Home
Categories
EXPLORE
True Crime
Comedy
Society & Culture
Business
Sports
History
TV & Film
About Us
Contact Us
Copyright
© 2024 PodJoint
00:00 / 00:00
Sign in

or

Don't have an account?
Sign up
Forgot password
https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts126/v4/c2/3d/53/c23d5359-51ef-e155-b211-88e6006e6c38/mza_4053909958962087285.jpeg/600x600bb.jpg
出國趣
Annie 阿尼、Chloe 克洛伊
307 episodes
5 days ago
想要出國留學、打工度假還是自助旅行嗎?兩位英文老師跟你一起拓展視野、提升英文實力、討論國際時事,Let's Fun Fun 學英文,爽爽出國去! -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
Society & Culture
RSS
All content for 出國趣 is the property of Annie 阿尼、Chloe 克洛伊 and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
想要出國留學、打工度假還是自助旅行嗎?兩位英文老師跟你一起拓展視野、提升英文實力、討論國際時事,Let's Fun Fun 學英文,爽爽出國去! -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
Society & Culture
Episodes (20/307)
出國趣
81-3 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 經濟學人看2026年+ 小分享: 2026年看地圖如何呈現中台的地緣政治
Nov 10th 2025 4 min read By Tom Standage, Editor, The World Ahead 2026 This is Donald Trump’s world—we’re all just living in it. The disruptor-in-chief was the biggest factor shaping global affairs in 2025, and that will be the case for as long as he remains in the White House. His norm-shattering approach has caused turmoil in some areas (as in trade) but has also delivered diplomatic results (as in Gaza) and forced necessary change (as with European defence spending). As the Trumpnado spins on in 2026, here are ten trends and themes to watch in the coming year. 1. America’s 250th. Expect to hear wildly diverging accounts of America’s past, present and future, as Republicans and Democrats describe the same country in irreconcilably different terms to mark the 250th anniversary of its founding. Voters will then give their verdict on America’s future in the midterm elections in November. But even if the Democrats take the House, Mr Trump’s rule by bullying, tariffs and executive orders will go on. 2. Geopolitical drift. Foreign-policy analysts are divided: is the world in a new cold war, between blocs led by America and China, or will a Trumpian deal divide the planet into American, Russian and Chinese “spheres of influence”, in which each can do as they please? Don’t count on either. Mr Trump prefers a transactional approach based on instinct, not grand geopolitical paradigms. The old global rules-based order will drift and decay further. But “coalitions of the willing” will strike new deals in areas such as defence, trade and climate. 3. War or peace? Yes. With luck, the fragile peace in Gaza will hold. But conflicts will grind on in Ukraine, Sudan and Myanmar. Russia and China will test America’s commitment to its allies with “grey-zone” provocations in northern Europe and the South China Sea. As the line between war and peace becomes ever more blurred, tensions will rise in the Arctic, in orbit, on the sea floor and in cyberspace. 4. Problems for Europe. All this poses a particular test for Europe. It must increase defence spending, keep America on side, boost economic growth and deal with huge deficits, even though austerity risks stoking support for hard-right parties. It also wants to remain a leading advocate for free trade and greenery. It cannot do all of these at once. A splurge on defence spending may lift growth, but only slightly. 5. China’s opportunity. China has its own problems, with deflation, slowing growth and an industrial glut, but Mr Trump’s “America First” policy opens up new opportunities for China to boost its global influence. It will present itself as a more reliable partner, particularly in the global south, where it is striking a string of trade agreements. It is happy to do tactical deals with Mr Trump on soyabeans or chips. The trick will be to keep relations with America transactional, not confrontational. With rich countries living beyond their means, the risk of a bond-market crisis is growing 6. Economic worries. So far America’s economy is proving more resilient than many expected to Mr Trump’s tariffs, but they will dampen global growth. And with rich countries** living beyond their means**, the risk of a bond-market crisis is growing. Much will depend on the replacement of Jerome Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve in May; politicising the Fed could trigger a market showdown. 7. Concerns over AI. Rampant spending on infrastructure for artificial intelligence may also be concealing economic weakness in America. Will the bubble burst? As with railways, electricity and the internet, a crash would not mean that the technology does not have real value. But it could have wide economic impact. Either way, concern about AI’s impact on jobs, particularly those of graduates, will deepen. 8. A mixed climate picture. Limiting warming to 1.5°C is off the table, and Mr Trump hates renewables. But global emissions have probably peaked, clean tech is booming across the global south and firms will meet or exceed their climate targets—but will keep quiet about it to avoid Mr Trump’s ire. Geothermal energy is worth watching. 9. Sporting values. Sport can always be relied upon to provide a break from politics, right? Well, maybe not in 2026. The football World Cup is being jointly hosted by America, Canada and Mexico, whose relations are strained. Fans may stay away. But the Enhanced Games, in Las Vegas, may be even more controversial: athletes can use performance-enhancing drugs. Is it cheating—or just different? 10. Ozempic, but better. Better, cheaper GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are coming, and in pill form, too. That will expand access. But is taking them cheating? GLP-1s extend the debate about the ethics of performance-enhancing drugs to a far wider group than athletes or bodybuilders. Few people compete in the Olympics. But anyone can take part in the Ozempic games. Wherever you stand on performance-enhancing drugs, I hope you will find The World Ahead 2026 to be a valuable and effective supplement to your media diet, boosting clarity and foresight. 2025 年 11 月 10 日|4 分鐘閱讀 作者:Tom Standage,《The World Ahead 2026》主編 這是唐納・川普的世界——我們都只是生活在其中而已。這位「破壞式領導人」在 2025 年對全球局勢造成的影響最大,只要他仍在白宮,情況就會如此。他打破慣例的作風在某些領域帶來動盪(如貿易),卻也在其他地方取得外交成果(如加薩),並迫使一些必要的改變(例如歐洲的國防支出)。隨著「川普龍捲風」在 2026 年持續旋轉,以下是明年值得關注的十大趨勢與主題。 1. 美國 250 週年。 你將會聽到共和黨與民主黨對於美國過去、現在與未來截然不同的敘述,幾乎無法調和,以紀念建國 250 週年。選民會在十一月的期中選舉中對美國的未來作出裁決。但即使民主黨奪回眾議院,川普透過施壓、關稅與行政命令的治理方式仍將持續。 2. 地緣政治漂移。 外交政策分析人士意見分歧:世界是否正步入由美國與中國主導的新冷戰,或是會被川普式交易切割成美國、俄羅斯與中國各自為政的「勢力範圍」?兩者都別太指望。川普偏好憑直覺、以交易為導向的方式,而非宏大的地緣政治框架。舊有的全球規則秩序將進一步漂移與衰退,但「志願者聯盟」會在國防、貿易、氣候等領域達成新協議。 3. 戰爭或和平?答案是:兩者皆是。 運氣好的話,加薩脆弱的和平會維持下去。但烏克蘭、蘇丹與緬甸的衝突將持續。俄羅斯與中國會透過「灰色地帶」挑釁來測試美國對盟友的承諾,包括北歐與南海。隨著戰爭與和平的界線愈加模糊,北極、太空軌道、海底與網路空間的緊張局勢會升溫。 4. 歐洲的難題。 上述情勢對歐洲特別是考驗。歐洲必須增加國防預算、維持與美國的關係、提升經濟成長並處理龐大赤字,但緊縮政策又可能推升極右派的支持度。歐洲同時想維持自由貿易與綠色政策的倡導者角色,但不可能一次做到所有事。大幅提升國防開支也許能提振成長,但幅度有限。 5. 中國的機會。 中國面臨通縮、增速放緩與產能過剩等問題,但川普「美國優先」的政策為中國拓展全球影響力帶來新契機。中國將自我定位為更可靠的合作夥伴,尤其是在全球南方,並積極簽署一系列貿易協定。中國樂於與川普在黃豆或晶片等個別議題上做戰術性交易。關鍵在於保持雙邊關係以交易為主,而非走向對抗。 6. 經濟憂慮。 到目前為止,美國經濟面對川普關稅的韌性比許多人預想的更高,但這些關稅終究會拖累全球成長。另外,隨著富裕國家透支生活,債券市場危機的風險正在上升。五月美聯儲主席鮑威爾的接任者將備受關注;若將聯準會政治化,可能引發市場對決。 7. AI 的隱憂。 人工智慧基礎設施的瘋狂投資,可能掩蓋了美國經濟的潛在疲弱。泡沫會破嗎?就像鐵路、電力與網際網路一樣,就算泡沫破裂,也不代表這項科技沒有真正的價值。但它可能帶來廣泛的經濟衝擊。不論如何,大眾對 AI 取代工作、特別是大學生工作的憂慮,將加深。 8. 氣候的複雜局面。 將升溫控制在 1.5°C 已不可能,而川普厭惡再生能源。但全球排放量可能已經見頂,綠色科技在全球南方蓬勃發展,企業也將達成甚至超越其氣候目標——但會低調行事,以避免惹怒川普。地熱能源值得關注。 9. 運動與價值衝突。 運動向來是逃離政治的途徑,不是嗎?2026 年未必如此。足球世界盃由美國、加拿大、墨西哥共同主辦,而三國關係緊張;球迷可能減少前往。但在拉斯維加斯舉辦的「增強運動會」(Enhanced Games)可能更具爭議:選手可以使用提升表現的藥物。這是作弊,還是另一種競賽方式? 10. 更好的 Ozempic。 更有效、價格更低的 GLP-1 類減重藥物即將問世,還會推出口服版本,讓更多人能使用。但使用這些藥算作弊嗎?GLP-1 讓提升表現藥物的倫理辯論擴大到遠超過運動員或健美者。能參加奧運的人很少,但「Ozempic 競賽」人人都能參加。 無論你對提升表現藥物的看法如何,我希望《The World Ahead 2026》能成為你媒體飲食裡一種有價值且有效的補充品,提升你的清晰度與前瞻視野。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
1 week ago
22 minutes

出國趣
81-2 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 台灣繁榮下的隱憂+小分享: 感恩節來好好感恩! Thanksgiving talk
The hidden risks in Taiwan’s boom A weak-currency policy is punishing consumers and storing up financial risk Taiwan is ENVIED for its exporting prowess: it is home to all of the world’s cutting-edge chipmaking. Just as extraordinary, but much less appreciated, is its towering current-account surplus, the result not just of a trade boom but of a long-undervalued currency. This aided Taiwan’s export-led rise, but it has long outlived its purpose. While manufacturers have been coddled, ordinary Taiwanese consumers have been deprived of the fruits of growth, and financial risks are building up. It is time for Taiwan to loosen its grip on its currency. Taiwan’s vast surpluses have been years in the making. For decades its central bank, known as the cbc, has kept the currency undervalued, giving manufacturing exporters a competitive boost. According to the GDP-adjusted Big Mac index, our measure of how far exchange rates depart from their underlying values, the Taiwan dollar is 55% undervalued against the American dollar—the most in the world. As a consequence, in this century Taiwan has run the world’s biggest current-account surplus as a share of output, once entrepots and petrostates are excluded. And lately, thanks to the artificial-intelligence boom, Taiwan’s imbalances have gone into overdrive. In October its goods-trade surplus hit a record high of 31% of GDP in annualised terms—a quadrupling since the pandemic. According to the latest data for this year, Taiwan’s current-account surplus has reached 16% of gdp. By comparison, China, the archetypal **surplus **economy, is running a current-account surplus of just 3%. The problem with all this is that the cheap currency has become a costly and dangerous anachronism. For a start, it no longer delivers the benefits it once did. Taiwan is no longer an industrialising economy; its annual GDP per person now exceeds that of Japan. Its stock of foreign reserves, at $600bn, is large enough to cushion the impact of a Chinese blockade or a financial crisis. And the best of Taiwan’s chip- and computer-makers, which are responsible for three-quarters of total exports and nearly half of nominal GDP, can shrug off a stronger currency. A 20% appreciation in the Taiwan dollar would knock perhaps eight percentage points off the operating margins of TSMC, the world’s leading chipmaker—still leaving them plumper than Alphabet’s or Apple’s. At the same time, the costs and distortions of having an undervalued currency are mounting. First, it is a tax on consumers. In an economy that depends on imports for food, fuel and goods, the cheap currency has shifted purchasing power from ordinary households to exporters. The result has been that even by export-economy standards, Taiwan saves too much and consumes too little. Since 1998 private consumption as a share of output has tumbled by 20 percentage points. A policy that was meant to help Taiwan get rich is now depriving ordinary Taiwanese. Another distortion is that the cheap currency is inflating property prices. Printing currency to buy foreign exchange has flooded Taiwan’s financial system with liquidity and pushed down interest rates. That combination lies behind a quadrupling of house prices since 1998. And the weak-currency policy has seeded risk deep in the heart of Taiwan’s financial system—a third** distortion.** To recycle the proceeds of its surpluses Taiwan has leant on its life-insurance industry, which has poured nearly $1trn of households’ savings largely into American Treasuries. But that has created a giant currency mismatch, because Taiwan-dollar liabilities are being funded with American-dollar assets. An abrupt move in either currency could wipe out the insurers, threatening a financial crisis. Why, then, has the policy persisted? One reason is the export lobby. Taiwan’s chipmakers could withstand a stronger currency, but existing policy has propped up a cohort of manufacturers that subsist on thin margins and would be severely hurt by an appreciation. Such firms make up perhaps 70% of manufacturing employment. Another reason is the CBC’s unusual power. Printing Taiwan dollars to hoover up foreign-currency assets has minted handsome profits, which are remitted to the government and have become a big source of revenue. Central-bank transfers make up 6% of total government receipts, compared with a rich-world average of 0.4%. This bolsters the CBC’s political authority, allowing its powerful governor to cow critics into submission (something the CBC denies). The situation is becoming increasingly precarious. One risk is that further depreciation in the American dollar destabilises Taiwan’s life insurers, which have become too big to fail. A second danger is that American trade-surplus hawks take flight again, using tariffs and their security leverage to force Taiwan to revalue. That could happen at any time: unlike South Korea, Japan or China, Taiwan has yet to clinch a trade deal with Donald Trump. Fears of such a clash after “Liberation Day” were enough to spark an abrupt 9% appreciation of the currency against the greenback in May. That is why Taiwan must unpick its outdated economic model—and build a better one. The CBC should gradually loosen its grip on the currency. Inevitably, the transition will be fraught with political and financial risks. Manufacturers kept on life-support by Taiwan’s export subsidy will have to scale back or shut down. Too rapid an appreciation could blow up the life-insurance industry. But these risks can be managed. Taipei 101 Taiwan’s government, with gross debt of just 23% of GDP, has room to help retrain laid-off workers. Insurers will suffer losses, but can manage the transition if they are given time. The CBC also has a crucial advantage: gently strengthening a currency is easier than doing the opposite, as Javier Milei is discovering in Argentina. The cbc can always print Taiwan dollars to fend off speculators pre-empting a stronger currency. The key is for the cbc to establish a long-term path for the currency, as Singapore does. China, too, has managed a modest yuan appreciation in recent decades. And in return, ordinary Taiwanese will at last be able to enjoy more of the fruits of their country’s** extraordinary export miracle**. ■ 台灣繁榮背後的隱藏風險 ** 疲弱匯率政策正在懲罰消費者並累積金融風險** 台灣因其出口實力而備受稱羨:它掌握了全球所有最先進的晶片製造技術。同樣非凡但較不被注意的,是其龐大的經常帳順差,這不僅源自貿易熱潮,也歸因於長期被低估的貨幣。這種政策曾助長台灣的出口導向成長,但如今早已不合時宜。製造業者雖受庇護,普通台灣消費者卻被剝奪了成長的果實,而金融風險也正在累積。台灣應是時候放鬆對匯率的控制。 台灣龐大的順差已經累積多年。數十年來,其中央銀行(央行)刻意維持貨幣低估,讓製造業出口商享有競爭優勢。依據經濟學人利用 GDP 調整的巨無霸指數(衡量匯率偏離其基本價值的程度),新台幣相對美元被低估達 55%——為全球最高。 因此,本世紀以來,在剔除轉口國與產油國後,台灣的經常帳順差占 GDP 比重為全球之最。近來拜人工智慧熱潮所賜,台灣的不平衡更達到極致。今年 10 月,其貨物貿易順差在年化計算下達 GDP 的 31%,創下歷史新高——是疫情前的四倍。依據最新資料,今年台灣的經常帳順差達到 GDP 的 16%。相比之下,被視為順差典型國的中國,經常帳順差僅為 3%。 問題在於,這種便宜的匯率已成為昂貴且危險的時代錯誤。首先,它已不再帶來過去的好處。台灣不再是工業化初期的國家;其人均 GDP 已高於日本。其外匯存底高達 6000 億美元,足以緩衝中國封鎖或金融危機的衝擊。而台灣頂尖的晶片與電腦製造商——負責三分之二的出口及近一半的名目 GDP——完全有能力承受較強的匯率。即便新台幣升值 20%,對全球領先的台積電而言,營業利益率或許只會減少約八個百分點,仍將高於 Alphabet 或 Apple 的水準。 同時,低估匯率所造成的成本與扭曲正不斷升高。首先,這相當於對消費者課稅。在高度依賴進口食物、能源與商品的經濟體中,便宜匯率將購買力從家庭移轉至出口商。結果是,即使以出口導向國家來看,台灣的儲蓄仍過高而消費過低。自 1998 年以來,民間消費占 GDP 比重下降了 20 個百分點。這項原本要協助台灣致富的政策,如今反而剝奪了一般民眾的福祉。 另一項扭曲是房價飆漲。為買進外匯而印製新台幣,使台灣金融體系充斥流動性並壓低利率。這個組合促成自 1998 年以來房價的四倍成長。同時,疲弱匯率政策也在台灣金融體系核心埋下風險——第三項扭曲。為了消化龐大的順差,台灣依賴壽險業者,他們將近 1 兆美元的家庭儲蓄主要投入美國公債。然而,這造成巨大的貨幣錯配,因為新台幣負債由美元資產支撐。一旦匯率劇烈變動,可能使保險公司遭受重創,甚至引發金融危機。 那麼,為何此政策仍持續?其一是出口利益集團。晶片製造商雖可承受更強的新台幣,但既有政策卻支撐著一群依賴微薄利潤的製造商,這些企業在升值下將遭受重擊。此類公司約占製造業就業的 70%。另一原因是央行的特殊權力。為購入外匯而印鈔,使央行獲得可觀收益,並繳回政府,成為重要財源。央行移轉收入占政府總收入的 6%,遠高於富裕國家平均的 0.4%。這增強了央行的政治影響力,使其強勢總裁得以壓制批評者(央行否認此說)。 情勢正變得愈發危險。一項風險是美元若進一步走弱,台灣壽險業可能動搖,而它們已經「大到不能倒」。另一個風險是美國再度出現打擊貿易順差的鷹派,利用關稅及安全槓桿逼迫台灣升值。這情況可能隨時發生:與南韓、日本或中國不同,台灣至今仍未與特朗普達成貿易協議。今年「解放日」之後,人們對此可能性的擔憂,便引發新台幣在 5 月對美元突然升值 9%。 因此,台灣必須拆解其過時的經濟模式,並打造更健全的體系。央行應逐步放鬆對匯率的控制。不可避免地,這段過程將伴隨政治與金融風險。那些靠出口補貼維生的製造商將不得不縮編或關閉。升值過快則可能引爆壽險業。但這些風險皆可管理。 台灣政府的優勢在於,其公共債務僅占 GDP 的 23%,有能力協助受影響的勞工再培訓。保險公司雖將承受損失,但若給予時間,仍能完成調整。央行也握有一項關鍵優勢:溫和升值比反向操作容易得多,正如阿根廷的米雷伊(Javier Milei)所體會的。央行隨時可以印鈔,阻止投機者提前押注升值。 關鍵在於,央行應比照新加坡,制定明確的長期匯率路徑。中國過去數十年也曾成功推動人民幣溫和升值。作為回報,普通台灣人終於能享受到其國家驚人成就的更多果實。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
2 weeks ago
31 minutes

