2 . In the 19th century, an Arab physician known as Ibn Zuhr conducted some animal research to assess the surgical procedures that could be applicable to humans. Since then, animal testing has been considered to be the most efficient way to develop new drugs. New medical treatments and drugs are tested on animals first to determine their effectiveness or safety levels before they are finally tested on humans. However, it remains controversial whether it is morally right or wrong to use animals for medical or commercial experiments.

The use of animals for medical purposes is seen to be necessary by many scientists. Researchers usually begin their trials using rats. If the tests are successful, further tests are done on monkeys before using human beings. For testing, such tiered (分层的) rounds are important because it reduces the level of error and any negative side effects. Some argue that animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments and that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. Moreover, there are regulations for animal testing that limit the misuse of animals during research, which serves as evidence that animals are well taken care of and treated well instead of being intentionally harmed.

However, some other experts and animal welfare groups have opposed such practice, terming it inhumane and claiming it should be banned. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force-feeding, radiation exposure, operations to deliberately cause damage and frightening situations to create depression and anxiety. They also hold the view that animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. Animal tests on the arthritis (关节炎) drug Vioxx showed that it would have a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks before being pulled from the market.

It’s safe to say that using animals for tests will continue to be debated in many years to come. Despite the benefits of animal testing, some of the animal welfare organizations’ concerns need to be addressed with adequate regulations to ensure that animals are treated humanely.

3 . Some people worry that there’s too much technology in our lives. And they may have a point, given how countless people now carry the Internet around in their pocket and use it as a primary form of communication. It’s practically difficult to shun technology in our world. There are computer microchips in our watches, our cars, light switches, even our pets! Where will it end?

Well, if certain people have their way, it’ll go even further. We’ll have microchips implanted into our brains that can interact with the computers by thought alone. It may sound like something from the science fiction, but in many ways, things look quite promising. Thanks to the ability to send and receive information remotely via computers, microchips and other related devices have long been put into brains.

For example, electrodes have been implanted in the brains of epilepsy patients to better record and even predict the abnormal neurological activity. Similarly, deep-brain stimulation, through implanted devices that cause activity in key brain regions, is an established treatment for things like Parkinson’s disease, and is even being looked into for illnesses like depression.

However, it’s another thing to place such devices in healthy individuals. There are the practical concerns, not least of which is what these chips will be made of. The inside of the brain is a mass of highly reactive chemicals and electrical activity. Implants would need to be dull enough to not upset the delicate processes by their presence, but also sensitive enough to read and process the activity around them. Current technology has made impressive progress with this, but if it were to be rolled out to millions of people, we’d need to be 100 per cent certain that it’s safe.

How many people will actually want to have technology literally put into their brain? A surprising 60 percent of Americans say they’d be okay with it, but that’s when it’s purely theoretical. In reality, the possibility of having strangers stick chips in your brain is likely to prove unattractive, especially for a population where millions get mad at fictional microchips in vaccines (疫苗), and even more are frightened of dentists.

Ultimately, the technology of computer-brain interface (接口) implants is still far away from us.

4 . As environmental concerns continue to increase, many people are left wondering how they can balance the need to travel with the need to protect the planet. One particular dilemma that has received significant attention is air travel.

Air travel is known to be one of the most carbon-intensive forms of travel. According to a report by the European Environment Agency, aviation (航空) is responsible for around 3% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that number is expected to grow in the coming years. In addition, aircraft contribute to other types of air pollution, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

For environmentalists who advocate for reducing our carbon footprint, this brings up a difficult question: should we avoid flying altogether?

On one hand, it’s easy to see why environmentalists would want to keep away from air travel. By doing so, they could dramatically reduce their carbon footprint and set an example for others. Additionally, some argue that air travel perpetuates (使永久) a culture of over-consumption, which is contradictory to environmental values.

However, there are also arguments in favor of air travel: For one, air travel enables people to experience different cultures, build relationships, and expand their knowledge in ways that might not be possible otherwise. It can also facilitate business trades and contribute to economic growth. Moreover, some experts believe that technological advancements could make air travel more sustainable in the future. For example, some airlines are experimenting with biofuels and electric planes, which could dramatically reduce the emissions associated with air travel.

So what’s the answer? Ultimately, it’s up to each individual to decide whether the benefits of air travel outweigh the environmental costs. However, there are steps that everyone can take to reduce their impact. For example, travelers can choose to fly less frequently, decide on direct flights, and offset (抵消) their emissions through programs like carbon offsetting. In the end, the key is to remain aware of the environmental impact of our choices and to make informed decisions based on our own values and priorities.

6 . We are all aware of the damaging pollution that’s created by driving petrol and diesel (柴油) vehicles. Many of the world’s cities are blocked with traffic, creating fumes containing gases such as nitrogen oxides. The solution for a cleaner, greener future could be electric vehicles. But how optimistic should we be? There was much excitement last year when the UK government announced it will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. But is that easier said than done?

