[战G兔斯基]翻译作业帖

daisy吼吼UID: 2817369

请大家把翻译的作业提交到这里，备注翻译的I序列号

caiyunjiaoUID: 2774098

2010年5月31日 星期一 作业
issue 31

I agree with the view of the speaker, that is, it is a wisdom investment on spending money of research. Nevertheless, the speaker broadens the range of the whole view unnecessarily. There are some reasoning cause indicate that some typical research are controversial while the speaker ignores this reason but embraces the controversial assertion. What I want to discuss with the speaker of the main point refer to the fundamental goals and essence, here is the reason.

I admit that he is on the right position of philosophy on this issue. After all, the goal of the research is exploring the unknown things in order to find the right answers of the issue and permanent solution which is long-question. Research is also a implement for mankind to cater thirst for knowledge which is inexhaustible and the desire of known of ourselves and surroundings. However, it is the species definition of research the first point of what I discuss with the speaker. In the opposing view, if it is rewarding, the research should explore the unknown and under shadow shield. Actually, whether the research which is ... and foreseeable may innovate, or to say whether it can be called "research", is under suspicion.

Though we can invest research without considering controversial result, meanwhile, we should be cautious about the research of which goal is vague or potential benefits is incertitude. After all, the cost of research will be high-the cost can be used into some more emergent issue which may not need much research. A proper case in point is that the "..."project which is supported by ... government in 1980s. This project is invalid and waste most of money of taxpayer in the view of today. Besides, few individuals may oppose the view, that is, it is useful that applying the mass cost of this plan to solve the urgent issue socially, for instance, build after-class attend project for those children whose parents have no time to attend and intense the knowledge and educating through AIDS and so on. Just as what has proved ultimately, when the plan failed, what it gives us is only violence in society and creep of AIDS and the deficit of Unit state  ...

The speaker's view towards other two sides is also complicate. Firstly, even more research cannot utterly address the enduring issue of war, poverty, violence. The research of human gene may ultimately erase the bad aspect of human nature, at the same time it depends on our economist, socialist, .... and ..., not in the research laboratory. Secondly, each research of helping induce pains of mankind, in the meantime, primary precipitate the other element of it. Just like what some people may say that those who discovered the measures of how to use nuclear had offer human another alternative energy, which is considered "peace guard", while ignore thousands of innocent people who lost their lives or got hurt during the atom bomb and nuclear leak. Moreover, when research achieve the goal of "chemistry will give us a better life" , what it brings to us is chemistry weapon on killing people. All in all, the so-called "progress" what research gives to us always equal to the pure loss of mankind.

As a whole, the speaker escape the view of we should invest the controversial research, for the reason that after we have invested the research, we will know whether it can generate the controversial result. As for the whole point of the speaker, I agree that spend on research is generally a wisdom investment. Since it is a investment on promoting human's knowledge as well as exploring human's imagination and spirit. However, when we have no specific intention or the intention just research for research, we are risking of waste of resource. These resource should use in reducing pains of those of vulnerable groups who are depressed, poverty and low status and have no equal rights. In the final analysis, during economic limitation,when we distribute those resources in a controversial society, we must let distribution equally.

daisy吼吼UID: 2817369

2010年5月31日 星期一 作业
ISSUE 31
翻完看了一下范文直接吐血了，本来想把不如原文的地方红笔一下。。。。几乎全篇都要画红了。。
I agree with the speaker's viewpoint that money spent on research is generally a good investment. However, the speaker amplified the assertion's limits unnecessarily. Some convincing reasons showed that there are some types of unreasonable researches whose results are controversial. The speaker ignored this point. I will argue with the speaker about the research's essential objective and essence.

