盧梭對這些東西習以為常，所以并不認為它們是違反自然的。但是，假如他在有生之年看見鐵路，他無疑會大加指責。服裝和烹飪由來已久，大多數(shù)提倡自然的人都不提出異議，雖然它們一致反對花樣翻新。節(jié)育被當成犯罪，而獨身則被寬容，因為前者是違反自然的新事物，而后者則古已有之。在所有這些方面，那些提倡‘自然’的人都是自相矛盾的，這只能使人把它們看成是守舊之士。

　　Nevertheless, there is something to be said in their favor. Take for instance vitamins, the discovery of which has produced a revulsion in favor of ‘natural’ foods. It seems, however, that vitamins can be supplied by cod-liver oil and electric light, which are certainly not part of the ‘natural’ diet of a human being. This case illustrates that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature, but when the harm has come to be understood it can usually be remedied by some new artificiality. As regards our physical environment and our physical means of gratifying our desires, I do not think the doctrine of ‘nature’ justifies anything beyond a certain experimental caution in the adoption of new expedients. Clothes, for instance, are contrary to nature, and need to be supplemented by another unnatural practice, namely washing, if they are not to bring disease. But the two practices together make a man healthier than the savage who eschews both.

　　然而，他們并非一無是處。例如，維生素的發(fā)現(xiàn)使人們復而贊成‘自然的’食物。不過，維生素似乎也可由魚肝油和電光提供，此二者無疑不是人類‘自然的’食物。這個例子表明，如果缺少知識，一種違反自然的新做法也許會帶來意想不到的危害，但是當那危害被認識到時，往往可以用某種新的人造物去補救。就我們的自然環(huán)境和滿足我們欲望的物質(zhì)手段而言，我認為，有關(guān)‘自然’的這套理論，除了證明在采取某種新的做法時應謹慎外，并不能證明別的什么。例如，衣服是違反自然的，如果不想讓衣服引起疾病，就需要增加另一種不自然的行為，即洗滌。但是，穿衣與洗滌加在一起卻可使人比與此二者無緣的野蠻人要健康。

　　To respect physical nature is foolish; physical nature should be studied with a view to making it serve human ends as far as possible, but it remains ethically neither good nor bad. And where physical nature and human nature interact, as in the population question, there is no need to fold our hands in passive adoration and accept war, pestilence, and famine as the only possible means of dealing with excessive fertility. The divines say: it is wicked, in this matter, to apply science to the physical side of the problem; we must (they say) apply morals to the human side, and practice abstinence. Apart from the fact that everyone, including the divines, knows that their advice will not be taken, why should it be wicked to solve the population question by adopting physical means for preventing conception?

　　尊重物質(zhì)的自然是愚蠢的; 物質(zhì)的自然應當加以研究，以便使其盡可能地服務于人類的目的，但它在道德上是無所謂好壞的。在物質(zhì)的自然和人類的天性相互影響的地方，如人口問題，我們無須束手被動地敬畏并接受戰(zhàn)爭，瘟疫和饑荒為解決過度繁殖的問題的唯一可能的方法。神學家們說，在此事上，應用科學于這一問題的物質(zhì)方面是罪惡的;我們應當(他們說)應用道德于人的方面，并且實行禁欲。每個人，這些神學家也不例外，都知道他們的勸告無人理睬，撇開這個事實不談，通過避孕的物質(zhì)手段來解決人口問題究竟何罪之有?

　　No answer is forthcoming except one based upon antiquated dogmas. And clearly the violence to nature advocated by the divines is at least as great as that involved in birth control. The divines prefer a violence to human nature which, when successfully pracised, involves unhappiness, envy, a tendency to persecution, often madness. I prefer a ‘violence’ to physical nature which is of the same sort as that involved in the steam engine or even in the use of an umbrella. This instance should show ambiguous and uncertain is the application of the principle that we should follow ‘nature.’

　　除了這是以古代教義為根據(jù)的，尚無別的答案。而且顯而易見，這對于神學家所提倡的自然的違反，至少不在節(jié)育之下。神學家們寧可選擇違反人類天性的做法，而這種做法的成功產(chǎn)生的卻是不幸，嫉妒，迫害的傾向和經(jīng)常性的瘋狂。我更喜歡‘違反’物質(zhì)自然的做法。這是一種類似使用蒸汽機或雨傘的做法。這個例子表明，我們應遵循‘自然’這一原則，它的應用是何等的含混和不確定。

　　Nature, even human nature, will cease more and more to be an absolute datum; more and more it will become what scientific manipulation has made it. Science can, if it chooses, enable our grandchildren to live the good life, by giving them knowledge, self-control, and characters productive of harmony rather than strife.

　　(What I Believe, 1925)

　　自然，甚至人性，將越來越不再是一種絕對的材料，而將逐漸成為科學所造成的東西?？茖W如果愿意，它能使我們的子孫過上美好的生活，方法是給他們以知識，自制力能產(chǎn)生和諧而非斗爭的品性。

　　以上就是今天小編為大家分享的托?？谡Z素材：科技與生活的全部內(nèi)容，希望對參加托福考試的考生有所幫助。

　　了解更多托?？谡Z備考資訊