2024年12月英语六级真题答案（第2套）

With population increases and global urbanisation ever accelerating, much attention is focused on the sustainability of our cities and scarce attention is paid to the countryside.

Rural life is associated with closely-knit communities, sense of belonging, and a simple, tranquil life. Yet whilst some or all of these elements exist in the countryside, so do conservatism and a lack of employment opportunities. And it is mostly due to the latter that rural communities are suffering. Attracted by the improved economics of urban areas, country dwellers across the world are moving out, contributing to the excessive crowdedness of densely populated cities, and leaving the countryside in desolation.

So how can the countryside ensure its survival among these changes, or should it at all? Due to both the distance between residences and facilities and often intermittent public transport, those living in the countryside are heavier automobile users. Rural dwellers also use more energy maintaining their mostly detached buildings. We may be piled up like boxes in the city, but this brings energy efficiency that the countryside cannot match. Rural energy requirements result in higher carbon emissions per person than in the city, so it is actually irresponsible to endorse such a lifestyle choice.

Protecting the countryside is a hot topic. Those who have made their fortunes in the city often buy second homes in the countryside, visiting intermittently for a sample of a supposedly simple life. The side-effect of this is that house prices are pushed up due to increased demand, leaving them unaffordable for local people. A solution has yet to be found for this challenge, for market forces are further forcing residents out of the countryside. For those who believe in rural preservation, this is deplorable.

Whilst an idealised view of the countryside is common, the reality is that rural life has continuously evolved. Industrialisation brought an increase in divisions of labour, changing social links between rural people. The internet has introduced once foreign cultures into the countryside. Improved travel connections and affordability have made the world more accessible, creating a 'global village'. Considering these changes, surely an evolving countryside is inevitable.

Perhaps the countryside should also prepare itself for massive population increases in the future. With cities across the world growing rapidly, how will the current urban generation respond to the inevitable social changes of mass urbanisation? Will the longing for a simpler life become stronger, fueling a rural renaissance?

As the world continues to urbanise, the voices calling for rural preservation may well grow louder. But change is inevitable. We know that the world is going to see new cities emerging from the dust and current cities growing into megacities, but the future of the countryside is less clear.

Statements, like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder (观看者)," are rarely questioned. They've become so embedded in our consciousness that people think it's absurd to think otherwise. It might be useful, however, to at least push back on this assumption because people evaluate environment, situations, and people aesthetically. We may find that we still believe it is correct, but we may also find that there is a lot more to the situation than you suppose.

A recent study exploring aesthetic taste was published in Cognition. The results from this study show that people agree very much in their aesthetic evaluation of natural objects, but they disagree more about artifacts, or human-made objects.

The study found that shared taste was most common for faces and natural landscapes, but least common among works of architecture and art. The hypothesis is the commonly pleasing features, like proportion or symmetry, are at work.

Preferences for natural scenes might be learned through life experiences. Factors like habitability, safety, and openness might be preferred as people develop. Some of the details of landscapes change, but the basics are more common, e.g., water, open spaces, and signs of care.

Art and architecture, unlike natural spaces, do not have the same level of exposure. So, people do not have the same level of shared taste.

It's possible that the lower amount of agreement in the shared taste of artifacts has to do more with elements of style, rather than 'behavioral consequences.'

All of the consequences seem reasonable (or at least possible), but I think there might be an interesting philosophical conclusion that they did not draw. It seems that there is an objective ground to our aesthetic preferences or evaluations. I am not saying this would mean beauty is completely objective, just that there could possibly be general objective principles at work, i.e., beauty is not simply in the eye of the beholder.

Nature exhibits some of the universal aesthetic features, such as radiance, in a common way throughout the world. It's not exactly the same everywhere, but it is common. For example, a sunset is similar enough in different places to warrant almost universal appeal.

Possible universal principles of beauty—such as proportion, fittingness, radiance, and others—are general categories, which allow for a wide array of embodiments. When people get involved in making artifacts in architecture or art, they apply these very general concepts in unique ways. But the way they applied the principle may not have universal appeal.

This is why it's important to experience diverse cultures and their artifacts because it opens us up to different ways of approaching or constructing beauty. And it is always good to question our assumptions.