Two hundred years ago the English poet William Wordsworth wrote "I wander'd Lonely as a Cloud", a poem that expresses a basic spirit of early English Romanticism.

    What makes this poem an example of Romantic thinking? It isn't just that Wordsworth chooses to write about natural scene：it is the way he describes the scene as if it had human emotions. For him, nature is not only a neutral (无感情色彩的) mixture of scenery, colours, plants, rocks, soil, water and air. It is a living force that feels joy and sadness, shares human pain and even tries to educate us human beings by showing us the beauty of life.

    Wordsworth's home, Dove Cottage, is now one of the most popular destinations in the Lake District. You can go on a tour of the garden which William planted with wild flowers and which survived in his backyard even after they disappeared from the area "He always said that if he hadn't been a poet, he would have been a wonderful scenery gardener," says Allan King of the Wordsworth Trust.

    The place near Ullswater, where Wordsworth saw the daffodils(水仙花), is at the southernmost end of the lake. The lake is wide and calm at this turning point. There's a bay where the trees have had their soil eroded(侵蚀)by lake water so that their roots are shockingly exposed. You walk along from tree to tree, hardly daring to breathe, because you are walking in the footprints of William from two centuries ago. The first group of daffodils appear, but they aren't tall yellow trumpets(小号状的花)proudly swinging in the gentle wind. They're tiny wild daffodils, most of them still green and unopened, in groups of six or seven. They're grouped around individual trees rather than collecting together.

    But as you look north, from beside a huge ancient oak, you realize this is what delighted Wordsworth: group after group of the things, spread out to left and right but coming together in your sight so that they form a beautiful, pale-yellow carpet. What you're seeing at last is nature transformed by human sight and imagination.

    An idea that started in Seattle's public library has spread throughout America and beyond. The concept is simple: help to build a sense of community in a city by getting everyone to read the same book at the same time.

    In addition to encouraging reading as a pursuit (追求) to be enjoyed by all, the program allows strangers to communicate by discussing the book on the bus, as well as promoting reading as an experience to be shared in families and schools. The idea came from Seattle librarian Nancy Pearl who launched (发起)the "If All of Seattle Read the Same Book" project in 1998. Her original program used author visits, study guides and book discussion groups to bring people together with a book, but the idea has since expanded to many other American cities, and even to Hong Kong.

    In Chicago, the mayor(市长)appeared on television to announce the choice of To Kill a Mockingbird as the first book in the "One Book, One Chicago" program. As a result, reading clubs and neighbourhood groups sprang up around the city. Across the US, stories emerged of parents and children reading to each other at night and strangers chatting away on the bus about plot and character.

    The only problem arose in New York, where local readers could not decide on one book to represent the huge and diverse population. This may show that the idea works best in medium-sized cities or large towns, where a greater sense of unity(一致)can be achieved. Or it may show that New Yorkers rather missed the point, putting all their energy and passion into the choice of the book rather than discussion about a book itself.

    Ultimately as Nancy points out, the level of success is not measured by how many people read a book, but by how many people are enriched by the process or have enjoyed speaking to someone with whom they would not otherwise have shared a word.

    You know those nutrition guidelines the government issues every few years? It turns out that following them isn't just good for your health. It's good for the planet, too.

    " What we found is that impacts vary across nations, but in the high­impact nations, in general, you can see that, if you follow a nationally recommended diet, despite the fact that these diets don't mention explicitly—or most of them don't explicitly mention—environmental impacts, that you are going to have lower environmental impacts due to that. So that's sort of fairly clear across all the high­income nations." said Paul Behrens, an environmental scientist at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

    The food we eat takes a big toll on the environment. A third of the ice­free land on Earth is used for agriculture, and according to some estimates, producing food accounts for roughly a fifth of all human­caused greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizer runoff also leads to other problems, like the algae blooms in Lake Eerie and the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

    However, following dietary guidelines would reduce those impacts, especially in wealthy countries like the US. "Most of the reductions come from meat and dairy," which have an outsized impact on land use and pollution, and are a major source of greenhouse gases.(That's partly due to cow farts. Seriously.) Following the suggestions would also mean eating fewer calories, since many people here eat more than they need.

    Overall, in high­income countries, Behren's team estimates that following the rules could result in as much as a 17 percent reduction in land use, a 21 percent reduction in nutrient pollution, and a 25 percent drop in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting down on how much food we waste—which is roughly a third in the US—could help even more. The results are in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Of course, people are notoriously bad at following diets. But: "These nationally recommended guidelines do actually have a knock­on effect on other areas of policy making. So if I'm developing a new healthy­eating­for­schools program then that's going to be based off a lot of detail that I get from the nationally recommended guidelines. So while it might not necessarily be the case that people follow directly …they actually are quite influential on the preparation of other advice."

