1 . The rate of childhood obesity in the U. S. has tripled over the past 50 years. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) made waves this year by recommending that doctors put obese kids as young as two years old on intensive, family-oriented lifestyle and behavior plans. It also suggested prescribing weight-loss drugs to children l2 and older and surgery to teens 13 and older. This advice reflects the organization’s adoption of a more active position on childhood obesity.

Yet the lifestyle programs the AAP recommends are expensive, inaccessible to most children and hard to maintain. Few weight-loss drugs have been approved for children. And surgery has potential risks and few long-term safety data. Furthermore, it’s not clear whether interventions in youngsters help to improve health or merely add to the psychological burden overweight kids face from the society.

Rather than paying close attention to numbers on a scale, the U. S. and countries with similar trends should focus on an underlying truth: we need to invest in more and safer places for children to play where they can move and run around, climb and jump, ride and skate.

Why is it so hard to get kids moving? Experts blame the problem on the privatization of sports — as public investment in school-based athletics dwindles, expensive private leagues have grown, leaving many kids out. In addition to fewer opportunities at school, researchers cite increased screen time and a lack of safe places for them to play outside the home. New York City, for example, had 2,067 public playgrounds as of 2019 — a very small amount for its large population. In Los Angeles in 2015, only 33 percent of youths lived within walking distance of a park.

Kids everywhere need more places to play. Public funding to build and keep up these areas is crucial, but other options such as shared-use agreements can make unused spaces available to the public. These opportunities aren’t primarily about changing children’s waistlines — they’re how we keep childhood healthy and fun.

2 . Americans no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist (善辩者) of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English.

Blaming the permissive 1960s is nothing new, but this is not yet another criticism against the decline in education. Mr. McWhorter’s academic specialty is language history and change, and he sees the gradual disappearance of “whom,” for example, to be natural and no more regrettable than the loss of the case-endings of Old English.

But the cult of the authentic and the personal, “doing our own thing”, has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft.

Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like, care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive — there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas. He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper.

Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English-speakers. Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms — he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English “on paper plates instead of china”. A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.

3 . Obese people experience discrimination (歧视) in many parts of their lives, and the workplace is no exception. Studies have long shown that obese workers, defined as those with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, earn significantly less than their slimmer co-workers.

Yet the costs of weight discrimination may be even greater than previously thought. “The overwhelming evidence,” wrote the Institute for employment Studies, “is that it is only women living with obesity who experience the obesity wage penalty (薪资损失).” They were expressing a view that is widely aired in academic papers. To test it, The Economist has analyzed data concerning 23,000 workers from the American Time Use Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labour Statistics. Our number-processing suggests that, in fact, being obese hurts the earnings of both women and men.

The data we analyzed cover men and women aged between 25 and 54 and in full-time employment. At a general level, it is true that men’s BMIs are unrelated to their wages. But that changes for men with university degrees. For them, obesity is associated with a wage penalty of nearly 8%, even after accounting for the separate effects of age, race, graduate education and marital status.

The conclusion — that well-educated workers in particular are penalized for their weight — holds for both sexes. Moreover, the higher your level of education, the greater the penalty. We found that obese men with a Bachelor’s degree (学士学位) earn 5% less than their thinner colleagues, while those with a Master’s degree earn 14% less. Obese women, it is true, still have it worse: for them, the equivalent figures are 12% and 19%, respectively (分别地).

Your line of work makes a difference, too. When we dealt with the numbers for individual occupations and industries, we found the greatest differences in high-skilled jobs. Obese workers in health care, for example, make 11% less than their slimmer colleagues; those in management roles make roughly 9% less, on average. In sectors such as construction and agriculture, meanwhile, obesity is actually associated with higher wages.

These results suggest that the total costs of wage discrimination borne by overweight workers in America are greater than expected. Now, it’s time for our governments to take it seriously.

5 . Falling birth rates are a major concern for some of Asia’s biggest economies. Government s in the region are spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reverse the trend. Will it work?

Japan began introducing policies to encourage couples to have more children in the 1990s. South Korea started doing the same in the 2000s, while Singapore’s first fertility (生育) policy dates back to 1987. China, which has seen its population fall for the first time in 60 years, recently joined the growing club.

While it is difficult to quantify exactly how much these policies have cost, South Korean President YoonSuk-yeol recently said his country had spent more than $200bn (£160bn) over the past 16 years on trying to boost the population. Yet last year South Korea broke its own record for the world’s lowest fertility rate, with the average number of babies expected per woman falling to 0.78. In neighbouring Japan, which had record low births of fewer than 800,000 last year, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has promised to double the budget for child-related policies from 10tn yen ($74.7bn; £59.2bn).

