2020 年 07 月大学英语六级考试真题（第 1 套）

The United Nations issued a report last week warning that humans are destroying nature at such a rate that life on Earth is at risk. When the report came out, it naturally __26__ headlines. But obviously it didn't hijack the news agenda in the manner of a major terrorist attack or __27__ of war.

The report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is clear on what's at __28__ and what needs to change. IPBES chair Robert Watson says the "__29__ evidence" presents "ominous (凶兆的) picture". "The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is __30__ more rapidly than ever," Robert Watson said. We are __31__ the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide. The report says it's not too late if we make "transformative change" -- fundamental, system-wide reorganization -- at every level from local to global, and we need to focus on how to make that happen.

First, don't indulge in despair, because despair leads to inertia and doing nothing means certain __32__. Every action to save nature will improve our collective and personal futures and the only way to respond to a threat of this scale is with __33__ action rooted in headstrong optimism. Second, we need relentless focus, just like when paramedics (救护人员) arrive on a scene and use the concept of triage (伤员鉴别分类) to ensure the most __34__ cases get treated first. Saving the natural world needs that kind of thinking. We don't have the __35__ to do everything at once. We need to make hard choices.

People often discuss the dangers of too much stress, but lately a very different view of stress is gaining popularity: this view of stress, held by members of the positive stress movement, argues that stress might actually be beneficial. The positive stress movement is made up of people such as Zachary Rapp who are looking for an edge in a competitive world, and Rapp's routine is a good example of followers of the movement. He wakes up most mornings at dawn, goes for a run, sips black coffee while ripping through emails, and then steps into a freezing cold shower. This is a routine designed to reduce the stress of running simultaneously three different health and biotechnology companies for 18 hours a day.

Although Rapp's practices may sound extreme, he is part of a growing movement, consisting largely of tech industry workers who claim that such radical tactics will help them live better and longer. Inspired by influential figures in different fields, including entertainers, athletes, entrepreneurs and scientists, positive stress practitioners seek out some combination of extreme temperatures, restrictive diets, punishing exercise routines and general discomfort.

Rapp argues that positive stress keeps him balanced. In addition to running and freezing showers, Rapp uses ice baths, hot yoga, and unconventional eating practices such as eliminating dairy, sugar, alcohol and various other foods high in carbohydrates. He believes that these practices, which put stress on his body, actually make him feel less stress from work. However, Rapp does not credit anyone in particular for his choices: he said he started using these methods in college where he got into the habit of taking ice baths to recover from sports. He got back into it while trying to get his three companies off the ground.

Rapp works long hours and sleeps only five to seven hours a night but he said he only gets sick once a year. For him, the difference between day-to-day stress, like the kind we feel when moving apartments, and positive stress is that the latter involves pushing the body to extremes and forcing it to build up a tolerance.

One thought leader in the positive stress world is Dutch extreme athlete Wim Hof, who earned the name "ice man" for his ability to withstand severe cold using deep breathing exercises. Hof's ideas have become popular among tech industry elites and, thanks to Hof, cold showers are now a trend; indeed, some even call it a form of therapy.

But it is important to note that not everyone agrees with these practitioners; indeed, some medical professionals argue that positive stress is not for everyone, and that it might even be dangerous for people who are unhealthy or older.

Is hunting good or bad for the environment? Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species -- including humans -- has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment's carrying capacity.

On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as savage, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals' Voice, hunting "causes immense suffering to individual wild animals..." and is "irrationally cruel because unlike natural predation (捕食), hunters kill for pleasure..." He adds that, despite hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters' license fees are used to "manipulate a few game species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance."

Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the vast majority of hunted species —— such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mourning doves —— "provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control."

Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature's Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting "designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both" —— what Varner terms 'therapeutic hunting' —— is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting —— both of which only benefit human beings —— is not.

Regardless of one's individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2006 show that only five percent of Americans —— some 12.5 million individuals —— consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.

Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. found that eighty percent of respondents agreed that "hunting has a legitimate place in modern society," and the percentage of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.

Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction.