That's because heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires, disease outbreaks and other dire effects of climate change are accelerating more rapidly than scientists expected in many parts of the world, including in North America. And as oceans, rainforests and polar regions heat up, nature is less and less able to help us with the task of adapting to a hotter Earth, the report finds.
Still, the authors of the report make clear, humans are not powerless. Repairing damaged ecosystems and reducing greenhouse gas emissions dramatically and immediately would spare billions of people from illness, poverty, displacement and death.
For example, climate change is dangerous for pregnant women, the report notes for the first time. Wildfire smoke exacerbates respiratory and cardiovascular disease. And the trauma of living through a weather disaster can cause long-term mental health problems.
Climate change does hurt everyone. Those who are poor and marginalized are at the highest risk of getting clobbered.
Preventing that kind of runaway warming requires dramatic cuts to greenhouse emissions in the next decade, which would require that humans stop burning fossil fuels in cars, trucks and power plants. The U.S. has been slow to reduce emissions in part because misinformation about climate change and the politicization of climate science has caused widespread public confusion about the true risks of global warming, the report says.
In reaction to the report, U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres doubled down on that message, calling fossil fuels "a dead end."
"Coal and other fossil fuels are choking humanity," Guterres says. Fossil fuel companies, banks and investors are all complicit, he argues. "Those in the private sector still financing coal must be held to account. Oil and gas giants - and their underwriters – are also on notice."
"There's still time to reverse the damage", but just less time. It's faster than we can adapt, so we need to act now.
For a newly elected Democrat, taking even a minor swipe at Pelosi was risky; joining a protest in her office seemed like political suicide. “It was absolutely terrifying,” Ocasio-Cortez told me. “But I felt like if these sixteen-year-olds are willing to sleep in a church and get an arrest on their record and possibly mess up their college prospects, if that’s what they’re willing to risk, then I can risk a committee placement or whatever.”
Ali Zaidi, who worked in the Obama White House and is now Biden’s national deputy climate adviser, a job that did not previously exist, told me, “The outer reach of what was possible, in terms of climate policy, is now table stakes.” He added that, throughout American history, “whenever we have achieved a phase change it’s been young people making it happen.”
Prakash grew up in the Boston suburbs; her family is from South India, which, in recent decades, has been battered by floods, droughts, and heat waves. For as long as she can remember, she has experienced climate change as a source of profound anxiety. “As a kid, you first have the thought, This is the most dire problem, so surely there are adults in the room who are fixing it,” she said. “That quickly turns to, Oh no, the adults are actually the ones making it worse, and no one has a plan.” As a high schooler, she was desperate to take action, but the only group she could join was her school’s recycling club. “Then I got to college and figured out, Oh, you don’t sit around waiting for the people in power to fix things,” she continued. “You have to force their hand.”
“I would much rather be a young person just living my life and going to festivals and stuff. When the world is burning, that just doesn’t feel like a serious option.”
Once each day, she sat outside and meditated using the Calm app on her phone. Even when negotiations in Washington demanded her attention, she tried not to cancel therapy appointments or break phone dates with friends. “My job is to wake up every day and stare into the abyss of human suffering,” she said. “If I didn’t stick to certain habits that keep me grounded, I would one hundred per cent lose my fucking mind.”
The generous interpretation is that activists want to move forward judiciously. The less generous one is that they sometimes fall into a classic trap: supporting development in theory but opposing it when it’s sited in their back yard.
He came to think of this as a universal law of social movements: When you set out to achieve the impossible and merely achieve the improbable, you feel like a failure.
He wrote what he called a Movement Action Plan, laying out “the eight stages of successful social movements.” The anti-nuclear activists, he argued, had rushed from Stage One, “Normal Times,” to Stage Four, “Social Movement Take-Off.” This was the good news. The bad news was that they were now entering Stage Five, “Identity Crisis of Powerlessness.” “After a year or two, the high hopes of movement take-off seem inevitably to turn into despair,” Moyer wrote. “Most activists lose their faith that success is just around the corner and come to believe that it is never going to happen.”
