当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2020年01月24日 00:14:31    日报  参与评论()人

山东省青岛五院网上预约山东青岛新阳光妇科评价青岛子宫肌瘤哪家好 Urban land城市土地Space and the city空间和都市Poor land use in the worlds greatest cities carries a huge cost糟糕的土地利用方式已经成为世界大都市不能承受之重BUY land, advised Mark Twain; theyre not making it any more. In fact, land is not really scarce: the entire population of America could fit into Texas with more than an acre for each household to enjoy. What drives prices skyward is a collision between rampant demand and limited supply in the great metropolises like London, Mumbai and New York. In the past ten years real prices in Hong Kong have risen by 150%. Residential property in Mayfair, in central London, can go for as much as 55,000 (82,000) per square metre. A square mile of Manhattan residential property costs 16.5 billion.马克吐温曾建议说“都去买地吧”,但现在他们已经不这么做了。事实上,土地并非真的如此稀缺:仅一个德克萨斯州就能容纳整个美国人口,而且每户能有一英亩之多。在伦敦、孟买、纽约这种大都市里,地价飞涨的现实是疯狂的需求和有限的供给共同作用的结果。在过去10年里,香港的房地产价格上涨了150%。伦敦中心的梅菲尔区的住宅价格能飙至55000英镑每平米(相当于82000美元)。曼哈顿,一平方英里的的住宅价格为165亿美元。Even in these great cities the scarcity is artificial. Regulatory limits on the height and density of buildings constrain supply and inflate prices. A recent analysis by academics at the London School of Economics estimates that land-use regulations in the West End of London inflate the price of office space by about 800%; in Milan and Paris the rules push up prices by around 300%. Most of the enormous value captured by landowners exists because it is well-nigh impossible to build new offices to compete those profits away.即便是在这样的城市里,稀缺性也是人为造成的。从法律层面上对建筑的高度和密度进行限制,降低了供给,也助推了房价。伦敦经济学院的一项最新学术分析表明,土地使用管理条例令伦敦西区办公用房的价格上涨了800%,令米兰和巴黎的上涨了约300%。巨额资产掌握在现有的土地所有者手中,因为在这里建新办公楼引入竞争、分享收益,是几乎不可能的事。The costs of this misfiring property market are huge, mainly because of their effects on individuals. High housing prices force workers towards cheaper but less productive places. According to one study, employment in the Bay Area around San Francisco would be about five times larger than it is but for tight limits on construction. Tot up these costs in lost earnings and unrealised human potential, and the figures become dizzying. Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the countrys GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about 1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that.一潭死水的房地产市场所带来的社会成本是巨大的,因为它影响了这里的每个人。高昂的房价迫使务工者搬到更便宜但生产力更低下的地方。根据一项研究结果显示,如果不是因为对建筑业的严格限制,旧金山湾区的就业应该比现在多五倍;再加上损失的收入和未能实现的人的潜力,这个数字能把你吓晕。如果能扫清美国境内所有限制城市增长的阻碍因素,那么国家GDP将会增加6.5%~13.5%,即10亿~20亿美元。这是任何其他政策都难以产生的巨大影响。Metro stops停滞的都市Two long-run trends have led to this fractured market. One is the revival of the city as the central cog in the global economic machine. In the 20th century, tumbling transport costs weakened the gravitational pull of the city; in the 21st, the digital revolution has restored it. Knowledge-intensive industries such as technology and finance thrive on the clustering of workers who share ideas and expertise. The economies and populations of metropolises like London, New York and San Francisco have rebounded as a result.两个长期趋势致使房产市场变得如此令人抓狂。其一是,城市的复兴成为了全球经济运转中必不可少的中心环节。在20世纪,糟糕的交通削弱了城市的吸引力;到了21世纪,数字革命修复了这一缺陷。像科技、金融这种知识密集型产业只有在人们能互相交流思想和专业技能的地方才能繁荣兴旺。