1 . What is life? Like most great questions, this one is easy to ask but difficult to answer. The reason is simple: we know of just one type of life and it’s challenging to do science with a sample size of one. The field of artificial life-called ALife for short — is the systematic attempt to spell out life’s fundamental principles. Many of these practitioners, so-called ALifers, think that somehow making life is the surest way to really understand what life is.
So far no one has convincingly made artificial life. This track record makes ALife a ripe target for criticism, such as declarations of the field’s doubtful scientific value. Alan Smith, a complexity scientist, is tired of such complaints. Asking about “the point” of ALife might be, well, missing the point entirely, he says. “The existence of a living system is not about the use of anything.” Alan says. “Some people ask me, ‘So what’s the worth of artificial life?’ Do you ever think, ‘What is the worth of your grandmother?’”
As much as many ALifers hate emphasizing their research’s applications, the attempts to create artificial life could have practical payoffs. Artificial intelligence may be considered ALife’s cousin in that researchers in both fields are enamored by a concept called open-ended evolution (演化). This is the capacity for a system to create essentially endless complexity, to be a sort of “novelty generator”. The only system known to exhibit this is Earth’s biosphere. If the field of ALife manages to reproduce life’s endless “creativity” in some virtual model, those same principles could give rise to truly inventive machines.
Compared with the developments of Al, advances in ALife are harder to recognize. One reason is that ALife is a field in which the central concept — life itself — is undefined. The lack of agreement among ALifers doesn’t help either. The result is a diverse line of projects that each advance along their unique paths. For better or worse, ALife mirrors the very subject it studies. Its muddled (混乱的) progression is a striking parallel (平行线) to the evolutionary struggles that have shaped Earth biosphere.
Undefined and uncontrolled, ALife drives its followers to repurpose old ideas and generated novelty. It may be, of course, that these characteristics aren’t in any way surprising or singular. They may apply universally to all acts of evolution. Ultimately ALife may be nothing special. But even this dismissal suggests something：perhaps, just like life itself throughout the universe, the rise of ALife will prove unavoidable.
1. Regarding Alan Smith’s defence of ALife, the author is .| A．supportive | B．puzzled | C．unconcerned | D．doubtful |
| A．Shocked. | B．Protected. | C．Attracted. | D．Challenged. |
| A．ALife holds the key to human future. | B．ALife and AI share a common feature. |
| C．AI mirrors the developments of ALife. | D．AI speeds up the process of human evolution. |
| A．Life Is Undefined. Can AI Be a Way Out? |
| B．Life Evolves. Can AI Help ALife Evolve, Too? |
| C．Life Is Undefined. Can ALife Be Defined One Day? |
| D．Life Evolves. Can Attempts to Create ALife Evolve, Too? |
2 . “What would the world be if there were no hunger?” It’s a question that Professor Crystal would ask her students. They found it hard to answer, she wrote later, because imagining something that isn’t part of real life—and learning how to make it real—is a rare skill. It is taught to artists and engineers, but much less often to scientists. Crystal set out to change that, and helped to create a global movement. The result—an approach known as systems thinking—is now seen as essential in meeting global challenges.
Systems thinking is crucial to achieving targets such as zero hunger and better nutrition because it requires considering the way in which food is produced, processed, delivered and consumed, and looking at how those things intersect (交叉 ) with human health, the environment, economics and society. According to systems thinking, changing the food system—or any other network—requires three things to happen. First, researchers need to identify all the players in that system; second, they must work out how they relate to each other; and third, they need to understand and quantify the impact of those relationships on each other and on those outside the system.
Take nutrition. In the latest UN report on global food security, the number of undernourished (营养不良 )people in the world has been rising, despite great advances in nutrition science. Tracking of 150 biochemicals in food has been important in revealing the relationships between calories, sugar, fat and the occurrence of common diseases. But using machine learning and artificial intelligence, some scientists propose that human diets consist of at least 26,000 biochemicals—and that the vast majority are not known. This shows that we have some way to travel before achieving the first objective of systems thinking - which,in this example, is to identify more constituent parts of the nutrition system.
A systems approach to creating change is also built on the assumption that everyone in the system has equal power. But as some researchers find, the food system is not an equal one. A good way to redress (修正 ) such power imbalance is for more universities to do what Crystal did and teach students how to think using a systems approach.
More researchers, policymakers and representatives from the food industry must learn to look beyond their direct lines of responsibility and adopt a systems approach. Crystal knew that visions alone don’t produce results, but concluded that “we’ll never produce results that we can’t envision”.
1. The author uses the question underlined in Paragraph 1 to ________.| A．illustrate an argument | B．highlight an opinion |
| C．introduce the topic | D．predict the ending |
| A．The first objective of systems thinking hasn’t been achieved. |
| B．The relationships among players have been clarified. |
| C．Machine learning can solve the nutrition problem. |
| D．The impact of nutrition cannot be quantified. |
| A．It may be used to justify power imbalance. |
| B．It can be applied to tackle challenges. |
| C．It helps to prove why hunger exists. |
| D．It goes beyond human imagination. |
Recent research suggests that if an argument gets resolved，the emotional response tied to it is significantly reduced or almost completely erased．Thus，it may be worth bringing up issues with your friends， family members，or classmates rather than holding them back．
There is a difference between arguing and fighting．Arguing is that you and your opponent present your concerns and discuss the feelings and issues related to those concerns．You can engage in an argument respectfully without stirring up（激起） anger．Fighting，however，usually involves personal attacks，raising of voices， and storming out．Discussing your issues and resolving them instead of stuffing them down can improve your emotional health．In a study，2.000 people were asked to record their feelings and experiences for eight days in a row．When people had an argument that they considered resolved， they had half the reactivity （情绪反应） of those who avoided an argument．Reactivity is an increase in negative emotions or a decrease in positive emotions．In other words，resolving an argument cuts your negative feelings by half．One day later， people who had a resolved argument reported no increase of negative emotions compared with those who avoided an argument． This means that resolving an argument can feel like you have reached a state of resolution——and you are less likely to be annoyed．
Moreover，the older you are，the more likely you will come to a resolution after an argument．This may be because more life experience usually leads to more defined priorities．You are more likely to distinguish between what matters and what does not．
It is easier to avoid a discussion，but risking talking about it may eventually lead to a better outcome．
1. According to this passage，what is arguing？2. Why is it that“the older you are， the more likely you will come to a resolution after an argument”？
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement，then underline it and explain why．
Resolving arguments can improve your emotional health，because it increases your reactivity and reduces the chance of you getting angry．
4. In addition to improving emotional health，what do you think are some other benefits of resolving an argument？ （In about 40 words）
4 . 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 connection 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．
1. What is the main idea of Paragraph 1？| A．Timekeeping is increasingly related to nature． |
| B．Everyone can define time on their own terms． |
| C．The qualities of time vary with how you measure it． |
| D．Time is a major concern of philosophers and scientists． |
| A．present an assumption | B．evaluate an argument |
| C．highlight an experiment | D．introduce an approach |
| A．Those who do not go on river time will live an imbalanced life． |
| B．New ways of measuring time can help to control Earth systems． |
| C．Atomic time will get ahead of river time if the rivers run slower． |
| D．Modern technology may help to shape the rivers’ temporal frame． |
| A．It is crucial to improve the definition of time． |
| B．A fixed frame will make time meaningless． |
| C．We should live in harmony with nature． |
| D．History is a mirror reflecting reality． |
