other welfare state programs.
The same assumptions operate today. Critics of Social Security privatization appeal to the "solemn compact between the generations" (2000 Democratic National Platform, p. 5), that is, the moral ideal of solidarity. They argue that society has a moral obligation to provide for the essential needs of its members. They defend Social Security's massive transfers of wealth--from workers to retirees, from the wealthy to the poor, from men to women, from the able-bodied to the disabled-on the grounds of equality.


The Unknown Ideal
This is not to say that moral assumptions are the only relevant factors. Economists have shown the deleterious effects of the current system. The Cato Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and other think tanks have worked out proposals showing in detail how a private system would work-and how to get there from here. José Piñera, architect of Chile's privatization, has been a tireless promoter of similar efforts worldwide. Without this massive evidence for the practicality of a private system, a purely moral argument would never get a hearing. The same is true for other efforts to get government out of our lives.
But without the moral argument, the practical arguments don't stand a chance, either. We have a mixed economy because we have a mixed culture. Our market society is saddled with government regulations and subsidies because our individualist culture is densely marbled with veins of altruist, egalitarian, and communitarian moral premises. Advocates of freedom have had great success in areas like deregulating the airlines and privatizing municipal services, where there is no strong moral sentiment to overcome. But we have had little success in cutting back the welfare state, which rests on an unchallenged altruist foundation. And we are losing ground in areas like civil rights and the environment, where the enemy's moral assumptions are in the ascendancy.
In economic terms, capitalism has won its century-long battle against socialism. But in moral terms, as Ayn Rand said, it remains an unknown ideal.
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
51
发表于 2010-5-26 12:40:51 |只看该作者

Love is a Fallacy

Love is a Fallacy
by Max Shulman

Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist’s scales, as penetrating as a scalpel. And—think of it!—I only eighteen.

It is not often that one so young has such a giant intellect. Take, for example, Petey Bellows, my roommate at the university. Same age, same background, but dumb as an ox. A nice enough fellow, you understand, but nothing upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable. Worst of all, a faddist. Fads, I submit, are the very negation of reason. To be swept up in every new craze that comes along, to surrender oneself to idiocy just because everybody else is doing it—this, to me, is the acme of mindlessness. Not, however, to Petey.

One afternoon I found Petey lying on his bed with an expression of such distress on his face that I immediately diagnosed appendicitis. “Don’t move,” I said, “Don’t take a laxative. I’ll get a doctor.”

“Raccoon,” he mumbled thickly.

“Raccoon?” I said, pausing in my flight.

“I want a raccoon coat,” he wailed.

I perceived that his trouble was not physical, but mental. “Why do you want a raccoon coat?”

“I should have known it,” he cried, pounding his temples. “I should have known they’d come back when the Charleston came back. Like a fool I spent all my money for textbooks, and now I can’t get a raccoon coat.”

“Can you mean,” I said incredulously, “that people are actually wearing raccoon coats again?”

“All the Big Men on Campus are wearing them. Where’ve you been?”

“In the library,” I said, naming a place not frequented by Big Men on Campus.

He leaped from the bed and paced the room. “I’ve got to have a raccoon coat,” he said passionately. “I’ve got to!”

“Petey, why? Look at it rationally. Raccoon coats are unsanitary. They shed. They smell bad. They weigh too much. They’re unsightly. They—”

“You don’t understand,” he interrupted impatiently. “It’s the thing to do. Don’t you want to be in the swim?”

“No,” I said truthfully.

“Well, I do,” he declared. “I’d give anything for a raccoon coat. Anything!”

My brain, that precision instrument, slipped into high gear. “Anything?” I asked, looking at him narrowly.

“Anything,” he affirmed in ringing tones.

I stroked my chin thoughtfully. It so happened that I knew where to get my hands on a raccoon coat. My father had had one in his undergraduate days; it lay now in a trunk in the attic back home. It also happened that Petey had something I wanted. He didn’t have it exactly, but at least he had first rights on it. I refer to his girl, Polly Espy.

