What would the world be if there were no hunger? It’s a question that the late ecologist Donella Meadows would ask her students at Dartmouth College back in the 1970s. She set out to create a global movement. The result—an approach known as systems thinking—is now seen as essential in meeting big global challenges.
Systems thinking is crucial to achieving targets such as zero hunger and better nutrition because it requires considering the way in which food is produced, processed, delivered and consumed, and looking at how those things relate with human health, the environment, economics and society. According to systems thinking, changing the food system—or any other network—requires three things to happen. First, researchers need to identify all the players in that system; second, they must work out how they relate to each other; and third, they need to understand and quantify the impact of those relationships on each other and on those outside the system.
Take nutrition for example. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization tracked 150 biochemicals in food and various databases, which revealed the relationships between calories, sugar, fat, vitamins and the occurrence of common diseases. But using machine learning and artificial intelligence, network scientists propose that human diets consist of at least 26,000 biochemicals and that the vast majority are not known. This shows that we have some way to travel before achieving the first objective of systems thinking—which, in this example, is to identify more constituent parts of the nutrition system.
A systems approach to creating change is also built on the assumption that everyone in the system has equal power and status. But the food system is not an equal one. There have been calls for a World Food and Nutrition Organization, so that legally binding policies can be applied to all its members. Another way to address power imbalances is for more universities to do what Meadows did and teach students how to think using a systems approach.
A team of researchers has done just that, through the Interdisciplinary Food Systems Teaching and Learning program. Students from disciplines including agriculture, ecology and economics learn together by drawing on their collective expertise in tackling real-world problems, such as how to reduce food waste. Since its launch in 2015, the program has trained more than 1,500 students from 45 university departments.
More researchers, policymakers and representatives from the food industry must learn to look beyond their direct lines of responsibility and embrace a systems approach, as the editors of Nature Food advocate in their launch editorial. Meadows knew that visions alone don’t produce results, but concluded that “we’ll never produce results that we can’t envision”.
【小题1】The passage is mainly about ________.| A．how to conduct research efficiently | B．how to build a world food organization |
| C．an approach to solving real-world problem | D．an approach to applying scientific findings |
| A．artificial intelligence is more useful than traditional methods |
| B．achieving systems thinking requires identifying more components |
| C．we are unable to gain thorough understanding of our nutritious system |
| D．some biochemicals are related with the occurrence of common diseases |
| A．It is the only way of solving imbalance in our food system. |
| B．It aims to urge the governments to carry out its food policies. |
| C．It seeks to solve theoretical issues about food and nutrition |
| D．It has cultivated many interdisciplinary talents since its launch. |
| A．Results can’t be produced. | B．Vision brings about change. |
| C．Action matters more than saying. | D．Systems thinking is too difficult to realize. |
The iPhone has become a usability nightmare (噩梦). A new one comes with 38 preinstalled (提前装好的) apps, of which you can delete 27. Once you’ve downloaded your favorite apps, you’re now sitting at 46 or more.
Like many companies, Apple has decided that there’s no need to build an easy-to-use product when it can use artificial intelligence. If you want to find something in their garbage dump of apps and options, you must use Spotlight, Apple’s AI-powered search engine that can find almost everything there.
This “innovation” of artificial intelligence is not the creation of something new but simply companies selling you back basic usability after decades of messy design choices. And these tech firms are charging us more to fix their mistakes and slapping an AI label as a solution.
Alexa and Siri have become replacements for intentional computing. They give commands into voice interfaces (接口) easily but sacrifice “what we can do” to “what Amazon or Apple allows us to do.” We have been trained to keep apps and files, while tech companies have failed to provide any easy way to organize them. They have decided that disorganized chaos is fine as long as they can provide an automated search product to sift (筛查) through the mess, something more tech, even if tech created the problem in the first place.
Artificial intelligence-based user interfaces rob the user of choice and empower tech giants to control their decision-making. When one searches for something in Siri or Alexa, Apple and Amazon control the results. Google already provides vastly different search results based on your location, and has redesigned search itself multiple times to trick users into clicking links that benefit Google in some way.
Depressingly, our future is becoming one where we must choose between asking an artificial intelligence for help, or fighting through an ever-increasing amount of poorly designed menus in the hope we might be able to help ourselves. We, as consumers, should demand more from the companies that have turned our digital lives into trillion-dollar enterprises.
【小题1】Why does the author mention Apple’s problem?| A．As the main topic. | B．As the model. |
| C．As an example. | D．As a sharp contrast. |
| A．They are both Apple’s search products. |
| B．They help consumers make their own choices. |
| C．They have bettered the user experience greatly. |
| D．They work to the benefits of tech giants behind. |
| A．Uncertain. | B．Disapproving. | C．Unclear. | D．Unconcerned. |
| A．abandon using artificial intelligence |
| B．abandon using products from tech giants |
| C．recognize the nature of AI-based solution |
| D．recognize the nature of poorly designed apps |
Wider and shorter
Professor Matthew Longo at the University of London and his team did an experiment, covering the left hands of 100 people. Then they asked the people to point to where they thought their fingertips and knuckles (指关节) were. They made some quite big mistakes.