伦敦、纽约和旧金山这样的大城市,其经济和人口之所以能复苏,正是得益于此。What those cities have not regained is their historical ability to stretch in order to accommodate all those who want to come. There is a good reason for that: unconstrained urban growth in the late 19th century fostered crime and disease. Hence the second trend, the proliferation of green belts and rules on zoning. Over the course of the past century land-use rules have piled up so plentifully that getting planning permission is harder than hailing a cab on a wet afternoon. London has strict rules preventing new structures blocking certain views of St Pauls Cathedral. Googles plans to build housing on its Mountain View campus in Silicon Valley are being resisted on the ground that residents might keep pets, which could harm the local owl population. Nimbyish residents of low-density districts can exploit planning rules on everything from light levels to parking spaces to block plans for construction.然而,这些城市失去了一项它们曾经有过的能力:扩张以容纳所有想要移居进来的人们。一个不错的理由就是:19世纪晚期无限制的城市扩张成为了犯罪和疾病的温床。那么第二个趋势就显而易见了:城市绿化带的泛滥和分区管制。纵观整个上世纪,政府出台了数不清的土地使用法规,以至于获取一个规划许可比在雨天的下午打出租还要困难。伦敦严格控制新建任何构筑物,以防止圣保罗大教堂的景观被破坏。Google计划在其所有的山景城园区建造房屋,却以“居民可能会养宠物、并且这会令当地猫头鹰的数量减少”为理由遭到拒绝。低密度社区Nimbyish的居民可以拿规划法规做挡箭牌为所欲为,从要求亮度水平到停车空间再到阻止一切建设。A good thing, too, say many. The roads and rails criss-crossing big cities aly creak under the pressure of growing populations. Dampening property prices hurts one of the few routes to wealth-accumulation still available to the middle classes. A cautious approach to development is the surest way to preserve public spaces and a citys heritage: give economists their way, and they would quickly pave over Central Park.很多人认为,这样也不错啊。日益增长的人口已经令大城市的道路和十字交叉口不堪重负。被抑制的房地产价格虽然令一部分人的财富积累受到损失,但对于中产阶级来说仍然是可以承受的。发展一定要慎重,要百分之百确保公共空间和保护城市遗产:如果把决策权交给经济学家,他们一定会以迅雷不及掩耳之势把中央公园铺成水泥大道。However well these arguments go down in local planning meetings, they wilt on closer scrutiny. Home ownership is not especially egalitarian. Many households are priced out of more vibrant places. It is no coincidence that the home-ownership rate in the metropolitan area of downtrodden Detroit, at 71%, is well above the 55% in booming San Francisco. You do not need to build a forest of skyscrapers for a lot more people to make their home in big cities. San Francisco could squeeze in twice as many and remain half as dense as Manhattan.然而,这些理由经不起本地规划会议的仔细斟酌。房屋所有权不是人人均等的。很多家庭被高房价挡在充满活力的地区之外。都市区的房屋所有权比例在日渐式微的底特律都达到71%,这一数字比日益兴旺的旧金山的55%要高得多,这可不是巧合。你不需要建造一片天大楼的森林来容纳越来越多在大城市安家的人们。旧金山的面积即便折叠两次,其人口密度也才只有曼哈顿的一半。Property wrongs歧路上的房地产Zoning codes were conceived as a way to balance the social good of a growing, productive city and the private costs that growth sometimes imposes. But land-use rules have evolved into something more pernicious: a mechanism through which landowners are handed both unwarranted windfalls and the means to prevent others from exercising control over their property. Even small steps to restore a healthier balance between private and public good would yield handsome returns. Policymakers should focus on two things.为了平衡不断增长且生产力强的城市中的社会利益与增长所附加的私人成本,人们想到了分区规范这个办法。但是,土地使用法规已经演变成了一个极为有害的机制:土地所有者一方面能躺着吃天上掉下来的馅饼,一方面还能光明正大地阻止任何人染指他们的不动产。现在即使能在健康地平衡公私利益方面迈出一小步,都将获得相当可观的回报。