I had long coveted Polly Espy. Let me emphasize that my desire for this young woman was not emotional in nature. She was, to be sure, a girl who excited the emotions, but I was not one to let my heart rule my head. I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated, entirely cerebral reason.

I was a freshman in law school. In a few years I would be out in practice. I was well aware of the importance of the right kind of wife in furthering a lawyer’s career. The successful lawyers I had observed were, almost without exception, married to beautiful, gracious, intelligent women. With one omission, Polly fitted these specifications perfectly.

Beautiful she was. She was not yet of pin-up proportions, but I felt that time would supply the lack. She already had the makings.

Gracious she was. By gracious I mean full of graces. She had an erectness of carriage, an ease of bearing, a poise that clearly indicated the best of breeding. At table her manners were exquisite. I had seen her at the Kozy Kampus Korner eating the specialty of the house—a sandwich that contained scraps of pot roast, gravy, chopped nuts, and a dipper of sauerkraut—without even getting her fingers moist.

Intelligent she was not. In fact, she veered in the opposite direction. But I believed that under my guidance she would smarten up. At any rate, it was worth a try. It is, after all, easier to make a beautiful dumb girl smart than to make an ugly smart girl beautiful.

“Petey,” I said, “are you in love with Polly Espy?”

“I think she’s a keen kid,” he replied, “but I don’t know if you’d call it love. Why?”

“Do you,” I asked, “have any kind of formal arrangement with her? I mean are you going steady or anything like that?”

“No. We see each other quite a bit, but we both have other dates. Why?”

“Is there,” I asked, “any other man for whom she has a particular fondness?”

“Not that I know of. Why?”

I nodded with satisfaction. “In other words, if you were out of the picture, the field would be open. Is that right?”

“I guess so. What are you getting at?”

“Nothing , nothing,” I said innocently, and took my suitcase out the closet.

“Where are you going?” asked Petey.

“Home for weekend.” I threw a few things into the bag.

“Listen,” he said, clutching my arm eagerly, “while you’re home, you couldn’t get some money from your old man, could you, and lend it to me so I can buy a raccoon coat?”

“I may do better than that,” I said with a mysterious wink and closed my bag and left.







“Look,” I said to Petey when I got back Monday morning. I threw open the suitcase and revealed the huge, hairy, gamy object that my father had worn in his Stutz Bearcat in 1925.

“Holy Toledo!” said Petey reverently. He plunged his hands into the raccoon coat and then his face. “Holy Toledo!” he repeated fifteen or twenty times.

“Would you like it?” I asked.

“Oh yes!” he cried, clutching the greasy pelt to him. Then a canny look came into his eyes. “What do you want for it?”

“Your girl.” I said, mincing no words.

“Polly?” he said in a horrified whisper. “You want Polly?”

“That’s right.”

He flung the coat from him. “Never,” he said stoutly.

I shrugged. “Okay. If you don’t want to be in the swim, I guess it’s your business.”

I sat down in a chair and pretended to read a book, but out of the corner of my eye I kept watching Petey. He was a torn man. First he looked at the coat with the expression of a waif at a bakery window. Then he turned away and set his jaw resolutely. Then he looked back at the coat, with even more longing in his face. Then he turned away, but with not so much resolution this time. Back and forth his head swiveled, desire waxing, resolution waning. Finally he didn’t turn away at all; he just stood and stared with mad lust at the coat.

“It isn’t as though I was in love with Polly,” he said thickly. “Or going steady or anything like that.”

“That’s right,” I murmured.

“What’s Polly to me, or me to Polly?”

“Not a thing,” said I.

“It’s just been a casual kick—just a few laughs, that’s all.”

“Try on the coat,” said I.

He complied. The coat bunched high over his ears and dropped all the way down to his shoe tops. He looked like a mound of dead raccoons. “Fits fine,” he said happily.

