-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Can heroism1 be taught? What about combat medals for drone operators, or socially engineered moral crusaders?
Hello there, Antony Funnell here, welcome to Future Tense.
This week on the program, how our notions of heroism are changing and who, or what, could be the hero of the future. The very notion of the hero might, on first thought, seem immutable2, set in stone, but as we'll hear, exactly what constitutes a hero has gone through immense change.
In this episode, producer Tiger Webb explores how advances in robotic technologies are challenging the concept of battlefield heroism, and meets a psychologist who aims to use the high school system to create his own heroic supersquads, and change the world.
So, the future of the hero, and the producer is Tiger Webb.
Tiger Webb: I watched Top Gun recently. If you haven't seen Top Gun, it's a pretty exemplary 1980s action film. Lots of big hair, late Cold War American machismo and of course, Tom Cruise.
Top Gun tells the story of a maverick3 young naval4 aviator5 whose call sign, helpfully, is also Maverick. After some setbacks during his training, he gradually begins to learn the power of teamwork. By the film's climax6 he manages to save the day, shooting down some unspecified but presumably Russian aggressors. It's all pretty heroic.
But then I realised, if the film were to be made today, the pilots of Top Gun academy would be increasingly likely to be unmanned aerial vehicle operators, or out in the field with some kind of robotic assistance.
So I wondered: say we make that film today, would the Top Gun pilots still be heroes? Do advances in technology change what it means to be a hero? Or does the concept itself change organically over time?
Jeremy Frimer: So first of all we have to talk about what a hero is, and I think of moral heroes has having two basic qualities, one is that they're givers, they're selfless givers, they're altruists, and the second is that they're defenders7 of the sacred values of a particular group. So they're a hero to a group, they're not a hero writ9 large, they're a hero to a group.
Tiger Webb: Jeremy Frimer is an Associate Professor in Psychology10 at the University of Winnipeg. For Frimer, hero formation really comes down to what he calls sacred values.
Jeremy Frimer: Which are like the defining core values which are just non-negotiable for a particular group; for example, defend the environment, for liberals. Being a giver is more complicated though, because no one is really a giver, everyone is complicated and people are sometimes givers, they are sometimes takers, they're sometime matching other people. But we perceive heroes as being basically always givers, they're selfless altruists, and I think that's what makes them pure in our minds and elevates them into a kind of a form of deity11.
Tiger Webb: And as Frimer points out, these values aren't always constant.
Jeremy Frimer: They change over time and they are unique to each group. So sacred values are unlike regular values. So I might value exercise but I'm willing to make trade-offs about my exercise, so I might not exercise today so that I can exercise tomorrow or something. But a sacred value is unlike a regular value in that it is not amenable12 to trade-offs. So life is a sacred value for most people; we are unwilling13 to sacrifice one child to save five children. So that's a common sacred value that most people hold, not everyone.
But when it comes to each particular group they tend to sacralise some particular cause. So it might be…for left-leaning people it might be the environment, or it might be civil rights, or gender14 equality. And for the right it might be traditional marriage. So yes, each group is going to have its own sacred values and they are going to change over time to reflect the current objective and goals of each particular moralistic group.
Tiger Webb: I was curious, did Jeremy Frimer view someone like Edward Snowden as a hero defending a new set of sacred values? Or were they old values like personal liberty and privacy, set against an entirely15 new state apparatus16?
Jeremy Frimer: Yes, so he represents freedom from oppression from the government and he's basically shown that he's willing to take on great personal sacrifice for that particular cause, so he has both elements of sacred values, of protecting our privacy and also this selflessness, this altruism17. So he's a good example.
Tiger Webb: More from Jeremy Frimer in a bit.
Heroes simultaneously18 reflect and advance the values and norms of a given society. And they are always a step ahead.
Scott Stephens is the online editor for ABC Religion. I called him up when I was making this program to have a chat about heroes. He had so much to say about the evolution of the hero as a concept, I ended up recording19 a bit of our chat. What does Scott think our future heroes will look like?
Scott Stephens: I must say, the future doesn't bode20 well. And I think that has become one of the more troubling developments. Our popular cultural heroes become the people who get what they want. They're not virtuous21 so much as they are effective, and I think the reason that that's become quite an important trend is that after Vietnam, after the revelations of Watergate, after the great role of the investigative intrepid22 reporter as hero…I mean, please notice that, in the mid23 '70s it was the swashbuckling journalist, it was the wartime correspondent revealing the atrocities24 in Vietnam, these were the great heroes. But what marked them out as heroes? What marked them out is that they bought power down, they were disestablishment figures.