政治决策者应该把精力放在两方面。First, they should ensure that city-planning decisions are made from the top down. When decisions are taken at local level, land-use rules tend to be stricter. Individual districts receive fewer of the benefits of a larger metropolitan population (jobs and taxes) than their costs (blocked views and congested streets). Moving housing-supply decisions to city level should mean that due weight is put on the benefits of growth. Any restrictions on building won by one district should be offset by increases elsewhere, so the city as a whole keeps to its development budget.第一,他们应该确保涉及城市规划的决策是自上而下制定的。当决策权在本地政府手中时,通常对土地使用的限制会更加严格。就单个街区而言,大量都市人口是弊(受阻碍的视野和拥挤的街道)大於利(就业和税收)。而将住房供应量的决定权交给城市政府,则更能全面地考虑城市发展所带来的好处。如果一个街区对建设作出限制,就要以另一个街区增加建设作为补偿,因此城市作为一个整体就可以确保其应有的开发预算。Second, governments should impose higher taxes on the value of land. In most rich countries, land-value taxes account for a small share of total revenues. Land taxes are efficient. They are difficult to dodge; you cannot stuff land into a bank-vault in Luxembourg. Whereas a high tax on property can discourage investment, a high tax on land creates an incentive to develop unused sites. Land-value taxes can also help cater for newcomers. New infrastructure raises the value of nearby land, automatically feeding through into revenues—which helps to pay for the improvements.其次,政府应该对地价征收重税。在大部分发达国家,地价税只占总收入中很小的一部分。地税是很有效的手段,因为你很难像藏钱一样把土地塞进卢森堡的保险柜里以逃避纳税。对不动产课重税会影响投资,而对土地课重税则会刺激人们开发尚未被使用的土地。地价税也有利于新来的居民。新建的基础设施能够增加附近土地的价值,然后自动转变成收入——反过来能补偿基建翻新的费用。Neither better zoning nor land taxes are easy to impose. There are logistical hurdles, such as assessing the value of land with the property stripped out. The politics is harder still. But politically tricky problems are ten-a-penny. Few offer the people who solve them a trillion-dollar reward.鉴于还有很多前期困难亟待解决,想要实施更好地分区规划或开始征收地税并不是件容易的事,比如如何刨除土地上面的房产而单独计算地价。政治方面也是个问题,但这些困难都不值一提,因为这些问题一旦解决,将会带来难以计数的丰厚回报。翻译:邓小雪 译文属译生译世 /201504/369186Living standards英伦生活质量Squeezing the hourglass被挤压成沙漏型的劳务市场需求Growth is back. But for many Britons, it does not feel like it经济回归呈增长趋势,但很多英国民众却并未感受到经济复苏的迹象。MARK CARNEY is a man on a macroeconomic tightrope. On August 7th the new governor of the Bank of England promised that interest rates will stay low until the unemployment rate, now 7.8%, has fallen to 7.0% or lower. He gave himself two get out clauses: his pledge is off if inflation gets out of hand or if Britains banks start to wobble. Mr Carneys announcement reflected the balancing act demanded of him: he must spur economic confidence without allowing inflation to erode wages and savings. The severity of the slump in British living standards shows just how tricky that task will be.马克?卡尼(Mark Carney)正处于“宏观经济”这条钢丝绳上。这位新上任的英国行长承诺,将使利率维持在一个较低的水平,直至国内失业率由当前的7.8%降至7.0%甚至更低。他同时也为自己设立了两条“出局条款”:若通货膨胀难以掌控,或英国地位岌岌可危,他的承诺就并未兑现,那么他就会“出局”。 卡尼先生发布的条款也反映了公众对其在宏观经济之绳上平衡自如的期望:他必须在通货膨胀不会对公众的薪金和存款造成不利影响的情况下,带动英国经济重拾信心。然而英国民众生活水平急剧下降这一现象的严重性,则反映出卡尼先生肩上担子之重。By some measures, the economy is moving from “rescue to recovery”—in the words of George Osborne, the Conservative chancellor of the exchequer. GDP grew by 0.6% in the second quarter of 2013 and house prices by almost 4% year-on-year. Yet the wallets of many, particularly those on lower and middle incomes, bear little evidence of it. Inflation is relatively modest, but wages lag far behind. A recent government-funded study found that 52% of Britons are struggling to keep up with the bills.