Some people think if you are happy, you are blind to reality. But when we research it, happiness actually raises every single business and educational outcome for the brain. How did we miss this? Why do we have these social misunderstandings about happiness? Because we assumed you were average. When we study people, scientists are often interested in what the average is.

    Many people think happiness is genetic. That's only half the story, because the average person does not fight their genes. When we stop studying the average and begin researching positive outliers —people who are above average for a positive aspect like optimism or intelligence —a wildly different picture appears. Our daily decisions and habits have a huge impact upon both our levels of happiness and success.

    Scientifically, happiness is a choice. It is a choice about where your single processor brain will devote its limited resources as you process the world. If you scan for the negative first, your brain really has no resources left over to see the things you are grateful for or the meaning embedded(嵌入) in your work. But if you scan the world for the positive, you start to acquire an amazing advantage.

    I wrote the cover story for the Harvard Business Review magazine on “Happiness Leads to Profits.” Based on my article called “Positive Intelligence” and my research in The Happiness Advantage, I summarized our researched conclusion: the single greatest advantage in the modern economy is a happy and busy workforce.

    A decade of research in the business world proves that happiness raises nearly every business and educational outcome: increasing sales by 37%, productivity by 31%, and accuracy on tasks by 19%, as well as a number of health and quality-of-life improvements.

    When my sister Mertie told me she had put out tomato plants last summer, I was quite impressed.

    Since she was a garden-beginner, Mertie researched exactly how far apart to space her tomato plants; what kind of fertilizer to use; how to keep away the bugs（害虫）, etc. Once they were planted, she took care of them daily, anxiously awaiting the juicy tomatoes to appear. But, day after day, her plants were tomato-less while all of her neighbors who had also put out tomato plants were already enjoying the fruit of their labor.

    Frustrated (upset), Mertie gave in and went to the market to search fresh tomatoes. While paying, Mertie told the farmer her troubles. The farmer paused to think for a moment and then asked, "Well, what kind of tomatoes did you plant?"

    "I think they were called Big Boy," Mertie remembered.

    "Well there's your problem," the farmer explained. "Big Boy and Better Boy tomatoes have a 95-day growing period whereas regular tomato plants produce fruit in as few as 70 days…you just have to wait a little longer for the Big Boys."

    With that new knowledge, Mertie went home with excitement, knowing they would be worth the wait.

    Thinking about my sister's gardening experience, I had to smile. She just didn't know that Big Boy tomatoes took longer--neither did I--but once she discovered that information, she was no longer discouraged and upset about the lack of tomatoes on her plants. Instead, she was encouraged and excited to see them a few weeks later.

    It makes me wonder how many of us have "Big Boy" dreams in our hearts, yet we just don't realize that they are of the "Big Boy" variety so we are discouraged and worn out with the waiting process. Instead of waiting with excitement, we give up on our dreams and figure we must have done something wrong to stop them from coming to pass. Frustrated, we see other people's dreams coming true, and we wonder why ours haven't yet been achieved.

    The Pew report—which was based on surveys carried out in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland and the Czech Republic—concluded that the European Union was “ the new sick man of Europe”.

    The percentage of Europeans with a favorable view of the EU has plunged from 60 percent last year to 45 percent now.

    The UK may be considered the most Eurosceptic（欧洲怀疑论者）country, but its support for the union has barely changed in the past 12 months, slipping only two points to 43 percent.

    By contrast, France's backing for the EU has slipped sharply, from 60 percent last year to 41 percent today.

    On the question of whether to remain in the EU, 46 percent of the British want to leave the union and surprisingly, the same percentage want to stay.

    The Pew report's authors said, “The long-drawn economic crisis has created bad forces that are pulling European public opinion apart, separating the French from the Germans and Germans from everyone else.”

    They added, “The effort over the past half century to create a more united Europe is now the main disaster of the euro crisis. The European project now stands in a bad reputation across much of Europe.”

    The only European leader rated highly by their own voters was the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with 74 percent voters in favor of her.

    Prime Minister David Cameron was the next highest with a positive score of 37 percent among the British public, although he can take some comfort from the fact that 58 percent of Poles（波兰人）and half of all French people think he is doing a good job.

    In spite of the dark economic future and growing doubt of the EU, there were strong majorities of more than 60 percent in favor of keeping the euro in the five countries surveyed that use the single currency.

    In recent years, much of the sea ice that polar bears use as a hunting platform for seal meals has melted, forcing some bears — particularly young males — farther north or onto land, where they are not as skilled at hunting. When stuck on land for months, a polar bear typically is forced to survive on its own fat reserves.