“People think their hand is wider than it actually is,” said Longo. The fingers also seem shorter than they are. This mistake gets worse as you go across the hand from the thumb to the little finger.
Sense of position
“It is connected to our sense of position,” explained Longo. This is our ability to tell where different parts of our bodies are, even when we can’t see them. “It tells us whether a joint is straight, or not” he said. It also tells us whether we are going up or down in an elevator. All this information comes from signs from nerves in real time. It’s like our brain has maps — maps that show the size and shape of our body. “This experiment tried to find those maps,” said Longo.
Strength(强度) of feeling
But these maps make mistakes. These mistakes may be made because of how the brain understands different parts of the skin. “Our brains ‘see’ areas as larger where the skin feels touch strongly,” said Longo. Body parts don’t appear as their true size, but appear bigger or smaller depending on how strongly they feel touch. Our lips, for example, have more nerves than our nose. So brain “sees” lips on its map of the body as being bigger than our nose. The same thing happens for other parts of the body that have lots of nerves.
Longo believes that more research in this area may help us to understand eating problem better, because people suffering from these problems may not know their bodies properly.
【小题1】Which of following statement is TRUE about the experiment according to the article?
| A．People think their body parts are larger than they actually are. |
| B．People made more mistakes about their little fingers length than their thumbs’ length. |
| C．People’s fingers are actually shorter than they think. |
| D．People were asked to draw their hands from memory |
| A．The new experiment. | B．The location information. |
| C．The mistake people made. | D．The sizes of fingers and hands. |
| A．the maps of people’s bodies form before they are born |
| B．the maps of our body are based on information from nerves |
| C．our sense of position tells how different parts of the body work |
| D．how we feel about our body shape is only decided by our sense of position |
| A．the hand feels touch more strongly than fingers do |
| B．our lips have a weaker sense of touch than our nose |
| C．there are more nerves in the finger than in the hand |
| D．our sense of position should not be trusted because it is too often incorrect |
Until recently, scientists had mapped only about 20 percent of the sea floor. But our knowledge of the deep seas is changing because of information from satellites. Scientists have produced a new map that provides a detailed picture of the oceans. The map is expected to help oceanographers, industry and governments.
The new map is twice as detailed as the map made 20 years ago. David Sandwell is a geophysics professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California. He and other scientists worked on the mapping project. He says they turned to space to look deeper into the ocean. He spoke to VOA on SKYPE.
“The way we’re doing that is to use a satellite altimeter (高度计), a radar to map the topography (地貌) of the ocean surface. Now that seems sort of strange that you’d map the topography of the ocean surface when you really want to get at the sea floor. But, the ocean surface topography has these bumps and dips due to gravitational effects that mimic what’s on the sea floor.”
The scientists collected and studied information from two satellites. Some of the data came from the European Space Agency’s Cryo-2 satellite. It was placed in Earth’s orbit to watch sea ice. The other satellite is the American space agency’s Jason-1. It is studying the surface of the oceans. Scientists combined the satellite data with images gathered by sonar ( 声呐：利用声波探测水下物体的装置或系统) equipment on ships. Sonar works by sending sound waves through the water. When the sound waves hit an object, its presence is confirmed.
“That enables us to look at smaller-scale features and also features that are buried by sediments in the ocean basins.”
The new map shows the sea floor as it has never been seen before. It shows thousands of underwater mountains and places where continents pulled apart. It shows where earthquakes were active many years ago. They all are buried deep underneath the ocean floor.
In one place, three mountain ridges join at the same area. Huge tectonic (构造的) plates can be seen clearly there.
【小题1】The passage is likely to _____.
| A．be an advertisement | B．appear on VOA |
| C．make a comment on radar | D．appear on SKYPE |
| A．The detailed information about the place. |
| B．The more important thing in the ocean. |
| C．The things buried in the ocean. |
| D．Scientists told SKYPE they will explore at the same area. |
| A．the European Space Agency’s Cryo-2 satellite |
| B．the American space agency’s Jason-1 |
| C．sonar equipment on ships |
| D．the Cryo-2 and the Jason-1 |
| A．Scientists Create New Maps of Ocean Floor |
| B．Scientists Knows More Oceans Than Mars |
| C．Oceans Will Provide Us With Maps |
| D．People Knows Easily About Mars |
组卷网是一个信息分享及获取的平台，不能确保所有知识产权权属清晰，如您发现相关试题侵犯您的合法权益，请联系组卷网
