在线英语听力室_免费在线英语听力学习网站

This is Scientific American — 60-Second Science, I'm Christopher Intagliata.

这里是科学美国人——60秒科学系列，我是克里斯托弗·因塔格里塔。

Nature documentaries are known for their sweeping¹ natural vistas², their amazing footage—seriously, how did they get that shot?—and, often, the soothing³ baritone of Sir David Attenborough.

自然纪录片以其广阔的自然景观和令人惊叹的画面而闻名——说真的，他们是怎么拍到这些画面的？通常，这些纪录片会搭配大卫·艾登堡爵士舒缓的男中音。

(CLIP: Attenborough clip)

（音频片段：艾登堡讲解）

What those documentaries don't do, though, is show the realities of environmental destruction.

然而，这些纪录片并没有展示环境破坏的现实。

"Historically, particularly BBC documentaries have shied away from that." Niki Rust⁴ is an environmental social scientist at Newcastle University in the U.K.

“从历史上看，BBC纪录片尤其会回避这一现实。”英国纽卡斯尔大学的环境社会科学家妮基·拉斯特说到。

Rust studied work by the BBC and by the World Wildlife Fund, which had teamed up with Netflix to make what they said would be a whole new kind of production. "They wanted it to reach a billion people, and it was going to revolutionize nature documentaries." (Except for the fact, maybe, that Attenborough would be the narrator.)

拉斯科研究了BBC和世界野生动物基金会的作品，这两个机构曾与网飞公司合作，制作他们所称的全新作品。“他们希望能影响10亿人，为自然纪录片带来革命性的变化。”（除了艾登堡仍将为纪录片配音这一事实。）

The Netflix series, Our Planet, aimed to be different, because it promised to reveal the threats facing wildlife and the natural world. So did it deliver?

网飞公司出品的系列纪录片《我们的星球》旨在做到与众不同，因为其承诺揭示野生动物和自然面临的威胁。那它做到了吗？

Rust and her colleagues analyzed⁵ scripts of Our Planet, along with three recent BBC series—Planet Earth II, Dynasties, and Blue Planet II—and logged everything they saw on-screen.

拉斯特及其同事分析了《我们的星球》以及BBC最近播出的三部纪录片《行星地球II》、《王朝》和《蓝色星球II》的剧本，并记录下他们在屏幕上看到的一切。

Turns out, "Our Planet only talks about threats and successes a little bit more than Blue Planet II." Fifteen percent of the script did focus on the woes⁶ of the natural world. But very little devastation⁷ was actually shown on screen—despite being filmed.

结果发现，“《我们的星球》提到的威胁和成功只比《蓝色星球II》多一点点。”剧本的15%关注自然界的灾难。但破坏景象几乎没有展现在屏幕上——尽管他们拍摄了破坏画面。

The analysis is in the journal People and Nature.

这项分析发表在《人类与自然》期刊上。

"The lead author of the study, Julia Jones, was in Madagascar at the time, when Netflix was there filming. She knows they were there filming the destruction of habitat and burning and lots of environmental devastation. So they've got the footage. It just, unfortunately, wasn't chosen to be included."

“网飞公司在马达加斯加拍摄时，该研究的主要作者朱莉·琼斯也在那里。她知道他们拍摄了栖息地被破坏、烧毁以及大量的环境破坏镜头。他们拍摄了这些画面。但不幸的是，这些镜头未被纳入最终成品。”

It's not clear if that's really a bad thing, though—we still don't really know whether showing environmental tragedies on-screen motivates people to support conservation. But what climate change communication has taught us, Rust says, is that the ideal way to motivate audiences is with optimism—tinged with trepidation⁸.

不过，目前尚不清楚这是否真是件坏事——我们仍不知道在屏幕上展示环境悲剧能否促使人们支持环保。但拉斯特表示，气候变化传播教会我们的是，激励观众的理想方式是带有一丝恐惧的乐观主义。

Thanks for listening for Scientific American — 60-Second Science. I'm Christopher Intagliata.

谢谢大家收听科学美国人——60秒科学。我是克里斯托弗·因塔利亚塔。