How could we possibly think that keeping animals in cages in unnatural environments, mostly for entertainment purposes, is fair and respectful?

    Zoo officials say they are concerned about animals. However, most zoos remain “collections” of interesting “things” rather than protective habitats. Zoos teach people that it is acceptable to keep animals bored, lonely, and far from their natural homes.

    Zoos claim to educate people and save endangered species, but visitors leave zoos without having learned anything meaningful about the animals' natural behavior, intelligence, or beauty. Zoos keep animals in small spaces or cages, and most signs only mention the species' name, diet, and natural range. The animals' normal behavior is seldom noticed because zoos don't usually take care of the animals' natural needs.

    The animals are kept together in small spaces, with no privacy and little opportunity for mental and physical exercise. This results in unusually and self-destructive behavior called zoo-chosis(圈禁性精神病). A worldwide study of zoos found that zoochosis is common among animals kept in small spaces or cages. Another study showed that elephants spend 22 percent of their time making repeated head movements or biting cage bars, and bears spend 30 percent of their time walking back and forth, a sign of unhappiness and pain.

    Furthermore, most animals in zoos are not endangered. Captive breeding(圈养繁殖) of endangered big cats, Asian elephants, and other species has not resulted in their being sent back to the wild. Zoos talk a lot about their captive breeding programs because they do not want people to worry about a species dying out. In fact, baby animals also attract a lot of paying customers. Haven't we seen enough competitions to name baby animals?

    Actually, we will save endangered species only if we save their habitats and put an end to the reasons people kill them. Instead of supporting zoos, we should support groups that work to protect animals' natural habitats.

    The summer before my dad died, we moved house. Up until that point, our family had our own space to spread out. Money was tight, so there was no television set, but we owned a turntable on which my dad's records played constantly. Mostly, it played Bob Dylan. Tracks from The Basement Tapes and Desire became an important part of our new life. My brother and I, aged 8 and 10, climbed trees, built hideaways and learned the words of Clothes Line Saga. We would chant over the, lost in our own joy.

    It was January when my dad left us forever because of the cancer. He was 36 going on 37 then, the same age as Dylan. Afterwards, our laughter disappeared, but we kept on playing the records, which became our only ritual of remembrance. The two men became so intertwined in my head, I struggled to tell them apart.

    Dylan was my dad's gift to me. What child wouldn't be fascinated by songs full of pirates and seasick sailors? How did it feel to have No direction home? Farewell, Angelina became my party-piece. I would sing this at church cheese and wines to the assembled audience. A lot of donations were made.

    Growing up, I remained a fan of the music, but I wasn't obsessed with Dylan until one day in early 1995, my brother bought us both tickets to see him play at Brixton Academy. London felt like a long way to go. But finally seeing Dylan step out onto the stage brought a sudden rush of excitement.

    I have seen Dylan a couple of times since. My brother is not around so much these days. But he was up for a visit recently. We passed a happy evening laughing and drinking, while his son, aged nine, performed his party—piece Subterranean Homesick Blues for us. He sang it word-perfect. And so it goes on: Dylan's music as a gift, passed down the generations.

    We've all been there: in a lift, in line at the bank or on an airplane, surrounded by people who are, like us, deeply focused on their smartphones or, worse, struggling with the uncomfortable silence.

    What's the problem? It's possible that we all have compromised conversational intelligence. It's more likely that none of us start a conversation because it's awkward and challenging, or we think it's annoying and unnecessary. But the next time you find yourself among strangers, consider that small talk is worth the trouble. Experts say it's an invaluable social practice that results in big benefits.

    Dismissing small talk as unimportant is easy, but we can't forget that deep relationships wouldn't even exist if it weren't for casual conversation. Small talk is the grease(润滑剂) for social communication, says Bernardo Carducci, director of the Shyness Research Institute at Indiana University Southeast. "Almost every great love story and each big business deal begins with small talk," he explains. "The key to successful small talk is learning how to connect with others, not just communicate with them."

    In a 2014 study, Elizabeth Dunn, associate professor of psychology at UBC, invited people on their way into a coffee shop. One group was asked to seek out an interaction with its waiter; the other, to speak only when necessary. The results showed that those who chatted with their server reported significantly higher positive feelings and a better coffee shop experience. "It's not that talking to the waiter is better than talking to your husband," says Dunn. "But interactions with peripheral(边缘的) members of our social network matter for our well-being also."

    Dunn believes that people who reach out to strangers feel a significantly greater sense of belonging, a bond with others. Carducci believes developing such a sense of belonging starts with small talk. "Small talk is the basis of good manners," he says.

