题目内容：

    How many more people can we squeeze onto our fragile planet?  Surely, the Earth must be full? Pretending that human numbers can grow forever, with no ill-effects, is at best innocent and at worst utterly irresponsible.

Biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, deforestation, water and food shortages — these are all worsened by our huge and ever-increasing numbers. Yet governments and most environmental groups choose to sidestep this giant elephant in the room. The human population was just 2.6 billion in 1950. But it has been 7.7 billion today and according to the UN it will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by the end of the century. Where will so many people live? How will we feed them?

Unless we diffuse this “population bomb”, by the end of the century we will need several Earths to survive. But we can’t have several Earths, and so we will face a future of increasing poverty, food shortages, conflict and environmental degradation.

Admittedly, not everyone agrees with the UN’s predictions. But even the doubters calculate that the human population will grow to 8 or 9 billion sometime between 2040 and 2060. Ultimately, there has to be a limit.

The good news is that the human populations of about two dozen countries, from Poland and Italy to Cuba and Japan, are now decreasing. But that’s not true of most countries. The cradle of overpopulation is in Africa, which is where more than half of global population growth is expected to occur: from 1.3 billion people in 2020 to 4.3 billion in 2100.

The solution isn’t rocket science. There are two drivers of population growth:  birth rates and longevity. We all aim to grow old, after all, but we can reduce birth rates. That’s not to say that anyone should be denied the right to have many children as they like. But it’s a fact that wherever women are empowered and literated, have help with family planning and have access to medical care, they generally choose to have fewer children. And the birth rate falls.

So why the stony silence? Why such a failure of leadership from governments and environmental groups? I think it’s for two reasons. First, calls for population control are often believed racist: relatively rich people in the developed world  blaming poor people in the developing world. Second, it is often thought insincere. The problem is as much about consumerism as it is about population growth: westerners are consuming more and more, so it appears as if they are blaming the  poor for the excesses of the rich. Most population growth is, indeed, taking place among those who consume almost nothing. But the uncomfortable truth is that we all need to consume much less.

Whatever the complications, we urgently need a UN Framework Convention on Population, just as we have for climate change. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us.

1.What are the first three paragraphs mainly about?

A.Environmental degradation made by humans.

B.The increasing poverty coming with illnesses.

C.The problems resulting from the growing population.

D.Water shortages caused by climate change and pollution.

2.How do governments react to human population?

A.They are too busy with other problems to solve it.

B.They avoid seeking solutions to reduce population.

C.They know the consequence and face the problem.

D.They think the population will decline in the future.

3.What is practical for birth control according to the passage?

A.Consuming much less than before.

B.Removing the right to have more children.

C.Decreasing population in developed areas.

D.Educating women and providing health care.

4.What is the author’s attitude to the ever-increasing human population?

A.Neutral. B.Concerned.

C.Skeptical. D.Indifferent.