题目内容
Imagine a chart that begins when man first appeared on the planet and tracks the economic growth of societies from then forward. It would be a long, flat line until the late 16th or early 17th century, when it would start trending upward. For most of humankind life was as the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously described it in 1651—"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." But as Hobbes was writing those words, the world around him was changing. Put simply, human beings were getting smarter.People have always sought knowledge. The scientific revolution, followed by the Enlightenment, marked a fundamental shift. Humans were no longer searching for ways simply to fit into a natural or divine order; but they were seeking to change it. Once people found ways to harness energy—using steam engines—they were able to build machines that harnessed far more power than any human or horse could ever do. And people could work without ever getting tired. The rise of these machines drove the Industrial Revolution, and created a whole new system of life. Today the search for knowledge continues to produce an ongoing revolution in the health and wealth of humankind.If the rise of science marks the first great trend in this story, the second is its diffusion. What was happening in Britain during the Industrial Revolution was not an isolated phenomenon. A succession of visitors to Britain would go back to report to their countries on the technological and commercial innovations they saw there. Sometimes societies were able to learn extremely fast, as in the United States. Others, like Germany, was benefited from starting late, leapfrogging the long-drawn-out process that Britain went through.This diffusion of knowledge accelerated dramatically in recent decades. Over the last 30 years we have watched countries like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and now China grow at a pace that is three times that of Britain or the United States at the peak of the Industrial Revolution. They have been able to do this because of their energies and exertions, of course, but also because they cleverly and perhaps luckily adopted certain ideas about development that had worked in the West—reasonably free markets, open trade, a focus on science and technology, among them.The diffusion of knowledge is the dominant trend of our time and goes well beyond the purely scientific. Consider the cases of Turkey and Brazil. If you had asked an economist 20 years ago how to think about these two countries, he would have explained that they were classic basket-case, Third World economies, with triple-digit inflation, soaring debt burdens, a weak private sector and snail’s-pace growth. Today they are both remarkably well managed, with inflation in single digits and growth above 5 percent. And this shift is happening around the world. From Thailand to South Africa to Slovakia to Mexico, countries are far better managed economically than they have ever been. Even in cases where political constraints make it difficult to push far-reaching reforms, as in Brazil, Mexico or India, governments still manage their affairs sensibly, observing the Hippocratic oath not to do any harm.We are sometimes reluctant to believe in progress. But the evidence is unmistakable. The management of major economies has gotten markedly better in the last few years. Careful monetary policy has tempered the boom-and-bust economic cycles of the industrial world, producing milder recessions and fewer shocks. Every day one reads of a new study comparing nations in everything from Internet penetration to inflation. All these studies and lists are symbols of a learning process that is accelerating, reinforcing the lessons of success and failure. Call it a best-practice world.I realize that the world I am describing is the world of the winners. There are billions of people, locked outside global markets, whose lives are still accurately described by Hobbes’s cruel phrase. But even here, there is change. The recognition of global inequalities is more marked today than ever before, and this learning is forcing action. There is more money being spent on vaccines and cures for diseases in Africa and Asia today than ever before in history. Foreign-aid programs face constant scrutiny and analysis. When things don’t work, we learn that, too, and it puts a focus either on the aid program or on local governments to improve.This may sound overly optimistic. There are losers in every race, but let not the worries over who is winning and losing the knowledge race obscure the more powerful underlying dynamic: knowledge is liberating. It creates the possibility for change and improvement everywhere. It can create amazing devices and techniques, save lives, improve living standards and spread information. Some will do well on one measure, others on another. But on the whole, a knowledge-based world will be a healthier and richer world.The caveat I would make is not about one or another country’s paucity of engineers or computers. These problems can be solved. But knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom. Knowledge can produce equally powerful ways to destroy life, intentionally and unintentionally. It can produce hate and seek destruction. Knowledge does not by itself bring any answer to the ancient Greek question "What is a Good Life" It does not produce good sense, courage, generosity and tolerance. And most crucially, it does not produce the farsightedness that will allow us all to live together—and grow together—on this world without causing war, chaos and catastrophe. For that we need wisdom. The author’s attitude towards knowledge is（）。