Because plants cannot move or talk, most people believe that they have no feelings and that they cannot receive signals from outside. However, this may not be completely true.

    People who studied plants have found out that plants carry a small electrical charge (电荷). It is possible to measure this charge with a small piece of equipment called “galvanometer”. The galvanometer is placed on a leaf of the plant, and it records any changes in the electrical field of the leaf. Humans have a similar field which can change when we are shocked or frightened.

    A man called Backster used a galvanometer for his studies of plants and was very surprised at his results. He found that if he had two or more plants in a room and he began to destroy one of them —perhaps by pulling off its leaves or by pulling it out of its pot—then the galvanometer on the leaves of the other plants showed a change in the electrical field. It seemed as if the plants were signaling a feeling of shock. This happened not only when Backster started to destroy plants, but also when he destroyed other living thing such as insects (昆虫).

    Backster said that the plants also knew if someone had destroyed a living thing some distance away, because they signalled when a man who had just cut down a tree entered the room.

    Another scientist, named Sauvin, achieved similar results to Backster's. He kept galvanometers fixed on his plants all the time and checked regularly to see what the plants were doing. If he was out of the office, he telephoned to find out about the signals the plants were sending. In this way, he found that the plants were sending out signals at the exact times when he felt strong pleasure or pain. In fact, Sauvin could cause a change in the electrical field of his plants over a distance of a few miles simply by thinking about them.

    Children in the United States eat too much pizza that some researchers now argue the food should join the ranks of sugary drinks and fast food for the harm they do to health．

    In a new study, the researchers found that pizza is a large source of calories, saturated fat(饱和脂肪)and salt in children's diets．Children should not eat more than two slices of pizza for a meal，and should pair that with salad, rather than with another high-calorie food，the researchers concluded．

    “Parents should aim to control pizza consumption(消费), particularly as a snack where it was shown to have a very adverse impact on children, and they should put their pizza dollars toward healthier brands．”Said Lisa Powel, director of the Illinois Prevention Research Center．

    Pizza has become a matter of focus in recent years for researchers who look at the meals children eat, rather than the nutrients within them．Studies have found pizza is among the greatest sources of calories for children．

    “Since pizza remains a common part of children's diet, we need to make 'healthy' pizza．”Powel said．To make pizza healthier, food producers should reduce its saturated fat and salt, and increase its whole grain content,” she said．

    Whether or not pizza is harmful enough to be picked out as an unhealthy food, the study attracts attention to a larger issue with the modern American lifestyle, said Alexis Tindall, who was not involved in the flow research. “Many foods are eaten too frequently and in large sizes,” said Tindall．To solve the problem, people don't have to give up eating pizza, but instead, they can eat smaller and healthier pizza，”she said．

    “Make it at home, instead of ordering it out where you don't have any control over how it's made.” Tindall said. “When we make it at home, we can choose healthier ingredients，increase the vegetables, reduce fat, and put in less cheese．Pizza doesn't have to be just pepperoni(意大利辣香肠)and cheese．”

    Last summer, two nineteenth-century cottages were rescued from remote farm fields in Montana, to be moved to an Art Deco building in San Francisco. The houses were made of wood. These cottages once housed early settlers as they worked the dry Montana soil; now they hold Twitter engineers.

    The cottages could be an example of the industry' s odd love affair with “low technology,” a concept associated with the natural world, and with old-school craftsmanship (手艺) that exists long before the Internet era. Low technology is not virtual (虚拟的) —so, to take advantage of it, Internet companies have had to get creative. The rescued wood cottages, fitted by hand in the late eighteen-hundreds, are an obvious example, but Twitter's designs lie on the extreme end. Other companies are using a broader interpretation (阐释) of low technology that focuses on nature.

    Amazon is building three glass spheres filled with trees, so that employees can “work and socialize in a more natural, park-like setting.” At Google's office, an entire floor is carpeted in glass. Facebook's second Menlo Park campus will have a rooftop park with a walking trail.

    Olle Lundberg, the founder of Lundberg Design, has worked with many tech companies over the years. “We have lost the connection to the maker in our lives, and our tech engineers are the ones who feel impoverished (贫乏的) , because they're surrounded by the digital world,” he says. “They're looking for a way to regain their individual identity, and we've found that introducing real crafts is one way to do that.”

    This craft based theory is rooted in history, William Morris, the English artist and writer, turned back to pre-industrial arts in the eighteen-sixties, just after the Industrial Revolution. The Arts and Crafts movement defined itself against machines. “Without creative human occupation, people became disconnected from life,” Morris said.

    Research has shown that natural environments can restore(恢复) our mental capacities. In Japan, patients are encouraged to “forest-bathe,” taking walks through woods to lower their blood pressure.

    These health benefits apply to the workplace as well. Rachel Kaplvin, a professor of environmental psychology, has spent years researching the restorative effects of natural environment. Her research found that workers with access to nature at the office—even simple views of trees and flowers—felt their jobs were less stressful and more satisfying. If low-tech offices can potentially nourish the brains and improve the mental health of employees then, fine, bring on the cottages.

    Exhibitions in the British Museum

    Hokusai: beyond the Great Wave

    Katsushika Hokusai (1760-1849) is widely regarded as one of Japan's most famous and influential artists.He produced works of astonishing quality right up until his death at the age of 90.This new exhibition will lead you on an artistic journey through the last 30 years of Hokusai's life—a time when he produced some of his most memorable masterpieces.

