一From Competence to Commitment
1.Today's students have ambiguous feelings about their role in the world. They are devoting their energies to what seems most real to them: the pursuit of security, the accumulation of material goods. They are struggling to establish themselves , but the young people also admitted to confusion: Where should they put their faith in this uncertain age? Undergraduates are searching for identity and meaning and, like the rest of us, they are torn(被烦扰) by idealism （理想主义）of service on the one hand, and on the hand, the temptation to retreat into a world that never rises above self-interests.
2.In the end, the quality of the undergraduate experience (= education) is to be measured by the willingness of graduates to be socially and civically engaged. Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote, " Man cannot behold except he be committed " . He cannot find himself without finding a center beyond himself." The idealism of the undergraduate experience must reflect itself in loyalties that transcend self. Is it too much to expect that, even in this hard-edged , competitive age, a college graduate with live with integrity真诚, civility 有礼貌- even compassion 同情心? Is it appropriate to hope that the lessons learned in a liberal education通识教育will reveal themselves in the humaneness of the graduate's relationship with others?
3.Clearly, the college graduate has civic obligations to fulfill. There is urgent need in American teaching to help close the dangerous and growing gap between public policy and public understanding. The information required to think constructively about the agendas of government seems increasingly beyond our grasp. It is no longer possible, many argue, to resolve complex public issues through citizen participation. How, they ask, can non-specialists debate policy choices of consequence when they do not even know the language?
4.Should the use of nuclear energy be expanded or cut back? Can an adequate supply of water be assured? How can the arms race be brought under control? What is a safe level of atmospheric pollution? Even the semi-metaphysical questions of when a human life begins and ends have items on the political agenda.
5.Citizens have tried with similar bafflement to follow the debate over Star Wars with its highly technical jargon of deterrence and counter-deterrence. Even what once seemed to be reasonably local matters --- zoning regulations, school desegregation , drainage problems public transportation issues, licensing requests from competing cable television companies-call for specialists who debate technicalities and frequently confuse rather than clarify the issues. And yet the very complexity of public requires more not less information more not less participation.
6.For those who care about government by the people，the decline in public understanding cannot go unchallenged . In a world where human survival is at stake , ignorance is not an acceptable alternative. The full control of policy by specialists with limited perspective is not tolerable . Unless we find better ways to educate ourselves as citizens, unless hard questions are asked and satisfactory answers are offered, we run risk of making critical decisions, not on the basis of what we know, but on the basis of blind faith in one or another set of professed experts.
7.What we need today are groups of well-informed, caring individuals who band together in the spirit of community to lean from one another, to participate , as citizens, in the democratic process.
8.We need concerned people who are participants in inquiry, who know how to ask the right questions, who understand the process by which public policy is shaped , and are prepared to make informed discriminating judgments on questions that effect the future. Obviously, no one institution in society can single-handedly provides the leadership we require. But we are convinced确信that the undergraduate college, perhaps more than any other institutions, is obliged to有责任有义务provide the enlightened 开明的leadership our nation urgently requires if government by the people is to endure .
9.To fulfill this urgent obligation, the perspective needed is not only national, but also global. Today's students must be informed about people and cultures other than their own. Since man has orbited into space, it has become dramatically apparent that we are all custodians看守人of a single planet. In the past half century, our planet has become vastly more
crowded, more interdependent,互相依赖的and more unstable. If students do not see beyond themselves and better understand their place in our complex world, their capacity to love responsibly will be dangerously diminished.
10.The world may not yet be a village, but surely our sense of neighborhood must expand. When drought干旱ravages the Sahara , when war in Indo-China creates refugees难民, neither our compassion同情心nor our analytic intelligence can be bounded by a dotted line on a political map. We are beginning to understand that hunger and human rights affect alliances as decisively as weapons and treaties. Dwarfing all other concerns, the mushroom cloud hangs ominously over our world consciousness. These realities and the obligations they impose must be understood by every student.
11.But during our study we found on campus a disturbing lack of knowledge and even at times a climate of indifference about our world . Refugees flow from one country to another, but too few students can point to these great migrations on a map or talk about the famines饥荒, wars, or poverty that caused them. Philosophers, statesmen, inventors and artists from around the world enrich our lives, but such individuals and their contributions are largely unknown or unremembered.
12.While some students have a global perspective, the vast majority, although vaguely concerned, are inadequately informed about the interdependent world in which they live.
13. University of Notre Dame campus minister William Toohey wrote recently, "The trouble with many colleagues is that they indulge the nesting instinct by building protected little communities inside their great walls ."
14.One point emerges with stark clarity from all we have said: Our world has undergone immense transformations变化. It has become a more crowded, more interconnected, more unstable place. A new generation of Americans must be educated for life in this increasingly complex world. If the undergraduate college cannot help students see beyond themselves and better understand the interdependent nature of our world, each new generation will remain ignorant, and its capacity to live confidently and responsibly will be dangerously diminished.
15.Throughout our study we were impressed that what today's college is teaching most successfully is competence --- competence in meeting schedules, in gathering information, in responding well on tests, in mastering the details of a special field. Today the capacity to deal successfully with discrete problems is highly prized. And when we asked students about their education, they, almost without exception, spoke about the credits they had earned or the courses they still needed to complete.
16.But technical skill, of whatever kind, leaves open essential questions: Education for what purpose? Competence to what end? At a time in life when values should be shaped and personal priorities sharply probed, what a tragedy it would be if the most deeply felt issues, the most haunting questions the most creative moments were pushed to the fringes of our institutional life . What a monumental mistake it would be if students, during the undergraduate years, remained trapped within the organizational grooves and narrow routines to which the academic world sometimes seems excessively devoted.
17.Students come to campus at a time of high expectancy期望. And yet, all too often they become enmeshed使陷入in routines that are deadening 麻木and distracting分心. As we talked with teachers and students, we often had the uncomfortable feeling that the most vital issues of life --- the nature of society, the roots of social injustice indeed the very prospects for human survival --- are the ones with which the undergraduate college is least equipped to deal (with the most vital issues of life, undergraduate education is least prepared to address).
18.The outcomes of collegiate education should be measured by the student's performance in the classroom as he or she becomes proficient in the use of knowledge, acquires a solid basic education, and becomes competent in a specific filed. Further, the impact of the undergraduate experience is to be assessed by the performance of the graduate in the workplace and further education.
19.But in the end, students must be inspired by a larger vision, using the knowledge they have acquired to discover patterns, form values, and advance the common good. The undergraduate experience at its best (= at one's highest level of skill) will move the student from competence to commitment.
20.A recent college graduate wrote about the commitments of young people and their future, She asks: "What kind of nation will we be if we cannot even commit ourselves to other people, much less (= certainly not) to a set of abstract values? What kinds of politicians will we elect if self-interest is our highest value, humanity an inoperative commodity?"
21.When all is said and done, the college should encourage each student to develop the capacity to judge wisely in matters of life and conduct. Time must be taken for exploring ambiguities and reflecting on the imponderables of life - in classrooms, in the rathskellers (=bar), and in bull sessions late at night. The goal is not to indoctrinate students, but to set them free in the world of ideas and provide a climate in which ethical and moral choices can be thoughtfully examined, and convictions formed.
22.This imperative does not replace the need for rigorous study in the disciplines, but neither must specialization become an excuse to suspend judgment or diminish the search for purposeful life objectives.
23.We are keenly aware of the limited impact (that) people and their institutions seem to make these days on the events of our time. But our abiding hope is that, with determination and effort, the undergraduate college can make a difference in the intellectual and personal lives of its graduates, in the social and civic responsibilities they are willing to assume, and ultimately in their world perspective. These intangibles , which reveal themselves in ways that are very real, are the characteristics by which, ultimate, the quality of the undergraduate experience much be measured.
Unit1 从能力到责任
1当代的大学生对他们在社会中所扮演的角色的认识模糊不清。他们致力于寻求在他们看来似乎是最现实的东西：追求安全保障，追逐物质财富的积累。年轻人努力想使自己成人成才、有所作为，但他们对未来的认识还是很模糊的。处于像他们这样前程未定的年龄阶段，他们该信仰什么?大学生一直在寻找真我的所在，寻找生活的意义。一如芸芸众生的我们，他们也陷入了两难的境地。一方面，他们崇尚奉献于人的理想主义，而另一方面，他们又经不住自身利益的诱惑，陷入利己主义的世界里欲罢不能。
2最终而言，大学教育素质的衡量取决于毕业生是否愿意为他们所处的社会和赖以生存的城市作出贡献。尼布尔曾经写道：“一个人只有意识到对社会所负有的责任，他才能够认识到自身的潜力。一个人如果一味地以自我为中心，他将会失去自我。”本科教育必须对这种带有理想主义色彩的观念进行自我深省，使学生超越以自我为中心的观念，以诚相待，服务社会。在这一个竞争激烈＼残酷的社会，人们期望大学生能报以正直、文明，，甚至富有同情心的人格品质去与人竞争，这是否已是一种奢望?人们期望大学的人文教育会有助于培养学生的人际交往能力，如今是否仍然适合?
3毫无疑问，大学生应该履行公民的义务。美国的教育必须立刻采取行动，使教育理所当然地承担起弥合公共政策与公众的理解程度之间的极具危险性且在日益加深的沟壑这一职责。那些要求人们积极思考政府的议程并提供富于创意的意见的信息似乎越来越让我们感到事不关己。所以很多人认为想通过公众的参与来解决复杂的公共问题已不再可能行得通。设想，怎么可能让一些非专业人士去讨论必然带来相应后果的政府决策的问题，而他们甚至连语言的使用都存在困难?
4核能的使用应该扩大还是削弱?水资源能保证充足的供应吗?怎样控制军备竞赛?大气污染的安全标准是多少?甚至连人类的起源与灭绝这样近乎玄乎的问题也会被列入政治议事日程。
5类似的一头雾水的感觉，公众曾经尝试过。当他们试图弄懂有关“星球大战”的辩论的问题时，那些关于“威慑”与“反威慑”等高科技的专业术语，曾让公众一筹莫展。像地方的区域规划，学校种族隔离制的废除，排水系统的问题，公共交通的治理，以及申请获得正在相互竞争的有线电视公司的许可证等这些曾经看起来只是一些地方性事务的事情，现在也需要专家采解决。这些专家的辩论充满着技术术语，常常使问题变得让人迷惑不解而不会使问题云开雾散，清晰明了。公共生活的复杂性，要求更多＼而非更少的信息资料；需要更积极＼而非越来越消极的公众的参与。
6对于那些关心“民治政府”的人，公众理解程度的每况愈下是无法接受的。当今世界，人类生存问题吉凶未
卜，无知是不可取的。那些目光短浅的专家们制定措施时一手遮天，这也是不可容忍的。作为公民，我们只有找到更好的教育方法，只有提出更棘手的问题，并得到满意的答案，才能在关键的决策时刻承担风险，运用我们所学的知识做出重大决定，否则，我们只能基于盲目地相信一个或几个所谓的专家做出决策。
7我们的民主社会需要一批受过良好教育关心他人的年轻人群策群力，本着共同的信念，团结在一起，相互学习，参与到社会民主的建设之中。
8民主的社会需要关心民主社会的公众，需要他们成为善于发问的民主参与者，成为知道怎样提出恰如其份的问题的人，知道公共政策的决策形成过程，并能够对那些影响深远的问题做出敏锐的，有见地的判断。诚然，没有哪个社会机构能独立培养我们所需的领导人才，但我们深信，如果“民治政府’’要有生命力的话，大学相对子其他机构来说，更有责任去培养我们国家所急需的具有宏畴伟略的领导人。
9为了完成这个迫切的使命，年轻人的目光不能仅仅停留在国内，还必须放眼世界。现在的学生不但要对本国的人民与文化了如指掌，而且也应该熟知本国以外的文明。人类的势力范围已涉及到太空，一切变得都很明了，我们都是同一个星球的守护者。在过去的半个世纪中，我们的地球变得越来越拥挤，相互依赖性越来越强，同时也更加变化莫测。如果学生只一味自以为是，不能更好地理解自己在芸芸众生中的地位，那么他们对生活的社会所应承担的责任的能力将慢慢被消磨殆尽，及至危险的境地。
10世界或许还没有变成一个小村庄。但可以肯定的是，我们的邻里意识必须加以扩展。当旱灾席卷撒哈拉沙漠，当印度支那战争带来难民潮时，我们的同情心，我们富于分析的智慧都不再受缚于地图上的政治分界线。我们开始知道，饥荒和人权已如同武器＼条约一样，对人类团结起着决定性的影响。最令人担心的是，蘑菇云已在人类意识里投下了不祥的阴影。这些业已存在的事实及其带来的后果都必须让每个学生了解。
11然而，在研究中，我们发现了一个极其令人担忧的问题：大学校园对诸如此类的社会常识极端缺乏了解，有时，校园甚至弥漫着一种对世事的冷漠与不关心的氛围。当难民如潮水一般从一个国家涌入到另外一个国家时，我们却只有极少数学生能在地图上指出这些难民潮的流向，或是谈论起导致难民潮泛滥而起的饥荒、战争和贫穷等世事。世界各地的哲学家、政治家、发明家和艺术家的丰功伟绩丰富了我们的生活，但他们本人及其贡献却时常不为人知，或是被世人遗忘在角落里。
12 虽然有一些学生已具备了放眼全球的视角，然而，大多数学生——尽管他们对世事的关注忽隐忽现，却对他们赖以生存＼相互依赖的世界缺乏足够的了解。
13圣母玛丽亚大学的学院院长威廉·杜黑近期写道：“许多大学教育的问题就在于学校纵容学生们本能地在校园内自筑围城，自我封闭，构筑自己小范围的交往圈，而不去触及学校以外的现实的社会交际。”
14综上所述，我们很自然地得出一个结论：世界发生了巨变，世界变得越来越拥挤，相互的联系变得越来越强，同时也更加动荡不安起来。美国的新一代必须学会如何在这个日益复杂的世界里生活。如果大学教育不能帮助学生认识自我，超越自我，不能让他们更好地理解世界相互依存的本质特征，那么新生的一代就会变得无知，他们生活的信心及生活的责任感将慢慢被消磨殆尽，及至危险的境地。
15通过研究，我们深有感触地认识到当今大学教育最成功之处就是培养学生的综合能力——使学生具备依既定计划行事的能力；具备收集资料信息的能力；考尽其能，术业专攻。具有成功地处理好单独问题的能力在今天被认为是值得高度称赞的事情。然而，当我们问及学生们关于他们的大学教育的时候，他们几乎都毫无例外地谈论起他们所获得的学分或是他们仍然需要完成的课程。
16 教育的终极目的是什么?能力会带采什么结果?各种科学技术都无法回答诸如此类的一些极为重要的问题。大学教育阶段，是一个人一生中价值观念得以形成的时期，个人的兴趣和爱好也在这一时期凸现出来。这一时期，人们对一些问题的感触最深，对一些悬而未决的疑难问题最感兴趣，创造力最活跃。如果人生的这一黄金时期被置于无人问津的次要地位，那将是人生的悲剧。在大学本科教育阶段，如果学生们习惯于墨守成规，陷入学术界有时过分倡导的条条框框的束缚之中，那将是人生的一大遗，憾。
17学生们是在处于人生期望值最高的时刻步入大学校园的。然而，他们往往却由此而陷入陈规陋习之中，变得死气沉沉，心不在焉。当我们与老师和同学交谈时，经常会感到丝丝不安：人类生存所必须关注的最重要的问题——社会的自然属性，社会不平等的根源——事实上，这些问题与人类生存的前景休戚相关，却是大学教育中最少被触及的问题。
18当学生能够熟练地运用知识，拥有坚实的基础教育，并在某一专业领域有所特长时，大学教育的结果应该由学生在课堂的表现来衡量。进一步而言，本科教育经历的价值将通过毕业生在其工作岗位上的表现及其以后接受进一步教育的情况体现出来。
19最终而言，大学的教育会使学生们充满灵性，开拓思维，格物致知＼学以致用，塑造价值观念，进而提高综合的能力。本科教育的最高境界将能够让学生从具备能力转变为承担起责任。
20近期，一名大学生写了一篇关于年轻人的责任及其未来的文章。她问到：“如果我们连奉献于人的精神都缺乏的话，更不用说一套一套的抽象的价值观念，难以想象我们的民族将会是什么样子。如果说自身利益是我们崇尚的最高价值观念，人性只是一件无利可图的商品，那么我们将选择什么样的政治人物呢?”
21总之，大学教育应该鼓励每位同学提高在生活及行为中明辨常理的能力，无论是在课堂上，或是在地下室餐馆，或是在深夜的自由交谈中，力争分秒，探求模棱两可的未知世界，思索那捉摸不定的人类的情感世界。大学的目的不是向学生进行思想灌输，而是要让他们在思想的国度里畅游，为他们提供良好的氛围，以培养正确的伦理道德观并形成坚定的信念。
22这一非同寻常的任务并不否定学生在专业学习上必须付出努力，但选择学习任何一类专业都不应成为他们中断明辨事理能力培养的理由，也不应成为葬送其探求人类生活的终极关怀的这一过程的理由。
23我们深刻地意识到，年轻的学子以及他们所生活的大学对当今我们所处的时代的一些事情的接触是有限的。但我们永远希望，大学教育应以其坚韧的毅力和不懈的努力，促使其毕业生在智力水平及社会生活中成为聪明显赫的人；在他们所乐于承担的社会职责及公民的责任方面能够做到与众不同，最终促使年轻人在世界观的选择上出类拔萃。这些无形的价值观念，却真实地揭示了年轻人自身价值之所在。大学教育的质量最终必须以这些无形的价值观念的培养与否来衡量。
六Getting Along with Nature
1The defenders of nature and wilderness – like their enemies, the defenders of the industrial economy – sometimes sound as if the natural and the human estates were two separate estates, radically different and radically divided. The defenders of nature and wilderness sometimes seem to feel that they must oppose any human encroachment whatsoever, just as the industrialists often apparently feel that they m ust make the human encroachment absolute or, asthey say, “complete the conquest of nature. ” But there is danger in thisopposition, and it can be best dealt with by realizing that these pure and separate categories are pure ideas and do not otherwise exist. Unmixed, mere
2 Pure nature, anyhow, is not good for humans to live in, and humans do not want to live in it – or not for very long. Any exposure to the elements that lasts more than a few hours will remind us of the desirability of the basic human amenities: clothing, shelter, cooked food, the company of kinfolk and friends – perhaps even of hot baths and music and books.
3 It is equally true that a condition that is purely human is not good for people to live in, and people do not want to live for v ery long in it. Obviously, the moreartificial a human environment becomes, the more the word “natural” becomes a term of value. It can be argued, indeed, that the conservation movement, as we know it today, is largely a product of the industrial revolution. The people who want clean air, clear streams, and wild forests, prairies, and deserts are the people who no longer have them.
4People cannot live apart from nature; that is the first principle of the conservationists. And yet, people cannot live in nature without changing it. But this is true of all creatures; they depend upon nature, and they change it. What we call nature is, in a sense, the sum of the changes made by all the various creatures and natural forces in their intricate actions and influences upon each other and upon their places. Because of the woodpeckers, nature is different from what it would be without them. It is different also because of the borers and ants that live in tree trunks, and because of the bacteria that live in the soil under the trees. The making of these differences is the making of the world.
5Some of the changes made by wild creatures we would call beneficent: beavers are famous for making ponds that turn into fertile meadows; trees and prairie grasses build soil. But sometimes, too, we would call natural changes destructive. According to early witnesses, for instance, large areas aroundKentucky salt licks were severely trampled and eroded by the great herds of hoofed animals that gathered there. The buffalo “streets” th rough hilly country were so hollowed out by hoofwear and erosion that they remain visible almost two centuries after the disappearance of the buffalo. And so it can hardly be expected that humans would not change nature. Humans, like all other creatures, must make a difference; otherwise, they cannot live. But unlike other creatures, humans must make a choice as to the kind and scale of the difference they make. If they choose to make too small a difference, they diminish their humanity. If they choose to make too great a difference, they diminish nature, and narrow their subsequent choices; ultimately, theydiminish or destroy themselves. Nature, then, is not only our source but also our limit and measure. Or, as the poet Edmund Spenser put it almost four
hu ndred years ago, nature, who is the “greatest goddesse,” acts as a sort of earthly lieutenant of God, and Spenser represents her as both a mother and judge. Her jurisdiction is over the relations between the creatures; she deals “Right to all …indifferently,” for she is “the equal mother” of all “And knittesteach to each, as brother unto brother.” Thus, in Spenser, the natural principles of fertility and order are pointedly linked with the principle of justice, which we may be a little surprised to see that he attributes also to nature. And yet in his insistence on an “indifferent” natural justice, resting on the “brotherhood” of all creatures, not just of humans, Spenser would now be said to be on soundecological footing.
Nature supplies us with what we need and at the same time, imposes restriction on how much, and for how long, we can get it.
6In nature we know that wild creatures sometimes exhaust their vital sources and suffer the natural remedy: drastic population reductions. If lynxes eat too many snowshoe rabbits – which they are said to do repeatedly – then the lynxes starve down to the carrying capacity of their habitat. It is the carrying capacity of the lynx’s habitat, not the carrying capacity of the lynx’s stomach,that determines the prosperity of lynxes. Similarly, if humans use up too much soil – which they have often done and are doing –then they will starve down to the carrying capacity of their habitat. This is nature’s “indifferent” justice. As Spenser saw in the sixteenth century, and as we must learn to see now, there is no appeal from this justice. In the future, the Lord may forgive our wrongs against nature, but on earth, so far as we know, He does not overturn her decisions.
7One of the differences between humans and lynxes is that humans can see that the principle of balance operates between lynxes and snowshoe rabbits, as between humans and topsoil; another difference, we hope, is that humans have the sense to act on their understanding. We can see, too, that a stable balance is preferable to a balance that tilts back and forth like a seesaw, dumping asurplus of creatures alternately from either end. To say this is to renew the question of whether or not the human relationship with nature is necessarily an adversary relationship, and it is to suggest that the answer is not simple. getting rid of, by turns
8But in dealing with this question and in trying to do justice to the presumed complexity of the answer, we are up against an American convention of simple opposition to nature that is deeply established both in our minds and in our ways. We have opposed the primeval forests of the East and the primeval prairies and deserts of the West, we have opposed man-eating beasts and crop-eating insects, sheep-eating wolves and chicken-eating hawks. In our lawns and gardens and fields, we oppose what we call weeds. And yet more and more of us are beginning to see that this opposition is ultimately destructive even of ourselves, that it does not explain many things that need explaining – in short, that it is untrue.
9If our proper relation to nature is not opposition, then what is it? This question becomes complicated and difficult for us because none of us, as I have said, wants to live in a “pure” primeval forest or in a “pure” primeval prairi e; we do not want to be eaten by grizzly bears; if we are gardeners, we have a legitimate quarrel with weeds; if, in Kentucky, we are trying to improve our pastures, we are likely to be enemies of the nodding thistle. But, do what we will, we remain under the spell of the primeval forests and prairies that we have cut down and broken; we turn repeatedly and with love to the thought of them andto their surviving remnants. We find ourselves attracted to the grizzly bears, too, and know that they and other great, dangerous animals remain alive in our imaginations as they have been all through human time. Though we cut down the nodding thistles, we acknowledge their beauty and are glad to think that there must be some place where they belong. (They may, in fact, not always beout of place in pastures; if, as seems evident, overgrazing makes an ideal seedbed for these plants, then we must understand them as a part of nature’s strategy to protect the ground against abuse by animals.) Even the ugliest garden weeds earn affection from us when we consider how faithfully they perform an indispensable duty in covering the bare ground and in building humus. The weeds, too, are involved in the business of fertility.
10We know, then, that the conflict between the human and the natural estates really exists and that it is to some extent necessary. But we are learning, or relearning, something else, too, that frightens us; namely, that this conflict often occurs at the expense of both estates. It is not only possible but altogether probable that by demising nature we diminish ourselves, and vice versa.
Unit6 和自然和睦相处
1和他们的对手工业经济的保护者一样，大自然的保护者有时也认为自然和人类是完全不同完全不相关联的两个实体。就像工业家常常明确表明他们致力于对自然的完全占有或者如同他们所说，彻底征服自然一样，大自然的保护者往往反对任何人类对大自然的侵犯。这两种极端对立的观点是危险的，最好是让人们意识到自然和人类彼此毫无关联的设想只是一种纯粹的理念；而实际情况并非如此。
2纯自然的环境不适合人类生活，人类不愿意也不能在此环境中长期生活，如果我们身处恶劣的气候达几个小时之久，就会渴望得到一些生活的必需品，抵御风寒的衣物、住所、熟食、亲友的陪伴——甚至想洗个热水澡，看看书，听听音乐。
3纯人文的环境同样也不适合人类生活，人类也不想长久地生活于这种环境之中。很显然人类所处的环境越人造化，“天然”这个词就越被人珍视。确实，我们可以说，我们当今的自然资源保护运动在很大程度上是工业革命的产物。渴望得到新鲜的空气，清澈的溪流，看到原始森林，大草原和大沙漠的人是哪些不再享有这些自然资源的人们。
4人们不可能离开自然生活，这是生态环境保护主义者的重要观点，但是人们又不可能在纯自然的环境中生活而不对它作丝毫的改造。这一点也适用于所有的生物。人和其它生物都依赖于自然并且需要改造自然。从某种意义上讲，我们所说的自然是各种各样生物和自然的力量在它们错综复杂的活动相互影响和变化的过程中所造成的变化的总和。因为有了啄木鸟，自然就因此而有所不同，自然也因为有了生活在树干中的穿孔虫和蚂蚁以及在树下土壤里的细菌而有所不同，这些不同的组合就形成了世界。
5有些野生动物制造的变化是有利的，海狸制造水塘是出了名的，这些水塘后来成了肥沃的牧场，树和草原上的草可以防止水土流失。然而，有时自然的变化却具有毁灭性。比如说，有人看到肯塔基州周围大块大块的盐碱地被聚集在那里的大群的动物践踏和磨损。穿过乡村小山的野牛的路径被严重地磨损和侵蚀以至于在野牛消失几乎两百年后这些路径依然清晰可见。同样，人类对自然不作任何的改造也几乎是不可能的。像所有的动物一样，人类必须要改造自然，否则，他们就无法生存。但是，和其他动物不一样的是：人类可以决定怎样改造自然以及改造自然的程度。如果人类没有充分地开发和改造自然，人性就不能得到充分的体现。反之，如果人类把自然开发改造得过了头这样就限制了他们后来可以从自然中获取的资源，最终，他们会毁了自己。自然不仅是丰富资源的源泉，同时也对我们的利用和开发提出了限制。正如诗人埃德蒙·斯宾塞在近四百年前所说的那样，大自然是“最伟大的女神”。她担任了上帝在地球上的代理人。斯宾塞把她描写成一位母亲和法官。她管辖着所有生物之间的往来，并不分厚薄地赋予他们权利，因为她是一位公正的母亲。她把他们紧密地联系在一起，就像兄弟姐妹一样。斯宾塞认为，生物繁殖及生物秩序的自然规律与公正原则紧密相联。而且这一公正原则也体现于大自然的运作中，这一观点的先进性可能让我们稍稍有点吃惊。然而，斯宾塞坚持说自然界有这样一位公正的法官，不仅仅是基于人类的手足之情，而且是基于所有生物的手足之情。要是在当今，我们会说斯宾塞的观点可以从生态学找到其理论依据。
6在自然界，有时野生动物把它们赖以生存的资源消耗殆尽，这时它们就要承受自然对它们的惩罚：大量动物会死去。如果猞猁吃掉大量的雪兔——据说它们常常是这样——那么大量的猞猁就会饿死直到其数目下降到自然环境能够容纳他(她)们的时候为止。决定猞猁生长繁殖的是自然环境的容纳力而不是猞猁的进食能力。同样的道理，人类如果耗费了太多的土壤——他们常常是这样而且仍然是这样——那么，一些人就会饿死直到人口下降到自然环境能够容纳他(她)们的时候为止。这就是自然不偏不倚的解决方式。正如斯宾塞在16世纪所预见的以及我们现在必须意识到的一点：大自然的公正没有回旋的余地。将来某一天，上帝可能会原谅我们对自然的虐待，但是在地球上，据我们所知，上帝绝不会改变他的裁决。
7人类和猞猁之不同在于人了解猞猁和雪兔之间的平衡原则，就像人类和耕地之间的平衡一样。另外一个不同是人类能够按自己的判断而行事，我们希望是这样。显然，稳定的平衡要比像跷跷板一样前后倾斜不时交替地除去过剩的动物要好得多，提到这一点，我们又一次提出了人类和自然是否一定是敌对的关系这一问题，要回答这个问题可并不那么简单。
8当我们试图回答这个问题，试图公正地权衡这个问题错综复杂的方方面面的时候，我们又遇到了一千问题：那就是在美国人的思想意识里根深蒂固的彻底征服自然的信仰。我们征服了东部的原始森林和西部的原始草原和沙漠，我们征服了吃人的野兽和吞食庄稼的害虫，吃羊的狼和偷吃小鸡的鹰。在我们的草坪，花园和田野里，我们除掉杂草。然而，越来越多的人开始意识到这种对自然的征服最终会毁了我们自己。这无法解释很多我们需要解释的问题——简言之，这种对自然的征服是错误的。
9如果我们人类和大自然的固有关系不是相互对抗的，那么，它又是一种什么样的关系呢?对我们来讲，这个问题相当复杂，因为正如我们先前所讲述的那样，我们中没有人想在未经开发的原始森林里或在未经开发的原始大草原上生活，我们不想被大灰熊吃掉。假如我们是园艺家，我们有正当的理由去抱怨园内的杂草。如果我们准备改良牧场，我们就很可能成为那一片片随风摆动的大蓟的敌人。尽管我们砍伐和破坏了原始森林和草原，我们仍然被它们的魅
力所摄服，我们会时常充满深情地回忆起它们和那些幸存的原始森林和草原。我们还会被大灰熊深深地吸引。我们知道，大灰熊及其他一些危险动物将永远活在我们的想象之中，如同它们永远陪伴着人类的生存一样。尽管我们除掉了大蓟，我们仍然欣赏它们的美，并且希望有属于它们的地方。(实际上，他们在草原上并不总是多余的。如果过度的放牧为这些植物提供了一个理想苗床，那么我们应把它们视作大自然保护土壤，以免动物破坏的一大策略。)即使是花园里最丑的草也会赢得我们的欢心，因为我们意识到它们是多么忠实地履行着覆盖光秃的大地并且提供腐殖物的重大任务。杂草在使土壤变得肥沃这方面也起了很大的作用。
10我们知道人类和自然之间的冲突确实存在并且在某种程度上这种冲突是必不可少的。但是，我们正在不断地认识到一个让我们自己也感到恐惧的事实：那就是，这种冲突经常是以双方的牺牲为代价的。这不仅可能而且多半会成为事实：我们在毁灭自然的同时毁灭了我们自己，反之亦然。
七The Virtues of Ambition
1 Ambition is one of those Rorschach (罗夏墨迹测验) words: define it and you instantly reveal a great deal about yourself. Event that most neutral of works, Webster’s, in its Seventh New Collegiate Edition, gives itself away, defining ambition firs t and foremost as “an ardent（强烈的）desire for rank, fame, or power.” Ardent immediately assumes a heat incommensurate with good sense and stability, and rank, fame, and power have come under fairly heavy attack for at least a century. One can, after all, be ambitious for the public good, for the alleviation of suffering, for the enlightenment of mankind, though there are some who say that these are precisely the ambitious people most to be distrusted.
