全新版大学英语5 TEXT B 翻译 UNIT2.doc

The first article in this unit sets out the vegetarians argument against eating meat. Here, for those of you who still want to carry on eating meat with an easy heart, we have the meat eaters reply.本单元第一篇文章阐明了素食者反对食肉的理由。读者诸君中若有人仍想无所顾虑地吃肉，就请来看看肉食者的回答。 Wheres the Beef?Alan Herscovici1 With summer comes that most wonderful of North American traditions, the backyard barbecue. The succulent aroma of fresh grilled steak, sausages, chicken and fish draws family, friends and neighbours together for a communal feast. Inevitably, in these politically correct times the conversation may drift to the question of whether we really ought to be eating meat at all.牛肉在哪里？阿伦赫兹克维西 随夏日而来的是北美传统习俗中最美妙的一件事，后院烤肉餐。刚下烤架的牛排、香肠、鸡肉、鱼肉鲜美无比，引来了亲朋好友、左邻右舍，大家一起欢宴。不用说，在如今这个讲求政治正确的时代，聊着聊着就可能聊到我们究竟该不该吃肉的问题。2 The following guide should help see you through until the burgers are done.以下的指南想必会帮助你捱过等待汉堡牛排烤熟的那段时间。3 Appealing to self-interest, a common opening line for proselytizing vegetarians is to claim that “eating meat is bad for us.” They have trouble explaining, however, why human health and longevity have improved steadily as animal products became more readily available throughout this century. In fact, meat is an excellent source of 12 essential nutrients, including protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins.出于人们往往考虑自身利益这一点，那些劝人茹素的素食者通常一开口就声称“肉食有害健康”。然而，他们难以解释，为什么本世纪动物源性食品日益普及，人们的健康水平和寿命却持续上升。事实上，肉类富含12种人体必需的营养成分，其中包括蛋白质、铁、锌和各种维生素B。4 It is true that excessive fats can be harmful, but todays meats are lean. Based on equal-size servings, tofu has more fat than a sirloin steak and only half the protein. (Tofu also makes a mess of the grill.)不错，过多的脂肪有害健康，但如今的肉都是瘦肉。以同样大小的一份计，豆腐比一块后腿部牛排的脂肪含量多，而蛋白质含量仅是其一半。(何况豆腐会把烤架弄得一团糟。)5 With the exception of certain religious sects, people have rarely been vegetarian by choice. Most often, vegetarianism is the unfortunate result of poverty. Yet the veggie crowd also claims that “humans are not natural meat-eaters.” Our teeth are not as sharp and our intestinal tracts not as short as those of cats and other pure carnivores. But we are not equipped to be herbivores, either. Like other omnivores (such as bears or racoons), our digestive equipment allows us to tackle a wide range of foods.除了某些宗教派别，很少有人自愿吃素。素食主义往往是贫穷的不幸产物。然而，那伙吃素的还说什么“人类并非天生的肉食者”。相比那些猫科动物及其他纯食肉动物，我们的牙齿不够锋利，我们的肠道又过长。但人类也并非理想的食草动物。如同其他杂食动物(如熊和浣熊)一样，我们的消化系统可以应付多种多样的食物。6 If we were not designed to eat meat, why do we produce large quantities of the enzymes required to break down such foods? Why is vitamin B12 (found only in animal products) essential to human life? If we were not natural meat-eaters, or at least bug and grub eaters, our species would have died out long ago. If we did not develop as hunters, why are our eyes in the front to our heads like those of other predators (tigers, wolves or owls)? Why does the mere smell of a sizzling steak set my saliva glands watering?如果我们生来不吃肉，那人体何以会产生大量分解肉食所必需的消化酶？为什么维生素B12(仅含于动物源性食品中)为人体不可或缺？如果人类并非天生的肉食者至少要会吃昆虫那人类这一物种早就灭绝了。如果人类不曾进化为猎食其他物种的动物，那为什么如其他食肉动物(如虎、狼或猫头鹰)一样，我们的眼睛长在头的前部？为什么一块烤得咝咝作响的牛排的香味就会让我的唾液分泌腺流出口水？7 Shifting their ground, animal activists now charge that livestock threatens the environment. But much of the worlds arable land is best suited to be used as pasture. It is too hilly, fragile, dry or cold for cultivation. Cattle convert grass into nutrients that can be digested by humans. Those who promote organic agriculture understand that livestock completes the nutrient cycle by returning organic matter to the soil with manure.动物保护主义者换了个进攻方向，指责牲畜威胁环境。然而，世界上许多可耕地用作牧场最适合。那些土地起伏不平，土质贫瘠，不是太干就是气候太冷，不宜耕种。牲畜把牧草转化为人类能够消化的食物。那些提倡有机农业的人深知，牲畜通过粪肥把有机物质返回土壤，以此完成食物循环的过程。8 Other anti-meat myths can also be dismissed. For example: Whatever you may think about fast food hamburgers, eating them does not encourage the destruction of Amazon rainforests. Because of disease-control measures, no unprocessed South American beef products at all may be imported into Canada. Livestock do not use up grains that could otherwise feed starving people in Third World countries. The main diet of cattle is grass and hay. Pigs, chickens and other farm animals are generally fed corn and barley, while people eat mainly wheat and rice. Animals also consume pest-and weather-damaged grains, crop residues (corn stalks and leaves) and by-products from food processing, such as unusable grains (or parts of grains) left over from producing breakfast cereals and other human foods. Raising livestock in Canada does not prevent us from shipping emergency supplies to people in