Cleaning your plate may not help feed hungry children today, but the timeworn advice of mothers everywhere may help reduce food waste from the farm to the fork, help the environment and make it easier to feed the world's growing population.

    Hard data still being collected, but experts in Chicago said about 30% to 50% of the food produced in the world goes uneaten. The average American throws away 33 pounds of food each month—about $40 worth, which means each person throws away almost 400 pounds of food. The US Department of Agriculture says that 23% of eggs and an even higher percentage of produce ends up in the trash.

"We forget we have all these fresh fruits and vegetables, and at the end of the week we have to throw them away", said Esther Gove, a mother of three young children in South Berwick, Maine. "Now, I don't buy as much fresh produce as I used to."

    But the effect of food waste arrives far beyond the kitchen. Agriculture is the world's largest user of water, a big consumer of energy and major emitter of greenhouse gases during production. Experts say reducing waste is a simple way to cut stress on the environment and can ease pressure on farmers, who will be called on to feed an expected 9 billion people around the world in 2050, compared with nearly 7 billion today.

    No matter how sustainable (可持续的) farming is, if the food's not getting eaten, it's not sustainable and it's not a good use of our resources. In richer nations, fruit and vegetables end up in the trash because they aren't pretty enough to meet companies' standards, have gone bad in a home refrigerator or aren't eaten at a restaurant. In developing countries, much food spoils before it gets to market due to poor roads and lack of refrigeration. High food prices are another reason, since some people can't afford the food that's produced.

    I was never very neat, while my roommate Kate was extremely organized. Each of her objects had its place, but mine always hid somewhere. She even labeled(贴标签) everything. I always looked for everything. Over time, Kate got neater and I got messier. She would push my dirty clothing over, and I would lay my books on her tidy desk. We both got tired of each other.

    War broke out one evening. Kate came into the room. Soon, I heard her screaming, “Take your shoes away! Why under my bed!” Deafened, I saw my shoes flying at me. I jumped to my feet and started yelling. She yelled back louder.

    The room was filled with anger. We could not have stayed together for a single minute without a phone call. Kate answered it. From her end of the conversation, I could tell right away her grandma was seriously ill. When she hung up, she quickly crawled(爬) under her covers, weeping. Obviously, that was something she should not go through alone. All of a sudden, a warm feeling of sympathy rose up in my heart,

    Slowly, I collected the pencils, took back the books, made my bed, cleaned the socks and swept the floor, even on her side. I got so into my work that I even didn't noticed Kate had sat up. She was watching, her tears dried and her expression one of disbelief. Then, she reached out her hands to grasp mine. I looked up into her eyes. She smiled at me. “Thanks.”

    Kate and I stayed roommates for the rest of the year. We didn't always agree, but we learned the key to living together: giving in, cleaning up and holding on.

    I grew up with a group of pets. As a mother, I was determined to provide my daughter with the same joyful experiences. Indeed, by the time my daughter was in elementary school, our house was known as "the neighborhood zoo". Now that she is a teenager, we've reduced the number of animals in our home, but we still live with two dogs. I can't imagine life without them.

    Regardless, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the word "pet". When I came upon the conclusion by the University of Tennessee zoologist Gordon Burghardt that the best we can do for pets is a life of "controlled deprivation (剥夺)", I wished I had never bought Lizzy, our leopard gecko(豹纹守宫). I felt a pit in my stomach when I learned that Lizzy's constant clawing at the glass wall of her tank was most likely a signal of stress. It is perhaps not surprising that she died after only two years, despite our efforts to give proper care.

    The problems with the various small creatures we put into cages and tanks are relatively clear-­cut. More challenging moral questions, in my view, arise in relation to our closest furry friends: dogs and cats. Unlike animals that must spend their entire life in a cage or that must struggle to adapt to a human environment, most cats and dogs have it pretty good. Yet it is likely that our dogs and cats may be suffering in ways we don't readily see, because even the most well meaning owner doesn't always provide what an animal needs.

    It may be hard to recognize the harmful aspects of pet keeping when all we hear is how beloved pets are and how happy they are to be in our company. Advertisements showing golden­-haired children playing with golden-­haired puppies and YouTube videos of cats doing funny things make pet keeping look ever so precious.

    Yet if we really care about animals, we ought to know animals are not toys — they are living, breathing, feeling creatures.

    Charity is simple in theory：A heart warms, a hand reaches out. In practice, though, charity can become a troubled mix of motives and consequences. Giving can be driven by guilt, duty, praise, or perhaps the hope that giving will somehow make up for past cruelty or ignorance. Too little charity is far less than valuable. Too much can cause dependence which makes the receiver continuously ask for more.

    Giving from the heart is good. But critics have long worried about misdirected charity that does more harm than good. In his 2012 book, "Harmful Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help（And How to Solve the Problem）, "Robert Lupton, an experienced social worker of 40 years of community work in inner-city Atlanta, argues that charity must not do for the poor what they can do for themselves.

    Due to emergencies such as natural disasters, the afterward financial aid is greatly welcome. Mr. Lupton advocates it should focus on the development of self-supporting. The task can be carried out via, for instance, offering microloans, hiring local builders and suppliers, and trying to found self-supported, locally owned and operated enterprises. What seldom works, he argues, are untargeted handouts from far-off providers and the sudden arrival of inexperienced volunteer-tourists hoping to earn personal reputation by digging wells or mending roofs that locals are perfectly able to take care of themselves.

    Getting charity right isn't easy. But from money raising to the boom in volunteering among Millennials（千禧一代）, from the increasing worldwide willingness to give to the efforts by charity organizations to become more effective and fruitful, there is strong evidence that human beings' ability of taking care of others is growing along with their ability to help without harming.

    Charity can be as simple as holding the door for a stranger and as complex as a global campaign to get rid of malaria（疟疾）.Charity works best when it returns the weak to strength, when it helps a small town shaken by a heavy earthquake get back on its feet. A successful charity is one that eventually is no longer needed.

Robins(知更鸟) are considered as a symbol of the festive season and are known for their lively, curious nature around humans. But even robins get road rage because they can become aggressive when there's noise, a new study shows.

Researchers from the UK found that the sound of traffic made rural robins—not urban robins—"more aggressive". The study was conducted by experts at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge. Human activity has a colossal effect on wildlife, including on their social behavior," the team said in their paper.

For their study, the team investigated the behavior of male European robins living in urban parks and rural forests in Istanbul. They measured aggression towards another robin intruder, which wasn't a real robin but instead a model in the shape of an adult bird. The fake robin was equipped with a speaker, through which the team could play audio, and then attached to trees at the parks and forests. The audio consisted of recordings of robin songs, while additional traffic noise was added through another separate speaker nearby.

After recording the birds' behavior during interactions with the fake intruder, they found the urban robins typically displayed more physical aggression than rural robins. However, rural robins became more aggressive with the addition of traffic noise—possibly because they're less used to traffic noise than urban birds, which are already living in noisier habitats. What's more, physical displays of territoriality could increase because the traffic noise interferes with their birdsong. "In normally quiet surroundings, we found that additional traffic noise leads to rural robins becoming more aggressive," said Dr Caglar Akcay at ARU. "We believe this is because the noise is interfering with their communication."

Overall, by comparing urban and rural robin reactions, the study provides a valuable glimpse into how urban-living species adapt to "life in a noisy world". "Our results show that human-produced noise can have a range of effects on robins, depending on the habitat they live in," said Dr Akcay.