出國趣
81-1 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 單身主義當道? 富裕的國家越來越沒有人約會&結婚了+小分享: 聯誼公司的策略!
All over the rich world, fewer people are hooking up and shacking up Social media, dating apps and political polarisation all play a part Nov 6th 2025|New York and Singapore|14 min read “I don’t date conservative or moderate men,” says Nancy Anteby, a 30-year-old New Yorker who works in social media. “I only date** liberal **men.” Politics is not her only concern. She is also looking for someone ambitious, with a stable career, who is Jewish and, perhaps most important, shares her desire to start a family. Finding dates who tick all of these boxes is not easy. “Very often a man will disappoint you,” she laments. Then again, she recently realised, “I don’t need to rely on a man to have the life that I dream of.” Ms Anteby is far from unusual. Across America 41% of women and 50% of men in her age band (25-34) were single in 2023, a share that has doubled over the past five decades. Nor is America exceptional in this regard. Between 2010 and 2022 the share of people living alone (an admittedly imperfect measure of singlehood, but one for which data are more widely available) rose in 26 of the 30 members of the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries. Marriage rates are falling across much of Asia, including in China and India and especially Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. And singlehood is accelerating across different age cohorts. In Europe each new generation is less likely to be married or living with a partner than previous ones at the same age (see chart). This relationship recession is hitting not just those wanting to marry or move in with a steady partner, but also those looking for a date or casual sex. Younger people are socialising less, dating less and starting to have sex later in life than previous generations. They are also having less sex in general (as, alas, are most of us). Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, has found that the reduction in dating owing to the covid-19 pandemic produced 13.7m more singles in America in 2022 than if the singlehood rate (conservatively defined) had stayed at the level of 2017. To generate an estimate of the global increase in plus-nones, The Economist extrapolated from his data, while also taking into account sharp falls in marriage rates in a number of Asian countries, which predate the pandemic. We calculate that over the past decade such effects have swollen the ranks of single people around the world by at least 100m. Two’s a crowd Dating, sex, marriage and divorce are all intensely personal choices, and their effects are felt most directly by those making them. The fact that more people feel able to choose to be single now than in the past, when there was far greater social and economic pressure to marry, could be considered one of the great emancipations of the past half century. Untold numbers have been liberated from unhappy unions. But not all those who remain single have chosen to do so. A study of singles in 14 countries found that only 40% said they were “not interested in being in a relationship”. A smaller survey of single Americans by the Pew Research Centre in 2019 did find that 50% were not interested in dating. Yet only 27% said they were not dating because they enjoyed being single. The rest gave reasons including being too busy, too old, or because no one would want to date them. No less than 34% of singles in the 14-country study said they did not want to be alone but found it “difficult to attract a mate”, with 26% describing themselves as “between relationships”. In short, there are growing numbers of lonely hearts, pining for a partner but unable to secure one. Don’t want a ring on it There is an alarming mismatch in this regard between women and men. In the Pew survey, 62% of single women did not want to date, whereas only 37% of single men felt the same way. America and South Korea, among other countries, have big, vocal movements of young men who feel they have been unfairly deprived of romantic opportunities. All over the world, a high proportion of unmarried young men is strongly associated with elevated levels of violence and crime. Even relatively small shifts in coupling rates, when multiplied across a whole population, can have far-reaching effects on society as a whole. The biggest impact will be on fertility rates, since married women tend to have more children than single ones. This will be especially marked in East Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, where only 2-4% of babies are born to unmarried mothers. All the world over, however, the rise of singlehood will be a further drag on already slowing birth rates. The effects will also be felt in property markets (more demand for housing, since more people will be living alone) and government finances (less public spending on maternity wards and schools and, in time, more on care homes). The fact that a large proportion of single people would rather be in a relationship (whether they are still looking for one or have given up hope) suggests that either there is some sort of dating-market failure that is preventing compatible people from finding one another, or that society is changing in ways that are making large numbers of singles incompatible. In practice, it seems to be a bit of both. In Asia, where singlehood is growing fastest, a mix of structural and cultural changes is increasing incompatibility. Start with demography. China’s one-child policy has created a huge imbalance in the ratio of men to women. When it comes to those of peak marriageable age, the country will have 119 men for every 100 women by 2027. In all, there may be 30m-50m “excess men” in China, reckons Xiaoling Shu of the University of California, Davis. Singlehood in China, like most places, is not evenly distributed. Instead, it is disproportionately concentrated among men who are poorer and poorly educated, and thus less attractive as mates, and among highly educated women (of which more later). China’s one-child policy makes it an outlier, but heterosexual men in other countries with a strong cultural preference for sons will also struggle to find partners. Sex-selective abortions resulted in 111 boys being born in India in 2011 for every 100 girls, according to census data. The natural ratio is about 105. Although the distortion has since become less extreme, we calculate that around 20m more boys than girls were born in India in 2000-15. Improved opportunities for women to go to university and enter the workplace are also fuelling the growth in singlehood in East Asia, argues Wei-Jun Jean Yeung of the National University of Singapore. As women gain financial independence, they no longer need a husband to support them. They also have more to lose by getting married. “There’s still a culture of patriarchy in Asia where women carry most of the responsibilities of caring for children and domestic housework,” says Dr Yeung. “The opportunity cost of getting married may be high: women think that if they get married they may have to give up working to take care of their in-laws, parents and children, plus do housework.” One result of this is that well-educated women are also disproportionately likely to be single in a number of Asian countries. “The best-educated, urban, college-educated women are becoming more egalitarian in their gender attitudes,” says Dr Shu of women in China. “Many college-educated men are hostile towards feminist ideas or even feminists…[they] think these women are hurting their prospects and interests at a personal level.” In South Korea the gap between women’s opportunities and men’s sexist expectations is particularly wide. Around half of young Korean men think they are discriminated against (other than having to do military service, they are not). Some 60% complain that feminism demeans them. They also tend to be terrible slouches when it comes to housework. Little wonder, then, that ambitious young women are far less keen on marriage than they are. A similar pattern of singlehood pertains in America and Europe, despite their less ingrained gender roles. Until roughly the middle of the 20th century, far more men went to university than women. As a result there were far more couples in which the man was better educated than the other way round. More recently, however, women have surpassed men in studiousness. Across the OECD on average 51% of women aged 25-34 had a university degree in 2019, compared with 39% of men. That makes the old pattern impossible to sustain. “Highly educated women who still want to marry up won’t find enough candidates,” says Albert Esteve, the director of the Centre for Demographic Studies in Barcelona. “So the question is, are they going to start marrying down?” If mathematics were the only driving force, rather than cultural norms, there would have been a big rise in the share of couples where the woman is better educated. Yet the expectation that women should marry up is hard to dispel. Researchers in Germany, for example, found that highly educated women over the age of 30 were more likely to remain single than settle for a man with less education. There is some evidence that more women are beginning to marry down in terms of education, but it is not happening to nearly the degree that might have been expected. What is more, Mr Esteve has found that educated women are “picking the best non-educated men” by coupling with those who earn more than they do. In effect, they are simply switching from one form of marrying up to another. Educated women’s hesitance to marry down is not wholly irrational. In a number of countries, men are not adapting well to changing times. In Australia, for example, those who earn less than their female partners are more likely to beat or berate them. But people can change. A study in America found that marriages where the woman is better educated than the man were more likely to break down among older cohorts, but not among younger ones. Changes in relative levels of education explain some of the increase in singlehood in Western countries, but not all of it. Another part of the explanation lies in technology, and the huge shifts it has brought in how people meet their mates. For about 60 years after the end of the second world war, the most common way that heterosexual couples met was through friends, according to a study published in 2019 by Mr Rosenfeld and colleagues. But after the introduction of smartphones in the late 2000s, the proportion who met online surged. In 2013 that became the most common way for couples to get together. Yet online dating is fundamentally different from the old-fashioned sort. When looking for a date, Kristian Del Rosario, a 27-year-old lawyer who lives in New York City, is able to winnow down matches on Hinge, a popular app, using all manner of criteria. She looks at a man’s age (no more than six years older than her, but “beggars can’t be choosers”), job, religion, political views, whether they smoke marijuana (“I cross them off”) and how tall they are, which is important to her. “I’m five-six and I’ve literally had men who were like five-five, who tried to match with me,” she says. “Well, that’s definitely not happening.” People have always been finicky when choosing a long-term mate, at least when sober. But social media and online dating have turbo-charged pickiness, allowing people to filter candidates not just for the sorts of things that have always been important (age, religion, ethnicity and education), but also for all sorts of other attributes, such as their political views or narcotic preferences, not to mention their height and weight. One consequence is that many people now lie: researchers in Germany found that online daters claim to be a little taller and a little less overweight than the average person. Another is that many struggle to find dates. Reporting in the Wall Street Journal suggests that most women on Bumble, an online dating app, screen out all men who are less than six feet tall. That rules out about 85% of men at a stroke. To be sure, women have long tended to prefer taller men—but not to such an extreme. Most young British women say that kindness, honesty and a sense of humour are far more important in a partner than looks, according to polling by Ipsos. So why do so many online daters write off all kind, honest, funny men of average height? Part of the answer is found in online and social-media cultures that promote unrealistic ideals. In the “manosphere”, online communities united by the idea that men are oppressed, young “incels” (involuntarily celibate men) complain that women are selfish and manipulative for not sleeping with them. Misogynistic social-media influencers such as Andrew Tate advise them to become hyper-masculine and to dominate women. Women have their own (less nasty) version of this echo chamber. Some vet potential dates on private social-media forums where others post the names and pictures of men they say have cheated on them or are abusive. That may help make dating safer, but some women use them simply to complain about bad dates or men who spurned them. This can be off-putting for the 41% of women who say they often come across videos or social-media posts in which women share negative dating experiences. It is also daunting for men, who are afraid of asking women out in case they are publicly shamed, says Daniel Cox of the Survey Centre on American Life, part of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. Some social-media personalities with big followings create unrealistic expectations about courtship, says Sabrina Zohar, a dating coach based in Los Angeles with 1.3m followers on TikTok. She charges clients $9,999 for a three-month membership, during which she feels obliged to spell out such basic principles as, “If somebody doesn’t text you every day, it doesn’t mean that they don’t like you.” Unrealistic expectations are probably as old as dating and relationships, but a generation of young people who have grown up with personalised music playlists and online entertainment may be less willing to set their preferences aside. “You can filter your news feeds, right? You can curate your online life,” says Mr Cox. “How easy is it to do that when you’re thinking about prospective relationships?” That also extends to ideology. As men have drifted to the right and women have become more liberal in America and parts of Europe, politics is getting in the way of pillow-talk, he says. Wedded to devices New technology not only fosters pickiness about whom to date, it also absorbs a lot of time, leaving less for socialising and group activities—tried-and-tested ways of meeting partners. In America the amount of time 15-to-24-year-olds spend hanging out face-to-face has fallen by more than a quarter over the past decade, whereas the amount of time spent gaming has increased by about half (and nearly doubled for young men). Time spent streaming, surfing or gaming even seems to be displacing sex. Almost everywhere in the rich world people are having sex less often than before, and many more are having none at all. Brits aged 18-44, for instance, have gone from copulating five times a month in 1990 to twice a month in 2021, notes Soazig Clifton of University College London. Researchers have posited, variously, that this is because they are too busy, more stressed, are watching porn instead, or are simply distracted by Netflix. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more adept, growing numbers of people are turning to it, rather than humans, for intimate relationships. People who spend their late teens and 20s watching television, playing computer games or chatting with AIs may be reducing their chances of ever finding a mate, since they are missing their best chance to hone their dating skills and learn how to weather the ups and downs of relationships. “Dating is really not like riding a bike,” says Mr Rosenfeld. “You need constant practice to be good at it and if you are out of practice for a while, it’s harder.” In other words, singlehood, which is already reshaping Western society, is likely to keep growing for some time to come, with all the consequences—good and bad—that it entails. At some point it will surely plateau, but it shows no signs of doing so yet. Until recently, demographers had thought that, once men’s attitudes caught up with women’s emancipation, a new equilibrium would be reached. “Men would do a bit of cleaning and housework to be attractive, and happy families would be produced again,” says Mr Esteve. Yet even in egalitarian Scandinavia, he notes, “regardless of how beautiful are the men”, marriage and fertility rates are still falling. “Why is this happening?” he asks. It is the 100m plus-nones question. ■ 全世界富裕國家中,越來越多人不交往、不同居 社群媒體、交友軟體與政治對立,都扮演了重要角色 2025 年 11 月 6 日|紐約、新加坡|閱讀時間 14 分鐘 「我不跟保守派或中間派男性約會。」30 歲、在紐約從事社群媒體工作的南希·安特比(Nancy Anteby)這麼說。「我只跟自由派的男人約會。」 她的條件不只政治立場。她希望對方有上進心、穩定工作、是猶太人,最重要的是,願意和她一起組家庭。要找到符合這些條件的人並不容易。「很多時候男人會讓你失望。」她感嘆。但她最近也發現:「就算沒有男人,我也能過上自己想要的生活。」 安特比並不特別。美國 25~34 歲的人中,2023 年有 41% 的女性與 50% 的男性是單身,這比例在五十年間幾乎翻倍。 這現象也不只出現在美國。2010~2022 年間,在 OECD 30 個主要富裕國家中,有 26 國的獨居人口增加。亞洲的結婚率也大幅下降,包括中國、印度,尤其是日本、韓國與台灣。 不只追求婚姻或同居的人受到影響,連只是想談戀愛或尋求性關係的人也愈來愈少。年輕人社交變少、約會變少、開始發生性行為的年齡更晚,整體行為次數也都大幅下降。 史丹佛大學社會學家羅森菲爾德(Michael Rosenfeld)發現,疫情造成的約會減少,使美國 2022 年約多出 1370 萬名單身者。 《經濟學人》根據此資料並考量多個亞洲國家婚姻率下降後推估,過去十年間,全球至少增加 1 億名單身者。 兩個人的世界,也可能變得擁擠 戀愛、性、婚姻與離婚都是個人選擇,影響最直接的是當事人。如今更多人能自由選擇單身,而非因社會壓力被迫結婚,這對許多人來說是一種解放。但並非所有單身者都「想」單身。對 14 國的研究顯示,只有 40% 的單身者說他們不想進入關係。 2019 年美國皮尤調查也發現,50% 的單身美國人不想約會;但真正因「喜歡單身」而不約會的只有 27%。其他人則是太忙、太老,或覺得沒人會想跟他們交往。 在 14 國研究中,有 34% 單身者表示不想孤單,但「難以吸引對象」;26% 說自己「正在兩段關係之間」。 總結來說,想要伴侶卻找不到的人越來越多。 男與女的期待差距正急速擴大 在皮尤研究中,62% 的單身女性不想約會,但同意的男性只有 37%。 一些國家(如美國、韓國)甚至出現一大群覺得自己被「剝奪戀愛機會」的男性團體。而全球統計顯示,未婚男性比例過高常與暴力與犯罪上升相關。即使是交往率的小變化,擴大到整個人口後,也會造成巨大影響。 其中最大效應是 生育率下降——已婚女性通常比單身女性更常生育。 對日本、韓國這種未婚生子極少(僅 2–4%)的國家影響更大。 此外,更多人獨居後,也會影響房市(更大量的小宅需求)、公共預算(托嬰與學校需求下降,但長照需求上升)。 許多想脫單的人之所以無法,是因為: 1. 交友市場失靈,讓適合的人找不到彼此 2. 社會變化加劇了人與人之間的不相容性 實際上,兩者同時發生。 亞洲:人口失衡與傳統文化,使單身潮更嚴重 首先是人口結構。中國的一胎化讓男女性比例嚴重失衡。到 2027 年,中國適婚年齡層中,每 100 名女性竟有 119 名男性。 整體而言,中國可能有 3000–5000 萬名「多餘的男人」——大多來自較貧困、教育程度較低的背景,不易找到配偶。 高度受教育的女性也更常保持單身。 印度也有類似情況。2011 年印度每 100 名女生出生就有 111 名男生。雖然情況略改善,2000–2015 年間仍多出生了約 2000 萬名男性,未來同樣會面臨婚配問題。同時,越來越多亞洲女性受高等教育並投入職場,經濟獨立後就不再需要靠婚姻生活。 但婚姻對女性的「代價」仍然很高: 她們常得承擔照顧公婆、父母與小孩的責任,外加大部分家務。 因此許多女性認為「結婚=失去自由、職涯停滯」。 在中國、韓國等地,受高等教育的女性反而最不願結婚。 原因之一是:許多大學畢業男性仍抱持傳統、甚至反女權觀念,認為女性進步「損害」了他們的利益。 在韓國,情況更極端: · 一半年輕男性覺得自己被歧視 · 60% 認為女權主義貶低男性 · 男性在家務分擔上極度不均 難怪許多有抱負的女性更不願意結婚。 西方:教育、文化與科技,使配對更困難 在歐美,雖然性別角色較平等,但單身率也快速上升。 其中一個原因是教育。女性的受教育程度已全面超越男性。2019 年在 OECD,25–34 歲女性中 51% 有大學學歷,男性只有 39%。 傳統「男方學歷較高」的婚配模式因此無法維持。 理論上,女性應該開始願意「嫁給學歷較低但其他條件不錯的男人」。 然而研究發現,許多高學歷女性寧願保持單身,也不願降低標準。有些女性的確開始「學歷下嫁」,但比例遠比預期低。 而且即便如此,她們通常還是會選「收入比自己高的男性」——換句話說,從「學歷門當戶對」轉成「收入門當戶對」。 在一些國家,收入較低的男性對伴侶較容易有攻擊、貶低等行為,這也讓女性更猶豫。然而新研究顯示,年輕世代的「女高男低」婚姻,其實不一定比較容易破裂。 教育差異能解釋部分單身潮,但遠遠不是全部。 科技重塑了人們相遇的方式:更挑剔、更孤立 在二戰後的 60 年間,異性戀情侶最常透過朋友介紹而相識。但智慧型手機普及後,網路交友迅速崛起。 2013 年起,網路成為人們最主要的交友方式。 但網路交友跟傳統交往方式完全不同。 以 27 歲的紐約律師德爾羅薩里奧(Kristian Del Rosario)為例,她在 Hinge 上篩選對象的條件非常細:年齡、工作、宗教、政治立場、是否用大麻、身高…… 「我 5 呎 6(約 168 公分),很多 5 呎 5(165 公分)的男生想跟我配對——不可能。」 人們本來挑剔,但科技讓「挑剔」變成系統化。 不只基本條件,就連政治理念、使用什麼毒品、身高體重,都能瞬間排除。 許多人因此美化自己的個資,以免被刷掉。 有報導指出,Bumble 上大多數女性直接排除身高不足 6 呎(183 公分)的男性——一下就淘汰了約 85% 的男性。 雖然女性一向偏好高個子,但並沒有到這麼極端的地步。 同時,網路和社群文化也製造了不切實際的想像: · 男性圈子裡(manosphere)充斥抱怨女性不給機會的聲音 · 女性圈子裡則有私密社群公開「黑名單」 這些現象都讓人更害怕踏出第一步。 此外,花大量時間在滑手機、追劇、打遊戲,也大幅壓縮了社交和面對面互動的時間。 過去十年,美國 15–24 歲的面對面相處時間下降超過四分之一,遊戲時間則幾乎翻倍。 性行為頻率也在下降,某些人甚至轉向 AI 建立「親密關係」。 年輕時不練習社交與約會技能,未來要脫單的難度只會更高。 羅森菲爾德說:「約會不像騎腳踏車。你不練就會退步。」 單身潮短期內不會停止 單身正重新塑造西方社會,而且短期內看不出頂峰。 原本學者以為,隨著男性態度逐漸調整、與女性更平權後,會恢復平衡。 但即使在北歐等最平等的地方,婚姻與生育仍不斷下降。 這讓人口學家不禁問:「這到底是怎麼回事?」 答案,正是那個價值上百萬、遍布全球的—— 「1 億單身者」之謎。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
3 weeks ago
47 minutes

