Henri Cartier-Bresson (1908-2004) is one of the most original and influential figures in the history of photography. His photographs helped establish photojournalism as an art form.

    Henri's family was wealthy—his father made a fortune as a textile manufacturer—but Henri later joked that due to his parents' economical ways, it often seemed as though his family was poor.

    Educated in Paris, Henri developed an early love for literature and arts. As a teenager, Henri was against his parents' formal ways of education. In his early adulthood, he fell in love with several appetites, but it was art that remained at the center of his life.

    Henri traveled to Africa in 1931 to hunt antelope and boar. And Africa fueled another interest in him: photography. He then wandered around the world with his camera, using a handheld camera to catch images from fleeting moments of everyday life.

    Not long after World War Ⅱ, Henri traveled east, spending considerable time in India, where he met and photographed Gandhi shortly before he was killed in 1948. Henri's work to document Gandhi's death and its immediate effect on the country became one of Life Magazine's most prized photo essays.

    Henri's approach to photography remained much the same throughout his life. He made clear his dislike of images that had been improved by artificial light, darkroom effects, and even cutting. The naturalist in Henri believed that all editing should be done when the photo is taken. In 1952, his first book, The Decisive Moment, a rich collection of his work spanning two decades, was published. "There is nothing in this world that does not have a decisive moment," he said.

    In 1968, he began to turn away from photography and returned to his passion for drawing and painting.

D

    We may think we're a culture that gets rid of our worn technology at the first sight of something shiny and new, but a new study shows that we keep using our old devices (装置) well after they go out of style. That's bad news for the environment – and our wallets – as these outdated devices consume much more energy than the newer ones that do the same things.

    To figure out how much power these devices are using, Callie Babbitt and her colleagues at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York tracked the environmental costs for each product throughout its life – from when its minerals are mined to when we stop using the device. This method provided a readout for how home energy use evolved since the early 1990s. Devices were grouped by generation. Desktop computers, basic mobile phones, and box-set TVs defined 1992. Digital cameras arrived on the scene in 1997. And MP3 players, smart phones, and LCD TVs entered homes in 2002, before tablets and e-readers showed up in 2007.

    As we accumulated more devices, however, we didn't throw out our old ones."The Living-room television is replaced and gets planted in the kid's room, and suddenly one day, you have a TV in every room of the house," said one researcher. The average number of electronic devices rose from four per household in 1992 to 13 in 2007. We're not just keeping these old devices-we continue to use them. According to the analysis of Babbitt's team, old desktop monitors and box TV's with cathode ray tubes are the worst devices with their energy consumption and contribution to greenhouse gas emissions(排放) more than doubling during the 1992 to 2007 window.

    So what's the solution(解决方案)?The team's data only went up to 2007, but the researchers also explored what would happen if consumers replaced old products with new electronics that serve more than one function, such as a tablet for word processing and TV viewing. They found that more on-demand entertainment viewing on tables instead of TVs and desktop computers could cut energy consumption by 44%.

    No one knew Prince Edward Street as well as Pierre Dupin. He had delivered milk to the families on the street for thirty years. For the past fifteen years a large white horse named Joseph pulled his milk wagon. Joseph was a gentle horse with beautiful spirit shining out of its eyes, so Pierre named him after Saint Joseph.

    Every morning at five, Pierre arrived at the milk company's stables to find Joseph waiting for him, Pierre would call, "Good morning, my old friend." as he climbed into his seat, while Joseph turned his head toward the driver. And the two would go proudly down the street. Without any order from Pierre, the wagon would roll down three streets. Then it turned right for two streets, before turning left to Saint Catherine Street. The horse finally stopped at the first house on Prince Edward Street. There, Joseph would wait perhaps thirty seconds for Pierre to get down off his seat and put a bottle of milk at the front door.

    Pierre knew every one of the forty families that got milk. The cooks knew that Pierre could not read or write; so, instead of leaving orders in an empty milk bottle, they simply sang out if they needed an extra bottle.

    Pierre also had a wonderful memory. When he arrived at the stable he always remembered to tell Jacques, the foreman(领班) of the stables, "The Pacquins took an extra bottle this morning; the Lemoines bought a pint of cream …" Most of the drivers had to make out the weekly bills and collect the money. But Jacques, liking Pierre, never asked him to do this.

    One day the president of the milk company came to inspect the early morning milk deliveries. Jacques pointed to Pierre and said："See how the horse listens and how he turns his head toward Pierre? See the look in that horse's eyes? You know, I think those two share a secret. I have often felt it. He is getting old. Maybe he ought to be given a rest, and a small pension."

    "But of course," the president laughed. "He has been on this job now for thirty years. All who know him love him. Tell him it is time he rested. He will get his pay every week as before."

    But Pierre refused to leave his job. He said his life would be nothing if he could not drive Joseph every day. "We are two old men," he said to Jacques. "Let us wear out together. When Joseph is ready to leave, then I too will do so."

    Then one cold morning Jacques had terrible news for Pierre. Jacques said,"Pierre, your horse, Joseph, didn't wake up. He was very old, Pierre." Jacques said softly. "He is over in his stall, looking very peaceful. Go over and see him." Pierre took one step forward, then turned. "No … no … I cannot see Joseph again. You … you don't understand, Jacques."

    For years Pierre had worn a large heavy cap that came down low over his eyes. It kept out the bitter cold wind. Now, Jacques looked into Pierre's eyes and he saw something that shocked him. He saw a dead, lifeless look in them.

    "Take the day off, Pierre," Jacques said. Pierre walked to the corner and stepped into the street. There was a warning shout from the driver of a big truck … there was the screech(尖锐的刹车声) of rubber tires as the truck tried to stop. But Pierre heard nothing.