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Imagine a chart that begins when man first appeared on the planet and tracks the economic growth of societies from then forward. It would be a long, flat line until the late 16th or early 17th century, when it would start trending upward. For most of humankind life was as the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously described it in 1651—"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." But as Hobbes was writing those words, the world around him was changing. Put simply, human beings were getting smarter.People have always sought knowledge. The scientific revolution, followed by the Enlightenment, marked a fundamental shift. Humans were no longer searching for ways simply to fit into a natural or divine order; but they were seeking to change it. Once people found ways to harness energy—using steam engines—they were able to build machines that harnessed far more power than any human or horse could ever do. And people could work without ever getting tired. The rise of these machines drove the Industrial Revolution, and created a whole new system of life. Today the search for knowledge continues to produce an ongoing revolution in the health and wealth of humankind.If the rise of science marks the first great trend in this story, the second is its diffusion. What was happening in Britain during the Industrial Revolution was not an isolated phenomenon. A succession of visitors to Britain would go back to report to their countries on the technological and commercial innovations they saw there. Sometimes societies were able to learn extremely fast, as in the United States. Others, like Germany, was benefited from starting late, leapfrogging the long-drawn-out process that Britain went through.This diffusion of knowledge accelerated dramatically in recent decades. Over the last 30 years we have watched countries like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and now China grow at a pace that is three times that of Britain or the United States at the peak of the Industrial Revolution. They have been able to do this because of their energies and exertions, of course, but also because they cleverly and perhaps luckily adopted certain ideas about development that had worked in the West—reasonably free markets, open trade, a focus on science and technology, among them.The diffusion of knowledge is the dominant trend of our time and goes well beyond the purely scientific. Consider the cases of Turkey and Brazil. If you had asked an economist 20 years ago how to think about these two countries, he would have explained that they were classic basket-case, Third World economies, with triple-digit inflation, soaring debt burdens, a weak private sector and snail’s-pace growth. Today they are both remarkably well managed, with inflation in single digits and growth above 5 percent. And this shift is happening around the world. From Thailand to South Africa to Slovakia to Mexico, countries are far better managed economically than they have ever been. Even in cases where political constraints make it difficult to push far-reaching reforms, as in Brazil, Mexico or India, governments still manage their affairs sensibly, observing the Hippocratic oath not to do any harm.We are sometimes reluctant to believe in progress. But the evidence is unmistakable. The management of major economies has gotten markedly better in the last few years. Careful monetary policy has tempered the boom-and-bust economic cycles of the industrial world, producing milder recessions and fewer shocks. Every day one reads of a new study comparing nations in everything from Internet penetration to inflation. All these studies and lists are symbols of a learning process that is accelerating, reinforcing the lessons of success and failure. Call it a best-practice world.I realize that the world I am describing is the world of the winners. There are billions of people, locked outside global markets, whose lives are still accurately described by Hobbes’s cruel phrase. But even here, there is change. The recognition of global inequalities is more marked today than ever before, and this learning is forcing action. There is more money being spent on vaccines and cures for diseases in Africa and Asia today than ever before in history. Foreign-aid programs face constant scrutiny and analysis. When things don’t work, we learn that, too, and it puts a focus either on the aid program or on local governments to improve.This may sound overly optimistic. There are losers in every race, but let not the worries over who is winning and losing the knowledge race obscure the more powerful underlying dynamic: knowledge is liberating. It creates the possibility for change and improvement everywhere. It can create amazing devices and techniques, save lives, improve living standards and spread information. Some will do well on one measure, others on another. But on the whole, a knowledge-based world will be a healthier and richer world.The caveat I would make is not about one or another country’s paucity of engineers or computers. These problems can be solved. But knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom. Knowledge can produce equally powerful ways to destroy life, intentionally and unintentionally. It can produce hate and seek destruction. Knowledge does not by itself bring any answer to the ancient Greek question "What is a Good Life" It does not produce good sense, courage, generosity and tolerance. And most crucially, it does not produce the farsightedness that will allow us all to live together—and grow together—on this world without causing war, chaos and catastrophe. For that we need wisdom. A suitable title for the passage would be （）。
