GRE作文范文 Issue-13

　　"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save an endangered species."

　　嘉文博譯Sample Essay

　　Certainly no one can argue that many, and perhaps most, extinct species became extinct naturally rather than due to human interference. After all, mankind's length of time on earth, when compared to the age of the planet, is very small. In some instances, mankind is probably lucky that some species became extinct long before we made our first appearance. It is difficult to imagine humans living alongside dinosaurs, for example. But to say that there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts to save an endangered species overestimates our own importance, minimizes the importance of a species, and ignores the intricate balances that all species on earth contribute to in our environment.

　　It is easy to make the assumption that because humans are capable of reason and thought, we are the dominant and therefore the most important species on earth. We could assume that all other species are also put here for our use, to use and abuse as we best see fit. To a certain extent, we can control almost all other varieties of life on this planet. But having that ability and exercising that ability are two different things, and who is to say exactly what our role should be on Earth? Religious theologians have different ideas as to man's place in the world, but these are all based on human ideas and thoughts. It would seem to be possible that animals and plants have ways of communicating that humans cannot recognize or understand. It is possible that there are forms of communication in this world that we do not have the capability of understanding, and it is important that we do not assume that we know everything. As the dominant species on Earth, it is our responsibility to use that position wisely and destroy as little as possible while still assuring the survival of mankind.

　　Taking the absolute point of view, humans would be justified in allowing any species to become extinct if it would take extraordinary efforts to save it. Of what use, for example, is the Giant Panda other than to look at as a cute and loveable creature? Or what about tigers, who can and have killed humans in the past? And why should we care about some small species of fish that may become extinct if we build a certain dam, if that dam will provide electricity for hundreds of thousands of people? Alligators have attacked people in the United States, so why should we make any effort to protect them? The answer would seem to be obvious - that eliminating these species gives us less diversity in the environment. Humans cannot exist as the lone species on this planet. The absolute importance of biodiversity is only just beginning to be understood. The extinction of a species today might lead to unimaginably negative consequences in the future. Humans can likely not determine the relative importance of any one species.

　　Finally, there is a very delicate balance in nature that we also cannot determine with any precision. The chains of life are intricately bound together in a beautiful pattern that we cannot see through our own myopia. While most people would agree that permanently eliminating flies and mosquitoes, for example, is a good idea, we don't know what effect that might have in the long term. Certainly flies aid in the decomposition of waste materials. Mosquitoes may be an important food source for other animals in the food chain that directly leads to food for humans. To break any one link in this or any of the possibly billions of food chains in the environment could lead to catastrophe.

　　As humans, we must realize that there are balances in the environment that we don't understand and that we must protect. To allow the extinction of any particular species could prove to be a fatal mistake to the long-term survival of mankind.

　　參考譯文

　　在過去地質(zhì)進(jìn)程的不同階段，許多物種由于自然進(jìn)程而非人類進(jìn)程的原因而滅絕。因此，人類社會沒有任何正當(dāng)?shù)睦碛扇プ骶薮蟮呐?，尤其是在資金和勞動力方面作巨大的投入，去拯救某一瀕危物種

　　許多業(yè)已滅絕的物種，或許大多數(shù)已滅絕的物種，是由于自然原因而非人類干擾的原因而滅絕，這一點肯定無人質(zhì)疑。畢竟人類在地球上所存在的時間長度，相對于這顆行星的年齡而言，實乃微不足道。在某些情形中，人類可能很幸運，有些物種在我們最初出現(xiàn)之前早已滅絕。例如，很難想象人類和恐龍生活在一起。但如果有人說，人類社會沒有任何正當(dāng)?shù)睦碛扇プ骶薮蟮呐?，拯救某一瀕危動物，這便過高估計了我們自己的重要性，貶低了物種的重要性，并忽略了地球上所有物種在我們環(huán)境中所共同構(gòu)建的各種錯綜復(fù)雜的平衡關(guān)系。

　　我們很容易作這樣一種假設(shè)，即由于人類具有推理和思維能力，我們便是地球上主導(dǎo)的并因此是最重要的物種。據(jù)此，我們以為，其他所有物種被放在那里也是為了讓人類享用，按我們的需求去使用，去濫用。在某種程度上，我們可以控制這一星球上幾乎所有其他的生命種類。但是，擁有這一能力和運用這一能力完全是兩碼事，而又有誰能確鑿無誤地說明人類在地球上應(yīng)扮演何種角色?宗教神學(xué)家們對于人類在世界中的地位有不同的觀點，但這些均基于人類的觀念和思想。動植物似乎有可能擁有人類所無法認(rèn)識到或無從理解的交流方式。這個世界上有些交流方式可能是人類沒有能力理解的，因此，有一點很重要，我們不應(yīng)該認(rèn)為我們無所不知。作為地球上的主導(dǎo)物種，我們的責(zé)任在于明智地使用我們的這一地位，在確保人類自身生存的條件下盡可能少地毀滅其他物種。

　　如果采取一種絕對的觀點，那么，如果挽救某一物種需要作出巨大努力，則人類讓這一物種趨于滅絕應(yīng)該說不無其合理性。例如，大熊貓作為一種可愛的動物可用于觀賞之外，它還能具有別的用途嗎?能置人于死地且已經(jīng)在過去令人類生靈涂炭的老虎，我們又該如何處理呢?如果我們筑起一條大壩，這條大壩能為成千上萬的人供電，某些小魚類會趨于滅絕，我們難道應(yīng)該去關(guān)愛這些魚類嗎?在美國，鱷魚攻擊過人類，我們?yōu)楹我θケＷo(hù)它們呢?答案似乎是不證自明的，那就是，滅掉這些物種就會減少我們環(huán)境的多樣性。人類不能作為孤立的物種生存在這個星球上。生物多樣性的絕對重要性剛開始被人認(rèn)識到。某一物種今日的滅絕可能會導(dǎo)致未來無法想象的負(fù)面效果。人類可能無權(quán)決定任一物種的相對重要性。

　　最后，自然界中的某種微妙平衡也是我們所無法確切斷定的。一條條生命之鏈以一種美麗無比的模式錯綜復(fù)雜地纏繞在一起，人類憑著短淺的目光是絕難看透這一模式的。例如，雖然人們會同意，永久性地消除蒼蠅和蚊子會是一個不錯的主意，但我們無法知道那樣做的長遠(yuǎn)影響會怎樣。蒼蠅無疑有助于廢物的降解。蚊子在食物鏈中可能是其它動物的重要食物來源，而這一食物鏈又能直接為人類制造食物來源。打斷環(huán)境中這一食物鏈或數(shù)以百萬計的有可能存在的食物鏈中的任何一個環(huán)節(jié)，都將引起災(zāi)難性的后果。

　　作為人類，我們必須意識到環(huán)境中的有些平衡關(guān)系是我們所無法理解的，但我們卻必須予以保護(hù)。允許任何特定一種物種滅絕，對于人類長遠(yuǎn)的生存都將成為一個致命的錯誤。