    25 May—13 August 2017

    Room 35

    Adults￡12,Members/under 16s free

    Places of the mind: British watercolour landscapes 1850-1950

    Drawn from the British Museum's rich collection,this is the first exhibition devoted to landscape drawings and watercolours by British artists in the Victorian and modern eras—two halves of very different centuries.

    23 February—27 August 2017

    Room 90

    Free, just drop in

    Scythians: warriors of ancient Siberia

    This major exhibition explores the story of the Scythians—nomadic tribes and masters of mounted warfare, who flourished between 900 and 200 BC. Their encounters with the Greeks, Assyrians and Persians were written into history but for centuries all trace of their culture was lost—buried beneath the ice.

    14 September 2017—14 January 2018

    Room 30

    Adults￡16.50,Members/under 16s free

    Politics and paradise: Indian popular prints from the Moscatelli Gift

    This display is part of the Museum's contribution to the India-UK Year of Culture 2017.It looks at the popular print culture of India from the 1880s until the 1950s.

    19 July—3 September 2017

    Room 90a

    Free,just drop in

    During the period from 1660 through 1800, Great Britain became the world's leader. Language itself became submitted to rules during this period. This need to fix the English language is best illustrated (描述) in the making of The Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson. Guides to the English language had been in existence before Johnson began his project in 1746. These, however, were often little more than lists of hard words. When definitions of common words were supplied, they were often unhelpful. For example, a "horse" was defined in an early dictionary as "a beast well known".

    Johnson changed all that, but the task was not an easy one. Renting a house at 17 Gough Square, Johnson began working in the worst of conditions. Supported only by his publisher, Johnson worked on the Dictionary with five assistants. Compared to the French Academy's dictionary, which took forty workers fifty-five years to complete (1639-1694), Johnson's dictionary was completed by very few people very quickly.

Balanced on a chair with only three legs, Johnson sat against a wall in a room filled with books. Johnson would read widely from these books, mark passages illustrating the use of a particular word, and give the books to his assistants so that they could copy the passages on slips of paper. These slips were then stuck to eighty large notebooks under the key words that Johnson had selected. Fixing the word by this method, Johnson could record a word，s usage and its definition.

    How many passages were used? According to Johnson's modern biographer Walter Jackson Bate, the original total number could have been over 240,000. How many words were defined by the lexicographer? Over 40,000 words appeared in two large books in April of 1755. Did Johnson fully understand the huge task he was undertaking when he began? As he told his contemporary biographer James Boswell, "I knew very well what I was undertaking and very well how to do it — and have done it very well."

    British children used to play conkers (板栗游戏) in the autumn when the horse-chestnut trees started to drop their shiny brown nuts. They would select a suitable chestnut, drill a hole in it and thread it onto a string, then swing their conker at that of an opponent until one of them broke. But the game has fallen out of favour. Children spend less time outdoors and rarely have access to chestnut trees. Besides, many schools have banned conkers games, worried that they might cause injuries or nut allergies.

    That sort of risk-averseness(规避风险) now spreads through every aspect of childhood. Playgrounds have all the excitement designed out of them to make them safe. Many governments, particularly in societies such as America, have tightened up their rules, requiring parents to supervise(监管) young children far more closely than in the past. Frank Furedi of the University of Kent, a critic on modern parenting, argues that allowing children to play unsupervised or leaving them at home alone is increasingly described as a symptom of irresponsible parenting.

    In part, such increased caution is a response to the huge wave of changes. Large-scale urbanization, smaller and more mobile families, the move of women into the labor market and the digitization of many aspects of life have unavoidably changed the way that people bring up their children. There is little chance that any of these trends will be changed, so today's more intensive(精细化 ) parenting style is likely to go on.

    Such parenting practices now embraced by wealthy parents in many parts of the rich world, particularly in America, go far beyond an adjustment to changes in external conditions. They mean a strong bid to ensure that the advantages enjoyed by the parents' generation are passed on to their children. Since success in life now turns mainly on education, such parents will do their best to provide their children with the schooling, the character training and the social skills that will secure access to the best universities and later the most attractive jobs.

    To some extent that has always been the case. But there are more such parents now, and they are competing with each other for what economists call positional goods. This competition starts even before the children are born. The wealthy classes will take their time to select a suitable spouse and get married, and will start a family only when they feel ready for it.

    Children from less advantaged backgrounds, by contrast, often appear before their parents are ready for them. In America 60% of births to single women under 30 are unplanned, and over 40% of children are born outside marriage. The result, certainly in America, has been to widen already massive social inequalities yet further.

    All the evidence suggests that children from poorer backgrounds are at a disadvantage almost as soon as they are born. By the age of five or six they are far less "school-ready" than their better-off peers, so any attempts to help them catch up have to start long before they get to school. America has had some success with various schemes involving regular home visits by nurses or social workers to low-income families with new babies. It also has long experience with programmes for young children from poor families that combine support for parents with good-quality child care. Such programmes do seem to make a difference. Without extra effort, children from low-income families in most countries are much less likely than their better-off peers to attend preschool education, even though they are more likely to benefit from it. And data from the OECD's PISA programme suggest that children need at least two years of preschool education to perform at their best when they are 15.

    So the most promising way to ensure greater equality may be to make early-years education and care for more widely available and more affordable, as it is in the Nordics. Some governments are already rethinking their educational priorities, shifting some of their spending to the early years.

    Most rich countries decided more than a century ago that free, compulsory education for all children was a worthwhile investment for society. There is now an argument for starting preschool education earlier, as some countries have already done. In the face of crushing new inequalities, a modern version of that approach is worth trying.