Today’s climate activists face even longer odds, and they have less time. According to Moyer’s model, they may not win major concessions for several years. The question, at that point, will be whether it’s too late.
Paul’s basic belief was that all human beings deserve equal respect and care, especially when they are sick. His dream, he once told me, was to start a movement that would refuse to accept, and would strive to repair, the grotesque health inequities among and within the countries of the world. When I first met him — in Haiti, in 1994 — he had already created a growing health care system in a desperately impoverished area. I thought he’d done a lot already. Now, looking back, I realize that he was just getting started.
He didn’t always treat everyone as well as he might have, but to be a patient of his was a great privilege. He was a gifted doctor and a deeply compassionate doctor, the kind of doctor we all would like to have. And I believe that the love of doctoring was the ultimate source of his strength and perseverance in the face of endless obstacles and disappointments. He wanted to make the whole world his patient, and he made a good start on that.
Speaking only for myself, I find it hard to imagine a world without him in it, especially in this moment when cynicism and cupidity seem to have become cardinal virtues, and compassion and decency are deemed a sucker’s pursuit. But Paul’s plans and dreams live on in the minds of thousands of people, who are equipped and eager to follow his example. I like to think he died happy.
悼念一個平凡而又偉大嘅國際醫生Paul Farmer, "when cynicism and cupidity seem to have become cardinal virtues, and compassion and decency are deemed a sucker’s pursuit",仲有好多人好好，而令人相信世界仍然有希望
And yet, I still counsel caution and restraint, a position I know many Americans find impossible to understand. Every measure of our outrage is natural, as are the calls for action. But emotions should never dictate policy. As President Joe Biden emphasized in his State of the Union address, we must do all we can to aid the Ukrainian resistance and to fortify NATO, but we cannot become involved in military operations in Ukraine.
I realize that this is easy for me to say. I am not in Kyiv, trying to spirit my child to safety. I am not watching the Russians approach my town. When I finish writing this, I will reassure my wife and sit down to share dinner with her in a quiet home on a peaceful street.
For now, fidelity to history requires us to remember that this isn’t the first time we’ve had little choice but to stand by and watch a dictator murder innocents.
Indeed, one more reason not to let our emotions get the better of us is that the only way Putin can save himself from his own fiasco is to bait the West into an attack. Nothing would help him more, at home or abroad, than if the United States or any other NATO country were to enter direct hostilities with Russian forces. Putin would then use the conflict to rally his people and threaten conventional and nuclear attacks against NATO. He would become a hero at home, and Ukraine would be forgotten.
Heinz paused. In a fatherly manner, he said: “Tom, I know that right now you’d like to rip Saddam Hussein apart with your bare hands. But this is when I need you to be calm and rational and helpful so that we can figure this thing out.”
It was a reproach, but a gentle one. I never forgot it, and now I always try to keep in mind that in moments of crisis, we must reflect deeply and dispassionately before daring to act.
Lots of people object to realist analyses because they lack a clear moral position on violence and individual liberty. I share these views. But I also despise this realist way of thinking because it is so indeterminate, and because it leads to statements about what states’ security interests which are, I think, either vacuous or hopelessly subjective.** And that is why Mearsheimer’s take is so exasperating.
In giving the order to invade Ukraine, Putin made nonsense of a raft of apologists who had, until the last hour, continued to believe that Russia could be satisfied with concessions, that it was acting out of “legitimate security concerns.” Putin didn’t start this war because of NATO expansion, or American imperialism, or Western weakness, or the defense of Christian civilization, or any other cause that directs blame away from the perpetrator. In 2014, Ukrainians staged what they called a “Revolution of Dignity” in Kyiv, and they’ve been struggling ever since to create a decent country, ruled by laws and not by thieves, free of Russia’s grip. That country was so intolerable to Putin that he decided to destroy it.
