不幸的是,我们破坏环境的方式远不止于林间散步,随便举两个例子:向海洋排放上吨的塑料废品和制造超量的温室气体。
But Mr. Solomon is correct. Reduced access — particularly when it’s caused by reduced demand — is the answer for the protection of wildlife and the planet.
不过所罗门是正确的。限制进入——特别是当需求减少的时候——是保护野生动物和保护地球的良策。
Earth resources are fixed but are more than sufficient for a given number of inhabitants. All our environmental concerns can be linked to increasing demands from an expanding population. If there were fewer people, there would be fewer demands for plastic bottles, power plants and, yes, for hiking trails.
地球资源是有限的,但对于一定数量的居民来说远远足够。我们所有环境方面的顾虑都可以和人口增长引发的需求增长联系起来。如果人口减少,塑料瓶、发电站,没错,徒步路线的需求也将减少。
The arguments against responsible population control are manifold and persuasive. Yet in one generation, many of the environmental fears of the last 50 years could be just memories, and a future of rising sea levels, mega-droughts, and food and water shortages postponed indefinitely.
反对人口控制的意见是多种多样、具有说服力的。对于一代人而言,过去50年的许多环境担忧恐怕只留存在记忆中,海平面上升、特大旱灾和食物、水资源的短缺也被他们无限地推迟到了遥远的未来。
【谁该为破坏大自然负责】相关文章:
★ 中国哲学的起源
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15