首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Fear of Nature: An Emerging Threat to Conservation [A] What do we lose when natural spaces and species disappear? Increasing
Fear of Nature: An Emerging Threat to Conservation [A] What do we lose when natural spaces and species disappear? Increasing
admin
2023-01-31
49
问题
Fear of Nature: An Emerging Threat to Conservation
[A] What do we lose when natural spaces and species disappear? Increasingly, research has shown that as species and ecosystems vanish, it also chips away at our ability to preserve what remains—because we no longer understand what we’re losing.
[B] You probably see it all the time. The neighbor who puts pesticides on his lawn rather than deal with annoying bees. The politician who votes against wildlife protection because she’s never seen a wolf in the wild. The corporation that wants to bulldoze (用推土机推平) the habitat of a rare frog.
[C] At best this can be termed "the extinction of experience," where our cultural and natural histories fade from our memories and therefore our reality. At its worst it becomes something even more concerning: "biophobia," the fear of living things and a complete aversion to nature.
[D] This isn’t the fiction of living in a cold, empty dystopia (绝望的世界). Sadly, it’s becoming a way of life for too many people—especially children. A recent study in Japan paints a striking portrait of this problem. A survey of more than 5,300 school children in the Tochigi Prefecture examined their perception of 14 local insect species and one spider. The results? A collective "ew!" Most of the students saw the species as things to dislike or fear, or even as sources of danger. The less experience the students had with nature, the more negative their feelings.
[E] The results were published earlier this year in the journal Biological Conservation. Lead researcher Masashi Soga with the University of Tokyo says the study stemmed from observations about today’s nature-deficient children. "Humans inherently avoid dangerous organisms such as bees, but children these days avoid even harmless animals such as butterflies and dragonflies (蜻蜓)," he says. "I have long wondered why so many of today’s children react like this."
[F] Although the children’s reactions were somewhat expected, the new study did contain an unexpected rinding: Many of the surveyed children revealed that their parents also expressed fear or disgust of the same animals. In fact these parental emotions were strong enough to overwhelm any positive experiences the children might have gained from direct experiences in nature. As Soga and his coauthors wrote in their paper, "Our results suggest that there is likely a feedback loop in which an increase in people who have negative attitudes towards nature in one generation will lead to a further increase in people with similar attitudes in the next generation."
[G] And that’s possibly the greater threat posed by extinction of experience. Soga suggests the generational loss—a condition previously dubbed environmental generational amnesia (遗忘)—could chip away at our societal ability to preserve what we’re losing. "I believe that increased biophobia is a major, but invisible, threat to global biodiversity," Soga says. "As the number of children who have biophobia increases, public interest and support for biodiversity conservation will gradually decline. Although many conservation biologists still consider that preventing the loss of wildlife habitat is the most important way to conserve biodiversity, I think preventing increased biophobia is also important for conservation."
[H] What’s to be done about this? The paper makes several recommendations, the most obvious of which is that children should experience nature more often. The authors also suggest establishing policies to guide these natural experiences and increasing educational programs about the natural world.
[I] Helping parents to see species around them in a new light would make a difference, too. And, of course, maintaining support for preserving the wild spaces where these "scary" creatures live is the most important thing of all. That’s a point reinforced by another recent study, which found that wild spaces located within urban areas—and the plants and animals that thrive in them—are particularly important for human health and well-being.
[J] Published in the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, the study examined attitudes toward Discovery Park, the heavily forested 534-acre public park in Seattle, Washington. It found that the public had the most appreciation for—and gained the most value from—the wildest parts of the park. "I have seen whales, seals, fish, eagles, shorebirds and many other sea creatures in their natural habitat," one survey participant wrote. "Coming here with people has allowed me to connect and talk with them about conversation that simply does not happen in everyday life," wrote another.
[K] The participants reported that their most valuable experiences in the park included encountering wildlife, walking through open spaces, exploring the beach and finding beautiful views. "We saw that a large majority of participants’ interactions, especially their most meaningful interactions, depended on Discovery Park’s relative wildness," says lead author Elizabeth Lev, a master’s student in the University of Washington’s Human Interaction with Nature Lab. This is only possible because the park is relatively wild. After all, you can’t enjoy watching birds if there are no birds to follow; gaze at the sunset if it’s obscured by skyscrapers; or stop and smell the flowers if they don’t have room to grow.
[L] And yet even this long-protected space could someday become less hospitable to nature. Over the past few years a lot of people and organizations have suggested developing parts of Discovery Park or the neighboring area. Most recently a plan proposed building 34 acres of much-needed affordable housing and parking spaces adjacent to the park, bringing with them noise, traffic and pollution.
