In a purely biological sense, fear begins with the body"s system for reacting to things that can harm us -- the so-called fight-or-flight response. "
An animal that can"t detect danger can"t stay alive," says Joseph LeDoux. Like animals, humans evolved with an elaborate mechanism for about potential threats.
At its core is a cluster of neurons (神经元) deep in the brain known as the amygdala (扁桃核).
LeDoux studies the way animals and humans respond to threats to understand how we form memories of significant events in our lives.
The amygdala receives input from many parts of the brain, including regions responsible for retrieving memories.
Using this information, the amygdala appraises a situation - I think this charging dog wants to bite me - and triggers a response by radiating nerve signals throughout the body.
These signals produce the familiar signs of distress: trembling, perspiration and fast-moving feet, just to name three.
This fear mechanism is critical to the survival of all animals, but no one can say for sure whether beasts other than humans know they"re afraid.
That is, as LeDoux says, "if you put that system into a brain that has consciousness, then you get the feeling of fear."
Humans, says Edward M. Hallowell, have the ability to call up images of bad things that happened in the past and to anticipate future events.
Combine these higher thought processes with our hardwired danger-detection systems, and you get a near-universal human phenomenon: worry.
That"s not necessarily a bad thing, says Hallowell, "When used properly, worry is an incredible device," he says.
After all, a little healthy worrying is okay if it leads to constructive action -- like having a doctor look at that weird spot on your back.
Hallowell insists, though, that there"s a right way to worry.
"Never do it alone, get the facts and then make a plan," he says.
Most of us have survived a recession, so we"re familiar with the belt-tightening strategies needed to survive a slump.
Unfortunately, few of us have much experience dealing with the threat of terrorism, so it"s been difficult to get facts about how we should respond.
That"s why Hallowell believes it was okay for people to indulge some extreme worries last fall by asking doctors for Cipro (抗炭疽菌的药物) and buying gas masks.这就是为什么Hallowell认为在去年秋天的时候，人们向医生获取抗炭疽菌的药物和购买防毒面具并由此深陷于某种极度担忧中的行为是可以理解的。
Amitai Etzioni is not surprised by the latest headings about scheming corporate crooks (骗子).
As a visiting professor at the Harvard Business School in 1989, he ended his work there disgusted with his students’ overwhelming lost for money.
“They’re taught that profit is all that matters,” he says. “Many schools don’t even offer ethics (伦理学) courses at all.”
Etzioni expressed his frustration about the interests of his graduate students.
“By and large, I clearly had not found a way to help classes full of MBAs see that there is more to life than money, power, fame and self-interest.”
He wrote at the time. Today he still takes the blame for not educating these “business-leaders-to-be.” “I really like I failed them,” he says. “If I was a better teacher maybe I could have reached them.”“很长时间，很明显我找不到一个方法让一个MBA班的学员认识生活不但是金钱，全力，名声和私立”他那时候写道。现在她仍然自责当初没有好好教导这群“未来的商业领袖”“我真的觉得我让他们失望了”他说：“如果我当初是个更好的老师，或许就能够影响他们”
Etzioni was a respected ethics expert when he arrived at Harvard.
He hoped his work at the university would give him insight into how questions of morality could be applied to places where self-interest flourished.
What he found wasn’t encouraging.
Those would be executives had, says Etzioni, little interest in concepts of ethics and morality in the boardroom—and their professor was met with blank stares when he urged his students to see business in new and different ways.
Etzioni sees the experience at Harvard as an eye-opening one and says there’s much about business schools that he’d like to change.
“A lot of the faculty teaching business are bad news themselves,” Etzioni says. From offering classes that teach students how to legally manipulate contracts, to reinforcing the notion of profit over community interests, Etzioni has seen a lot that’s left him shaking his head.
And because of what he’s seen taught in business schools, he’s not surprised by the latest rash of corporate scandals.
“In many ways things have got a lot worse at business schools, I suspect,” says Etzioni.
Etzioni is still teaching the sociology of right and wrong and still calling for ethical business leadership.
“People with poor motives will always exist.” He says. “Sometimes environments constrain those people and sometimes environments give those people opportunity.”
Etzioni says the booming economy of the last decade enabled those individuals with poor motives to get rich before getting in trouble.
His hope now: that the cries for reform will provide more fertile soil for his long-standing messages about business ethics.
Google is a world-famous company, with its headquarters in Mountain View, California.
It was set up in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998, and inflated (膨胀) with the Internet bubble.
Even when everything around it collapsed the company kept on inflating.
Google’s search engine is so widespread across the world that search became Google, and google became a verb.
The world fell in love with the effective, fascinatingly fast technology.
Google owes much of its success to the brilliance of S. Brin and L. Page, but also to a series of fortunate events.
It was Page who, at Stanford in 1996, initiated the academic project that eventually became Google’s search engine.
Brin, who had met Page at a student orientation a year earlier, joined the project early on.
They were both Ph.D. candidates when they devised the search engine which was better than the rest and, without any marketing, spread by word of mouth from early adopters to, eventually, your grandmother.
Their breakthrough, simply put, was that when their search engine crawled the Web, it did more than just look for word matches, it also tallied (统计) and ranked a host of other critical factors like how websites link to one another.
That delivered far better results than anything else.
Brin and Page meant to name their creation Googol (the mathematical term for the number 1 followed by 100 zeroes), but someone misspelled the word so it stuck as Google.
They raised money from prescient (有先见之明的) professors and venture capitalists, and moved off campus to turn Google into business.
Perhaps their biggest stroke of luck came early on when they tried to sell their technology to other search engines, but no one met their price, and they built it up on their own.
The next breakthrough came in 2000, when Google figured out how to make money with its invention.
It had lots of users, but almost no one was paying.
The solution turned out to be advertising, and it’s not an exaggeration to say that Google is now essentially an advertising company, given that that’s the source of nearly all its revenue.
Today it is a giant advertising company, worth $100 billion
You hear the refrain all the time: the U.S. economy looks good statistically, but it doesn’t feel good.
Why doesn’t ever-greater wealth promote ever-greater happiness?
It is a question that dates at least to the appearance in 1958 of The Affluent(富裕的) Societyby John Kenneth Galbraith, who died recently at 97.
这个问题最早要追溯到1958年《富足社会》一书的出现，其作者John Kenneth Galbraith最近去世了，享年97岁。
The Affluent Society is a modern classic because it helped define a new moment in the human condition.
For most of history, “hunger, sickness, and cold” threatened nearly everyone, Galbraith wrote.
“Poverty was found everywhere in that world. Obviously it is not of ours.”
After World War II, the dread of another Great Depression gave way to an economic boom. In the 1930s unemployment had averaged 18.2 percent; in the 1950s it was 4.5 percent.
To Galbraith, materialism had gone mad and would breed discontent.
Through advertising, companies conditioned consumers to buy things they didn’t really want or need.
Because so much spending was artificial, it would be unfulfilling.
Meanwhile, government spending that would make everyone better off was being cut down because people instinctively—and wrongly—labeled government only as “a necessary evil.”
It’s often said that only the rich are getting ahead; everyone else is standing still or falling behind.
Well, there are many undeserving rich—overpaid chief executives, for instance.
But over any meaningful period, most people’s incomes are increasing.
From 1995 to 2004, inflation-adjusted average family income rose 14.3 percent, to $43,200.
People feel “squeezed” because their rising incomes often don’t satisfy their rising wants—for bigger homes, more health care, more education, faster Internet connections.
The other great frustration is that it has not eliminated insecurity.
People regard job stability as part of their standard of living.
As corporate layoffs increased, that part has eroded.
More workers fear they’ve become “the disposable American,” as Louis Uchitelle puts it in his book by the same name.
Because so much previous suffering and social conflict stemmed from poverty, the arrival of widespread affluence suggested utopian (乌托邦式的) possibilities.
Up to a point, affluence succeeds. There is much les physical misery than before. People are better off. Unfortunately, affluence also creates new complaints and contradictions.
Advanced societies need economic growth to satisfy the multiplying wants of their citizens.
But the quest for growth lets loose new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the social order.
Affluence liberates the individual, promising that everyone can choose a unique way to self-fulfillment.
But the promise is so extravagant that it predestines many disappointments and sometimes inspires choices that have anti-social consequences, including family breakdown and obesity (肥胖症).
Statistical indicators of happiness have not risen with incomes.
Should we be surprised? Not really. We’ve simply reaffirmed an old truth: the pursuit of affluence does not always end with happiness.
Like most people, I’ve long understood that I will be judged by my occupation, that my profession is a gauge people use to see how smart or talented I am.
Recently, however, I was disappointed to see that it also decides how I’m treated as a person.
Last year I left a professional position as a small-town reporter and took a job waiting tables.
As someone paid to serve food to people. I had customers say and do things to me I suspect they’d never say or do to their most casual acquaintances.
One night a man talking on his cell phone waved me away, then beckoned (示意) me back with his finger a minute later, complaining he was ready to order and asking where I’d been.
有一天晚上，一个正在打电话的男人先是打手势把我赶走，一分钟后又用他的手指示我回来，对我抱怨说他正在准备点菜，问我究竟去了哪里。I had waited tables during summers in college and was treated like a peon(勤杂工) by plenty of people.
But at 19 years old. I believed I deserved inferior treatment from professional adults.
Besides, people responded to me differently after I told them I was in college.
Customers would joke that one day I’d be sitting at their table, waiting to be served.
顾客们开玩笑说，总有一天我会坐在他们的位置上，等候服务。Once I graduated I took a job at a community newspaper.
From my first day, I heard a respectful tone from everyone who called me. I assumed this was the way the professional world worked-cordially.
从工作的第一天开始，其他人就用充满敬意的语气称呼我。我以为这就是职场的方式--亲切。I soon found out differently, I sat several feet away from an advertising sales representative with a similar name.
Our calls would often get mixed up and someone asking for Kristen would be transferred to Christie.
The mistake was immediately evident.
Perhaps it was because money was involved, but people used a tone with Kristen that they never used with me.
或许是包含了金钱的因素，但是人们对克里斯滕的语气是从来不会用在我身上的。My job title made people treat me with courtesy.
So it was a shock to return to the restaurant industry.
所以回到饭店行业之后我真的很受打击。It’s no secret that there’s a lot to put up with when waiting tables, and fortunately, much of it can be easily forgotten when you pocket the tips.
The service industry, by definition, exists to cater to others’ needs.
Still, it seemed that many of my customers didn’t get the difference between server and servant.
但是，我的很多顾客四壶分辨不清侍者和侍从的区别。I’m now applying to graduate school, which means someday I’ll return to a profession where people need to be nice to me in order to get what they want.
I think I’ll take them to dinner first, and see how they treat someone whose only job is to serve them.我想我会把他们带去吃顿饭，看一下他们是怎么对待那些专职为他们服务的人的。
What’s hot for 2007 among the very rich? A S7.3 million diamond ring. A trip to Tanzania to hunt wild animals. Oh. and income inequality.
2007年，对于富豪来说什么事最热门的？价值730万美元的钻戒。去坦桑尼亚狩猎。噢，还有收入不均衡。Sure, some leftish billionaires like George Soros have been railing against income inequality for years.
But increasingly, centrist and right-wing billionaires are starting to worry about income inequality and the fate of the middle class.
但是越来越多的中间派和右翼亿万富翁都开始担心收入不均衡和中产阶级的命运了。In December. Mortimer Zuckerman wrote a column in U.S News & World Report, which he owns.
“Our nation’s core bargain with the middle class is disintegrating,” lamented (哀叹) the 117th-richest man in America. “Most of our economic gains have gone to people at the very top of the income ladder.
Average income for a household of people of working age, by contrast, has fallen five years in a row.” He noted that “Tens of millions of Americans live in fear that a major health problem can reduce them to bankruptcy.”
Wilbur Ross Jr. has echoed Zuckerman’s anger over the bitter struggles faced by middle-classAmericans.
“It’s an outrage that any American’s life expectancy should be shortened simply because the company they worked for went bankrupt and ended health-care coverage,” said the former chairman of the International Steel Group.