I concede that the speaker is on the right phylosophy standpoint. For the subjective of research is to find correct answers by exploring the unknown world and the measure to solve those old time problems. Research is also a important means for human satisfy personal endless desire and eagerness of comprehending ourselves and the surrounding world. Hence, the first view I will argue with the speaker is the exact definition of research. The speaker premised illogical that we know the result of research before investing. On contrary, a research's value embodied by searching unknown and unpredictable fields. In fact,it is a problem whether the research having the immediate result or bringing forth new ideas. And we even have no idea that if the research is the real meaning research.
Tough we should invest on research without considering if the results are controversial,we must be cautious enough when comes to some researches whose objective are dim and the income is potential. All in all ,money spent on research can be used to solve extremely urgent social problems while the researches are not obligatory. From this point,the costing of research is exorbitant.One of the best example of this issue is the so-called "Star Wars" defence plane, supported by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. Now the plane has been varified to be a waste of taxpayer money. Few people have opposed attitude towards such a saying,it is more practical to spent these money on solving urgent social problems. Such as running the program aims at taking care of latch-key children whose parents are too busy to look after them that have sin by ignorance or strengthening popular recognition and education towards AIDS. As it turns out, the failure of the "Star Wars" defence results in expation reaction gang force, AIDS epidemic,and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.

The speaker's assertion has been mixed up on the other two sides. First, researches can't settle war, poverty, and violence completely. These trouble are cited by people's natural instincts like aggressiveness and greedy. Although researches on human gene may finally eliminate ill natural instincts, this kind of transformation depends on our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists, not research library. Secondly, each research result to relieving human suffering is another factor of deepening this side. As some people dispute that physics who have found atom for humans convenience ignored thousands of people who died or hurt during the atomic explosion and nuclear power accident. In addition, researches bring about chemical weapons for slaughter while it achieved the promise that "chemical brings better life". In sum, in spite of gains from scientific researches, people facing severe loss.

Generally speaking, the speaker avoided the issue that we should spent money on research whose results are controversial. We will know if the result is controversial until we invested on th research. As the speaker's broader assertion, I agree that money spent on research is generally a sensible investment-because it is a investment  in advance of human knowledge, and in development of human imagination and spirit. Yet, when we have no specific objective or just for research, we are risking a waste of resource which can be used to alleviate the suffering of those depressed, disadvantaged and on low status members in society. In the final analysis, under the circumstance that the resource is limited, we must make sure equitable distribution while we distribute resource for social objective that at odds with each other.

Lil'天UID: 2818567

字数超太多了，看来我的翻译存在严重问题。总是逐字逐句的翻译。如何改进？
Issue 31
I agree with the general view of the speaker, generally speaking, it is sensible to spend money on researching. However, expanding the range of speaker's view is not indispensible. There are some evidences indicate convincedly that some researches are not reasonable, whereas the speaker ignored these evidence, so take the researches whose results are controversial into his assert. The points of the argument between the speaker and me involve the fundamental goal and the nature of researches, as illuminate below:
I acknowledge that the speaker stand a correct philosophic side of this issue. Ultimately, we are researching for exploring the unknown to find correct answers of our questions, as well for finding some lasting solution of problems which we never ever solve so far. Researches are also the significant way that we human beings attempt to satisfy our endless desires, hoping to know ourselves and surroundings. But, the first point which I argue with the speaker is what the definite conception about researches is. The speaker holds the point that we could know the result of researches before we put money into researches. It is not a logical assumption. To the contrary, if a research is valuable, it is obligate to explore areas which are unknown and unforeseeable. Actually, whether a research with benefits which could anticipate and get effect instantly would make a breakthrough or not is a problem, in other words, whether it could be called research is a problem.
Although we should invest in researches without thinking about the result might be controversial, at the same time, we should deal carefully with research whose aims are too ambiguous and potential benefits are too uncertain. After all, we prefer to spend money solve immediate social problems which might do not need research rather than money costed in researches, from this perspective, expensive researches have extremely high opportunities' costs. There is a appropriate example proved the point mentioning above is the so called "star war" defense initiative supported by Reagan-administration in 1980s. Now it seems a failling initiative and wasted a lot of taxpayers' money. In addition, few people would object the fact that it’s more valuable if we put the fund about the initiative into solving urgent social problem at that time, like establishing after-school program to children whose parents have not time for them, enhancing people’s knowledge and education about AIDS and so on. As it turns out ,when the “Star War’ failed at the end , what left us are gang violence ran amuck, AIDS spreaded and federal budget deficit this nation had never seen.
In two other aspects, the speaker’s thinking is confused. Firstly, no matter how many investigates were taken, conflicts, poverty and violence couldn’t be solved completely which existed for a long time, due to the fact that the sources of them are human nature, for instance, aggression and greed of humans. Although the study of our genosome might eliminate undesirable aspects of our nature, at the same time it depends on economists, diplomats, social reformers, jurisprudent, doesn’t laboratory.
Secondly, every research to alleviate humans ‘ suffering breakthrough as well as is a main factor to deepen humans’ suffering. For instance, someone might argue that the physicists who study out how to use nuclear energy as a energy source are precious peacekeepers, but they ignore thousands of innocent people lost their lives in atomic blasts and nuclear meltdowns. Furthermore, we brought chemical weapons for killing people when we realized research about the “chemical brings us better life”. In a word, the so-called
“advance”
producing by science researches are same as losses.
To sum up, the speaker avoids the point that we should invest researches which have disputable results, because only after investing in researches, we get the results which are arguable or not. As to the speaker's overall viewpoint, I agree investing in researches is a wise investment. Due to the fact the investments improving humans’ knowledge and develop humans’ imagination and spirits. Nevertheless, we are in danger of risking waste resources, while we have not definite aims, just in order to study. These resources could have been taken into relieving suffering of social vulnerable group which are depressed, poor, humble and disenfranchised. In the last analysis, we have to distribute resources in balance of reasonable, when we are in a paradox society, in the situation that we have limited economic resources.

