1. <tt id="5hhch"><source id="5hhch"></source></tt>
    1. <xmp id="5hhch"></xmp>

  2. <xmp id="5hhch"><rt id="5hhch"></rt></xmp>

    <rp id="5hhch"></rp>
        <dfn id="5hhch"></dfn>

      1. иZ(x)ز

        rg2020-08-29 20:59:42 и(TOEFL) ҪͶ

        иZ(x)ز

        иZĻشȥǻش ٸı_(d)Ĵ𰸡СP(gun)иZ(x)زģϣJ(rn)x!

        иZ(x)ز

        иZн(jng)P(gun)ڿƼԒ}

        Some people believe that modern technology has made our lives simpler. Others believethat modern technology has made our lives more complicated. What is your opinion?

        ׌҂һx_ص@ƪOn science and good life.

        ȿԷeزҲԼl(f)`У

        There is probably no limit to what science can do in the way of increasing positive excellence. Health has already been greatly improved; in spite of the lamentations of those who idealize the past, we live longer and have fewer illnesses than any class or nation in the eighteenth century. With a little more application of the knowledge we already possess, we might be much healthier than we are. And future discoveries are likely to accelerate this process enormously.

        ƌW(xu)õķeOط飬ܿǛ]ֹl(wi)lѽ(jng)õOĸ;Щfΰ@cʮo(j)κA҂Lˉp˼ֻҪ҂е֪RԼӏVؑ(yng)ã҂͕ȬF(xin)ڸӽδİl(f)F(xin)ܿܕOؼӿ@M(jn)

        So far, it has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we have discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolenceall these things no doubt could be increased by science. There seems scarcely any limit to what could be done in the way of producing a good world, if only men would use science wisely.

        ֹ҂ӰĮ(dng)(sh)ȻƌW(xu)ڌW(xu)W(xu)Ӱ푺ܿh(yun)֮(dng)҂l(f)F(xin)ԸهlrֻҪ҂Ը҂ܮa(chn)҂QwǷNˡˇg(sh)ʴ---@Щ|oɿƌW(xu)ӡֻҪ˂ǵÿƌW(xu)ڄ(chung)緽׺Ǜ]ֹġ

        There is a certain attitude about the application of science to human life with which I have some sympathy, though I do not, in the last analysis, agree with it. It is the attitude of those who dread what is unnatural. Rousseau is, of course, the great protagonist of the view in Europe. In Asia, Lao-Tze has set it forth even more persuasively, and 2400 years sooner. I think there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in the admiration of nature, which it is important to disentangle. To begin with, what is natural? Roughly speaking, anything to which the speaker was accustomed in childhood. Lao-Tze objects to roads and carriages and boats, all of which were probably unknown in the village where he was born

        P(gun)ڿƌW(xu)(yng)õ@}һN^c@N^cЩͬDzͬ Щ¡Ȼġ|е^c(dng)ȻRǚW@һ^cĂ(chung)ʼˡځӌ@һ^cUDŽҪǧİJ(rn)ڡȻٝ^cև`Ļ@һ}ǺҪġҪʲô|ǡȻ?ffԒr(x)TĖ|ӷ܇܇@ǂӲ֪܇܇ľ

        Rousseau has got used to these things, and does not regard them as against nature. But he would no doubt have thundered against railways if he had lived to see them. Clothes and cooking are too ancient to be denounced by most of the apostles of nature, though they all object to new fashions in either. Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one. In these ways those who preach nature are inconsistent, and one is tempted to regard them as mere conservatives.

        R@Щ|(x)Ԟ鳣ԲJ(rn)`Ȼ֮꿴ҊF·oɕָ؟(z)bɁѾ(sh)ᳫȻ˶hmȻһ·ӷ¡(ji)(dng)ɷtݣǰ`Ȼ߄t֮@ЩЩᳫȻ˶ìܵ@ֻʹ˰f֮ʿ

        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.

        Ȼһo̎Sصİl(f)F(xin)ʹ˂(f)ٝɡȻ`ʳ^SƺҲ~ͺ늹ṩ˶ߟoɲȻġʳ@ӱȱ֪RһN`ȻҲS벻ΣǮ(dng)ΣJ(rn)RrijNµȥa(b)ȡ҂Ȼh(hun)͝M҂|(zh)ֶζJ(rn)P(gun)Ȼ@ՓCڲȡijNµr(yng)֔(jn)⣬Ceʲô·`Ȼģ׌·𼲲ҪһNȻОϴcϴһsʹ˱c˶ߟoҰUҪ

        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?

        |(zh)Ȼ޴; |(zh)Ȼ(yng)(dng)оԱʹMܵط(w)Ŀڵǟo^Éĵ|(zh)Ȼ໥Ӱ푵ĵط˿چ}҂oֱӵؾηܑ(zhn)ߺĞQ^ȷֳĆ}ΨһܵķW(xu)҂fڴϣ(yng)ÿƌW(xu)@һ}|(zh);҂(yng)(dng)(f)(yng)õ˵ķҌнÿ@ЩW(xu)Ҳ֪ĄoƲ_@ŒՄͨ^е|(zh)ֶ΁Q˿چ}֮?

        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.

        @ԹŴx(j)ģПoeĴ@Ҋ@W(xu)ᳫȻ`ٲڹ(ji)֮W(xu)҂x`Ե@Nijɹa(chn)ąsDzȺăAͽ(jng)ԵįҸϲg`|(zh)Ȼ@һNʹC(j)@ӱ҂(yng)ѭȻ@һԭtđ(yng)ǺεȵĺͲ_

        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)

        ȻԣԽԽһN^IJuɞƌW(xu)ɵĖ|ƌW(xu)Ըʹ҂ӌO^õǽo֪Rܮa(chn)CǶƷ

        иZ(x)زġP(gun)£

        иZ(x)زЩ07-28

        иZ(x)06-22

        иZ(x)ָ(do)11-22

        иZز11-24

        ѡиZز11-24

        иZ(x)ķ06-19

        иZ(x)֮Whichonedoyouprefer11-23

        иZ}(x)11-22

        иZ(x)Ľh11-22

        国产高潮无套免费视频_久久九九兔免费精品6_99精品热6080YY久久_国产91久久久久久无码

        1. <tt id="5hhch"><source id="5hhch"></source></tt>
          1. <xmp id="5hhch"></xmp>

        2. <xmp id="5hhch"><rt id="5hhch"></rt></xmp>

          <rp id="5hhch"></rp>
              <dfn id="5hhch"></dfn>