2 Surely ambition is behind dreams of glory, of wealth, of love, of distinction (名望), of accomplishment, of pleasure, of goodness. What life does with our dreams and expectations cannot, of course, be predicted. Some dreams, begun in selflessness, end in rancor; other dreams, begun in selfishness, end in large-heartedness. The unpredictability of the outcome of dreams is no reason to cease dreaming.
3 To be sure, ambition, the sheer thing unalloyed by some larger purpose than merely clambering up, is never a pretty prospect to ponder. As drunks have done to alcohol, the single-minded have done to ambition – given it a bad name. Like a taste for alcohol, too, ambition does not always allow for easy satiation. Some people cannot handle it; it has brought grief to others, and not merely the ambitious alone. Still, none of this seems a sufficient cause for driving ambition under the counter.
4 What is the worst that can be said – that has been said – about ambition? Here is a (surely) partial list: To begin with, it, ambition, is often antisocial, and indeed is now outmoded, belonging to an age when individualism was more valued and useful than it is today. The person strongly imbued with ambition ignores the collectivity; socially detached, he is on his own and out for his own. Individuality and ambition are firmly linked. The ambitious individual, far from identifying himself and his fortunes with the group, wishes to rise above it. The ambitious man or woman sees the world as a battle; rivalrousness is his or her principal emotion: the world has limited prizes to offer, and he or she is determined to get his or hers. Ambition is, moreover, jesuitical: it can argue those possessed by it into believing that what they want for themselves is good for everyone – that the satisfaction of their own desires is best for the commonweal. The truly ambitious believe that it is a dog-eat-dog world, and they are distinguished by wanting to be the dogs that do the eating.
5 From here it is but a short hop to believe that those who have achieved the common goals of ambition – money, fame, power – have achieved them through corruption of a greater or lesser degree, mostly a greater. Thus all politicians in high places, thought to be ambitious, are understood to be, ipso facto, without moral scruples. How could they have such scruples – a weighty burden in a high climb – and still have risen as they have?
6 If ambition is to be well regarded, the rewards of ambition –wealth, distinction, control over one’s destiny –must be considered worthy of the sacrifices made on ambition’s behalf. If the tradition of ambition is to have vitality, it must be widely shared; and it especially must be esteemed by people who are themselves admired, the educated not least among them. The educated not least because, nowadays more than ever before, it is they who have usurped the platforms of public discussion and wield the power of the spoken and written word in newspapers, in magazines, on television. In an odd way, it
is the educated who have claimed to have given up on ambition as an ideal. What is odd is that they have perhaps most benefited from ambition –if not always their own then that of their parents and grandparents. There is a heavy note of hypocrisy in this: a case of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped – with the educated themselves astride them.
7 Certainly people do not seem less interested in success and its accoutrements now than formerly. Summer homes, European travel, BMWs – the locations, place names and name brands may change, but such items do not seem less in demand today than a decade or two years ago. What has happened is that people cannot own up to their dreams, as easily and openly as once they could, lest they be thought pushing, acquisitive, vulgar. Instead we are treated to fine pharisaical spectacles, which now more than ever seem in ample supply: the revolutionary lawyer quartered in the $250,000 Manhattan luxurious apartment; the critic of American materialism with a Southampton summer home; the publisher of radical books who takes his meals in three-star restaurants; the journalist advocating participatory democracy in all phases of life, whose own children are enrolled in private schools. For such people and many more perhaps not so egregious, the proper formulation is, “Succeed at all costs but refrain from appearing ambitious.”
8 The attacks on ambition are many and come from various angles; its public defenders are few and unimpressive, where they are not extremely unattractive. As a result, the support for ambition as a healthy impulse, a quality to be admired and inculcated in the young, is probably lower than it has ever been in the United States. This does not mean that ambition is at an end, that people no longer feel its stirrings and promptings, but only that, no longer openly honored, it is less often openly professed. Consequences follow from this, of course, some of which are that ambition is driven underground, or made sly, or perverse. It can also be forced into vulgarity, as witness the blatant pratings of its contemporary promoters. Such, then, is the way things stand: on the left angry critics, on the right obtuse supporters, and in the middle, as usual, the majority of earnest people trying to get on in life.
9 Many people are naturally distrustful of ambition, feeling that it represents something intractable in human nature. Thus John Dean entitled his book about his involvement in the Watergate affair during the Nixon administration Blind Ambition, as if ambition were to blame for his ignoble actions, and not the constellation of qualities that make up his rather shabby character. Ambition, it must once again be underscored, is morally a two-sided street. Place next to John Dean Andrew Carnegie, who, among other philanthropic acts, bought the library of Lord Acton, at a time when Acton was in financial distress, and assigned its custodianship to Acton, who never was told who his benefactor was. Need much more be said on the subject than that, important though ambition is, there are some things that one must not sacrifice to it?
10 But going at things the other way, sacrificing ambition so as to guard against its potential excesses, is to go at things wrongly. To discourage ambition is to discourage dreams of grandeur and greatness. All men and women are born, live, suffer, and die; what distinguishes us one from another is our dreams, whether they be dreams about worldly or unworldly things, and what we do to make them come about.
11 It may seem an exaggeration to say that ambition is the linchpin of society, holding many of its disparate elements together. But it is not an exaggeration by much. Remove ambition and the essential elements of society seem to fly apart. Ambition, as opposed to mere fantasizing about desires, implies work and discipline to achieve goals, personal and social, of a kind society cannot survive without. Ambition is intimately connected with family, for men and women not only work partly for their families: husbands and wives are often ambitious for each other, but harbor some of their most ardent ambitions for their children. Yet to have a family nowadays –with birth control readily available, and inflation a good economic argument against having children – is nearly an expression of ambition in itself. Finally, though ambition was once the domain chiefly of monarchs and aristocrats, it has, in more recent times, increasingly become the domain of the middle classes. Ambition and futurity – a sense of building for tomorrow – are inextricable. Working, saving, planning – these, the daily aspects of ambition – have always been the distinguishing marks of a rising middle class. The attack against ambition is not incidentally attack on the middle class and what it stands for. Like it or not, the middle class has done much of society’s work in America; and it, the middle class, has from the beginning run on ambition.
12 It is not difficult to imagine a world shorn of ambition. It would probably be a kinder world: without demands, without abrasions, without disappointments. People would have time for reflection. Such work as they did would not be for themselves but for the collectivity. Competition would never enter in. Conflict would be eliminated, tension become a thing of the past. The stress of creation would be at an end. Art would no longer be troubling, but purely celebratory in its functions. The family would become superfluous as a social unit, with all its former power for bring about neurosis drained away. Longevity would be increased, for fewer people would die of heart attack or stroke caused by tumultuous endeavor. Anxiety would be extinct. Time would stretch on and on, with ambition long departed from the human heart.
13 Ah, how unrelievedly boring life would be!
Unit7 野心的优点
1野心是罗夏墨迹测验的字眼之一：给它下个定义你立刻就流露出你很多的内心世界。即使是最中立的著作，韦伯
斯特的字典，新大学版第七版，也暴露出自己的观点，将“ambition”首先定义为：“追求官阶、名誉或权势的强烈
欲望。”于是乎“ardent”这个词直接承受一种压力，与褒义和恒心不再不相称，而官阶、名誉和权势至少受到百年
猛烈的抨击。毕竟是有人热衷于为民谋福利；为减轻民众的痛苦而奔走，为开发民智而雄心万丈，尽管有人说这些
恰巧是野心勃勃的人，绝大多数不可信任。
2毫无疑问，雄心大志期望的是荣耀、财富、爱情、名气、成就、享乐、完美。当然，命运怎样对待我们的理想和
期待不可预料。有些梦想，始于大公无私的初衷，其结果是积怨结仇；有的梦想，起先纯粹是出干自谋私利，但到
头来却称善于人梦想结果的不可预见性决不是停止梦想的理由。
3诚然，说到野心，即使并不掺杂超过敢于向上爬这样目的的纯粹事情，也不会让人感到前程似锦。如同酒鬼之嗜酒，执着的人怀有野心——使它声名狼藉。就像嗜酒如命一样，野心也总是欲壑难填。有些人不能控制野心；给他
人带来灾难，这就不单单是野心人的问题。虽然如此，这当中似乎没有一点充分的理由将野心驱逐到见不得人的暗处。
4在人们数落野心的种种不是时，野心能坏到什么极至呢?兹列一份略带偏见的清单：首先，野心常常反社会，如今
确实风光不再，它属于个人主义比今天更受重视和有用的年代。具有强烈野心的人无视集体利益：与社会离心离德，惟我独尊，我行我素。个人主义与个人野心紧密相连。心怀野心的人，完全不把自己和自己的命运与团体等同起来，只想出人头地。具有野心的男人或女人将世界视为战场：竞争是他们最重要的情感：世界提供了为数有限的奖项，他们也坚决要去摘取自己的桂冠。进一步说，野心就是狡诈；它能劝服心怀此胎的人相信，他们为自己所做的事情
对每个人都有好处——满足他们的私欲对国家最为有利。真正的野心家认为这是一个狗咬狗的世界，与众不同的是
他们要成为吃狗的狗。
5从这里来看，很容易相信凡是获得金钱、名誉、权势，即已经达到一般野心目标的人，他们通过小巫见大巫似的
腐败手段谋取私利，绝大多数都是相当骇人的程度。因此，所有位居要职的政客，被人认为是野心勃勃，自己也是
心知肚明，事实上，他们完全没有道德顾忌。他们怎么会有这样的顾忌——在往上爬的途中是一个沉重的负担，何
况负担也会随之上升呢?