need. Hunger today, however, is usually the result of political, economic and distribution problems, not a lack of production capacity. The production of methane gas by livestock is not a major contributor to global warming. Methane gas is only one of many possible “greenhouse” gases. It is produced by all sorts of decomposition of organic matter, including normal digestion (even by vegetarians). Main sources of greenhouse gases include wetlands, forest fires, landfills, rice paddies, the extraction of gas, oil and coaland even termites. Meat does not contain harmful pesticide, antibiotic or other residues. This is assured by stringent Agriculture Canada and Health Canada regulations and inspection. Concerns about dangerous bacteria are easily addressed by cooking your meat well. (Fruit and raw vegetables, in fact, present a more difficult problem.)其他反对肉食的奇谈怪论也都不值一驳。如： 无论你对快餐食品汉堡包好恶如何，食用汉堡包并不会加快对亚马孙雨林的破坏。由于采取了各种控制疾病的措施，未经加工的南美牛肉制品根本不能进入加拿大。 牲畜并不曾消耗掉原本可用于赈济第三世界饥民的粮食。牲畜的主要饲料是青草和干草。猪、鸡和其他家畜通常用玉米和大麦饲养，而人食用的主要是小麦和稻米。动物还吃遭受虫灾和灾害气候的粮食、庄稼的残留物(如玉米的梗和叶)，还有食品加工的副产品，如加工早餐谷类食品和其他人类食品的剩下的不能用的粮食(或部分粮食)。在加拿大，饲养牲畜毫不妨碍我们将紧急救援物资运送给急需的人。事实上，当今的粮荒往往是政治、经济、分配不公造成的结果，而非生产力不足所致。 牲畜产生的沼气并非全球气候变暖的祸首。沼气只是许多潜在的“温室”气体中的一种。沼气由各种有机物在分解过程中生成，其中包括正常的(甚至包括素食者的)消化过程产生的部分。温室气体的主要来源包括湿地、森林火灾、垃圾埋填地、水稻田以及气体、石油和煤炭的开采，甚至包括白蚁。 食用肉并不含有于健康有害的杀虫剂、抗菌素或其他残留物。这由加拿大农业部和加拿大卫生部严格的规定和检查制度所确保。至于对危险的细菌的担心，只需将肉煮熟煮透即可轻易解决。(事实上，水果和生食蔬菜带来的问题更不易解决。)9 One study that is not often cited by animal activists is a recent report by the Centre for Energy and the Environment at the University of Exeter in England. David Coley and his associates analyzed how much fuel energy is used to produce and process different foods. Burning fuel releases carbon into the atmosphere, the major suspected cause of global warming.动物保护主义者很少引用一项研究，那就是英格兰埃克塞特大学能源与环境中心最近的一份报告。戴维科利及其合作者分析了生产与加工不同食品所耗费的燃料能源。燃烧燃油将碳排入大气层，此乃全球气候变暖的主要疑凶。10 To the dismay of the politically correct set, meat scores far better than vegetables on this environmental-impact scale. It requires eight megajoules of fuel energy to produce enough beef or burgers to provide one megajoule of food energy. The fuel energy costs of chicken and lamb are seven megajoules and six megajoules respectively. Typical salad vegetables, however, require as much as 45 megajoules of fuel energy for each energy unit of food intake provided.令那些讲求政治正确的人感到沮丧的是，在对环境的影响方面，肉要比蔬菜得分高得多。提供1兆焦耳食物能量的牛肉或汉堡牛排需耗费8兆焦耳的燃料能源。鸡肉和羊肉的耗能分别为7和6兆焦耳。而常见的色拉蔬菜却需要耗费多达45兆焦耳的燃料能源才能提供一个能量单位的食物摄入。11 “Meat does well because it is not highly processed, provides a lot of calories and is often produced locally.” Coley reported in New Scientist last December.“肉耗能少，因为肉加工程度不高，能提供大量的卡路里，而且常常是本地加工生产。”科利在去年12月的新科学家上着文说。12 It would require more ink than is available to us here to respond to all the claims animal activists have made about the supposed evils of modern livestock husbandry methods, what they misleadingly label “factory farming.” For example, they criticize the caging of laying hens, while ignoring the fact that such systems improve hygiene, preventing disease and reducing the need for antibiotics.我们在此无法花费过多的笔墨逐一反驳动物保护主义者指控现代家畜饲养方法，即他们误导性地称作的“工厂化养殖”的种种莫须有的危害。例如，他们抨击蛋禽的笼养化，却忽视了这样的事实，即此类系统能改善卫生，预防疾病，减少对抗生素的需求。13 Detailed responses to animal-welfare concerns are provided in Food for Thought: Facts about Food and Farming, published by the Ontario Farm Animal Council.安大略禽畜饲养会社发表的应有的思考：食物与饲养业的基本情况对有关动物生存状况的关注作了详细解答。14 For debate around the barbecue, suffice it to say that animals cannot be productive unless they receive excellent nutrition and care. Farmers who do not provide good care for their animals will not remain in business for long.至于围绕烤肉餐的争论，只需这样说就够了：动物得不到精良的食物和精心的照料就不长肉。饲养场主不精心饲养禽畜则无法长期经营。15 Once fallacious claims about health, environment and animal welfare are stripped away, the heart of the animal-rights argument is exposed. What right, they ask, do we have to use animals at all?一旦有关健康、环境以及动物生存状况的谬论被揭穿，有关动物权益的争论的核心便一清二楚了。他们质问道：我们究竟有什么权利去吃禽畜？16 The central fallacy of this argument is that it ignores basic principles of biology and ecology. Every plant and animal species naturally produces far more offspring than their environment can support to maturity. This “surplus” provides food for other species. Aboriginal people called this “the cycle of life.” We now usually call it “the food chain.” We are part of this cycle, like every other living organism on the planet. The domestication of livestock has been a very successful survival strategy, not only for humans, but also for the other species involved.这一论点的主要谬误在于忽视了生物学与生态学的基本原理。各类动植物物种自然而然地繁衍出