加载中…
个人资料
逸而无悔
逸而无悔
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:21,902
  • 关注人气:22
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

True sustainability solutions(真正的可持续发展解决方案)

(2012-12-22 07:24:16)
标签:

译国译民翻译大赛

truesustainabilityso

真正的可持续发展解决

译文翻译评解析

分类: 咬文嚼字
请先阅读本博“访客必读”中的全部内容,然后再阅读下文。

 

参加比赛,确实是一种绝佳的磨砺、交流方式,所以我也参加了“首届‘译国译民杯’翻译大赛”。下面是我的译文,欢迎同仁批评指正。

 

英文

中文

注释

True sustainability solutions

真正的可持续发展解决方案

 

by Gail Tverberg

Gail Tverberg

 

We live in a world with very limited solutions to our sustainability problems.

在我们所生活的世界中,对于可持续发展问题,我们的解决方法很有限。

 

I often hear the view, If we would just get off fossil fuels, then our society would be sustainable.

我常听到这样的观点,即“只要弃用化石燃料,我们的社会就能持续发展。”

 

Or, If the price of oil would just go high enough, then renewables would become economic, and our economy would be sustainable.

或者“只要石油价格涨得足够高,可再生能源就会变得经济划算,而我们的经济则能够持续发展。”

 

Unfortunately, our problems with sustainability began a long time before fossil fuels came around, and the views above represent an incomplete understanding of our predicament.

遗憾的是,我们的可持续发展问题,出现得要比化石燃料早得多,而上述观点反映出来的,是对我们困境的了解不够全面。

 

When fossil fuels became available, they were a solution to other sustainability problemsrapid deforestation and difficulty feeding the population at that time.

有化石燃料可用时,解决的是其他可持续发展问题——森林迅速遭到砍伐,因而难以向当时的全体人民提供食物。

 

Getting rid of fossil fuels would likely lead to very rapid deforestation and many people dying of lack of water or food.

摈弃化石燃料很可能会使森林非常迅速地遭到砍伐,从而使许多人因为缺少水或食物而死亡。

 

If getting rid of fossil fuels is a solution to our predicament, it is one with very bad side effects.

如果摈弃化石燃料可以解困,那这种解决方法会有非常严重的副作用。

 

A couple of different events this week reminded me about how deeply embedded our sustainability problems are.

本周发生的几件不同的事,让我想起可持续发展问题有多么根深蒂固。

 

For one, I had the opportunity to read a draft of a soon-to-be published paper by James H. Brown and a group of others from the University of New Mexico and the Sante Fe Institute called, The Macroecology of Sustainability.

例如,我有幸拜读了一篇不久就会发表的论文的草稿,这篇论文的作者包括 James H. Brown 和几位其他合著者,那几位合著者来自新墨西哥大学,以及名为“可持续发展宏观生态学”的圣菲研究所。

 

This paper points out that sustainability science has developed largely independently from and with little reference to key ecological principles that govern life on earth.

这篇论文指出,可持续发展科学的发展,很大程度上无关于用来治理地球生命的主要生态学原则,而且很少参考这些原则。

 

Instead, sustainability science is often more of a social science, looking at slightly greener approaches which are almost as unsustainable as the approaches they replace.

相反,可持续发展科学往往更像是一门社会科学,研究的是略微环保一些的方法,但这些方法几乎与所取代的方法一样不可持续。

 

A second thing that reminded me of our long-term problems with sustainability was a pair of articles in this weeks issue of Science.

还有一件事让我想起我们的长期可持续发展问题,也就是本周这期《科学》杂志中的两篇文章。

 

There is a research article called, The Aftermath of Megafaunal Extinction:

其中有一篇科研论文名为“巨型动物灭绝的后果:

 

Ecosystem Transformation in Pleistocene Australia by S. Rule et al, and an accompanying perspective article called The Hunters Did It by M. McGlone.

更新世澳大利亚的生态系统转变”,作者是 S. Rule 等人,还有一篇一同发表的议论文,名为“猎人惹的祸”,作者是 M. McGlone

 

The perspective article explains that there had been a controversy as to why marked changes in habitat took place shortly after humans settled Australia.

