1 . Plastic-Eating Worms

Humans produce more than 300 million tons of plastic every year. Almost half of that winds up in landfills (垃圾填埋场), and up to 12 million tons pollute the oceans. So far there is no effective way to get rid of it, but a new study suggests an answer may lie in the stomachs of some hungry worms.

Researchers in Spain and England recently found that the worms of the greater wax moth can break down polyethylene, which accounts for 40% of plastics. The team left 100 wax worms on a commercial polyethylene shopping bag for 12 hours, and the worms consumed and broke down about 92 milligrams, or almost 3% of it. To confirm that the worms’ chewing alone was not responsible for the polyethylene breakdown, the researchers made some worms into paste (糊状物) and applied it to plastic films. 14 hours later the films had lost 13% of their mass — apparently broken down by enzymes (酶) from the worms’ stomachs. Their findings were published in Current Biology in 2017.

Federica Bertocchini, co-author of the study, says the worms’ ability to break down their everyday food — beeswax — also allows them to break down plastic. “Wax is a complex mixture, but the basic bond in polyethylene, the carbon-carbon bond, is there as well,” she explains, “The wax worm evolved a method or system to break this bond.”

Jennifer DeBruyn, a microbiologist at the University of Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, says it is not surprising that such worms can break down polyethylene. But compared with previous studies, she finds the speed of breaking down in this one exciting. The next step, DeBruyn says, will be to identify the cause of the breakdown. Is it an enzyme produced by the worm itself or by its gut microbes (肠道微生物)?

Bertocchini agrees and hopes her team’s findings might one day help employ the enzyme to break down plastics in landfills. But she expects using the chemical in some kind of industrial process — not simply “millions of worms thrown on top of the plastic.”

It can be inferred from the last paragraph that the chemical might ________.

2 . By the end of the century, if not sooner, the world’s oceans will be bluer and greener thanks to a warming climate, according to a new study.

At the heart of the phenomenon lie tiny marine microorganisms (海洋微生物) called phytoplankton. Because of the way light reflects off the organisms, these phytoplankton create colourful patterns at the ocean surface. Ocean colour varies from green to blue, depending on the type and concentration of phytoplankton. Climate change will fuel the growth of phytoplankton in some areas, while reducing it in other spots, leading to changes in the ocean’s appearance.

Phytoplankton live at the ocean surface, where they pull carbon dioxide (二氧化碳) into the ocean while giving off oxygen. When these organisms die, they bury carbon in the deep ocean, an important process that helps to regulate the global climate. But phytoplankton are vulnerable to the ocean’s warming trend. Warming changes key characteristics of the ocean and can affect phytoplankton growth, since they need not only sunlight and carbon dioxide to grow, but also nutrients.

Stephanie Dutkiewicz, a scientist in MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, built a climate model that projects changes to the oceans throughout the century. In a world that warms up by 3℃, it found that multiple changes to the colour of the oceans would occur. The model projects that currently blue areas with little phytoplankton could become even bluer. But in some waters, such as those of the Arctic, a warming will make conditions riper for phytoplankton, and these areas will turn greener. “Not only are the quantities of phytoplankton in the ocean changing.” she said, “but the type of phytoplankton is changing.”

And why does that matter? Phytoplankton are the base of the food web. If certain kinds begin to disappear from the ocean, Dutkiewicz said, “it will change the type of fish that will be able to survive.” Those kinds of changes could affect the food chain.

Whatever colour changes the ocean experiences in the coming decades will probably be too gradual and unnoticeable, but they could mean significant changes. “It’ll be a while before we can statistically show that the changes are happening because of climate change,” Dutkiewicz said, “but the change in the colour of the ocean will be one of the early warning signals that we really have changed our planet.”

3 . Live with roommates? Have friends and family around you? Chances are that if you’re looking to live a more sustainable lifestyle, not everyone around you will be ready to jump on that bandwagon.

I experienced this when I started switching to a zero waste lifestyle five years ago, as I was living with my parents, and I continue to experience this with my husband, as he is not completely zero waste like me. I’ve learned a few things along the way though, which I hope you’ll find encouraging if you’re doing your best to figure out how you can make the change in a not-always-supportive household.