6假如野心被人看好，那么野心的回报——财富、名气、生杀予夺——必须要被人认为值得野心为之付出的牺牲。
如果传统的野心有活力，它必须得到广泛的共识；特别要得到自己受到别人崇拜的人之尊重，其中尤其要有受教育
的人。这是因为，与过去相比有过之而无不及，正是这帮受过教育的人窃取了公共讨论的讲台，在报刊、杂志、电
视上滥用说话和写作的权利。是受教育的人以一种奇怪的方式宣称放弃野心作为一种理想，可笑的是也许他们往往
是野心的最大获利者——如果不是他们的话，那便是他们的父母或者祖父母。这里面有好多虚伪的东西；有一个案
子是在马逃跑之后再关上马厩门——可是马背上骑的是受教育的人。
7当然，拿现在与以前相比，人们似乎不会对成功：口功成名就的生活方式不感兴趣。避暑别墅、欧洲旅游、宝马
轿车——别墅的地点、游览的地名和汽车的品牌会因时而变，但是与十年前或两年前相比，人们对这些东西似乎并
没有减低要求。目前的情况是人们不能像以前那样大方公开地爽爽快快承认他们的梦想，惟恐被人认为是爱出风头、贪得无厌、粗俗不堪。与此相反，我们有幸看到精彩的虚伪景象，似乎现在越发是层出不穷：一位新潮的律师住进25万美金的曼哈顿豪华公寓；一位美国物质主义批评家有一座南安普敦避暑别墅；激进书籍的出版商在三星级餐馆
进膳；鼓吹在生活的各个方面都要体现民主参与的记者他的孩子就读于私立学校。更多类似这样的人也许不是这样
显山露水，正确的表达方式是：成功要不惜一切代价，但不要锋芒毕露。
8人们以不同的角度对野心群起而攻之；公开卫护野心的人少得可怜而且不成气候，可是他们却非常有吸引力。结果，把它作为一种健康的刺激、受人崇拜和向年轻人灌输的品质，与以往在美国流行的情况相比，对野心支持的调
子已大大降低。这并非意味着野心日暮途穷，只是人们不再感觉到它的激动人心和激励作用，只不过社会不再公开
对它表示敬意，人们也很少公开表白罢了。当然，由此产生的结果是，有些被迫韬光养晦，有些变成胸无大志，有
些弄得蛮不讲理。野心可以被迫流于庸俗不堪，它见证了当代支持者故作姿态的空谈。于是，就形成这样一种局面：左边是愤怒的批评家，右边是愚笨的支持者，中间照例是大部分想努力成功的老实人。
9很多人天生就不相信野心，觉得它代表了人类天性中难对付的东西。因此，约翰·迪安把他写的那本他在尼克松执政期间卷入“水门事件”的书命名为《盲目的野心)，仿佛野心应为他的可耻行为负责，而不是构成他相当卑劣性格的素质丛。必须再次强调，野心是道德上的双边街道。说完约翰·迪安，另外一位是安德鲁·卡内基。他一生做过许多善事，当阿克顿勋爵陷入金融危机的时候，曾出面买断阿克顿勋爵图书馆，并将管理权转让阿克顿，然而此翁一直不知道谁是救命恩人。野心固然很重要，有些事情一个人不必为此做出牺牲，在这个话题上针对这一点是否需要深入谈一下呢?
10但是，以另外的方式来努力做事，牺牲野心以便防止其潜在的越轨行为，若照此办理则大锗特错。遏制野心就是遏止伟大辉煌和一生的建树。生、老、病、死，普天下的男男女女概莫能外；惟一能将我们区别开来的是梦想，是凡夫俗子的梦想还是超凡脱俗的梦想，以及我们为实现梦想都做了些什么。
11将其不同的许多因素聚合起来，说野心是社会的关键似乎非常夸张，但是这样说并不是危言耸听。若消除野心，社会之要素仿佛突然消失。与对欲望仅仅是心存幻想相反，野心意味着为实现个人或社会的目标而苦干和训练，类似我们这样的社会没有野心便不能生存。野心与家庭有不解之缘，因为男人和女人不仅仅是某种程度上为家庭工作；虽然夫妻相互之间常常希望对方出人头地，事业有成；但是双方都将深藏在心底的最热切的野心寄托在孩子身上。如今人们还在生儿育女——采取简便易行的节育措施，通货膨胀是反对生孩子的绝妙经济论证——这几乎本质上就是野心的同义语。说到最后，虽然野心一度主要是君主和贵族的思想范畴，时至今日，它已日益成为中产阶级的思想范畴。野心和未来——建设明天的意识——是不可分割的。工作、储蓄、计划——这些便是在每天日常生活中野心的几个方面——这始终是不断崛起的中产阶级的明显标记。对野心的攻击决不是偶然对中产阶级及其主张的攻击。不管你喜欢还是不喜欢，中产阶级做出了美国的大部分社会成果；并且中产阶级从一开始就雄心勃勃。
12不难想象没有雄心和抱负的世界会是什么样子。它很可能是一个比较温和安逸的社会：没有要求，没有)中突，没有失望。人们有时间反省。他们所做的工作不是为了自己，而是为了集体。竞争不再闯入你的生活，冲突也将消失，紧张成为旧事，创造的压力也将终止。艺术不再是高深莫测，它的作用纯粹是为了欢庆和颂扬。家庭作为—今社会的单元将成为多余的，它以前的束缚力已消失。长寿会增加，因为死于紧张、辛劳的工作所引起的心脏病与中风的人会越来越少。焦虑将不复存在。人类长期地摆脱抱负和欲望的压力，日子会过得越来越舒坦。
九
1 Your job is dying. All the 11th-hour, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation of restruc turing and “empowerment” won’t save it. It’s doomed because the economy of the emerging millennium has no room for it. Your only hope is that you can hold off the inevitable until you retire – a rather forlorn wish. Or you can start confronting the future today by preparing to obsolete your current work before it obsoletes you – and then reinventing it.
2 You may wonder what this drumroll is all about. Bear with me. One cannot talk about jobs without talking about the economy within which they are embedded. So let’s begin our discussion with a quote from the 1995 White Paper of the World Gold Council:
3 “Several factors are responsible for today’s chaotic environment, but by far the most powerful is a shift in the fundamenta l nature of our economic system. We are moving from a production-based industrial economy to an information-based network economy. And, as a result, the principles that have governed both business and society for the past 200 years are becoming obsolete.”
4 Absolutely true. We are moving from an economy where intangibles like speed, flexibility and imagination are more important predictors of business success than tangibles like mass, size and physical assets. Accordingly, hitherto sacred principles like volume, economies of scale, experience curves, mass production and mass marketing are becoming less and less useful if we’re interested in competitive edge. Rapid collaborative application of intelligence is where it’s at.
5 Some companies get it. Like Microsoft. Some argue that Microsoft’s new, slashing, aggressive moves into the world of Internet is due primarily to Bill Gates’ ego. In a word, that’s absurd. In 1990, Microsoft achieved a 38 percent quarterly sa les boost by adding $90 million to its top line; in 1995, that same 38 percent standard required Microsoft to generate $800 million in new business. Today the bar is raised even higher. Where is the new business coming from? Economies of scale? Cost
reductions? Rubbish. It has to come from market-leading, customer-leading products. Microsoft has to generate at least $15 million a day just to break even. Without heaps of speed and imagination, it’s dead. Keep balance
6 Likewise, to say that Rubbermaid’s success is due to its efficiencies in production and distribution is ridiculous. Cost-efficiencies are necessary for the survival of any organization, to be sure, but Rubbermaid’s corporate success is due to its capacity to develop and launch one new interesting product every day in a supposedly humdrum, mundane business. It is speed to market and ingenuity in both product-development and marketing that create wealth for Rubbermaid. As one observer noted, “Rubbermaid” is not a rubber company. It’s an innovation company.
7 To say that EDS is successful because of its sheer size in manpower is to again miss the point. EDS is successful despite its size. The company is smart enough to break down its 90,000-person workforce into independent microteams that work directly with individual clients – often on client sites – on creative business solutions. EDS recognizes that the key to business success lies not in high-volume mass services, but in the capacity to create customized value-adding product-service mixes for smaller and smaller segments –ultimately reaching market units of one: me and you and every other individual who responds to personalization. Customization
8 These corporate trends are both reflected and accelerated in the new knowledge economy, where competitive advantage is, according to a random sampling of pundits’ comments, based on factors like “breakthroughs,” “exploration,” “mental flexibility,” “production of ideas” and “curiosity as deep as it is boundless.”
9 Now, let’s take it a step further. Where do a ll these intangibles – breakthroughs, exploration, ideas, etc. –come from? Who’s going to supply them? Who’ll take responsibility for seeing them to fruition? In the old hierarchical model (that is, the one most corporations are still comfortable with), the answer is clear: a few smart people like senior managers, staff experts and consultants. Everyone e lse by and large executes. It’s a nice neat process: logical, sensible, practical and suicidal.
10 In yesterday’s economy, hierarchy and centralization wo rked fine. In the new economy of intangibles, the old way of management is a monumental barrier to information flow, initiative, collaboration, creativity and speed. And the worst of it, and underlying every symptom listed above, is that the old way of management is fundamentally evil.
11 It’s evil in that it coarsens people’s humanity by robbing them of their imagination and curiosity and turning them into bureaucrats. In a brainbased, knowledge economy, bureaucracy kills.
12 Now we get to the crux of the matter. Yes, lots of routine work in organizations always exists. Thus, there is a big place for bureaucracy in any organization. However, in the successful organizations of the future, bureaucracy will be nonhuman. Specifically, it will be your information systems, and the bureaucrats will be your computers.
13 Right now, computers have the capacity to do almost every routine task. They can check, monitor, search, scan, view, review, request, locate, list, gather, record, retrieve, edit, transfer, store, access, select, replicate, duplicate, assemble, combine, file, categorize, mail, dispatch, and, of course, compute. In a narrow sense, they can organize, allocate and project. And they can do it a lot better, a lot cheaper and a lot faster than we can.
14 Yet the tasks described above are precisely the tasks that define many people’s jobs. The se are the tasks that people spend much of their daily calendar time doing at their desks or on the shop floor. This fits nicely into the hierarchical model, but when people spend much of their time doing routine (including the routine of waiting for directives), there is not much time (or initiative) for ingenuity and unconventional thinking. There is not much time to provide customers with personal attention and imaginative solutions. There is not much time for learning either, even though in the new knowledge economy, working and learning are equivalent.
15This brings us to consultant Harry Dent, who makes a key, provocative point: Computers can now do the analytically detached, bureaucratic routine at lightning speed. If computers are thus the ultimate bureaucrats, why use people for that sort
of work at all? (Even if you’re smart enough to outsource such work, the question can still be aimed at the supplier.) Asks Dent: Why not use the computer to do the bureaucracy in order to help people, indeed, to free people to think, to imagine, to create and to serve customers in a breakthrough manner?
16 It’s a very valid question. In the emerging economy, there will be l ess and less space available for bureaucracy in jobs. If, indeed, competitive advantage results from the intangibles, then what organization can afford to carry the overhead of bureaucratic jobs? Even now, companies as diverse as GTE, Motorola and Fidelity Investments are finding that giving front-line people the technology, the training and the authority to make decisions without the need for further handoffs drastically reduces cycle time and improves quality. Bureaucratic conduit-jobs, those that are based on pass-offs and reviews of passed-off work, are rapidly disappearing.
17 The trends are quickly accelerating for a simple reason: information is power, and technology democratizes and universalizes the availability of information. Hence, organizations will no longer be able to subsidize processes and jobs that glorify hierarchical control but turn off the spigot on knowledge-flow. Futurist George Gilder describes a world where the economy is based on sand, glass and air. Sand is the silicon used to make microchips, the building blocks of computing – and that building block is growing exponentially. The performance of microchips doubles every 18 months.
