1 . Quantum ( 量子 ) computers have been on my mind a lot lately. A friend has been sending me articles on how quantum computers might help solve some of the biggest challenges we face as humans. I’ve also had exchanges with two quantum-computing experts. One is computer scientist Chris Johnson who I see as someone who helps keep the field honest. The other is physicist Philip Taylor.

For decades, quantum computing has been little more than a laboratory curiosity. Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us “cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction.” This is the sort of hype ( 炒作 ) that annoys Johnson. He worries that researchers are making promises they can’t keep. “What’s new,” Johnson wrote, “is that millions of dollars are now potentially available to quantum computing researchers.”

As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work’s potential. If researchers can’t keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. Lots of other technologies have gone through stages of excitement. But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because “‘quantum’ stands for something cool you shouldn’t be able to understand.” And that brings me back to Taylor, who suggested that I read his book Q for Quantum.

After I read the book, Taylor patiently answered my questions about it. He also answered my questions about PyQuantum, the firm he co-founded in 2016. Taylor shares Johnson’s concerns about hype, but he says those concerns do not apply to PyQuantum.

The company, he says, is closer than any other firm “by a very large margin ( 幅度 )” to building a “useful” quantum computer, one that “solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise.” He adds, “People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others.”

Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition “by a wide margin”, as Taylor claims? I don’t know. I’m certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers. But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson.

2 . 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.”

Since people can’t always eat out or cook for     1     (they), they get takeout or order delivery. More takeout and more food delivery equal more waste, especially plastic waste. That includes cups, bottles, and bags, most of     2     are only good for one use. That’s a big problem and it is getting even     3     (bad). The use of those plastics     4     (increase) by 300% since 2019. The world won’t survive if this situation continues.

6 . Throughout history, many species of animals have been threatened with extinction. When Europeans first arrived in North America, more than 60 million buffalo (水牛) lived on the continent. Yet hunting the buffalo was so popular during the 19th century that by 1900 the animal’s population had fallen to about 400 before the government stepped in to protect the species. In some countries today, the elephant faces a similar challenge, as illegal hunters kill the animals for the ivory in their tusks.

Yet not all animals with commercial value face this threat (威胁).The cow, for example, is a valuable source of food, but no one worries that the cow will soon be extinct. Why does the commercial value of ivory threaten the elephant. while the commercial value of beef protects the cow?

The reason is that elephants are a common resource, while cows are private goods. Elephants wander freely without any owners. The hunter has a strong motivation to kill as many elephants as he can find. Because illegal hunters are numerous, each has only a slight motivation to preserve the elephant population. By contrast, cattle live on farms that are privately owned. Each farmer makes great effort to maintain the cattle population on his farm because he harvests the benefit of these efforts.

Governments have tried to solve the elephant’s problem in two ways. Some countries, such as Kenya and Uganda, have made it illegal to kill elephants and sell their ivory. Yet these laws have been hard to put into effect, and elephant populations have continued to dwindle. By contrast, other countries, such as Malawi and Namibia, have made elephants private goods and allowed people to kill elephants, but only those on their own property.

With private ownership and the profit motive now on its side, the African elephant might someday be as safe from extinction as the cow. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out the problem with common resources: “What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others.”

7 . Should schools report a student’s health to parents?

As if grades weren’t enough to worry about, some students now have weight on their minds too. The number of overweight children in the United States has more than doubled in the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.     1    

As a result, schools in several states, from California to Pennsylvania, have started sending home "BMI report cards". Those schools send home a report of a student’s body mass index (BMI). BMI is a calculation of weight and height that tells whether a person is overweight for his or her age.

    2     People on both sides of the debate are weighing in.

Some lawmakers say BMI reports warn parents of their children s health problem help fight against obesity. In 2003, former Arkansas Governor. Mike Huckabee helped launch the first program to report students’ BMI.       3     Pechatrician Joe Thompson helped plan the BMI program for Arkansas schools. He explains that the reports in Arkansas are sent home separately from report cards. “The misconception is that students are being graded on their weight,” he told WR News, “Just like a school screen for vision or hearing, this is a health approach to raise awareness about a risk.”

