原稿スクリプトA 東京大学 英語 リスニング 平成30年度
Interviewer: Welcome to another edition of Window on the World. My guest today is Dr. Abi Gisemba, who has recently returned from living for two years among the Maasai people of Eastern Africa. Dr. Gisemba, why don't you tell us about your research?
Dr. Gisemba: Well yes. I suppose the theme is cooperation. My argument is that we humans have a kind of instinct to help each other.
Interviewer: And your experiences with the Maasai support that argument...?
Dr. Gisemba: Very much so. Traditional Maasai culture and society is based on herding. Wealth means cattle. But that wealth is under constant threat from thieves and lack of rain and so on, no matter how careful or hard-working you are.
Interviewer: I see.
Dr. Gisemba: However, Maasai culture has evolved a system which reduces the risk-a system of mutual obligations,
Interviewer: People have to help each other?
Dr. Gisemba: Exactly. They call it osotua-the word osotua means the tube through which a pregnant woman gives her baby its essential nutrition before it's born.
Interviewer: Oh, you mean the umbilical cord.
Dr. Gisemba: Yes, the umbilical cord. That's why I call it the “Cord” system.
Interviewer: How does it work?
Dr. Gisemba: Everyone has a kind of network of others they can ask for help. Anyone in the network can ask for help if they're in trouble, and the person asked is obliged to help.
Interviewer: Rather like our own friendship networks...?
Dr. Gisemba: No, it's much more fundamental, and it's taken much more seriously. Parents pass their Cord network down to their children. And no one keeps track of who asks or who gives. There is no expectation of being paid back.
Interviewer: Extraordinary...
Dr. Gisemba: This is an extreme example, but in fact humans seem to be more generous than other animals, more inclined to help others. And that is a puzzling fact. They help even if there's no advantage to the individual who helps. Did you know that if a small child-as young as 18 months perhaps-sees an adult drop something "accidentally," the child will pick the thing up for the adult, or try to alert the adult. Even our closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, don't do that.
Interviewer: So your real interest is in people's tendency to help others?
Dr. Gisemba: Well, actually, my main interest is in understanding how that tendency might have evolved, which is where the Maasai come in.
Interviewer: Oh I see. And I believe you have a computer model...?
Dr. Gisemba: We ran a computer simulation that measured life expectancy in three different kinds of societies: no giving at all, giving with the expectation of being repaid, and finally, giving freely without expectation of return...
Interviewer: Like the “Cord” system...
Dr. Gisemba: Yes. And when we compared the simulated societies, we found that the "Cord” system produced the highest family survival rates.
Interviewer: So it does make sense, after all, from the evolutionary point of view?
Dr. Gisemba: The only exception is when the whole group faces some large-scale risk which threatens them all equally—a really serious epidemic, for example. In that situation, giving without expectation of return doesn't help. But in that situation, nothing helps, so giving generously does no worse.
原稿スクリプトB 東京大学 英語 リスニング 平成30年度
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Gisemba. I'd like to turn to my second guest, Mr. Eugene Park, who chairs a conservative political group called "Self-Reliance." I wonder how you react, Mr. Park, to these ideas about giving freely, giving for nothing?
Mr. Park: Well, Dr. Gisemba's research was very interesting, but there's a danger of making a false generalization here. Just because the Maasai practice giving freely doesn't mean that this system can be applied to other societies.
Interviewer: In fact, you believe that there are dangers in the kind of generosity Dr. Gisemba has described?
Mr. Park: That's right. We believe that, as far as possible, people should provide for themselves, rather than depending on other people. If you just give people things freely without conditions--whether they work or not, whether they succeed or whether they fail-well, that encourages laziness, it encourages dependence. It sounds like heaven, but it doesn't work in the real world.
Interviewer: Dr. Gisemba, I wonder how you respond to that?
Dr. Gisemba: Well, my research question was, why do humans have an instinct for generosity? Mr. Park's question is, how should we organize society for the best? These are two different questions
Mr. Park: The problem is, some people are going to think, "If humans have an instinct for generosity, then governments ought to be generous too.” Dr. Gisemba rightly sees that these issues are separate, but some people are going to make the jump--mistakenly—from her question to mine.