出國趣
80-4 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~香港的同性婚姻+ 小分享: 香港澳門行2016年 vs. 2023年 差別
Hong Kongers support gay marriage. Their leaders, not so much The city has rejected** reform** even as other places in Asia embrace it Nov 6th 2025|Hong Kong|3 min read In 2023 Hong Kong’s highest court ordered the city’s government to introduce rules offering a degree of legal recognition to unions between people of the same sex. That Hong Kong had no legal framework relating to civil partnerships, it argued, contravened freedoms enshrined in the city’s Bill of Rights. The justices ruled that this problem had to be remedied by the end of October 2025. That deadline has just come and gone—and with much less effect than campaigners had hoped. In September, as the deadline approached, Hong Kong’s executive asked lawmakers to vote on a bill that would have granted limited rights to gay couples who got married or entered into civil partnerships abroad. Yet the proposal was roundly rejected, with 71 of 87 lawmakers voting against it. The city’s government now says that it will protect same-sex partnerships using** “administrative measures”**. Hong Kongers are sceptical: “It’s difficult to see how a mere administrative framework can deal with the legal inequalities,” says Azan Marwah, a barrister. The handful of lawmakers who supported the bill argued that greater recognition of same-sex marriages would help reinforce Hong Kong’s claim to be an open and cosmopolitan world city. The dissenters pushed back; they argued that the bill could subvert “traditional values” and teach children that homosexuality is “normal”. Some have framed homosexuality as a Western import. “It is all misleading information that [the public have] been receiving,” says Donald, a gay man. “But unfortunately, we do not have a voice or a platform to let people know that these are all just lies.” Ordinary Hong Kongers are more supportive of gay rights than debates among their politicians might suggest. A survey in 2023 found that 60% of them support same-sex marriage, a big increase from only 38% a decade ago. Some of the city’s insurance companies have started to let gay people register partners on their life-insurance policies. The territory has hosted LGBT-friendly events such as the Gay Games, a sporting event, and Pink Dot, a festival similar to gay-pride gatherings in the West. Yet although most Hong Kongers are happy to know people from sexual minorities, says Priscilla, a trans woman, “if one of your family members is LGBT, this would be a disaster.” Civil-society groups that have worked to change perceptions and to stand up for the rights of sexual minorities have found it much harder to operate since China forced Hong Kong to pass a sweeping national-security law in 2020 (China’s Communist Party likes to promote “traditional” family values and is anyway deeply suspicious of any interest group that it cannot control). Activists say Hong Kong’s government has recently withdrawn financial support for LGBT-friendly events and rejected requests to hold them in public spaces. Nowadays politicians “look up north” to decide what policies to support, says Tim, a gay Hong Konger. “They don’t want to do anything progressive, because they don’t know what Beijing would think.” Many Asian countries stigmatise or even criminalise same-sex relationships. But things have been improving in parts of the continent: in January Thailand became the third Asian country to legalise same-sex marriage, after Taiwan and Nepal. All this amplifies frustration among Hong Kongers, who sense their lawmakers are growing less likely to take a similar step. Many LGBT people in the city think they are unlikely to see change within their lifetimes. But “you have to push with whatever freedom you have,” says Donald. “That is the only way we can get people to understand who we are, and accept us.” ■ 香港人支持同性婚姻,但領導人卻不太願意 城市拒絕改革,亞洲其他地方卻在前進 2025年11月6日|香港|閱讀時間約3分鐘 2023年,香港最高法院要求政府推出某種形式的法律,給予同性伴侶一定程度的法律承認。法官指出,香港完全沒有任何有關民事伴侶的法律制度,這違反了《香港人權法案》所保障的自由。法院裁定,政府必須在2025年10月底前解決這個問題。如今期限已經過了,但結果卻讓支持者非常失望。 隨著期限逼近,政府在9月提出一項法案,打算讓在海外結婚或登記民事伴侶的同性伴侶,在香港能獲得有限的權利。不過,這個提案被立法會以87票中的71票否決。政府現在表示,會用「行政措施」來保障同性伴侶。不過,香港人並不太相信這種說法。「很難想像光靠行政手段就能解決法律上的不平等,」大律師馬亞然(Azan Marwah)說。 支持法案的少數議員認為,更廣泛地承認同性婚姻,能夠加強香港作為一個開放、國際化城市的形象。但反對者則說,這會破壞「傳統價值」,甚至讓孩子以為同性戀是「正常的」。有些人還把同性戀說成是「西方輸入」的東西。「這些都是誤導性的資訊,」一名同性戀者唐納(Donald)說,「但可惜的是,我們沒有發聲的平台,讓大家知道這些其實都是謊言。」 事實上,普通香港人對同性戀的接受程度,比政客之間的辯論所顯示的要高得多。2023年的一項調查顯示,六成香港人支持同性婚姻,比十年前的38%大幅上升。部分保險公司也開始讓同性伴侶可以登記為受益人。香港也舉辦過多場LGBT友善活動,例如同志運動會(Gay Games)以及類似西方同志遊行的Pink Dot活動。 不過,跨性別女性Priscilla說:「雖然大家都說可以接受身邊有同志朋友,但如果家人其中一個是同志,那就變成災難了。」自從中國在2020年強迫香港通過《國安法》後,很多民間團體推動性小眾權益的活動變得困難許多。(中國共產黨強調「傳統家庭價值」,而且對任何它無法掌控的團體都非常警惕。) 有活動人士說,香港政府最近撤回對同志友善活動的資金支持,甚至拒絕讓他們在公共空間舉辦活動。同志人士Tim說:「現在的政客都『向北看』,他們不敢推動任何進步的政策,因為不知道北京會怎麼想。」 許多亞洲國家仍然歧視甚至刑罰同性戀關係,但部分地區情況已開始改善。今年1月,泰國成為繼台灣和尼泊爾之後第三個合法化同性婚姻的亞洲國家。這讓香港人更感到沮喪——因為他們的政府似乎越來越不可能跟上。 許多香港的同志覺得,在自己有生之年恐怕看不到真正的改變。不過,唐納說:「你還是要盡量去爭取,只要還有一點自由,就要繼續努力。因為這是唯一能讓人了解、接受我們的方式。」 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
4 weeks ago
26 minutes

出國趣
80-3 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~頭條!! If 沒有美援的台灣, 我們PlanB是什麼? 小分享: 浦島Chloe放生烏龜記
What is Taiwan’s plan B? It is starting to hedge against the risk that America abandons it Oct 23rd 2025|Taipei|6 min read Officials in Taiwan were quietly optimistic when Donald Trump was re-elected. Among his advisers were several diehard China hawks determined that America stand by its vow to help Taiwan defend itself against any attack from the Chinese mainland. Taiwanese diplomats and military commanders also recalled Mr Trump’s first term, when he increased arms sales and official contacts with the island. Besides, Taiwan has a “silicon shield”: it is home to the world’s biggest producer of the semiconductors that are used by America’s AI industry. Less than a year later, Taiwan is confronting one of its deepest fears: what happens if America abandons it? Officially, American policy has not changed. But Mr Trump is preoccupied with negotiating a trade deal with China that could also encompass Taiwan. He hinted at that in May by suggesting that such a deal would be “great for unification and peace”. Although American officials later walked that back, Mr Trump jangled nerves in Taiwan again on October 19th by saying that he expected to discuss the island in a planned meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in South Korea at the end of October. And these are not the only shocks. Mr Trump has hit Taiwan with steeper trade tariffs than those he has imposed on Japan and South Korea; demanded that the island increase defence spending to 10% of GDP (from 2.5% last year); and asked TSMC, its chipmaking giant, to move much of its production to America. Other troubling signs include his putting off planned stopovers in America by Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, and failing to approve new arms sales to the island. Meanwhile, most of the China hawks have been purged from his administration, giving way to isolationist officials who want to secure the American homeland at all cost. And Chinese officials have been pressing long-standing demands for America to water down its commitment to Taiwan, possibly by explicitly opposing any move to declare formal independence. Taiwan’s government says its relationship with America remains strong. In recent weeks, however, Taiwanese officials have been scrambling to adjust their public messaging, private diplomacy, economic policy and defence planning in response to these developments. Their primary aim is to convince Mr Trump to sustain America’s commitment to Taiwan. But they are also starting to hedge against the risk that he makes a strategic “grand bargain” with Mr Xi at the island’s expense. The shift was evident in President Lai’s national-day address on October 10th. His remarks on mainland China were notably restrained. Since Mr Lai took office in 2024 he has made a series of public comments that have angered China and unnerved some American officials, including in last year’s national-day address. China has staged large military exercises in response, accusing Mr Lai of separatism and warning that he was “playing with fire”. This time, Mr Lai trod gingerly, apparently to avoid disrupting Mr Trump’s trade talks. Another contrast with last year’s address was Mr Lai’s pledge to boost defence spending. He vowed to increase it to more than 3% of GDP in 2026 and to 5% by 2030. He also unveiled plans to build an air-defence system called “T-Dome” over Taiwan. And he pledged to supplement regular defence spending with a “special defence budget” later this year. Although that may struggle to get through parliament, officials say it could be worth as much as $33bn and that a lot of it could be spent on American weapons. Those plans are part of an effort to convince Mr Trump that Taiwan is investing in its own defence. And the way they were presented reflects a recognition that previous lobbying in America was too geared towards China hawks whose influence is fading. Even the branding of “T-Dome” was meant to get Mr Trump’s attention by encouraging comparisons to his “Golden Dome” missile-defence system. Mr Lai also took the unusual step of appearing on a popular American right-wing radio show on October 7th. Not only did he tout his defence plans: he said Mr Trump should win a Nobel peace prize if he got Mr Xi to abandon the use of force against Taiwan. Shortly afterwards, Mr Lai met Matt Schlapp, a right-wing American political activist (Taiwan’s top military think-tank had invited him to visit Taipei). While this charm offensive plays out, Mr Lai has been quietly** boosting defence ties with partners other than America**. In his national-day address he said his government would “collaborate with the military industries of advanced nations”. Taiwanese officials are reluctant to be more specific, citing the risk that China penalises countries involved. But the focus is on drones and such “asymmetric” capabilities. And the outreach appears to have focused on Europe of late, as countries there increase their own defence spending in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. European governments and companies were somewhat better represented than usual at Taiwan’s biggest defence show in September. Germany’s trade office in Taipei took part for the first time; it set up a pavilion showcasing four German firms. Airbus turned up, too; it showed off a tactical aerial drone. In Poland that same month, a Taiwanese defence-industry delegation agreed with Polish and Ukrainian counterparts to co-operate in manufacturing aerial drones. European and other non-American partners are unlikely to provide Taiwan with big-ticket weapons, given the risk of Chinese recriminations. But there is scope for discreet co-operation between defence companies. Taiwan is an alternative supplier of high-tech electronic components for countries trying to become less reliant on China, including in the defence sector, says Lai Chun-kuei of the Taiwanese government’s Research Institute for Democracy, Society and Emerging Technology. In exchange, Taiwan wants technology and expertise to help build its own capabilities. Some critics say all this is too little, too late. Even if Mr Trump and his supporters approve of Taiwan’s defence spending, they have deeper differences with the island’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party on issues such as gender, green energy and the death penalty, says Alexander Huang, a former envoy in Washington for the main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT). Mr Lai’s defence-spending plans could also face resistance between now and the island’s next presidential election in 2028. Cheng Li-wun, who was chosen as the KMT’s new leader on October 18th, is opposed to boosting the defence budget. Certainly none of these plans is sufficient to compensate should American security guarantees vanish. The hope in Taiwan, though, is not that it can find a substitute for America. It is that it can bolster its own capabilities just enough to keep Mr Xi convinced that the costs of an invasion, even if successful, outweigh the benefits. Without America, that may not be achievable. But there is no other good plan B. ■ 當美國拋棄台灣時:台灣的「B計畫」是什麼? —— 台灣開始為「美國可能不再挺台」做準備 2025年10月23日|台北|約6分鐘閱讀 當川普再次當選美國總統時,台灣官員其實一開始還頗為樂觀。因為他的顧問團隊裡有幾位堅定的「反中鷹派」,主張美國應履行承諾,協助台灣抵禦來自中國大陸的攻擊。許多台灣外交與軍方人士也記得川普第一任期時,他曾增加對台軍售與官方往來。此外,台灣擁有所謂的「矽盾」—— 全世界最大半導體製造商就設在台灣,而美國的人工智慧產業仰賴這些晶片。 但不到一年,台灣便面臨最深的恐懼:如果美國真的拋棄台灣,該怎麼辦? 表面上,美國的對台政策並未改變,但川普如今正全力推動與中國的貿易協議,而台灣問題似乎也在其中。他今年5月曾暗示,這樣的協議「有助於統一與和平」。雖然美國官員事後急忙澄清,但10月19日,川普又表示他預計月底在南韓與習近平會面時,會「討論台灣問題」,再度讓台北神經緊繃。 而這並不是唯一的警訊。川普對台灣祭出的貿易關稅比日本、南韓更高;他要求台灣將國防預算從去年的GDP 2.5%一口氣提高到10%;還要求台積電把大部分生產線搬到美國。此外,他推遲了賴清德總統原訂的美國過境行程,也遲遲未批准新的對台軍售案。 更糟的是,川普政府中的多位「挺台鷹派」已被撤換,取而代之的是一群「美國優先」的孤立主義官員,強調要不惜一切保護美國本土安全。同時,中國方面也持續施壓,要求美方在對台立場上「鬆綁」,甚至希望美國明確表態反對台灣任何形式的「法理獨立」。 儘管台灣政府對外仍強調「台美關係堅若磐石」,但近來可以明顯看出,台北正加緊調整其公開發言、外交策略、經濟政策與國防布局,以因應新局。主要目的是想說服川普維持美國對台的安全承諾,同時也要為最壞的情況——川普與習近平達成「大交易」犧牲台灣——預做準備。 這樣的轉變在賴清德10月10日的國慶演說中尤為明顯。相較去年,他談論中國的語氣顯得格外克制。自2024年上任以來,賴清德曾多次發表讓北京不滿、讓部分美國官員不安的言論,去年國慶演說後更引來中國大規模軍演,指控他是「頑固的分裂分子」。但今年,他明顯收斂,顯然是為了避免干擾川普的對中談判。 與去年相比,賴清德也在演說中宣布要大幅提升國防預算。他承諾2026年將提高至GDP的3%以上,2030年達到5%。同時,他宣布啟動名為「T-Dome」的全島防空系統計畫,並將在年底提出特別國防預算,估計規模可達330億美元,主要用於購買美國武器。 這些舉措旨在向川普展示:台灣願意自我防衛、分擔責任。甚至「T-Dome」這個名稱,也刻意呼應川普任內的「黃金圓頂」(Golden Dome)飛彈防禦系統,好讓他印象深刻。 賴清德甚至在10月7日罕見地登上美國右翼廣播節目,強調台灣的防衛努力,並稱如果川普能讓習近平放棄武力犯台,「那他值得拿諾貝爾和平獎」。之後,他還會見了美國保守派政治人物馬特・施拉普(Matt Schlapp),這是由台灣國防智庫邀請他訪台。 在積極拉攏美方的同時,賴清德也悄悄強化與其他國家的防務合作。他在國慶演說中提到,台灣將「與先進國家的軍工產業合作」。台灣官員對細節三緘其口,以免引來中國報復,但外界普遍認為重點在於無人機與「非對稱作戰」能力,最近則特別著眼於歐洲。 歐洲國家因應俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭,國防支出大幅增加,也讓台歐互動升溫。九月舉行的台灣國防展上,歐洲代表團規模明顯擴大。德國經濟辦事處首度設立展區,展示四家德國企業;空中巴士(Airbus)也到場展示戰術無人機。同月,在波蘭,台灣代表團與波蘭、烏克蘭的國防業者簽署合作協議,共同生產無人機。 雖然歐洲與其他非美國夥伴不太可能提供台灣大型武器,以免激怒北京,但雙方在軍工企業層面的低調合作仍有空間。台灣本身也能為歐洲提供高科技電子零件,幫助他們降低對中國的依賴;作為交換,台灣希望獲得技術與專業,強化自己的軍工實力。 然而,也有批評者認為這一切為時已晚。前駐美代表、現任國民黨要角黃介正指出,即使川普陣營欣賞台灣提升國防支出,他們在性別議題、綠能政策與死刑等價值觀上,與民進黨仍存在深刻分歧。新任國民黨主席鄭麗文(10月18日當選)也公開反對提高國防預算。 可以肯定的是,這些措施都不足以彌補若失去美國安全保障所造成的缺口。但台灣的希望並非要找到取代美國的選項,而是要讓中國相信:即便能攻下台灣,代價也將高到不值得。 若沒有美國的支持,這目標恐怕難以實現。 但除了這條路,台灣也沒有更好的「B計畫」。 ■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
1 month ago
29 minutes

