動物たちの危機:彼らの存在は息をするに等しい

このQ&Aのポイント
  • 地球の動物たちは絶望的な危機に瀕しています。
  • 自由な動物の存在がなければ、私たちは酸素の精神的な等価物を失うと信じています。
  • Alice Walkerの言葉からの引用(CROWN(1) のlesson6)。'the spritual equivalent of oxygen'の部分の日本語訳がわかりません。教えてください。
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

和訳お願いします。

今、予習をしていてわからない英文があったので質問します。 The animals of the planet are in desperate peril.. Without free animal life I believe we will lose the spritual equivalent of oxygen. - Alice Walker- (CROWN(1) のlesson6) 「the spritual equivalent of oxygen」の部分の日本語訳がわかりません。教えてください。

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数2

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • d-y
  • ベストアンサー率46% (1528/3312)
回答No.1

「魂にとっての酸素」 「精神にとって、酸素に相当するもの」 酸素は(肉体にとって)必要不可欠ですが、free animal lifeは精神にとって同じくらい必要不可欠なものだということを言っていると思います。

matsui007
質問者

お礼

ありがとうございます。とても参考になりました。

関連するQ&A

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    I take it for granted, then, 'that all my readers accept the doctrine of Organic Evolution, or the belief that all species of plants and animals have bad a derivative mode of origin by way of natural descent ; and, moreover, that one great law ormethod of the process has been natural selection, or survival of the fittest. If anyone grants this much, I further assume that he must concede to me the fact, as distinguished from the manner and history of Mental Evolution, throughout the whole range of the animal kingdom, with the exception of man. I assume this because I hold that if the doctrine of Organic Evolution is accepted, it carries with it, as a necessary corollary, the doctrine of Mental Evolution, at all events as far as the brute creation is concerned. For throughout the brute creation, from wholly unintelligent animals to the most highly intelligent, we can trace one continuous gradation ; so that if we already believe that all specific forms of animal life have had a derivative origin, we cannot refuse to believe that all the mental faculties which these various forms present must likewise have had a derivative origin. And, as a matter of fact, we do not find anyone so unreasonable as to maintain, or even to suggest, that if the evidence of Organic Evolution is accepted, the evidence of Mental Evolution, within the limits which I have named, can consistently be rejected. - The one body of evidence therefore serves as a pedestal to the other, such that in the absence of the former the latter would have no locus standi (for no one could well dream, of Mental Evolution were it not for the evidence of Organic Evolution, or of the transmutation of species) ; while the presence of the former irresistibly suggests the necessity of the latter, as the logical structure for the support of which the pedestal is what it is.

  • この英文おかしくないですか?

    次の文章のみを参照して「encroach on~」の意味を推測せよ。 In the wild, a monkey could hear various animals calling but not see them. So in a territorial dispute, you could imagine that an aminal would want to know, "how many animals are really about to encroach on our territory?" a. leave b. extend c. invade d. lose 訳:自然界ではサルは各種動物の鳴き声は聞けても、姿は見えない。だから「何匹の動物が我々のテリトリーを本当にencroach onしようとしてるんだ」と動物が感じているのが分かる (1)an animalがa monkyを指せるんですか? an animalとすると(どの種類か分からないが不定の)ある動物っていう意味にならないですか? このaのせいで訳を見ないと意味が分かりませんでした (2)あと、"an animal would want to know" の次に続く文が疑問文ってのもおかしくないですか? an animal would want to know the answer for the question: "how many --- ?" または、an animal would want to know the number of animals that are really about to encroach on his territory.という文にすべきではないんでしょうか?