orionbeltUID: 2817957

其实我还没和原文对比。。。很挫。。。
        ISSUE 31
        I agree with the most part of the speaker's opinions that generally speaking it's wise investments to spent money on researches. However the speaker extent the area contained by his views needlessly. The speaker ignored some convincing reasons which demonstrated that some sorts of researches are unreasonable so that he include the researches whose conclusions are disputed into his assert.
        I acknowledge that the speaker stand on the right philosophical point. After all, it's the aim of investigating and researching to explore the unknown fields to find the right answers to our questions and obtain the eternal solutions to the long-lasting problems confusing us. Research is aslo an important measure that we, the humans, attempt to satisfy our endless curiosity and the desire to understand ourselves and the world around us. But the first point I want to debate with the speaker is the precise definition of research. The speaker hold the opinion which is a erroneous hypothesis that we can know the result of the researches before we invest in them. On the contrary, only when their goals are for discovering the unknown areas can researches are of value. Actually it is a question whether a research hasing the benefits can be known in advanced can get some innovations and breakthroughs or even it deserve the title "research".
        Although we should invest in researches without considering the probability of receiving the disputed results, meanwhile we should be cautious on the researches whose goals are too ambiguous and potential profits are too uncertain. After all, the money for them can be used for solving the more urgent problems which need no research at all in our society. From this point, the cost of the research is extremely high. The "Star Wars Program" supported by the former "Reagan" administration in the 1980s is a proper example for proving this point of view. Now it seams that this program was inexpedient and waisted numerous money of the taxpayer. Further more people rarely opposite the following standpoint that it would be more useful if we had used the money of this project for solving the urgent social problems such as establishing looking-care after class project for those children who made mistakes due to lacking care from their busy parents or reinforcing the education of the knowledge of AIDS for the public. As proved by the later facts, it left for us are the rampage of the Mafias and violences, spreading of AIDS and the unprecedented deficit of the Federal finance.
        There are garbles in other two aspect in the speakers opinions. First of all, no amount of researches can completely solve the long-lasting problems such as wars and violences caused by some aspects of human instincts, for example, aggressiveness and greedy. Even though the research in human genetic may make it possible to remove the harmful aspects of human instincts, meantime the relief of these problems is depend on our economists diplomatists social reformers and nomologists instead of the research labs. Secondary, every research breakthroughs for helping people to lighten the suffering is another element exacerbating the pains of humans at the same time. For instance, someone may claim that the physicist are precious peace-guards who supply another alternate power source for human by researching how to use atomic energy, completely neglecting the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives or suffered a lot in the explosion of atom bomb and the accident of nuclear leak. In addition, after realizing the promise that chemistry will bring us better life, they bring us chemistry weapons for massacring humans inversely. In brief the so-called progresses brought by science researches are often equal to the pure loss they brought to us simultaneously.
        In conclusion, the speaker avoid the question whether to invest in the research leading to disputed results, because only when we invest in researches, can we know whether they product disputed consequence. As for the general standpoints of the speaker which I agree with that we spend money on research is a wise investment. Yet we are taking risk of wasting resources which could be used for easing the pains suffering by the disadvantaged social groups who are depressed and dispirited, poor and in low class, hard to get equality rights, if we don't have definite target but just research for research itself. In the final analysis, on the condition of limit of the social resources, we must keep a reasonable balance in the allocating the social resources between the conflict social aims.