Now Putin, along with his patron and enabler, Xi Jinping of China, has pushed into American and European faces a truth we didn’t want to see: that our core interests lie in the defense of those values. To be realist in our age is not to define American interests so narrowly that Ukraine becomes disposable but to understand that the world has broken up into democratic and autocratic spheres; that this division shapes everything from supply chains and competition for resources to state corruption and the influence of technology on human minds and societies; that the autocrats have gained the upper hand and know it.
"our core interests lie in the defense of those values"
Since last Thursday, Ukrainian resistance to invasion has shamed and inspired much of the world. Protests that were absent during the Russian buildup throughout February now fill the streets in cities from Sydney and Tokyo to Berlin and Bern—even in St. Petersburg and Minsk. Over the weekend the European Union imposed devastating banking sanctions on Russia. Most remarkably, Germany ended its decades of nonintervention and declared that it will send military equipment to Ukraine. Even perpetually neutral Sweden is arming the Ukrainians. This sudden, energetic unity of the democracies shows the reserves of power that can be brought to bear against the autocracies without going to war.
Biden is right to rule out sending troops—after two decades of fruitless death and destruction, some lessons of restraint are well worth learning, above all in a conflict with another nuclear power. But he should make clear to the Ukrainian people, who are fighting alone, that they can count on every other form of American support—weapons, training, humanitarian aid, intelligence, and sanctions that smother the Russian economy and sever Russia’s elites from all the benefits of the rich West. Biden should tell his own people that they will have to make sacrifices, and why they are worth making.
Putin may still win his bet on Western decadence and indifference. America is more insulated than Europe from the effects of punishing Russia, but nothing can protect us from ourselves. If this country fails to persevere in supporting Ukraine, the cynical opportunism of our political elites and the self-absorbed divisions of our people will be the reasons. Putin’s assault on Ukrainian democracy will test American democracy as well.
總相信，邪不勝正，獨裁打唔贏民主，就算政權被推翻，屬於人民嘅反抗遠遠未完。Stand With Ukraine!
More incredibly, this 180-degree turn has the support of an astonishing 78 percent of the German public, who now say they approve of much higher military spending and will gladly pay for it. This is a fundamental change in Germany’s definition of itself, in its understanding of its past: Finally, Germans have understood that the lesson of their history is not that Germany must remain forever pacifist. The lesson is that Germany must defend democracy and fight the modern version of fascism in Europe when it emerges.
Even if this ends badly, even if there is more bloodshed, every Ukrainian who lived through this moment will always remember what it felt like to resist—and that too will matter, for decades to come.
可以講，Putin嘅呢次入侵的確團結咗歐洲, " 'Deep concern' has been exchanged for real action." 實際嘅行動帶嚟嘅就係真正嘅支援同抵抗，越少幻想，更瞭解真實，可以更加有針對性地去做嘢
Right now many Russians don’t even realize what is happening in Ukraine. State television has not yet admitted that the Russian military has attacked Kyiv with rockets, bombed a Holocaust memorial, or destroyed parts of central Kharkiv and Mariupol. Instead, the official propagandists are telling Russians that they are carrying out a police action in Ukraine’s far-eastern provinces. The audience gets no information about casualties, or war damage, or costs. The extent of the sanctions has not been reported. Pictures seen around the world—the bombing of the Kyiv television tower today, for example—can’t be seen on the Russian evening news.
What could happen in Russia if the story became better known, the details clearer? What if Russians are eventually able to see the same graphic images that we see? What if the price of this pointless violence becomes tangible to them too? The unpopularity of this war is going to grow, and as it gets bigger, the other Russia—the different Russia that has always been there—will grow larger, too. The Russians who flooded the streets in 1991 to cheer the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians who protested fake elections in 2011, the Russians who turned out in large numbers all across the country to protest the arrest of Navalny in 2021, the Russians, rich and poor, urban and rural, who don’t want their country to be an evil empire—maybe their numbers will expand enough to matter. Maybe, someday, they will change the nature of their state too.
