GRE作文范文 Issue-13

　　"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save an endangered species."

　　嘉文博译Sample Essay

　　Certainly no one can argue that many, and perhaps most, extinct species became extinct naturally rather than due to human interference. After all, mankind's length of time on earth, when compared to the age of the planet, is very small. In some instances, mankind is probably lucky that some species became extinct long before we made our first appearance. It is difficult to imagine humans living alongside dinosaurs, for example. But to say that there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts to save an endangered species overestimates our own importance, minimizes the importance of a species, and ignores the intricate balances that all species on earth contribute to in our environment.

　　It is easy to make the assumption that because humans are capable of reason and thought, we are the dominant and therefore the most important species on earth. We could assume that all other species are also put here for our use, to use and abuse as we best see fit. To a certain extent, we can control almost all other varieties of life on this planet. But having that ability and exercising that ability are two different things, and who is to say exactly what our role should be on Earth? Religious theologians have different ideas as to man's place in the world, but these are all based on human ideas and thoughts. It would seem to be possible that animals and plants have ways of communicating that humans cannot recognize or understand. It is possible that there are forms of communication in this world that we do not have the capability of understanding, and it is important that we do not assume that we know everything. As the dominant species on Earth, it is our responsibility to use that position wisely and destroy as little as possible while still assuring the survival of mankind.

　　Taking the absolute point of view, humans would be justified in allowing any species to become extinct if it would take extraordinary efforts to save it. Of what use, for example, is the Giant Panda other than to look at as a cute and loveable creature? Or what about tigers, who can and have killed humans in the past? And why should we care about some small species of fish that may become extinct if we build a certain dam, if that dam will provide electricity for hundreds of thousands of people? Alligators have attacked people in the United States, so why should we make any effort to protect them? The answer would seem to be obvious - that eliminating these species gives us less diversity in the environment. Humans cannot exist as the lone species on this planet. The absolute importance of biodiversity is only just beginning to be understood. The extinction of a species today might lead to unimaginably negative consequences in the future. Humans can likely not determine the relative importance of any one species.

　　Finally, there is a very delicate balance in nature that we also cannot determine with any precision. The chains of life are intricately bound together in a beautiful pattern that we cannot see through our own myopia. While most people would agree that permanently eliminating flies and mosquitoes, for example, is a good idea, we don't know what effect that might have in the long term. Certainly flies aid in the decomposition of waste materials. Mosquitoes may be an important food source for other animals in the food chain that directly leads to food for humans. To break any one link in this or any of the possibly billions of food chains in the environment could lead to catastrophe.

　　As humans, we must realize that there are balances in the environment that we don't understand and that we must protect. To allow the extinction of any particular species could prove to be a fatal mistake to the long-term survival of mankind.

　　参考译文

　　在过去地质进程的不同阶段，许多物种由于自然进程而非人类进程的原因而灭绝。因此，人类社会没有任何正当的理由去作巨大的努力，尤其是在资金和劳动力方面作巨大的投入，去拯救某一濒危物种

　　许多业已灭绝的物种，或许大多数已灭绝的物种，是由于自然原因而非人类干扰的原因而灭绝，这一点肯定无人质疑。毕竟人类在地球上所存在的时间长度，相对于这颗行星的年龄而言，实乃微不足道。在某些情形中，人类可能很幸运，有些物种在我们最初出现之前早已灭绝。例如，很难想象人类和恐龙生活在一起。但如果有人说，人类社会没有任何正当的理由去作巨大的努力，拯救某一濒危动物，这便过高估计了我们自己的重要性，贬低了物种的重要性，并忽略了地球上所有物种在我们环境中所共同构建的各种错综复杂的平衡关系。

　　我们很容易作这样一种假设，即由于人类具有推理和思维能力，我们便是地球上主导的并因此是最重要的物种。据此，我们以为，其他所有物种被放在那里也是为了让人类享用，按我们的需求去使用，去滥用。在某种程度上，我们可以控制这一星球上几乎所有其他的生命种类。但是，拥有这一能力和运用这一能力完全是两码事，而又有谁能确凿无误地说明人类在地球上应扮演何种角色?宗教神学家们对于人类在世界中的地位有不同的观点，但这些均基于人类的观念和思想。动植物似乎有可能拥有人类所无法认识到或无从理解的交流方式。这个世界上有些交流方式可能是人类没有能力理解的，因此，有一点很重要，我们不应该认为我们无所不知。作为地球上的主导物种，我们的责任在于明智地使用我们的这一地位，在确保人类自身生存的条件下尽可能少地毁灭其他物种。

　　如果采取一种绝对的观点，那么，如果挽救某一物种需要作出巨大努力，则人类让这一物种趋于灭绝应该说不无其合理性。例如，大熊猫作为一种可爱的动物可用于观赏之外，它还能具有别的用途吗?能置人于死地且已经在过去令人类生灵涂炭的老虎，我们又该如何处理呢?如果我们筑起一条大坝，这条大坝能为成千上万的人供电，某些小鱼类会趋于灭绝，我们难道应该去关爱这些鱼类吗?在美国，鳄鱼攻击过人类，我们为何要努力去保护它们呢?答案似乎是不证自明的，那就是，灭掉这些物种就会减少我们环境的多样性。人类不能作为孤立的物种生存在这个星球上。生物多样性的绝对重要性刚开始被人认识到。某一物种今日的灭绝可能会导致未来无法想象的负面效果。人类可能无权决定任一物种的相对重要性。

　　最后，自然界中的某种微妙平衡也是我们所无法确切断定的。一条条生命之链以一种美丽无比的模式错综复杂地缠绕在一起，人类凭着短浅的目光是绝难看透这一模式的。例如，虽然人们会同意，永久性地消除苍蝇和蚊子会是一个不错的主意，但我们无法知道那样做的长远影响会怎样。苍蝇无疑有助于废物的降解。蚊子在食物链中可能是其它动物的重要食物来源，而这一食物链又能直接为人类制造食物来源。打断环境中这一食物链或数以百万计的有可能存在的食物链中的任何一个环节，都将引起灾难性的后果。

　　作为人类，我们必须意识到环境中的有些平衡关系是我们所无法理解的，但我们却必须予以保护。允许任何特定一种物种灭绝，对于人类长远的生存都将成为一个致命的错误。