1 . Hundreds of scientists, writers and academics sounded a warning to humanity in an open letter published last December: Policymakers and the rest of us must engage openly with the risk of global collapse. Researchers in many areas have projected the widespread collapse as “a credible scenario(情景) this century”.
A survey of scientists found that extreme weather events, food insecurity, and freshwater shortages might create global collapse. Of course, if you are a non-human species, collapse is well underway.
The call for public engagement with the unthinkable is especially germane in this moment of still-uncontrolled pandemic and economic crises in the world's most technologically advanced nations. Not very long ago, it was also unthinkable that a virus would shut down nations and that safety nets would be proven so disastrously lacking in flexibility.
The international scholars’ warning letter doesn't say exactly what collapse will look like or when it might happen. Collapseology, the study of collapse, is more concerned with identifying trends and with them the dangers of everyday civilization. Among the signatories(签署者) of the warning was Bob Johnson, the originator of the “ecological footprint” concept, which measures the total amount of environmental input needed to maintain a given lifestyle. With the current footprint of humanity, “it seems that global collapse is certain to happen in some form, possibly within a decade, certainly within this century,” Johnson said in an email.
“Only if we discuss the consequences of our biophysical limits,” the December warning letter says, “can we have the hope to reduce their speed, severity and harm”. And yet messengers of the coming disturbance are likely to be ignored. We all want to hope things will turn out fine. As a poet wrote,
Man is a victim of dope(麻醉品)
In the incurable form of hope.
The hundreds of scholars who signed the letter are intent(执着) on quieting hope that ignores preparedness. “Let's look directly into the issue of collapse,” they say, “and deal with the terrible possibilities of what we see there to make the best of a troubling future.”
1. What does the underlined word “germane” in Paragraph 3 probably mean?| A．Scientific. | B．Credible. |
| C．Original. | D．Relevant. |
| A．worried | B．puzzled |
| C．surprised | D．scared |
| A．The signatories may change the biophysical limits. |
| B．The author agrees with the message of the poem. |
| C．The issue of collapse is being prioritized. |
| D．The global collapse is well underway. |
2 . People today are not unfamiliar with term such as "going eco-friendly" and "sustainable lifestyle". However, there exists a group of sceptics（怀疑论者）who believe that going eco-friendly is merely a fad（一时的风尚）. I disagree with this viewpoint, Going eco-friendly is not merely a fad and it does, in fact, change the beliefs and attitudes of people.
The long-term presence of environmental organisations shows the efforts that people have made towards going eco-friendly. Organisations such as World Wildlife Fund advocate people to go eco-friendly. The high involvement of the organisations and the participants is thus a strong indicator that going eco-friendly is not merely a fad but a trend that can last decades.
Another strong indicator is the emergence of sustainable products in many industries, such as organic produce and electric vehicles. The consumer demand, coupled with eco-conscious（环保意识的）businesses, is behind the sharp increase in such products. This shows a shift in the beliefs and attitudes of people towards adopting a sustainable lifestyle. Thus, it seems quite certain that going eco-friendly is not merely a fad.
While some people who broadcast their eco-friendly practices are criticised for just hoping to project an eco-conscious image, there are a number of celebrities who have been practising the zero-waste lifestyle for years. For those who do so for years, and not mere days or months, it is indeed a commitment that can only come with a true change in beliefs and attitudes towards caring for the earth.
The call to save the earth looks set to stay. With the development of technology and the appearance of many platforms advocating going green, people are more willing to change their beliefs and attitudes when they can learn about and appreciate the positive impact of the work of different environmental organisations and individuals. It is hoped that these effects will go a long way in ensuring that our planet will remain a suitable place to live in.
1. Why does the author mention World Wildlife Fund?| A．To appreciate its environmental efforts. |
| B．To encourage people to go eco-friendly. |
| C．To evidence the universal recognition of going green. |
| D．To highlight the difficulty in changing people's attitudes. |
| A．Sudden disappearance. | B．Sharp increase. |
| C．Gradual development. | D．Limited application. |
| A．It may discourage people from sustainable lifestyle. |
| B．It may boost the business of organic produce. |
| C．It will be used to project an eco-conscious image. |
| D．It will promote environmental awareness. |
| A．To prove going eco-friendly a lasting trend. |
| B．To popularize the eco-friendly products. |
| C．To offer strategies to go eco-friendly. |
| D．To advertise for eco-friendly platforms. |
3 . Glitter has long been a staple of the primary classroom. Space topic art project? Time to break out the glitter. Making cards to send home to parents? Glitter is necessary.
And yet, recent research suggests that glitter is actually bad for the environment. Several schools have even proposed a ban on using glitter in the classroom as a result.