  • 和訳してください

    Planet Earth is 46 hundered million years old. If we scale this inconceivably timespan down to a more manageable 46 years, then modern human beings have been around for four hours, and the Industrial Revolution began a minutes ago.During 60 seconds of biological time, humankind have multiplied their numbers to plague proportions, ransacked the planet for fuels and raw materials, and caused the extinctionf countless species of animals and plants.However brief our lifetime on Earth, it brings with it responsibilities, not just to other humans , but to the abundance of life forms with which we share this evolutionary moment.Since the late 1960s, it has become customary for skeptics to accuse environmentalists of permanently crying "Wolf !" Why, these skeptics ask, is it all so urgent now, given the relative ease eith which the seems to have withstood most of the damage inflicted on it over the last 20 years?What does the Earth need tobe "saved" from? It is often easier to deny the truth than to confront it. Let's be thankful that we have indeed got through the last 20 years with no more than a handful of appalling environmental disasters, but let's never forget that for millions of people, their environment has already collapsed, as witnessed by the huge increase in "environmental refugees" - all those who have been forced to leave their homelands by drought, deforestation, and other environmental crises.The fact that the last 20 years have been characterized more by progressive decline than by dizzy environmental collapse hardly seems a cause for rejoicing.At the same time, I do believe that the foundations for a more just, compassionate and sustainable future are now being laid. Some of this fundation work has a very high profile, resonantly in the fine speeches of world leaders, adovocated passionately by the massed groups of environmental and development organizations, amplified with increasing authority by the world's media. Despite the media's tendency to leap from one one fashionable cause to the next (from world hunger to AIDS to the environment), it would be narrow-minded to deny their part in increasing environmental awareness. It is easier to be "green" today than ever before. But most of the foundation work is being painstakingly put together at the grass-roots with no media attention - reflected in the concerns and lifestyle choices of millions of people who know what they owe to themselves and to the future.It is this grass-roots base that leads me to believe that the current level of environmental activity will not fade away, but will steadily strengthen.The signs of hope are multiplying, reinforcing the mounting pressure for new approaches and lasting change.

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    ネットを見てたら気になる英語のサイトを見つけたのですが、英語が全くわからず訳すに訳せず、翻訳サイトを使ってもしっくりこないものとなってしまうのでどなたか和訳をお願いします。 Food faddism is as an exaggerated belief in the impact of food and nutrition on health and disease. Food faddists insist that food and nutrition are more significant than science has established. Such thinking frequently leads people to overestimate the beneficial effects of some foods (e.g., whole grains such as unpolished rice) and condemn others (e.g., refined sugars, flour and grains such as polished rice). Apprehension about particular foods or food components or about food manufacturing processes has led many people to adapt unorthodox food practices and to seek nonconventional approaches to nutrition. Many sensible, sincere people are also motivated to seek alternative food styles for ecological reasons. They are worried about environmental pollution through the use of agricultural chemicals and have turned to“organic” and other types of“health” foods. People have been led to believe that food grown without the use of pesticides or artificial fertilizers but with the application to the soil of natural fertilizers and other organic matters are more nourishing and less hazardous. They put an absolute faith in“organic” food and, as a corollary, ask for provision of evidence of absolute safety, an unrealistic and unattainable goal, with the application of new technologies such as genetic engineering to food production. When scientists discover that some component in a conventional food staff can be the risk factor for some life-style related disease, many people lose their faith in conventional nutrition and adopt approaches with the emphasis on new materials. Heightened health awareness caused by increase in information transfer, mainly through the mass media, has created expectations that at present exceed the ability of science to deliver. So-called health hustlers with application of pseudoscience take advantage of this situation. They promote tailor-made products and systems, which they insist, help one to resist disease, improve overall health or slow the aging process