    It seems that a smaller environmental footprint and a healthier lifestyle could go hand in hand.

    There are two kinds of secrets: secrets of nature and secrets about people. Natural secrets exist all around us; to find them, one must study some undiscovered aspect of the physical world. Secrets about people are different: they are things that people don't know about themselves or things they hide because they don't want others to know. So when thinking about what kind of company to build, there are two distinct questions to ask: What secrets is nature not telling you? What secrets are people not telling you?

    It's easy to assume that natural secrets are the most important: the people who look for them can sound authoritative (权威的).This is why physics PhDs are difficult to work with—because they know the most basic truths, they think they know all truths. But does understanding electronic theory automatically make you a great marriage counselor? Does a gravity theorist know more about your business than you do? At PayPal, I once interviewed a physics PhD for an engineering job. Halfway through my first question, he shouted, "Stop! I already know what you're going to ask!" But he was wrong. It was the easiest no-hire decision I've ever made. Secrets about people are relatively overlooked. Maybe that's because you don^'t need a dozen years of higher education to ask the questions that uncover them: What are people not allowed to talk about? What is forbidden or taboo?

    The best place to look for secrets is where no one else is looking. Most people think only in terms of what they've been taught; schooling itself aims to spread basic wisdom. So you might ask: are there any fields that matter but haven't been standardized? Physics, for example, is a real major at all major universities, and it's set in its ways. The opposite of physics might be astrology, but astrology doesn't matter. What about something like nutrition? Nutrition matters for everybody, but you can't major in it at Harvard. Most top scientists go into other fields. Most of the big studies were done 30 or 40 years ago, and most are seriously flawed (有缺陷的). The food pyramid that told us to eat low fat and large amounts of grains was probably produced by Big Food(美国著名食品公司)than real science; its chief impact has been to worsen our obesity(肥胖)problem. There^'s plenty more to learn: we know more about the physics of far away stars than we know about human nutrition. It won't be easy, but it's not obviously impossible: exactly the kind of field that could produce secrets.

Earthquakes are something that people fear.There are some places that have few or no earthquakes.Most places in the world,however,have them regularly (有规律地).Countries that have a lot of earthquakes are usually quite mountainous.

The most talked about earthquake in the United States was in San Francisco in 1906.Over 700 people died in it.The strongest one in North America was in 1964.It happened in Alaska.

Strong earthquakes are not always the ones that kill the most people.In 1755,one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded was felt in Portugal.Around 2,000 people died.

In 1923,a very strong earthquake hit Tokyo and the Yokohama areas of Japan.A hundred and forty thousand people died.Most of them died in fires which followed the earthquake.

One of the worst earthquakes ever was in China in 1976.It killed a large number of people.The worst earthquake ever reported was also in China,in which about 830,000 people were killed.This earthquake happened in 1556.

Earthquakes worry people a lot.The reason is that we often do not know when they are coming.People cannot prepare for it.

There's a useful concept from psychology that helps explain why good people do things that harm the environment: the false consensus effect. That's where we overvalue how acceptable and prevalent（普遍的） our own behavior is in society. Put simply, if you're doing something （even if you secretly know you probably shouldn't）, you're more likely to think plenty of other people do it too. What's more, you likely overestimate how much other people think that behavior is broadly OK.

This bias（偏见） allows people to justify socially unacceptable or illegal behaviors. Researchers have observed the false consensus effect in drug use and illegal hunting. More recently, conservationists are beginning to reveal how this effect contributes to environmental damage.

In Australia, people who admitted to poaching（偷猎） thought it was much more prevalent in society than it really was, and had higher estimates than fishers who obeyed the law. They also believed others viewed poaching as socially acceptable; however, in reality, more than 90% of fishers held the opposite view. The false consensus effect has also shown up in studies examining support for nuclear energy and offshore wind farms.

Just as concepts from psychology can help explain some forms of environmental damage, so too can they help address it. For example, research shows people are more likely to litter in areas where there's already a-lot of trash scattered around; so making sure the ground around a bin is not covered in rubbish may help.

Factual information on how other people think and behave can be very powerful. Energy companies have substantially reduced energy consumption simply by showing people how their electricity use compares to their neighbors. Encouragingly, stimulating people's natural desire for status has also been successful in getting people to "go green to be seen", or to publicly buy eco-friendly products.

As the research evidence shows, social norms can be a powerful force in encouraging and popularizing environmentally friendly behaviors. Perhaps you can do your bit by sharing this article!