Having a bigger population who can work and produce more goods and services leads to higher economic growth. And while a larger population can mean higher costs for governments, it can also result in bigger tax revenues (税收). Also, many Asian countries are ageing rapidly. Japan leads the pack with nearly 30% of its population now over the age of 65 and some other nations in the region are not far behind. Compare that with India, which has just overtaken China as the world’s most populous nation. More than a quarter of its people are between the age of 10 and 20, which gives its economy huge potential for growth. And when the share of the working age population gets smaller, the cost and burden of looking after the non-working population grow. “Negative population growth has an impact on the economy, and together with an ageing population, they won’t be able to afford to support the elderly,” said Xiujian Peng of Victoria University.

6 . Cruise through many neighborhoods or parks around the world, and you will find no shortage of well-mowed expanses of grass. Lawns (草坪) do look attractive.     1     Additionally, they can require environmentally questionable practices to maintain. Researchers and landscape architects are increasingly considering alternatives that are more sustainable, demand fewer resources and help people connect more intimately with nature. Here follows an edited excerpt of the conversation between researchers MariaIgnatieva and Marcus Hedblom.

Why did lawns become so popular?

    2     They were like a special frontier that separated cities and towns from the wilderness. A lawn was always a symbol of how a civilized society should be. That’s why it was so powerful. And of course, they are also important for recreation.

What environmental problems are lawns causing?

Lawns are homogenizing the environment, not only in terms of biodiversity but also visually. You compare countries’ and cities’ urban landscapes around the world, and they look exactly the same.     3    Mowers burn fossil fuels and emit gases that heat up the atmosphere.

    4       

You have to find your own local solution. We can take inspiration from the natural plant communities around us. In suburban and rural areas, that might mean having a meadow or prairie. In other places, it might be a savanna like environment or mountain plants. You can have a “grass-free” lawn; with only low-growing plants that create the same effect as a lawn, and you can walk on it.

How can we persuade people to adopt these alternatives?

When people see them, they appreciate them and like them.     5     We also have to try to change the minds of decision makers, including politicians. We need to show the public there are different ways of handling our urban environment and making it better.

7 . Leadership is a quality that is hard to define. Everyone can think of inspiring leaders from history but managers who think they can base their style on Nelson Mandela or Elizabeth I are suffering from misunderstandings of greatness.

The biggest mistake is to consider leadership entirely equal to charisma(魅力). Billy McFarland was just 25 when he set up the Fyre festival which promised attendees a luxury experience on a deserted island in the Bahamas. As shown by the Netflix documentary, “Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened”, Mr McFarland was an unusual salesman. He convinced investors that he was a visionary businessman and persuaded talented young people to work for him.

But he lacked the skills to put his vision into practice. Festival guests arrived to find their food consisted of cheese sandwiches, rather than first-class cuisine. They were housed not in luxury villas, but in tents left over from a hurricane-relief program. The whole event ended with Mr McFarland being sentenced to six years in prison.

His example could have been a case study for the book by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic— “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?(and how to fix it)”. As an organisational psychologist, he points out that people tend to assume that confident individuals are competent, when there is no actual relationship between the two qualities. Those confident people are promoted and then their abilities turn out to be over-estimated.

Mr Chamorro-Premuzic argues that competence is more important than charisma or confidence. Managers need enough presence to persuade their teams to follow the business plan, but they should think in terms of coaching rather than inspiration. Employees are more likely to be engaged with their work if they get frequent feedback from their bosses, and if they are involved in setting their own goals. Another key factor in leadership is the ability to set a good example. Subordinates(下属)notice what behaviour gets rewarded and which standards are set by the person at the top.

10 . Twenty-two years ago, I won a Nobel Prize, together with Tim and Leland Hartwell, for our work on how cells control their division.

The prize changed our lives. Suddenly you become a public figure being asked to do all sorts of things: to give lectures, quite often on topics you know little about; to sit on committees and reviews you are not always well qualified to be on; to visit countries you have barely heard of. It is like having a whole new extra job, with upwards of 500 requests a year.

A recent study suggests that in general the extra commitments that Nobel winners take on result in fewer papers after their awards. There may be some truth to this given the extra demands on one’s time, but of course prestigious awards also allow new projects and research to be undertaken.

What effects did the Nobel Prize have on my subsequent career and work? It has certainly helped me to get scientific leadership positions. Within a year of getting the prize I was offered and accepted the presidency of Rockefeller University in New York. Having the prize also helps to get things done. For example, I have been involved in the merging of two separate cancer research charities to form Cancer Research UK. And it has helped me support causes I care deeply about. I became an ambassador for Ukraine education and science to help raise money for schools in that shattered country. Moreover, having a Nobel does help attract high-quality research colleagues. I have just started three excellent new PhD   students. It is a privilege for me to be able to pursue curiosity-driven research at this late stage of my career.

However, one thing I am glad to say that the Nobel Prize did not influence was peer review from my fellow scientists, assessing the suitability of my own research for publication, and my grant applications for funding. My rejection rates have remained essentially the same before and after the prize. And that, of course, is exactly how it should be.