How to Charge a Gorilla "Can you tell the class what it is you discovered" Miss Larson, the teacher, asked. She was tall and blond and impatient with the concept of suspense. "Well, "I said, "1 hurt my knee playing football in high school. Now it pops out of position every once in a while. I fall down and scream because it hurts so much. That’s how 1 made my discovery." 66.__________ "Okay, here’s the first gorilla." The on-screen image was that of a handsome human male wearing a photographer’s vest. The children squealed with laughter. Nick Nichols, a National Geographic photographer, had given me the slides to show in schools. The first real gorilla up on the screen was a frightening portrait: a head-and- shoulders shot of an adult male, mouth open in what appeared to be a scream of rage. White teeth--canines the size of small carrots--stood out against the black face. 67.__________ And I was off on Phase One of my standard grade school gorilla lecture. They’re not scary mo, asters at all; in fact, they’re very gentle. They don’t eat humans; they don’t even eat meat. I showed pictures of gorillas eating bamboo and nettles. I explained that the animals live in family groups of two to 35 or more, and that most of the time the oldest and biggest male, whose back is silver, is the boss. Silverbacks stand about five-foot-eight and weigh as much as 400 pounds. I showed a picture of a blondhaired human standing in the rain, taking notes. "That man is a scientist, "I told the students." His name is Conrad Aveling. He gets to study the gorillas every day, rain or shine." To get a job like that, I said, you have to go to school for a long time. "Field scientists are a lot like Miss Larson, but their clothes are dirtier, and they swear a lot." After the slide show, it was time for Phase Two: I asked the shyest girl and the most obstreperous boy to assist me. The gril would sit in front of the class, in Miss Larson’s chair. She would be the gorilla. The boy would be the scientist. He would approach the gorilla and learn about its behavior. If they did anything wrong, anything at all, the gorilla would just go away and never come back. I think this prepares boys and girls for the realities of later life. Boys more than girls, perhaps. "It is sometimes hard to find the gorillas," I said, "Sometimes you can smell them before you see them. The silverback has an odor like skunk and vinegar, only very faint. When you see them, you should fall to the ground and approach carefully." 68.__________ Locate the silverback, I advised. Make sure he sees you. Don’t get between him and any of the babies, because he will try to protect them, and then he could hurt you. Look at the silverback’s face. It reads just like a human’s face. If he frowns at you, go away. You should also know how to say some things in the mountain-gorilla language. "The gorilla ’hello’, "I said, "sounds like this." I made my voice phlegmy and hoarse and then breathed out twice in a kind of gentle growl. "It means ’Hey, I don’t want to fight or hurt anyone’s babies. ’ Scientists like Mr. Aveling call that sound a double-belch vocalization." I encouraged the kids to work on their belches and that evening at the dinner table demonstrate the science they’d learned. 69.__________ Mr. Aveling taught me all those things, I said, and he was very strict. He said I should observe "proper gorilla etiquette’ at all times. And it was true. If I minded my manners, I could sometimes sit near them for hours. When the animals wanted me to go, they frowned and said another important gorilla word. "It’s called a cough grunt, and it sounds a little like a train just starting up." I made a series of soft coughs in the back of my throat. "That means ’Go away. ’" 70.__________ And I was into Phase Three: At most only 650 mountain gorillas exist today. That’s all. It is tempting, at this point, to dramatize the mountain gorillas’ plight by setting up a morality play of good guys and poachers, but the real problem facing the gorillas is loss of habitat. The areas in the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest and the Virunga Volcanoes in central Africa, Where the gorillas live and are protected, are a mere 274 square miles. In the aftermath of the genocidal wars in Rwanda, over 700 000 returning refugees have flooded into the Rwandan area near the mountains. Some of these people want land to farm. Families must be fed. And yet the forests of the Virungas act as giant sponges, feeding the streams and rivers during the dry season. Destroy the forest for farms and people starve during the next drought. It’s a vexing problem. A. The third-graders weren’t, I knew, interested in my knee problems. "Do you guys want to see some gorillas. I asked. They did, and said so at the top of their lungs. I flipped on the projector. B. The gorilla in Miss Larson’s chair did a pretty good cough grunt, and the boy scientist crawled backward down the aisle. There was applause all around. C. "Scary, huh" I said, "But it’s really not, because that’s what it looks like when a gorilla yawns." D. As the boy scientist crawled forward, belching loudly, I advised him to keep his head down. Watch the silverback’s head. Wherever it is, yours is lower. If you stand above him, he thinks you want to fight. Scientists call that an aggressive posture. E. And that, I told the third-graders, is how playing football badly can lead to important scientific discoveries. F. My eight-year-old scientist began crawling up the aisle toward the gorilla in pigtails.