“这应该让我们愤怒，所有美国人的平均寿命都被缩短了，仅仅是因为他们所供职的公司破产了，健康保险被终止了”这位国际钢铁集团的前任主席说。What’s happening? The very rich are just as trendy as you and I, and can be so when it comes to politics and policy.
Given the recent change of control in Congress, popularity of measures like increasing the minimum wage, and efforts by California’ governor to offer universal health care, these guys don’t need their own personal weathermen to know which way the wind blows.
It’s possible that plutocrats(有钱有势的人) are expressing solidarity with the struggling middle class as part of an effort to insulate themselves from confiscatory (没收性的) tax policies.
But the prospect that income inequality will lead to higher taxes on the wealthy doesn’t keep plutocrats up at night. They can live with that.
但是收入不均衡会导致对富人征收更多税款的期望并不会让有钱有势的人晚上难以入眠。他们承受得了。No, what they fear was that the political challenges of sustaining support for global economic integration will be more difficult in the United States because of what has happened to the distribution of income and economic insecurity.
不，他们真正害怕的是由于在收入分配和经济安全方面出现的问题，美国持续支持全球经济一体化所带来的政治挑战。In other words, if middle-class Americans continue to struggle financially as the ultrawealthy grow ever wealthier, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain political support for the free flow of goods, services, and capital across borders.
And when the United States places obstacles in the way of foreign investors and foreign goods, it’s likely to encourage reciprocal action abroad.
For people who buy and sell companies, or who allocate capital to markets all around the world, that’s the real nightmare.对于在全球买卖公司或调动资金的人来说，这才是真正的噩梦。
Imagine waking up and finding the value of your assets has been halved.
No, you’re not an investor in one of those hedge funds that failed completely.
With the dollar slumping to a 26-year low against the pound, already-expensive London has become quite unaffordable.
A coffee at Starbucks, just as unavoidable in England as it is in the United States, runs about $8.
The once all-powerful dollar isn’t doing a Titanic against just the pound.
It is sitting at a record low against the euro and at a 30-year low against the Canadian dollar.
Even the Argentine peso and Brazilian real are thriving against the dollar.
The weak dollar is a source of humiliation, for a nation’s self-esteem rests in part on the strength of its currency.
It’s also a potential economic problem, since a declining dollar makes imported food more expensive and exerts upward pressure on interest rates.
And yet there are substantial sectors of the vast U.S. economy-from giant companies like Coca-Cola to mom-and-pop restaurant operators in Miami-for which the weak dollar is most excellent news.
Many Europeans may view the U.S. as an arrogant superpower that has become hostile to foreigners.
But nothing makes people think more warmly of the U.S. than a weak dollar.
Through April, the total number of visitors from abroadwas up 6.8 percent from last year. Should the trend continue, the number of tourists this year will finally top the 2000 peak.
Many Europeans now apparently view the U.S. the way many Americans view Mexico-as a cheap place to vacation, shop and party, all while ignoring the fact that the poorer locals can’t afford to join the merrymaking.
The money tourists spend helps decrease our chronic trade deficit. So do exports, which thanks in part to the weak dollar, soared 11 percent between May 2006 and May 2007. For first five months of 2007, the trade deficit actually fell 7 percent from 2006.
If you own shares in large American corporations, you’re a winner in the weak-dollar gamble.
Last week Coca-Cola’s stick bubbled to a five-year high after it reported a fantastic quarter.
Foreign sales accounted for 65 percent of Coke’s beverage business.
Other American companies profiting from this trend include McDonald’s and IBM.
American tourists, however, shouldn’t expect any relief soon.
The dollar lost strength the way many marriaqe:break up- slowly, and then all at once.
And currencies don’t turn on a dime.
So if you want to avoid the pain inflicted by the increasingly pathetic dollar, cancel that summer vacation to England and look to New England.
There, the dollar is still treated with a little respect.
In the college-admissions wars, we parents are the true fights.
We are pushing our kids to get good grades, take SAT preparatory courses and build resumes so they can get into the college of our first choice.
I’ve twice been to the wars, and as I survey the battlefield, something different is happening.