Zero waste was a radical lifestyle movement a few years back. I remember showing my parents a video of Bea Johnson, sharing how cool I thought it would be to buy groceries with jars, and have so little trash! A few days later, I came back with my first jars of zero waste groceries, and my dad commented on how silly it was for me to carry jars everywhere. It came off as a bit discouraging.

Yet as the months of reducing waste continued, I did what I could that was within my own reach. I had my own bedroom, so I worked on removing things I didn’t need. Since I had my own toiletries (洗漱用品), I was able to start personalising my routine to be more sustainable. I also offered to cook every so often, so I portioned out a bit of the cupboard for my own zero waste groceries. Perhaps your household won’t entirely make the switch, but you may have some control over your own personal spaces to make the changes you desire.

As you make your lifestyle changes, you may find yourself wanting to speak up for yourself if others comment on what you’re doing, which can turn itself into a whole household debate. If you have individuals who are not on board, your words probably won’t do much and can often leave you feeling more discouraged.

So here is my advice: Lead by action.

What was the attitude of the author’s father toward buying groceries with jars?

4 . Live with roommates? Have friends and family around you? Chances are that if you’re looking to live a more sustainable lifestyle, not everyone around you will be ready to jump on that bandwagon.

I experienced this when I started switching to a zero waste lifestyle five years ago, as I was living with my parents, and I continue to experience this with my husband, as he is not completely zero waste like me. I’ve learned a few things along the way though, which I hope you’ll find encouraging if you’re doing your best to figure out how you can make the change in a not-always-supportive household.

Zero waste was a radical lifestyle movement a few years back. I remember showing my parents a video of Bea Johnson, sharing how cool I thought it would be to buy groceries with jars, and have so little trash! A few days later, I came back with my first jars of zero waste groceries, and my dad commented on how silly it was for me to carry jars everywhere. It came off as a bit discouraging.

Yet as the months of reducing waste continued, I did what I could that was within my own reach. I had my own bedroom, so I worked on removing things I didn’t need. Since I had my own toiletries (洗漱用品), I was able to start personalising my routine to be more sustainable. I also offered to cook every so often, so I portioned out a bit of the cupboard for my own zero waste groceries. Perhaps your household won’t entirely make the switch, but you may have some control over your own personal spaces to make the changes you desire.

As you make your lifestyle changes, you may find yourself wanting to speak up for yourself if others comment on what you’re doing, which can turn itself into a whole household debate. If you have individuals who are not on board, your words probably won’t do much and can often leave you feeling more discouraged.

So here is my advice: Lead by action.

What can we infer about the author?

5 . I was about 13 when an uncle gave me a copy of Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World. It was full of ideas that were new to me, so I spent the summer with my head in and out of that book. It spoke to me and brought me into a world of philosophy (哲学).

That love for philosophy lasted until I got to college. Nothing kills the love for philosophy faster than people who think they understand Foucault, Baudrillard, or Confucius better than you — and then try to explain them.

Eric Weiner’s The Socrates Express: In Search of Life Lessons from Dead Philosophers reawakened my love for philosophy. It is not an explanation, but an invitation to think and experience philosophy.

Weiner starts each chapter with a scene on a train ride between cities and then frames each philosopher’s work in the context (背景) of one thing they can help us do better. The end result is a read in which we learn to wonder like Socrates, see like Thoreau, listen like Schopenhauer, and have no regrets like Nietzsche. This, more than a book about understanding philosophy, is a book about learning to use philosophy to improve a life.

He makes philosophical thought an appealing exercise that improves the quality of our experiences, and he does so with plenty of humor. Weiner enters into conversation with some of the most important philosophers in history, and he becomes part of that crowd in the process by decoding (解读) their messages and adding his own interpretation.

The Socrates Express is a fun, sharp book that draws readers in with its apparent simplicity and gradually pulls them in deeper thoughts on desire, loneliness, and aging. The invitation is clear: Weiner wants you to pick up a coffee or tea and sit down with this book. I encourage you to take his offer. It’s worth your time, even if time is something we don’t have a lot of.

What does the author think of Weiner’s book?

6 . Terri Bolton is a dab hand when it comes to DIY (do-it-yourself). Skilled at putting up shelves and piecing together furniture, she never pays someone else to do a job she can do herself.