Imagine a chart that begins when man first appeared on the planet and tracks the economic growth of societies from then forward. It would be a long, flat line until the late 16th or early 17th century, when it would start trending upward. For most of humankind life was as the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously described it in 1651—"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." But as Hobbes was writing those words, the world around him was changing. Put simply, human beings were getting smarter.People have always sought knowledge. The scientific revolution, followed by the Enlightenment, marked a fundamental shift. Humans were no longer searching for ways simply to fit into a natural or divine order; but they were seeking to change it. Once people found ways to harness energy—using steam engines—they were able to build machines that harnessed far more power than any human or horse could ever do. And people could work without ever getting tired. The rise of these machines drove the Industrial Revolution, and created a whole new system of life. Today the search for knowledge continues to produce an ongoing revolution in the health and wealth of humankind.If the rise of science marks the first great trend in this story, the second is its diffusion. What was happening in Britain during the Industrial Revolution was not an isolated phenomenon. A succession of visitors to Britain would go back to report to their countries on the technological and commercial innovations they saw there. Sometimes societies were able to learn extremely fast, as in the United States. Others, like Germany, was benefited from starting late, leapfrogging the long-drawn-out process that Britain went through.This diffusion of knowledge accelerated dramatically in recent decades. Over the last 30 years we have watched countries like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and now China grow at a pace that is three times that of Britain or the United States at the peak of the Industrial Revolution. They have been able to do this because of their energies and exertions, of course, but also because they cleverly and perhaps luckily adopted certain ideas about development that had worked in the West—reasonably free markets, open trade, a focus on science and technology, among them.The diffusion of knowledge is the dominant trend of our time and goes well beyond the purely scientific. Consider the cases of Turkey and Brazil. If you had asked an economist 20 years ago how to think about these two countries, he would have explained that they were classic basket-case, Third World economies, with triple-digit inflation, soaring debt burdens, a weak private sector and snail’s-pace growth. Today they are both remarkably well managed, with inflation in single digits and growth above 5 percent. And this shift is happening around the world. From Thailand to South Africa to Slovakia to Mexico, countries are far better managed economically than they have ever been. Even in cases where political constraints make it difficult to push far-reaching reforms, as in Brazil, Mexico or India, governments still manage their affairs sensibly, observing the Hippocratic oath not to do any harm.We are sometimes reluctant to believe in progress. But the evidence is unmistakable. The management of major economies has gotten markedly better in the last few years. Careful monetary policy has tempered the boom-and-bust economic cycles of the industrial world, producing milder recessions and fewer shocks. Every day one reads of a new study comparing nations in everything from Internet penetration to inflation. All these studies and lists are symbols of a learning process that is accelerating, reinforcing the lessons of success and failure. Call it a best-practice world.I realize that the world I am describing is the world of the winners. There are billions of people, locked outside global markets, whose lives are still accurately described by Hobbes’s cruel phrase. But even here, there is change. The recognition of global inequalities is more marked today than ever before, and this learning is forcing action. There is more money being spent on vaccines and cures for diseases in Africa and Asia today than ever before in history. Foreign-aid programs face constant scrutiny and analysis. When things don’t work, we learn that, too, and it puts a focus either on the aid program or on local governments to improve.This may sound overly optimistic. There are losers in every race, but let not the worries over who is winning and losing the knowledge race obscure the more powerful underlying dynamic: knowledge is liberating. It creates the possibility for change and improvement everywhere. It can create amazing devices and techniques, save lives, improve living standards and spread information. Some will do well on one measure, others on another. But on the whole, a knowledge-based world will be a healthier and richer world.The caveat I would make is not about one or another country’s paucity of engineers or computers. These problems can be solved. But knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom. Knowledge can produce equally powerful ways to destroy life, intentionally and unintentionally. It can produce hate and seek destruction. Knowledge does not by itself bring any answer to the ancient Greek question "What is a Good Life" It does not produce good sense, courage, generosity and tolerance. And most crucially, it does not produce the farsightedness that will allow us all to live together—and grow together—on this world without causing war, chaos and catastrophe. For that we need wisdom. The word "unmistakable" in the sixth paragraph means （）。
In the days before Diana became accustomed to daily hairdressers, high fashion and expertly applied makeup, she looked her best when she was wearing her least. No frilly blouses concealed her elegant neck, carefully cut skirts her long legs, or bulky sweaters her well-rounded figure. She was young and not fully aware of just how attractive she could be. But if she wanted to impress a young man, any young man, she always made it a point to go swimming or sailing or, at the very least, play a game of tennis.When Prince Charles saw her aboard Britannia at Cowes in the late summer of 1980, he wasn’t however particularly interested. She belonged to his younger brother Andrew’s set, and had come aboard, not at Chariest s invitation, but with Lady Sarah Armstrong Jones, his cousin and sixteen years his junior.Diana was three years older than Sarah, but still almost a generation away. And besides, Charles had his mind on other things—most particularly the breakup of his romance with the beautiful but self-willed Anna Wallace. There was also the fact that if he noticed