Shall We Choose Death? 我们该选择死亡吗？（在线收听）

导言阅读

伯特兰·罗素（1872—1970），是20世纪英国哲学家、数学家、逻辑学家、历史学家，无神论或者不可知论者，也是19世纪西方最著名、影响最大的学者和和平主义社会活动家之一，1950年，罗素获得诺贝尔文学奖，以表彰其“多样且重要的作品，持续不断的追求人道主义理想和思想自由”。本篇为其职业生涯的经典演讲之一。

演讲实录

I am speaking not as a Briton, not as a European, not as a member of a western democracy,but as a human being, a member of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. Theworld is full of conflicts: Jews and Arabs; Indians and Pakistanis; white men and Negroes inAfrica; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between communism andanticommunism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of theseissues; but I want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings for the moment and consider yourselfonly as a member of a biological species which has had a remarkable history and whosedisappearance none of us can desire. I shall try to say no single word which should appeal to onegroup rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril , and, if the peril is understood, there is hopethat they may collectively avert it. We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn toask ourselves not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, forthere no longer are such steps. The question we have to ask ourselves is: What steps can be takento prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all sides?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized whatwould be involved in a war with hydrogen bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of theobliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old and that,while one atomic bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one hydrogen bomb could obliterate thelargest cities such as London, New York, and Moscow. No doubt in a hydrogen-bomb war greatcities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. Ifeverybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated , the world might, in thecourse of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikinitest, that hydrogen bombs can gradually spread destruction over a much wider area than had beensupposed. It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be25,000 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near theground or under water, sends radioactive particles into the upper air. They sink gradually andreach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infectedthe Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish although they were outside what American expertsbelieved to be the danger zone. No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles mightbe diffused , but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with hydrogen bombs isquite likely to put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many hydrogen bombs are usedthere will be universal death — sudden only for a fortunate minority, but for the majority a slowtorture of disease and disintegration...

Here, then, is the problem which I present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shallwe put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face thisalternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand distastefullimitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation morethan anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize inimagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and notonly to a dimly apprehended humanity. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed tocontinue provided modern weapons are prohibited. I am afraid this hope is illusory. Whateveragreements not to use hydrogen bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longerbe considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture hydrogenbombs as soon as war broke out, for if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, theside that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious...

As geological time is reckoned, Man has so far existed only for a very short period onemillion years at the most. What he has achieved, especially during the last 6,000 years, issomething utterly new in the history of the Cosmos, so far at least as we are acquainted with it.

For countless ages the sun rose and set, the moon waxed and waned, the stars shone in the night,but it was only with the coming of Man that these things were understood. In the great world ofastronomy and in the little world of the atom, Man has unveiled secrets which might have beenthought undiscoverable. In art and literature and religion, some men have shown a sublimity offeeling which makes the species worth preserving. Is all this to end in trivial horror because so feware able to think of Man rather than of this or that group of men? Is our race so destitute ofwisdom, so incapable of impartial love, so blind even to the simplest dictates of self-preservationthat the last proof of its silly cleverness is to be the extermination of all life on our planet?—for itwill be not only men who will perish, but also the animals, whom no one can accuse ofcommunism or anticommunism.

I cannot believe that this is to be the end. I would have men forget their quarrels for amoment and reflect that, if they will allow themselves to survive, there is every reason to expectthe triumphs of the future to exceed immeasurably the triumphs of the past. There lies before us, ifwe choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choosedeath, because we cannot forget our quarrels? I appeal , as a human being to human beings:

remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a newParadise; if you cannot, nothing lies before you but universal death.

参考译文

我不是作为一个英国人、一个欧洲人、一个西方民主国家的一员，而是作为一个人，作为不知是否还能继续生存下去的人类的一员在讲演。世界充满了争斗：犹太人和阿拉伯人；印度人和巴勒斯坦人；非洲的白人和黑人；以及使所有的小冲突都相形见绌的共产主义和反共产主义之间的大搏斗。

差不多每个有政治意识的人都对这类问题怀有强烈的感受；但是我希望你们，如果你们能够的话，把这份感受暂搁一边，并把自己只看作一种具有非凡历史、谁也不希望它灭亡的生物的一员。可能会迎合一群人而冷落另一群人的词语，我将努力一个字都不说。所有的人，不分彼此，都处在危险之中；如果大家都看到了这种危险，那么就有希望联合起来避开它。我们必须学习新的思想方法。我们必须学习不再自问能采取什么措施来使我们所喜欢的人群获得军事上的胜利，因为不再有这样的措施。我们必须自问的问题是：能采取什么措施来避免必然会给各方造成灾难的军事竞赛？

普通群众，甚至许多当权人士，不清楚一场氢弹战所包含的会是什么。普通群众仍旧从城市的毁灭上思考问题。不言而喻，新炸弹比旧炸弹更具威力——一颗原子弹能毁灭广岛，而一颗氢弹能毁灭像伦敦、纽约和莫斯科这样的大都市。毫无疑问，一场氢弹战将会毁灭大城市。但这只是世界必须面对的小灾难中的一个。假如伦敦人、纽约人和莫斯科人都灭绝了，世界可能要经过几个世纪才能从这场灾难中恢复过来。而我们现在，尤其是从比基尼核试验以来很清楚：氢弹能够逐渐把破坏力扩散到一个比预料要广大得多的地区。

