20230317英语学习

篇目1

Learn to Let Go of Your Fear of Too Much Color— And Find More Joy
放下彩色恐惧，享受多彩世界

Few people would name their favorite color as gray or beige, yet our closets and our homes are often filled with these bland, neutral tones.When I studied color and its effect on joy, I wondered: Why is there such a gap between the colors that enliven us, and the colors that surround us?

“Chromophobia,” was the immediate answer I received when I posed this question to Peter Stamberg and Paul Aferiat, architects of the technicolor Saguaro Hotel in Palm Springs, California.

“People are afraid of color,” Stamberg told me.He was clearly referring to people other than himself and Aferiat, who live in a temple to vibrancy.Their open New York City loft was divided not with walls but with colors — panels of yellow, green, blue and orange.

“It’s the fear of making a choice,” Aferiat said.“Of making a mistake and having to live with it.”

I could relate.I used to be a certified chromophobe, so afraid of color that the entire spectrum of my apartment fell between white and cream.

Why are there so many chromophobes out there?I think it’s because there’s a cultural bias against color.We’ve come to dismiss color and joy as childish and frivolous, prizing neutral hues as a mark of coolness and mature taste.That belief has left us in a place where we feel almost ashamed to have color in our lives.

I’ve spent the last decade studying joy.From the beginning, it was clear that the liveliest places and things all had one thing in common: bright, vivid color.Whether it’s a row of houses painted in bold swathes of candy hues or a display of colored markers in a stationery shop, vibrant color sparks a feeling of delight.

While we think of color as an attribute, really it’s a happening: a constantly occurring dance between light and matter.When a beam of light strikes an object, let’s say a multicolored glass vase, it is pelting its surface with tiny energetic particles called photons.The energy of some photons is absorbed, heating the glass imperceptibly.But other photons are repelled, ricocheting back out into the atmosphere.

These photons, landing on our retinas, create the sensation of color.The specific hue we see has to do with the energy of the photons — high-energy, short wavelengths look blue to us, while low-energy, long ones appear red.The brightest pigments tend to have a more “excitable” molecular structure.Their electrons can be disturbed with very little light, making their colors appear intense to our eyes.

Ultimately, creating colors that enliven us is about increasing the activity of these vibrating little particles in a space.Bright colors animate the light that shines on them, reflecting it around a space and magnifying its effect.

So if you’d like a more energized space, experts agree the best first step is to lighten the room’s largest surfaces: walls, floors, cabinets and counters.Dark walls may look sophisticated, but because they absorb light, they’re going to reduce the light bouncing around the room.

Many designers prefer to start with white walls, bringing color into the space through furniture and decorative objects.But even smaller pops of pure color can reflect enough light to energize a dingy room.This approach of using tiny bursts of bright color can be an appealing strategy for chromophobes — I can personally attest to it — and it’s surprisingly effective.

For most of my life, I thought about my color choices through the lens of what they said about me.Did I have the guts to rock red shoes?Would a pink dress make people take me less seriously?Perhaps that’s why I so often ended up with white furniture and black clothes.

My research on the aesthetics of joy has liberated me to choose colors based not on what others think but on how the colors make me feel.Noticing color and light has changed the world around me.Bright hues have become little gifts for me — small infusions of warmth and life giving me the power to make my own hearth, my own sun.

---

篇目2

How to Be a Techno-Optimist
如何做一个技术乐观主义者

All human progress is about overcoming an obstacle.From the wheel to the internet, we have discovered and invented our way out of all sorts of trouble.The story of science and technology is, in the main, one of making our lives easier.

Instead of talking out of both sides of our mouths, perhaps it is time that we were appreciated just how much we need technology, and how far it has helped us along.That is exactly what philosopher John Danaher does in his recent paper, Techno-optimism: an Analysis, an Evaluation and a Modest Defense.

Obviously, technology is not perfect.Smart phone addiction does exist, environmental destruction is happening, and we are each seeing a rapid, abrupt uprooting of how society has operated for millennia.If we say we’re “techno-optimists,” we are not saying that we are blind to technology’s problems.Optimism is not fanaticism.

Instead, as Danaher argues, optimism is defined by three elements.First, optimists believe "the good prevails over the bad by some distance, with that distance varying depending on the strength of the optimistic stance."So, in terms of technology, it means the good outweighs the bad.

Second, optimism tends to associate with an "affirmation of improvement."The year 2022 is a better time to live than 1880 — or even 1980.
Third, optimists (and pessimists, for that matter) must believe that we can actually measure “good” as a value to track.We can point to this or that technology and say, “These are examples of good things that could only be caused by technological improvement.”

According to Danaher, in order to properly justify and rationalize techno-optimism, we must do three things: Establish values, determine facts, and evaluate.

Establish values.First, we must establish certain values as being "good."For instance, a techno-optimist “might argue that it is wonderful that people have more disposable income and a richer set of consumer goods and services from which to choose.”

Determine facts.Once we have established these values, then we have to present those facts that support the claim that technology provides them.

Evaluate.We need to present the facts that defend values, but we also need to acknowledge facts that contradict those values as well.As mentioned above, technology does have its problems.It can impact our mental health, it ravages the environment, and it drastically upends what being human has always meant.The techno-optimist is the one who believes the good of technology outweighs the bad.

There are two major critiques of techno-optimism that Danaher addresses.

First, the “treadmill critique” argues that technology won’t constantly make the world better.We have become so accustomed to technology that we no longer appreciate it as “good” but rather expect it as the norm.

Danaher counters by suggesting that there exists some "values that are not subject to baseline adaptation."He cites “longer lives, fewer life-threatening illness, and more equality of opportunity” as examples of “goods” that will always be good, regardless of how accustomed we are to them.

Second, the “unsustainability critique” is the idea that if “optimism depends on present or continued economic growth, it also depends on the continued technological exploitation of natural resources.All natural resources are finite and have some upper limit of exploitability.”

Danaher’s response is that "technology is becoming less exploitative over time."As a technology improves, then growth “decouples” from exploitation.

You do not have to adopt a starry-eyed “technology-will-save-humanity” viewpoint to be a techno-optimist.It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that there are many existing problems with technology, and that it, alone, is insufficient for good to prevail.

Instead, we might sympathize with Danaher’s "modest techno-optimism."According to this view, “we have the power to create the right institutions for generating, selecting, and creating material technologies, and acting on that belief in a cautious and sensible manner can make it more likely that the good will prevail over the bad.”

It’s a kind of techno-optimism that perhaps needs a bit of human optimism, too.