I rose from my chair. “Is it a deal?” I asked, extending my hand.

He swallowed. “It’s a deal,” he said and shook my hand.







I had my first date with Polly the following evening. This was in the nature of a survey; I wanted to find out just how much work I had to do to get her mind up to the standard I required. I took her first to dinner. “Gee, that was a delish dinner,” she said as we left the restaurant. Then I took her to a movie. “Gee, that was a marvy movie,” she said as we left the theatre. And then I took her home. “Gee, I had a sensaysh time,” she said as she bade me good night.

I went back to my room with a heavy heart. I had gravely underestimated the size of my task. This girl’s lack of information was terrifying. Nor would it be enough merely to supply her with information. First she had to be taught to think. This loomed as a project of no small dimensions, and at first I was tempted to give her back to Petey. But then I got to thinking about her abundant physical charms and about the way she entered a room and the way she handled a knife and fork, and I decided to make an effort.

I went about it, as in all things, systematically. I gave her a course in logic. It happened that I, as a law student, was taking a course in logic myself, so I had all the facts at my fingertips. “Poll’,” I said to her when I picked her up on our next date, “tonight we are going over to the Knoll and talk.”

“Oo, terrif,” she replied. One thing I will say for this girl: you would go far to find another so agreeable.

We went to the Knoll, the campus trysting place, and we sat down under an old oak, and she looked at me expectantly. “What are we going to talk about?” she asked.

“Logic.”

She thought this over for a minute and decided she liked it. “Magnif,” she said.

“Logic,” I said, clearing my throat, “is the science of thinking. Before we can think correctly, we must first learn to recognize the common fallacies of logic. These we will take up tonight.”

“Wow-dow!” she cried, clapping her hands delightedly.

I winced, but went bravely on. “First let us examine the fallacy called Dicto Simpliciter.”

“By all means,” she urged, batting her lashes eagerly.

“Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on an unqualified generalization. For example: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise.”

“I agree,” said Polly earnestly. “I mean exercise is wonderful. I mean it builds the body and everything.”

“Polly,” I said gently, “the argument is a fallacy. Exercise is good is an unqualified generalization. For instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many people are ordered by their doctors not to exercise. You must qualify the generalization. You must say exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people. Otherwise you have committed a Dicto Simpliciter. Do you see?”

“No,” she confessed. “But this is marvy. Do more! Do more!”

“It will be better if you stop tugging at my sleeve,” I told her, and when she desisted, I continued. “Next we take up a fallacy called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You can’t speak French. Petey Bellows can’t speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.”

“Really?” said Polly, amazed. “Nobody?”

I hid my exasperation. “Polly, it’s a fallacy. The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion.”

“Know any more fallacies?” she asked breathlessly. “This is more fun than dancing even.”

I fought off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with this girl, absolutely nowhere. Still, I am nothing if not persistent. I continued. “Next comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Let’s not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.”

“I know somebody just like that,” she exclaimed. “A girl back home—Eula Becker, her name is. It never fails. Every single time we take her on a picnic—”

“Polly,” I said sharply, “it’s a fallacy. Eula Becker doesn’t cause the rain. She has no connection with the rain. You are guilty of Post Hoc if you blame Eula Becker.”

“I’ll never do it again,” she promised contritely. “Are you mad at me?”

I sighed. “No, Polly, I’m not mad.”

“Then tell me some more fallacies.”

“All right. Let’s try Contradictory Premises.”

“Yes, let’s,” she chirped, blinking her eyes happily.

I frowned, but plunged ahead. “Here’s an example of Contradictory Premises: If God can do anything, can He make a stone so heavy that He won’t be able to lift it?”

“Of course,” she replied promptly.

“But if He can do anything, He can lift the stone,” I pointed out.

“Yeah,” she said thoughtfully. “Well, then I guess He can’t make the stone.”

“But He can do anything,” I reminded her.

She scratched her pretty, empty head. “I’m all confused,” she admitted.

