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.

 

31. The first paragraph is mainly about .

£ÛA£Ý the intrinsic value of human experiences

£ÛB£Ý the intrinsic value of the experiences of nonhuman animals

£ÛC£Ý the intrinsic value of ecological system as a whole

£ÛD£Ý an ancient ethical question about the nature of intrinsic value

32. , we owe nothing to the future generations.

£ÛA£Ý In the author’s opinion

£ÛB£Ý From a social contrast view of ethics

£ÛC£Ý For a utilitarian

£ÛD£Ý For most environmentalists

33. Population policy we take should be considered .

£ÛA£Ý positive             £ÛB£Ý negative             £ÛC£Ý complex            £ÛD£Ý reasonable

34. According to this passage, optimum population .

£ÛA£Ý refers to the population size at which the average level of welfare will be as high as possible

£ÛB£Ý refers to the population size at which the total amount of welfare will be as great as possible

£ÛC£Ý is a difficult philosophical issue which remains to be resolved in the future

£ÛD£Ý is a difficult philosophical issue which Derek Parfit has successfully settled in Reasons and Persons

35. The proper title for this passage should be .

£ÛA£Ý A Mystery in Applied Ethics

£ÛB£Ý Our Obligations to Future Generations

£ÛC£Ý Environmental Ethics

£ÛD£Ý Environmental issues

 

Text 4

Perhaps only a small boy training to be a wizard at the Hogwarts school of magic could cast a spell so powerful as to create the biggest book launch ever. Wherever in the world the clock strikes midnight on June 20th, his followers will flock to get their paws on one of more than 10m copies of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”. Bookshops will open in the middle of the night and delivery firms are drafting in extra staff and bigger trucks. Related toys, games, DVDs and other merchandise will be everywhere. There will be no escaping Pottermania.

Yet Mr Potter’s world is a curious one, in which things are often not what they appear. While an excitable media (hereby including The Economist, happy to support such a fine example of globalisation) is helping to hype the launch of J.K. Rowling’s fifth novel, about the most adventurous thing that the publishers (Scholastic in America and Britain’s Bloomsbury in English elsewhere) have organised is a reading by Ms Rowling in London’s Royal Albert Hall, to be broadcast as a live webcast. Hollywood, which owns everything else to do with Harry Potter, says it is doing even less. Incredible as it may seem, the guardians of the brand say that, to protect the Potter franchise, they are trying to maintain a low profile. Well, relatively low.

Ms Rowling signed a contract in 1998 with Warner Brothers, part of AOL Time Warner, giving the studio exclusive film, licensing and merchandising rights in return for what now appears to have been a steal: some $500,000. Warner licenses other firms to produce goods using Harry Potter characters or images, from which Ms Rowling gets a big enough cut that she is now wealthier than the queen—if you believe Britain’s Sunday Times rich list. The process is selfª²generating: each book sets the stage for a film, which boosts book sales, which lifts sales of Potter products.

Globally, the first four Harry Potter books have sold some 200m copies in 55 languages; the two movies have grossed over $1.8 billion at the box office. This is a stunning success by any measure, especially as Ms Rowling has long demanded that Harry Potter should not be over commercialised. In line with her wishes, Warner says it is being extraordinarily careful, at least by Hollywood standards, about what it licenses and to whom. It imposed tough conditions on Coca Cola, insisting that no Harry Potter images should appear on cans, and is now in the process of making its licensing programme even more restrictive. Coke may soon be considered too mass market to carry the brand at all.
   ²é¿´¸ü¶àÏà¹ØÐÅÏ¢Çëµ½£º¸£½¨¿¼ÑÐÂÛ̳

09¿¼ÑÐQQȺ-- 1£ºÏôó ¢Ù57872015 ¢Ú56651247 2£º¸£ÖÝ´óѧ£¨56651426£© 3£º¸£½¨Ê¦´ó£¨42551895£©ÈËÂú£¬Î´·¢ÑÔÕßÿÖÜËĶ¨ÆÚÇåÀí£¬Ò»ÈË×î¶à¼ÓÒ»¸öȺ£¬·ñÔòbyebye£¡

¹²13Ò³: ÉÏÒ»Ò³ [1] [2] [3] 4 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] ÏÂÒ»Ò³