题目内容
In most people"s mind, growth is associated with prosperity. We judge how well the economy is doing by the size of the Gross National Product (GNP), a measure, supposedly, of growth. Equally axiomatic, however, is the notion that increased pressure on declining natural resources must inevitably lead to a decline in prosperity, especially when accompanied by a growth in population. So, which is correct What growth advocates mean, primarily, when they say growth is necessary for prosperity is that growth is necessary for the smooth functioning of the economic system. In one field the argument in favor of growth is particularly compelling and that is with regard to the Third World. To argue against growth in light of Third World poverty and degradation seems unsympathetic. But is it Could it be that growth, especially the growth of the wealthier countries, has contributed to the impoverishment, not the advancement, of Third World countries If not, how do we account for the desperate straits these countries find themselves in today after a century of dedication to growth To see how this might be the case we must look at the impact of growth on Third World countries—the reality, not the abstract stages-of-economic-growth theory advocated through rose-colored glasses by academicians of the developed world. What good is growth to the people of the Third World if it means the conversion of peasant farms into mechanized agri-businesses producing commodities not for local consumption but for export, if it means the stripping of their land of its mineral and other natural treasures to the benefit of foreign investors and a handful of their local collaborators, if it means the assumption of a crushing foreign indebtedness Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. But the point, I believe, remains valid: that growth in underdeveloped countries cannot simply be judged in the abstract; it must be judged based on the true nature of growth in these societies, on who benefits and who is harmed, on where growth is leading these people and where it has left them. When considered in this way, it just might be that in the pre sent context growth is more detrimental to the well-being of the wretched of the earth than beneficial. So, do we need growth for prosperity Only the adoption of zero growth can provide the answer. But that is a test not easily undertaken. Modern economies are incredibly complex phenomena, a tribute to man"s ability to organize and a challenge to his ability to understand. Anything that affects their functioning, such as a policy of zero growth, should not be proposed without a wary carefulness and self-doubting humility. But if the prospect of leaping into the economic unknown is fear-inspiring, equally so is the prospect of letting that fear prevent us from acting when the failure to act could mean untold misery for future generations and perhaps environmental disaster which threaten our very existence. 21 Which of the following statements does the author agree with
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In most people"s mind, growth is associated with prosperity. We judge how well the economy is doing by the size of the Gross National Product (GNP), a measure, supposedly, of growth. Equally axiomatic, however, is the notion that increased pressure on declining natural resources must inevitably lead to a decline in prosperity, especially when accompanied by a growth in population. So, which is correct What growth advocates mean, primarily, when they say growth is necessary for prosperity is that growth is necessary for the smooth functioning of the economic system. In one field the argument in favor of growth is particularly compelling and that is with regard to the Third World. To argue against growth in light of Third World poverty and degradation seems unsympathetic. But is it Could it be that growth, especially the growth of the wealthier countries, has contributed to the impoverishment, not the advancement, of Third World countries If not, how do we account for the desperate straits these countries find themselves in today after a century of dedication to growth To see how this might be the case we must look at the impact of growth on Third World countries—the reality, not the abstract stages-of-economic-growth theory advocated through rose-colored glasses by academicians of the developed world. What good is growth to the people of the Third World if it means the conversion of peasant farms into mechanized agri-businesses producing commodities not for local consumption but for export, if it means the stripping of their land of its mineral and other natural treasures to the benefit of foreign investors and a handful of their local collaborators, if it means the assumption of a crushing foreign indebtedness Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. But the point, I believe, remains valid: that growth in underdeveloped countries cannot simply be judged in the abstract; it must be judged based on the true nature of growth in these societies, on who benefits and who is harmed, on where growth is leading these people and where it has left them. When considered in this way, it just might be that in the pre sent context growth is more detrimental to the