这篇议论文说明的是,人类定居澳大利亚后不久,动物栖息地就发生了显著变化,其原因一直众说纷纭。

 

Some thought that the loss of forest and animal extinctions were the result of climate change.

有人认为气候变化造成森林减少和动物灭绝。

 

New research shows that the changes almost certainly came from hunting and the use of fire by humans.

但从新的研究成果中可以看出,变化几乎肯定是由人类狩猎和用火造成的。

 

This is further evidence that humans did not live sustainably, even when they were still hunters and gathers.

这进一步证明了,即使人类仍处于狩猎和聚居阶段,人类的生存也不可持续。

 

(See my earlier posts, European Debt Crisis and Sustainability and Human population overshootwhat went wrong?)

(请参阅我以前发表的博文《欧洲债务危机与可持续发展》和《人口过多错在何处》)

 

Below the fold, I will offer some ideas about truly sustainable solutions.

关于真正的可持续发展解决方案,我会在下面提出一些想法。

 

Truly Sustainable Solutions

真正的可持续发展解决方案

 

Humans at this point do not fit in at all well with the natural ecologythe natural systems of plants and animals.

目前人类与自然生态系统(自然的动植物系统)是格格不入的。

 

In fact, we have disturbed these systems greatly, making natural systems fitinto the little niches we have reserved for them.

实际上,我们已将动植物系统搅得天翻地覆,从而使得自然系统“恰好”存在于我们为其保留的狭小空间中。

 

In order for humans to fit back into natural systems, it almost seems as though humans would have to evolve to become more like monkeys or gorillas.

为了让人类重新融入自然系统,人类似乎必须进化得更像猴子或大猩猩。

 

We would need to stop living in houses, wearing clothes, and cooking our food.

我们必须不再住房子,不再穿衣服,不再做饭。

 

It would be helpful to be able to live in trees, to stay away from predators.

能住在树上,远离捕食性动物,这样会很有帮助。

 

Somehow, this doesnt sound at all appealing, or likely.

但不知何故,这听起来让人无动于衷,或感到绝不可能。

 

But if we think about the situation, it yields a few ideas regarding where we need to be, if we are to live in an ecologically sustainable way:

然而,从生态学的角度来看,如果我们要以可持续发展的方式生活,那我们考虑到这种局面时,就会得出这几个想法:

 

1. In terms of local foods, we need to focus on foods that truly grow wild, or with very little support, in our area.

1. 对于本地粮食,我们必须专注于本地区内的真正野生粮食,或很少得到助长的粮食。

support”是难点。

We may need to discard some foods that can be grown today, but which require soil amendments which must be hauled from a distance, sprays for insects, irrigating, or much tilling.

我们可能必须放弃某些目前能种植的粮食,但这是指那些必须改良土壤才能种植的粮食,是指必须远运而来,为其喷药防虫,进行灌溉或大力耕耘的粮食。

 

2. To limit our ecological impact, we should be eating plants and perhaps small animals (including birds, fish, and insects) that reproduce in large numbers.

2. 为了限制我们对生态的影响,我们应该吃植物,或可吃些繁殖量大的小型动物(包括禽、鱼、昆虫)。

 

We certainly should not be eating cows and pigs grown on industrial farms.

我们肯定不应该吃工业化农场中饲养的猪和牛。

 

The food we eat should be minimally processednot packaged or finely ground.

我们吃的食物应该经过极少加工,甚至未经包装或未磨得很细。

 

If we could eat food raw, that would be ideal, from the point of not disturbing other systems.

从不干扰其他系统的观点来看,如果我们能生吃食物,那就最好了。

 

The human digestive system has evolved to work better with cooked food, however, so cooking will probably be necessary, perhaps using solar cookers.

然而,人类的消化系统已经进化到更善于消化熟食的地步,因此烹饪大概是在所难免,或可采用太阳能炊具。

 

3. Our housing should be simple.

3. 我们的房屋应该很简单。

 

We certainly shouldnt be building more huge houses and buildings.

我们肯定不应该再去建造巨大的房屋和建筑物。

 

We shouldnt expect buildings to be heated very much, and probably not be cooled at all.

