To prevent the deserts coming near, China has planted billions of trees—to replace destroyed forests and as barriers against the sand. This isn't a cure, though, say experts, as thirsty trees can make the problem worse by taking in groundwater.

    “Planting tress is one way, but it isn't that simple. It doesn't solve the basic issue of water resources,” says Wu Bo, a professor. “We need to calculate how much water the trees will absorb, or else it could have a negative effect.”

    Villagers in Zhengxin have taken on this challenge, with limited success. When the irrigation channels began to run dry, Lu Xianglin switched from wheat to cotton on his land. He also planted trees to protect his fields from sandstorms. He says he still gets good yields（产量） using flood irrigation and earns a good income for his family.

    Other farmers haven't stuck it out（坚持到底）: about one in three have left Zhengxin in the past 10 years after their wheat crops died. Young people who can find jobs in the towns rarely return.

    Last week, Mr Lu joined the other men in his village on a government-arranged trip to see the land that has been set aside for their relocation, nearly 40 miles to the south. The next day, he was back, shaking his head at the plan. The idea of uprooting his family troubles him, as does the idea of giving up the land that fed his forefathers. He prefers to stay and keep up the fight.

    “With enough water, this problem can be solved,” Lu says. “We can plant trees and grass, and they will grow bigger. That will stop the desert.”

    Experts say that farmers could switch to drip irrigation （滴灌）to lessen their water intake for growing crops. Elsewhere in the region, farmers have built brick greenhouses as part of a plan to grow vegetables using less water. Roadside signs urge farmers to “Save Water, Protect the Environment”.

    How long has 3-D technology been around? Most of us might think of crowds of teenagers in a 1950's movie house watching Bwana Devil in 3-D. But 3-D technology made its first appearance on the scene in 1838 with the first stereoscope(体视镜). And the first actual 3-D movie was a 1903 film called Le Ariveed'un Train.

    Although it has such a long history, the technology has still remained based on one simple principle—to make 3-D effects you must find a way to project two slightly different pictures to each eye. Modern 3-D technology works by rapidly flickering(闪动)two versions of the movie and projecting them onto each eye. The brain does the rest of the work, combining the two pictures together into one and giving the show the appearance of depth, the third dimension.

    But does this exposure, especially long exposures, cause harm to the child's developing brain and visual system? Unfortunately, long-term studies on new flicker digital 3-D technology and children aren't yet available. We do not know if regular or daily 3-D viewing over years affects the developing visual system, although older 3-D methods basically do the same thing and are not considered harmful.

    The question of possible harm in modern 3-D use in TV is really based on two facts: the amount of time children will now be watching 3-D TV each day and the sensitivity some children show in reaction to 3-D viewing. It is difficult to make actual lab studies of longer term 3-D viewing in children because of the possible harm of the experiment. Researchers will have to wait until 3-D TV technology is already in the marketplace for a number of years, then check heavy 3-D TV watchers and compare them with non-watchers.

    With a 3-D television technology in the home, we will soon be able to answer the question of whether or not longer and more frequent periods of 3-D exposure cause more changes in the visual system. We may find that the bigger problem is the introduction of a new technology that leads to even more time spent on TV rather than playing outdoors.

    By trying to tickle(挠痒痒) rats and recording how their nerve cells respond, Shimpei Ishiyama and his adviser are discovering a mystery that has puzzled thinkers since Aristotle expected that humans, given their thin skin and unique ability to laugh, were the only ticklish animals.

    It turns out that Aristotle was wrong. In their study published on Thursday, Ishiyama and his adviser Michael Brecht found that rats squeaked and jumped with pleasure when tickled on their backs and bellies. These signs of joy changed according to their moods. And for the first time, they discovered a special group of nerve cells. These nerve cells made this feeling so powerful that it causes an individual being tickled to lose control.

    To make sure that he had indeed found a place in the brain where tickling was processed, Ishiyama then stimulated that area with electrical currents. The rats began to jump like rabbits and sing like birds.

    “It's truly ground-breaking,” said Jeffrey Burgdorf, a neuroscientist at Northwestern University who reviewed the paper. “It takes the study of emotion to a new level.”

    Burgdorf has played a central role in our understanding of animal tickling. He was part of a team that first noticed, in the late 1990s, that rats made special noises when they were experiencing social pleasure. Others had already noted that rats repeatedly made short and high sounds during meals. But the lab where Burgdorf worked noticed that they emitted similar sounds while playing. And so one day, the senior scientist in the lab said, “Let's go and tickle some rats.” They quickly found that those cries of pleasure doubled.

    “The authors have been very adventurous,” said Daniel O'Connor, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University who studies touch. To him, that finding was very surprising.

    “Why does the world literally feel different when you are stressed out?” he said. “This is the first step towards answering that question. It gives us a way to approach it with experimental rigor(严谨).”