查看答案
Encyclopedias occupied too much space on the bookcase though being opened frequently at the home of Chris Witting.
A. 对
B. 错
Novel approaches to babymaking seem to be coming at us so fast that we hardly have time to digest one before the next one hits test-tube babies, egg donation, surrogacy, cloning and now sex selection. And just as with earlier methods, the new sperm-separation technique announced last week has triggered plenty of ethical concern. Only a few critics have argued that tampering with nature to avoid a sex-linked genetic disease should be taboo. But plenty have expressed misgivings about using the new technology more casually, to balance families, or simply because parents prefer boys or girls. Such choices, critics say, could lead to an imbalance in the sex ratio, with drastic consequences for society. These arguments are not very persuasive. In some developing countries where boys are more highly valued than girls, sex selection is already standard practice, accomplished by means of infanticide of amniocentesis and abortion. The new sperm-separation technique makes it easier for more people to practice sex selection in these countries. This could skew the already tilting sex radio even further in favor of boys. In the short term, such demographic shifts could cause enormous societal problems as men, for example, find it increasingly difficult to find women to marry. In the long term, however, both evolutionary and economic theories tell us that as girls become more scarce, they will become more highly valued, perhaps to the point at which more people will select for girls than against them. In America and other Western countries there seems to be little chance of the sexes going far out of balance at all. Polls show that a majority of Americans view a perfect family as having one boy and one girl. If everyone used sex selection to achieve perfection, the result would be perfect balance. Of course, some prospective parents do prefer children of one sex or the other. But such preferences would presumably balance out as well. Regarding the argument that choosing gender goes against nature: the same objection was used in earlier times by people horrified by vaccines or heart transplants, which are now completely acceptable. Every time we use medicine to cure a disease or prevent a death, we go against nature willingly. Admittedly, sex selection for family balancing cures no disease. In fact, though, no form of babymaking solves a medical problem. Sex selection, moreover, is medically bengin in comparison with most reproductive technologies. No surgery is involved, and the entire process can theoretically be performed without a physician. Children born through this process can’t be distinguished from other children. For these reasons, I suspect that as sex selection and other reproductive technologies become more efficient and less costly, they may be embraced by American families of even modest means who ask themselves, why not What was once unimaginable could become routine and the link between the sex act and reproduction will no longer be seen as sacred. Ultimately, this may prove to be the real significance of sex selection: by breaching a powerful psychological barrier, it will pave the way for true designer babies, who could really turn society upside down. The writer’s main point in writing this article is______.
A. [A] we should pave the way for the designer baby
B. picking a baby’s sex won’t lead to disaster
C. there’s much objection to new approaches to babymaking
D. people often like to have children of one sex or the other
World leaders met recently at United Nations headquarters in New York City to discuss the environmental issues raised at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.The heads of state were supposed to decide what further steps should be taken to halt the decline of Earth’s life-support systems.In fact,this meeting had much the flavour of the original Earth Summit.To wit:empty promises,hollow rhetoric,bickering between rich and poor,and irrelevant initiatives.Think U.S. Congress in slow motion. Which of the following best summarizes the text [A] As the UN hesitates,the poor take action. [B] Progress in environmental protection has been made since the Rio Summit. [C] Climate changes can no longer be neglected. [D] The decline of earth’s life-support systems has been halted.
Almost obscured by this torpor is the fact that there has been some remarkable progress over the past five years—real changes in the attitude of ordinary people in the Third World toward family size and a dawning realisation that environmental degradation and their own well-being are intimately,and inversely,linked.Almost none of this,however, has anything to do with what the bureaucrats accomplished in Rio.