“Of course you are. Because when the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no argument. If there is an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. If there is an immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. Get it?”

“Tell me more of this keen stuff,” she said eagerly.

I consulted my watch. “I think we’d better call it a night. I’ll take you home now, and you go over all the things you’ve learned. We’ll have another session tomorrow night.”

I deposited her at the girls’ dormitory, where she assured me that she had had a perfectly terrif evening, and I went glumly home to my room. Petey lay snoring in his bed, the raccoon coat huddled like a great hairy beast at his feet. For a moment I considered waking him and telling him that he could have his girl back. It seemed clear that my project was doomed to failure. The girl simply had a logic-proof head.

But then I reconsidered. I had wasted one evening; I might as well waste another. Who knew? Maybe somewhere in the extinct crater of her mind a few members still smoldered. Maybe somehow I could fan them into flame. Admittedly it was not a prospect fraught with hope, but I decided to give it one more try.







Seated under the oak the next evening I said, “Our first fallacy tonight is called Ad Misericordiam.”

She quivered with delight.

“Listen closely,” I said. “A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies that he has a wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming.”

A tear rolled down each of Polly’s pink cheeks. “Oh, this is awful, awful,” she sobbed.

“Yes, it’s awful,” I agreed, “but it’s no argument. The man never answered the boss’s question about his qualifications. Instead he appealed to the boss’s sympathy. He committed the fallacy of Ad Misericordiam. Do you understand?”

“Have you got a handkerchief?” she blubbered.

I handed her a handkerchief and tried to keep from screaming while she wiped her eyes. “Next,” I said in a carefully controlled tone, “we will discuss False Analogy. Here is an example: Students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during examinations. After all, surgeons have X-rays to guide them during an operation, lawyers have briefs to guide them during a trial, carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a house. Why, then, shouldn’t students be allowed to look at their textbooks during an examination?”

“There now,” she said enthusiastically, “is the most marvy idea I’ve heard in years.”

“Polly,” I said testily, “the argument is all wrong. Doctors, lawyers, and carpenters aren’t taking a test to see how much they have learned, but students are. The situations are altogether different, and you can’t make an analogy between them.”

“I still think it’s a good idea,” said Polly.

“Nuts,” I muttered. Doggedly I pressed on. “Next we’ll try Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.”

“Sounds yummy,” was Polly’s reaction.

“Listen: If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium.”

“True, true,” said Polly, nodding her head “Did you see the movie? Oh, it just knocked me out. That Walter Pidgeon is so dreamy. I mean he fractures me.”

“If you can forget Mr. Pidgeon for a moment,” I said coldly, “I would like to point out that statement is a fallacy. Maybe Madame Curie would have discovered radium at some later date. Maybe somebody else would have discovered it. Maybe any number of things would have happened. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it.”

“They ought to put Walter Pidgeon in more pictures,” said Polly, “I hardly ever see him any more.”

One more chance, I decided. But just one more. There is a limit to what flesh and blood can bear. “The next fallacy is called Poisoning the Well.”

“How cute!” she gurgled.

“Two men are having a debate. The first one gets up and says, ‘My opponent is a notorious liar. You can’t believe a word that he is going to say.’ ... Now, Polly, think. Think hard. What’s wrong?”

I watched her closely as she knit her creamy brow in concentration. Suddenly a glimmer of intelligence—the first I had seen—came into her eyes. “It’s not fair,” she said with indignation. “It’s not a bit fair. What chance has the second man got if the first man calls him a liar before he even begins talking?”

“Right!” I cried exultantly. “One hundred per cent right. It’s not fair. The first man has poisoned the well before anybody could drink from it. He has hamstrung his opponent before he could even start ... Polly, I’m proud of you.”

“Pshaws,” she murmured, blushing with pleasure.

“You see, my dear, these things aren’t so hard. All you have to do is concentrate. Think—examine—evaluate. Come now, let’s review everything we have learned.”