英国政府通过采取一系列手段,用保守党财政大臣乔治?奥斯本(George Osborne)的话来说,英国经济正在由“抢救阶段进入复苏阶段”。国民生产总值(GDP)在2013年第二季度上涨0.6%,而房价则在以每年4%的速度攀升。尽管该势头较难从众多民众,尤其是中低层收入群体的收入及消费水平中体现出来。通货膨胀的趋势虽然平缓,但薪金却严重滞后。最近,一项政府资助的研究项目发现,52%的英国民众正在苦苦维持收平衡。Even comfortable areas are pinched. In Solihull, a leafy suburb of Birmingham, unemployment is below average, but the cost-of-living crisis is acute. In 2010 only one client of its three Citizens Advice Bureaus (CAB) needed an emergency food parcel. Today they give out one every two days, some to people in work who run out of cash before payday. A record 16,000 people (nearly 8% of Solihull) passed through the charitys advice cubicles in 2012. Most frequently, they sought help with debt.即使生活环境相对舒适的地区也感受到了压力。绿树成荫的索利赫尔位于伯明翰郊区,这里的失业率低于平均水平,但生活成本危机却相当严重。2010年,在当地三家公民咨询局(CAB)中只有一位客户索要了应急食品包,而如今一包应急食品包两天内就会被分发出去,其中一些是提供给那些青黄不接的工薪族。一项纪录表明,在2012年,16,000人(约占索利赫尔地区人数的8%)向慈善机构的咨询室寻求帮助并渡过难关,其中绝大多数是寻求债务帮助。One such customer, David, used to make a decent living as a skilled tradesman, but is now unemployed. He is behind on once-affordable gas, water and rent bills. His CAB adviser reckons he will never again earn what he used to, so is helping him cut costs he once considered essential, like internet access and mobile phones, from his familys budget.大卫就是上诉客户中的一员。他也曾是一位拥有体面工作且富有经验的商人,而现如今却处于失业状态,并且在曾一度可以付得起的天然气费、水费和房租中苦苦挣扎。他在公民咨询局(CAB)的顾问推算出他的收入将不会再回到从前的水平,于是便帮助大卫从他的家庭预算中削减了诸如网费和话费等,那些曾经被认为是必要的开。A Spartan future awaits the 40% of working-age Britons who, like David, are falling behind. They are in the bottom half of the income scale but, unlike the poorest 10%, predominantly live off wages, not benefits. Their predicament dates to the early 2000s, when GDP and earnings peeled apart. Living costs have since left median wages far behind (see chart 1).约有40%正处于工龄期的英国人像大卫一样,生活水平一落千丈,迎接他们的将是一个斯巴达式的未来——他们占收入群体底层人数的一半但又与最贫困潦倒的(占收入群体底层人数的10%),主要将收入花费在维持基本生活而没有其他补贴的人不同。他们的窘境可以追溯到21世纪初,当时国民生产总值(GDP)与公民收入不对等,公民生活费用已远远超出其中等收入水平。The plate tectonics of the labour market offer the best explanation for this. With a declining industrial base, the British economy needs fewer mid-level skilled workers. Most new posts are low- or high-paying ones (see chart 2). Many in the middle lack the skills to move up and are pushed towards the low-wage end of the economy. Machinists and tradesmen become cashiers and call-centre workers.通过研究英国劳务市场的组成可以很清晰的解释这一现象:工业基础弱化导致当前英国经济水平下,市场几乎不需要中等技术水平的从业者,且绝大多数工作岗位是提供给低薪或高薪要求的人。很多中等水平的从业者缺乏提升自身的技术而最终得到较低的报酬,像一些机械工程师和零售商,最终却变成了收银员和呼叫中心的工作人员。Successive governments have bolstered the disposable incomes of the 40% with tax credits. According to the Resolution Foundation, a think-tank, in 1977 the state supplemented their wages by one percentage point of national income. By 2008-09 the top-up was 3.7 percentage points. This helped disguise the decline in the groups share of national original income from 30% to 22%.历届政府都通过税收抵免政策提高了40%的公民可配收入。通过“智囊团”——英国决议基金会(the Resolution Foundation)的商定,自1977年起,将国家收入的一个百分点补贴公民收入,直至2008至年,最高曾一度达到3.7个百分点。