總之，往事並不如煙。台灣歷史課本敘事，可不可也是開放的? 讓受統治者、受壓迫者或歷史傷口深淵的聲音，也有機會鳴放？ 歷史紀念館也可彰顯人人生而平等的價值，而不只是獨裁者或菁英的故事，才值得被記得？
The team used an established model of cognition based on previous research, which assumes people make decisions by continuously considering information until they reach a threshold of certainty.
According to this model, the decrease in reaction time from age 20 is probably due to people wanting more certainty before making decisions as they age, visual information taking more time to travel from their eyes to their brain and people taking longer to physically hit the button as they get older.
The analysis suggests that people’s mental speed increases in their 20s, and stays high until age 60. “Until older adulthood, the speed of information processing in the task we studied barely changes,” says von Krause.
“People become more cautious in their decisions with increasing age – they try to avoid mistakes. At the same time, the motor processes – the pressing of the response keys in an experiment – slow down with increasing age.”
While the team expects the results will apply to a wide range of cognitive tasks, it is possible that age may affect other tasks differently, such as those relying on memory.
The study supports smaller studies that have also found a decline in mental speed from around age 60.
一旦远离俄罗斯，索尔仁尼琴便失去了大地，犹如巨人安泰一样无能为力。他失去了对手，失却固有的压力，这就使得一个勇士的精神处于失重的、混沌的、悬 空的状态。一个人，当他丧失自由时，自由感可以变得更强烈；而在获得自由之后，对自由的焦渴自然缓解，原先敏锐的感觉也便随之钝化了。可以设想，有的人是 为苦难而生的——虽然这个说法有点残酷；事实上，具有苦难气质的人适宜在忧患中生活，来到平安的环境，反而会因精神的过分松弛而瘫痪。
俄罗斯知识分子由来反对国家组织，别尔嘉耶夫总结说，他们“像害怕污秽一样害怕政权”；但是，在民族问题上，却普遍存在大俄罗斯主义倾向。十九世纪俄 国政府在东亚细亚，高加索等地区的扩张战争，他们是不关心的；对于波兰尝试脱俄独立的行动，他们基本上持敌视态度，连普希金、托尔斯泰、陀思妥耶夫斯基也 无不如此。苏联在意识形态及社会实践方面，延续了沙皇俄国的大国沙文主义、反犹和排外的历史。知识分子及普通民众即使诅咒极权主义，也仍然希望有一个强有 力的外在权威，维护他们的伟大的祖国。
这种双重信仰，显然保护了专制主义的文化传统，使现存制度中的反民主倾向也因有了合法性的精神外衣，而得以顺利地扩展。在复活俄罗斯主义的统一行动 中，东正教起着极其重要的作用。在历史上，东正教一直宣扬服从国家，以此加强专制统治及自身的世俗权力；它构成了爱国、团结、稳定、和谐，作为俄罗斯特性 的重要部分。索尔仁尼琴是不承认苏联历史与传统的政治文化资源有任何联系的人，所以说，他是国家正统意识形态的当然继承者，正如他声称自己是一个“正教徒 ”一样。
知识分子从本质上来说，就是自由知识分子，或可称为反抗知识分子。如果去除了反抗，去除了独立自主的意识，去除了自由选择，而仅使个人性从属于权力关 系，自我约束以适应于现存秩序的逻辑，那么，自由将从知识分子身上自行剥离开来，从而从根本上改变其性质。对于索尔仁尼琴，萨哈罗夫有一个评价说︰“在我 看来，尽管索尔仁尼琴的世界观存在某些错误，但是在当代充满悲剧的世界上，他仍不失为一个为捍卫人类尊严而斗争的巨人。”这个评价是包容的，有所侧重的， 到底可接受的。在反抗暴政方面，索尔仁尼琴确实表现出了过人的勇气，而且直到最后，仍然坚持调查当年专制的罪恶，像德国清算纳粹一样追究迫害者的罪责；但 是，无庸讳言，他的错误也是致命的。应当看到，无论对于文学世界还是整个社会，索尔仁尼琴的贡献都是伟大的。他的人道主义，他的权力主义，他的光辉，他的 阴影，给予我们的都一样多，一样弥足珍贵。
最近確實感到幾奇怪，呢篇文章一定程度解答咗我嘅困惑——點解90年代俄羅斯大刀闊斧都冇融入歐洲，冇走向真正嘅民主。可能從一開始就係思想上嘅固執，mind is of great importance
Adults keep telling you the pandemic will never end, your education is being destroyed by ideologues, digital technology is poisoning your soul, democracy is collapsing, and the planet is dying—but they’re counting on you to fix everything when you grow up.