出國趣
80-2 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 加州房市危機而台灣火車站附近遍布街友+ 小分享: 台中鈴蘭通散步納涼會
United States | Build, baby, build California tries to fix its housing mess The YIMBY movement wins a big victory Oct 14th 2025|Los Angeles|4 min read ONE OF THE most contentious and consequential housing reforms in California’s history was almost sunk by a former reality-TV star. American millennials might remember Spencer Pratt as the blonde bad boy they loved to hate on “The Hills”, an MTV show that chronicled the life of hot, young Angelenos in the noughties. More recently Mr Pratt has taken to podcasting from the empty lot where his home once stood. It burned in the Palisades Fire this year. He spreads the blame around. Gavin Newsom (the governor of California) and Karen Bass (the mayor of Los Angeles) are frequent targets. Mr Pratt also gets wonky. In a recent Instagram video he told fans to call Mr Newsom’s* office to* urge him to veto a housing bill: SB 79. SB 79 rezones state land around busy public-transport stops to allow for taller residential buildings. It also slaps hefty fines on cities that try to deny such buildings a permit. It was amended more than a dozen times to appease rural lawmakers, unions and tenants-rights groups—and it still barely passed the legislature. The bill spent weeks on the governor’s desk, which gave his pro-housing allies the willies and Mr Pratt some hope. But on October 10th Mr Newsom signed the law and delivered a huge win to the ascendantYIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement. The passage of SB 79 and more than 40 other housing reforms this year could be a turning point for a state that is crippled by its self-inflicted(自食惡果的)housing shortage. “The cost of inaction is simply too high,” wrote Mr Newsom upon signing the bill. He is right. Housing policy is not just a topic that “abundance bros”—Democratic thinkers who say their party needs to be more growth-friendly—debate on podcasts (though they do a lot of that). Building more homes is integral to California maintaining its political heft and again becoming a place where people want to live. The median sale price of **residential properties **in California is higher than in any other state. People are moving to cheaper places, and that exodus has become a political problem for Democrats. The Golden State could lose at least three congressional seats (and electoral votes) in the next reapportionment after the 2030 census. “Democrats need to be willing to say no to NIMBYs and to city councils that are yelling at them,” Scott Wiener, the bill’s author, told The Economist earlier this year. Mr Newsom, a Democrat, was also surely aware that he would have been labelled a hypocrite had he given in to pressure to veto the bill. The governor has consistently pushed to streamline the permitting process and to build more homes. (He even invited some of those abundance bros on his own podcast.) Mr Newsom’s record in California will be subject to intense scrutiny should he run for president in 2028. If things improve on his watch, it will be harder for Republicans to paint California as a hellscape with rampant homelessness and high costs (though they will certainly try). There are still plenty of details to be worked out. Housing wonks are already finding potential loopholes in the law that will need to be fixed. But it will be phased in over several years and allows for a lot of flexibility. Cities that don’t want to build where SB 79 tells them to can propose different locations—so long as the housing gets built somewhere. Daniel Lurie, San Francisco’s moderate mayor, is using the threat of state intervention to convince local NIMBYs that his plan to increase housing density is tame by comparison. Elsewhere, the state may need to be a bully. Contrary to Mr Pratt’s prattling, neither Pacific Palisades nor Altadena, another neighbourhood razed by fire, has transport stations big enough to trigger the law. Yet Ms Bass urged Mr Newsom to veto the bill so as not to “erode local control”—while still claiming that LA is a “pro-housing city”. The lack of progress the city is making on housing is clear. LA has only approved 13% of the units it says it needs to permit by 2029. “State intervention has been really the only pathway through which we’ve been able to make real progress on this issue,” says Nithya Raman, a rare YIMBY city-council member in Los Angeles. Now state intervention is coming. ■ 美國 | 蓋吧,寶貝,蓋吧 加州嘗試修復其住房困局 「YIMBY」(我家後院也行)運動迎來重大勝利 2025年10月14日|洛杉磯|閱讀時間約4分鐘 加州歷史上最具爭議、卻也最具影響力的住房改革之一,差點被一位前實境節目明星給搞砸。美國千禧世代或許還記得史賓塞‧普拉特(Spencer Pratt),那位在《The Hills》(《山丘青春誌》)中被觀眾又愛又恨的金髮壞男孩。這部MTV節目記錄了2000年代初洛杉磯年輕俊男美女的生活。近年來,普拉特轉向播客創作,錄音地點正是他原本的住處——在今年的「帕利塞茲大火」(Palisades Fire)中被燒成一片空地。他將責任歸咎於許多人,其中包括加州州長蓋文‧紐森(Gavin Newsom)與洛杉磯市長凱倫‧巴斯(Karen Bass)。 普拉特偶爾也談些政策。最近他在Instagram影片中呼籲粉絲致電紐森辦公室,要求他否決一項住房法案:SB 79。 SB 79將繁忙公共交通站周邊的州有土地重新劃區,以允許興建更高的住宅建築。該法案還對那些拒發建照的城市施以重罰。為了安撫農村議員、工會與租屋者權益團體,法案在立法過程中被修改十多次,但仍僅以微弱票數通過。此法案在州長辦公桌上擱置了數週,讓支持興建住房的一方緊張不安,也讓普拉特燃起希望。然而,10月10日,紐森簽署了該法,替迅速崛起的「YIMBY」(Yes In My Backyard,「我家後院也行」)運動送上重大勝利。今年通過的SB 79及其他四十多項住房改革,可能成為這個因自我造成的住房短缺而陷入困境的州的轉捩點。紐森在簽署法案時寫道:「不作為的代價實在太高。」 他說得沒錯。住房政策不再只是所謂「豐饒派」(abundance bros「豐饒派」通常指的是2025年在美國興起的一種政治和經濟思潮,稱為**「豐饒議程」(Abundance Agenda)**。 該思潮旨在透過增加供給、推動科技創新、改革限制性政策,以解決高生活成本和經濟成長緩慢等問題。)——那些主張民主黨應更加友善於經濟成長的進步派思想家——在播客上辯論的話題而已。大量興建住宅,是加州維持政治影響力、並重新成為人們嚮往居住之地的關鍵。加州住宅的中位售價高於全美任何州。人們正搬往較便宜的地方,而這股外流潮已成為民主黨的政治難題。加州在2030年人口普查後的重新分配中,可能至少失去三個國會席次(與選舉人票)。該法案作者、州參議員史考特‧維納(Scott Wiener)今年稍早對《經濟學人》表示:「民主黨人必須敢於對那些『NIMBY』(Not In My Backyard,「別在我家後院蓋」)派,以及那些在咆哮抗議的市議會說『不』。」 身為民主黨人的紐森,也深知若屈服於否決法案的壓力,必將被批評為偽善。這位州長一貫主張簡化核准流程、加速住宅建設。(他甚至邀請過幾位「豐饒派」人士上自己的播客節目。)若他在2028年競選總統,外界必將嚴格檢視他在加州的施政成果。倘若加州情況在他任內改善,共和黨將更難再把加州描繪成充斥無家可歸者與高物價的「人間地獄」——儘管他們仍會努力這麼做。 儘管如此,仍有許多細節有待釐清。住房政策專家已在新法中發現可能需要修補的漏洞。不過,該法將在數年內分階段實施,並保留高度彈性。若城市不願在SB 79指定地點興建,仍可提議替代地點——前提是最終確實要蓋出住宅。舊金山的溫和派市長丹尼爾‧盧瑞(Daniel Lurie)正利用州政府干預的威脅,來說服地方反對者接受他相對溫和的住宅密度提升計畫。 在其他地區,州政府可能需要更強硬的手段。與普拉特的喋喋不休相反,無論是帕利塞茲還是另一個曾被大火摧毀的社區奧塔迪納(Altadena),都沒有足夠大型的交通站會被此法涵蓋。然而,巴斯市長仍敦促紐森否決該法,聲稱不應「削弱地方自治」,同時又宣稱洛杉磯是個「支持興建住房的城市」。事實卻顯示,該市的住房進展極為有限——至今僅核准了其設定到2029年目標的13%。 洛杉磯少數支持「YIMBY」的市議員妮西亞‧拉曼(Nithya Raman)表示:「州政府的介入,其實是我們唯一能在這議題上取得實質進展的途徑。」如今,這樣的介入即將正式展開。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
1 month ago
23 minutes

出國趣
80-1 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 珍.古德+脫北者勇敢擁抱自由的故事+ 小分享: {暴風圈}與裡面的中文台詞
Kim Seong Min risked everything to escape from North Korea The activist, poet and broadcaster died on September 12th, aged 63 Sep 25th 2025|5 min read He could not shake the shackle off. At the other end of it was a North Korean officer, who went with him everywhere. If Kim Seong Min as much as used the lavatory, the officer came along too. For three days they were yoked like this, hostile twins, while the train crept through northern North Korea. The punishment for his crime, leaving North Korea without permission as a captain in the army, was public execution. But he was hatching a plan. As the lavatory became ever filthier, the officer at last let him go by himself. Once in, jumping to swing on a ceiling beam, he kicked out the wood-frame window and tumbled after. The train was going at around 50 miles an hour, but he was lucky; he landed in the soft-turned soil of a sesame field. Then, his broken shackle still dangling, he ran away. It was his second escape. On his first, a well-tried route from Pyongyang to China by wading across the Yalu river, he had been picked up by the Chinese police, lightly tortured, handed to North Korean agents, tortured more and put on the train. After his jump, he was more successful. Undetected he got back to China, worked in a coal-briquette factory, managed to get counterfeit papers and three years later, in 1999, flew to South Korea as easily as any businessman. Yet his business was very different. It was to broadcast truth, by all means possible, back into his home country. His reasons for escaping from North Korea were both proximate—disciplinary trouble in his army unit, illegal letters to his uncle in China—and slower-growing. For all his boyhood and for most of his ten years of military service he was completely loyal to the Supreme Leaders, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il: singing the songs of gratitude, cursing his country’s enemies. He never made much of a soldier, because he wanted to be a poet; a fine poet, like his father. It was rare that he even put on a uniform; assigned as he was to the arts and propaganda unit in Camp 620, he sat writing most of the time.** On marches or when training he made up poems to help the tedious stuff along.** What began to bother him more were the leaflets. On some mornings, when he left his tent, the ground would be white with them, dropped from South Korean planes. They described how much food there was in South Korea, and how high car production was. He also had a radio, illegally tinkered with, that could pick up South Korean signals. These told him one day that Kim Jong Il had been born not under a rainbow on the slopes of sacred Mount Paektu, but in a military camp in Russia’s far east. He wanted to dismiss these tales as propaganda, which of course he wrote himself. All the same, he knew that North Korea made relatively few cars, and that not only scarcity, but famine, stalked the land. In one scathing poem he talked of a man sacrificing his sister’s chastity for a handful of rice, and wondered why that rice should be cherished “above all else”. It was common to see corpses in the streets; he had once come upon a pile of 20, emaciated and writhing with maggots, outside a railway station. As for the Supreme Leader’s newly humdrum birthplace, it sounded like a lie, but could be true. A doubt was sown. The leaflets also talked a lot about “freedom”. He was not sure exactly what that meant. But if it was a place, it might be worth going to. By 2004, after five years in South Korea, he knew it was. Freedom was “our breath”. Since the South Korean government, under its short-lived “Sunshine” policy of conciliation with the hermit kingdom, had stopped proclaiming freedom northwards, he set up Free North Korea Radio (FNKR) to do the job instead. He used short-wave to reach them; his tiny staff, almost all exiles, used pseudonyms. A brave band of stringers north of the demilitarised zone interviewed ordinary North Koreans, using small digital recorders, phones with prepaid Chinese SIM cards and Chinese memory sticks. Those were transferred hand-to-hand back to Seoul. When any of his team in the North fell silent, presumably arrested or killed, he was devastated. North Koreans who dared to tune in found a station that was, in some ways, familiar: broadcasting in their own dialects, often on subjects they especially enjoyed. “Hello, my compatriots!” cried Mr Kim. Quite unfamiliar was the sound of their own countrymen (their voices electronically distorted) attacking the regime. They could also hear from exiles in Seoul about bright clothes, mains hot water and overflowing food tables, the things that had most dazzled Mr Kim. At his first debrief in 1999 he had not only been offered a Coke, a Sprite and rice wine, but a different drink for every day of the year. In the buffet, realising his new power, he took five fried eggs. The cook merely replaced them. Money for his station was a struggle. The Americans gave funding, and also helped send out his programmes, but he did not want to be seen as their puppet. Attacks on FNKR were legion, as were threats to himself. He was sent untraceable, disturbing packages containing dolls stuck with knives, or dead mice. But nothing could deter him. His countrymen had been told repeatedly that they lived in heaven on earth. He and his team told them, for one hour twice a day, 365 days a year, that on the contrary they were slaves of the dictator, trapped like frogs in a deep well. Real heaven was freedom: to dress, to practise religion, to hold contrary opinions, as you liked. Heaven was freedom of choice. Several of his poems, though, told a more nuanced story. He mourned the things he could not forget: the white forsythia at the foot of Moran Hill, the path at the edge of his village, the shyness of a sister, one of four, he had left behind. He remembered his mother in her sweat-stained apron, knitting late at night, or standing by the Taedong river in her homespun jacket. She was always smiling. **But he felt he had “gently laid a handful of dirt” on her. In South Korea, “this foreign land that is not foreign”, he kept calling for her. **Some ties were more easily cast off than others. ■ 〈金成民——用自由的聲音打破北韓沉默〉 一位真正勇敢的人——金成民。 他是一位脫北者、詩人、也是廣播主持人。 他在 2025 年 9 月 12 日離世,享年 63 歲。 但他的一生,像是一首關於自由的長詩。 金成民曾是北韓軍隊的上尉。 他的「罪行」,就是想離開北韓。 那在北韓,是會被公開處決的。 他第一次逃跑失敗,被抓回去,又被拷打。 第二次,他被鐵鍊綁在一名軍官身邊,一起搭著慢慢行駛的火車。 上廁所時,軍官也要跟著。 三天後,廁所髒得軍官受不了,終於讓他自己去。 他一進去,就跳起來,用力踢破窗戶,從火車上滾了出去。 時速大約 80 公里,但他幸運地落在鬆軟的芝麻田裡。 鐵鍊還掛在腳上,他就這樣拼命地跑。 他再次逃到中國,在煤磚工廠打工,靠假證件過活。 三年後,也就是 1999 年,他終於飛到了南韓。 但他的「新事業」,不是賺錢,而是用廣播把真相傳回北韓。 他年輕時,其實是忠於金日成與金正日的。 他會唱頌揚領導者的歌,也寫愛國詩。 但有一天,他在軍營外看到地上滿滿的傳單, 上面寫著:「南韓有很多食物,有汽車工廠。」 他起初不信,還以為那是敵人的宣傳。 直到他偷偷改裝收音機,聽到了南韓的節目。 那裡說,金正日不是在白頭山的彩虹下出生, 而是在俄羅斯遠東的一個軍營。 那一刻,他心裡的信念開始動搖。 他看到飢荒,看過街上餓死的人。 他寫詩,寫一個男人為了米飯犧牲妹妹的尊嚴。 他開始懷疑: 「如果自由是一個地方,那應該值得去一趟。」 到了南韓,他明白—— 自由就是「我們的呼吸」。 於是他創立了「自由北韓廣播電台」, 用短波把節目傳進北韓。 節目裡的聲音有時會被改音, 但聽眾聽得出,那是他們自己的語言。 「北韓的同胞們,你們好!」 節目裡,他這樣喊著。 他講南韓的生活:五彩的衣服、熱水、滿桌的食物。 這些,讓他第一次覺得自己真正活著。 資金不多,美國給了一些幫助, 但他不想被說成是美國的傀儡。 他收到過恐嚇信,甚至有人寄來插著刀的娃娃、死老鼠。 可他從未退縮。 他說:北韓人被告訴自己住在「人間天堂」, 但真正的天堂,是「選擇的自由」。 在他的詩裡,也有溫柔的一面。 他想念母親,想念村口的小路, 想念那株白色的迎春花。 他說:「我好像在母親的墳上,輕輕放下一把土。」 即使在南韓——這個「不陌生的異鄉」, 他仍然不停呼喚母親的名字。 有些枷鎖,可以掙脫。 但有些牽掛,永遠留在心裡。 è 這就是金成民的故事—— 一個用詩與廣播,讓北韓聽見自由聲音的人。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
1 month ago
32 minutes

出國趣
79-4 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 紅光抗老有沒有效?+小分享: 光電所碩士J分享光的療效!
Are red-light face masks worth the hype? Used properly, the right ones can help combat the signs of ageing Sep 26th 2025|3 min read HOLED UP AT home when no one else is looking, people indulge in their covert, sometimes embarrassing, self-care routines. One of the newest involves donning a mask that would make the greatest movie villains envious. Strap it around the face, switch it on and ominous coloured light starts to emanate from the eye and mouth holes. All in the name of eternal youth and vitality. Light-emitting diode (LED) face masks are all the rage. Depending on the colour you choose, manufacturers promise they will rid your face of acne, reverse skin discolouration and even fight off wrinkles. The most popular is the red-light mask, which uses red and near-infrared (NIR) light. These, designers claim, stimulate skin regeneration and reverse the signs of ageing. Such claims are more than marketing hype. Red light has the longest wavelengths in the visible spectrum, and so can safely penetrate deeper into the skin than light with shorter wavelengths. The light then stimulates colour-sensitive molecules called chromophores in subsurface skin layers. These encourage the growth of cells called fibroblasts, which are among the first to respond to injuries or damage to the skin. They are responsible for the production of two skin proteins, collagen and elastin. High amounts of collagen are important for youthful-looking skin, boosting its elasticity and firmness. Numerous experiments bear out the positive effects that red and NIR light can have on skin. A study published in 2007 in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology asked 76 people aged between 35 and 55 who showed visible signs of ageing to use red light on the right half of their faces, leaving the left as a control. Four weeks later, the authors concluded that the right sides of participants’ faces already looked younger. Biopsies taken from some confirmed the presence of increased collagen. Shoshana Marmon, director of dermatological research at New York Medical College, notes that small studies have indeed shown benefits for acne, skin texture and wrinkles. But those benefits are modest. For best results, she recommends using red-light masks at least three times a week for 8-12 weeks, alongside moisturisers, a broad-spectrum sunscreen and a retinoid (a class of products derived from vitamin A). “You can add the light mask on top of those basics,” says Dr Marmon, “but it shouldn’t replace them.” Anti-ageing is the tip of the iceberg. Tests conducted in the 1990s by researchers at NASA—first in plants, then on rats and human tissue—found that light from LEDs helped wounds heal faster (as cell growth is slowed in zero gravity, astronauts who were injured in space would have a harder time healing than they do on Earth). Light can also be harnessed to treat a variety of skin ailments from psoriasis and vitiligo, by way of acne scarring and rosacea, to cancer. New research has even demonstrated that light’s ability to heal subsurface tissue means it may be useful in treating traumatic brain injuries. Not every face mask can deliver the full benefits of red-light therapy. Research shows the optimal treatment for minimising wrinkles and rejuvenating skin would use a combination of red light, with a wavelength of at least 633nm, and NIR light of at least 830nm. The built-in bulbs must also produce light of sufficient power density, ideally 10-50 milliwatts per square centimetre—a new definition, perhaps, of youthful glow. 《紅光面罩真的那麼神嗎?》 📅 2025年9月26日|約3分鐘閱讀 你有沒有在家偷偷做過一些只有自己知道的「美容小儀式」? 像是敷面膜、貼痘痘貼、還是用那種會發光的奇怪機器? 最近,一種「紅光面罩」的美容產品超級紅。 戴上去整張臉都發亮,看起來就像電影反派登場一樣, 但大家說它能讓你變年輕、變緊緻——真的嗎? 這些所謂的「LED光療面罩」可不只一種顏色。 不同顏色的光據說有不同功效: 像是藍光可以對付痘痘,綠光能改善膚色不均, 而最受歡迎的,就是「紅光面罩」。 廠商宣稱紅光能刺激皮膚再生、減少皺紋, 還能讓肌膚更有彈性、更年輕。 聽起來是不是很夢幻? 但其實,這些說法並非全是噱頭。 紅光的波長比其他可見光長, 這代表它能「更深入」地穿透皮膚, 而不會造成傷害。 當紅光進入皮膚後, 會刺激到一種叫做「發色團」(chromophores)的分子, 它們能活化皮下的細胞, 特別是「纖維母細胞」(fibroblasts)。 這些細胞在皮膚受傷或老化時會率先行動, 負責製造膠原蛋白(collagen)和彈性蛋白(elastin)。 這兩者正是讓肌膚看起來緊緻、有彈性的關鍵。 那紅光真的有效嗎? 根據2007年一項發表在《光化學與光生物學期刊》的研究, 76位年齡介於35到55歲、有明顯老化跡象的受試者, 被要求只在臉的右半邊照紅光, 左半邊則作為對照組。 四週後,右邊的臉竟然看起來真的比較年輕! 而且皮膚切片也證實——膠原蛋白真的增加了。 美國紐約醫學院皮膚研究主任 Shoshana Marmon 醫師指出, 小規模的研究確實顯示紅光對於改善痘痘、膚質和皺紋有幫助, 但效果「有限」。 她建議想要看到明顯變化的人, 最好一週使用三次,連續八到十二週, 同時搭配保濕霜、防曬乳,還有A醇產品。 她說:「紅光面罩可以加在你的保養程序裡, 但不能取代它們。」 事實上,抗老只是光療應用的一小部分。 早在1990年代,美國NASA的研究人員 就在植物、老鼠和人體組織上做過實驗。 他們發現LED光可以加速傷口癒合。 這對太空人來說特別重要—— 因為在太空失重環境下,細胞修復會變慢。 除此之外,光療還能用來治療多種皮膚問題, 像是牛皮癬、白斑、痘疤、酒糟性皮膚炎,甚至癌症。 最近的研究甚至發現, 紅光可能也能幫助治療創傷性腦損傷。 不過,可不是每一款紅光面罩都有效。 研究顯示,真正能減少皺紋、活化肌膚的關鍵在於: 紅光波長要至少 633奈米, 近紅外線(NIR)則要達到 830奈米。 燈的能量密度也要夠強—— 理想值大約是 每平方公分10到50毫瓦。 只有符合這些條件, 你才可能真的「由內而外」發出青春的光芒。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
1 month ago
20 minutes