    Can you be too beautiful? It is hardly a problem that most of us have to bother — as much as we might like to dream that it were the case.

    Yet the blessings and curses of beauty have been a long-standing interest in psychology. Do those blessed with shiny faces and an attractive body live in a cloud of appreciation — or does it sometimes pay to be ordinary?

    At the most basic level, beauty might be thought to carry a kind of halo (光环) around it; we see that someone has one good quality, and by association, our deep mind may assume that they have other good ones too.

    Even in the courts, a pleasing appearance can work its magic. Attractive criminals are likely to get less strict sentences, or to escape punishment entirely; attractive plaintiffs (原告), meanwhile, are more likely to win their case and get bigger financial settlements. “It's an effect seen everywhere,” says Walker.

    But if beauty pays in most circumstances, there are still situations where it can have opposite results. While attractive men may be considered better leaders, for instance, hidden sexist prejudices (偏见) can work against attractive women, making them less likely to be hired for high-level jobs that require power. And as you might expect, good-looking people of both sexes run into envy — one study found that if you are interviewed by someone of the same sex, they may be less likely to employ you if they judge that you are more attractive than they are.

    More worryingly, being beautiful or handsome could harm your medical care. We tend to link good looks to health, meaning that illnesses are often taken less seriously when they affect the good-looking. When treating people for pain, for instance, doctors tend to take less care over the more attractive people.

    Ultimately, scientists point out that focusing too much on your appearance can itself be harmful if it creates stress and anxiety — even for those already blessed with good looks. “If you are crazy about attractiveness, it may affect your experience and interactions,” she says. It's an outdated saying, but no amount of beauty can make up for a bad personality. As the writer Dorothy Parker put it so elegantly: “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.”

    Everywhere I look outside my home I see people busy on their high-tech devices, while driving, walking, shopping, even sitting in toilets. When connected electronically, they are away from physical reality.

    People have been influenced to become technology addicted. One survey reported that “addicted” was the word most commonly used by people to describe their relationship to iPad and similar devices. One study found that people had a harder time resisting the allure of social media than they did for sleep, cigarettes and alcohol.

    The main goal of technology companies is to get people to spend more money and time on their products, not to actually improve our quality of life. They have successfully created a cultural disease. Consumers willingly give up their freedom, money and time to catch up on the latest information, to keep pace with their peers or to appear modern.

    I see people trapped in a pathological(病态的) relationship with time-sucking technology, where they serve technology more than technology serves them. I call this technology servitude. I am referring to a loss of personal freedom and independence because of uncontrolled consumption of many kinds of devices that eat up time and money.

    What is a healthy use of technology devices? That is the vital question. Who is really in charge of my life? That is what people need to ask themselves if we are to have any chance of breaking up false beliefs about their use of technology. When we can live happily without using so much technology for a day or a week, then we can regain control and personal freedom, become the master of technology and discover what there is to enjoy in life free of technology. Mae West is famous for proclaiming the wisdom that “too much of a good thing is wonderful.” But it's time to discover that it does not work for technology.

    Richard Fernandez, an executive coach at Google acknowledged that “we can be swept away by our technologies.” To break the grand digital connection people must consider how life long ago could be fantastic without today's overused technology.

The ancient Egyptians were known for their carefully record-keeping, documenting prayers, declarations, and taxes. This extensive writing has now been linked to physical marks on the bones of the kingdom's scribes, as revealed in a new study published in Scientific Reports.

The study focused on the bones of 69 adult men buried between 2,700 and 2,180 B.C. at Abusir. The researchers identified 30 of these individuals as either professional scribes or high-status officials who needed language skills for their work. These scribes exhibited specific physical characteristics related to their occupation. Many had osteoarthritis in their right collar bone, shoulder, and thumb, likely due to the repetitive movements involved in writing. Their ankle and leg bones were flat from sitting cross-legged for extended periods, and they also showed signs of spinal(脊柱) osteoarthritis, possibly from looking up to listen and then bending over to write on papers.

An fascinating finding was the prevalence of jaw joint issues among the scribes, which 

the researchers speculate might be associated with chewing on reed(芦苇) pens. The ink for these pens was typically black from soot(烟灰) or red from iron for important documents.

However, not all scholars are convinced by the study's conclusions. Cynthia Wilczak and Danny Wescott, who were not involved in the research, argue that more evidence is necessary. Only six of the 30 bones were confirmed to be scribes based on their titles, while the rest were identified based on their tomb locations and social status. Additionally, there is no dental evidence to support the theory that the scribes chewed on pens.

Despite these criticisms, Brukner Havelková and her team aim to expand their research by examining scribe remains from other locations to confirm their findings. While this study is just the beginning, it offers a unique perspective into the lives of ancient Egyptian scribes and the physical cost their work demanded.