And I think that kind of cynicism that began in the mid-'70s and continues to trickle25 right through down to the moment where we can't really expect internal virtue26 or moral rectitude from our heroes but what we can bank on from our heroes is that they'll be pretty damn effective in what they do. In other words, our heroes now and I suspect our heroes into the future are going to be heroes with dirty hands.
Just take the great BBC series House of Cards with Francis Urquhart that got transmuted27 into the American House of Cards with Frank Underwood, think about Breaking Bad with Walter White, think about Dexter Morgan, these are anti-heroes, they are incredibly dark, they are doing things that in many ways are the furthest thing from being virtuous, and yet somehow in the middle of that they end up exuding28 a power of fascination29 on the audience and more than anything else they end up getting their way.
Tiger Webb: Scott Stephens, a colleague of mine from ABC Religion.
A curious thing is happening here; when I talk to people like Jeremy Frimer about heroes, the examples they tend to come up with are mostly from half a century ago. It's Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, JFK. There's nothing wrong with that, but it begs the question; might heroes be more difficult to form in a more cynical30, information-saturated age?
Consider Malala Yousafzai. In 2012 the then 15-year-old survived an assassination31 attempt by the Pakistani Taliban. She had been targeted for advancing the cause of female education. Since then, Malala has been lauded32 around the world, in 2014 becoming the youngest-ever recipient33 of the Nobel Peace Prize.
To be quite mercenary about it, you couldn't ask for less controversial candidate for a modern hero. But even as UN petitions were launched in her name, a backlash emerged. There were also more measured responses, who viewed Malala's reaction in the West as playing neatly34 into a narrative35 that demonised non-white Muslim men and elevated Malala to the status of, in the words of journalist Assed36 Baig, 'the good native, one who does not criticise37 the West.'
This is nothing new; as long as there have been heroes, there have been naysayers. What has changed is the immediacy of the response, and the sheer weight of information about our heroic candidates we have access to. Does this mean more restricted heroic figures in the digital age? Jeremy Frimer:
Jeremy Frimer: So there's two ways of thinking about heroes, we can think of them as being these people that we discover, that they're doing these great things and then we find out about them. Someone mentions it, or we see a blog or we see some news clip and all of a sudden this person is discovered as the hero they've always been. And if that's the case, then you're right, that the more information we have on these people…I mean heroes are flawed, they're human beings, and they have their flaws just like the rest of us. If we become aware of that information, yes, we will probably have less heroes, because we will have the dirt on everyone, including our heroes, and no one will rise to this deity status.
When we get into moral issues, things that we really feel strongly about, that are core to we are in our group, I don't think that we act as detectives, I think we act more like lawyers where we're looking for information to back our point and we actually don't even want to see information that doesn't. So if I'm right about this, then really the question is; are moralistic groups going to be in increasing conflict with one another or decreasing conflict? If they come into more and more conflict with one another, we're going to see more heroes, even with all the available information on them.
Tiger Webb: So if Jeremy Frimer is right, we're probably going to see more moral heroes as time marches on. But Jeremy Frimer has bad news for explicitly38 political heroes. We're probably not going to see another JFK or Churchill.
Jeremy Frimer: I think politicians are going to have a harder time being heroes nowadays because we do know so much about the politics of what they're doing, whereas that has changed over time. I can't think of too many politicians that are really heroic in the way that non-politicians but political type of figures are. And it is accelerating, so we see Barack Obama's fall from grace, where he was a deity…I mean, just thinking of that red and blue poster that came out around 2008. He wasn't even a human at that point it seems, and now we see him as this flawed, complex president who tried to do some great things and was able to do some and not some other things. The information is going to have an influence on politicians for sure. Whether it does for other types of heroes outside of actual incumbent39 politicians is another question.
Tiger Webb: And that's where we leave Jeremy Frimer, an Associate Professor in Psychology at the University of Winnipeg.
Now we know what a hero is and how they're formed and that we're probably going to see more of them in future, it's time to go back to Top Gun.
Stinger: Maverick? How's it feel to be on the front page of every newspaper in the English-speaking world? Even though the other side denies the incident, congratulations.
Maverick: Thank you, sir.
Stinger: They gave you your choice of duty, son, anything, anywhere. Where do you think you want to go?
Maverick: I thought of being an instructor41, sir.
Stinger: Top Gun?
Maverick: Yes, sir.
Stinger: God help us.