    Five minutes later a doctor said, "He's dead … killed instantly."

"I couldn't help it," the truck driver said. "He walked in front of my truck. He never saw it, I guess. Why, he walked as though he were blind."

    The doctor bent down. "Blind？Of course, this man has been blind for five years."  He turned to Jacques, "Didn't you know he was blind？"

    "No …no …" Jacques said softly. "None of us knew. Only one … only one knew－a friend of his, named Joseph … It was a secret, I think, just between those two."

    Finding fruits and vegetables at your typical grocery store that have been grown without the extensive use of pesticides can be difficult. Fortunately, The Environmental Working Group(EWG) has done all of the work for you in finding healthy and pesticide－free produce.

    EWG has created the 2018 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, which helps shoppers to find uncontaminated produce. Many consumers do not realize that pesticide residues(残留) are very common on conventionally grown produce products, even after they have been washed or peeled. Because of this, EWG has created their series of guides to lead consumers to safer food choices.

    In order to create these guides, EWG analyzed the USDA pesticides tests, which found a total of 230 different pesticides and pesticides breakdown products on thousands of produce samples. Analyzing this information, EWG observed the big differences of the amount of pesticides found from product to product.

    The guide's two main components are two compiled lists highlighting the cleanest and dirtiest produce concerning pesticides. These two lists, Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen, show consumers how certain foods continue to carry trace amounts of pesticides with them all the way to the grocery store shelves, while others make it to your kitchen virtually pesticide－free.

    Some of the highlights from their analyses included the following findings：

    More than one－third of strawberry samples analyzed in 2016 contained 10 or more pesticide residues and breakdown products.

    Spinach(菠菜) samples had, on average, almost twice as much pesticide residue by weight compared to any other crop.

    No single fruit sample from the Clean Fifteen tested positive for more than four pesticides.

    “With EWG's guide, consumers can fill their fridges and fruit bowls with plenty of healthy conventional and organic produce that isn't contaminated with multiple pesticide residue," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst in EWG.

    Only 25 years ago, the National Academy of Sciences raised concerns about exposure to poisonous pesticides in our food, yet consumers still consume a mixture of pesticides every day in America.

    Prosocial behaviors are those intended to help other people. Behaviors that can be described as prosocial include feeling empathy(同感) and concern for others and behaving in ways to help or benefit other people.

    Prosocial behavior has long posed a challenge to social scientists seeking to understand why people engage in helping behaviors that are beneficial to others, but costly to the individual performing the action. Why would people do something that benefits someone else but offers no immediate benefit to the doer?

    Psychologists suggest that there are a number of reasons why people engage in prosocial behavior. In many cases, such behaviors are fostered during childhood and adolescence as adults encourage children to share, act kindly, and help others. Prosocial behaviors are often seen as being compelled by a number of factors including egoistic reasons (doing things to improve one's self­image), reciprocal benefits (doing something nice for someone so that they may one day return the favor), and more altruistic reasons (performing actions purely out of empathy for another individual).

    Characteristics of the situation can also have a powerful impact on whether or not people engage in prosocial actions. The bystander effect is one of the most notable examples of how the situation can impact helping behaviors. The bystander effect refers to the tendency for people to become less likely to assist a person in distress when there are a number of other people also present. For example, if you drop your purse and several items fall out on the ground, the likelihood that someone will stop and help you decreases if there are many other people present. This same sort of thing can happen in cases where someone is in serious danger, such as when someone is involved in a car accident. In some cases, witnesses might assume that since there are so many other present, someone else will have surely already called for help.

    Why do people help in some situations but not in others? Experts have discovered a number of different situational variables that contribute to (and sometimes interfere with) prosocial behaviors. First, the more people that are present decreases the amount of personal responsibility people feel in a situation. People also tend to look to others for how to respond in such situations, particularly if the event contains some level of ambiguity. Fear of being judged by other members of the group also plays a role. People sometimes fear leaping to assistance, only to discover that their help was unwanted or unwarranted. In order to avoid being judged by other bystanders, people simply take no action.

    Experts have suggested that some key things must happen in order for a person to take action.

    When he was 22, Rob Stewart traveled the world for four years. He wanted to call attention to the mistreatment of sharks. His 2007 film, Sharkwater, documents the cruel practice of removing sharks' fins (鳍) for money and leaving the animals to die. In his latest documentary, Revolution, Stewart takes on an even bigger challenge: climate change.

    The Canadian filmmaker says that climate change has harmed people and places everywhere: "It is stronger than any government or organization. If we educate people, they will make better decisions about protecting natural resources. "

    According to a recent report on climate change, "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have reduced, and sea levels have risen." These developments are endangering crops, wildlife, fish, and even people.

    Stewart says that the consequences of climate change will be irreversible unless people take action, especially young people."It's up to kids to be the moral compass (道德指南) of society," he believes, "and say, 'Guys, this is not right.'"

    Many kids took action after seeing Sharkwater. Elementary school students in the Northern Mariana Islands, for example, got their local government to ban the sale of shark fins.

    Felix Finkbeiner, 17, of Germany is also part of the "revolution" to save the planet. In 2007, Felix started a youth group called Plant-for-the-Planet, whose motto is "Stop Talking. Start Planting." The group raises money to plant trees. So far, Plant-for-the-Planet has planted nearly 200 trees around the world. "Future generations are the ones who will be suffering the most from inaction (无作 )," Felix says. His goal is to plant millions of additional trees.

    "When we started four years ago," Felix tells Stewart in Revolution, "we thought we had to save the polar bear. We thought we had to save the environment. But soon after, we found out that it's about our future, that we have to save our own future."