我们不应该指望建筑物的供暖效果非常好,很可能也根本不应该给建筑物降温。

 

4. Walking should be our primary means of transportation.

4. 步行应该是我们的主要交通手段。

 

Perhaps dug out canoes or rafts would also be suitable for fitting in with the ecosystems.

为了融入生态系统,或许斧凿出独木舟或木筏也是合适的举措。

 

 

 

原文和译文如下:

 

True sustainability solutions

by Gail Tverberg

 

We live in a world with very limited solutions to our sustainability problems. I often hear the view, “If we would just get off fossil fuels, then our society would be sustainable.” Or, “If the price of oil would just go high enough, then renewables would become economic, and our economy would be sustainable.”

 

Unfortunately, our problems with sustainability began a long time before fossil fuels came around, and the views above represent an incomplete understanding of our predicament. When fossil fuels became available, they were a solution to other sustainability problems–rapid deforestation and difficulty feeding the population at that time. Getting rid of fossil fuels would likely lead to very rapid deforestation and many people dying of lack of water or food. If getting rid of fossil fuels is a solution to our predicament, it is one with very bad side effects.

 

A couple of different events this week reminded me about how deeply embedded our sustainability problems are. For one, I had the opportunity to read a draft of a soon-to-be published paper by James H. Brown and a group of others from the University of New Mexico and the Sante Fe Institute called, “The Macroecology of Sustainability.” This paper points out that sustainability science has developed largely independently from and with little reference to key ecological principles that govern life on earth. Instead, sustainability science is often more of a social science, looking at slightly greener approaches which are almost as unsustainable as the approaches they replace.

 

A second thing that reminded me of our long-term problems with sustainability was a pair of articles in this week’s issue of Science. There is a research article called, The Aftermath of Megafaunal Extinction: Ecosystem Transformation in Pleistocene Australia by S. Rule et al, and an accompanying perspective article called The Hunters Did It by M. McGlone. The perspective article explains that there had been a controversy as to why marked changes in habitat took place shortly after humans settled Australia. Some thought that the loss of forest and animal extinctions were the result of climate change. New research shows that the changes almost certainly came from hunting and the use of fire by humans. This is further evidence that humans did not live sustainably, even when they were still hunters and gathers. (See my earlier posts, European Debt Crisis and Sustainability and Human population overshoot–what went wrong?)

 

Below the fold, I will offer some ideas about truly sustainable solutions.

 

Truly Sustainable Solutions

 

Humans at this point do not fit in at all well with the natural ecology–the natural systems of plants and animals. In fact, we have disturbed these systems greatly, making natural systems “fit” into the little niches we have reserved for them. In order for humans to fit back into natural systems, it almost seems as though humans would have to evolve to become more like monkeys or gorillas. We would need to stop living in houses, wearing clothes, and cooking our food. It would be helpful to be able to live in trees, to stay away from predators. Somehow, this doesn’t sound at all appealing, or likely.

 

But if we think about the situation, it yields a few ideas regarding where we need to be, if we are to live in an ecologically sustainable way:

 

1. In terms of local foods, we need to focus on foods that truly grow wild, or with very little support, in our area. We may need to discard some foods that can be grown today, but which require soil amendments which must be hauled from a distance, sprays for insects, irrigating, or much tilling.

 

2. To limit our ecological impact, we should be eating plants and perhaps small animals (including birds, fish, and insects) that reproduce in large numbers. We certainly should not be eating cows and pigs grown on industrial farms. The food we eat should be minimally processed–not packaged or finely ground. If we could eat food raw, that would be ideal, from the point of not disturbing other systems. The human digestive system has evolved to work better with cooked food, however, so cooking will probably be necessary, perhaps using solar cookers.

 

3. Our housing should be simple. We certainly shouldn’t be building more huge houses and buildings. We shouldn’t expect buildings to be heated very much, and probably not be cooled at all.

 

4. Walking should be our primary means of transportation. Perhaps dug out canoes or rafts would also be suitable for fitting in with the ecosystems.