该行为很好地掩饰了公民收入从占国家原有收入的30%下降至22%的这一事实。Today the government crows about the failings of past administrations while presiding over an intensification of the same problems. At current rates, real earnings will have shrunk by £6,660 (,250) over the 2010-15 parliament. The hourglass shape of the labour market has become more pronounced: research by the Trades Union Congress shows that four in five net jobs created up to December 2012 were in low-wage sectors. As before, the squeezed middle is turning to credit cards to compensate; in the first quarter of 2013 the savings ratio fell to 4.2%, its lowest since .如今英国政府一边在“哭诉”曾经管理层的失败,一边又在同样的问题上栽了更大的跟头。就目前利率来看,在2010至2015年议会期间,公民真实收入将缩减至6,660欧元(折合美元10,250元)。劳务市场需求沙漏化更加明显:英国总工会(Trades Union Congress)的一项研究表明,至2012年11月,由低工资部门提供的净就业机会占总数的五分之四,而那些被限制的中等水平求职者只好利用信用卡来付各项费用。2013年第一季度英国储蓄率跌至4.2%,是自年以来的最低水平。Solihulls economy is a microcosm of the national one. Job vacancies are up 2% on pre-recession levels, but mortgage and secured-loan arrears are 30% higher. The collapse of a local vanmaker, LDV, pushed many into low-quality service jobs. A noticeboard in a local CAB is crammed with advertisements for part-time or temporary work in supermarkets and cleaning agencies. “Its hard for someone used to a job as a production manager on £25,000 to find themselves stacking shelves on minimum wage,” says Kerry Turner, the local head of Citizens Advice.索利赫尔的经济仅仅是英国国家经济的一个缩影。空缺的职位数比经济衰退前上涨了2%,但抵押款和抵押款拖欠却增加了30%。当地一家面包车制造厂(LDV)倒闭造成了许多人不得不选择低质量的务行业。当地公民咨询局(CAB)的一块公告牌上贴满了超市和清洁公司招收兼职或临时工的广告,其领导人克里·特纳(Kerry Turner)表示,对于那些曾经挣着25,000欧元,比如生产部门经理来说,很难接受自己整理货架并且挣着最低工资的工作。Desperate times, plastic measures艰难时期的脆弱对策Such struggling voters are electorally crucial, especially in the southern and Midlands seats that swing national results (in Solihull the Liberal Democrat MP has a majority of just 175). Politicians are right to call the nationwide polls scheduled for 2015 the “living-standards election”.这些处于困境的选民是选举的关键点,尤其是南方和内陆的席位更是会影响全国的选举结果(在索利赫尔,自由派民主党人议员拥有绝大多数的选票,但总人数也仅有175人)。政客们将定于2015年的全国选举称为“基于生活水平的选举”。Coining a phrase is one thing, living up to it is another. The Labour Partys recent offensive on living costs was long on point-scoring and short on detailed solutions. The government boasts of its remedies (increasing the income-tax threshold and cutting beer tax, for example), but most are more than offset by the fall in real incomes. Recent education and welfare reforms are broadly commendable, but do little to change the fundamentals. Britons lack vocational skills and are underemployed. As the firms they work for invest at an alarmingly low rate, their productivity stagnates.喊口号是一回事,而能否实现却是另外一回事。工党近来在公民生活费用问题上咄咄逼人,但是却很少提出详细的解决方法。政府在一味吹嘘他们诸如提高收入的个税起征点、削减啤酒税等补救策略,但多数却由于公民真实收入减少造成这些补偿款的入不敷出。虽然最近的教育及福利改革被大众所接受,但这对于基本问题没有任何改善。英国人依然缺乏职业技能且就业岗位不足,原因是他们工作的公司投入率惊人地低,从而导致生产停滞不前。Ruminating on the state of the nation, Mrs Turner describes the increasing number of people who come to the CAB with plastic bags stuffed with unopened post from creditors. They ignore the letters, and take out more loans to make ends meet. Unable to kick the debt habit and unwilling to face reality, they are a reminder of what is wrong with Britains recovery.深入剖析国家现状,特纳女士说,越来越多的人提着塞满债主寄来的还未开封邮件的塑料包,来到公民咨询局(CAB)。他们不去理会那些催款单,却继续申请更多贷款来维持收平衡。他们无法摆脱债务但又不愿面对现实,而这恰巧折射出英国经济复苏时的问题所在。译者:尤熠 校对:袁航 译文属译生译世 /201512/417889市南区人民医院看产科需要多少钱

