2013年自考英語(二)課文譯文:讓我們停止飼養(yǎng)寵物

　　It is touching to see how a cat or dog -- especially a dog -- attaches itself to a family and wants to share in all its goings and comings. If certain animal psychologists are right, a dog adopts his family in a most literal way - taking it for granted that the family is the band of dogs he belongs to.

　　看到貓或狗――特別是狗――對一個家庭是如何地依戀，如何地想要分享家里發(fā)生的一切事情，是十分感人的。如果某些動物心理學家的分析是正確的話，那么一條狗真正地接受了它的家庭，就想當然地認為這個家庭是它所歸屬的一群狗。

　　It is sometimes said that the cat "takes all and gives nothing.” But is that really true? A cat can teach us a valuable lesson about how to be contented, how to be serene and at ease, how to sit and contemplate. Whereas a dog's constant pleas for attention become, sometimes, a bit too much. Nevertheless it is the dog who can teach us lessons of loyalty and devotion that no cat ever knew.

　　有時人們說貓“只知索取，不知付出”，但真是這樣嗎?貓可以教給我們一些有益的啟示，教會我們怎樣感到滿足、安寧和舒適，如何靜坐和沉思。而狗總是不停地請求你的注意，有時會讓人有點受不了。但不管怎么說，是狗教會了我們忠誠和獻身，而貓對此一無所知。

　　So there's plenty to be said in favor of keeping pets. But with all that in mind, I still say let's stop keeping pets. Not that a family should kill its pets. Very few could bring themselves to do that. To be practical, I am suggesting that if we do not now have a pet we should not acquire one; second, that if we now have a pet, we let it be our last one. l could never say that pets are bad. I am saying, let's give up this good thing -- the ownership of a pet -- in favor of a more imperative good.

　　因此，人們有足夠的理由贊成飼養(yǎng)寵物，盡管我也知道這些，但我還是要說：讓我們停止飼養(yǎng)寵物吧。并非是說應(yīng)該殺掉家里的寵物，很少有人能使自己去做這樣的事。從現(xiàn)實的角度出發(fā)，我只是建議：如果我們現(xiàn)在還沒有寵物，就不要去弄一只來;如果我們現(xiàn)在已有寵物，那么就讓它成為我們養(yǎng)的最后一只。我決不會說寵物是壞東西。我的意思是說，讓我們放棄擁有寵物這一雅好，去做一件更加迫切的好事。

　　The purchase, the health care, the feeding and housing and training of a pet -- and I chiefly mean the larger, longer-lived pets -- cost time and money. Depending on the animal's size and activity, it's special tastes and needs, and the standard of living we establish for it, the care of a pet can cost from a dollar a week to a dollar or more a day. I would not for a moment deny it is worth that.

　　購買、醫(yī)療、飼養(yǎng)、提供住所和訓練一只寵物――我主要是指較大的，活得較長的寵物，耗費著人們的時間和金錢。按寵物的大小和活動規(guī)律，它的特殊嗜好和需求以及我們?yōu)樗峁┑纳顦藴?，養(yǎng)一只寵物的花費會從一周一美元到一天一美元甚至更多，我從不否認它值得那樣的花費。

　　But facts outside the walls of our home keep breaking in on our awareness. Though we do not see the poverty-stricken people of India and Africa and South America, we can never quite forget that they are there. Now and then their faces are shown in the news, or in the begging ads of relief organizations. Probably we send a donation whenever we can.

　　但是我們房子外面的事實卻不斷地闖入我們的意識。雖然我們看不到印度、非洲和南美的饑民，但卻決不能忘記他們的的確確在那里。他們的面孔不時地出現(xiàn)在新聞中，出現(xiàn)在救濟機構(gòu)的求援廣告里，我們很可能一有能力就會送上捐款。

　　But we do not, as a rule, feel a heavy personal responsibility for the afflicted and deprived for we are pretty thoroughly formed by the individualistic, competitive society we live in. The first dime we ever made was ours to spend in any way we chose. No one thought of questioning that. That attitude, formed before we had learned to think, usually prevails through our life: "I made my money. I can spend it any way I like.”

　　我們通常并不感到對貧窮人們負有重大的個人責任，因為我們幾乎完全是由我們生活于其中的這個個人主義的、競爭的社會所塑造成形的。我們所掙到的第一枚硬幣就應(yīng)該由我們自由地花掉，沒有人會對此提出疑問。這種觀念形成于我們學會思考之前，通常會主導著我們的一生：“我掙的錢，我愿意怎么花就怎么花。”

　　But more and more we are reading that the people of the "Third World” feel bitter at us in the developed countries (with the United States far more developed than any of the others) for our seizing hold of two-thirds of the world's wealth and living like kings while they work away all day to earn a bare living.

　　但是我們越來越多地談到“第三世界”的人民對于我們這些生活在發(fā)達國家(美國比起其他發(fā)達國家又發(fā)達了許多)的人們充滿了憤恨，因為我們占有了世界上2/3的財富，生活得像國王一樣，而他們天天辛勤勞作卻只能勉強度日。

　　The money and the time we spend on pets is simply not our own to spend as we like in a time of widespread want and starvation. A relief organization advertises that for $33 a month they can give hospital care to a child suffering from kwashiorkor -- the severe deficiency disease which is simply a starving for protein. Doing without such a pet, and then sending the money saved to a relief organization would mean saving a life -- over the years, several human lives.

　　在一個遍布饑餓和貧困的時代，我們花在寵物身上的時間和金錢簡單來說并不是我們可以隨心所欲花掉的。一個救濟組織做廣告說，每日33美元他們可以使患有惡性營養(yǎng)不良的兒童去醫(yī)院接受治療，這種嚴重的營養(yǎng)缺乏癥僅僅是因缺乏蛋白質(zhì)所致。不養(yǎng)寵物將省下的錢送給救濟組織就意味著救了一條性命――幾年后就會是幾條性命。

　　Children not suffering from such a grave disease could be fed with half that amount -- not on a diet like ours, but on plain, basic, life-sustaining food. It is not unreasonable to believe that the amount of money we spend on the average pet dog could keep a child alive in a region of great poverty. To give what we would spend on a cat might not feed a child, but it would probably pay for his medical care or basic education. The point needs no laboring. That is all that need be said.

　　養(yǎng)活一個沒有遭受這一嚴重疾病的兒童只需上述數(shù)額的一半――不是像我們一樣吃營養(yǎng)配餐，而是吃那些簡單的、基本的、維持生命的食物。我們完全有理由相信：我們平均花在每一條愛犬身上的錢能夠養(yǎng)活一個生活在極度貧困地區(qū)的兒童。把花在一只貓身上的錢拿出來可能養(yǎng)活不了一個兒童，但很可能可以支付他的醫(yī)療費或者基礎(chǔ)教育費。這一點無須詳述，我要說的就是這些。

?2013年7月各省市自考成績查詢?nèi)肟趨R總

?各地10月自考時間

更多信息請訪問：自學考試頻道    自學考試論壇