“Fire away,” she said with an airy wave of her hand.

Heartened by the knowledge that Polly was not altogether a cretin, I began a long, patient review of all I had told her. Over and over and over again I cited instances, pointed out flaws, kept hammering away without letup. It was like digging a tunnel. At first, everything was work, sweat, and darkness. I had no idea when I would reach the light, or even if I would. But I persisted. I pounded and clawed and scraped, and finally I was rewarded. I saw a chink of light. And then the chink got bigger and the sun came pouring in and all was bright.

Five grueling nights with this took, but it was worth it. I had made a logician out of Polly; I had taught her to think. My job was done. She was worthy of me, at last. She was a fit wife for me, a proper hostess for my many mansions, a suitable mother for my well-heeled children.

It must not be thought that I was without love for this girl. Quite the contrary. Just as Pygmalion loved the perfect woman he had fashioned, so I loved mine. I decided to acquaint her with my feelings at our very next meeting. The time had come to change our relationship from academic to romantic.

“Polly,” I said when next we sat beneath our oak, “tonight we will not discuss fallacies.”

“Aw, gee,” she said, disappointed.

“My dear,” I said, favoring her with a smile, “we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched.”

“Hasty Generalization,” said Polly brightly.

“I beg your pardon,” said I.

“Hasty Generalization,” she repeated. “How can you say that we are well matched on the basis of only five dates?”

I chuckled with amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons well. “My dear,” I said, patting her hand in a tolerant manner, “five dates is plenty. After all, you don’t have to eat a whole cake to know that it’s good.”

“False Analogy,” said Polly promptly. “I’m not a cake. I’m a girl.”

I chuckled with somewhat less amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons perhaps too well. I decided to change tactics. Obviously the best approach was a simple, strong, direct declaration of love. I paused for a moment while my massive brain chose the proper word. Then I began:

“Polly, I love you. You are the whole world to me, the moon and the stars and the constellations of outer space. Please, my darling, say that you will go steady with me, for if you will not, life will be meaningless. I will languish. I will refuse my meals. I will wander the face of the earth, a shambling, hollow-eyed hulk.”

There, I thought, folding my arms, that ought to do it.

“Ad Misericordiam,” said Polly.

I ground my teeth. I was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein, and my monster had me by the throat. Frantically I fought back the tide of panic surging through me; at all costs I had to keep cool.

“Well, Polly,” I said, forcing a smile, “you certainly have learned your fallacies.”

“You’re darn right,” she said with a vigorous nod.

“And who taught them to you, Polly?”

“You did.”

“That’s right. So you do owe me something, don’t you, my dear? If I hadn’t come along you never would have learned about fallacies.”

“Hypothesis Contrary to Fact,” she said instantly.

I dashed perspiration from my brow. “Polly,” I croaked, “you mustn’t take all these things so literally. I mean this is just classroom stuff. You know that the things you learn in school don’t have anything to do with life.”

“Dicto Simpliciter,” she said, wagging her finger at me playfully.

That did it. I leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. “Will you or will you not go steady with me?”

“I will not,” she replied.

“Why not?” I demanded.

“Because this afternoon I promised Petey Bellows that I would go steady with him.”

I reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. After he promised, after he made a deal, after he shook my hand! “The rat!” I shrieked, kicking up great chunks of turf. “You can’t go with him, Polly. He’s a liar. He’s a cheat. He’s a rat.”

“Poisoning the Well ,” said Polly, “and stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy too.”

With an immense effort of will, I modulated my voice. “All right,” I said. “You’re a logician. Let’s look at this thing logically. How could you choose Petey Bellows over me? Look at me—a brilliant student, a tremendous intellectual, a man with an assured future. Look at Petey—a knothead, a jitterbug, a guy who’ll never know where his next meal is coming from. Can you give me one logical reason why you should go steady with Petey Bellows?”