18 Then there’s glass, which is used to make optical fibers, thin as human hair, carrying a thousand times more information than phone lines. And air, which is the medium for wireless communication technologies. These technologies converge to shrink the planet, eliminate time and distance from communication, and make us more powerful than any king or queen in history. Create a collaborative culture using a networked computing system, and your power goes up exponentially. Gilder calls it the “law of telecosm: n computers in the network yield n-squared performance.
19 Now put it all together and you’re talking, in Gilder’s terms, about technologies “flinging intelligence to the far reaches of the globe, overthrowing centralization, pyramids and hierarchy.” You’re talking about any individual anywhere being able to instantly access anyone, or any hitherto pro prietary information. You’re talking about accessibility of anything, where walls of secrecy and hoarding and egostatus come tumbling down.
20 In a world where information is a flood – accessible to everyone, and where nothing is secret or proprietary(,) – the only organizations and managers who will thrive are those who can quickly wade into the water, harness what they need, and then add value to it through speedy, innovative business decisions.
21 The Gold Council White Paper put it nicely: “In tomorrow’s market place, information – gathered and transmitted through
a vast network of interconnected computers – will be the most valuable currency of business. The companies that win will be those who most efficiently collect and use information to rapidly test new products, identify best-selling items, replenish stock and match marketing efforts to new consumer demands.”
22 There’s no place for human bureaucracy in this scenario. The sheer volume of information and knowledge available to any individual (and any competitor) will mean that talent, resourcefulness, energy and ingenuity will necessarily become an all-hands, collaborative affair, the responsibility of everyone on board. Bureaucracy will thus fill the job description of the computer, not the human being.
23 Some social thinkers view this trend with alarm. They see factories where robotics has replaced mind-numbing manual labor; they see offices where telecommunication systems eliminate the need for people who mechanically take messages. And instead of feeling hope, they despair, painting a picture of a world where only a few human beings have jobs at all. Jeremy Rifkin, in his new book ominously titled The End of Work, writes: “We are entering into a new period in history where machines will increasingly replace human labor in the production of goods and services. Although timetables are difficult to predict, we are set on a firm course to an automated future and will likely approach a near-workerless era, at least in manufacturing, by the early decades of the coming century.
24 I respect Rifkin, but in this case he’s only half right. We’ll see not a decline of jobs in general, but a decline of bure aucratic jobs. At the turn of the century (this time, I mean the year 1900), an anxiety was expressed about all the farming jobs that were going to be lost. And indeed, they were lost; the industry that accounted for the large majority of jobs in 1900 today accounts for less than 10 percent of them. So what? Just like new jobs (and new industries) were born then, new ones will be born as we enter the next millennium. And these new jobs will be more fulfilling and more rewarding, because the beasts of mental burden will be the computers.
Unit9 让计算机做“官僚”
1你的工作行将消亡。任何想调整其结构和为其提供资源的最后努力都不可能挽救它。这是注定了的，因为即将到来的新千年的经济制度没有给它留余地。你惟一的希望——一千相当渺茫的希望，就是尽量延缓这种必然的结果到你退休才到来。或者你可以从现在开始准备在你的工作淘汰你之前你先淘汰它，接着重新发明工作，以此来与未来抗争。
2你可能想知道这种警示是什么意思。耐心听我说吧!一个人不了解工作所植根的经济制度就不可能了解那些工作。因此，让我们引用世界黄金委员会1995年的白皮书中的一段话来开始我们的讨论：
3“目前混乱的环境是由几方面的因素造成的。其中最主要的因素是我们经济体制根本性质的变更。我们正从以生产为基础的工业经济转换到以信息为基础的网络经济。因此，在过去200年里调节商业和社会的原则正在被淘汰。”4确实如此。我们正在转换经济体制，在这种体制中，速度、灵活性和想象力之类的无形的东西成为比数量、规模和物质财富更为重要的商业成功的象征。因此，如果我们想在竞争中取得优势，就应该知道那些像量、规模化经济、经验图表、批量生产和批量销售这些迄今为止神圣的原则都将越来越没有用武之地。知识信息的快速合作运用才是竞争优势的关键之所在。
5有些公司了解这一点。微软即是其中之一。有些人认为微软在互联网世界里崭露锋芒，锐意发展是由于比尔·盖茨的个人野心。简而言之，这种想法很荒谬。在1990年，微软季度销售额增加38％，只需要增加9千万的收入，而在1995年，微软要达到同样比例的季度销售增幅，收益需要增加8亿美元。现在，收益的增加标准越提越高。新的商机来自何处?规模化经营?还是降低成本?这些都是无稽之谈。新的商机只能来自于领导市场、受顾客欢迎的产品。如果没有高速度和充分的想象力，它只有死路一条。
6同样的，说乐柏美公司的成功归因于生产和销售的高效也是荒谬的。确实，成本效益对任何一个组织机构的生存都是必要的。但是乐柏美公司的成功在于他们能够在人们认为单调的日常生意中每天开发和投产一种新的、有趣产品。正是上市迅速和产品开发及销售方面的别出心裁为乐柏美公司创造了财富，如—位评论员写到：”乐柏美公司不是一个单纯的橡胶制品公司，它是一家创新公司。”
7说EDS的成功仅仅是因为其人力资源方面的规模也未免有失偏顿。尽管人员众多，EDS还是成功的。这家公司明智的做法是将90,000劳动力分成独立的小团体。那些小团体——经常在顾客所在地——就创造性的商业解决方案直接与单个顾客接触。EDS认识到商业成功的关键不在于高强度的集体服务而在干为越来越小的群体创造特定的、增值的产品服务组合的能力——最后到达构成市场的各个单位：我、你和其他每一个趋向于个性化的个体。
8在新的知识经济中，这些公司发展的趋势得到反应并突飞猛进。根据权威评论分析的随机抽样显示，在新的知识经济中，竞争优势是基于像”突破”、“探索”、”心理适应性”、“观念更新”和“无穷的求知欲”等因素之上的。
我们的出路在哪儿?
9现在，让我进一步探讨。像“突破”、“探索”、“创意”等所有这些无形的东西从哪来?谁提供它们?谁负责保证它们得以付诸实践?在古老的等级模式中(那就是，许多公司还保留的那种模式)，答案是很明确的：一少部分精明的人：像高层管理者、技术骨干和顾问。总的来说，其余的每个人负责实施工作。这是一个非常干净利落的过程：符合逻辑、明智、实用和自行灭亡的过程。
10在旧的经济体制中，等级制度和集中体制运行得很好。在新的无形经济中，旧的管理方式大大阻碍了信息流通、主动性、合作、创造性和速度。更糟糕的是构成上面列举的征兆的原因是旧的管理方式从根本上讲是邪恶的。
11旧的管理方式是邪恶的，因为它剥夺人们的想象力和好奇心，从而使他们成为官僚主义者，以这样的方式使人性变得粗俗。在一个以脑力为基础的知识经济中，官僚主义将起扼杀作用。
12现在，我们谈到了问题的关键。是的，组织机构中总是存在许多例行的工作。因此，任何组织都有存在官僚主义的可能。然而，未来成功的组织机构中，官僚主义将不再属于人类。具体地说，它将是你的信息系统，官僚主义者将是你的计算机。
13现在，计算机有能力做几乎每一件按部就班的工作。它们能检查、监视、搜索、扫描、观察、回顾、请求、寻找、列表、收集、记录、恢复、转换、储存、接收、选择、复制、复印、组合、综合、编辑、分类、邮寄、发送，当然
还有计算。狭义上讲，计算机能组织、分配和设计，而且它们能比我们做得更好、也更经济。
14然而，上面描述的这些任务正是许多人的工作，是许多人花费大量的日常工作时间在办公桌或车间做的工作。这非常适用于等级模式。但是当人们花大量时间做日常工作(包括等待训示指导的例行工作)，就没有时间(或主动性)去创造发明和进行打破习俗地思考；没有足够的时间给予顾客个别注意和富于想象力的解决方法；也没有足够的时间学习，即使在新的知识经济中，工作和学习也是同等重要的。
解放人们
15这使我们想到了亨利·登特顾问，他提出了一种关键的、富有争议的观点：计算机现在能以极快的速度做分析性独立的、官僚性的常规工作。因此，如果计算机是最后的官僚主义者，为什么还要人做这种工作呢?(即使你聪明到能摆脱这样的工作而让别人来做，我们还是要问供应者这个问题的)。亨利·登特问道：为什么不用计算机去做官僚性的工作，以便帮助人们，真正地解放人们，让他们去思考、去想象、去创造和以一种突破的方式为顾客服务。16这是一个很现实的问题。在这个逐渐显现的经济体制中，官僚主义在工作中存在的可能性将越来越小。确实，如果竞争优势来自那些无形的东西，那么什么样的机构能负担起官僚性工作的费用呢?即使是现在，像GTE，摩托罗拉和忠诚投资等各种公司发现：给予第一线的员工技术、培训和不必进一步去争取意见就能做出决定的权力能极大地减少循环时间和提高质量。那些建立在相互传来传去基础上的官僚性和重复性的工作将迅速消失。
沙子、玻璃和空气
17这些趋势在不断扩大，原因很简单：信息就是力量，而技术的发展使得获取信息变得民主化和全球化。因此，各种组织机构将再也不能扶植那些美化等级特权并阻止信息交流的工作体系了。在未来学家乔治·吉尔德所描绘的世界中，经济是建立在沙子、玻璃和空气的基础上的。沙子即指制造芯片的硅。芯片(计算机世界的建筑材料)正以指数级的速度增长。每18个月芯片的性能就要翻一番。
18玻璃是用来制造细如人发、能传输比电话线多出千倍的信息量的光纤维。空气是无线电通讯术的介质。这些技术聚集在一起能缩小星球、消除交流上的时间和距离，使我们比历史上任何一位国王或王后更强大。如果用一个计算机网络系统创造一种协作的文化，你的能力将会以几何级数增长。乔治·吉尔德称之为“电信社会的法则：网络上的N台计算机将产生N的平方的性能。”
19现在把它综合起来，用乔治·吉尔德的话来讲，你正在谈论“把智慧传播到全球各个角落，推翻集中制、金字塔现象和等级制度”的技术。你正在谈论任何人能立即接近任何地方的人或了解迄今为止的所有专用信息。你正谈论任何事物的易接近性。保密、囤积和自我封闭的围墙将倒塌。
20在一个信息似洪水——每一个人都能获得信息和没有秘密、没有专有权的世界里，惟一能兴旺的就是那些能迅速淌进水里，利用他们所需要的，然后，通过快速的、创新的商业决策为其增值的组织机构和管理者。
21黄金委员会的白皮书精彩地描述：“在明天的市场上，通过巨大的由计算机连接的互联网收集和传输的信息将是最有价值的商业货币。获胜的将是那些以高效率收集、应用信息去快速测试新产品、确认最佳销售项目、补充库存并使营销满足顾客新要求的公司。”
害怕失业
22在这里没有人类官僚的容身之地。任何个人（或任何竞争者)能获得的信息和知识的量将意味着天赋、足智多谋、精力和创造力并势必成为一件全方位合作的事情和每个在职人员的责任。这样，官僚并非人类将充斥在计算机的工作中。
23一些社会思想家对这种趋势持恐慌态度。他们看到了工厂里机器人已经取代了神情麻木的手工劳动者；他们看到办公室里卫星通讯系统已经消除了对那些机械接收信息人员的需要。他们不是充满希望，相反，他们绝望地描绘了一幅只有几个人有工作的世界图画。杰里米。里弗金在他的被不祥地命名为（工作末日)的新书中写到：·我们正进入一个新的历史时期，机器将逐步地在商品生产和服务领域取代人力。尽管时间难以预测，但我们正迈步在自动化未来的道路上，可能在下世纪初的前几十年里走近一个几乎没有工人的时代，至少在制造业方面是如此。
24我尊敬里弗金先生，但在这件事上，他只对了一半。我们将看到的不是所有工作的削减而是官僚工作的消减。在世纪之交（这里我是指1900年），人们担心所有的农场工作将失去。它们确实失去了；在1990年提供大量工作的工业现在剩下的还不到10%。那又怎么样呢？就像当时新工作（新工业）产业一样，随着我们进入新千年，新工作也会产生，而且新工作将更具有成就感，有更高的回报，因为那些繁琐，死板的工作将由计算机担负。
“Hiroshima! Everybody off!” That must be what the man in the Japanese stationmaster's uniform shouted, as the fastest train in the world slipped to a stop in Hiroshima Station. I did not understand what he was saying. First of all, because he was shouting in Japanese. And secondly, because I had a lump in my throat and a lot of sad thoughts on my mind that had little to do with anything a Nippon railways official might say. The very act of stepping on this soil, in breathing this air of Hiroshima, was for me a far greater adventure than any trip or any reportorial assignment I'd previously taken. Was I not at the scene of the crime? The Japanese crowd did not appear to have the same preoccupations that I had. From the sidewalk outside the station, things seemed much the same as in other Japanese cities. Little girls and elderly ladies in kimonos rubbed shoulders with teenagers and women in western dress. Serious looking men spoke to one another as if they were oblivious of the crowds about them, and bobbed up and down re-heatedly in little bows, as they exchanged the ritual formula of gratitude and respect: "Tomo aligato gozayimas." Others were using little red telephones that hung on the facades of grocery stores and tobacco shops. "Hi! Hi!" said the cab driver, whose door popped open at the very sight of a traveler. "Hi", or something that sounds very much like it, means "yes". "Can you take me to City Hall?" He grinned at me in the rear-view mirror and repeated "Hi!" "Hi! ’ We set off at top speed throug h the narrow streets of Hiroshima. The tall buildings of the martyred city flashed by as we lurched from side to side in response to the driver's sharp twists of the wheel. Just as I was beginning to find the ride long, the taxi screeched to a halt, and the driver got out and went over to a policeman to ask the way. As in Tokyo, taxi drivers in Hiroshima often know little of their city, but to avoid loss of face before foreigners, will not admit their ignorance, and will accept any destination without concern for how long it may take them to find it. At last this intermezzo came to an end, and I found myself in front of the gigantic City Hall. The usher bowed deeply and heaved a long, almost musical sigh, when I showed him the invitation which the mayor had sent me in response to my request for an interview. "That is not here, sir," he said in English. "The mayor expects you tonight for dinner with other foreigners or, the restaurant boat. See? This is where it is.” He sketched a little map for me on the back of my invitation. Thanks to his map, I was able to find a taxi driver who could take me straight to the canal