    4     Parents have complained that the reports damage their children’s self-respect. Some parents say kids also worry that they are being “graded” on their weight.       5     They point out that many school cafeterias serve tasty foods. Parent Brett Levy from Chicago, Illinois, believes that schools should teach kids to lead healthy lifestyles instead of reporting their BMIS. “Telling a boy or girl a BMI is not education,” he told WR News. “It’s a fear strategy.”

8 . Search “toxic parents”, and you’ll find more than 38, 000 posts, largely urging young adults to cut ties with their families. The idea is to safeguard one’s mental health from abusive parents. However, as a psychoanalyst, I’ve seen that trend in recent years become a way to manage conflicts in the family, and I have seen the severe impacts estrangement (疏远) has on both sides of the divide. This is a self-help trend that creates much harm.

Research by Karl Pillemer, a professor at Cornell University, indicates that 1 in 4 American adults have become estranged from their families. I believe that’s an undercount, because others have stopped short of completely cutting off contact but have effectively broken the ties.

“Canceling” your parent can be seen as an extension of a cultural trend aimed at correcting imbalances in power and systemic inequality. Certainly the family is one system in which power has never been balanced. In 1933, the psychoanalyst Sándor Ferenczi warned that even the simple indication that someone has more power than we do could potentially be damaging.

Today’s social justice values respond to this reality, calling on us to criticize oppressive and harmful figures and to gain power for those who have been powerless. But when adult children use the most effective tool they have-themselves-to gain a sense of security and ban their parents from their lives, the roles are simply switched, and the pain only deepens.

Often, what I see in my practice are cases of family conflict mismanaged, power dynamics turned upside down rather than negotiated. I see the terrible effect of that trend; situations with no winners, only isolated (孤独的) humans who long to be known and feel safe in the presence of the other.

The catch is that after estrangement, adult children are not suddenly less dependent. In fact, they feel abandoned and betrayed, because in the unconscious, it doesn’t matter who is doing the leaving; the feeling that remains is “being left”. They carry the ghosts of their childhood, tackling the emotional reality that those who raised us can never truly be left behind, no matter how hard we try.

What I have found is that most of these families need repair, not permanent break-up. How else can one learn how to negotiate needs, to create boundaries and to trust? How else can we love others, and ourselves, if not through accepting the limitations that come with being human? Good relationships are the result not of a perfect level of harmony but rather of successful adjustments.

To pursue dialogue instead of estrangement will be hard and painful work. It can’t be a single project of “self-help”, because at the end of the day, real intimacy (亲密关系) is achieved by working through the injuries of the past together. In most cases of family conflict, repair is possible and preferable to estrangement—and it’s worth the work.

9 . We love to mimic the routines of the rich and famous, but they may be no more insightful than random behaviors. Beethoven, for example, counted exactly 60 coffee beans for each cup, which he used to power his composing.

Why do successful people follow unusually specific habits? And why are we so keen to read about them and mimic them in our own lives?

The answer lies in a powerful psychological process called “superstitious learning”.     1    While it is mostly correct, it sometimes mistakes coincidence for causality (因果关系) ― leading us to attribute success to something arbitrary (主观的) as the color of our notebook, rather than our own talent or hard work.

That is not to say the resulting habits are completely lacking in benefits.     2    

If superstitious behaviors arise as a by-product of our ability to form associations, then you would expect more superstitious people to perform better on implicit learning ― the brain’s ability to non-consciously pick up patterns ― and this was exactly what Elena Daprati, a neuroscientist at the University of Rome Tor Vergata found. “Superstitious individuals generally pick up on the cue and use it,” she says.

    3    Creative tasks are especially common with uncertainty ― which may explain why thinkers like Beethoven adopted specific behaviors to get their thoughts flowing.

Often, the rituals that we acquire take very little effort.     4    Although the initial association with success may have been illusory (幻想的) the positive mindset that it produces really does improve our performance the next time so we do it again and again.

    5     If the action costs nothing and helps you to feel a bit more in control of your day, it’s perfectly rational to continue.

Today, there are groups of native people around the world that still live a traditional lifestyle. Some live in remote parts of South America,     1     way of life is in danger of disappearing. The Korubo are native people who live in the Amazon rainforest. They make their own tools, grow their own crops, and hunt and fish. Their main weapons are clubs and poison-tipped arrows, used     2     both hunting and protecting their territory against     3    (outsider).