“I certainly can,” declared Polly. “He’s got a raccoon coat.”
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
52
发表于 2010-5-26 12:41:09 |只看该作者
本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-6-2 23:12 编辑

Britain and the second world war
Boys in blue在沮丧中
Telling the story once more at the 70th anniversary
May 13th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

The Battle of Britain: Five Months That Changed History, May-October 1940. By James Holland. Bantam Press; 677 pages; £25. Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Correction to this article

EVERY country’s version of the second world war is selective. For Russians, it starts with Hitler’s unprovoked attack in 1941 and highlights the colossal battles in the east. For Americans, it starts with Pearl Harbour and features the Normandy beaches and Guadalcanal. Germans may privately start the story rather earlier, with the humiliation at Versailles which brought economic collapse and fuelled Hitler’s rise to power.

Each version is true up to a point. And each seems a bit odd to outsiders. James Holland’s comprehensive and readable history of the battle of Britain exemplifies the particular British blend of amnesia and nostalgia that the war arouses.

Yet in any terms, this is a tremendous story. In September 1939, Britain was fighting a phoney war(假战争(1939年9月到1940年5月间,德法两军各守防线,按兵不动,被称为假战争)) alongside a seemingly powerful ally, France. Less than a year later, the country’s survival depended on whether a fragile array of a few hundred fighter planes, flown by exhausted young men, could prevent Hitler’s Luftwaffe德国空军 from gaining the air superiority优势 necessary for “Operation Sealion(海狮计划(第二次世界大战时德军登陆英国计划))”: the first invasion of England since 1066.

The happy combination of youthful gallantry triumphing against overwhelming odds with brainy boffins giving the vital technological edge (through radar, and the brilliantly designed Spitfires and Hurricanes), as well as inspirational leaders using flawless tactics and matchless rhetoric, is irresistible. The author has an encyclopedic knowledge of his subject, weaving together reminiscences from both sides, statistics and technical details into the broader picture.
He describes the collapse in France and the near-miraculous rescue in mid-1940 of nearly 340,000 British and French soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk. He also tells the story of the carnage of poorly protected merchant shipping in the early months of the war which threatened to strangle Britain’s supply lines. He ends with Hitler’s fateful decision to postpone Sealion in September of the same year. The Luftwaffe had lost too many planes and pilots to the RAF’s fighters(英国皇家空军(=Royal Air Force)), while Bomber Command had punctured Germany’s myth of invincibility打破无敌神话.

Published to mark the 70th anniversary of the battle of Britain, this book should sell well. But it will leave many readers unsatisfied. One problem is its glibness. Hitler can rightly be criticised for his many disastrous mistakes. But to write of the Nazi leader’s “almost complete lack of military understanding” is wrong: his problem was too much (self-taught) military knowledge, not too little. Similarly, to call the German general Gerd von Rundstedt a “pigheaded fool” is lazy language that would be out of place in a schoolboy essay, let alone in something that purports to be the work of a professional historian. Throughout the book, the language is unsettlingly colloquial口语通俗 and anachronistic. Confusingly, Mr Holland calls the pilots by their first names, though they refer to each other in diaries and memoirs by their surnames.

A bigger problem is that the author’s enthusiasm for his subject is not matched by his grip了解 of history. He peddles the Anglocentric myth that Britain was “alone” in the summer of 1940 (insultingly forgetting Greece, Poland and the entire British empire). Too many characters appear, with annoyingly similar potted摘要 biographies. Their tinnily-told言之无物 stories swamp the rather skimpy treatment of the underlying war-winning narrative, such as the innovative tactics of a brilliant New Zealander, Keith Park, and the way that Max Aitken revolutionised aircraft production. Heroism is indeed captivating. But it was more than heroism that kept Britain out of Nazi captivity.

Correction: We wrongly wrote that Winston Churchill said the Battle of Britain in 1940 marked not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning. He was in fact referring to the victory at El Alamein in 1942. This was corrected on May 24th 2010.