出國趣
79-3 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 脫口秀戲劇演員與政治人物的愛恨情仇+ 小分享: 東西方的幽默感分享 XD
Culture | Back Story First, they come for the comedians But, try as strongmen might, the jokes always get away Sep 22nd 2025|4 min read Josef Stalin loses his pipe and informs his security chief. Later he finds it behind the sofa. “That’s impossible,” says the henchman (黨羽), “three people have confessed to stealing it!” Lots of jokes were told about the Soviet generalissimo, proliferating long after he died. For instance: Stalin’s ghost visits Vladimir Putin. “Kill your opponents and paint the Kremlin blue,” he advises. “Why blue?” asks Putin. The ghost smiles. “I knew you wouldn’t query the first part.” While the tyrant lived, it was reckless to tell such jokes in public or to anyone who might report them. Even hearing them could be calamitous. “Who built the White Sea canal?” runs a gag about a monstrous infrastructure project. “The right bank was dug by the joke-tellers—the left by those who heard them.” “Every joke”, wrote George Orwell, “is a tiny revolution.” To silence the comedians, some autocrats use torturers and the gulag; in today’s Egypt and other stifled places, the penalties for ridicule can be prison and exile. In America the relatively mild tools include menacing regulators, as Jimmy Kimmel, a talk-show host, has learned. Yet whatever the comics’ fate, the jokes themselves get away. Authoritarians are inherently funny. Humour thrives on pretence and delusion—and the strongman is always pretending. He poses as a saviour but is actually a brute; he purports to be omnipotent but is as flawed as other mortals, or more. If he has an ideology, it is deficient too. Prickly and narcissistic, strongmen can rarely take jokes, which makes them risky but funnier. The Nazis banned “The Great Dictator” (pictured), in which Charlie Chaplin sent up Adolf Hitler, but the Führer reputedly watched it twice. Saddam Hussein tried to murder the cast of a satirical film. Political jokes, meanwhile, are the ideal weapon of the weak. Even without the internet, they travel at warp speed, traversing a country before the censors have their pens out. (According to a report cited in a BBC documentary, the KGB found a joke could cross Moscow in a matter of hours.) Crucially, a good gag is collusive, recruiting listeners to the teller’s side—or rather, making clear which side they are already on. They can’t help finding it funny, and it is funny because, at bottom, it is true. This bond can be a launch pad for politics, as it was for Beppe Grillo in Italy and Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine. Naturally, autocrats fret about people knowing that other people are thinking like them. According to the maximalist logic of repression, the fact that laughter is intimate, spontaneous and ephemeral heightens its appeal as a target: if rulers can suppress wit, they can control everything. But they can’t. As Ben Lewis recounts in “Hammer & Tickle”, a book about humour under communism, trying to squish a joke tends to spread it instead. When the laughter police give up this unequal fight, it is sign of liberalisation, voluntary or otherwise. At the fag-end of the Soviet Union, even Mikhail Gorbachev, its last leader, wisecracked about discontent and shortages. (“The working classes consume plenty of cognac—through their chosen representatives.”) A big comedy festival in Riyadh, beginning on September 26th, is supposed to advertise Saudi Arabia’s new freedoms. Hmmm: Tim Dillon, an American stand-up due to attend, says he was disinvited over a riff the organisers didn’t like. Canny authoritarians see the benefits of letting the gags flow. “If they are telling jokes about me,” Leonid Brezhnev is said to have remarked, “it means they love me,” and he wasn’t altogether wrong. Scabrous as it may be, satire always contains a trace of homage; after all, nobodies are never satirised. Humour can be a safety-valve for dissent and a homeopathic dose of plurality. It can also offer raw intel on the national mood, relaying hard truths and bad news as medieval jesters sometimes did to kings. But the wiliest strongmen, including some populists today, commandeer the audience. In an age when the struggle for power is a battle for attention, they are the carnival-barkers of the public square, dealing as much in one-liners and theatrical taunts as in policy. As politics is repackaged as entertainment, crackdowns—on comics and others—become part of the show, the threat to free expression blurred by the spectacle. The story of Bim-Bom, a circus-clown duo, is an ominous parable. Performing in Moscow in 1918, they made jokes about the Bolsheviks that the secret policemen in attendance disliked. The goons rushed the stage to arrest them. Thinking the chase was part of the act, the crowd hooted with laughter.■ 文化|幕後故事 首先,他們來抓喜劇演員 但無論強人如何用力,笑話總能逃脫 2025年9月22日|閱讀時間4分鐘 約瑟夫‧史達林丟了他的菸斗,並通知他的安全主管。後來他在沙發後找到了它。那名黨羽驚訝地說:「這不可能,已經有三個人承認偷了它!」關於這位蘇聯獨裁者的笑話層出不窮,甚至在他死後仍廣為流傳。例如:史達林的幽靈造訪弗拉基米爾‧普丁,建議道:「殺掉你的對手,然後把克里姆林宮漆成藍色。」普丁問:「為什麼是藍色?」幽靈微笑說:「我就知道你不會質疑第一部分。」 當暴君在世時,公開講這類笑話或向可能告密的人說,都極為冒險。甚至只是聽到也可能招致災禍。有一個關於殘酷基建工程——白海運河的笑話是這樣的:「誰建造了白海運河?右岸是講笑話的人挖的,左岸是聽笑話的人挖的。」 喬治‧歐威爾曾寫道:「每一個笑話,都是一場小小的革命。」為了讓喜劇演員閉嘴,有些獨裁者使用刑求與勞改營;在今日的埃及與其他受壓抑的地方,對諷刺的懲罰可能是監禁或流亡。在美國,手段相對溫和——例如脅迫性的監管,正如脫口秀主持人吉米‧金莫(Jimmy Kimmel)所體會到的那樣。無論喜劇演員的下場如何,笑話本身總能逃脫。 獨裁者天生具有可笑性。幽默植根於虛偽與妄想——而強人永遠在假裝。他假扮救世主,實則是暴君;他假裝全能,實際上卻與凡人一樣有缺陷,甚至更糟。若他有意識形態,那通常也是不堪一擊的。敏感而自戀的獨裁者鮮少能承受嘲諷——這使他們既危險又更具笑料。納粹禁止播放卓別林諷刺阿道夫‧希特勒的電影《大獨裁者》(見圖),但據說元首本人偷偷看了兩遍。薩達姆‧海珊甚至試圖暗殺一部諷刺電影的演員。 政治笑話則是弱者的理想武器。即使沒有網際網路,它們也能以極快速度傳播——往往在審查者動筆前便遍布全國。(根據英國廣播公司一部紀錄片引用的報告,蘇聯國安委員會發現,一個笑話可在數小時內傳遍莫斯科。)最關鍵的是,好笑話具有共謀性:它使聽眾自然而然站在講者那一邊——或更準確地說,讓人明白他們原本就屬於那一邊。因為那是真的,所以他們忍不住發笑。這種情感連結甚至能成為政治的跳板,正如義大利的貝佩‧葛里洛(Beppe Grillo)與烏克蘭的弗拉基米爾‧澤倫斯基(Volodymyr Zelensky)所示。 自然地,獨裁者會擔心人民知道其他人也有同樣的想法。依據極權鎮壓的邏輯,笑聲的親密、自發與短暫特質反而讓它成為更具吸引力的打擊目標:若統治者能壓制幽默,他們便能掌控一切——但他們做不到。班‧路易斯在其著作《鐵鎚與咯咯笑》(Hammer & Tickle)中記錄道,試圖扼殺笑話往往只會讓它傳得更廣。 當「笑聲警察」放棄這場不對等的鬥爭時,往往象徵著自由化的到來——無論是自願還是被迫。在蘇聯垂死之際,最後一任領導人米哈伊爾‧戈巴契夫也開始開自己與體制的玩笑:「工人階級消費了大量干邑——透過他們的代表。」沙烏地阿拉伯將於9月26日舉辦大型喜劇節,宣傳所謂的新自由。然而,美國脫口秀演員提姆‧狄倫(Tim Dillon)表示,他因一句令主辦方不悅的段子而被取消邀請——令人玩味。 精明的獨裁者則懂得讓笑話流通的好處。據說列昂尼德‧布里茲涅夫曾說:「如果他們講我的笑話,代表他們愛我。」這話也不全錯。再辛辣的諷刺,也帶有一絲敬意——畢竟,無名之輩從不被諷刺。幽默可作為反抗的安全閥,也是多元的一劑微量疫苗。它同時能傳遞民意,讓統治者得知如實的壞消息,正如中古時代的宮廷弄臣向國王傳達真話那樣。 然而,最狡猾的強人——包括當今一些民粹領袖——會奪取觀眾的注意力。在這個權力鬥爭與注意力爭奪合而為一的時代,他們成為公共廣場上的叫賣藝人,操弄的既是政策,也是笑話與嘲諷。當政治被包裝成娛樂,對喜劇演員與其他人的鎮壓本身也變成表演的一部分,自由受威脅的真相被秀場的煙火模糊了。 馬戲團小丑雙人組「比姆與邦」(Bim-Bom)的故事是一則不祥的寓言。1918年他們在莫斯科演出,開了布爾什維克的玩笑,惹惱了在場的祕密警察。特務衝上舞台準備逮人,觀眾卻以為那是表演的一部分,哄堂大笑。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
2 months ago
27 minutes

出國趣
79-2 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 紐約房市越來越難驅逐房客了! + 小分享: 眼鏡行房租漲價之小八卦 XD
United States | Stay in place It is getting much harder to get evicted in New York City Tenants win. Potential** tenants** lose One in one out Sep 25th 2025|NEW YORK |3 min read There are few things that unite all New Yorkers, but one is an obsession with talking about the housing market. And so it is no surprise that it is dominating the city’s mayoral election on November 5th. The Democratic candidate (and front-runner) Zohran Mamdani has made a slogan out of his promise to “freeze the rent” on the 50% of flats that are rent-stabilised. The trailing candidates have scraped together their own housing plans. Yet for all the noise, one thing has been missed: New York City’s rental sector has already changed rather dramatically. Last year the city had the lowest apartment-vacancy rate in almost 60 years. And yet at the same time, landlords filed almost 50% fewer eviction cases than in 2016. Completed evictions are down by a quarter. New rights and procedures introduced over the past decade have transformed the legal landscape for tenants. A decade ago, one in ten New York City renters faced eviction proceedings every year. Evictions are costly, financially and in human and social terms. After being evicted, renters tend to see their incomes fall, they are more likely to become homeless and they visit hospital emergency rooms more often. For children, being evicted has roughly the same impact on high-school graduation rates as being in juvenile incarceration. For landlords, evictions can cost the equivalent of two to three months of rent, not including the vacancy rent gap while new tenants are found. The first big change came in 2017, when the city introduced a right for poor tenants to legal representation. This was followed by a new tenants’ rights law passed by the state government in 2019. The effects of both seem to have been dramatic (see chart). Before the representation law came in, just one in 100 tenants had counsel, compared with 95% of landlords. On paper, tenants in New York benefit from powerful legal protections, but in practice, without lawyers, these are hard to enforce. Since the change, landlords do seem to have stopped filing as many legally weak eviction cases. That is despite limited funding. Munonyedi Clifford of New York’s Legal Aid Society says she has been hiring “like gangbusters” but it is not enough. Ms Clifford also says that the 2019 law passed by the state “really changed the landscape”. Landlords agree. The law “systematically changed the economics of housing”, says Kenny Burgos of the New York Apartment Association, which represents property owners. More change came last year: the state limited rent increases further and now requires some landlords to renew most leases automatically. The trouble with all this is that there is inevitably a trade-off. Existing tenants are certainly better off. But newcomers and movers find it harder and more expensive to find a place to live, as landlords become more cautious. Nicole Upano of the National Apartment Association, a landlord trade association, says many are already introducing stricter screening to exclude risky tenants. In Washington, DC, pandemic-era rules made evictions harder and slower. Unpaid rent rose from $11m in 2020 to $100m in 2025. Affordable housing disappeared from the market, as landlords became more conservative. The city is now rolling back many of the changes. ■ 我們要聊一個幾乎所有紐約人都會談的話題——房市。是的,不管立場怎麼分,紐約人都對住房市場特別「執著」。所以一點也不意外,今年 11 月 5 日的市長選舉,房租問題成了主戰場。 民主黨候選人、目前的領先者 Zohran Mamdani,打出了「凍結房租」的口號,特別針對那一半屬於租金管制的公寓。其他落後的候選人,也急忙拚湊出各自的住房政策。不過在這些喧鬧聲裡,有個事實被忽略了:紐約市的租屋市場,其實已經發生了很大的變化。 去年,紐約的空屋率降到將近 60 年來的最低。但有趣的是,房東提出的驅逐案件,比 2016 年少了將近一半。最終真的被趕走的租客,也下降了四分之一。過去十年裡,市府陸續推出了新的租客權益和法律程序,徹底改變了遊戲規則。 十年前,每十個租客裡,就有一個人每年要面臨驅逐官司。對租客來說,驅逐不只是金錢損失,更是人生和社會上的重擊。收入下降、增加無家可歸的風險、醫院急診室報到的次數也變多。對孩子來說,被趕出家門,對高中畢業率的打擊,差不多就像進了少年感化院一樣。至於房東,驅逐同樣很傷,成本大概等於兩到三個月的租金,還不包括空屋時的租金損失。 2017 年,第一個大轉變出現:市政府宣布低收入租客有權獲得法律代理。2019 年,州政府又通過一套新的租客權益法。這些改變帶來的影響相當驚人。 在法案通過之前,幾乎只有 1% 的租客有律師幫忙,而房東有 95% 都請得起律師。紙面上,租客看似有強大的保護,但沒有律師,這些保護根本很難落實。自從政策改變後,房東明顯少提一些「站不住腳」的驅逐案。 紐約法律援助協會的 Clifford 說,她正在「瘋狂招人」,但仍然不夠用。她也提到 2019 年的新法,真的「徹底改變了局勢」。連房東也承認,這部法律「改變了住房經濟的規則」。接著,去年又有新規:州政府限制了更多的租金漲幅,並要求部分房東必須自動續約。 不過,事情也有另一面。現有的租客的確更有保障,但新搬來的人,或是想換房子的人,反而更難找到可負擔的住處。因為房東變得更謹慎,開始設更嚴格的審核,直接把「高風險租客」排除在外。 其實在華盛頓特區也有類似的經驗。疫情期間,他們讓驅逐變得更困難、更緩慢,結果未繳租金的金額,從 2020 年的 1100 萬美元,暴增到 2025 年的 1 億美元。可負擔住房消失,房東更保守。現在,華府正在逐步取消這些規定。 總結來說,保護租客和維持市場之間,始終存在一個拉鋸。舊租客受益,卻可能讓新租客更難進入。那麼紐約要怎麼平衡?也許這會是選戰裡最難解的題目。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
2 months ago
26 minutes