系统复习资料 八年级上册英语课文原文 Unit 1Where did you go on vacation? Section A 2d Rick：Hi，Helen.Long time no see. Helen：Hi，Rick.Yes，I was on vacation last month. Rick：Oh，did you go anywhere interesting? Helen：Yes，I went to Guizhou with my family. Rick：Wow！Did you see H uangguoshu Waterfall? Helen：Yes，I did.It was wonderful！①We took quite a few photos there.What about you？Did you do anything special last month? Rick：Not really.②I just stayed at home most of the time to read and relax., Section B 2b Did Jane have a good time on Monday？What about on Tuesday? Monday，July 15th I arrived in Penang in Malaysia this morning with my family.①It was sunny and hot，so we decided to go to the beach near our hotel.②My sister and I tried paragliding.③I felt like I was a bird.It was so exciting！For lunch，we had something very special-Malaysian yellow noodles.They were delicious！In the afternoon，we rode bicycles to Georgetown.④There are a lot of new buildings now，but many of the old buildings are still there.In We ld Quay，a really old place in Georgetown，we saw the houses of the Chinese traders from 100 years ago.⑤I wonder what life was like here in the past.I really enjoyed walking around the town. Tuesday，July 16th ⑥What a difference a day makes！My father and I decided to go to Penang Hill today.We wanted to walk up to the top，but then it started raining a little so we decided to take the train.⑦We waited over an hour for the train because there were too many people.When we got to the top，it was raining really hard.We didn't have an umbrella so we were wet and cold.It was terrible！⑧And because of the bad weather，we couldn't see anything below.⑨My f ather didn't bring enough money，so we only had one bowl of fish and rice.I was so hungry！But it tasted great！,
人教版八年级英语下课文原文 Unit 1 What’s the matter? 1. Bus Driver and Passengers Save an Old Man At 9:00 a.m. yesterday, bus NO.26 was going along Zhonghua Road when the driver saw an old man lying on the side of the road. A woman next to him was shouting for help. The bus driver, 24-year-old Wang Ping, stopped the bus without thinking twice. He got off and asked the woman what happened. She said that the man had a heart problem and should go to the hospital. Mr. Wang knew he had to act quickly. He told the passengers that he must take the man to the hospital. He expected most or all of the passengers to get off and wait for the next bus. But to his surprise, they all agreed to go with him. Some passengers helped Mr. Wang to move the man into the bus. Thanks to Mr. Wang and the passengers, the doctors saved the man in time. “It’s sad that many people don’t want to help others because they don’t want any trouble, ”says one passenger. “But the driver didn’t think about himself. He only thought about saving a life.” 2. He Lost His Arm But Is Still Climbing Aron Ralston is an American man who is interested in mountain climbing. As a mountain climber, Aron is used to taking risks. This is one of the exciting things about doing dangerous sports. There were many times when Aron almost lost his life because of accidents. On April 26, 2003, he found himself in a very dangerous situation when climbing in Utah. On that day, Aron’s arm was caught under a 360-kilo rock that fell on him when he was climbing by himself in the mountains. Because he could not free his arm, he stayed there for five days and hoped that someone would find him. But when his water ran out, he knew that he would have to do something to save his own life. He
必修1 第一单元 Reading 阅读 ANNE’S BEST FRIEND Do you want a friend whom you could tell everything to, like your deepest feelings and thoughts? Or are you afraid that your friend would laugh at you, or would not understand what you are going through? Anne Frank wanted the first kind, so she made her diary her best friend. 安妮最好的朋友 你想不想有一位无话不谈能推心置腹的朋友？或者你会不会担心你的朋友会嘲笑你，会不理解你目前的困境呢？安妮?弗兰克想要的是第一种类型的朋友，所以她把的日记视为自己最好的朋友。 Anne lived in Amsterdam in the Netherlands during World War II. Her family was Jewish so the had to hide or they would be caught by the German Nazis. She and her family hide away for two years before they were discovered. During that time the only true friend was her diary. She said, “I don’t want to set down a series of facts in a diary as most people do, but I want this diary itself to be my friend, and I shall call my friend Kitty.”Now read how she felt after being in the hiding place since July 1942. 在第二次世界大战期间，安妮住在荷兰的阿姆斯特丹。她一家人都是犹太人，所以他们不得不躲藏起来，否则就会被德国的纳粹分子抓去。她和她的家人躲藏了25个月之后才被发现。
1]?The joy of laughing at a funny story is universal, probably as old as language itself.?But, what is it that makes a story or a j o k e f u n n y? [2]?As one who has enjoyed humor since I first recognized it, I've?made an attempt to?explain and discuss humor with students in such diverse cultures as Latin America and China.?I've done some serious thinking about funny stories. It has been a labor of love[N]![3]?Why is it that several students in a class will fall out of their chairs laughing after I tell a joke while the rest of the students look as if I've just read the weather report?[N]?Obviously some people are more sensitive to humor than others.?And, we recognize that some people tell jokes very well while others struggle to say something funny.?We've all heard people say, "I like jokes, but I can't tell one well, and I can never remember them."?Some people have a better sense of humor than others just as some people have more musical talent, mathematical talent, etc. than others.?A truly funny person has a joke for every occasion, and when one is told, that triggers an entire?string?of jokes from that person's memory bank.[N]?A?humorless?person is not likely to be the most popular person in a group.?It is reasonable to say that the truly?humorous?individual is not only well liked, but is often the focus of attention in any gathering.[4]?Even some animals have a sense of humor.?My wife's mother often visited us for extended stays.[N]?She normally didn't like dogs, but she?fell in love with Blitzen[N]—a female Lab[N]?we had, and the relationship was?mutual.?Even when young, Blitzen would?tease?Grandma?by very?selectively?carrying one of her bedroom slippers into the living room where Grandma sat in her favorite, comfortable chair.?Blitzen?pranced?just?beyond the reach of?Grandma until Grandma was?tempted?to leave her chair to get the slipper from Blitzen.?When Grandma left her chair, Blitzen would quickly jump into the chair,?flashing?her Lab smile?from?sparkling?brown eyes which clearly said, "Aha, I fooled you again." [5]?Typical jokes or humorous stories have a three-part?anatomy?that is easily recognized.?First is the SETUP (or?setting), next is the BODY (or story line), and these are followed by the PUNCH LINE[N]?(an unexpected or surprise ending) which will make the joke funny if it contains some humor.?Usually all three parts are present, and each must be clearly presented[N].?It helps if the story/joke teller uses gestures and language which are well known to the audience. [6]?Humor, as a form of entertainment, can be analyzed in order to discover what makes a funny story or joke seem funny.?Here, for example, are some of the most common types of humor. They range from the most obvious humor to the more subtle types. [7]?"SLAP-STICK" is the most obvious humor.?Its language is simple, direct, and often makes fun of another person or group.?Slap-stick was and is the technique of the stand-up comedian[N]?and the?clown.?It appeals to all ages and all cultures.?Nearly every English-speaking?comedian?in this century has used the following joke in one form or another.?One man asks another, "Who was that lady I saw you with last night?"?The other replies, "That was no lady, that was my wife."The humor lies in the fact that the second man is saying that his wife is not a lady.In other words, she is not a refined woman.?The joke is no less funny because it is so often used.?The audience knows in advance what will be said, because it is classic humor, and any audience values it even more because of its?familiarity. [8]?Chinese "cross-talk" is a special type of slap-stick in which two Chinese comedians humorously discuss topics such as?bureaucrats, family problems, or other personal topics.?Cross-talk can be heard anywhere from small village stages to the largest Beijing theatres, and to radio and television.?It is clearly a traditional form of humor well understood by Chinese people. [9]?A PLAY ON WORDS is not so obvious as slap-stick, but it is funny because of?misused?or misunderstood language.?My favorite example is the story of three elderly gentlemen traveling by train in England.?As the train slowed for a