江雪UID: 2790520

字数超太多了，看来我的翻译存在严重问题。总是逐字逐句的翻译。如何改进？

Lil'天 发表于 2010-6-1 11:20

翻译的时候注重整个句子和整篇文章的意思，要传递的原文的意义而不是原文的字词。

“译者对原文的字，要拳打脚踢，离它十丈远。但对原文的情义、气势，要形影不离。”

elenalshUID: 2821254

翻译是一件很纠结的事情~和原文完全没有可比性……打击

Issue31

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that it is a sound investment on the research. However, the speaker extends his assertion unnecessarily while it includes some unreasonable investments which have been proved by convincing results. I will argue with the speaker in the fundamental purpose and nature of research, as discussed below.
I concede that it is correct philosophical side the speaker support on. After all, research is the exploration of unknown and finding out the answers of our questions. Meanwhile, seek the lasting solutions to enduring problems. Research is an important way of our humans trying to satisfy our limitless of desire to knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world around us. However, what I will content with the speaker at first is the meaning of research. It is illogical that we have known the consequence of the research before we invest. In contrary, the valuable of the research is that researching the fields which are uncharted and unpredictable. In fact, it is doubt whether the researches with the predictable profits immediately have any creative, or whether it can be considered “research”.
Although we should invest in the research without considering the argument to the result, we should adopt a prudent policy to the researches with uncertain purpose and potential benefits. After all, the investment of research can solve the pressing social problems which are unnecessary to research so that the opportunity of researches is quite costly. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called “Star War” defensiveness supported by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, the false decision leads to the waste of taxpayer’s money essentially. Meanwhile, only few persons are opposed to the investment in solving pressing social problems such as the project of taking care of the kids who are not given enough consideration by their parents, and enhance the understanding and education to the AIDS, and so forth. As the later fact showed, we have to face the violence, AIDS, and the federal budgets while the plan of the “Star War” failure.
The speaker’s assertion is troubling in other two parts as well. One is that any research can’t solve the lasting problems about war, poverty and violence absolutely which is the result of humans’ nature such as aggression and greed. Despite we can remove some bad aspects by the research of human genome, we need to rely on the economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists instead of researches. On the other hand, any research reducing the human suffering is the factor of other suffering increasing. For example, some might argue that the physics researchers, who studied the power of atom which is another new power, called “peace-keeper” while ignores the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and injured by atomic blasts and by nuclear leakage. In addition, we have to suffer the human slaughter by chemical weapons while the research achieves the goal about “chemistry makes living better”. In short, the advances from scientific research always equal to the losing of our human.
In sum, the speaker’s assertion evades the argument of research consequences which we received after the investment. I support that it is a sound investment to research which can enhance human’s knowledge and create the imagination and sprite of ourselves as the speaker broad assertion. However, we always take a risk of waste the resource which can reducing the negative, poverty , in low class and without equal rights persons when we have no certain goals and for the pure research. In short, with the finite economic resources we must strike a balance when we stick into the conflicting objectives.