出國趣
79-1 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 川普對普丁的愛愛愛不完+ 小分享: 2026托福新制
United States | Lexington The real collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin It may be scarier than their critics long suspected Aug 14th 2025|5 min read To DEFY Donald Trump is to court punishment. A rival politician can expect an investigation, an aggravating network may face a lawsuit, a left-leaning university can bid farewell to its public grants, a scrupulous civil servant can count on a pink slip and an independent-minded foreign government, however determined an adversary or stalwart an ally, invites tariffs. Perceived antagonists should also brace for a hail of insults, a lesson in public humiliation to potential transgressors. Vladimir Putin has been a mysterious exception. Mr Trump has blamed his travails over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election on just about everyone but him. He has blamed the war in Ukraine on former President Joe Biden, for supposedly inviting it through weakness, and on the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for somehow starting it. Back when Russia invaded in February 2022, Mr Trump praised Mr Putin’s “savvy”. For months, as Mr Putin made a mockery of Mr Trump’s promises to end the war in a day and of his calls for a ceasefire, the president who once threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea and tariffs as high as 245% against China indulged in no such bluster. He has sounded less formidable than plaintive. “Vladimir, STOP!” he wrote on social media in April. His use of the given name betrayed a touching faith that their shared intimacy would matter to his reptilian counterpart, too. When Mr Putin kept killing Ukrainians, Mr Trump took a step that was even less characteristic: he admitted to the world that he had been played for a fool. “Maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along,” he mused on April 26th. A month later, he ventured that his friend must have changed, gone “absolutely CRAZY!” Then on July 8th he acknowledged what should have been obvious from the start: “He is very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” Mr Trump threatened secondary sanctions on Russia but then leapt at Mr Putin’s latest mixed messages about peace, rewarding him with a summit in America. Why, with this man, has Mr Trump been so accommodating? Efforts by journalists, congressional investigators and prosecutors to pinpoint the reason have often proved exercises in self-defeat and sorrow. The pattern seemed sinister: Mr Trump praised Mr Putin on television as far back as 2007; invited him to the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013 and wondered on Twitter if he would be his “new best friend”; sought his help to build a tower in Moscow from 2013 to 2016; and tried unsuccessfully many times in 2015 to secure a meeting with him. Then came Russia’s interference in the election in 2016, including its hack of Democrats’ emails to undermine the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Some journalists fanned suspicions of a conspiracy—“collusion” became the watchword—by spreading claims Mr Putin was blackmailing Mr Trump with an obscene videotape. The source proved to be a rumour compiled in research to help Mrs Clinton. Nine years later Mr Putin’s low-budget meddling still rewards America’s foes by poisoning its politics and distracting its leaders. Pam Bondi, the attorney-general, has started a grand-jury investigation into what Mr Trump called treason by Barack Obama and others in his administration. The basis is a misrepresentation of an intelligence finding in the waning days of Mr Obama’s presidency. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, has said that because Mr Putin did not hack voting machines, the finding that he tried to help Mr Trump was a lie. The conclusion under Mr Obama was instead that Mr Putin tried to affect the election by influencing public opinion. The exhaustive report released in 2019 by an independent counsel, Robert Mueller, affirmed on its first page that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” Mr Mueller indicted numerous Russians, and he also secured guilty pleas from some Trump aides for violating various laws. But he did not conclude the campaign “conspired or co-ordinated” with the Russians. To wade through the report’s two volumes is to be reminded how malicious the Russians were and how shambolic Mr Trump’s campaign was. It is also to lament the time and energy spent, given how little proof was found to support the superheated suspicions. And it is to regret how little Mr Trump was accorded a presumption of innocence. In the final words of the report, Mr Mueller noted that while it did not accuse Mr Trump of a crime, it also did “not exonerate him”. One might understand his bitterness. The puzzle of Mr Trump’s admiration for Mr Putin may have been better addressed by psychologists. Certainly Mr Putin, the seasoned KGB operative, has known how to play to his vulnerabilities, including vanity. Mr Trump was said to be “clearly touched” by a kitschy portrait of himself Mr Putin gave him in March. Putin on the blitz Yet that patronising speculation may be unfair to Mr Trump, too. It certainly understates the hazard. He has weighty reasons to identify with Mr Putin. Since the 1930s a cornerstone of American foreign policy has been that no country can gain territory by force, a principle also enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. Yet in his first term, in pursuit of his vision of Middle East peace, Mr Trump twice granted American recognition of conquered territory, for Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights and Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara. He appears to envisage an end to the war in Ukraine that would also award Russia new territory. This is how “savvy” people like Mr Trump and Mr Putin believe the world actually works, or ought to: not according to rules confected by stripy-pants diplomats to preserve an international order, but in deference to power exercised by great men. A world hostage to that theory may be the legacy of their true collusion. 川普與普丁之間真正的「合作」 或許比批評者原先懷疑的更可怕 2025年8月14日|閱讀時間約5分鐘 挑戰唐納·川普,往往等於自找麻煩。 一位政壇對手可能會遭到調查,一家不順眼的媒體可能被告上法庭,一所左傾大學可能失去政府資助,一名堅持原則的公務員可能拿到解僱通知;而若是一個獨立自主的外國政府,不論是盟友還是敵人,也得準備面對關稅報復。任何被川普視為敵對的人,都要提防公開羞辱與一連串的嘲諷。 然而,弗拉基米爾·普丁卻一直是個神秘的例外。 川普對於2016年俄羅斯干預美國大選的麻煩,幾乎怪遍了所有人,卻從不怪普丁。他把烏克蘭戰爭歸咎於前總統拜登,認為拜登的「軟弱」招致戰火;也怪烏克蘭總統澤連斯基,說他 somehow 是挑起戰爭的人。當俄軍在2022年2月入侵時,川普還稱讚普丁「精明」。 數月以來,普丁不斷嘲笑川普「一天內結束戰爭」的承諾,也無視他呼籲停火的喊話。這位曾經對北韓放話「烈火與怒火」、對中國威脅高達245%關稅的總統,如今卻顯得軟弱而哀求。今年四月,他在社群媒體上寫下:「Vladimir,停手吧!」直接喊對方名字,彷彿相信兩人的私交能打動這位冷血的前克格勃。 當普丁繼續轟炸烏克蘭時,川普做了一件更罕見的事:他承認自己被耍了。 「也許他根本不想停戰,只是在拖我時間。」川普在4月26日這樣嘆道。一個月後,他甚至說普丁「完全瘋了!」到7月8日,他終於承認:「他一直表現得很友善,但結果毫無意義。」川普雖然放話要對俄國加碼制裁,但不久又被普丁若即若離的「和平」訊號所打動,立刻邀請他來美國舉行高峰會。 為什麼川普在普丁面前總是這麼低聲下氣? 多年來,媒體、國會調查與檢察官都想找出答案,卻往往徒勞無功。這段關係看起來確實可疑:早在2007年,川普就在電視上稱讚普丁;2013年邀請他出席莫斯科的環球小姐選美,還在推特上問他會不會成為「新好朋友」;2013到2016年間,他努力推動莫斯科川普大樓計畫;2015年多次想安排與普丁會面卻失敗。接著就是2016年大選,俄國駭入民主黨郵件、打擊希拉蕊·柯林頓。部分記者更傳出普丁握有川普「不雅錄影帶」勒索他的謠言,後來證實只是競選對手聘請的研究拼湊而成。 九年後,普丁低成本的干預仍然持續製造混亂,削弱美國政治。 司法部長潘·龐迪已經著手大陪審團調查,指控歐巴馬政府「叛國」。依據的卻是對當年情報的一個扭曲解讀。情報總監圖爾西·蓋伯德甚至聲稱,既然俄國沒有入侵投票機,當年「普丁想幫助川普」的結論就是謊言。其實,歐巴馬政府的原始判斷是:普丁透過輿論操作,意圖影響大選。 2019年,特別檢察官穆勒的報告開宗明義寫道:「俄羅斯政府認為川普當選有利於它,並努力促成這個結果。」 穆勒起訴了多名俄國人,也讓一些川普幕僚因觸法認罪。但他並未認定川普陣營「共謀或協調」俄方行動。讀完那兩卷厚重的報告,人們不僅看到俄國的惡意、川普團隊的混亂,也不得不感嘆:投入的時間與精力與證據不成比例,結果只是空轉。報告最後一句話更留下餘韻:「本報告不指控川普犯罪,但也不為他洗清嫌疑。」可以理解為何川普心存怨恨。 或許,川普對普丁的迷戀更適合交給心理學家解釋。 普丁這位老練的前特務,非常懂得如何迎合川普的弱點,尤其是他的虛榮心。據說,今年三月普丁送給川普一幅俗氣的肖像畫,他看了「非常感動」。 不過,把這解釋為單純的個性缺陷,可能也低估了危險。川普與普丁其實有深層的共同點。 自1930年代以來,美國外交政策的一大基石,就是「不能透過武力獲取領土」,這一點也寫進了聯合國憲章。但川普在第一任期卻打破慣例:承認以色列對戈蘭高地的主權,承認摩洛哥對西撒哈拉的主權。他如今似乎打算讓俄國在烏克蘭戰爭中也保有新的領土。 這正是川普與普丁眼中的「聰明」世界:不是依靠國際秩序與外交規則,而是由強人憑藉權力決定邊界。 如果世界最終被這種理論所俘虜,那才是真正的「合作」遺產。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
2 months ago
30 minutes

出國趣
78-4 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~當品牌遇上翻譯困境+小分享: 芬蘭朋友來台灣看台灣的車子品牌名稱大笑!?
Business | Marketing missteps How do you pronounce Biemlfdlkk? The brands lost in translation As they race to go global, many Chinese companies are choosing new names A brand you’ll never forget Sep 11th 2025|SHANGHAI|3 min read Biemlfdlkk is a mouthful. It is not exactly clear how to enunciate the eight-consonant jumble in the Chinese golf-apparel brand’s English name. It is even hard to write. But the company is expanding overseas, recently acquiring two foreign brands. This was probably a factor that led it to ditching the odd string of letters it had operated under for 21 years. This year it is swapping the old name for one that is a bit more intelligible: Biemlofen. Chinese brands are moving into foreign markets as never before. The way they **are perceived **when they arrive depends not just on the quality of their product but also on their name. A few companies are already mastering foreign branding. Haidilao, a restaurant chain specialising in spicy soups, has started using the word Hi as a simplified name at its overseas shops. Pop Mart, the toy company that makes the sensational Labubu dolls, looks right at home in America or Europe. Shein, an online fashion firm, based its Chinese name, pronounced xi yin, on its English one (an abbreviation of SheInside). These are the few that are getting it right. Many others struggle. Take, for example, Mixue, a cold drinks and ice-cream chain that is opening thousands of shops outside China. The company’s name translates to “honey snow”, but instead of making use of that overseas it has employed the phonetic version of its Chinese name, which is not easy to pronounce. The name will limit the brand’s growth abroad, predicts Chris Pereira of iMpact, a consulting firm, since people will not know how to say it when recommending it to friends. Many Chinese companies chose ill-conceived foreign names decades ago and have simply stuck with them. Perhaps White Elephant, a Chinese battery brand that is becoming popular in Africa, should have stuck with its phonetic Chinese name. Chint, an electronics maker founded in 1984, chose an English name that faintly reflects its Chinese one but sounds closer to “chintzy”, American slang for cheaply made. Many firms try to turn their Chinese name into one that sounds Western, but end up with nonsense: Youngor, a fashion brand, is one example. And yet this is often preferable to experimenting with symbolism in a foreign tongue, as demonstrated by the Chinese sunglasses brand that named itself after the world’s most famous blind person, Helen Keller. Foreign-sounding names that provide international flair at home can be less helpful in overseas markets. Adolph, a Chinese shampoo-maker, might have convinced some Chinese people that it is German, but it may find the name does not help it sell products in Germany. Cracking the language and culture of any foreign market is tough. Western firms in China know this all too well. Peugeot, a French carmaker (owned by Stellantis, whose largest shareholder part-owns The Economist), has an unremarkable Chinese name when said in Mandarin, the national language. But in Cantonese, a southern dialect, the name Peugeot sounds unfortunately close to “bitch”.■ 商業|行銷失誤:Biemlfdlkk 該怎麼唸?當品牌遇上翻譯困境 在全球化的浪潮下,許多中國品牌正在積極走向海外。但名字選得好不好,往往會決定一個品牌在國際市場上能不能被記住。 以中國的高爾夫服飾品牌 Biemlfdlkk 為例。這個名字光是拼寫就夠讓人頭痛,更別說要正確念出來了。經營了 21 年後,這家公司終於決定換掉這串八個子音拼湊出來的怪名字,改成稍微順口一點的 Biemlofen。這一決定,正好發生在他們併購了兩個海外品牌、積極拓展國際市場之後。 不過,也不是所有中國品牌都在國際化命名上摔跤。像是火鍋連鎖 海底撈,在海外乾脆簡化成「Hi」,讓外國顧客一看就懂。又或者是爆紅的玩具公司 泡泡瑪特 Pop Mart,名字放在歐美市場完全沒有違和感。快時尚品牌 Shein 更是取巧,從英文「SheInside」簡化而來,中文名字「希音」也呼應了英文發音。 相比之下,有些品牌就顯得吃力。比方說冷飲和冰淇淋連鎖 蜜雪冰城。它的中文意思是「蜂蜜雪」,很有意境,但到了海外卻堅持使用「Mixue」這個拼音。結果外國人不僅難以發音,更難把這名字傳口碑。顧問公司 iMpact 的 Chris Pereira 就直言,這樣會限制品牌在國際市場的成長。 還有一些公司,早年隨便挑了英文名字,結果一路用到現在。電池品牌 白象 White Elephant,在非洲很受歡迎,但用「大象」的拼音可能更直白。電子公司 正泰,在 1984 年創立時選了英文名 Chint,雖然勉強算呼應了中文,但聽起來卻和英文的「chintzy」(意指廉價的)很接近。服裝品牌 Youngor,名字雖然帶點西化的味道,但實際上毫無意義。 還有更尷尬的例子。中國太陽眼鏡品牌居然取名 Helen Keller——就是那位最有名的盲人作家。至於洗髮精品牌 Adolph,或許在中國人眼裡帶點德國風格,但若真想在德國賣,恐怕只會引來誤會。 其實這樣的挑戰,各國品牌在異地市場都會遇到。像法國車商 Peugeot(標致),中文名字在普通話裡沒什麼問題,但在廣東話裡,聽起來卻和「婊子」非常接近。這種文化與語言的差異,讓跨國行銷充滿了難題。 所以說,走向世界光靠產品力還不夠,品牌名字能不能被外國人念對、記住,往往就是成敗的關鍵。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
2 months ago
18 minutes

出國趣
78-3 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~不唸書的下場是我們的政治越來越愚蠢了? 川普的演講稿只有高中程度!+ 小分享: 如何重拾書本呢?
不唸書的下場是我們的政治越來越愚蠢了? Is the decline of reading making politics dumber? As people read less they think less clearly, **scholars **fear Sep 4th 2025 The experiment was simple; so too, you may have thought, was the task. Students of literature at two American universities were given the first paragraphs of “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens and asked to read and then explain them. In other words: some students reading English literature were asked to read some English literature from the mid-19th century. How hard could it be? Very, it turns out. The students **were flummoxed by legal language and baffled by **metaphor. A Dickensian description of fog left them totally fogged. They could not grasp basic vocabulary: one student thought that when a man was said to have “whiskers” it meant he was “in a room with an animal I think…A cat?” The problem was less that these students of literature were not literary and more that they were barely even literate. Reading is in trouble. Multiple studies in multiple places seem to be showing the same thing. Adults are reading less. Children are reading less. Teenagers are reading a lot less. Very small children are being read to less; many are not being read to at all. Reading rates are lower among poorer children—a phenomenon known as “the reading gap”—but reading is down for everyone, everywhere. In America, the share of people who read for pleasure has fallen by two-fifths in 20 years, according to a study published in August in iScience, a journal. YouGov, a pollster, found that 40% of Britons had not read or listened to any books in 2024. Reading for displeasure is little better: as Sir Jonathan Bate, an English professor at Oxford University, has said, students “struggle to get through one novel in three weeks”. Even the educated young, another greybeard said, have “no habits of application and concentration”. Such laments should be treated with caution: almost the only thing bookish sorts love more than books is complaining about books and reading. They always have done: the greybeard above was Dickens in, ironically, “Bleak House”. Almost as soon as people stopped fretting about the arrival of reading—Socrates feared it would “produce forgetfulness” in those who used it; Ecclesiastes says that “of making many books there is no end”—people started fretting about its decline. As Ecclesiastes also says, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Arguably, however, what is happening now is new. It is not just that people are reading less, though they are; the texture of what is being read is changing, too. Sentences are getting shorter and simpler. We analysed hundreds of New York Times bestsellers and found that sentences in popular books have contracted by almost a third since the 1930s. Open the Victorian bestseller “Modern Painters” by John Ruskin and you will find that its first sentence is 153 words long. It contains the stern advice that you should not trust the “erroneous opinion” of the public and includes a subheading that reads: “Public opinion no criterion of excellence”. Open Amazon’s current non-fiction bestseller, “The Let Them Theory” by Mel Robbins, and you will find that its first sentence is just 19 words long. A subheading reads “How I Changed My Life”. Among its stern advice is that, to get things done, you should count backwards like NASA at a rocket launch because, “Once you start the countdown, 5-4-3-2-1, there’s no turning back.” This is a reminder that Ruskin knew a thing or two. Smartphones are blamed for dwindling reading habits—and certainly the number of distractions has increased. But reading has always been a bother. “A big book”, said Callimachus, an ancient Greek poet, “is a big evil.” This is particularly true after lunch. You sit down to read then, as one writer noted, the sun streams in, the day feels “50 hours long”, the reader “rubs his eyes” then finally places the book “under his head and…falls into a light sleep”. Given that that particular reader was a fourth-century monk and ascetic he was probably not distracted by Snapchat. So it is not merely that distractions have increased: the sheer desire to read seems to have declined. In the Victorian era, self-improvement societies flourished. In the Scottish hills, shepherds “maintained a kind of circulating library”, writes Jonathan Rose in his magnificent book “The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes”. Each shepherd left books in the crannies of walls for other shepherds to read. In Victorian mill towns, workers saved up to buy books. In one Scottish locale, a boy noticed a ragman reading a book. The book—which the ragman lent him—was Thucydides. The boy was Ramsay MacDonald, who would go on to become Britain’s first Labour prime minister. Today that zeal for personal advancement has diminished. Some blame the high cost of books and closing of libraries for modern intellectual apathy—but books have never been cheaper. In Roman times, a book cost three-quarters of a camel (ie, a lot). In the Victorian era, a copy of Lord Byron’s “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” cost a labourer about half a week’s income. And yet, by the end of the 18th century, literacy rates among Scotland’s autodidacts were among the highest in the world. Today “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” is free on Kindle, and readers can find plenty of other books that cost less than a coffee. But reading rates keep falling. A blunter explanation is that people just cannot be bothered. Professor Bate got everyone in a bate with his comments about students not reading: saying such things, he admits, might seem “old fogeyish”. Speak to professors, however and they all lament their students’ waning attention spans. When Professor Rose began teaching, he taught “Bleak House”. He would not attempt it today, he says, partly because of “constant pressure” from university deans to “assign less and less and less reading” and partly because “students simply won’t read it”. In multiple surveys young people describe reading as “boring” and “a chore”. It is possible to say: who cares? English professors may well lament a fall in literacy, but that may be simple self-interest: less a concern about a declining custom than a declining number of customers. Yet literacy affects more than university reading lists. For one thing, increasing literary sophistication seems to lead to increasing political sophistication. At its simplest, Athenians in the fifth century BC could begin to practise “ostracism”—voting to banish people by writing their name on ostraka, scraps of pots—because, as William Harris, an academic, points out, they had achieved “a certain amount of literacy”. By contrast, decreasing** literary sophistication** may lead to decreasing political sophistication. Our analysis of Britain’s parliamentary speeches found that they have shrunk by a third in a decade. We also analysed almost 250 years of inaugural presidential addresses using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. George Washington’s scored 28.7, denoting postgraduate level, while Donald Trump’s came in at 9.4, the reading level of a high-schooler. This is not inherently a bad thing. Often simple prose is good prose, and few people have ever wished politicians’ speeches to be longer. Professor Bate is more pessimistic. Lose the ability to read complex prose and he fears you may also lose the ability to develop complex ideas that “allow you to see nuance and to hold two contradictory thoughts together”. The medium is the message, and the message is currently 280 characters long. (“Bleak House”, by contrast, weighs in at around 1.9m characters.) There will be other losses from a reading decline. Few engines of social mobility are more effective than reading: just ask the Scottish shepherds. Rich children may do it more, but reading is an egalitarian invention. No one—not your nanny, not your tutor, your friends or your posh school—can impel you to devour a book except you. Reading is not merely a tool: it is also one of life’s great pleasures, as Dickens knew well. As Joe, the kind blacksmith in “Great Expectations”, says: “Give me a good book…and sit me down afore a good fire, and I ask no better.” Once people forget that, things really will feel bleak. ■ 大家好,今天要跟大家聊一個有點沉重,但也很有趣的主題:「閱讀的衰退,會不會讓政治變笨?」 故事要從一個實驗開始。美國兩所大學的文學系學生,被要求閱讀狄更斯《荒涼山莊》開頭的幾段文字,然後解釋其中的意思。聽起來簡單吧?結果——非常難。學生們完全被法律語言搞糊塗,被隱喻卡住。甚至有人以為「whiskers(鬍鬚)」是指「房間裡有動物吧?像是貓?」——可以想像教授們有多頭大。 問題不只是學生「不夠文學」,而是,他們甚至「不太識字」。 📉 各種研究都指出:我們正在「集體不讀書」。成年人讀得少,孩子讀得少,青少年讀得更少。連小朋友被爸媽念故事書的機會也下降了,許多甚至完全沒有。這就是所謂的「閱讀鴻溝」。 在美國,20 年內,閱讀休閒書籍的人數下降了 40%。英國情況也差不多:2024 年,四成的英國人一本書都沒讀。即使是大學生,他們也覺得讀一本小說要三週以上,好像在爬山。教授們說得更直接:年輕人「沒有專注的習慣」。 當然啦,學者抱怨年輕人不讀書,好像從古至今都一樣。蘇格拉底就曾擔心,文字會讓人健忘。《傳道書》裡也寫過:「著書多,沒有窮盡。」但現在的狀況似乎真的有點不一樣。 📖 文章裡提到一個有趣的發現:我們的句子越來越短。 《紐約時報》暢銷書裡的句子,平均比 1930 年代縮短了三分之一。 維多利亞時代的暢銷書《現代畫家》第一句長達 153 個字,還附帶哲學性的標題:「大眾的意見不是衡量優秀的標準。」對照現在 Amazon 的暢銷書,開頭只有 19 個字,標題則是「我如何改變人生」。更別提「方法」是:倒數 5 秒就能逼自己行動,像火箭發射一樣。 這種對比,不只是風格變了,而是「思維的深度」也可能跟著流失。 📱 很多人怪智慧型手機,說它搶走了我們的注意力。確實,分心比以前更容易。但其實「讀書本來就麻煩」。古希臘詩人就說過:「大本的書,就是大麻煩。」甚至在四世紀,一位修士寫道:讀到一半就打瞌睡,把書當枕頭。顯然,他也不是因為 Snapchat而分心的。 真正不同的是:想要讀的慾望,變少了。 維多利亞時代,工人和牧羊人拼命自學。他們會把書藏在石牆縫裡,輪流傳閱。有人甚至因為向破布商借到一本修昔底德,而啟發了政治志向,最後成為英國第一位工黨首相。那種對「知識改變命運」的熱情,如今似乎消失了。 有人說,是因為書太貴或圖書館關閉。但事實上,現在的書比歷史上任何時候都便宜。《哈羅德遊記》當年要一個工人半週工資才能買,而現在 Kindle 上免費。問題不是買不起,而是:大家懶得讀。 📚 教授們無奈地承認,他們已經不敢再開《荒涼山莊》這樣的大本書課程了。原因不只是學校壓力,而是學生根本「讀不下去」。在調查裡,年輕人直接說:讀書「很無聊」、「很累」。 那問題來了:我們真的需要擔心嗎? 其實,閱讀和政治之間有著微妙的關係。古雅典能夠實行「陶片放逐法」,就是因為有足夠的識字率。識字能力,直接影響了政治參與和思考深度。 現代數據也反映了這點。英國國會的演講篇幅,十年內縮短了三分之一。美國總統的就職演說,用可讀性測試來比:華盛頓的演講屬於研究所等級;川普的演講,只有高中程度。 這不一定是壞事。簡單的文字,往往也能清楚有力。但學者們擔心的是:如果我們失去閱讀複雜文本的能力,就可能也失去思考複雜問題的能力。 無法同時容納矛盾,無法理解細微差異。當政治只剩下 280 個字的推文,深度自然也消失了。 最後還有一個更現實的問題:閱讀是社會流動的最佳工具之一。當年蘇格蘭牧羊人靠閱讀跨越階級,今天卻連免費的經典書籍都吸引不了人。閱讀,不只是學習的工具,更是一種生活的樂趣。 正如狄更斯筆下的鐵匠 Joe 說的:「給我一本好書,再加上一個暖爐,我就心滿意足。」 如果我們忘記了這種樂趣,人生可能真的會變得更「荒涼」。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
3 months ago
26 minutes

