Encyclopedias occupied too much space on the bookcase though being opened frequently at the home of Chris Witting.

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

查看答案

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．

查看答案

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．

查看答案

The kids were getting more and more dependent on computer and CD-ROM for information.

A. 对
B. 错

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

The kids were getting more and more dependent on computer and CD-ROM for information.

A. 对
B. 错