Tiger Webb: War heroes, even fictional42 ones played by Tom Cruise, have always been defined by their courage, their willingness to risk their lives on behalf of civilians44 and to take responsibility of their fellow servicemen.
But the battlefield is changing. For many militaries it's increasingly robotic, increasingly automated45. How does that change our idea of the war hero? Would Maverick from Top Gun be across the pages of the English-speaking world if he'd been behind a joystick, remotely operating a drone from thousands of miles away?
Peter Singer: Technology has always shaped our ideal of the warrior46. I use Mel Gibson movies as the illustration of this.
Tiger Webb: Peter Warren Singer is a strategist with the New America Foundation. In 2009 he wrote a book on robotics in the military, Wired for War. It's now on the official reading list for the US defence forces and the Royal Australian Navy.
Peter Singer: At one point in history, the most fierce, the person that led the charge was considered the ideal warrior; Mel Gibson in Braveheart. Then, with the introduction of gunpowder47, our definition of the idealised warrior was not the one who was most fierce, it was the one who was most calm and collected, who could stand in a line 100 feet away from another line, and both sides shooting each other and not being willing to running away. That was Mel Gibson in The Patriot48, the movie set in the revolutionary war period, the 1700s in America.
Then you get a new technology that essentially49 takes the idea of exposing yourself to danger not as bravery but bravery to the point of tragedy, the machine gun, and that's Mel Gibson in Gallipoli. And we've seen this interactive50 effect of technology and war and the warrior, and so we shouldn't be surprised that we're going through it again when we talk about technologies like cyber or drones.
Tiger Webb: When we think of robotic warfare51, we usually think of planes; giant, expensive, remote-operated planes like the Predator52 and Reaper53 models. To civilian43 minds, they might seem like a small part of the armed forces, but there's hardly a military in the world that hasn't already moved into robotics in a big way.
Peter Singer: Robotics is a technology that we still think of as, you know, from the realm of science fiction. They're doing yet another Terminator movie, apparently54. But they now are a real part of war and a growing part of war. At least 87 different countries have some kind of military robotics program, some kind of unmanned system, most of them aerial, drones so to speak, at least 20 of those are of the type that have either currently or been armed at some point.
The US is by far the biggest user of this. We're by far the biggest military in the world, so that makes sense. Roughly the US military has about 8,000 unmanned aerial systems, most of them the little small type that you would toss with your hand that would fly away, but lots of them of the larger airplane-sized versions. And then it has another 12,000 unmanned ground systems and we're also starting to use them on the navy side, so it's quite prevalent.
Tiger Webb: In the theatre of war, deciding who is and who isn't a hero has always been a fraught55 exercise. And with increasingly automated, unmanned and robotic militaries, it's getting even more difficult.
Peter Singer: There's a story I like to point to as an illustration of this where the US effort to get Zarqawi, who was the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq about a decade ago, a very bad guy, carried out the bombing of the UN headquarters there, and so the effort to find him took multiple weeks of tracking him with unmanned systems, with drones. And then they finally find him. They find that he's meeting at an isolated56 farmhouse57, and so then they carry out the strike.
The drones aren't armed at the time so they call in fighter jets. Two fighter jets go; one of the fighter jets goes onto afterburners to lose his wingmate so that he can get there first. No one's shooting at them, it's Iraq. He then presses a button and a computer guided bomb goes down to the target that the drone has lased. So who gets the medal? Should it be the jet fighter pilot who did a six-minute mission? Or should it be the head of the drone operation that actually found the target that spent weeks and weeks at it?
Tiger Webb: Peter Singer.
That question—who gets the medal—is key here. Military decorations are kind of this attempt to codify58 and recognise qualities that military establishments find heroic in their troops.
In 2013, outgoing US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta announced the Distinguished59 Warfare Medal, for (and I'm quoting here) 'extraordinary achievements that directly impact on combat operations, but do not involve acts of valor60 or physical risks that combat entails61.' The Distinguished Warfare Medal was not received well.
Megan Kelly [archival]: This is interesting because Chuck Hagel, the Defence Secretary, stood behind this decision. He thought this was fine. Pete, your thoughts on it?
Peter Hegseth [archival]: Well, there's a big difference between being in combat and supporting combat and that should be reflected in the types of rewards we give. You know, heroism and the things that vets62 don't use but are hoisted63 upon those in battle is something that requires risk and there is a lot different risk calculation when you're looking the enemy in the eye on the ground versus64 from a comfy chair with a controller.