In an authoritarian or rigidly meritocratic system, schools select the elites who grow up to make the decisions. A functioning democracy needs citizens who know how to make decisions together.
Americans with college degrees are likelier to vote and otherwise participate in civic life than those without; they’re also likelier to spend hours throwing clever online darts. One study found that college-educated Democrats were more likely to hold false views about their political enemies than those without four-year degrees. More education generally makes people more Democratic, but not more democratic.
"More education generally make people more Democratic, but not more democratic." 以前冇點認真諗，但噉講就真係好有道理，education is "a form of indoctrination"，所以佢哋會更支持民主黨，但同時，佢哋都唔等於變得民主
shows how badly Americans are able to think about our collective problems—let alone read, listen, empathize, debate, reconsider, and persuade in the search for solutions. If these habits have something to do with education—and every kindergarten teacher knows that children can be taught to compromise—then democratic citizenship can, at least in part, be learned. We owe our beleaguered children, the victims of our inadequacy, a chance to be better than we are.
Finally, let’s give children a chance to read books—good books. It’s a strange feature of all the recent pedagogical innovations that they’ve resulted in the gradual disappearance of literature from many classrooms.
The best way to interest young people in literature is to have them read good literature, and not just books that focus with grim piety on the contemporary social and psychological problems of teenagers. We sell them insultingly short in thinking that they won’t read unless the subject is themselves. Mirrors are ultimately isolating; young readers also need windows, even if the view is unfamiliar, even if it’s disturbing. The ability to enter a world that’s far away in time or place; to grapple with characters whose stories might initially seem to have nothing to do with your life; to gradually sense that their emotions, troubles, revelations are also yours—this connection through language to universal human experience and thought is the reward of great literature, a source of empathy and wisdom.
The culture wars, with their atmosphere of resentment, fear, and petty faultfinding, are hostile to the writing and reading of literature. The novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie recently predicted that the novels of the next 10 to 15 years “will be awful … Art has to be able to go to a place that’s messy, a place that’s uncomfortable,” she said. “Literature is the last thing that we can depend on to tell us the truth about who we are.” The connection between reading and democratic citizenship might not be direct, but it’s real.
著名的醫療史學家波特（Roy Porter）曾說過，我們的文明愈來愈多人被診斷成精神疾病，這到底是一個科學的進步？還是這個文明需要反省？」蔡友月同時舉了社會學者高夫曼（Erving Goffman）的名作《精神病院》為例，「他說精神疾病不是病，是你被貼了一個精神疾病的標籤，你周圍的人就會用精神病的狀況來看你，你就慢慢變成一個自我實現的預言、變成一個精神病人。」
2015 -> 2022，我哋嘅媒體環境變咗有幾多？反正我覺得好可憐，而家傳統媒體失聲，靠相對獨立經營嘅媒體同自媒體嚟報道
Youth treatment programs，外國嘅家長同樣會有噉嘅需求，而一開始嘅冇管制同樣帶嚟好多創傷，而亡羊補牢仲唔算太晏
“No more hoods, or blindfolds, or handcuffs,” Gelser Blouin said during a floor debate last June. “These are not kids who have committed any crimes. These are just kids who parents are struggling with. And some have a very significant need for care or support, but not for blindfolds and hoods and handcuffs.”