    They say the average person makes 35, 000 decisions a day. Yet in her new book, How Woman Decide, Therese Huston explores a widespread phenomenon that many women fail to notice. "There's a huge double standard when it comes to how men and women are viewed as decision﹣makers," explains Therese, a psychologist from Seattle University. Therese decided to write the book after looking at her bookshelf: At one end, there were bestselling books about how to be a clever decision﹣maker ﹣ all written by men and featuring interviews with men like athletes. At the other end were books aimed at women on gaining leadership skills and confidence.

    "Once those women are at the table, will their decisions be taken as seriously as men's？" Therese wondered. "Men are respected as decision﹣makers more than women, especially in the workplace, largely because there's this cultural belief that women are unable to make smart choices at work. "

    So, Therese set out to pick apart the stereotypes（固有印象）to see what scientific research had found. "Scientific research shows that men and women struggle with decision-making equally. The only disadvantage I found was that during the teenage years-teenage girls are more indecisive than teenage boys. Otherwise, there's little difference between the genders（性别）.

    However, there are some differences. "Women are more collaborative（协作的）, "says Therese. "A female boss is more likely to ask the opinions of those around her when making a choice. Women ask for input, which helps make better decisions. However, this is often seen as a weakness rather than a strength.

    Therese also found that during times of stress, men and women make different choices, and the outcomes are often better when women are involved.

    Study after study backs this view up. Neuroscientists Mara Mather and Nicole Lighthall from the University of Southern California studied the way men and women make decisions and found that in times of stress, they react very differently.

    During their study, which involved playing a virtual gambling（赌博）game, they found that when the females became stressed, they made smart decisions ﹣ quitting while they were ahead or taking safe bets. But when the men became stressed, they did the opposite, risking everything for a slim chance of a big win.

    Jim Denevan is an amazing artist whose work is admired by all, but owned by none — that's because all of Jim's art is created on an unusual canvas(画布)— the soft sand. He sometimes spends days working on a piece, only to see it washed away by the sea or a storm and that is just the way he likes it.

    Denevan discovered his artistic talents about ten years ago, when he was wandering aimlessly on the beach with a stick. He ended up drawing a 12-foot-long fish. Since then, Jim has traveled over 1,800 miles while creating over 600 pieces of sand art.

    Over the years, his drawings have become bigger, but the tools he uses haven't changed — All he needs is a stick, a garden rake (耙子)and most importantly, his lively imagination!

    Just like any good artist, Jim is quite particular about the "quality" of his canvas, sometimes walking for miles, looking for perfect sand. His latest piece of work, which is also the world's largest freelance (自由职业的)drawing, was created in the desert sand of Nevada. It took Jim three trips, eight days and over 100 miles of walking to create this 3-mile work of art. It took the storm just one night to destroy it! However, Jim says he actually enjoys watching the waves or rain, wash his paintings away.

    Jim's art has become very popular over the years and was even the topic of a documentary named "Sandman" in 2015. Jim Denevan is not just about art in the sand — he is also an excellent chef and founder of an organization called "Outstanding in the Field", whose mottois to celebrate food at its source. Accordingly, group dining events are held outdoors on farms, with the diners being treated to a delicious meal. The events, which are held in different farms throughout America, are always sold out the minute the schedule is announced.

    I'm not so sure I like my friends any more. I used to like them — to be honest. We'd have lunch, talk on the phone or exchange e-mails, and they all seemed normal enough. But then came Facebook and I was introduced to a sad fact: many of my friends have dark sides that they had kept from me.

    Today my friends show off the more unpleasant aspects of their personalities via Facebook. No longer hidden, they're thrown in my face like TV commercials — unavoidable and endless advertisements for the worst of their personalities.

    Take Fred. If you were to have lunch with him, you'd find him warm, and down-to-earth. Read his Facebook and you realize he's an unbearable, food-obsessed bore. He'd pause to have a cup of coffee on his way to save a drowning man — and then write about it.

    Take Andy. You won't find a smarter CEO anywhere, but now he's a CEO without a company to lull. So he plays Mafia Wars on Facebook. He's doing well — level 731. Thanks to Facebook, I know he's playing about 18 hours a day. Andy, you've run four companies — and this is how you spend your downtime(业余时间)? What happened to golf? What happened to getting another job?

    Take Liz. She is positive that the H1N1 vaccine(甲流疫苗) will kill us all and that we should avoid it. And then comes Chris who likes to post at least 20 times a day on every website he can find, so I get to read his thoughts twice, once on Facebook and once on Twitter.

    In real life, I don't see these sides of people. Face to face, my friends show me their best. They're nice, smart people. But face to Facebook, my friends are like a blind date which goes horribly wrong.

    I'm left with a dilemma. Who is my real friend? Is it the Liz I have lunch with or the anti-vaccine lunatic(狂人)on Facebook? Is it the Fred I can grab a sandwich with or the Fred who weeps if he's at a party and the wine isn't up to his standards?