She credits these skills to her late grandfather and builder Derek Lloyd. From the age of six, Terri, now 26, accompanied Derek to work during her school holidays. A day’s work was rewarded with £5 in pocket money. She says: “I’m sure I wasn’t much of a help to start with, painting the rooms and putting down the flooring throughout the house. It took weeks and it was backbreaking work, but I know he was proud of my skills.”

Terri, who now rents a house with friends in Wandsworth, South West London, says DIY also saves her from losing any deposit when a tenancy (租期) comes to an end. She adds: “I’ve moved house many times and I always like to personalise my room and put up pictures, so, it’s been useful to know how to cover up holes and repaint a room to avoid any charges when I’ve moved out.”

With millions of people likely to take on DIY projects over that coming weeks, new research shows that more than half of people are planning to make the most of the long, warm summer days to get jobs done. The average spend per project will be around £823. Two thirds of people aim to improve their comfort while at home. Two fifths wish to increase the value of their house. Though DIY has traditionally been seen as male hobby, the research shows it is women now leading the charge.

Why did Terri’s grandfather give her £5 a day?

7 . Grizzly bears, which may grow to about 2.5 m long and weigh over 400 kg, occupy a conflicted corner of the American psyche — we revere (敬畏) them even as they give us frightening dreams. Ask the tourists from around the world that flood into Yellowstone National Park what they most hope to see, and their answer is often the same: a grizzly bear.

“Grizzly bears are re-occupying large areas of their former range,” says bear biologist Chris Servheen. As grizzly bears expand their range into places where they haven’t been seen in a century or more, they’re increasingly being sighted by humans.

The western half of the US was full of grizzlies when Europeans came, with a rough number of 50,000 or more living alongside Native Americans. By the early 1970s, after centuries of cruel and continuous hunting by settlers, 600 to 800 grizzlies remained on a mere 2 percent of their former range in the Northern Rockies. In 1975, grizzlies were listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Today, there are about 2,000 or more grizzly bears in the US. Their recovery has been so successful that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has twice attempted to delist grizzlies, which would loosen legal protections and allow them to be hunted. Both efforts were overturned due to lawsuits from conservation groups. For now, grizzlies remain listed.

Obviously, if precautions (预防) aren’t taken, grizzlies can become troublesome, sometimes killing farm animals or walking through yards in search of food. If people remove food and attractants from their yards and campsites, grizzlies will typically pass by without trouble. Putting electric fencing around chicken houses and other farm animal quarters is also highly effective at getting grizzlies away. “Our hope is to have a clean, attractant-free place where bears can pass through without learning bad habits,” says James Jonkel, longtime biologist who manages bears in and around Missoula.

How do Americans look at grizzlies?

8 . Many people would answer the question of what makes us human by insisting that we are cultural beings. There is no doubt that we are. But one definition of culture is the totality of traditions acquired in a community by social learning from other individuals, and many animal species have traditions. Can we then say that some animals are cultural beings too?

One approach to study culture in animals is the so-called Method of Exclusion (排除), in which scientists investigate behavioral variations across populations of one species. In a famous study, scientists learned that chimpanzee (黑猩猩) behaviors were socially passed on as they were present at some sites but not at others, despite having same ecological settings. For example, chimpanzees in Tai National Park in Ivory Coast are well-known for their nut-cracking skills. Chimpanzees in Gombe national part in Tanzania, on the other hand, do not crack nuts, although nuts exist in their environment too.

However, when applying the Method of Exclusion, one has to be very careful. There are other factors that could also explain the pattern of behavioral evaluation. For example, some of the chimpanzee techniques scientists evaluated occur in only one of the three subspecies. So it’s quite possible that these behaviors also have an innate component. This would mean that one chimpanzee subspecies uses a new technique not out of cultural tradition, but because the behavior is fixed to specific genes. Another factor that has to be excluded is of course the environment Chimpanzees in Mahale do not fish algae (水藻), simply because algae does not exist there.

But when we exclude all the variations that can be explained by genes or environment, we still find that animals do show cultural variations. Does that mean there is no real difference between them and us after all? Not exactly: There is a fundamental difference between human and animal culture. Only humans can build culturally on what generations before us have learned. This is called “cumulative culture”. We don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. This is called the “ratchet (棘轮) effect”. Like a ratchet that can be turned forward but not back, people’s cultural techniques evolve.