平度市第一人民妇保中医院介绍Lexington莱克星顿Ranchers v bison-huggers农场主对战北美野牛极端保护者What the ceaseless rows over Yellowstone National Park reveal about America有关黄石国家公园无休止的争论,为我们揭示出美国的哪些?THE most original political book of early 2015 is not formally about politics at all. Instead “The Battle for Yellowstone” by Justin Farrell, a young scholar at Yale University, ponders venomous rows that have shaken Yellowstone National Park in recent decades, and why they are so intractable. The rows turn on such questions as wolf re-introduction, bison roaming-rights and snowmobile access to that lovely corner of the Rocky Mountains.2015年初第一本政治性书籍形式上并不和政治相关,而是一本“为黄石公园而战”的书,作者是耶鲁大学的一名年轻的学者贾斯丁·法雷尔,他在该文中对最近几十年撼动了黄石国家公园的恶毒争吵进行了思考,以及它们为何如此棘手的原因。这些争吵引发了许多问题,如狼群的再引进,野牛的漫步权力,以及雪地托车对落基山脉中这个景色优美的角落的接近。It is nearly half a century since biologists first asked Congress to re-introduce wolves into Yellowstone, so that they might usefully eat some of the elk then lumbering about in over-large herds. Getting to the point of releasing wolves in the mid-1990s involved executive actions and directives from six presidents, debates in dozens of congressional committees, 120 public hearings, more than 160,000 public submissions to federal wildlife bosses and at least m-worth of scientific research. Pro- and anti-wolf types drew up competing technical reports about the value of wolves as “apex predators”, economic costs to cattle ranchers, tourism benefits and elk ecology. This techno-rationalist arms race bought no peace: the wolf-wars blaze as fiercely as ever.近半个世纪以前,生物学家首次要求国会再次为黄石公园引进狼群,让它们吃掉马鹿,以有效减少这个过于庞大的群体。在20世纪90年代中期,释放狼群这个决定牵扯了行政措施以及六名总统的指令,国会委员会进行了多次争辩,召开了120场公众听会,野生生物官员们收到了超过160,000篇公众意见书,政府投入了至少一亿两千万去进行科学研究。持引入狼群和反对者们竞相起草各种科技报告,如关于狼群作为“顶端捕食者”的价值,养牛场场主的经济成本,旅游收益以及马鹿生态。这种技术武装的理论者竞争闹得没有宁日:狼群之争一如既往地激烈。Yellowstones wild bison trigger ferocious rows, too, each time they amble outside the national park. Let them roam, cry fans of these last genetically pure survivors of the vast herds that once filled the West. Stop them, bellow ranchers who fear the bison will infect their cattle with brucellosis, a nasty disease. Tottering stacks of brucellosis research have not resolved the dispute. Since 1997 more than 5,000 volunteers—many of them young, affluent outsiders, some adopting such “forest names” as Chipmunk, Grumble or Frog—have catalogued countless allegations of bison-bullying outside park boundaries, but changed few minds about the rights and wrongs of it.每当黄石公园的野牛在国家公园漫步时,它们都会引发激烈的争辩。这个庞大的群体一度遍布西方世界,而如今只剩下了这些最后的纯种幸存者,让它们尽情漫步吧!野牛群体的粉丝们大声呼喊。阻止它们!农场主们怒吼,因为他们害怕野牛们会向家牛传染讨厌的布鲁菌病。而那些大堆关于布鲁菌病的研究也未解决这场争辩。自1997年起就有超过五千名志愿者—大多数都是年轻人和富裕的外来者,也有一些采用了 “森林之名”,如花栗鼠、咕哝或者青蛙,他们将无数关于北美野牛在公园边界横行霸道的指控进行了编目,但只改变了一小批人的是非观念。As for snowmobilers and their right to roar along Yellowstone trails when winter descends, millions of dollars have been spent on lawsuits in Wyoming and Washington, DC since the late 1990s, backed by studies of engine-noise, exhaust-pollution and wildlife behaviour. Some wrangling continues.关于冬天来临时驾雪车者以及他们在黄石山径呼啸而过的事情,自20世纪90年代后期,怀俄明州和华盛顿已经有数百万美元的法律诉讼了,这些诉讼由发动机噪音研究、废气污染研究以及野生生物行为研究持。有些争辩如今仍在继续。