据非常权威的人士说，现在能够制造出一种炸弹，其威力比毁灭广岛的炸弹大2.5万倍。这种炸弹如果在近地或水下爆炸，会把放射性微粒送入高层大气。这些微粒逐渐降落，以有毒灰尘或毒雨的状态到达地球表面。正是这种灰尘使日本渔民和他们所捕获的鱼受到了感染，尽管他们并不在美国专家所确认的危险区之内。没有人知道这种致命的放射性微粒怎么会传播得这么广，但是这个领域的最高权威一致表示：一场氢弹战差不多就是灭绝人类的代名词。如果许多氢弹被使用，死神恐怕就会降临全球——只有少数幸运者才会突然死亡，大多数人却必须忍受疾病和解体的慢性折磨……这里，我要向你提起一个直率的、令人不快而又无法回避的问题：我们该消灭人类，还是人类该抛弃战争？人们不愿面对这个抉择，因为消灭战争太难了。消灭战争要求限制国家主权，这令人反感。然而“人类”这个专门名词给人们的感觉是模糊、抽象的，它可能比任何其他东西都更容易妨碍认识这种形势。人们几乎没有用自己的想象力去认识这种危险不仅指向他们所模模糊糊理解的人类，而且指向他们自己和他们的子子孙孙。于是他们相信只要禁止使用现代武器，也许可以允许战争继续下去。恐怕这个愿望只是幻想。任何不使用氢弹的协定是在和平时期达成的，在战争时期这种协定就被认为是没有约束力的，一旦战争爆发，双方就会着手制造氢弹，因为如果一方制造氢弹而另一方不造的话，造氢弹的一方必然会取胜……

按照地质年代来计算，人类到目前为止只存在了一个极短的时期——最多100万年。在至少就我们所了解的宇宙而言，人类在特别是最近6000年里所达到的认识，在宇宙史上是一些全新的东西。太阳升升落落，月亮盈盈亏亏，夜空星光闪烁，无数岁月就这样过去了，只是到人类出现以后，这些才被理解。在天文学的宏观世界和原子的微观世界，人类揭示了原先可能认为无法发现的秘密。在艺术、文学和宗教领域里，一些人显示了一种崇高的感情，它使人们懂得人类是值得保全的。难道因为很少有人能考虑整个人类多于这个或那个人群，这一切就会在毫无价值的恐怖行动中结束吗？人类是否如此缺少智慧，如此缺少无私的爱，如此盲目，甚至连自我保存的最简单命令都听不见，以致要用灭绝地球上的所有生命来最后证明它那缺乏理智的小聪明？——因为不仅人会被消灭，而且动物也会被消灭，没有人能指责它们是共产主义或反共产主义。

我无法相信结局会是这样。人们如果想让自己生存下去，他们就应暂时忘掉争吵，进行反省，人们有千万条理由期待未来的成就极大地超过以往的成就，如果让我们选择，那么摆在我们面前的有幸福、知识和智慧的持续增长。我们能因为无法忘掉争吵而舍此去选择死亡吗？作为一个人，我向所有的人呼吁：记住你们的人性，忘掉其余的一切。如果你们能这样做，通向新天堂的路就畅通无阻；如果你们做不到这一点，摆在你们面前的就只有全世界的毁灭。

Vocabulary Bank

1. existence ［iɡ'zist?ns ］n 存在

Do you believe in the existence of ghosts?

你相信有鬼吗？

2. overshadow ［??uv?'??d?u ］v 使（某人）相形见绌或黯然失色Despite her professional success, she was always overshadowed by her husband.

尽管她事业有成，但和丈夫相比总觉逊色。

3. conscious ［'k?n??s ］adj 对所提到的事物具有深刻认识和浓厚兴趣的Teenagers are very fashion-conscious.

青少年很讲究时髦。

4. peril ［'peril ］n 危险的事物或环境

These birds are able to survive the perils of the Arctic winter.

这些鸟能在北极的严冬中生存。

5. avert ［?'v?:t ］v 防止（某事物），避免

He managed to avert suspicion.

他设法避嫌。

6. obliteration ［??blit?'rei??n ］n 彻底破坏或毁灭（某事物）The entire village was obliterated by the tornado.

整个村庄被龙卷风摧毁了。

7. exterminate ［iks't?:mineit ］v 彻底毁灭，根除People exterminate rats to prevent the spread of disease.

人们为了防止疾病传播而灭鼠。

8. radioactive ［'reidi?u'?ktiv ］adj 放射性的Radium and uranium are radioactive elements.

镭和铀是放射性元素。

9. diffuse ［di'fju:z ］v 使（气体或液体）慢慢混合，扩散A drop of milk diffused in the water, and it became cloudy.