中译 1 2
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
53
发表于 2010-5-26 12:41:30 |只看该作者

都市 建筑 科技

本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-6-3 00:14 编辑

Green.view
How to be urban
Some enterprising architects grapple with the cityscapes of the 2030s         
Jun 1st 2010         
         
THERE is a hole in the green imagination about 20 years away. In the short term—the next ten years, say—the environmentalists’ vision is usually of a world similar to this one with a bit less of one thing (carbon dioxide) and a bit more of a panoply of others (windmills, forests, smartgrids智能电网 and the like). In the far off future of 2050 and beyond, the world is meant to look very different indeed. Carbon-dioxide emissions should, by then, be less than half what they are now; in today’s rich countries they should have fallen by 90% or so. This means entirely new infrastructures and technologies, and perhaps entirely new ways of life, too.

That, however, leaves something of a disconnect around 2030. So there is a need to imagine a sort of bridge between the now-like near future and the Utopian not-so-near one. The Audi Urban Future Award, a project unveiled at a conference in London on May 28th, aims to help. Six innovative architectural practices have been asked to produce projects with a vision for 2030. The results will be revealed at the Venice Architecture Biennale later this summer, and the winner will receive$123,000.

The six competing firms are a cross-section of architecture’s youngish avant garde先锋派. Alison Brooks Architects, of London, has a strong background in urban planning. The Bjarke Ingels Group from Copenhagen is experimental and playful. Diller Scofidio + Renfro are perhaps best known for a building defined by a cloud of water droplets built for an expo in Switzerland. Cloud 9 of Barcelona looks for buildings that are sensitive to their local climate and conditions. Jürgen Mayer H, from Germany, has produced a remarkable roof for a market square in Seville. And Standard-architecture of Beijing gave a remarkable presentation of its city surrounded by green skyscrapers like man-made versions of the Guilin mountains.

There was, indeed, an odd orderliness about many of the presentations, not least in the way they dealt with cars. Pretty much all of the presentations assumed that cars would be self-piloting within 20 years, and that their interiors would, to some extent, be transformed into extensions of living spaces.

Some suggested a sort of descendant of the iPad offering an interface between car and passengers, an idea that seemed to emphasise the way in which the vehicles would feel like blank slates白板,新开始. But if the iPad was one of the common themes joining many of the presentations, reminding the audience that Audi is not the only company in the smooth, cool aluminium business, another repeated image was that of Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Mustang in the film “Bullitt”, looking very unlike a man who just happened to be sitting in a room that moved. How the notion of power and autonomy built into the car and its associated desires can be domesticated in ever denser cities will be a crucial matter for at least some of these practices to deal with in their finished projects.

Another, more radical step would be to question the notion of personal mobility itself. At the moment, people need such mobility because there are things they want to bring home as well as places they need to get to. Electronic networks may change that. It is not completely far-fetched to imagine charming, vast and dense cities in which most human movement takes place on foot while most movement of goods is by robot delivery systems.

But perhaps the whole exercise is misconceived. Cities are perfect examples of the sorts of system that emerge from unplanned preferences even as they seem to demand large-scale planning. The question is whether the patterns of that emergence can be shaped by changing the objects of desire, or whether it is necessary to change the desire itself. If the former, then experts in beautiful buildings and sleek aluminium have a chance. If the latter, the question becomes a whole lot harder.
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
79
寄托币
1246
注册时间
2010-3-2
精华
0
帖子
3
54
发表于 2010-6-2 23:49:01 |只看该作者

The Ethics of Reverence for Life

本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-6-4 23:54 编辑

The Ethics of Reverence for Life 史怀哲


     The ethics of reverence for life makes no distinction between higher and lower, more precious and less precious lives.  It has good reasons for this omission.  For what are we doing, when we establish hard and fast gradations in value between living organisms, but judging them in relation to ourselves, by whether they seem to stand closer to us or farther from us.  This is a wholly subjective standard.  How can we know what importance other living organisms have in themselves and in terms of the universe?