We see our kids’ college background as e prize demonstrating how well we’ve raised them.
But we can’t acknowledge that our obsession(痴迷) is more about us than them.
So we’ve contrived various justifications that turn out to be half-truths, prejudices or myths.
It actually doesn’t matter much whether Aaron and Nicole go to Stanford.
事实上，阿伦和尼克尔是否进入斯坦福大学并不是真的那么重要。We have a full-blown prestige panic; we worry that there won’t be enough prizes to go around.
Fearful parents urge their children to apply to more schools than ever.
Underlying the hysteria(歇斯底里) is the belief that scarce elite degrees must be highly valuable.
Their graduates must enjoy more success because they get a better education and develop better contacts.
All that is plausible——and mostly wrong. We haven’t found any convincing evidence that selectivity or prestige matters.
Selective schools don’t systematically employ better instructional approaches than less selective schools.
On two measures——professors’ feedback and the number of essay exams——selective schools do slightly worse.
在以下两方面----教授的反馈和写作考试的数量----重点学校做得稍差。By some studies, selective schools do enhance their graduates’ lifetime earnings.
The gain is reckoned at 2-4% for every 100-poinnt increase in a school’s average SAT scores.
But even this advantage is probably a statistical fluke(偶然).
A well-known study examined students who got into highly selective schools and then went elsewhere.
They earned just as much as graduates from higher-status schools.
Kids count more than their colleges.
Getting into yale may signify intellgence,talent and ambition.
But it’s not the only indicator and,paradoxically,its significance is declining.
The reason:so many similar people go elsewhere.Getting into college is not life only competiton.
Old-boy networks are breaking down.princeton economist Alan Krueger studied admissions to one top Ph.D.program.High scores on the GRE helpd explain who got in;degrees of prestigious universities didn’t.
在另一项竞赛中----职场和研究所----结果可能会改变。校友关系开始瓦解。普林斯顿经济学家艾伦昆格研究了一项顶尖博士项目的录取工作。美国研究生入学考试（GRE）的高分有助于解释谁能入选；而学校的名气则不能。So,parents,lighten up.the stakes have been vastly exaggerated.up to a point,we can rationalize our pushiness.
America is a competitive society;our kids need to adjust to that.but too much pushiness can be destructive.
The very ambition we impose on our children may get some into Harvard but may also set them up for disappointment.
One study found that,other things being equal,graduates of highly selective schools experienced more job dissatisfaction.
They may have been so conditioned to deing on top that anything less disappoints.一旦达不到这种高要求，就会感到失望。
Sustainable development is applied to just about everything from energy to clean water and economic growth, and as a result it has become difficult to question either the basic assumptions behind it or the way the concept is put to use.
This is especially true in agriculture, where sustainable development is often taken as the sole measure of progress without a proper appreciation of historical and cultural perspectives.
To start with, it is important to remember that the nature of agriculture has changed markedly throughout history, and will continue to do so .medieval agriculture in northern Europe fed, clothed and sheltered a predominantly rural society with a much lower population density than it is today.
It had minimal effect on biodiversity, and any pollution it caused was typically localized.
In terms of energy use and the nutrients（营养成分）captured in the product it was relatively inefficient.
Contrast this with farming since the start of the industrial revolution.
Competition from overseas led farmers to specialize and increase yields.
Throughout this period food became cheaper, safe and more reliable.
However, these changes have also led to habitat（栖息地）loss and to diminishing biodiversity.
What’s more, demand for animal products in developing countries is growing so fast that meeting it will require an extra 300 million tons of grain a year by 2050.yet the growth of cities and industry is reducing the amount of water available for agriculture in many regions.
All this means that agriculture in the 21stcentury will have to be very different from how it was in the 20th.
This will require radical thinking.
For example, we need to move away from the idea that traditional practices are inevitably more sustainable than new ones.
We also need to abandon the notion that agriculture can be “zero impact”.
The key will be to abandon the rather simple and static measures of sustainability, which centre on the need to maintain production without increasing damage.
Instead we need a more dynamic interpretation, one that looks at the pros and cons（正反两方面）of all the various way land is used.