出國趣
78-2 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ AI製作啤酒比人類厲害?!+ 小分享: Chatgpt的其他用途
**The rise of **beer made by AI Customers love it Aug 27th 2025 WHEN BECK’S, a storied German brewery founded in the city of Bremen in 1873, celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2023 it decided to bring in a new brewmaster to mark the occasion: ChatGPT, an artificial-intelligence (AI) chatbot. The company asked it to whip up a recipe using only hops, yeast, water, and malt. The result was “Beck’s Autonomous”, a lager with a subtle sweetness, a hoppy** texture**, and quite a head. One Daily Mail reporter considered it better than the brewery’s standard lager. Beer and AI may seem an unlikely pairing, but Beck’s is far from the only brand to have asked for input from the technology. Atwater Brewery, an American firm, introduced an AI-designed citrusy India pale ale (IPA) in 2023 and last year St Austell Brewery in Britain used AI to create a tropical IPA dubbed “Hand Brewed by Robots”. In March Coedo Brewery in Japan asked an AI model to analyse the preferences of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s, and then developed four craft beers, one for each age range. In general the response from customers, brewers say, has been overwhelmingly positive. “It gives us access to new recipes that we didn’t think about before,” says Prinz Pinakatt, boss of the beer business for Tilray Brands, Atwater’s New York-based parent company. Machine-learning tools can parse the minutiae of complex flavours, analyse the ingredients and equipment that an individual brewery has available, and then concoct new recipes while tweaking sweetness, acidity, hop level and other attributes to ensure the end product appeals to discerning customers. Beau Warren, who opened the Species X Beer Project brewery in America in 2021, knows this firsthand. In 2022 he started training AI models on a number of parameters—his proprietary recipes, different types of yeast, water acidity, various hops, the ingredients in the brewery cellar, the typical makeup of lagers, stouts and other beers—and, by 2024, began using it to guide the brewing process. In one instance, after being asked to make a new lager, the bot suggested mixing Maris Otter malt, usually found in stouts, with Belgian candi syrup. “I would never have thought of doing that in a lager, ever,” he says. “We brewed it anyway, and I thought it was one of the best lagers I’ve ever made.” His customers apparently thought the same: Mr Warren says patrons usually rated the AI-crafted beers better than any of the beers thought up by he and his fellow brewers. (That said, the AI beers at Species X are no more: the brewery closed down last autumn owing to financial difficulties.) Scientists are also intrigued about what bots might tell them about the chemistry of beer. In 2024 researchers from KU Leuven, a university in Belgium, analysed the chemical makeup of 250 Belgian beers, including lagers, blonds and West Flanders ales. They then trained machine-learning algorithms to model the effects of adding or subtracting different aroma compounds, such as glycerol and lactic acid, on the taste. “The models we develop help us to understand the complex relationship between the chemistry of a beer, its taste, and how consumers will like it,” says Kevin Verstrepen, a bioscience engineer who led the research team. Of course, it will take more than a chatbot to replace a human brewer. Ingredients must be poured, brew kettles must be tended and the beers must be tasted—whether they were made totally by human hands, or brewed, at least in part, by robots. “Yes, AI will become more and more part of the brewing process, but the brewing itself, the craft, is still the emphasis,” says Mr Pinakatt. “It will be very difficult to have machines make our beers.” ■ 當 Beck’s——這家創立於 1873 年、位於德國不來梅的老字號啤酒廠——在 2023 年迎來 150 週年慶時,他們決定邀請一位特別的釀酒師:人工智慧聊天機器人 ChatGPT。 公司要求它只使用啤酒的基本原料——啤酒花、酵母、水和麥芽——來設計一份新配方。最後誕生的是一款名為「Beck’s Autonomous」的拉格啤酒。這款酒帶有微微的甜味、濃郁的酒花香氣,還有豐厚的泡沫。根據《每日郵報》的記者試喝後表示,甚至比 Beck’s 的經典款還要好。 乍聽之下,啤酒和 AI 好像是八竿子打不著的組合,但 Beck’s 絕不是唯一嘗試的品牌。美國的 Atwater Brewery 在 2023 年推出了一款由 AI 設計的柑橘風味 IPA。隔年,英國的 St Austell Brewery 也用 AI 釀造出一款熱帶風味的 IPA,名字叫「Hand Brewed by Robots」。2024 年 3 月,日本的 Coedo Brewery 更是請 AI 分析不同年齡層——20、30、40、50 歲——的口味喜好,再釀出四款各自對應的精釀啤酒。總體來說,消費者的反應非常正面。 「這讓我們得到以前從沒想過的配方。」Atwater 母公司 Tilray Brands 啤酒業務負責人 Prinz Pinakatt 說。機器學習工具能精細分析複雜的風味、配料和釀酒設備,接著設計出新配方,並調整甜度、酸度、啤酒花的濃度等元素,確保最終的產品能打動挑剔的消費者。 美國的 Species X Beer Project 釀酒廠創辦人 Beau Warren 就深有體會。他在 2022 年開始訓練 AI 模型,輸入了自己的獨家配方、各種酵母、水的酸鹼度、不同的啤酒花、以及啤酒的種類數據。到 2024 年,他正式讓 AI 參與釀造過程。有一次,他要求 AI 設計一款新的拉格,結果 AI 建議把通常用在世濤啤酒的「Maris Otter 麥芽」,與比利時糖漿混合在一起。Warren 說:「我從來沒想過拉格會這樣做,但我們還是照著釀了,結果發現這是我喝過最好喝的拉格之一。」顧客的評價也很高,普遍認為 AI 釀造的酒比他和同事設計的更好。不過,儘管酒很受歡迎,Species X 最後還是在去年秋天因財務問題關閉了。 不只是釀酒師,科學家也對 AI 在啤酒化學上的應用充滿興趣。2024 年,比利時魯汶大學的研究團隊分析了 250 款當地啤酒,從拉格、金色啤酒到西佛蘭德艾爾。他們用機器學習模型來模擬不同化學物質——像是甘油和乳酸——對風味的影響。研究負責人、生命科學工程師 Kevin Verstrepen 說:「我們開發的模型能幫助理解啤酒化學成分、口感,以及消費者喜好的複雜關係。」 當然,AI 不會完全取代釀酒師。畢竟,原料要有人投入,釀酒槽要有人照看,啤酒最後也必須有人品嚐。Pinakatt 說:「是的,AI 會越來越多地參與釀酒過程,但釀酒的核心仍然是工藝與手藝。要完全靠機器來釀酒,是非常困難的。」 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
3 months ago
19 minutes

出國趣
78-1 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 西方露骨的情色小說與女性主義有關!?+ 小分享: 網路工具千奇百怪的亂象!
Erotic writing is becoming more explicit Gardening metaphors are out. Other things are very much in Feb 27th 2025 START WITH the nipples. The lover does in “Mistress and Mother”, a steamy romantic novel from the 1990s. Though, since it was written three decades ago, they are not always called “nipples”. Instead, the author also discreetly describes them as “little buds”. Other erotica from this era has a similarly hearty, horticultural air: in another novel, the paramour enjoys his lover’s “rosebuds”; in a third, he moves lower to her enfolding “petals”. In other books there is swelling, blooming and, of course, “seed”. The aim is oblique eroticism. The overall effect is of an unexpectedly energetic gardening catalogue. But eroticism is changing. Open “Onyx Storm”, the latest romantasy book (a genre that blends romance and fantasy) by Rebecca Yarros, and things are rather clearer. Hardy perennials are out. Words like “hard” are in—as too are words including “cock”, “fuck” and “straddle”. And people are buying it. Sales of erotica are booming: thanks to pre-orders, “Onyx Storm” had already been on Amazon’s bestseller list for 19 weeks by the time it was published in January. After release, it shifted almost 3m copies in a week. It sold faster than any novel in America in the past 20 years. There is now a vast variety of erotica available, including cosy erotica (knitwear is torn off), Austen erotica (Mr Darcy has assets even more impressive than £10,000 a year) and fairy erotica. There is even erotica featuring—readers may wish to brace themselves—physicists. These titles contain such explicit lines as, “Your dissertation on liquid crystals’ static distortions in biaxial nematics was brilliant, Elsie.” Sex is not entirely novel for the novel, as readers of E.L. James and Alan Hollinghurst will know. But it is more frank and frequent. “The spiciness seems to be increasing,” says James Daunt, chief executive of Barnes & Noble and Waterstones, two bookshop chains. Look at the corpus of English fiction and the word “nipples” has doubled in frequency since the year 2000, while “orgasm” has quintupled; use of the word “clit” is 14 times higher. In some ways this is unexpected. It was once assumed that erotica was a male pursuit and that its appeal was not merely the sex but the sin. Obscenity was legally defined in Britain in 1868 by a judge called—in a detail no novelist would dare attempt—Justice Cockburn. “Nine-tenths of the appeal of pornography”, wrote Bertrand Russell, a philosopher, “is due to the indecent feelings concerning sex which moralists inculcate in the young.” Obscenity laws were relaxed in Britain in the 1960s in the wake of the “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” trial, but the illicit thrill remained. The world has changed since then. The moralists have faded. Whatever hold the patriarchy had on publishing has waned. Yet the sex remains, and it is women who are driving it. Most of these books are being written, edited and published by women. They are bought, in vast numbers, by women. The novels are promoted by women on social-media platforms, particularly TikTok, using hashtags such as #Spicybooks and #Steamyreads, then appear on Amazon with the phrase “TikTok made me buy it!”, which sounds less like an endorsement than a defence. As the interest in #Darkromance shows, this sex is not all nice. In Ms Yarros’s books, the hero pins the heroine violently to the floor in wrestling matches; in the romantasy novels of Sarah J. Maas, who has sold almost 40m copies, faeries do things that would make Tinker Bell blush. What has driven this is new digital formats, such as audiobooks. (Ms Yarros and Ms Maas dominate those charts, too.) The e-book has been especially consequential. It is discreet—no one can see what you are reading on a tablet. And it lets authors self-publish cheaply, as Ms James did in 2011 with “Fifty Shades of Grey”, a story of sadomasochism. It was later republished by Vintage, but romance lovers retained the habit of reading books digitally. Authorial autonomy online means it is “impossible to police” what goes into books, says Hal Gladfelder of the University of Manchester. The ubiquity of internet pornography means that even to try to do so would feel “ridiculous”. In one sense this new generation of erotic prose is more realistic than what came before. Floral analogies are out; proper body parts are in. But in another sense, it is not remotely realistic. Everyone is gorgeous; names like “Xaden” and “Aetos” dominate; most characters have remarkable powers, if not superpowers. In Ms Yarros’s books, the hero and heroine, who are long-term lovers, can creep into each other’s minds, where they find each other thinking hot thoughts in an italic font, such as “How do you want me to take you?” and “You’re astounding” rather than, as might be the fear, “Did I switch the tumble dryer on?” or “It was definitely your turn to take the bins out.” It is easy to smirk, but writing about sex is tricky—as a trawl through the back catalogue of the Bad Sex in Fiction Awards shows. The now-defunct prize, which ended during the pandemic, was set up in 1993 by Britain’s Literary Review to “highlight and gently discourage redundant, poorly written or unnecessarily pornographic descriptions of sex in fiction”. Given that the contenders in its final years included such phrases as she “offer[ed] her moist parts to my triumphant phallus” and her vagina was “slowly chugging my organ as a boa constrictor swallows its prey”, perhaps the discouragement was too gentle. Part of the difficulty in writing about sex is what Julian Barnes, an English writer, called “the naming of parts”: “At the basic level, he put his what into her—or indeed his—what?” “Boa constrictor” is probably best avoided, but, as Mr Barnes observed, almost all terms are tricky. “Where between the Latinate and the Anglo-Saxon do you pitch it?” Being biological can be as bad as being too oblique, as a contender for the Bad Sex award in 2019 clearly showed. “I have 8,000 nerves in my clitoris,” explained one character. “Your penis gets by on 4,000.” (Such a pronouncement would leave most lovers unsure whether to take notes or take flight.) At times characters seem to be enjoying sex as little as the reader. In a nominated work of 2019 a character, in a moment of high passion, “screamed as though [she] were being run over by a train”. The reader can only sympathise. Most winners of the prize were, unsurprisingly, men: the male gaze does not always improve male prose. But the internet is changing the balance of power in fictional sex, just as it has in actual sex. Male misbehaviour is called out by such things as the “menwritingwomen” Reddit thread. (John Updike—the “penis with a thesaurus”—features heavily.) A popular parody pokes fun at a man writing a woman’s morning: “Cassandra…breasted boobily to the stairs, and titted downwards.” Eroticism always “reflects what is going on in society at the time”, says Sharon Kendrick, a popular British romantic author. In the liberal 1970s, literary lotharios were in fashion. The arrival of the AIDs pandemic in the 1980s brought on a period of “sexual fastidiousness” and heroes who had one true love and a condom. The new generation of erotic prose may be easy to mock. But it is reflecting a society in which women can often get precisely what they want. That should give any feminist a bit of a thrill. ■ 情色寫作變得更加直白 園藝隱喻退場,露骨詞彙登場 從乳頭開始。至少在《情婦與母親》這本1990年代的火辣愛情小說中,戀人是這樣的。不過,三十年前的作品裡,它們不一定被稱為「乳頭」,作者還會含蓄地稱之為「小花苞」。 那個年代的情色作品普遍有著濃厚的「園藝風格」:另一部小說裡,情人讚嘆伴侶的「玫瑰花蕾」;在第三部作品中,他往下移動,探索她環抱的「花瓣」。書中不乏「膨脹」「綻放」,甚至「種子」的意象。當時追求的是含蓄的情慾,整體讀來更像一本精力充沛的園藝型錄。 如今情色風格已然轉變。打開麗貝卡.亞羅斯(Rebecca Yarros)的最新浪漫奇幻小說《縱橫風暴》(Onyx Storm),場景截然不同。多年生植物退場,取而代之的是「硬」這樣的直白字眼——以及「屌」「幹」「跨坐」等詞彙。讀者也買單。情色文學銷量正大幅成長:靠著預購,《縱橫風暴》在1月出版前已連續19週位居亞馬遜暢銷榜。出版後一週內就賣出近300萬冊,成為過去20年美國銷售速度最快的小說。 現在市面上情色作品種類繁多,包括「溫馨型情色」(毛衣被撕裂)、「奧斯汀風情色」(達西先生的資產不僅僅是一年一萬英鎊)以及「精靈情色」。甚至還有主角是物理學家的作品,其中出現這樣火熱的句子:「你那篇關於液晶雙軸靜態扭曲的論文真是太出色了,艾爾希。」 性在小說中並非全新元素,EL.詹姆斯(E. L. James)與艾倫.霍林赫斯特(Alan Hollinghurst)的讀者早就知道。但現在它更直接、更頻繁。Barnes & Noble 與 Waterstones 兩大連鎖書店的執行長詹姆斯.道恩特(James Daunt)說:「辣度似乎在提升。」英語小說語料庫顯示,自2000年以來,「nipple(乳頭)」的使用頻率翻倍,「orgasm(高潮)」增加五倍,「clit(陰蒂)」更是高出14倍。 某種程度上,這樣的轉變出乎意料。過去人們認為情色主要是男性的嗜好,其吸引力來自於「性」與「禁忌」。1868年英國對「猥褻」的法律定義,由一位名叫——小說家恐怕不敢編造——寇克本(Cockburn)的大法官所作出。哲學家羅素曾寫道:「色情吸引力的九成,源於道德家在年輕人心中灌輸的猥褻情緒。」英國的猥褻法在1960年代《查泰萊夫人的情人》審判後逐漸鬆動,但禁忌帶來的刺激仍然存在。 而今世代不同了。道德家退場,父權在出版界的掌控力也減弱。然而性仍在,只是推動它的已是女性。這些作品大多由女性撰寫、編輯與出版,也被女性大量購買。社群媒體上,特別是在TikTok,女性讀者以 #Spicybooks 與 #Steamyreads 等標籤推廣,最後在亞馬遜出現「TikTok讓我買的!」的字樣——聽起來更像是一種辯解,而非背書。 不過,這些作品的性愛並非總是溫柔。#Darkromance 的流行便是一例。亞羅斯的小說裡,男主角會在角力中將女主角猛然壓倒在地;莎拉.J.馬斯(Sarah J. Maas)的浪漫奇幻小說裡,精靈的行徑足以讓小叮噹(奇妙仙子)臉紅。 推動這股浪潮的,是新的數位載體,例如有聲書(亞羅斯與馬斯在榜上同樣稱霸)。電子書尤其關鍵:它能保有隱私——沒人能看出你在平板上讀什麼;它也讓作者能以低成本自費出版,正如2011年E. L.詹姆斯的《格雷的五十道陰影》,後來雖由Vintage再版,但浪漫讀者已經習慣於數位閱讀。 曼徹斯特大學的哈爾.格拉德費爾德(Hal Gladfelder)指出,網路讓作者完全自主,因此「幾乎不可能審查」。在網路色情遍布的今天,即使想管制也顯得「荒謬」。 某種程度上,這一代的情色小說比過去更「寫實」:花卉隱喻消失,身體部位直接點名。但另一方面,它又一點也不寫實。角色人人俊美,名字不是「薩登」(Xaden)就是「艾托斯」(Aetos),多數還擁有非凡甚至超能力。亞羅斯筆下的情侶甚至能進入彼此的心靈,讀到對方用斜體字傳遞的火熱心思,例如「你想要我怎麼要你?」或「你太驚人了」,而不是「我有把烘衣機關掉嗎?」或「今天明明是你該倒垃圾吧?」 固然容易譏諷,但性愛描寫確實困難。《壞性描寫獎》(Bad Sex in Fiction Award)的歷年入圍作證明了這點。該獎於1993年由《英國文學評論》創立,目的是「提醒並溫和地勸阻多餘、拙劣或過度色情的性描寫」。不過,最後幾年的參賽句子像是「她將濕潤的部位奉獻給我勝利的陽具」或「她的陰道像蟒蛇吞食獵物般,慢慢啃食我的器官」,恐怕勸阻力道還不夠。 英國作家朱利安.巴恩斯(Julian Barnes)曾指出,寫性愛最大的困難在於「命名部位」:「最基本的層面就是,他把他的什麼放進了她——或他的——什麼?」「蟒蛇」的比喻或許最好避免,但正如他所說,幾乎所有詞彙都帶有難題——要在拉丁學術語與盎格魯粗俗語之間找到平衡並不容易。 過於生物學化同樣尷尬。2019年某部入圍作品中,角色竟在高潮時宣稱:「我的陰蒂有八千條神經,你的陰莖只有四千。」(這樣的話恐怕會讓伴侶不知該做筆記還是落荒而逃。)另一位角色則在激情時刻「尖叫得像被火車輾過」,讓讀者不禁同情。 這個獎項多數得主毫不意外地都是男性:男性凝視並不總能讓文字更好。而網路正在改變情色書寫中的權力分配,就像在真實性別關係中一樣。男性的失誤經常被公開嘲諷,例如 Reddit 的「menwritingwomen」版面(常客包括「拿著字典的陽具」約翰.厄普代克)。還有人戲仿男性筆下的女性日常:「卡珊卓……胸部晃動地走下樓梯,並一路抖動著往下走。」 英國暢銷愛情作家莎朗.肯德里克(Sharon Kendrick)說,情色書寫一向「反映當下社會氛圍」。在自由奔放的1970年代,浪子角色當道;1980年代愛滋疫情帶來「性謹慎」時代,小說英雄變成只有一位真愛、而且會戴保險套。 新一代情色小說或許容易被取笑,但它反映的,正是一個女性常能獲得她們真正渴望的社會。這對任何一位女權主義者而言,應該都能帶來一絲快意。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
3 months ago
37 minutes