The road to global traffic being totally electric is still a long way off. Currently, battery life is an issue — a fully charged battery won’t take you as far as a full tank of petrol. There are also limited numbers of charging points to plug an EV into. Of course, technology is always improving. Some of the biggest tech companies, like Google and Tesla, are spending huge amounts of money developing electric cars. And most of the big car manufacturers are now making them too. Colin Herron, a consultant on low-carbon vehicle technology, told the BBC: “The big leap forward will come with solid state batteries, which will appear first in mobile phones and laptops before they progress to cars.” These will charge more quickly and give cars a bigger range. Cost is another issue that may discourage people switching to electric power. But some countries offer incentive, such as cutting prices by reducing import taxes, and not charging for road tax and parking. Some also provide exclusive lanes for electric cars to be driven on, overtaking traditional cars which might be stuck in jams.

These kinds of measures have made Norway the country with the most electric cars per capita (人均) at more than thirty electric cars per 1000 inhabitants. But Colin Herron warns that “electric motoring” doesn’t mean a zero-carbon future. “It’s emission-free motoring, but the car has to be built, the battery has to be built, and the electricity does come from somewhere.” Maybe it’s time to think about making fewer journeys or using public transport.

7 . I strongly believe that individual actions make a difference to our environment. I’ve been a vegetarian for more than two decades, choose to be child-free partially because I can’t justify my genes’ importance over the shocking amount of resources needed for raising another American, and haven’t owned a car in four years. Those things, over time, will absolutely reduce my impact on our beautiful world, and the more people do them, the greater the impact is.

But it’s not nearly enough.

While I will continue to do my part to fight climate change, I have to wonder why there isn’t an equal effort by those who have the biggest impact. According to a recent report, 71% of greenhouse gases are produced by just 100 companies. Surely, working to minimize their emissions (排放物) will do far more, much faster than me talking people’s ears off on Facebook about eating less meat. After all, I have been doing that kind of work for 20 years now, and we are still headed towards climate disaster.

Why should so much of the solution to global warming be on the shoulders of individuals?

When President Kennedy decided we needed to beat the Russians to the moon landing, he didn’t encourage housewives to figure out bow to get there. He got the smartest and most talented people together to solve the challenges. NASA got us there, with lots of hard work and late nights, and also full encouragement and funding from the US government.

But this is not the case with climate change. Big companies are let off the hook while we take on the huge burden of dealing with the emissions of the biggest and most powerful. That strikes me as just plain unfair. The serious threats of climate change require an all-hand-on-deck response. Corporations need to do their part, because I can’t do it on my own.

9 . Early fifth-century philosopher St. Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him. Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it. Today’s state-of-the-art atomic(原子的) clocks have proven Einstein right. Even advanced physics can’t decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you’re asking.

Forget about time as an absolute. What if, instead of considering time in terms of astronomy, we related time to ecology? What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo(节奏) of human life? We’re increasingly aware of the fact that we can’t control Earth systems with engineering alone, and realizing that we need to moderate(调节) our actions if we hope to live in balance. What if our definition of time reflected that?

Recently, I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that’s connected to circumstances on our planet, conditions that might change as a result of global warming. We’re now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers, which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes. We’ve programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate. If the rivers run faster in the future on average, the clock will get ahead of standard time. If they run slower, you’ll see the opposite effect.

The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics. It’s a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame(时间框架), and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones. Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet. Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies.

Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars, early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena. In pre-Classical Greece, for instance, people “corrected” official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season. Temporal connect ion to the environment was vital to their survival. Likewise, river. time and other timekeeping systems we’re developing may encourage environmental awareness.

When St. Augustine admitted his inability to define time, he highlighted one of time’s most noticeable qualities: Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context. Any timekeeping system is valid, and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose.

10 . Think “art”. What comes to your mind? Is it Greek or Roman sculptures in the Louvre, or Chinese paintings in the Palace Museum? Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a dancing pattern of lights?

The artworks by American artist Janet Echelman look like colourful floating clouds when they are lit up at night. Visitors to one of her artworks in Vancouver could not only enjoy looking at it, they could also interact with it-literally. They did this by using their phones to change its colours and patterns. Exhibits such as these are certainly new and exciting, but are they really art?

Whatever your opinion, people have been expressing their thoughts and ideas through art for thousands of years. To do this, they have used a variety of tools and technologies. Yet Michelangelo and others have been labelled (定义) as “artists”, but not “technicians”. This means that art and technology, have always been seen as two very separate (不同的) things.

Today, however, technological advances have led to a combination of art and technology. As a result, the art world is changing greatly. Now art is more accessible to us than ever before. Take for example one of China’s most famous paintings from the Song Dynasty, Along the River During the Qingming Festival. As this artwork is rarely on display, people have sometimes queued up to six hours for a chance to see it. Once in front of the painting, they only have limited time to spend taking in its five metres of scenes along the Bian River in Bianjing. Thanks to technology however, millions more people have been able to experience a digital version of this painting. Three-dimensional (3D) animation means that viewers can see the characters move around and interact with their surroundings. They can also watch as the different scenes change from daylight into nighttime.

The art-tech combination (结合) is also changing our concepts of “art” and the “artist”. Not only can we interact with art, but also take part in its creation. With new technological tools at our fingertips, more and more people are exploring their creative sides. The result has been exciting new art forms, such as digital paintings and videos.

However, where technology will take art next is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure—with so many artists exploring new possibilities, we can definitely expect the unexpected.