There are many different ways to measure agricultural performance besides food yield: energy use, environmental costs, water purity, carbon footprint and biodiversity.
It is clear, for example, that the carbon of transporting tomatoes from Spain to the UK is less than that of producing them in the UK with additional heating and lighting.
But we do not know whether lower carbon footprints will always be better for biodiversity.
What is crucial is recognizing that sustainable agriculture is not just about sustainable food production.
The percentage of immigrants (including those unlawfully present) in the United States has been creeping upward for years.
At 12.6 percent, it is now higher than at any point since the mid 1920s.
We are not about to go back to the days when Congress openly worried about inferior races polluting America’s bloodstream.
But once again we are wondering whether we have too many of the wrong sort of newcomers.
Their loudest critics argue that the new wave of immigrants cannot, and indeed do not want to, fit in as previous generations did.
We now know that these racist views were wrong. In time, Italians, Romanians and members of other so-called inferior races became exemplary Americans and contributed greatly, in ways too numerous to detail, to the building of this magnificent nation.
There is no reason why these new immigrants should not have the same success.
Although children of Mexican immigrants do better, in terms of educational and professional attainment, than their parents, UCLA sociologist Edward Telles has found that the gains don’t continue.
Indeed, the fourth generation is marginally worse off than the third. James Jackson, of the University of Michigan, has found a similar trend among black Caribbean immigrants.
Telles fears that Mexican-Americans may be fated to follow in the footsteps of American blacks—that large parts of the community may become mired (陷入) in a seemingly permanent state of poverty and underachievement.
特列斯担心墨西哥裔美国人可能注定会步美国黑人的后尘---社区中的大部分人将陷入贫穷和毫无建树的状态。Like African-Americans, Mexican-Americans are increasingly relegated to (降入) segregated, substandard school, and their dropout rate is the highest for any ethnic group in the country.
We have learned much about the foolish idea of excluding people on the presumption of ethnic/racial inferiority.
But what we have not yet learned is how to make the process of Americanization work for all.
I am not talking about requiring people to learn English or to adopt American ways; those things happen pretty much on their own.
But as arguments about immigration heat up the campaign trail, we also ought to ask some broader questions about assimilation, about how to ensure that people, once outsiders, don’t forever remain marginalized within these shores.
That is a much larger question that what should happen with undocumented workers, or how best to secure the border, and it is one that affects not only newcomers but groups that have been here for generations.
It will have more impact on our future than where we decide to set the admissions bar for the latest wave of would-be Americans. And it would be nice if we finally got the answer right.
For hundreds of millions of years, turtles (海龟) have struggled out of the sea to lay their eggs on sandy beaches, long before there were nature documentaries to celebrate them, or GPS satellites and marine biologists to track them, or volunteers to hand-carry the hatchlings (幼龟) down to the water’s edge lest they become disoriented by headlights and crawl towards a motel parking lot instead.
A formidable wall of bureaucracy has been erected to protect their prime nesting on the Atlantic coastlines.
With all that attention paid to them, you’d think these creatures would at least have the gratitude not to go extinct.
收到了各种各样的关注后，你可能会认为这些生物至少会心怀感激，不至于走向灭亡。But Nature is indifferent to human notions of fairness, and a report by the Fish and Wildlife Service showed a worrisome drop in the populations of several species of North Atlantic turtles, notably loggerheads, which can grow to as much as 400 pounds.
The South Florida nesting population, the largest, has declined by 50% in the last decade, according to Elizabeth Griffin, a marine biologist with the environmental group Oceana.
The figures prompted Oceana to petition the government to upgrade the level of protection for the North Atlantic loggerheads from “threatened” to “endangered”—meaning they are in danger of disappearing without additional help.
该数据促使Oceana组织向政府情愿，要求将北大西洋红海龟的保护级别从“受威胁”提升至“濒危”-----这意味着如果没有外界的帮助，它们将会面临灭绝的危险。Which raises the obvious question: what else do these turtles want from us, anyway?
It turns out, according to Griffin, that while we have done a good job of protecting the turtles for the weeks they spend on land (as egg-laying females, as eggs and as hatchlings), we have neglected the years spend in the ocean. “The threat is from commercial fishing,” says Griffin.