[M] If anything like that happened, both the park and the people of Seattle could lose something vital. And that would continue the trend of chipping away at Seattle’s—and the world’s—natural spaces, leaving just tiny pocket parks and green-but-empty spaces that offer little real value to wildlife, plants or people.
[N] "It is true that any interaction with nature is better than none, but I don’t want people to be satisfied with any small bit of grass and trees," Lev says. "We have been in this cycle of environmental generational amnesia for a long time, where the baseline keeps shifting and we don’t even realize what we’re losing until it’s gone. If we can get people to understand how much meaning and value can come from having more experiences with more wild forms of nature, then maybe we can stop this cycle and move toward conserving and restoring what we have left."
[O] Building this understanding in an ever-more fearful and disconnected world may be the biggest challenge. Peter Kahn, the senior author of Lev’s paper and the director of the Human Interaction with Nature lab, made several suggestions for bridging this gap in this 2011 book, Technological Nature. They echo the recommendation about getting children into nature, but also include telling stories of how things used to be, imagining what things might be like in the future, and developing a common language about nature, "a way of speaking about wild and domestic interaction patterns, and the meaningful, deep and often joyful feelings that they generate."
[P] No matter what techniques we use, this growing field of research illustrates that saving nature requires encouraging people to experience it more often and more deeply. That calls for additional research-Lev and her coauthors have published a toolkit that other municipalities can follow to study the value of their own wild spaces—and clear communication of the results. "If we can continue to show people the benefits of these wild spaces," Lev says, "maybe people will begin to see more value in keeping these areas undeveloped—for the sake of our mutual benefit."
A study showed that the wildest areas of Discovery Park appealed most to the public.
选项
答案
J
解析
根据the wildest areas of Discovery Park、appealed most定位至J段第2句,该句提到,公众最喜欢探索公园中最为原生态的区域。题目的the wildest areas of Discovery Park对应原文中的the wildest parts of the park,而appealed most对应had the most appreciation,故选J段。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/CxvD777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
OfficialsinTampaFlorida,gotasurpriserecentlywhenalocalfirmbuildingthestate’sfirstethanol(alcoholfuel)producti
Whatshouldthestudentsbringwiththemtotheexam?
Chinaisrichinnaturalresources,buttheyarenotevenly________.
ThewaypeopleintheUStraveltoandfromworkhaschangedalotinthelastfiftyyears.【T1】BeforetheSecondWorldWar,most
Anynotionofjusticeinthefortunesofartistsis________:worksofequalvalueandqualityproducequitedifferentreturnsor
Thepresident’scordialgreetingmayseemtobeasmallgestureoffriendliness,butitisnotwithout________intheheretofore
WhenthefirstEuropeansarrivedinAustralia,theyfoundthecontinentalready______byotherpeople.
A、Readinghisbook.B、Consultinghertutor.C、SearchingontheInternet.D、WatchingTVprograms.A对话最后女士询问怎么知道自己的学习方式,男士说可以读他的书找
Eachoftheareamanagersenjoysconsiderable________intherunningofhisownarea.
A、Itmightbothersomepeople.B、Itisveryusefulandromantic.C、Itdoesn’ttakemuchworktowrite.D、Ithastobecertified
随机试题
一台Y-160M-4型三相异步电动机,额定功率是11kW,额定转速为1460r/min,则它的额定输出转矩为()N·m。
天然气管道干燥就是清除管道中的杂物。()
简述培训需求分析的层次和方法。
营养充足的婴儿、孕妇、恢复期病人,常保持()
雄激素的临床用途有
患者孕35周,于34周发现下肢水肿,血压150/100mmHg,尿蛋白(+),近2d来血压170/110mmHg,尿蛋白(+++),水肿(+++),并伴有头痛、眼花,有时呕吐,胎心胎动正常。应诊断为
A.生脉饮B.龟龄集C.六味地黄丸D.人参归脾丸E.金匮肾气丸老年人偏于心脾两虚,宜选用的中成药是
2014年某运输公司拥有并使用以下车辆:拖拉机5辆,整备质量为2吨;整备质量为6吨的载货卡车20辆;整备质量为4.5吨的汽车挂车6辆。中型载客汽车10辆,其中包括2辆电车,核定载客人数均为9人以上。当地政府规定,货车的税额为60元/吨,客车的税额是500元
2014年3月,H公司厂房及其所在的集体土地,因某高铁项目建设需要,被列入征地拆迁范围,但在拆迁补偿标准的问题上,H公司与负责实施征地拆迁的乙市丙区人民政府发生争议。H公司遂根据《土地管理法实施条例》的规定,就双方的补偿标准争议提请乙市人民政府协调,但乙市
—Readthetextbelowaboutsupermarketcheckouts.—Inmostofthelines41-52theresoneextraword.Itiseithergrammatically
最新回复
(
0
)