  • 和訳をお願いします

    入院と自動車学校で勉強できませんでした。 一週間後にテストがあります。お手伝いをおねいがいします。 All the next day Lawrence and the Arabs fired on the Turks,but the Turkish force was large and the battle showed no sigh of ending.Finally Auda decided thet camel charge would settle matters.A camel charge is an amazing sight.To see these big,clumsy,and slow-moving animals you would not believe that they can run very fast when they want to.Imagine five hundred camels racing across the desert toward you,with a bearded Arab with hawk nose and fierce eyes on top of each camels, shouting war cries and firing his rifle,his robes flowing in the wind,his knife on a belt around his waist.The Turkish soldiers broke ranks and fled.Lawrence ,in the second wave of the charge,got so excited that instead of firing his revolver at the Turks,he accidently fired it into his camel’s head,blowing the poor animal’s brains out.The camel dropped dead.Lawrence was flung to the ground and knocked out.When he woke up the battle was over.Three hundred Turks were dead and there were 160 prisoners for the loss of only two Arabs.Now nothing stood in the way of Akaba. More and more Arabs came to join Lawrence on the last days of the march until finally about one thousand men stood outside the walls of the Turkish port.The heat was intense.Food supplies within Akaba were low.The Arabs were in a bloodthirsty mood.Lawrence felt that the Turks would be ready to surrender without a fight,so he sent them a message carried by an Arab under a white flag of truce.But when the Arab got near the walls the Turks shot at him.Next Lawrence sent a message with some Turkish prisoners the Arabs had taken at Aba el Lissan.But the Turks fired at them too.Then a little Turkish prisoner said he knew hot to do it.He took off all his clothes except his boots and walked up to the Turkish lines naked.The Turks could see that he had no weapons hidden on him,so they did not fire at him.

  • 長文問題

    David Greybeard first showed me how fuzzy the distinction between animals and humans can be. Forty years ago I befriended David, a chimpanzee, during my first field trip to Gombe in Tanzania. One day I offered him a nut in my open palm. He looked directly into my eyes, took the nut out of my hand and dropped it. At the same moment he very gently squeezed my hand as if to say, I don't want it, but I understand your motives. Since chimpanzees are thought to be physiologically close to humans, researchers use them as test subjects for new drugs and vaccines. In the labs, these very sociable creatures often live isolated from one another in 5-by-5-foot cages, where they grow surly and sometimes violent. Dogs, cats and rats are also kept in poor conditions and subjected to painful procedures. Many people would find it hard to sympathize with rats, but dogs and cats are part of our lives. Ten or 15 years ago, when the use of animals in medical testing was first brought to my attention, I decided to visit the labs myself. Many people working there had forced themselves to believe that animal testing is the only way forward for medical research. Once we accept that animals are sentient beings, is it ethical to use them in research? From the point of view of the animals, it is quite simply wrong. From our standpoint, it seems ridiculous to equate a rat with a human being. If we clearly and honestly believe that using animals in research will, in the end, reduce massive human suffering, it would be difficult to argue that doing so is unethical. How do we find a way out of this dilemma? One thing we can do is change our mind-set. We can begin by questioning the assumption that animals are essential to medical research. Scientists have concluded that chimpanzees are not useful for AIDS research because, even though their genetic makeup differs from ours by about 1 percent, their immune systems deal much differently with the AIDS virus. Many scientists test drugs and vaccines on animals simply because they are required to by law rather than out of scientific merit. This is a shame, because our medical technology is beginning to provide alternatives. We can perform many tests on cell and tissue cultures without recourse to systemic testing on animals. Computer simulations can also cut down on the number of animal tests we need to run. We aren't exploring these alternatives vigorously enough. Ten or 15 years ago animal-rights activists resorted to violence against humans in their efforts to break through the public's terrible apathy and lack of imagination on this issue. This extremism is counterproductive. I believe that more and more people are becoming aware that to use animals thoughtlessly, without any anguish or making an effort to find another way, diminishes us as human beings. 【設問】 ・3段落3文目,doing soの内容を表す語を文中から 自分は、‘using animals in research’としました。「研究の中で動物を利用すること」が、非道徳的であると主張することは難しいだろう…このように考えました。 ・一番最後の文,diminishes us as human beingsの意味を日本語で簡潔に説明←良く分からなかったです。「人間としての我々の権威(信用)を落とす」…最後の段落をまとめるのでしょうか? お願いします。 参考までに、この文章の出典を見つけたので貼っておきます。 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/05/06/a-question-of-ethics.html