          In making such distinctions, we are apt to decide that there are forms of life which are worthless and may be stamped out without its mattering at all.  This category may include anything from insects to primitive peoples, depending on circumstances.

          To the truly ethical man, all life is sacred, including forms of life that from the human point of view may seem to be lower than ours.  He makes distinctions only from case to case, and under pressure of necessity, when he is forced to decide which life he will sacrifice in order to preserve other lives.  In thus deciding from case to case, he is aware that he is proceeding subjectively and arbitrarily, and that he is accountable for the lives thus sacrificed.

          The man who is guided by the ethics of reverence for life stamps out life only from inescapable necessity, never from thoughtlessness.  He seizes every occasion to feel the happiness of helping living things and shielding them from suffering and annihilation.

          Whenever we harm any form of life, we must be clear about whether it was really necessary to do so.  We must not go beyond the truly unavoidable harm. not even in seemingly insignificant matters.  The farmer who mows down a thousand flowers in his meadow, in order to feed his cows, should be on guard, as he turns homeward, not to decapitate some flower by the roadside, just by way of thoughtlessly passing the time.  For then he sins against life without being under the compulsion of necessity.

          Those who carry out scientific experiments with animals, in order to apply the knowledge gained to the alleviation of human ills, should never reassure themselves with the generality that their cruel acts serve a useful purpose.  In each individual case they must ask themselves whether there is a real necessity for imposing such a sacrifice upon a living creature.  They must try to reduce the suffering insofar as they are able.  It is inexcusable for a scientific institution to omit anesthesia in order to save time and trouble.  It is horrible to subject animals to torment merely in order to demonstrate to students phenomena that are already familiar.

          The very fact that animals, by the pain they endure in experiments, contribute so much to suffering humanity, should forge a new and unique kind of solidarity between them and us.  For that reason alone it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to do all possible good to nonhuman life.

          When we help an insect out of a difficulty, we are only trying to compensate for man's ever-renewed sins against other creatures.  Wherever animals are impressed into the service of man, every one of us should be mindful of the toll we are exacting.  We cannot stand idly by and see an animal subjected to unnecessary harshness or deliberate mistreatment.  We cannot say it is not our business to interfere.  On the contrary, it is our duty to intervene in the animal's behalf.

          No one may close his eyes and pretend that the suffering that he does not see has not occurred.  We must not take the burden of our responsibility lightly.  When abuse of animals is widespread, when the bellowing of thirsty animals in cattle cars is heard and ignored, when cruelty still prevails in many slaughterhouses, when animals are clumsily and painfully butchered in our kitchens, when brutish people inflict unimaginable torments upon animals and when some animals are exposed to the cruel games of children, all of us share in the guilt.

          As the housewife who has scrubbed the floor sees to it that the door is shut, so that the dog does not come in and undo all her work with his muddy paws, so religious and philosophical thinkers have gone to some pains to see that no animals enter and upset their systems of ethics.

          It would seem as if Descartes, with his theory that animals have no souls and are mere machines which only seem to feel pain, had bewitched all of modern philosophy.  Philosophy has totally evaded the problem of man's conduct toward other organisms.  We might say that philosophy has played a piano of which a whole series of keys were considered untouchable.

          To the universal ethics of reverence for life, pity for animals, so often smilingly dismissed as sentimentality, becomes a mandate no thinking person can escape.

          The time will come when public opinion will no longer tolerate amusements based on the mistreatment and killing of animals.  The time will come, but when?  When will we reach the point that hunting, the pleasure in killing animals for sport, will be regarded as a mental aberration?  When will all the killing that necessity imposes upon us be undertaken with sorrow?



The Teaching
of Reverence for Life

by Albert Schweitzer
如切如磋 如琢如磨

使用道具 举报

RE: [1010G]Economist阅读帖 by lynnuana [修改]

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
[1010G]Economist阅读帖 by lynnuana
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1081482-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
回顶部