    The bears were listed earlier this year as a threatened species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act as populations have declined. Meanwhile, snow geese are booming near the western Hudson Bay, and there are in fact too many of them. Their eggs can be a good food source. The geese nest on tundra (冻原；苔原) that some bears have retreated to.

    "Over 40 years, six subadult (接近成年的) male bears were seen among snow goose nests, and four of them were sighted after the year 2000," says Robert Rockwell. "I've seen a subadult male eat goose eggs whole or press its nose against the shell, break it, and eat the contents."

    Ice is melting, on average, 0.72 days earlier each year in the region studied. Snow geese are hatching eggs about 0.16 days sooner each year, according to Rockwell and his graduate student Linda Gormezano. Current trends indicate that the arrival of polar bears will correspond to the average hatching period in 3.6 years, and egg consumption could become a viable option, which the researcher concluded in a statement released today.

    A polar bear, the largest land carnivore (食肉动物), would need to consume the eggs of 43 nests to replace the energy gained from the average day of hunting seals, but Rockwell and his colleagues figure that while many polar bears may starve in coming years, the resourceful animals just might survive disappearance.

    Polar bears survived a warm period about 125,000 years ago, when sea level was 12 to 18 feet higher than it is now and trees lived above the Arctic Circle, the scientists point out.  "They've been through the warm period before，" Rockwell said.

    The polar bears' potential movement to a diet of more eggs brought to mind a quote by Ilkoo Angutikjuak, an Inuit who lives in the Canadian province of Nunavut, in the February 2008 issue of Natural History magazine, Rockwell said. Angutikjuak said: "The animals will adapt. I've heard that because they depend on sea ice, polar bears will disappear, but I don't believe it. They are very adaptable. As the sea ice changes, polar bears might get skinnier and some might die, but I don't think they will disappear."

    Angus, Doris, Gabriel and Kamil are some of the 21 names that have been chosen to be given to storms in the UK in the 2016/17 season.

    The Met Office, the UK's national weather service, decided to give storms boys' and girls' names in 2015 in the same way as they did in America.

    The Met Office hopes that naming big storms will mean people are more aware (意识到) of them and how dangerous they can be. Derrick Ryall, from the Met Office, said, "We have seen how naming storms elsewhere in the world raises people's awareness of storms before they break."

    In the past, the same UK storm could be given different names by different organisations. "We noticed that many organisations during the last couple of winters, when we have had bad storms, started giving names to them. Think back to the St Jude's Day storm in 2013, and the so­called Hurricane Bawbag in Scotland in 2011. But it led to confusion (混乱)," a Met Office spokeswoman said.

    According to the Met Office, there is a name for each letter of the whole alphabet (字母表), except for Q, U, X, Y and Z. That is the same as the naming tradition used in America. And not all storms will be big enough to get names — only those expected to cause great damage.

    If there are more than 21 storms in a year, the Met Office will start again with another name beginning with "A". However, according to Met Office spokeswoman Lindsay Mears, "It's unlikely we would get through the whole alphabet in one season. We had 14 storms in the very bad winter of 2013/14, and if the naming system had been in operation then we wouldn't have used the whole alphabet."

    Imagine being a business that regularly takes huge quantities of your own products worth millions of pounds and burns them up. Your stock literally goes up in smoke. It sounds crazy, but the practice is common for some of the world's biggest clothing manufacturers. They argue that it is the most cost-effective way of maintaining their brand's exclusivity (独特性).

    The clothes that are burned are those that do not sell at a high enough price. Rather than watch them go on sale, the companies would set fire to them and regain a small amount of energy.

    Nobody knows exactly how much unsold stock is burnt annually by those fashion houses, but burning clothes has various negative impacts on the environment. For example, burning clothes made from artificial fibers may release plastic microfibers into the atmosphere, which worsens global warming. A U.K. parliamentary committee report on sustainability and the fashion industry advises the government to ban the burning of unsold stock if it can be reused or recycled.

    Actually, there are other approaches. What if those companies had a section tasked with taking back unsold clothes, redesigning them into new products, and shipping out the new products to the market once again?

    There is also now an opportunity to focus on biodegradable (可生物降解的)fabrics. Clothes that break down faster might not have to be burned. They would also appeal to those who care about the environmental impact of their own wardrobes.

    Additionally, we have an over-production problem. According to the World Bank, while clothing sales have risen steadily since 2000, clothing utilization has fallen at roughly the same rate. For every extra T-shirt that is sold, it will be worn roughly half as much as it would have been 20 years ago. That means better forecasting market trends would in theory result in less waste.

    Burning clothes won't happen simply through fashion firms. The scale of fashion production has to change. And it's important to recognize that these consumer-focused brands will only go where the market takes them. If protecting the environment really matters to the public, they have to make clear that they want more sustainable clothing in the first place. Without consumers demanding that, it won't change.