题目内容
Opinion polls are now beginning to show that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to make ways of sharing the available employment more widely.But we need to further, We must ask some primary questions about the future of work. Would we continue to treat employment as the norm Would we not rather encourage many other ways for self-respecting people to work Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighborhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centers of production and workThe industrial age has been the only period of human history during which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought may have to be reversed. This seems a daunting thought. But, in fact, it could provide the prospect of a better future for work. University employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom.Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land, and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transportation improved, first by rail and then by road, people commuted longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and the place in which they lived.Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. In pre-industrial time, men and women had shared the productive work of the household and village community, Now it became a custom for the husband to go out to be paid through employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and family to his wife. Tax and benefit regulations still assume this norm today and restrict more flexible sharing Of work roles between the sexes.It was not only women whose work status suffered. As employment became the dominant form of work, young people and old people were excluded—a problem now, as more teenagers become frustrated at school and more retired people want to live active lives.All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some effort and resources away from the idealist goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full time jobs. The arrival of the industrial age in our historical evolution meant that ().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Opinion polls are now beginning to show that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to make ways of sharing the available employment more widely.But we need to further, We must ask some primary questions about the future of work. Would we continue to treat employment as the norm Would we not rather encourage many other ways for self-respecting people to work Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighborhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centers of production and workThe industrial age has been the only period of human history during which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought may have to be reversed. This seems a daunting thought. But, in fact, it could provide the prospect of a better future for work. University employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom.Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land, and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transportation improved, first by rail and then by road, people commuted longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and the place in which they lived.Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. In pre-industrial time, men and women had shared the productive work of the household and village community, Now it became a custom for the husband to go out to be paid through employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and family to his wife. Tax and benefit regulations still assume this norm today and restrict more flexible sharing Of work roles between the sexes.It was not only women whose work status suffered. As employment became the dominant form of work, young people and old people were excluded—a problem now, as more teenagers become frustrated at school and more retired people want to live active lives.All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some effort and resources away from the idealist goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full time jobs. Research carried out in the recent opinion polls shows that().
Opinion polls are now beginning to show that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to make ways of sharing the available employment more widely.But we need to further, We must ask some primary questions about the future of work. Would we continue to treat employment as the norm Would we not rather encourage many other ways for self-respecting people to work Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighborhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centers of production and workThe industrial age has been the only period of human history during which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought may have to be reversed. This seems a daunting thought. But, in fact, it could provide the prospect of a better future for work. University employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom.Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land, and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transportation improved, first by rail and then by road, people commuted longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and the place in which they lived.Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. In pre-industrial time, men and women had shared the productive work of the household and village community, Now it became a custom for the husband to go out to be paid through employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and family to his wife. Tax and benefit regulations still assume this norm today and restrict more flexible sharing Of work roles between the sexes.It was not only women whose work status suffered. As employment became the dominant form of work, young people and old people were excluded—a problem now, as more teenagers become frustrated at school and more retired people want to live active lives.All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some effort and resources away from the idealist goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full time jobs. The enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries meant that().
When you close your eyes and try to think of the shape of your own body, what you imagine (or, rather, what you feel) is quite different from what you see when you open your eyes and look in the mirror. The image you feel is much vaguer than the one you see. And if you lie still, it is quite hard to imagine yourself as having any particular size of shape. When you move, when you feel the weight of your arms and legs and the natural resistance of the objects around you, the "felt image" of yourself starts to become clearer. It is almost as if it were created by your own actions and the sensations they cause. The image you make for yourself has rather strange proportions: certain parts feel much larger than they look. If you poke your tongue into a hole in one of your teeth, it feels enormous; you are often surprised by how small it looks when you inspect it in the mirror. But although the "felt image" may not have the exact shape you see in the mirror, it is much more important. It is the image through which you recognize your physical existence in the world. In spite of its strange proportions, it is all one piece, and since it has a consisent right and felt and top and bottom, it allows you to locate new sensations when they occur. It allows you to find nose in the dark, scratch itches and point to pain. If the felt image is damaged for any reason—if it is cut in half or lost, as it often is after certain strokes which wipe out recognition of one entire side—these tasks become almost impossible. What is more, it becomes hard to make sense of one’s own visual appearance. If one half of the felt image is wiped out or injured, the patient stops recognizing the affected of his body. It is hard for him to find the location of sensation on that side, and, although he fells doctor’s touch, he locates it as being on the undamaged side. He loses his ability to accept the affected side as part of his body even when he can see it. If you throw him a pair of gloves and ask him to put them on, he will only glove one hand and leave the other bear. And yet he had had to use the left hand in order to glove the right. The fact that he can see the ungloved hand doesn’t seem to help him, and there is no reason why it should. He can no longer reconcile what he sees with what he feels—the ungloved object lying on the left may look like a hand, but, since there is no felt image corresponding to it, why sould he claim the object as his You can find your nose in the darkness because of your "felt image".
When doctors need information about what does of medication to prescribe, they usually consult a fat navy-blue book called The Physicians’ Desk Reference, or PDR, an extensive compilation of data about drugs form their manufacturers. But the doses recommended in the PDR may be too high for many people and may cause adverse reactions, ranging from dizziness trod nausea all the way to death, according to an article published last month in the journal Postgraduate Medicine.For many drugs—including Viagra, Prozac and some medicines used to treat high blood pressure, allergies, insomnia and high cholesterol—smaller doses would work just as well, With far less risk of bad reactions, said Jay Cohen, the author of the article."Side effects drive a lot of people out of treatment that they need," Dr. Cohen said, nothing that people with chronic conditions like high blood pressure, headaches and depression often gave up trying to treat their illness when they found that the cure was worse than the disease. But if doctors were to individualize dosages for each patient, more people might take their medicine.Dr. Cohen said he became aware of the problem because he encountered many patients who suffered from side effects even though they had taken what were supposedly the correct doses of medicine. When Dr. Cohen consulted medical journals and textbooks, he discovered studies showing that many patients were helped by smaller than usual amounts of medication. And many of his own patients did better with reduced doses of medicine.He said his findings helped explain a study published last year by other researchers, who reported that drug reactions in hospitals were among the nation’s leading causes of death, killing more than 100,000 Americans a year. The deaths that the team studied were not due to medication errors by doctors or patients; they occurred in people taking doses thought to be correct.Dosing guidelines generally tend to be too high because they are based on studies conducted in limited numbers of patients by drug companies when they are seeking approval for new products. For those studies to run efficiently, doses need to be high enough to show as quickly as possible that the drug works. But later, after the drug is approved, far more people take it, sometimes along with other drugs, and individual differences begin to show up. Yet, that information does not always make it into the PDR and it is not well taught in medical school, Cohen said.Dr. Cohen cautioned that patients should not begin tinkering with doses of prescription drugs on their own. He said they needed to work with doctors to adjust the doses safely. With some drugs, doses cannot be changed. And in emergencies, he said, it is always safest to stick with recommended doses. In what way did Dr. Cohen help explain why so many Americans die of drug reactions()
微信支付 
支付宝支付