The problem is that microplastics, including glitter, do not break up. When these small plastic are washed down the drain and reach the ocean, they can be eaten by fish,seabirds and other marine life, causing them harm. Now, as a measure to protect marine environments, scientists such as Dr Trisia Farrelly have gone so far as to suggest that “all glitter should be banned”.
Is a ban on glitter really necessary? Kevin O'Brien, Year 6 teacher, said, “I believe it to be a good idea if only to reduce the mess and wastage caused from its use. Many a time I have been told off by my cleaner.” However, Gaynor Bright, a teacher, believes that “Banning glitter in schools won't make a huge difference,” she says. “Producing environmentally safe glitter is the answer.” One thing that O'Brien and Bright agree on, though, is that children should be taught about the harmful impact plastic has on our environment.
Would schools be willing to accept the change? Of the l,092 nursery workers surveyed, only 22 percent were in favour of banning glitter. O'Brien points out that it is perhaps not down to teachers' desire for the glitter, but “I would suggest that there are many more important issues such as a finance for schools, teacher pay and workload that are much more important than whether glitter should be banned or not,” he says.
“A ban on glitter is a step too far,” Gaynor says, “Education, not banning, is the only way to get our next group of potential adults and leaders to think carefully about their environmental impact.”
1. Why do some schools not allow using glitter?| A．It costs students too much money. | B．It is littered everywhere at schools. |
| C．It does harm to the environment. | D．It does harm to students' health. |
| A．Neutral | B．Doubtful | C．unconcerned | D．supportive |
| A．Producers. | B．Students. | C．Teachers. | D．Parents. |
| A．Teacher pay. | B．The ban of glitter. | C．Workload. | D．A finance for school. |
Young people work hard to get their qualifications. But many workplaces are looking for soft skills. They concern about things like managing your time, working in a team in different
Some American cities are banning drive-through windows at fast—food restaurants. There are two basic reasons for the bans: concern for the environment and the need
In the US, most adults drive automobiles and almost 40% of the adults are overweight. That’s partly
Chinese vaccines (疫苗)were
China's efforts to strengthen the global fight against the pandemic have narrowed the space for a small group of rich countries to buy most of the vaccines.
7 . Removing gender bias
Tailors worked out long ago that men and women have different shapes. Yet this message has failed to enter many other areas of design. Car seat belts, for example, which date back to the 1880s, are often still more suitable for men, who tend to sit farther back than women when driving. And today the most forward-looking tech companies on Earth are still placing old-school bias (偏见；成见) into new products. Consider smart phones. Most are too big to fit comfortably into the average woman’s hand, as are many video-game controllers.
An obvious part of the explanation for their design problem is that men control most of its companies—male-run firms receive 82% of venture-capital (VC) funding. Male bosses may be unaware of the problems women face. They may not flag up obvious areas of concern, or ask the right questions when doing their research for a new product design. And once an idea gets the green light, it will then be handled by product-design and engineering teams, three-quarters of whose members are men. These teams often use data to make decisions, but mixing all users together means they may fail to spot trends based on sex differences. Dependence on historical data, and the lack of data on underrepresented groups, can also create bias in algorithms (算法).
Next comes testing. Naturally, designers test original models on their intended customers, but they may not get feedback from a broad enough group of people. There is also the risk of confirmation bias—designers may listen to what they want to hear, and ignore negative reactions from some groups of users.
Tech’s design bias needs fixing for moral, safety and business reasons. The ethical importance is obvious: it is wrong that women have to make do with a “one-size-fits-men” world, as Caroline Criado Perez, a writer, puts it. As for safety, regulators can tackle that by banning things that are dangerous to women—including seat belts—because they are no! designed properly.
But there is also a powerful business case for avoiding design bias, because huge opportunities are being missed. Women are 50% of the population, and make 70—80% of the world’s consumer-spending decisions.
Change is coming. The first voice-recognition systems struggled to understand female voices, but most now manage just fine. “Femtech” start-up companies, which focus on women’s health and well-being, may raise MYM 1 billion by the end of this year. VC funds and tech firms are hiring more women. Ensuring that products are designed for everyone would lead to happier and safer customers. For the companies that get it right, that means higher profits. What is holding them back?
1. The underlined part in Paragraph 2 means ________.| A．hits the market | B．gets approval |
| C．becomes successful | D．comes into being |
| A．Why tech’s design bias needs to be fixed. |
| B．How gender bias is affecting tech companies. |
| C．Where gender bias in product design is rooted. |
| D．Who is to blame for gender bias in tech companies. |
| A．tech companies are unwilling to change |
| B．design bias may result in missed opportunities |
| C．male workers benefit more in engineering teams |
| D．tech companies are poor at making user-friendly products |
| A．Uncertain. | B．Sceptical. |
| C．Positive. | D．Negative. |
