题目内容
Science is committed to the universal. A sign of this is that the more successful a science becomes, the broader the agreement about its basic concepts. There is not a separate Chinese or American or Soviet thermodynamics, for example; there is simply thermodynamics. For several decades of the twentieth century there was a Western and a Soviet genetics, the latter associated with Lysenko’s theory that environmental stress can produce genetic mutations. Today Lysenko’s theory is discredited, and there is now only one genetics. As the corollary of science, technology also exhibits the universalizing tendency. This is why the spread of technology makes the world look ever more homogeneous. Architectural styles, dress styles, musical styles—even eating styles—tend increasingly to be world styles. The world looks more homogeneous because it is more homogeneous. Children who grow up in this world therefore experience it as a sameness rather than a diversity, and because their identities are shaped by this sameness, their sense of differences among cultures and individuals diminishes. As buildings become more alike, the people who inhabit the buildings become more alike. The result is described precisely in a phrase that is already familiar: the disappearance of history. The automobile illustrates the point with great clarity. A technological innovation like streamlining or allwelded body construction may be rejected initially, but if it is important to the efficiency, or economics of automobiles, it will reappear in different ways until it is not only accepted but universally regarded as an asset. Today’s automobile is no longer unique to a given company or even to a given national culture, its basic features are found, with variations, in automobiles in general, no matter who makes them. As in architecture, so in automaking. In a given cost range, the same technology tends to produce the same solutions. The visual evidence for this is as obvious for cars as for buildings. Today, if you choose models in the same price range, you will be hard put at 500 paces to tell one make from another. In other words, the specifically American traits that lingered in American automobiles in the 1960s—traits that linked American cars to American history—are disappearing. Even the Volkswagen Beetle has disappeared and has taken with it the visible evidence of the history of streamlining that extends from D’Arcy Thompson to Carl Breer to Ferdinand Porsche. If man creates machines, machines in turn shape their creators. As the automobile is universalized, it universalizes those who use it. Like the World Car he drives, modern man is becoming universal. No longer quite an individual, no longer quite the product of a unique geography and culture, he moves from one climatecontrolled shopping mall to another, one airport to the next, from one Holiday Inn to its successor three hundred miles down the road; but somehow his location never changes. He is cosmopolitan. The price he pays is that he no longer has a home in the traditional sense of the word. The benefit is that he begins to suspect home on the traditional sense is another name for limitations, and that home in the modern sense is everywhere and always surrounded by neighbors. Today automobiles produced by different countries may have the same basic features because
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
The human nose is an underrated tool. Humans are often thought to be insensitive smellers compared with animals, (31) this is largely because, (32) animals, we stand upright. This means that our noses are (33) to perceiving those smells which float through the air, (34) the majority of smells which stick to surfaces. In fact, (35) , we are extremely sensitive to smells, (36) we do not generally realize it. Our noses are capable of (37) human smells even when these are (38) to far below one part in one million. Strangely, some people find that they can smell one type of flower but not another, (39) others are sensitive to the smells of both flowers. This may be because some people do not have the genes necessary to generate (40) smell receptors in the nose. These receptors are the cells which sense smells and send (41) to the brain. However, it has been found that even people insensitive to a certain smell (42) can suddenly become sensitive to it when (43) to it often enough. The explanation for insensitivity to smell seems to be that the brain finds it (44) to keep all smell receptors working all the time but can (45) new receptors if necessary. This may (46) explain why we are not usually sensitive to our own smells—we simply do not need to be. We are not (47) of the usual smell of our own house, but we (48) new smells when we visit someone else’s. The brain finds it best to keep smell receptors (49) for unfamiliar and emergency signals (50) the smell of smoke, which might indicate the danger of fire.
Archaeology as a profession faces two major problems. First, it is the poorest of the poor. Only paltry sums are available for excavating and even less is available for publishing the results and preserving the sites once excavated. Yet archaeologists deal with priceless objects every day. Second, there is the problem of illegal excavation, resulting in museum-quality pieces being sold to the highest bidder. I would like to make an outrageous suggestion that would at one stroke provide funds for archaeology and reduce the amount of illegal digging. I would propose that scientific archeological expeditions and governmental authorities sell excavated artifacts on the open market. Such sales would provide substantial funds for the excavation and preservation of archaeological sites and the publication of results. At the same time, they would break the illegal excavator’s grip on the market, thereby decreasing the inducement to engage in illegal activities. You might object that professionals excavate to acquire knowledge, not money. Moreover, ancient artifacts are part of our global cultural heritage, which should be available for all to appreciate, not sold to the highest bidder. I agree. Sell nothing that has unique artistic merit or scientific value. But, you might reply, everything that comes out of the ground has scientific value. Here we part company. Theoretically, you may be correct in claiming that every artifact has potential scientific value. Practically, you are wrong. I refer to the thousands of pottery vessels and ancient lamps that are essentially duplicates of one another. In one small excavation in Cyprus, archaeologists recently uncovered 2,000 virtually indistinguishable small jugs in a single courtyard. Even precious royal seal impressions have been found in abundance—more than 4,000 examples so far. The basements of museums are simply not large enough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discovered in the future. There is not enough money even to catalogue the finds; as a result. they cannot be found again and become as inaccessible as if they had never been discovered. Indeed, with the help of a computer, sold artifacts could be more accessible than are the pieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to sale, each could be photographed and the list of the purchasers could be maintained on the computer. A purchaser could even be required to agree to return the piece if it should become needed for scientific purposes. It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market. But the demand for the clandestine product would be substantially reduced. Who would want an unmarked pot when another was available whose provenance was known, and that was dated stratigraphically by the professional archaeologist who excavated it The archaeologists would most probably think that the author’s suggestion is
The human nose is an underrated tool. Humans are often thought to be insensitive smellers compared with animals, (31) this is largely because, (32) animals, we stand upright. This means that our noses are (33) to perceiving those smells which float through the air, (34) the majority of smells which stick to surfaces. In fact, (35) , we are extremely sensitive to smells, (36) we do not generally realize it. Our noses are capable of (37) human smells even when these are (38) to far below one part in one million. Strangely, some people find that they can smell one type of flower but not another, (39) others are sensitive to the smells of both flowers. This may be because some people do not have the genes necessary to generate (40) smell receptors in the nose. These receptors are the cells which sense smells and send (41) to the brain. However, it has been found that even people insensitive to a certain smell (42) can suddenly become sensitive to it when (43) to it often enough. The explanation for insensitivity to smell seems to be that the brain finds it (44) to keep all smell receptors working all the time but can (45) new receptors if necessary. This may (46) explain why we are not usually sensitive to our own smells—we simply do not need to be. We are not (47) of the usual smell of our own house, but we (48) new smells when we visit someone else’s. The brain finds it best to keep smell receptors (49) for unfamiliar and emergency signals (50) the smell of smoke, which might indicate the danger of fire.
Questions 29 and 30 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. Now, listen to the news. Which of the following details is INCORRECT
微信支付 
支付宝支付