江雪UID: 2790520

你们组的翻译作业我抽着看了一些，总的来说不是太尽如人意。
提点建议吧：

1.不要只是机械地中译英，最好想想外国人会怎么说这些话；
2.不能翻译完就丢下不管了，先放在word里面查下spelling，再仔细对照范文比较自己的不足，并作出总结，争取翻译一段时间后有提高；
3.想学地道的表达方式，就要坚持看外国人写的东西，学行文措辞。

daisy吼吼UID: 2817369

8# 江雪
恩。。。完全是一种想不出来句子表达的感觉，贼痛苦，不知道这样的练习有效果没，觉得自己掌握的主动词真是少得可怜
希望前辈们给我们组的同学多提提意见

caiyunjiaoUID: 2774098

2010年6月1日 星期二 作业
issue 190
The speaker hold the view that in a society existing hunger, idleness, no basic survival ability using public resource to support the arts is inappropriate. Since arts is not fundamental request for human, when it comes to aspects of the motivation and measured in supporting arts, the administrator cannot earn people's credit completely. Thus, the speaker's assertion may be identifying with most individuals. However, the speaker overlooks the economic and other social benefits in supporting arts of administration.

The speaker's statement on what it is based is that the variety of arts seems less essential comparing to the significant of hunger, wearing and some place to live in. It is true that the latter requirement is more basal for human beings. After all, does a hungry man would like a wonderful painting rather than an undesirable meal? So, I concede that it is completely appropriate providing priority access to other addressing question, when it comes to the use of public resources, then turns to arts. Whereas, it means never building up that we won't establish any art fund until we hunger and unemployment. As a knowledgeable person who think it is not like this must be under the pure imagination of a socialism country in which government satisfy every citizen's request- that amount to fancy.

Supporting arts is not a certain and obligatory responsibility for administration, considering this, the speaker's assertion may be also easily admitted. This point has mammoth value in three aspects. First, giving the power to make decision and option of fund for arts to few bureaucrats seems insensible. These people may make decision, based on their ..., which may be effected by ... affection. Second, vital and good-conducting is among the personal charity. For example, under personal fund and donation's help, public broadcast can survive annually even to be bigger. Third, government had made so many tax from our pocket, so the money for supporting arts reduced while our supporting for arts must be more direct and efficient than what any bureaucrat can do.

On the other hand are two compelling view that supporting from public is needed whether the issue of hunger or unemployment had been addressed. One point of it is that distribute public resources contribute to addressing this issues. As for Canada's cinema industry, it got a huge aid by administration. The results turn out to be that it serves immense occupations for film workers. Canada also provided a sort of incentives for American film makers to encourage them to make cinema in Canada which bring a boom to Canada economic, in the same time stimulating job growth and fortune accumulation which can also attribute to education, job training and social programs. The case proves that supporting for arts can help solve these kind of social problems with which the speaker concerns.

My second point of contend with the speaker include arts' function and ultimate objects. Arts can upgrade human's spirit, making us closer to our sense, foible and fate-in a word, closer to human nature. With the increase of human living sensitivity, our sense of egoism is going flimsy and more willing to think about others and more contributing ourselves. In other words, we are becoming a more and more kindhearted society, a more and more willing to help those who are less fortunate than us in the territory of what the speaker concerns. While, the speaker may argue that when we give hand to those people what we actually give them is harmless for the reason that they depend on us to survive. However, the heart of the ...  point indicates coldness and lack of compassion, from my point of view, that every society should struggle to erase. Besides, this point may cause some political, philosophical and moral problem that this essay cannot begin to address.

In the final analysis, the beneficiaries of public fund are not like what the speaker let us to believe but elitist who is strolling in every metropolitan museum and enjoying kinds of ... and attending gallery. Public resource allocated to the artist create jobs for them and for those who live in vivid and luxuriant culture-just the sort of culture that cultivate the charitable concerns for hungry, the helpless and the hapless.