 

真正的可持续发展解决方案

Gail Tverberg 著

 

在我们所生活的世界中,对于可持续发展问题,我们的解决方法很有限。我常听到这样的观点,即“只要弃用化石燃料,我们的社会就能持续发展。”或者“只要石油价格涨得足够高,可再生能源就会变得经济划算,而我们的经济则能够持续发展。”

 

遗憾的是,我们的可持续发展问题,出现得要比化石燃料早得多,而上述观点反映出来的,是对我们困境的了解不够全面。有化石燃料可用时,解决的是其他可持续发展问题——森林迅速遭到砍伐,因而难以向当时的全体人民提供食物。摈弃化石燃料很可能会使森林非常迅速地遭到砍伐,从而使许多人因为缺少水或食物而死亡。如果摈弃化石燃料可以解困,那这种解决方法会有非常严重的副作用。

 

本周发生的几件不同的事,让我想起可持续发展问题有多么根深蒂固。例如,我有幸拜读了一篇不久就会发表的论文的草稿,这篇论文的作者包括 James H. Brown 和几位其他合著者,那几位合著者来自新墨西哥大学,以及名为“可持续发展宏观生态学”的圣菲研究所。这篇论文指出,可持续发展科学的发展,很大程度上无关于用来治理地球生命的主要生态学原则,而且很少参考这些原则。相反,可持续发展科学往往更像是一门社会科学,研究的是略微环保一些的方法,但这些方法几乎与所取代的方法一样不可持续。

 

还有一件事让我想起我们的长期可持续发展问题,也就是本周这期《科学》杂志中的两篇文章。其中有一篇科研论文名为“巨型动物灭绝的后果:更新世澳大利亚的生态系统转变”,作者是 S. Rule 等人,还有一篇一同发表的议论文,名为“猎人惹的祸”,作者是 M. McGlone。这篇议论文说明的是,人类定居澳大利亚后不久,动物栖息地就发生了显著变化,其原因一直众说纷纭。有人认为气候变化造成森林减少和动物灭绝。但从新的研究成果中可以看出,变化几乎肯定是由人类狩猎和用火造成的。这进一步证明了,即使人类仍处于狩猎和聚居阶段,人类的生存也不可持续。(请参阅我以前发表的博文《欧洲债务危机与可持续发展》和《人口过多错在何处》)

 

关于真正的可持续发展解决方案,我会在下面提出一些想法。

 

真正的可持续发展解决方案

 

目前人类与自然生态系统(自然的动植物系统)是格格不入的。实际上,我们已将动植物系统搅得天翻地覆,从而使得自然系统“恰好”存在于我们为其保留的狭小空间中。为了让人类重新融入自然系统,人类似乎必须进化得更像猴子或大猩猩。我们必须不再住房子,不再穿衣服,不再做饭。能住在树上,远离捕食性动物,这样会很有帮助。但不知何故,这听起来让人无动于衷,或感到绝不可能。

 

然而,从生态学的角度来看,如果我们要以可持续发展的方式生活,那我们考虑到这种局面时,就会得出这几个想法:

 

1. 对于本地粮食,我们必须专注于本地区内的真正野生粮食,或很少得到助长的粮食。我们可能必须放弃某些目前能种植的粮食,但这是指那些必须改良土壤才能种植的粮食,是指必须远运而来,为其喷药防虫,进行灌溉或大力耕耘的粮食。

 

2. 为了限制我们对生态的影响,我们应该吃植物,或可吃些繁殖量大的小型动物(包括禽、鱼、昆虫)。我们肯定不应该吃工业化农场中饲养的猪和牛。我们吃的食物应该经过极少加工,甚至未经包装或未磨得很细。从不干扰其他系统的观点来看,如果我们能生吃食物,那就最好了。然而,人类的消化系统已经进化到更善于消化熟食的地步,因此烹饪大概是在所难免,或可采用太阳能炊具。

 

3. 我们的房屋应该很简单。我们肯定不应该再去建造巨大的房屋和建筑物。我们不应该指望建筑物的供暖效果非常好,很可能也根本不应该给建筑物降温。

 

4. 步行应该是我们的主要交通手段。为了融入生态系统,或许斧凿出独木舟或木筏也是合适的举措。

0

阅读 评论 收藏 禁止转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
前一篇:find
后一篇:find a way
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

    < 前一篇find
    后一篇 >find a way
      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有