一滴奶在水中扩散开来，使水变得混浊不清了。

10. unanimous ［ju(:)'n?nim?s ］adj 一致同意的He was elected by a unanimous vote.

他以全票当选。

11. abolish ［?'b?li? ］v 废除，废止（习俗，制度等）Should the death penalty be abolished?

应该废除死刑吗？

12. apprehend ［??pri'hend ］v 领悟，理解

Do I apprehend you right?

你的意思我领会得对吗？

13. acquaint ［?'kweint ］v (~ sb./oneself with sth.) 熟悉或了解某事物The lawyer acquainted himself with the details of his client's business affairs.

那位律师了解委托人生意上的详情。

14. destitute ［'destitju:t ］adj 穷困的，贫穷的When he died, his family was left destitute.

他死后家人衣食无着。

15. impartial ［im'pɑ:??l ］adj 不偏不倚的，公正的He is an impartial judge.

他是一名公正的法官。

16. appeal ［?'pi:l ］v 恳求，呼吁

The police appealed to the crowd not to panic.

警方呼吁群众不要惊慌。

Language Guide

hydrogen bombs

氢弹

核武器的一种，又称聚变弹、热核弹、热核武器。氢弹的杀伤破坏因素与原子弹相同，但威力比原子弹大得多。原子弹的威力通常为几百至几万吨级TNT当量，氢弹的威力则可大至几千万吨级TNT当量。还可通过设计增强或减弱其某些杀伤破坏因素，其战术技术性能比原子弹更好，用途也更广泛。

Hiroshima

广岛

广岛建于1589年，位于日本本洲西南，在第二次世界大战曾受原子弹的破坏，在1958年重建。广岛作为世界上第一个被原子弹严重破坏的城市，在原子弹爆炸之处，建造了和平纪念公园，以祈求永久的和平。

the Bikini test

比基尼核试验

1954年3月1日，美国在比基尼岛上试验一颗当时威力最大的氢弹，其威力相当于向日本广岛投下原子弹的750倍，放射性物质沉降在200平方公里的海面上，正好笼罩在马绍尔共和国整个国土上，由此该国政府决定将每年的3月1日定为“国难日”，让人们永远记住这次核试验带来的灾难。在这次核试验中，距比基尼岛100公里的洋面上，一艘日本渔船正在捕捞金枪鱼，这艘船上23名船员全都出现了辐射症状，其中1人因肝脏严重损伤死亡。船员和渔具，以及捕获的150多吨金枪鱼也全部受到严重的放射性污染。在其后两个半月里，在这一海域先后有300多艘渔船都受到辐射污染，从此，比基尼岛及其海域成为船员和渔民谈“核”色变的恐怖海域。这件事被新闻传媒公布后，世界舆论纷纷谴责美国在太平洋上的核试验行为。这就是海洋核污染史上最著名的“比基尼事件”。

Grammar Master

1. doubt表示“怀疑，质疑”，既可以用作动词，又可用作名词，还经常搭配词组使用。

当用作动词时，常用结构为“doubt+名词或代词”。

例　I doubt his words.

我怀疑他的话。

例　They doubted him before.

他们以前曾经怀疑过他。

doubt+宾语从句，在否定句和疑问句中，doubt后面接that引导的宾语从句。

例　I don't doubt that he can finish the task on time.

我相信他能按时完成任务。

例　Do you doubt that she will succeed?

你认为她会成功吗？

在肯定句中，doubt后面一般接whether或if引导的宾语从句。

例　I doubt whether they can swim across the river.

我怀疑他们能否游过河去。

例　He doubts if she will keep her word.

他不敢肯定她是否会遵守诺言。

注意：在肯定句中，doubt后面也可以接that引导的宾语从句，但表示疑虑较大或“不相信”。

例　We doubt that they can complete the work ahead of time.

我们不相信他们能提前完成这项工作。

例　I doubt that he will come.

我看他未必会来。

由doubt组成的短语，如in doubt表示“怀疑，拿不定主意”。

例　We are in doubt about what to do next.

我们不知道下一步要做什么。

例　When in doubt about the meaning of a word, consult the dictionary.

当你对一个词的意义没有把握时，就查一下词典。

no/without/beyond doubt则表示“无疑地，必定，当然”。

例　It is no doubt difficult.

这无疑是困难的。

例　No doubt he didn't mean to hurt you.

他肯定不是有意伤害你的。

例　Without doubt this is the best.

毋庸置疑，这是最好的。

例　Beyond doubt he will give you some advice on your study.

毫无疑问，他会给你的学习作一些指导的。

2. end in (doing) sth.表示以（做）某事结束或告终，sth.可表示抽象名词。

例　He will end in being punished.

他最终会受到惩罚。

例　The incident ended in a laugh.

这件事最后被一笑了之。

例　The demonstration ended in a violent clash with the police.

游行示威以与警察的激烈冲突而告终。

end up in后面的宾语是其主语（一件事情、一个活动等）的结果。

例　Wasteful people usually end up in debt.

挥霍浪费的人最后往往负债。

例　If you continue to steal, you'll end up in prison.

你要是继续行窃，肯定会被送进监狱。