Interviewer: But some people might say, why not connect these questions? If humans have an instinct to help one another, and if, as Dr. Gisemba has shown, societies that give freely are more likely to prosper, then why shouldn't governments be generous too?
Mr. Park: Well, modern urban societies are organized very differently from Maasai society. If wealth is mainly in cattle, everyone can easily see whether a neighbor is truly in need or not. With us, wealth is often invisible, hidden in bank accounts for example, so it's easy for people who aren't really in need to cheat the system.
Dr. Gisemba: But systems of generosity can be found in other societies as well. Take Fiji, for example. In Fijian culture, wealth is easier to hide, yet they have a system which is very like the “Cord” system. It's called kerekere, which means “to request.” In one experiment, fifty Fijian men were simply given an amount of money equal to a day's wages. On average, they only kept 12% for themselves, and almost half gave all the money away.
Mr. Park: Of course, it's fine for people to give money away if they choose to. In fact, we think that the government should encourage donations to charities, churches, and so on. But if you just hand out money to anybody who asks, you reward the undeserving as well as the deserving,
Dr. Gisemba: But if you analyze the kerekere system, you find that the people who receive the most money from their friends are those who themselves have a good reputation for giving. So it seems that systems of generosity actually encourage honest behavior, rather than inviting people to "cheat the system."
Mr. Park: Well, another important difference is that Dr. Gisemba’s research is based on small communities where people know each other. Maybe generosity works under these circumstances, but this is very different from a large government system that forces people to pay taxes to help others they've never met-the so-called "safety net.” We think that this should provide only a basic minimum and no more.
Dr. Gisemba: I think there are good reasons to make the safety net” as generous as we can afford. Firstly, we value fairness: life can be very unfair and we want to correct that if we can. Second, we want to live in a civilized society, and it's not civilized for large numbers of people to live below the poverty line.
Mr. Park: Of course, I'm not arguing that governments should let people who are genuinely in need starve to death. But it can't be right either for the government to force hard-working taxpayers to support people who could support themselves,
Interviewer: Well, I suppose politics has always been about finding a balance between competing philosophies. There we must end. But let me thank you both.
原稿スクリプトC 東京大学 英語 リスニング 平成30年度
For centuries, sailors have told stories about monster waves, giant waves as tall as a 9or 10-storey building that suddenly rise in the middle of the ocean, as if out of nowhere. And for centuries, those who live on land, having never seen them, have dismissed stories of these waves as fairy tales—exaggerations or outright fantasies--like the old stories of mermaids and dragons. But new evidence confirms that monster waves are real, and happen much more often than anyone thought.
In 1978, a German cargo ship disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic, with the loss of 27 crew. Investigators recovered a lifeboat that showed signs of having 1 an extreme force. The lifeboats on that ship were stored 20 metres above the water.
Then, in 1995, a huge wave hit an oil drilling platform off Norway during a hurricane. Twelve-metre waves were hitting the platform. Everyone was inside to escape the storm, so no one saw the monster wave, but laser equipment measured it at 26 metres high.
According to the standard theory of how waves form, a wave that enormous should occur only once every 10,000 years. Scientists were shocked and began using satellite images to locate and count these monster waves. A study of one three-week period in 2003, using 30,000 satellite images, found 10 waves that were 25 metres or more in height. one wave o
How can this phenomenon be explained? The standard theory treats waves as individuals that grow larger when one wave overtakes and merges with another. But a new theory suggests that waves can organize themselves into groups, which tend to stay together over time. According to that theory, waves within groups can pass energy to each other, creating terrifying waves like the ones that struck in 1978 and 1995. If this theory proves true, it might be possible to forecast these giants, and thus give an early warning to ships and oil platforms that are in danger. v dve
The sea, as sailors have always known, is unpredictable, yet still we try to prepare for the most dangerous ocean events. Monster waves can do immense damage-another such wave sank an American cargo ship in October 2015, taking 33 lives. And as global warming pumps more energy into the earth's wind and ocean systems, these extraordinary events are likely to become more frequent. That is why new approaches are being developed to keep ships and oil platforms safe, including new designs that can survive the devastating impact of monster waves, waves that were once thought to exist only in the imagination of sailors.
質問と回答