关于生死的英语演讲稿

笑谈生死有数据显示近来自杀已成为我国人群第五位死因。

越来越多的自杀者提醒我们不得不慢下脚步静心思考一下这个严肃的问题：人类物质文明的发展与灵魂的发展是否仍在同一轨道上并行？为什么社会安定了、生活富足了人们却纷纷都不要命了？我认为是脆弱，是精神文明发展与物质文明发展的脱节所造成的。

一心只想着赚钱的现代人心灵脆弱得经不起一丁点挫折，社会物质财富逐渐丰裕的背景下，对于人们获取财富的能力要求就越来越高，而这种能力与财富基础息息相关，因此就必然地造成了贫富分化的加剧。

而自杀率最高的人群就集中在社会地位、经济、文化三方面水平最高和最低的部分。

三者俱高的自杀者很多，例如娱乐明星自杀事件就屡见不鲜，例如多年前的俏黄蓉“翁美玲”、张国荣、韩星崔真实、郑多彬等等等等。

这些人在个人的领域某一程度上已达到了顶点，展示出的是无限的风华，背后的内心世界却是极其孤独的。

当他们处在精神的困境时，习惯了独自吞咽所有痛苦，并不向他人倾诉或求助，这就注定了他们将一步步走向绝境。

三者俱低的自杀者让我想起一篇记录文革期间无数不堪迫害而自杀的名人的文章。

有位网友对此文评论道：“改革后，因生活压力大而自杀的老百姓，几百万，比你的那些个文人，要多多了。

”我们得承认，生活中确有让人生不如死的状况，比如文革时文人的处境，比如医学对许多疾病的无奈，又比如财富分配不均的社会现状，但我们得正视这些状况，文革被结束了、被批判了；医学科技正有无数人在夜以继日的研究着；社会保障体系也在虽然缓慢但也毕竟开始了的进行着，我们不能只要求客观环境改变而我们自身还是那么脆弱那么无知那么不完美，时代在不由分说地前进，如果你只愿停留，那么自杀便是你的错，怨不得别人了。

曾有位自杀者在死之前留下这样一句话：这个世界不符合我的梦想。

事实上，这个世界不符合大多数人的梦想，然而我们都活着，像他一样的人却都死了。

因为我们懂得，要么就倾尽一生地去实现梦想，哪怕不能实现也死而无憾，要么就把梦想与生活分开来，一面认真地生活，一面将梦想寄望于未来或别处，就如同祝愿分手的恋人在别时别处找到幸福一样，虽有小小的遗憾，但决不会轻生。

我们不仅是我们自己，我们都具有双重身份。

从社会人的角度看，用亚里士多德的话来说就是“自杀是对社会缺乏责任感的行径”，从个人角度看，自杀则是对个人生命价值的玷污。

有位网友说，世界太美了，我怕有比阳光更美好的东西，我还没看到就死，那就亏大了。

我相信这世界上还有许多我没看过的美景，你们相信吗？最后，我要说的是，或许有人会觉得，在校级刊物上不适合谈这样的话题，但我并不这样认为。

现代社会不应仅是科技现代化更应是理念的现代化：而大学也不应仅是规模大更应是思想大。

闭口不提是一种逃避，它绝不是对死亡应有的态度，那是愚昧的表现。

当我们能以积极健康的心态笑谈生死的时候，才是我们最懂生命的时候。

篇二：英语演讲：我们该选择死亡吗？shall we choose death? almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one ormore of these issues; but i want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings for themoment and consider yourself only as a member of a biological species which has hada remarkable history and whose disappearance none of us can desire. i shall try tosay no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. all,equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they maycollectively avert it. we have to learn to think in a new way. we have to learn toask ourselves not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever groupwe prefer, for there no longer are such steps. the question we have to ask ourselvesis: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue mustbe disastrous to all sides? the general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realizedwhat would be involved in a war with hydrogen bombs. the general public still thinksin terms of the obliteration of cities. it is understood that the new bombs are morepowerful than the old and that, while one atomic bomb could obliterate hiroshima,one hydrogen bomb could obliterate the largest cities such as london, new york, andmoscow. no doubt in a hydrogen-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. but thisis one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. if everybody in london,new york, and moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a fewcenturies, recover from the blow. but we now know, especially since the bikini test,that hydrogen bombs can gradually spread destruction over a much wider area than hadbeen supposed. it is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufacturedwhich will be 25,000 times as powerful as that which destroyed hiroshima. such a bomb,if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radioactive particles into the upperair. they sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadlydust or rain. it was this dust which infected the japanese fishermen and their catchof fish although they were outside what american experts believed to be the dangerzone. no one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused,but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with hydrogen bombs isquite likely to put an end to the human race. it is feared that if many hydrogen bombsare used there will be universal death - sudden only for a fortunate minority, butfor the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration... here, then, is the problem which i present to you, stark and dreadful andinescapable: shall we put an end to the human race1 or shall mankind renounce war? people will not facethis alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. the abolition of war willdemand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. but what perhaps impedesunderstanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term mankind feelsvague and abstract. people scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is tothemselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimlyapprehended humanity and so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continueprovided modern weapons are prohibited. i am afraid this hope is illusory. whateveragreements not to use hydrogen bombs had been reached in time of peace, they wouldno longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work tomanufacture hydrogen bombs as soon as war broke out, for if one side manufacturedthe bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitablybe victorious...i cannot believe that this is to be the end. i would have men forget their quarrelsfor a moment and reflect that, if they will allow themselves to survive, there isevery reason to expect the triumphs of the future to exceed immeasurably the triumphsof the past. there lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness,knowledge, and wisdom. shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget ourquarrels? i appeal, as a human being to human beings: remember your humanity, andforget the rest. if you can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot,nothing lies before you but universal death.我们该选择死亡吗？我不是作为一个英国人、一个欧洲人、一个西方民主国家的一员，而是作为一个人，作为不知是否还能继续生存下去的人类的一员在讲演。