well-being of the wretched of the earth than beneficial. So, do we need growth for prosperity Only the adoption of zero growth can provide the answer. But that is a test not easily undertaken. Modern economies are incredibly complex phenomena, a tribute to man"s ability to organize and a challenge to his ability to understand. Anything that affects their functioning, such as a policy of zero growth, should not be proposed without a wary carefulness and self-doubting humility. But if the prospect of leaping into the economic unknown is fear-inspiring, equally so is the prospect of letting that fear prevent us from acting when the failure to act could mean untold misery for future generations and perhaps environmental disaster which threaten our very existence. The author seem to believe that prosperity
已知a1，a2，a3，a4，a5是满足条件a1+a2+a3+a4+a5=一7的不同整数，b是关于x的一元五次方程(x-a1)(x-a2)(x-a3)(x-a4)(x-a5)=1773的整数根，则b的值为( )．
IT is a startling claim, but one that Congresswoman Deborah Pryce uses to good effect: the equivalent of two classrooms, full of children are diagnosed with cancer every day. Mrs. Pryce lost her own 9-year-old daughter to cancer in 1999. Pediatric cancer remains a little-understood issue in America, where the health-care debate is consumed with the ills, pills and medical bills of the elderly. Cancer kills more children than any other disease in America. Although there have been tremendous gains in cancer survival rates in recent decades, the proportion of children and teens diagnosed with different forms of the disease, increased by almost a third between 1975 and 2001. Grisly though these statistics are, they are still tiny when set beside the number of adult lives lost to breast cancer (41,000 each year) and lung cancer (164,000). Advocates for more money for child cancer prefer to look at life-years lost. The average age for cancer diagnosis in a young child is six, while the average adult is diagnosed in their late 60s. Robert Arceci, a pediatric cancer expert at Johns Hopkins, points out that in terms of total life-years saved, the benefit from curing pediatric cancer victims is roughly the same as curing adults with breast cancer. There is an obvious element of special pleading in such calculations. All the same, breast cancer has attracted a flurry of publicity, private fund-raising and money from government. Childhood cancer has received less attention and cash. Pediatric cancer, a term which covers people up to 20 years old, receives one-twentieth of the federal research money doled out by the National Cancer Institute. Funding, moan pediatric researchers, has not kept pace with rising costs in the field, and NCI money for collaborative research will actually be cut by 3 % this year. There is no national pediatric cancer registry that would let researchers track child and teenage patients through their lives as they can do in the case of adult sufferers. A pilot childhood-cancer registry is in the works. Groups like Mr. Reaman"s now get cash directly from Congress. But it is plainly a problem most politicians don"t know much about. The biggest problem could lie with 15-19-year-olds. Those diagnosed with cancer have not seen the same improvement in their chances as younger children and older adults have done. There are some physical explanations for this: teenagers who have passed adolescence are more vulnerable to different sorts of cancer. But Archie Bleyer, a pediatric oncologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre in Texas, has produced some data implying that lack of health insurance plays a role. Older teenagers and young adults are less likely to be covered and checked regularly. The author cites the example of Mrs. Pryce to show that
In his 1979 book, The Sinking Ark, biologist Norman Myers estimated that (1)_____ of more than 100 human-caused extinctions occur each day, and that one million species (2)_____ by the century"s end. Yet there is little evidence of (3)_____ that number of extinctions. For example, only seven species on the (4)_____ species list have become extinct (5)_____ the list was created in 1973. Bio (6)_____ is an important value, according to many scientists. Nevertheless, the supposed mass extinction rates bandied about are (7)_____ by multiplying (8)_____ by improbables to get imponderables. Many estimates, for instance, rely a great deal on a "species-area (9)_____", which predicts that twice as many species will be found on 100 square miles (10)_____ on ten square miles. The problem is that species am not distributed (11)_____, so how much of a forest am destroyed may be as important as (12)_____. (13)_____, says Ariel Lugo, director of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, "Biologists who predict high (14)_____ rates (15)_____ the resiliency of nature". One of the main muses of extinctions is deforestation. According to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, what destroys tropical trees is not commercial logging, (16)_____ "poor farmers who have no other (17)_____ for feeding their families than slashing and burning a (18)_____ of forest". In countries that practice modern (19)_____ agriculture, forests are in (20)_____ danger. In 1920, U.S. forests covered 732 million acres. Today they cover 737 million.
微信支付 
支付宝支付