Trawlers (which drag large nets through the water and along the ocean floor) and longline fishers (which can deploy thousands of hooks on lines that can stretch for miles) take a heavy toll on turtles.
拖网渔船（在水中和海床拖行大型的渔网）和延绳钓鱼船（在钓线上装备数以千记的鱼钩，可以延伸至数英里）给海龟造成了惨重的伤亡。Of course, like every other environmental issue today, this is playing out against the background of global warming and human interference with natural ecosystems.
The narrow strips of beach on which the turtles lay their eggs are being squeezed on one side by development and on the other by the threat of rising sea levels as the oceans warm.
Ultimately we must get a handle on those issues as well, or a creature that outlived the dinosaurs (恐龙) will meet its end at the hands of humans, leaving our descendants to wonder how creature so ugly could have won so much affection.最终我们还要解决这些问题，否则一种比恐龙活得更久的生物将会在人类手中灭绝，让我们的后代困惑于怎么这种丑陋的生物会赢得如此多的关爱。
There are few more sobering online activities than entering data into college-tuition calculators and gasping as the Web spits back a six-figure sum.
But economists say families about to go into debt to fund four years of partying, as well as studying, can console themselves with the knowledge that college is an investment that, unlike many bank stocks, should yield huge dividends.
但是经济学家们认为，打算举债资助四年聚会和学习的家庭可以这样安慰自己：大学是不同于很多银行股票的投资，它应该产生巨额的红利。A 2008 study by two Harvard economists notes that the “labor-market premium to skill”—or the amount college graduates earned that’s greater than what high-school graduate earned—decreased for much of the 20th century, but has come back with a vengeance (报复性地) since the 1980s.
In 2005, The typical full-time year-round U.S. worker with a four-year college degree earned $50,900, 62% more than the $31,500 earned by a worker with only a high-school diploma.
在2005年，典型的拥有四年大学学位的全职美国工人平均收入为50900美元，比高中文凭的工人的平均收入31500美元多了62%。There’s no question that going to college is a smart economic choice. But a look at the strange variations in tuition reveals that the choice about which college to attend doesn’t come down merely to dollars and cents.
Does going to Columbia University (tuition, room and board $49,260 in 2007-08) yield a 40% greater return than attending the University of Colorado at Boulder as an out-of-state student ($35,542)?
Probably not. Does being an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado at Boulder yield twice the amount of income as being an in-state student ($17,380) there? Not likely.不太可能。一名报读科罗拉多大学博德尔分校的非当地学生的收入会是当地学生（费用为17380美元的两倍吗？不太可能。No, in this consumerist age, most buyers aren’t evaluating college as an investment, but rather as a consumer product—like a car or clothes or a house. And with such purchases, price is only one of many crucial factors to consider.
不，在消费主义的时代，大部分的买家不会把大学看做一种投资，而是一种消费品----就像汽车、衣服或住房一样。购买这些商品，价格仅是需要考虑的很多关键因素中的一个。As with automobiles, consumers in today’s college marketplace have vast choices, and people search for the one that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction in line with their budgets.
This accounts for the willingness of people to pay more for different types of experiences (such as attending a private liberal-arts college or going to an out-of-state public school that has a great marine-biology program).
And just as two auto purchasers might spend an equal amount of money on very different cars, college students (or, more accurately, their parents) often show a willingness to pay essentially the same price for vastly different products.
So which is it? Is college an investment product like a stock or a consumer product like a car?
In keeping with the automotive world’s hottest consumer trend, maybe it’s best to characterize it as a hybrid (混合动力汽车); an expensive consumer product that, over time, will pay rich dividends.为了追上汽车最炙手可热的消费者趋势，或许最好是把大学看做混合动力汽车；一种消费品，但随着时间的流逝，会带来丰厚的回报。
There is nothing like the suggestion of a cancer risk to scare a parent, especially one of the over-educated, eco-conscious type.
So you can imagine the reaction when a recent USA Today investigation of air quality around the nation’s schools singled out those in the smugly（自鸣得意的）green village of Berkeley, Calif., as being among the worst in the country.