Lil'天UID: 2818567

Issue 190:
The speaker hold the view point that, it is irrational to use public resources to support arts in a society where some people are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive. Due to the fact that arts is not basic need of humans, and as to the perspective of the motive and the measures to support arts, the government is not completely trustworthy, therefore, the view of the speaker’s would be easy to people’s identity. Whereas, the benefits which the government get form actively supporting arts were ignored by the speaker.
The potential fundamental theory of the speaker’s speaking seems it is insignificant to enrich cultures comparing with food, clothes and place for living. The latter requirements is humans’ basic needs indeed, this be the undisputable fact. After all, hungers more want a good painting than a bad meal? For this reason, I acknowledge it’s entirely correct to use public resource to solve the social problem which needs to solve immediately prior, the turns to arts, when it comes to the rights of using public resource. However, the public arts funds till we completely reduce unemployment and hunger would be never establish. To anyone who has knowledge, if he think so means the country is a pure socialist state where the government could satisfy all of citizens’ needs------It’s a dream.
Supporting arts isn’t obligations of the government, based on the cause, the view of the speaker’s would be easy to people’s identity. This point has lots of value in three aspects. First, it seems inexpedient to grant decision and choices about whether supporting arts or not to small number of bureaucrats. They might decide by their strange ideas about arts, and their decisions might be influenced by around. Second, private charity and philanthropy are full of vigor and functioning well today. For instance, under the help of private foundation and individuals, the Public Broadcasting System is able to survive even boom. Third, government funds took away a huge tax form our pockets, decreasing the number of dollars of supporting arts form us, but we could have supported arts more directly and efficiently than a bureaucracy.
On the other hand, there are two cogent views to sustain that whether unemployment and hunger are eliminated or not, supporting arts is needful for publics. One is that, distributing publics resources to arts contributed to obviate the social problems. Referring to Canada’s film industry which was subsidized a lot by the Canada government. As a result, many filmmakers got employment opportunities form Canada’s film industry. As well, the Canadian government provided a variety of incentives to American filmmakers, inciting them make their movies in Canada. These incentives added energy to economics of Canada, thereby stimulating job growth and wealth accumulation, which could be applied to education, job training and social programs. The Canadian example is proof that supporting public arts is helpful to solve problems which the speaker concerned with.
The other viewpoint against the speaker’s standpoint related to the function and ultimate aim of arts. Arts could promote our mental and bring more to ourselves about our sense weakness and destiny, in a word, closing us to human nature. With the increasing of the sensitivity to the human condition, Me-first is weakening, we rather to dedicate. In other word, Society is becoming more charitable, and we are giving more hands to people less fortune than us who the speaker concerned. Of course, the speaker might argue that we hurt them actually meanwhile we help them, because they rely on us for living. However, the core of the specious argument show certain coldness and lack of sympathy, from my point of view, any society should spare no efforts to reduce. Furthermore, the argument surely leads some political, philosophical, and moral issues which couldn’t be solved in this essay.
In the final analysis, the beneficiaries of public arts funds are not who the speaker said are, strolling through big-city museums and attend symphonies and gallery openings. Public resources distributed to arts create employment opportunities for artists and people who are living on bright and rich cultures, and cultivate people are full of love in their heart to hungers,
helpless and unfortunate.

