閱讀理解

　　Text 1

　　Environmental issues raise a host of difficult ethical questions, including the ancient one of the nature of intrinsic value. Whereas many philosophers in the past have agreed that human experiences have intrinsic value and the utilitarian at least have always accepted that the pleasures and pains of nonhuman animals are of some intrinsic significance, this does not show why it is so bad if dodos become extinct or a rain forest is cut down. Are these things to be regretted only because of the loss to humans or other sentient creatures? Or is there more to it than that? Some philosophers are now prepared to defend the view that trees, rivers, species (considered apart from the individual animals of which they consist), and perhaps ecological systems as a whole have a value independent of the instrumental value they may have for humans or other sentient creatures.

　　Our concern for the environment also raises the question of our obligations to future generations. How much do we owe to the future? From a social contract view of ethics or for the ethical egoist, the answer would seem to be: nothing. For we can benefit them, but they are unable to reciprocate. Most other ethical theories, however, do give weight to the interests of coming generations. Utilitarian, for one, would not think that the fact that members of future generations do not exist yet is any reason for giving less consideration to their interests than we give to our own, provided only that we are certain that they will exist and will have interests that will be affected by what we do. In the case of, say, the storage of radioactive wastes, it seems clear that what we do will indeed affect the interests of generations to come.

　　The question becomes much more complex, however, when we consider that we can affect the size of future generations by the population policies we choose and the extent to which we encourage large or small families. Most environmentalists believe that the world is already dangerously overcrowded. This may well be so, but the notion of overpopulation conceals a philosophical issue that is ingeniously explored by Derek Parfit in Reasons and Persons (1984). What is optimum population? Is it that population size at which the average level of welfare will be as high as possible? Or is it the size at which the total amount of welfare — the average multiplied by the number of people — is as great as possible? Both answers lead to counterintuitive outcomes, and the question remains one of the most baffling mysteries in applied ethics.

　　111. The first paragraph is mainly about _______________.

　　A. the intrinsic value of human experiences

　　B. the intrinsic value of the experiences of nonhuman animals

　　C. the intrinsic value of ecological system as a whole

　　D. an ancient ethical question about the nature of intrinsic value

　　112. We owe nothing to the future generations _______________.

　　A. in the author’s opinion

　　B. from a social contrast view of ethics

　　C. for a utilitarian

　　D. for most environmentalists

　　113. Population policy we take should be considered _______________.

　　A. positive

　　B. negative

　　C. complex

　　D. reasonable

　　114. According to this passage, optimum population _______________.

　　A. refers to the population size at which the average level of welfare will be as high as possible

　　B. refers to the population size at which the total amount of welfare will be as great as possible

　　C. is a difficult philosophical issue which remains to be resolved in the future

　　D. is a difficult philosophical issue which Derek Parfit has successfully settled in Reasons and Persons

　　115. The proper title for this passage should be _______________.

　　A. A Mystery in Applied Ethics

　　B. Our Obligations to Future Generations

　　C. Environmental Ethics

　　D. Environmental issues

　　Text 2

　　Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the 21st century, but — regardless of whether it is or isn’t — we won’t do much about it. We will argue over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed.

　　A1 Gore calls global warming an “inconvenient truth”, as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. But the real truth is that we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and — without major technological breakthroughs — we can’t do much about it.

　　From 2003 to 2050, the world’s population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion to 9.1 billion, a 42% increase if energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, CO2) will be 42% higher in 2050. But that’s too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. We need economic growth unless we condemn the world’s poor to their present poverty and freeze everyone else’s living standards. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

　　No government will adopt rigid restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might cut back global warming. Still, politicians want to show they’re “doing something.” Consider the Kyoto Protocol(京都議定書). It allowed countries that joined to punish those that didn’t. But it hasn’t reduced CO2 emissions (up about 25% since 1990), and many signatories(簽字國)didn’t adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets.

　　The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential disaster, the only solution is new technology. Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.

　　The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral problem when it’s really an engineering one. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.

　　116. What is said about global warming in the first paragraph?

　　A. It may not prove an environmental crisis at all.

　　B. It is an issue requiring worldwide commitments.

　　C. Serious steps have been taken to avoid or stop it.

　　D. Very little will be done to bring it under control.

　　117. According to the author’s understanding, what is A1 Gore’s view on global warming?

　　A. It is a reality both people and politicians are unaware of.

　　B. It is a phenomenon that causes us many inconveniences.

　　C. It is a problem that can be solved once it is recognized.

　　D. It is an area we actually have little knowledge about.

　　118. Greenhouse emissions will more than double by 2050 because of _______________.

　　A. economic growth

　　B. wasteful use of energy

　　C. the widening gap between the rich and poor

　　D. the rapid advances of science and technology

　　119. The author believes that, since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol _______________.

　　A. politicians have started to do something to better the situation

　　B. few nations have adopted real tough measures to limit energy use

　　C. reductions in energy consumption have greatly cut back global warming

　　D. international cooperation has contributed to solving environmental problems

　　120. What is the message the author intends to convey?

　　A. Global warming is more of a moral issue than a practical one.

　　B. The ultimate solution to global warming lies in new technology.

　　C. The debate over global warming will lead to technological breakthroughs.

　　D. People have to give up certain material comforts to stop global warming.