The city’s public high school, as well as a number of daycare centers, preschools, elementary and middle schools, fell in the lowest 10%. Industrial pollution in our town had supposedly turned students into living science experiments breathing in a laboratory’s worth of heavy metals like manganese, chromium and nickel each day.
This in a city that requires school cafeterias to serve organic meals. Great, I thought, organic lunch, toxic campus.
Since December, when the report came out, the mayor, neighborhood activists（活跃分子）and various parent-teacher associations have engaged in a fierce battle over its validity: over the guilt of the steel-casting factory on the western edge of town, over union jobs versus children’s health and over what, if anything, ought to be done.
With all sides presenting their own experts armed with conflicting scientific studies, whom should parents believe?
Is there truly a threat here, we asked one another as we dropped off our kids, and if so, how great is it?
And how does it compare with the other, seemingly perpetual health scares we confront, like panic over lead in synthetic athletic fields?
Rather than just another weird episode in the town that brought you protesting environmentalists, this latest drama is a trial for how today’s parents perceive risk, how we try to keep our kids safe—whether it’s possible to keep them safe—in what feels like an increasingly threatening world. It raises the question of what, in our time, “safe” could even mean.
“There’s no way around the uncertainty,” says Kimberly Thompson, president of Kid Risk, a nonprofit group that studies children’s health. “That means your choices can matter, but it also means you aren’t going to know if they do.”
A 2004 report in the journal Pediatrics explained that nervous parents have more to fear from fire, car accidents and drowning than from toxic chemical exposure.
To which I say: Well, obviously. But such concrete hazards are beside the point.
It’s the dangers parents can’t—and may never—quantify that occur all of sudden. That’s why I’ve rid my cupboard of microwave food packed in bags coated with a potential cancer-causing substance, but although I’ve lived blocks from a major fault line(地质断层) for more than 12 years, I still haven’t bolted our bookcases to the living room wall.
Crippling health care bills, long emergency-room waits and the inability to find a primary care physician just scratch the surface of the problems that patients face daily.
Primary care should be the backbone of any health care system.
Countries with appropriate primary care resources score highly when it comes to health outcomes and cost.
The U.S. takes the opposite approach by emphasizing the specialist rather than the primary care physician.
A recent study analyzed the providers who treat Medicare beneficiaries（老年医保受惠人）.
The startling finding was that the average Medicare patient saw a total of seven doctors—two primary care physicians and five specialists—in a given year. Contrary to popular belief, the more physicians taking care of you don’t guarantee better care.
Actually, increasing fragmentation of care results in a corresponding rise in cost and medical errors.
How did we let primary care slip so far? The key is how doctors are paid. Most physicians are paid whenever they perform a medical service.
The more a physician does, regardless of quality or outcome, the better he’s reimbursed (返还费用).
Moreover, the amount a physician receives leans heavily toward medical or surgical procedures.
A specialist who performs a procedure in a 30-minute visit can be paid three times more than a primary care physician using that same 30 minutes to discuss a patient’s disease.
Combine this fact with annual government threats to indiscriminately cut reimbursements, physicians are faced with no choice but to increase quantity to boost income.
Primary care physicians who refuse to compromise quality are either driven out of business or to cash-only practices, further contributing to the decline of primary care.
Medical students are not blind to this scenario. They see how heavily the reimbursement deck is stacked against primary care. The recent numbers show that since 1997, newly graduated U.S. medical students who choose primary care as a career have declined by 50%.
This trend results in emergency rooms being overwhelmed with patients without regular doctors.
How do we fix this problem?
It starts with reforming the physician reimbursement system. Remove the pressure for primary care physicians to squeeze in more patients per hour, and reward them for optimally (最佳地) managing their diseases and practicing evidence-based medicine.
Make primary care more attractive to medical students by forgiving student loans for those who choose primary care as a career and reconciling the marked difference between specialist and primary care physician salaries.
We’re at a point where primary care is needed more than ever. Within a few years, the first wave of the 76 million Baby Boomers will become eligible for Medicare.
Patients older than 85, who need chronic care most, will rise by 50% this decade.
Who will be there to treat them?