Diana in anything more than passing, he thought about her as the sister of one of his former girlfriends—Lady Sarah Spencer—who had recently married (he hadn’t attended), and whatever others might have been plotting he most certainly was not thinking of renewing his romantic links with the Spencer girls.But if Charles was not instantly enchanted by the fresh, gambolling nineteen-year-old who spent some days aboard the Royal Yacht, his staff were. "She was so unassuming and so natural,’ one recalls. And in the manner of all servants, particularly ones who are in the employ of the bachelor Prince, they inevitably started speculating amongst themselves if she was the one for what they called "the job".So, it seems, did Diana. At the age of sixteen she had jokingly told a friend that she was "out to get’ Charles. But that may have been just romantic fantasizing on the part of a young girl whose main reading was the soapy romances penned by her step-grandmother, the redoubtable Barbara Cartland. The Prince’s late valet, Stephen Barry; insisted however: "She went after the Prince with single-minded determination. She wanted him—and she got him!"She had, of course, met him many times before in the years of her childhood spent as a near-neighbour of the Windsors at Sandringham when Charles used to pop his head round the nursery door where she was having tea with Andrew and Edward, or during a shooting party on Sandringham Estate where at the age of sixteen she was reintroduced to him by her sister Sarah. More recently she had encountered him at polo. But then he had always been busy or with a girlfriend in tow. This time he was alone.She made sure Charles was watching when she bravely followed his example and went windsurfing in the ehoppy and not-too-warm waters of the Solent. Naturally flirtatious, she made sure he noticed her long slim legs and trim figure. And he could not fail but start to take an interest—if only a comparative one—in the beautiful younger sister of a former girlfriend.Accounts of this first meeting vary. Some claim that it is where the famous romance began. Others insist that his interest was but a mild one; that with Anna still in mind, the timing was wrong and he simply regarded her as a new and pretty addition to his surprisingly limited circle of friends.But she had certainly impressed him enough for him to invite her up to Balmoral shortly afterwards. Diana accepted with alacrity. How many years younger was Diana than Charles when they met aboard Britannia at Cowes（）。
The old man stood there at a loss, his sunken eyes staring at the man seated behind the table. Raising his hand, he wiped the sweat from his forehead and heavily wrinkled face. He didn’t use the traditional kerchief and headband as usual, though he could feel the sweat running down his temple and neck, and he gave no reply to the man seated behind the table who went on asking him, "Why did you go in opening all the doors of the wards looking for your wife Why didn’t you come directly to Enquires" The old man kept silent. Why, though, was the man seated behind the table continuing to open one drawer after another His eyes busy watching him, he said, "I came here the day before yesterday wanting the hospital and looking for the mother of my children."The man seated behind the table muttered irritably, blaming himself for not having ever learned how to ask the right question, how to get a conversation going, and why it was that his question, full of explanations, and sometimes of annoyance, weren’t effective. He puffed at his cigarette as he enquired in exasperation, "What’ s your wife’ s name" The old man at once replied, "Zeinab Mohamed." The man seated behind the table began flipping through the pages of the thick ledger; each time he turned over a page there was a loud noise that was heard by everyone in the waiting room. He went on flipping through the pages of his ledger, pursing his lips listlessly, then nervously, as he kept bringing the ledger close to his face until finally he said, "Your wife came in here the day before yesterday" The old man in relief at once answered, "Yes, sir, when her heart came to a stop." Once again irritated, the man seated behind the table mumbled to himself, "Had her heart stopped she wouldn’t be here, neither would you." With his eyes still on the ledger, he said, "She’ s in Ward 4, but it’ s not permitted for you to enter her ward because there are other women there." Yawning, he called to the nurse leaning against the wall. She came forward, in her hand a paper cup from which she was drinking. Motioning with his head to the man, he said, "Ward Number 4 -Zeinab Mohamed." The nurse walked ahead, without raising her mouth from the cup. The old man asked himself how it was that this woman worked in a hospital that was crammed with men, even though she spoke Arabic. Having arrived at the ward, the nurse left him outside after telling him to wait; then, after a while, she came out and said to him, "There are two women called Zeinab Mohamed. One of them, though, has only one eye. Which one is your wife so that I can call her"The old man was thrown into confusion. One eye How am I to know He tried to recall what his wife Zeinab looked like, with her long gown and black headdress, the veil, and sometimes the black covering enveloping her face and sometimes removed and lying on her neck. He could picture her as she walked and sat, chewing a morsel and then taking it out of her mouth so as to place it in that of her first-born. Her children. One eye. How am 1 to know tie could picture her stretched out on the bed, her eyes closed. The old man was thrown into confusion and found himself saying, "When I call her, she’ll know my voice." The nurse doubted whether he was in fact visiting his wife; however, giving him another glance; she laughed at her suspicions and asked him, "How long have the two of you been married Again, he was confused as he said, ’ Allah knows best — thirty, forty years ...\ Which of the following may least reveal the old man’ s Arabian identity（）。
微信支付 
支付宝支付