题目内容：

    "We must learn not to take traditional morals （道德）too seriously." So said the biologist J. B. S. Haldane in a 1923 talk on science and the future. Haldane forecasted that scientific progress would destroy every belief and value. The future would be bright only "if mankind can adjust its morality to its powers". Haldane had a point: our powers have led to challenges that have never existed before. Climate change is a threat unlike any we have ever seen. Our machines might become smarter than us. Genetic engineering（基因工程）could change humanity forever.

In the face of such challenges, our evolved moral sense often proves not enough. Part of the problem is scale （规模）.The anthropologist Robin Dunbar says we can keep no more than about 150 meaningful relationships at once. But today, all 7 billion of us are connected—if not in meaningful relationships, not in meaningless ones, either. “Society" is now too big a concept for our brains to analyze.

One result is conflicting demands that are hard to solve. The bad situation of our fellow humans makes us use every possible way to deal with climate change. But that could hurt our own way of life. And then there's the urge to just forget all that pressure and get on a plane to somewhere sunny. Given this cognitive（认知的）overload, our original emotional responses tend to win out. We do what feels right. But such responses don't necessarily produce the best results. So how can we make sure we do what really is right?

It's a hard nut, but never fear: moral philosophers are on the case. Some, such as those based at the Centre for Effective Altruism in Oxford, UK, aim to maximize the good we can do by quantifying the results of our actions. Many of their suggestions have raised eyebrows: that it may be better to become a generous banker than work for a charity, for example.

Others suggest modifying our moral brains directly, through drugs. The difficulties with this idea are obvious: who decides what makes improvement? Given the practical difficulties of large-scale morality hacking （入侵），we should perhaps stick to education. We are not simply prisoners of our emotions: we can reason our way to workable solutions. Science alone will not get us there. So no, we shouldn't take traditional morality too seriously where it fails to address modem problems.

1.J. B. S. Haldane forecasted that scientific development would ______.

A.lead to the corruption of public morals

B.present a challenge to traditional morals

C.bring disasters and fears to human beings

D.affect human beings powers of adjustment

2.We can learn from Paragraph 2 that ______.

A.collective wisdom is a good solution to modem challenges

B.Robin Dunbar thinks it is hard to build up meaningful relationships

C.our evolved moral sense is too limited to solve the problems of modem society

D.the large scale of social connections makes our relationships less meaningful

3.What is implied in the last paragraph?

A.Most people put the blame for modem problems on science.

B.Science can help with the modification of our moral brains.

C.The combination of reason and humanity can make more effective morality.

D.Human beings have a long way to go before they can overcome modem problems."