Frederick William Ⅰ，the King of Prussia , could never have imagined that his greatest gift to the Russian people would have such an amazing history . This gift was the Amber Room , which was given this name because several tons of amber were used to make it . The amber which was selected had a beautiful yellow-brown colour like honey . The design of the room was in the fancy style popular in those days . It was also a treasure decorated with gold and jewels , which took the country's best artists about ten years to make . In fact , the room was not made to be a gift . It was designed for the palace of Frederick Ⅰ. However, the next King of Prussia , Frederick William Ⅰ,to whom the amber room belonged, decided not to keep it. In 1716 he gave it to Peter the Great. In return , the Czar sent him a troop of his best soldiers. So the Amber Room because part of the Czar's winter palace in St Petersburg.About four metres long, the room served as a small reception hall for important visitors . Later,Catherine Ⅱhad the Amber Room moved to a palace outside St Petersburg where she spent her summers. She told her artists to add more details to it .In 1770 the room was completed the way she wanted . Almost six hundred candles lit the room ,and its mirrors and pictures shone like gold. Sadly , although the Amber Room was considered one of the wonders of the world , it is now missing . In September 1941, the Nazi army was near St Petersburg . This was a time when the two countries were at war . Before the Nazis could get to the summer palace , the Russians were able to remove some furniture and small art objects from the Amber Room . However , some of the Nazis secretly stole the room itself . In less than two days 100,000 pieces were put inside twenty-seven woooden boxs . There is no doubt that the boxs were then put on a train for Konigsberg, which was at that time a German city on the Baltic Sea . After that, what happened to the Amber Room remains a mystery . Recently , the Russians and Germans have built a new Amber Room at the summer palace . By studying old photos of the former Amber Room , they have made the new one look like the old one .In 2003 it was ready for the people of St Petersburg when they celebrated the 300th birthday of their city . A FACT OR AN OPINION? What is a fact? Is it something that people believe? No. A fact is anything that can be proved. For example, it can be proved that China has more people than any other country in the world. This is a fact. Then what is an opinion? An opinion is what someone believes is true but has not been proved. So an opinion is not good evidence in a trial. For example, it is an opinion if you say “Cats are better pets than dogs”. It may be true, but it is difficult to prove. Some people may not agree with this opinion but they also cannot prove that they are right. In a trial, a judge must decide which eyewit nesses to believe and which not to believe. The judge does not consider what each eyewitness looks like or where that person lives or works. He/she only cares about whether the eyewitness has given true information, which must be facts rather than opinions. This kind of information is called evidence. Unit 2 AN INTERVIEW Pausanias, who was a Greek writer about 2,000 years ago, has come on a magical journey on March 18th 2007 to find out about the present-day Olympic Games. He is now interviewing Li Yan, a volunteer for the 2008 Olympic Games.
2014高级英语第一册课文翻译 第一课中东的集市 中东的集市仿佛把你带回到了几百年、甚至几千年前的时代。此时此刻显现在我脑海中的这个中东集市，其入口处是一座古老的砖石结构的哥特式拱门。你首先要穿过一个赤日耀眼、灼热逼人的大型露天广场，然后走进一个凉爽、幽暗的洞穴。这市场一直向前延伸，一眼望不到尽头，消失在远处的阴影里。赶集的人们络绎不绝地进出市场，一些挂着铃铛的小毛驴穿行于这熙熙攘攘的人群中，边走边发出和谐悦耳的叮当叮当的响声。市场的路面约有十二英尺宽，但每隔几码远就会因为设在路边的小货摊的挤占而变窄；那儿出售的货物各种各样，应有尽有。你一走进市场，就可以听到摊贩们的叫卖声，赶毛驴的小伙计和脚夫们大着嗓门叫人让道的吆喝声，还有那些想买东西的人们与摊主讨价还价的争吵声。各种各样的噪声此伏彼起，不绝于耳，简直叫人头晕。 随后，当往市场深处走去时，人口处的喧闹声渐渐消失，眼前便是清静的布市了。这里的泥土地面，被无数双脚板踩踏得硬邦邦的，人走在上面几乎听不到脚步声了，而拱形的泥砖屋顶和墙壁也难得产生什么回音效果。布店的店主们一个个都是轻声轻气、慢条斯理的样子；买布的顾客们在这种沉闷压抑的气氛感染下，自然而然地也学着店主们的榜样，变得低声细语起来。 中东集市的特点之一是经销同类商品的店家，为避免相互间的竞争，不是分散在集市各处，而是都集中在一块儿，这样既便于让买主知道上哪儿找他们，同时他们自己也可以紧密地联合起来，结成同盟，以便保护自己不受欺侮和刁难。例如，在布市上，所有那1些卖衣料、窗帘布、椅套布等的商贩都把货摊一个接一个地排设在马路两边，每一个店铺门面前都摆有一张陈列商品的搁板桌和一些存放货物的货架。讨价还价是人们习以为常的事。头戴面纱的妇女们迈着悠闲的步子从一个店铺逛到另一个店铺，一边挑选一边问价；在她们缩小选择范围并开始正儿八经杀价之前，往往总要先同店主谈论几句，探探价底。 对于顾客来说，至关重要的一点是，不到最后一刻是不能让店主猜到她心里究竟中意哪样东西、想买哪样东西的。假如让店主猜中了她所要买的商品的话，他便会漫天要价，而且在还价过程中也很难作出让步。而在卖主那一方来说，他必须竭尽全力地声称，他开出的价
Unit 1 Where did you go on vacation 2d conversation: R: Hi, Helen. Long time no see. H: Hi,Rick. Yes, I was on vacation last month. R: Oh, did you go anywhere interesting H: Yes, I went to Guizhou with my family. R: Wow! Did you see Huangguoshu Waterfall H: Yes, I did. It was wonderful! We took quite a few photos there. What about you Did you do anything special last month R: Not really. I just stayed at home most of the time to read and relax. 2b passage: I arrived in Penang in Malaysia this morning with my family. lt was sunny and hot,so we decided to go to the beach near our hotel. My sister and l tried paragliding. l felt like l was a bird. lt was so lunch,we had something very special——Malaysian yellow noodles. They were delicious. In the afternoon,we rode bicycles to Georgetown. There are a lot of new buildings now, but many of the old buildings are still there. In weld quay, a really old place in Georgetown,we saw the houses of the Chinese traders from 100 years ago. l wonder what life was like here in the past .l really enjoyed walking around the town. What a difference a day makes! My father and I decided to go to Penang Hill today. We wanted to walk up to the top,but then it started raining a little so we decided to take the train. We waited over an hour for the train because there were too many people . When we got to the top ,it was raining really hard. We didn't have an umbrella so we were wet and cold. It was terrible!And because of the bad weather,we couldn't see anything below. My father didn't bring enough money,so we only had one bowl of rice and some fish. The food tasted great because I was so hungry! Unit 2 How often do you exercise 2d conversation: A:Hi,Claire,are you free next week B:Hmm… next week is quit e full for me,Jack. A:Really How come B:I have dance and piano lessons. A:What kind of dance are you learning B:Oh,swing dance. It’s fun! I have class once a week,every Monday. A:How often do you have piano lessons B:Twice a week,on Wednesday and Friday. A:Well,how about Tuesday
青年人的四种选择 Lesson 2: Four Choices for Young People 在毕业前不久，斯坦福大学四年级主席吉姆?宾司给我写了一封信，信中谈及他的一些不安。Shortly before his graduation, Jim Binns, president of the senior class at Stanford University, wrote me about some of his misgivings. 他写道：“与其他任何一代人相比，我们这一代人在看待成人世界时抱有更大的疑虑……同时越来越倾向于全盘否定成人世界。” “More than any other generation,”he said, “our generation views the adult world with great skepticism…there is also an increased tendency to reject completely that world.” 很明显，他的话代表了许多同龄人的看法。 Apparently he speaks for a lot of his contemporaries. 在过去的几年里，我倾听过许多年轻人的谈话，他们有的还在大学读书，有的已经毕业，他们对于成人的世界同样感到不安。 During the last few years, I have listened to scores of young people, in college and out, who were just as nervous about the grown world. 大致来说，他们的态度可归纳如下：“这个世界乱糟糟的，到处充满了不平等、贫困和战争。对此该负责的大概应是那些管理这个世界的成年人吧。如果他们不能做得比这些更好，他们又能拿什么来教育我们呢？这样的教导，我们根本不需要。” Roughly, their attitude might be summed up about like this: “The world is in pretty much of a mess, full of injustice, poverty, and war. The people responsible are, presumably, the adults who have been running thing. If they can’t do better than that, what have they got to teach our generation? That kind of lesson we can do without.” 我觉得这些结论合情合理，至少从他们的角度来看是这样的。 There conclusions strike me as reasonable, at least from their point of view. 对成长中的一代人来说，相关的问题不是我们的社会是否完美（我们可以想当然地认为是这样），而是应该如何去应付它。 The relevant question for the arriving generation is not whether our society is imperfect (we can take that for granted), but how to deal with it. 尽管这个社会严酷而不合情理，但它毕竟是我们惟一拥有的世界。 For all its harshness and irrationality, it is the only world we’ve got. 因此，选择一个办法去应付这个社会是刚刚步入成年的年轻人必须作出的第一个决定，这通常是他们一生中最重要的决定。 Choosing a strategy to cope with it, then, is the first decision young adults have to make, and usually the most important decision of their lifetime. 根据我的发现，他们的基本选择只有四种： So far as I have been able to discover, there are only four basic alternatives: 1）脱离传统社会