  • 長文ですが和訳いただけると嬉しいです。

    1) The mother-of-two, who has been married to The Cars frontman Ric Ocasek since 1989, revealed that while the medication helped at first, she became increasingly numb to the world around her, describing how it affected everything from her ability to form opinions to her sex drive. 2) Likening it to 'emotional Botox', she wrote: 'I found I had no need to actually say anything. This, for a writer, is akin to a cook who has no appetite... I no longer bothered to fight with my girlfriends, or husband. 'I could just shrug and walk away from situations that previously had me in endless knots analyzing and discussing.' 3) On making love to her husband, she continued: 'It felt as though I was being touched through a barrier, or, in this instance, a thick and cumbersome rug. 'After a while, it seemed like being intimate was just too much work for too little pay.' 4) Ms Porizkova says she knew she had a problem when she began to feel guilty about her habit, sometimes even finding her herself lying about her dependence. 'I had just started taking it, and this reaction was exactly what I had feared. I was judged crazy. Unstable.' 5) She tells how it took three weeks to wean herself off the medication - and life without is something she is still learning to adjust to. 'The weaning was predictably unpleasant,' she wrote. 'Three weeks of being tired and shaky from wrangling with awful dreams. 'At one point, I found myself on a girls' night out and discovered all eight of us were on antidepressants' 6) 'And then anxiety came creeping back: the clamminess, the suddenly speeding heart, the heat flashes, the disorientation. 7) 'But this time, I also became aware of something I may have previously neglected... with my career at crossroads, my children no longer needing me every minute and my face and body beginning to cave under the demands of gravity, I had something to be a little down about.' 8) In lieu of medication she turned to exercise, upping her routine to include daily workouts. 'I could finally understand the drug addicts who had cleaned up but wrestled with the urge to use every day,' she explained. 9) Ms Porizkova says that years of misery, soul-searching and learning have since helped her to come to terms with her problems. She wrote: 'I am on some sort of an accelerated life comprehension program I didn't sign up for, but nevertheless must process.' 10) But, she realised, she is not alone. As she came clean about her problems with Lexapro, she found more and more women were suffering from similar plights. 'As I got braver and dared to speak more openly about what I perceived as a terrible weakness, my girlfriends, one by one, stepped up and admitted that they were also on antidepressants,' she revealed. 11) 'At one point, I found myself at a girls' night out dinner and discovered all eight of us were on assorted antidepressants...The reasons were diverse, but what we had in common were our age ranges and being married with children. 12) 'Was this the female equivalent of a male midlife crisis - Botox and antidepressants instead of the fast car and young chick? ... I'm starting to wonder whether antidepressants can often be the emotional equivalent of plastic surgery.' 13) She concedes that there is a place for antidepressants and she is not an anti-medicine crusader. But medication should not be treated as a shortcut. 'There must be a large percentage of people for whom an antidepressant makes the difference between life and death, or at the very least, the difference between a life worth living and a life to be endured. 14) 'But I also think that those who try to take the shortcuts - the pill to lose weight, the pill to be happy, the pill to be smart, to sleep, to be awake, are just running up their tab. And there may not be a pill when you're presented with the bill. Which you will.' 不安障害になり、薬物依存になったことなどを 述べているのだと少しは分かりましたが よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 長文ですが和訳していただけると嬉しいです。