All this puzzled Mr Farrell, a sociologist at Yales school of forestry and environmental studies, whose book is due out this summer, under the full title “The Battle for Yellowstone: Morality and the Sacred Roots of Environmental Conflict”. He spent two years asking folk in and around Yellowstone why they are so cross. Beneath debates about science and economics he found arguments about morality and the proper relations between humans and nature—though those involved often do not, or will not acknowledge this. In short, all sides purport to be weighing what is true and false, while really arguing about right and wrong.所有这些都使法雷尔先生很困惑,他是一名来自耶鲁大学林学与环境研究院的社会学家,他的著作将于今年夏天出炉,全称是“为黄石公园而战:道德与环境冲突的神圣根源”。他花了两年时间询问黄石公园之中以及周边的居民他们如此生气的原因。在关于科学和经济的争辩之下他发现了关于道德和人类与自然之间合适关系的论—尽管那些参与争论的人经常意识不到,或者不承认这点。总之,各方都声称在他们争辩对错时确实仔细考虑了是非对错。Pro-wolf biologists and officials call themselves dispassionate custodians of a unique place. But they give themselves away with quasi-spiritual talk of wolves restoring “wholeness” to a landscape damaged by man. Indeed, when the first Yellowstone wolves were released in 1995, the then-interior secretary, Bruce Babbit, called it “a day of redemption”. While living with pro-bison activists, a startled Mr Farrell heard them telling various furry specimens “We love you,” or “We are here to protect you, you big sacred boy,” and spouting bowdlerised Native-American teachings about the animals ancient souls (while simultaneously insisting, in many cases, that they distrusted religion and its works).赞成引进狼群的生物学家和官员们自称为独特地方的冷静管理员。但他们类似精神的谈话暴露了自己的狐狸尾巴,称狼群可以将被人类破坏的风景“完全”恢复。确实,当黄石公园在1995年第一次放出狼群时,当时的内政部长布鲁斯·巴比特把这天叫做“救赎日”。而在与赞成保护野牛的活动家们一起居住时,法雷尔先生听到了一些令他震惊的话:他们对着各种毛绒绒的标本说“我们爱你们”,或“神圣的孩子们,我们来保护你们了”,并唾弃有所删节的美国本土关于动物古老灵魂的学说(同时在许多情况下,他们也坚持不信任宗教和其作品)。As for anti-wolf types, when offered financial compensation for wolf-attacks on their livestock, some turn it down—suggesting that more than economics is at stake. Dig a bit, and a culture war is raging between the “old West” of rugged ranchers and hunters, who once earned respect and status by taming nature, but who now find themselves called environmental menaces by “new West” incomers with big-city ideas about animal rights and natural ecosystems. Behind that local clash—pitting folk with gun racks on their trucks against those with bike racks, as Mr Farrell puts it—there lurks a still larger suspicion of the federal government. Many “old West” types see a plot to drive ranchers from the land. They talk of “federal wolves” undermining their property rights, and challenging the God-ordained duty of humans to protect their own families, and exercise dominion over Creation.对于反对引入狼群的人来说,当向他们提供狼群袭击家畜的财政补贴时,有些人拒绝了,并建议说处于险境的并不只是他们的经济。更深入一点,在“老西部”的坚毅农场主与猎人中正在发生着一场激烈的文化战争,他们曾经因为驯化制自然而获得尊敬与地位,但如今却发现自己被持有动物权利与自然生态等大都市思想的“新西部”移民们叫做环境威胁。在当地的冲突中,武装居民把架在卡车上,与另一队把架在自行车上的居民对峙,正如法雷尔提出的那样,那里隐藏着对联邦政府更大的猜疑。许多“老西部”居民都能看出一场要把农场主赶出这片土地的阴谋。他们说“联邦狼”暗中破坏了他们的财产权,挑战了上帝规定的人类要保护自己家庭的责任,而且滥用了上帝的造物权。