Picture this: It’s 2003 and your family has just finished arguing over which Netflix movie video tapes to rent that week. Movies come in the mail and the family watch them throughout the week. Then, fast forward to 2008, and you have started to watch TV shows on Netflix’s new platform.

Now, let’s come to the present. You sit down and open up Netflix on your TV and scroll （滚屏） for a while. Then check HBO GO. Finally, check Disney+. Then realize that you’re paying for three different streaming services, maybe more.

Let’s return to Netflix. More generally, streaming. There are over 100 video streaming services available, as well as quite a few music streaming, including YouTube Music, Google Play, and etc. The streaming world, at least to some, is on its way to getting out of control, with each service requiring its own monthly entertainment subscription. We haven’t even taken into account subscriptions like Microsoft Office and email newsletters. Subscriptions started out as a service of convenience, but now, the oversaturation may have become burdensome. The services believe customers will pay more to get the content they want. However, statistics show a growing frustration among consumers. With so many options, they find it harder than ever to make a decision on what to pick.

Not only does the oversaturation of streaming result in confusing navigation, it also creates a financial burden for the consumers. Let’s say if you want to watch The Handmaid’s Tale and Game of Thrones, which belong to two different services, you would have to pay nearly $50 a month to access both services, meaning it’s potentially more expensive, than cable.

People cut their cords （细绳） and went the streaming route because it was simpler and cheaper. Now, it’s just as inconvenient and difficult as cable was, if not more so, and unless you’re limiting yourself to one service, it’s not cheaper. Streaming will survive because we’re in a Golden Age of Media and because each service is able to create high-quality originals. But Golden Ages don’t last, and bubbles tend to burst. Until the unavoidable day when some product or service proves streaming out of date, we must suffer the choices in front of us. The next time you are scrolling through Netflix, Hulu, or whatever, and the over-choice is killing you, maybe you should just go pick up a book instead.

For many environmentalists, the world seems to be getting worse. They have developed a hit-list of our main fears; that natural resources are running out; that the population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat; and that the planet’s air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

However, a quick look at the facts shows a different picture. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world’s population than at any time in history. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution appear to have been exaggerated. One form of pollution-the release of greenhouse gasses that causes global warming-does appear to be a phenomenon that is going to extend well into our future, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem.

Yet opinion polls suggest that many people nurture the belief that environmental standards are declining and three factors seem to cause this disjunction between perception and reality.

One is the lopsidedness(不平衡) built into scientific research. Scientific funding goes mainly to areas with many problems. That may be wise policy, but it will also create an impression that many more potential problems exist than the real case.

Secondly, environmental groups need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes overstate their arguments. In 1997, for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a press release entitled: ‘Two thirds of the world’s forests lost forever’. The truth turns out to be nearer 20%.

A third source of confusion is the attitude of the media. People are clearly more curious about bad news than good. Newspapers and broadcasters are there to provide what the public wants. That, however, can lead to intensified misunderstanding. An example was America’s confronting with El Nino in 1997 and 1998. This climatic phenomenon was accused of damaging tourism, causing allergies, melting the ski-slopes and causing 22 deaths. However, according to an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the damage it did was estimated at US$4 billion but the benefits added up to some US$19 billion. These came from higher winter temperatures (which saved an estimated 850 lives and reduced heating costs).