Tiger Webb: That's Pete Hegseth, CEO of Concerned Veterans for America there talking to Fox News's Megan Kelly.
Peter Singer: That's what makes this technology so different is that it's not just that it's more lethal66 or that it flies faster or further or the like, it's that it fundamentally changes the risk relationship. You've always, when you've talked about war, it's been an effort of both causing risk to others but also exposing yourself to risk. That's the mutuality67 of it. And that's true whether you're talking about knights68 in the Middle Ages, or bomber69 pilots in World War II, even though they may be a mile overhead there was still risk to them.
And now with these new technologies, whether you're talking about drones or whether you're talking about cyber, you can still carry out the act, you can cause the damage, but you don't necessarily have to go into harm's way. And that is causing a redefinition of what does it mean to be a soldier, what are the core values that need to be held, what is the identity, what's the training, who should be doing these roles, and also how do we recognise them? And that's why there was such a pushback within the current military, the idea that these 'chair-warriors' might get recognised in the same way that some of the great heroes of old have.
Tiger Webb: The proposal for the Distinguished Warfare Medal was later rejected. Not because the work of drone and cyber operators wasn't valued, it was panned because it ranked on par8 or above medals like the Purple Heart, a prerequisite70 for which is being wounded in combat.
The thinking seems to be from the military establishment and the public at large that drone operators aren't war heroes. Their job, however vital to military operations it might be, doesn't place them in any immediate71 physical danger. But what about their mental risk? The thinking used to run that drone operators were no different from mortar72 attacks. They could fire and forget.
But then the world met, via a GQ interview by the late Matt Power, a drone pilot called Brandon Bryant:
Brandon Bryant [archival]: When the smoke clears, there's a crater73 there. He's missing his right leg, and I watched this guy bleed out. And it's clear enough that…I watch him and he's grabbing his leg, and he's rolling. I can almost see the agony on this guy's face. And eventually this guy becomes the same colour as the ground that he bled upon. And so I watched this guy, I watched him bleed out, I watched the result of…I guess collectively it was our action but ultimately I'm the responsible one who guided the missile in.
Tiger Webb: Former drone operator Brandon Bryant talking to NBC news.
Research from the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Centre shows that drone operators come back from duty with similar levels of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorders74 to the pilots of manned vehicles. This ties into a recurring75 theme in Singer's book. As military technologies advance, they're viewed both by society and the military as the end of idealised courage and heroism in war. It happened with gunpowder weapons, it happened with tanks. There's this process of internal and external calibration of the idea of a war hero.
Peter Singer: The capability76 often arrives in a technical sense before you get full adaptation by the military itself. And that story of how and why you pull it into your military, the forces that might push against it range from just old-fashioned conservatism, not wanting to change, to protecting the organisational culture of the military, to businesses looking at this as threatening to things they already make, to the laws and legal and ethics77 side hasn't been worked out before. And invariably it's during the heat of war itself as opposed to before the militaries are fighting, that's when we really see a lot of these hurdles78 get leaped over. And again, that was the story whether you're talking about the airplane, or the submarine, or now with unmanned systems.
Tiger Webb: Peter W Singer is a strategist at the New America Foundation and the author of many books, including most recently with Allan Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare: What Everyone Needs to Know.
On RN, you're listening to Future Tense. Today on the program, the future of heroes.
We can all agree the world would be a better place if there were more heroes in it. But what if there were some sort of hero academy that aimed to produce entire generations of moral exemplars?
Philip Zimbardo: When I was a kid I grew up in the ghetto79 of the South Bronx in New York, and there were men (and it's always men!) whose job it is to seduce80 good kids to do bad things for money, to steal, to take drugs, to sell drugs and for girls to sell their bodies. There are people now around the world getting young kids and now even young girls to join terrorist groups.
Tiger Webb: This is Phil Zimbardo. He's a Professor of Psychology at Stanford University. That name might sound familiar to you. In the 1970s Phil led a research team to conduct what's now known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Phil's team created a mock prison environment, then divided the study's participants into guards and prisoners. Some of these newfound guards ended up abusing their mock prisoners. Phil was the superintendent81. He reckons it taught him a lot about the nature of evil.
Nowadays, Phil heads the Heroic Imagination Project, an education program that aims to create 'everyday heroes' out of adolescent children by teaching them to fight against the daily grind of negative social influences. And Phil's taking aim at a lot of assumptions we have about our modern-day heroes.
Philip Zimbardo: One of the things we do (because I'm a social psychologist, I believe in the power of groups, the power of positive groups) is we get away from the old notion of the solitary82 hero, essentially the male warrior, the samurai warrior. These are really killers83.