Lil'天UID: 2818567

Issue 121:
To save nearly extinct species, what limited our duty? The state raises a variety of problems about morals, conscience, self-protection and economics. Nonetheless, in general, I agree in substance with the viewpoint that humans needn’t to make “extraordinary” efforts---the cost of money and jobs---to protect nearly extinct species for survive.
From my point of view, there are three fundamental arguments to support that we are obliged to take some burdens to protect endangered animals. First is about culpability. This argument is of opinion that such as felling of trees, polluting of lakes which were done by humans lead species are nearly extinct, in this respect, great efforts should be made by we humans to protect the species whose survival are endangered by us.
The second argument is about ability. This argument didn’t discuss what we did are harmful to species. In contrary, if we realized the danger, now what measure should be taken into prevent extinction, and we could do that, in the case we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction. This viewpoint demands that humans have a positive responsibility to protect the species which are nearly extinct.
The third argument is an appeal to self-protection. The animals’ kingdom is in a complex structure of forming, there are interdependent relationships in species. In the matrix of structure, each species’ survival depends on others. Ultimately, we as a specie in nature would be threatened due to the damaging of relationships between species, such as that between predator and its natural prey, which induce a series of extinction. Although the assertion might sound unconvincing to some, environmental experts assure us that it would happen possibly in a long run.
On the other hand, there are cogent arguments against that humans have duty to protect species which are close to extinction. The First one is followed Darwinian’s argument in the main, which hold the point that species extinction is the result of the inexorable process so called “natural selected”, only strong survival. Moreover, we humans are in the process as well. Thus, it is reasonable for us to eliminate some species in order to our convenience of survival. We are just doing what animal must to do as Darwinian said.
The second argument which I think are the most convincing is logical and not an emotion. Thousands of species become extinct every year, which is a scientific fact. A large numbers of them caused by nature power, others due to factors of humans. Whatever, it is far over capacity to save all species. In that case, by what standard, we decide which species are worth saving and which are not? In my view, we prefer those behaviors and surface like humans. This preference is understandable; after all, dolphins are lovelier than bugs. However, it is irrational. Thus, it is reasonable to decide by our economic benefits. In other word, the more money and jobs it would cost to save a species, the few we would think about it.
To sum up, protecting endangered species is a complicated issue, need to judge subjectively about morals and the comparative value of various life forms. Thus it has no a definite answer. Nevertheless, according the reasons above, when it comes to save endangered species, I prefer to think about the benefits ourselves’ rather than think the ambiguous conception about moral. All in all, as a species, when we cannot but saving other species for our own survival, we’ll do so---it is consistent with Darwinian’s view of process of natural selection.

caiyunjiaoUID: 2774098

2010年6月2日 星期三 作业
issue 121

What limitation of our responsibility for saving endangered species? The statement causes various debates of moral, consciousness, self-preservation and economic. However, on balance, I fundamentally agree with the assertion, that is, human need not seek "hard" to save endangered species- at the cost of money and jobs.

From my point of view, there are three chief arguments supporting us at least in taking responsibility of preserve endangered species. The first argument has to do with guilty. It considers that it is the events mainly by human like cutting forests and polluting rivers that lead to the situation of endangered species considering to which human have responsibility to take effect measures to protect those endangered species for the reason that we endangered their inhabit.

The second argument has to do with capability. This argument don't talk about what extend human may cause a species extinct. Instead, the argument goes, if we realize the danger and know what to do to prevent the extinct and has the capability to put it into practice, we are obligated to help prevent species extinct. This argument requires active response in protect endangered species.

The third argument is appealing to human self-preservation. The structure of animal realm is complicate, they has relation with each other. In this matrix of structure no species is able to survive without other species' existing. When the species' relation, like the relation between carnivore and its pray, is destroyed, it may cause the situation of species extinction while as one species of nature we may also face a dilemma. Though this assertion might seem forced to some people, the environmentalist ensures that it must be happen if things go on like this.

On the other hand is two convincing argument against the assertion that human should take responsibility for endangered species. The first assertion fundamentally inherit da Vinci’s argument the extinct is just a result of the so-called "natural selection" which is a ruthlessness process in which the stronger species survive yet the weak one be washed out. Moreover, we humans also cannot survive in this process. Thus, if we considered eradicating other species is what we should do to give convenience to our subsistence, then be it. Da Vinci will say we just do what animals do.

The second argument, while I consider it is the most convincing argument, prefer refer to logic to emotion. It is a scientific fact that thousands of species disappear from earth annually most of which are caused by nature, the rest by human. In any case, the species which we want to rescue is beyond our ability. Which standards should we use to determine which should be rescued and should not? As I see it, we prone to protect those animals whose appearance and act is similar to human. This preference is easily understandable, after all, dolphin is much likable than insect. Yet this standard has no logical rational reason. Therefore the decision depend on our economic profit is more reasonable. In other words, the more money spent and personnel put into for an species' rescue, the less consideration on it.

In a word, save endangered species is a complicated issue which needs obligation on morality and relative merit on different form of life so it has no simple or exact answer. While according to the previous notion that when it comes to rescue endangered species, compared to vague concept on moral obligation, I think we must put our economic benefit in the first place. In the final analysis, as a species of nature, when we face a dilemma that we must save other species for ourselves subsistence, if we are to save them, we must do it- this is harmonious to da Vinci's nature selection.