Crying wolf嚎叫的狼Yellowstones hidden moral disputes offer wider lessons to America, a country that is increasingly divided and unusually keen on tackling complex ethical questions in judicial and quasi-judicial settings. Lots of other countries debate such issues as the death penalty, abortion, gun control or global warming in parliament, allowing partisans to admit when they are advancing emotional or religious arguments. From its earliest days American law courts and congressional hearings have rung to the noise of impassioned partisans, hurling facts (and, all too often, confected para-facts) at one another in a bid to prove the other side wrong.黄石公园中隐藏的道德之争为美国提供了更广泛的教训,这个国家分歧日渐增多,经常热衷于处理司法与准司法背景的复杂道德问题。许多其他国家都在国会上争辩如死刑、堕胎、管理或全球变暖之类的问题,当党派人员推动情感或宗教争辩时,就允许他们加入。早期美国法院与国会听会会收到充满的党派人员们的争论电话,互相用事实(并且常常是特意寻出的侧面事实)攻击对方以明另一方是错误的。Mr Farrell is not the only scholar testing the thesis that this approach has its limits. Earlier this winter the Faith Angle Forum—a twice-yearly conference bringing together theologians, scientists and political journalists—heard from academics working to bridge divides between science and Americans of deep religious faith. Many partisans subscribe to the post-Enlightenment idea that giving people lots of facts ought to be enough to convince them, noted Jeff Hardin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a zoologist and devout Christian. But “most of us hold our beliefs in a tangled ball of yarn”, especially in a religious, polarised place such as America. Tug at one th, and people fear that their very identity is under attack.法雷尔并不是测试这种方法具有限制性这个论题的唯一学者。今年冬天早期信仰天使座谈会—一个两年一次的会议,聚集了大量神学家、科学家和政治新闻记者—听说学术界正在致力于沟通科学与美国居民根深蒂固的宗教信仰之间的分歧。威斯康星大学的动物学家以及虔诚的基督徒杰夫·哈丁表明,许多党派人员们都认同了后启蒙思想,认为后启蒙思想为人们带来的大量事实足以使人们信。但“大部分人的信仰都是一团乱麻”,特别是在美国这样宗教化、极端化的地区。这是悬在人们头上的一柄达克利斯之剑,人们都担忧自己的身份会遭受攻击。This is not a call to abandon rationality or to scorn facts. It is a call for more empathy in American political debate, and more honesty about the tangled agendas that lurk in every breast. That would not end every conflict: just look at Yellowstone and its unending rows. But even agreeing to disagree would be a start.这并不是号召放弃理性或嘲笑事实。这是号召美国政治辩论对于潜藏在每个人心中的混乱议题应该更同情,更诚实。这不会终结所有冲突:去看看黄石公园和它那无休止争吵你就知道了。但即使是求同存异,也将会是个开始。翻译:靳方方 校对:萧毛毛 译文属译生译世 /201501/353453青岛市四方区医院四维彩超预约 聊城做孕检多少钱

青岛市妇幼四维彩超预约Strictly speaking, air is mostly nitrogen–about seventy-eightpercent, and about twenty-one percent oxygen, which leavesabout one percent of other stuff, like water vapor and carbondioxide.严格地说,空气主要由大约78%的氮气和21%的氧气组成,另外还有1%的其他气体,像水蒸气和二氧化碳。So air is mostly empty space?所以,空气大部分都是真空吗?Yep, in fact, if you ever condensed a gallon of air into a solid,youd end up with a little over one tenth of one percent of the airs original volume.是的。实际上,如果你将一加仑的空气凝结成固体,这个固体的体积只比空气原本体积的千分之一多一点。And the reasonwe dont notice all this emptiness is because air molecules are constantly moving around at thespeed of sound, and bouncing against any surface that happens to fall in their path.我们没有注意到这一点的原因是空气分子以音速在不停地移动,而当它们碰到任何表面时都会反弹回去。So were constantly bombarded by air molecules.那么,我们一直被空气分子撞击着,So how come we dont feel that?可是为什么我们感觉不到呢?Well, actually we do.其实我们能感觉到的。The force these air molecules exert is what we measure when we measureair pressure.空气分子施加的压力就是我们平时测量的气压。 201411/340599 青岛黄岛区较好的妇产医院青岛市四方区妇幼保健所妇科在线咨询和网上挂号电话



青岛市一院看病口碑 青岛山大医院查体套餐安心大全 [详细]
莱阳儿童医院妇科挂号 黄岛开发区治疗附件炎哪家医院最好的 [详细]
青岛处女膜修复手术的医院 安新闻烟台哪家妇科医院好家庭医生报 [详细]
咨询对话青岛治疗月经不调大约多少钱 山东省青岛市六院做药物流产多少钱365报荣成做无痛人流多少钱 [详细]