Tiger Webb: The heroes of the future, if you ask Dr Zimbardo, aren't going to be exceptional. Instead, if the Heroic Imagination Project gets its way, they'll be everyday occurrences. Zimbardo's program isn't just calling for more diversity in the heroes of our future, it challenges the idea of heroism as an innate84, mystical quality.
Philip Zimbardo: An everyday hero means not the military hero, not the first responder, not the physical risk danger hero, but people who do everyday deeds of kindness, of caring, of making other people feel special. And I believe that this can be learned, can be trained, and that all of us has an inner hero that needs to be expressed. And our program teaches people, especially students, how to express it effectively and wisely.
Tiger Webb: Can heroes be socially engineered? Phil thinks so. A lot of the Heroic Imagination Project is really just guarding against the psychological path of least resistance. Human beings love to conform to social norms, but sometimes that leads to downright non-heroic actions. But it's not just about avoiding psychological pitfalls85. The Heroic Imagination Project also makes its participants publicly commit to positive change.
Philip Zimbardo: Every kid ends up making a commitment to be a social change agent, that is to use knowledge not to show off that you're smart, but you now have a label. You see something happening, you have a label. Hey, that's stereotyped86 threat, hey, that's negative conformity87, hey, that's the bystander effect. So you have that label, and then with that label goes an action component88. Therefore I must do…call the police, I must help, I must call parents, whatever.
Tiger Webb: At the heart of Phil Zimbardo's project lies this aim of getting children to conceive of themselves not as individuals, but as part of the group that is wider society. And children are key, the aim there being get in early before individualistic tendencies can take root. But can it work? Is it really all that different from civics and citizenship89 programs in schools around the world? Initial reactions from schools have been positive. And pretty soon we'll be able to find out. Phil Zimbardo:
Philip Zimbardo: So we have formal material that we've spent a lot of time preparing, and now the exciting thing is this very month our program is going to be in hundreds of schools in Hungary, starting in Budapest, also in Warsaw, Poland, and also in Flint, Michigan, which is one of the most depressed90 towns in America because they got the negative overflow91 from the automobile92 manufacturing disaster in Detroit. And also amazingly in Corleone, Sicily, the Godfather town. My family's Sicilian and so I got the mayor of this town to approve having our program in their high schools.
The enemy of heroism is egocentrism. Heroes are socio-centric, they focus on others. Also pessimism93, cynicism, all those negative traits are enemies of heroism. Because heroes are socially-focused, heroes are focused on 'what can I do in the moment to make the world better in the future'. And it's little things, it's really the accumulation of a lot of little positives.
Tiger Webb: Dr Phil Zimbardo is Professor Emeritus94 of Psychology at Stanford University and president and founder95 of the Heroic Imagination Project.
We started the show with this question—say the movie Top Gun gets remade, set in a training facility for drone pilots. Is Tom Cruise still a hero? Today the military systems field covering unmanned vehicle operators and robotics is the fastest growing part of a lot of the world's air forces, but it also tends to be the part with the lowest rate of promotion96 throughout the military. So, based off that standard, they are not heroes, or at least they are not recognised as such. Yet.
Antony Funnell: And that report from producer Tiger Webb. Thanks also to sound engineer Louis Mitchell.
Next week on the show, the promise and dream of nuclear fusion97. Those involved in the research believe it has the potential to be an energy game-changer. But the dream has been a long time in the formulation. So, next on Future Tense, exactly what is nuclear fusion? What makes it a safer than the traditional form of nuclear power? And how serious are the bods at Lockheed Martin who claim they'll soon have a functioning nuclear fusion reactor98 that will fit on the back of a small truck. That's the promise of nuclear fusion, on our next show.
I'm Antony Funnell, until then, cheers and bye for now!