It is likely that behaviors we see today in chimpanzee cultures could be invented over and over again by individual animals themselves. In contrast, a child born today would not be able to invent a computer without the knowledge of many past generations.

9 . When Elinor Lobel was 16, a “smart” insulin (胰岛素) pump was attached to her body. Powered by AI, it tracks her glucose levels and administers the right dose of insulin at the right time to keep her healthy. It is one of the new ways that data and AI can help improve lives.

Books that criticize the dark side of data are plentiful. They generally suggest there is much more to fear than fete in the algorithmic(算法的)age.

But the intellectual tide may be turning. One of the most persuasive supporters of a more balanced view is Elinor Lobel’s mother, Orly, a law professor. In The Equality Machine she acknowledges AI’s capacity to produce harmful results. But she shows how, in the right hands, it can also be used to fight inequality and discrimination.

A principle of privacy rules is “minimization”: collect and keep as little information as possible, especially in areas such as race and gender. Ms Lobel flips the script, showing how in hiring, pay and the legal system, knowing such characteristics leads to fairer outcomes.

Ms Lobel’s call to use more, not less, personal information challenges data-privacy orthodoxy(正统观念). But she insists that “tracking differences is key to detecting unfairness.” She advocates g loosening of privacy rules to provide more transparency(透明)over algorithmic decisions.

The problems with algorithmic formulae(公式) are tackled in depth in Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson of the School of Economics. These statistical models are the backbone of big data and AL. Yet a perfect model will always be beyond reach. “All models are wrong,” runs a wise saying. “Some are useful.”

Ms Thompson focuses on a challenge she calls the Hawkmoth Effect. In the better known Butterfly Effect, a serviceable model, Vin the prediction of climate change, becomes less reliable over time because of the complexity of what it is simulating(模拟), or because of inaccuracies in the original data. In the Hawkmoth Effect, by contrast, the model itself is flawed; it might fail to take full account of the interplay between humidity, wind and temperature.

The author calls on data geeks to improve their solutions to real-world issues, not merely refine their formulae—in other words, to escape from model land. “We do not need to have the best possible answer,” she writes, “only a reasonable one.”

Both these books exhibit a healthy realism about data, algorithms and their limitations. Both recognize that making progress involves accepting limitations, whether in law or coding. As Ms Lobel puts it: “It’s always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”

10 . Many people would answer the question of what makes us human by insisting that we are cultural beings. There is no doubt that we are. But one definition of culture is the totality of traditions acquired in a community by social learning from other individuals, and many animal species have traditions. Can we then say that some animals are cultural beings too?

One approach to study culture in animals is the so-called Method of Exclusion (排除), in which scientists investigate behavioral variations across populations of one species. In a famous study, scientists learned that chimpanzee (黑猩猩) behaviors were socially passed on as they were present at some sites but not at others, despite having same ecological settings. For example, chimpanzees in Tai National Park in Ivory Coast are well-known for their nut-cracking skills. Chimpanzees in Gombe national part in Tanzania, on the other hand, do not crack nuts, although nuts exist in their environment too.

However, when applying the Method of Exclusion, one has to be very careful. There are other factors that could also explain the pattern of behavioral evaluation. For example, some of the chimpanzee techniques scientists evaluated occur in only one of the three subspecies. So it’s quite possible that these behaviors also have an innate component. This would mean that one chimpanzee subspecies uses a new technique not out of cultural tradition, but because the behavior is fixed to specific genes. Another factor that has to be excluded is of course the environment Chimpanzees in Mahale do not fish algae (水藻), simply because algae does not exist there.

But when we exclude all the variations that can be explained by genes or environment, we still find that animals do show cultural variations. Does that mean there is no real difference between them and us after all? Not exactly: There is a fundamental difference between human and animal culture. Only humans can build culturally on what generations before us have learned. This is called “cumulative culture”. We don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. This is called the “ratchet (棘轮) effect”. Like a ratchet that can be turned forward but not back, people’s cultural techniques evolve.

It is likely that behaviors we see today in chimpanzee cultures could be invented over and over again by individual animals themselves. In contrast, a child born today would not be able to invent a computer without the knowledge of many past generations.