B. Or it didn’t accomplish.One item on the agenda at Rio,for example,was a renewed effort to save tropical forests.(A previous UN-sponsored initiative had fallen apart when it became clear that it actually hastened deforestation.)After Rio,a UN working group came up with more than 100 recommendations that have so far gone nowhere.One proposed forestry pact would do little more than immunizing wood-exporting nations against trade sanctions. An effort to draft an agreement on what to do about the climate changes caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases has fared even worse.Blocked by the Bush Administration from setting mandatory limits,the UN in 1992 called on nations to voluntarily reduce emissions to 1990 levels.Several years later,it’s as if Rio had never happened.A new climate treaty is scheduled to be signed this December in Kyoto,Japan,but governments still cannot agree on these limits.Meanwhile,the U.S. produces 7% more CO2 than it did in 1990,and emissions in the developing world have risen even more sharply.No one would confuse the“Rio process”with progress.
C. While governments have dithered at a pace that could make drifting continents impatient,people have acted.Birth-rates are dropping faster than expected,not because of Rio but because poor people are deciding on their own to reduce family size.Another positive development has been a growing environmental consciousness among the poor.From slum dwellers in Karachi,Pakistan,to colonists in Rondonia,Brazil,urban poor and rural peasants alike seem to realize that they pay the biggest price for pollution and deforestation.There is cause for hope as well in the growing recognition among business people that it is not in their long-term interest to fight environmental reforms.John Browne,chief executive of British Petroleum,boldly asserted in a major speech in May that the threat of climate change could no longer be ignored.
World leaders met recently at United Nations headquarters in New York City to discuss the environmental issues raised at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.The heads of state were supposed to decide what further steps should be taken to halt the decline of Earth’s life-support systems.In fact,this meeting had much the flavour of the original Earth Summit.To wit:empty promises,hollow rhetoric,bickering between rich and poor,and irrelevant initiatives.Think U.S. Congress in slow motion. The word“deforestation”in Paragraph 3 means______. [A] forest damage caused by pollution [B] moving population from forest to cities [C] the threat of climate change [D] cutting large areas of trees
Almost obscured by this torpor is the fact that there has been some remarkable progress over the past five years—real changes in the attitude of ordinary people in the Third World toward family size and a dawning realisation that environmental degradation and their own well-being are intimately,and inversely,linked.Almost none of this,however, has anything to do with what the bureaucrats accomplished in Rio.
B. Or it didn’t accomplish.One item on the agenda at Rio,for example,was a renewed effort to save tropical forests.(A previous UN-sponsored initiative had fallen apart when it became clear that it actually hastened deforestation.)After Rio,a UN working group came up with more than 100 recommendations that have so far gone nowhere.One proposed forestry pact would do little more than immunizing wood-exporting nations against trade sanctions. An effort to draft an agreement on what to do about the climate changes caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases has fared even worse.Blocked by the Bush Administration from setting mandatory limits,the UN in 1992 called on nations to voluntarily reduce emissions to 1990 levels.Several years later,it’s as if Rio had never happened.A new climate treaty is scheduled to be signed this December in Kyoto,Japan,but governments still cannot agree on these limits.Meanwhile,the U.S. produces 7% more CO2 than it did in 1990,and emissions in the developing world have risen even more sharply.No one would confuse the“Rio process”with progress.
C. While governments have dithered at a pace that could make drifting continents impatient,people have acted.Birth-rates are dropping faster than expected,not because of Rio but because poor people are deciding on their own to reduce family size.Another positive development has been a growing environmental consciousness among the poor.From slum dwellers in Karachi,Pakistan,to colonists in Rondonia,Brazil,urban poor and rural peasants alike seem to realize that they pay the biggest price for pollution and deforestation.There is cause for hope as well in the growing recognition among business people that it is not in their long-term interest to fight environmental reforms.John Browne,chief executive of British Petroleum,boldly asserted in a major speech in May that the threat of climate change could no longer be ignored.