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
heroism
|
|
| n.大无畏精神，英勇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
maverick
|
|
| adj.特立独行的；不遵守传统的；n.持异议者，自行其是者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
aviator
|
|
| n.飞行家，飞行员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
amenable
|
|
| adj.经得起检验的；顺从的；对负有义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
gender
|
|
| n.（生理上的）性，（名词、代词等的）性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
altruism
|
|
| n.利他主义，不自私 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
recording
|
|
| n.录音，记录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
bode
|
|
| v.预示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
virtuous
|
|
| adj.有品德的，善良的，贞洁的，有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
intrepid
|
|
| adj.无畏的，刚毅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
mid
|
|
| adj.中央的，中间的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
atrocities
|
|
| n.邪恶，暴行( atrocity的名词复数 )；滔天大罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
trickle
|
|
| vi.淌，滴，流出，慢慢移动，逐渐消散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
transmuted
|
|
| v.使变形，使变质，把…变成…( transmute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
exuding
|
|
| v.缓慢流出，渗出，分泌出( exude的现在分词 )；流露出对（某物）的神态或感情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
fascination
|
|
| n.令人着迷的事物，魅力，迷恋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
cynical
|
|
| adj.(对人性或动机)怀疑的，不信世道向善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
assassination
|
|
| n.暗杀；暗杀事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
lauded
|
|
| v.称赞，赞美( laud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
recipient
|
|
| a.接受的,感受性强的 n.接受者,感受者,容器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
neatly
|
|
| adv.整洁地，干净地，灵巧地，熟练地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
assed
|
|
| 称职的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
explicitly
|
|
| ad.明确地，显然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
incumbent
|
|
| adj.成为责任的，有义务的；现任的，在职的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
excerpt
|
|
| n.摘录，选录，节录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
instructor
|
|
| n.指导者，教员，教练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
fictional
|
|
| adj.小说的，虚构的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
civilian
|
|
| adj.平民的，民用的，民众的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
civilians
|
|
| 平民，百姓( civilian的名词复数 )； 老百姓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
automated
|
|
| a.自动化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
gunpowder
|
|
| n.火药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
patriot
|
|
| n.爱国者，爱国主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
interactive
|
|
| adj.相互作用的，互相影响的，（电脑）交互的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
predator
|
|
| n.捕食其它动物的动物；捕食者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
reaper
|
|
| n.收割者，收割机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
fraught
|
|
| adj.充满…的，伴有(危险等)的；忧虑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
farmhouse
|
|
| n.农场住宅（尤指主要住房） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
codify
|
|
| v.将法律、法规等编成法典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
valor
|
|
| n.勇气，英勇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
entails
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的第三人称单数 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
vets
|
|
| abbr.veterans （复数）老手，退伍军人；veterinaries （复数）兽医n.兽医( vet的名词复数 )；老兵；退伍军人；兽医诊所v.审查（某人过去的记录、资格等）( vet的第三人称单数 )；调查；检查；诊疗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
hoisted
|
|
| 把…吊起，升起( hoist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
versus
|
|
| prep.以…为对手，对；与…相比之下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
rankle
|
|
| v.（怨恨，失望等）难以释怀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
lethal
|
|
| adj.致死的；毁灭性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
mutuality
|
|
| n.相互关系，相互依存 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
knights
|
|
| 骑士； （中古时代的）武士( knight的名词复数 )； 骑士； 爵士； （国际象棋中）马 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
bomber
|
|
| n.轰炸机，投弹手，投掷炸弹者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
prerequisite
|
|
| n.先决条件；adj.作为前提的，必备的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
mortar
|
|
| n.灰浆，灰泥；迫击炮；v.把…用灰浆涂接合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
crater
|
|
| n.火山口，弹坑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
recurring
|
|
| adj.往复的，再次发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
capability
|
|
| n.能力；才能；(pl)可发展的能力或特性等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
hurdles
|
|
| n.障碍( hurdle的名词复数 )；跳栏；（供人或马跳跃的）栏架；跨栏赛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
ghetto
|
|
| n.少数民族聚居区，贫民区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
seduce
|
|
| vt.勾引，诱奸，诱惑，引诱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
superintendent
|
|
| n.监督人，主管，总监；(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
killers
|
|
| 凶手( killer的名词复数 )； 消灭…者； 致命物； 极难的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
innate
|
|
| adj.天生的，固有的，天赋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
pitfalls
|
|
| （捕猎野兽用的）陷阱( pitfall的名词复数 )； 意想不到的困难，易犯的错误 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
stereotyped
|
|
| adj.(指形象、思想、人物等)模式化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
conformity
|
|
| n.一致，遵从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
component
|
|
| n.组成部分，成分，元件；adj.组成的，合成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
depressed
|
|
| adj.沮丧的，抑郁的，不景气的，萧条的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
overflow
|
|
| v.(使)外溢，(使)溢出；溢出，流出，漫出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
automobile
|
|
| n.汽车，机动车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
pessimism
|
|
| n.悲观者，悲观主义者，厌世者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
emeritus
|
|
| adj.名誉退休的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
Founder
|
|
| n.创始者，缔造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
reactor
|
|
| n.反应器；反应堆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索