    The mother-of-two, who has been married to The Cars frontman Ric Ocasek since 1989, revealed that while the medication helped at first, she became increasingly numb to the world around her, describing how it affected everything from her ability to form opinions to her sex drive. Likening it to 'emotional Botox', she wrote: 'I found I had no need to actually say anything. This, for a writer, is akin to a cook who has no appetite... I no longer bothered to fight with my girlfriends, or husband. 'I could just shrug and walk away from situations that previously had me in endless knots analyzing and discussing.' On making love to her husband, she continued: 'It felt as though I was being touched through a barrier, or, in this instance, a thick and cumbersome rug. 'After a while, it seemed like being intimate was just too much work for too little pay.' Ms Porizkova says she knew she had a problem when she began to feel guilty about her habit, sometimes even finding her herself lying about her dependence. 'I had just started taking it, and this reaction was exactly what I had feared. I was judged crazy. Unstable.' She tells how it took three weeks to wean herself off the medication - and life without is something she is still learning to adjust to. 'The weaning was predictably unpleasant,' she wrote. 'Three weeks of being tired and shaky from wrangling with awful dreams. 'At one point, I found myself on a girls' night out and discovered all eight of us were on antidepressants' 'And then anxiety came creeping back: the clamminess, the suddenly speeding heart, the heat flashes, the disorientation. 'But this time, I also became aware of something I may have previously neglected... with my career at crossroads, my children no longer needing me every minute and my face and body beginning to cave under the demands of gravity, I had something to be a little down about.' In lieu of medication she turned to exercise, upping her routine to include daily workouts. 'I could finally understand the drug addicts who had cleaned up but wrestled with the urge to use every day,' she explained. Ms Porizkova says that years of misery, soul-searching and learning have since helped her to come to terms with her problems. She wrote: 'I am on some sort of an accelerated life comprehension program I didn't sign up for, but nevertheless must process.' But, she realised, she is not alone. As she came clean about her problems with Lexapro, she found more and more women were suffering from similar plights. 'As I got braver and dared to speak more openly about what I perceived as a terrible weakness, my girlfriends, one by one, stepped up and admitted that they were also on antidepressants,' she revealed. 'At one point, I found myself at a girls' night out dinner and discovered all eight of us were on assorted antidepressants...The reasons were diverse, but what we had in common were our age ranges and being married with children. 'Was this the female equivalent of a male midlife crisis - Botox and antidepressants instead of the fast car and young chick? ... I'm starting to wonder whether antidepressants can often be the emotional equivalent of plastic surgery.' She concedes that there is a place for antidepressants and she is not an anti-medicine crusader. But medication should not be treated as a shortcut. 'There must be a large percentage of people for whom an antidepressant makes the difference between life and death, or at the very least, the difference between a life worth living and a life to be endured. 'But I also think that those who try to take the shortcuts - the pill to lose weight, the pill to be happy, the pill to be smart, to sleep, to be awake, are just running up their tab. And there may not be a pill when you're presented with the bill. Which you will.'

  • 訳してください。

    全く英語ができないので、ぜひ訳してください。 お願いします。 As for sandy, although she nearly did not make it through the surgery, she should be fine when she wakes up.Dr.de sanz also reports on the surgery:“It went great; she had two successful root canals and one great filling and a nice cleaning, and she is all set.”  The jaguar's visit with the dentists is over this time. Sandy will have a headache for a few days because of the surgery, but soon she will feel well again. More importantly, she shouldn's have a toothache! Dr.de Sanz and Dr.Brown have completed another successful animal dentistry job. Later, Dr.de Sanz remarks that people have aresponsibility towards animals in captivity,especially the animals that are kept in zoos.“I really do believe that it is our responsibility.”she says.“If we are going to keep animals in captivity for everybody to look at, then we have to keep them healthy.”  As the zoo dentists finish another day, they can feel satisfied because they are helping these animals to live healthy and happy lives. It is all in a day's work for these zoo dentists!

  • 翻訳お願いします

    Friend:Does your wife wear a real fur coat? Mike:Yes. Why do you ask? Friend:I just wondered if you ever feel guilty. Mike:Why should I feel guilty? We didn't steal it. Friend:You know what I mean. I'm talking about all those cute little animals that had to die so your wife can have a nice coat. Then she throws it across the back of the chair while she's having lunch in some fine restaurant with a lot of high society women and their fur coats. Mike:She eats ham sandwiches at home. And she wears the coat because it's warm. Friend:Come on , the animal rights people wouldn't buy that. If your wife wants to be warm , she can wear long underwear. So don't you feel a little guilty? Mike:Actually , the animals which make up her coat are said to be dangerous. If you put your hand near them , they'd bite of your fingers. Friend:That's no excuse. Don't you ever think about how barbaric it is for someone who's supposed to be civilized to be wearing the skins of little animals? Mike:Yes , I suppose you could say my wife barbaric. But since I don't wear furs , I'm not. Friend:Yes , but you agree with her doing it. Mike:That's because I'm on record as being a strong supporter of feminist rights. I believe a woman can do with her body as she likes , and if she wishes to cover her body in furs , that is up to her.