出國趣
77-3 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 香港人超級迷信!+小分享: 我跟香港沙發客的邂逅 <3 <3
China | For good or ill Hong Kong is super superstitious Why** prophetic artists** and feng-shui masters hold such sway Aug 14th 2025|Hong Kong|3 min read TATSUKI RYO is the finest diviner since Nostradamus, in the view of many Hong Kongers. In 1999 the Japanese manga artist published a collection of supposedly prophetic dreams warning of a “great disaster, year 2011, month 3.” In March 2011 Japan suffered from an earthquake, tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear meltdown; perhaps 18,000 people died. So when her manga predicted that a mega-tsunami would strike Japan on July 5th 2025, it caused alarm. Luckily, like her 16th-century antecedent (who thought the world would end in 2012), Ms Tatsuki often gets things wrong. She thought Mount Fuji would erupt in August 2021. And July 5th came and went. But on July 30th there was a magnitude 8.8 earthquake off Russia’s eastern coast, which prompted tsunami warnings around the Pacific. Fortunately no one died and the tallest tsunami waves to reach Japanese shores were only 1.3m high. (In 2011 they reached almost 40m.) Yet fans and anxious theorists saw the event on July 30th as another confirmation of her powers. The prophecy sent tremors of fear across Asian social media in June. But Hong Kongers took it particularly seriously. Several prominent feng-shui masters, experts in ancient Chinese geomancy, warned locals to heed Ms Tatsuki’s advice not to visit Japan ahead of July 5th. The number of Hong Kongers who did so plunged by more than a third in June compared with a year earlier, while visitor numbers from almost all other places rose. Local carriers, such as Hong Kong Airlines, suspended flight routes to Japan because of the drop in demand. Japan will sting from all this. Though only home to 7.5m people, Hong Kong was the fifth-largest source of international visitors to Japan last year and its holidaymakers spent HK$33bn ($4bn) there. Even hard-nosed types stayed away. One Hong Kong-based financial consultant reports that his boss has refused to take in-person meetings in Japan all summer; she made him attend them in her stead. This is all a reminder of how pervasive superstition is in Hong Kong, even compared with the rest of Asia. Tower blocks frequently skip all floors with the number “four” because its Cantonese pronunciation is similar to the word for “death”. Properties thought to be inhabited by ghosts lose a fifth of their value on average, according to a paper in 2020 by Utpal Bhattacharya of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. And feng shui guides the design of even the most sober organisations’ offices. HSBC’s headquarters has escalators reportedly angled to ward off evil spirits. The Economist’s offices contain old coins for prosperity and a dragon image for good luck, left by a visiting feng-shui master in recent years. There is little harm in any of this. But superstition shouldn’t supersede science. The Hong Kong Observatory, a public body, was forced to release numerous statements in recent months reminding locals that it is impossible to predict an earthquake. Seismologists and disaster experts also weighed in. Even Ms Tatsuki cautioned her fans to heed scientific advice. But their urgings did little to quell the disquiet. Something similar happened during the SARS outbreak in 2003: many Hong Kongers spurned official disease-prevention steps, instead turning to herbs to **ward off **the virus. You don’t need to be a soothsayer to see that sometimes superstition can have rather frightening consequences. ■ 香港極度迷信 為何預言藝術家與風水師能掌握如此大的影響力 2025年8月14日 | 香港 | 閱讀時間 3 分鐘 在許多香港人眼中,**龍樹徹(Tatsuki Ryo)**堪稱繼諾查丹瑪斯之後最優秀的預言家。1999年,這位日本漫畫家出版了一本收錄所謂「預知夢」的漫畫集,當中警告「2011年3月將有大災難」。果然在2011年3月,日本遭遇大地震、海嘯與福島核災,或許多達1.8萬人喪生。因此,當她的漫畫預言「2025年7月5日將有超級海嘯襲擊日本」時,引發了極大的恐慌。 幸運的是,和16世紀的前輩(他曾斷言世界將在2012年終結)一樣,龍樹女士的預言往往錯誤百出。她認為富士山會在2021年8月噴發,但並未成真。而7月5日也平安無事。不過在7月30日,俄羅斯遠東海域發生規模8.8的強震,並一度引發太平洋沿岸的海嘯警報。幸好並無人員傷亡,日本沿岸最高的海嘯浪高僅1.3公尺(2011年時則接近40公尺)。然而,許多粉絲與焦慮的論者仍將7月30日的事件視為她「靈驗」的又一證據。 這項預言早在6月便在亞洲社群媒體掀起恐慌,香港人尤其當真。幾位著名的風水師——古老中國堪輿學的專家——警告大眾要遵循龍樹女士的建議,不要在7月5日前往日本。結果,6月香港赴日人數較去年同期銳減逾三分之一,而幾乎所有其他國家的訪日人數卻上升。由於需求驟降,香港航空等當地航空公司被迫暫停部分日本航線。 對日本而言,這無疑是一大打擊。雖然香港僅有750萬人口,但去年卻是日本第五大國際旅客來源地,港人旅日消費達330億港元(約40億美元)。就連精於算計的專業人士也不例外。一名在港的金融顧問透露,他的上司整個夏天都拒絕赴日開會,最後只能派他代為出席。 這再一次提醒世人,香港的迷信氛圍之濃厚,即便與亞洲其他地方相比亦不遑多讓。許多大樓乾脆跳過所有帶有「四」的樓層,因為「四」的廣東話發音近似「死」。據香港科技大學的巴塔查里亞(Utpal Bhattacharya)2020年的研究,傳聞鬧鬼的房產平均會跌價兩成。就連最嚴肅的機構辦公室設計也遵循風水之道。滙豐銀行總部的自動扶梯據說是以特殊角度安裝,用以驅邪避煞。《經濟學人》的香港辦公室內則留有幾枚古錢幣與一幅龍圖騰,據說是近年一位風水師來訪時留下的吉祥佈局。 這些做法大致無傷大雅。但迷信卻不該凌駕科學。近月來,香港天文台不得不多次發表聲明,提醒市民地震無法預測。地震學家與防災專家也紛紛表態。甚至龍樹本人也勸告粉絲要聽從科學建議。 然而,這些呼籲對平息不安收效甚微。2003年SARS爆發時,情況亦曾類似:許多香港人不遵循官方防疫措施,反而轉向草藥以求避疫。不需要做預言家也能看出,迷信有時會帶來相當可怕的後果。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
3 months ago
26 minutes

出國趣
77-2 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 中國的政治語言: 同志+ 小分享: <男性廢退>為何男人在職場、校園、家庭節節敗退呢?!
**“Comrade” **is making a comeback in China Or so the government hopes Jul 24th 2025|Beijing DURING THE decades when Mao Zedong ruled China, it was common for people to address each other as tongzhi: “comrade”. Like its English equivalent, the word has an egalitarian ring, as well as a hint of revolutionary fervour. But after Mao’s death in 1976, and the market reforms that followed, the term tongzhi started to feel a little dated. Less** ideological** greetings took its place: like xiansheng (“mister”), meinu (“beautiful woman”) and laoban (“boss”). So** it caused a stir **when the People’s Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, published an opinion piece this month calling for the word tongzhi to return to everyday speech. Modern greetings can sound frivolous or phoney, the author complained. Some are even “sugar-coated bullets”, they warned, using a Maoist term for bourgeois customs that *corrupt* the working class. Better, then, to return to the greeting used “back when people were simple and honest”. The party often tries to stoke nostalgia for the days of high socialism in order to bolster its support. In recent years local governments have encouraged “red tourism” at sites like Mao’s hometown to teach people about the history of the party (needless to say, they are given a version without all the bloodshed). Some firms send employees on “red” teambuilding courses where they dress up as **guerillas **from the 1930s and trek along muddy mountain paths. In 2015 party members, though not the general public, were told to call each other tongzhi again as a way of “purifying” political culture. The term seems unlikely to make a comeback outside the party, however. For one thing, since the 1990s tongzhi has become a popular slang term for gay people, catching on because it sounded neither pejorative nor clinical, unlike most of the alternatives. For a time one of China’s biggest LGBT-rights organisations, based in the capital, was known as the “Beijing tongzhi Centre” (it closed in 2023 under political pressure). But many people have criticised the idea for another reason. Since the death of Mao, China has become far richer—but the wealth has not been spread evenly. The country’s Gini coefficient , a common measure of** income inequality,** rose sharply in the 1990s and is now higher than that of America, according to official estimates. Inequalities have particularly started to sting as the economy has sputtered. “Who should you call tongzhi?” asked one person in a post on Weibo, a social-media platform. “Someone with the same rights, assets…work and salary. Those earning 2,000 yuan ($280) a month can hardly call those earning 20,000 yuan their tongzhi.” There is little sense of camaraderie between China’s haves and have-nots. ■ 「同志」在中國重現風潮? ** 政府寄望重新流行** ** 2025年7月24日|北京** **在毛澤東主政的數十年間,中國人彼此之間常以「同志」相稱。這個詞彙與英文 **comrade 相似,既帶有平等意味,也蘊含革命熱情。然而, 1976年毛澤東逝世、隨後市場改革推行後,「同志」逐漸顯得過時,取而代之的是更少意識形態色彩的稱呼,例如「先生」、「美女」與「老闆」。 因此,當中共喉舌《人民日報》本月發表評論文章,呼籲讓「同志」回歸日常用語時,引起了社會關注。文章批評現代稱呼顯得輕浮甚至虛假,部分更是「糖衣炮彈」——這一毛澤東時期的用語指資產階級風俗對工人階級的腐蝕。評論認為,應回到「人們樸實誠懇的年代」的稱呼方式。 中共時常試圖喚起對高社會主義時代的懷舊情緒,以鞏固支持。近年地方政府推廣「紅色旅遊」,引導民眾參觀毛澤東故鄉等景點,學習黨史(當然,版本中略去血腥部分)。部分企業也會安排員工參加「紅色」團建活動,換上上世紀三○年代游擊隊裝束,踏上泥濘山道。2015年,黨員(但非公眾)曾被要求恢復以「同志」相稱,以「純化」政治文化。 然而,「同志」重回大眾語境的可能性似乎不大。其一,自1990年代起,「同志」在中國成為同志族群的流行稱謂,因為它既不帶貶義,也不似其他詞語般生硬。一度,中國最大之一的同志權益組織——「北京同志中心」便以此為名(該中心於2023年在政治壓力下關閉)。 此外,更多人批評的原因在於現今社會的巨大貧富差距。毛澤東去世後,中國雖然更加富裕,但財富分配並不均衡。中國的吉尼係數 (收入平等的指數) 在1990年代急劇上升,目前官方估計高於美國;相比之下,。隨著經濟放緩,不平等感尤為強烈。有人在社交媒體微博上發文質疑:「你要叫誰同志?權利、資產、工作和薪水都一樣的人嗎?月薪2000元的人,怎麼能叫月薪2萬元的人同志?」如今,中國的貧富兩端之間,已難再找到真正的同志情誼。 ■ -> 小分享 男性廢退:失落、孤僻、漫無目的,生而為「男」我很抱歉?苦苦掙扎的男性困境,我們能怎麼做。 Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
4 months ago
23 minutes

出國趣
77-1 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~益生菌有用嗎?+小分享: 莎拉布萊曼的<日落大道>音樂劇+台北新發現!
Science & technology | Well informed Do** probiotics** work? For a healthy microbiome, eating your greens is a surer bet Jul 18th 2025|3 min read A DAZZLING menagerie of microbes live inside the human gut—by some counts a few thousand different species. Most residents of this gut microbiome are not the disease-causing kind. In fact, many do useful jobs, such as breaking down certain carbohydrates, fibres and proteins that the human body would otherwise struggle to digest. Some even produce essential compounds the body cannot make on its own, like B vitamins and short-chain fatty acids, which help regulate inflammation, influence the immune system and affect metabolism. As awareness of the microbiome has grown, the shelves of health-food shops have become stocked with products designed to boost good bacteria. These usually fall into two categories: probiotics, capsules containing live (but freeze-dried) bacteria that, in theory, spring back to life once inside your gut; and prebiotics, pills made of fibres that beneficial bacteria feed on. There may be good scientific reasons to tend one’s microbiome. Having a diverse array of gut bugs, with plenty of the good kind, seems to confer broad health benefits. A varied microbial population can fend off pathogens by competing with them for nutrients and space. Reduced diversity, by contrast, has been linked to obesity, type-2 **diabetes *and* irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)**. Evidence for causal links is growing: randomised-controlled trials have shown that tweaking the microbiome can accelerate weight loss, reverse insulin resistance and improve IBS symptoms. The microbiome’s influence may stretch well beyond the gut. Microbes seem to be important for mood: people with depression have less microbial variety in their guts than those without do, for example. One study from 2016, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, even found that transplanting the microbiome of a depressed person into a rat caused the animal to display behaviour characteristic of depression. An off-kilter microbiome has also been linked to respiratory infections: mice with fewer gut microbes are more likely to catch pneumonia or influenza. For a diverse microbiome, diet matters. Microbes thrive on foods rich in fibre and digestion-resistant starch, so munching on fresh fruit, vegetables, legumes and nuts is a good place to start. Fermented foods and drinks, such as yogurt, sauerkraut and kombucha, also contain friendly micro-organisms like Lactobacillus. Avoiding unnecessary antibiotics is important, as they wipe out good bacteria along with the bad. Supplements seem equally appealing, but because they are not regulated as medicines, many have not been rigorously tested. “It is absolute cowboy territory in terms of marketing”, says Ted Dinan, a psychiatrist at University College Cork who studies the influence of the microbiome on mental health. Fortunately for consumers based in America, Britain and Canada, academics in those countries have developed apps (each called The Probiotic Guide) that can be used to search for probiotic products and check what scientific evidence, if any, backs them up. Nothing so comprehensive exists for prebiotics, as yet. Taking the wrong product may not do much good, but it probably won’t do much harm either. “You really cannot overdose on probiotics,” says Glenn Gibson, a microbiologist at the University of Reading. Taking too many prebiotics, however, could temporarily disrupt the microbiome. The likely side-effect? “Gas,” he says. “But that’s more just antisocial than anything else.”■ 科學與科技|資訊豐富 益生菌真的有效嗎? 若想擁有健康的腸道菌叢,多吃蔬菜才是更穩妥的方法 2025年7月18日|閱讀時間約3分鐘 人類腸道內住著絢麗多樣的微生物群——據說有數千種不同的物種。大多數腸道微生物並不會引發疾病。事實上,許多微生物對人體有益,例如分解某些碳水化合物、纖維與蛋白質,這些是人體本身較難消化的食物。有些微生物甚至能合成人體無法自行製造的必要化合物,如B群維生素與短鏈脂肪酸,這些物質有助於調節發炎反應、影響免疫系統以及新陳代謝。 隨著大眾對腸道菌叢的認識日益增加,健康食品商店的貨架上也擺滿了旨在促進好菌生長的產品。這些產品主要分為兩類:益生菌——含有活性(但經冷凍乾燥處理)細菌的膠囊,理論上可在進入腸道後復活;以及益生元——由纖維製成的膠囊,提供益菌生長所需的營養來源。 從科學角度來看,照護腸道菌叢確實有其益處。擁有種類多樣的腸道菌群,尤其是大量的有益菌,似乎能帶來整體健康的好處。多樣化的微生物群可透過與病原菌競爭營養與空間來抑制其生長。相反地,腸道菌叢缺乏多樣性則與肥胖、第二型糖尿病以及腸躁症(IBS)相關。這些關聯的因果證據也日益充足:隨機對照試驗顯示,調整腸道菌群可加快體重減輕、逆轉胰島素阻抗,並改善腸躁症症狀。 腸道菌群的影響可能遠超出腸道本身。研究指出微生物對情緒也具有關鍵作用:例如,患有憂鬱症的人,其腸道內的微生物多樣性通常低於未罹病者。一項2016年刊登於《精神病學研究期刊》的研究甚至發現,將一位憂鬱症患者的腸道菌叢移植至老鼠體內,會導致該老鼠出現類似憂鬱的行為反應。失衡的腸道菌叢也與呼吸道感染相關:腸道微生物較少的老鼠更容易感染肺炎或流感。 若想擁有多樣的腸道菌群,飲食至關重要。微生物偏好富含纖維與抗性澱粉的食物,因此多攝取新鮮水果、蔬菜、豆類與堅果是一個良好的起點。發酵食品與飲品,如優格、德國酸菜與康普茶,也含有益菌如乳酸桿菌。此外,避免不必要的抗生素使用也很重要,因為抗生素不分好壞菌,一併清除。 營養補給品看似同樣吸引人,但由於不像藥品那樣受到嚴格監管,因此許多產品尚未經過嚴謹的科學測試。研究腸道菌叢對心理健康影響的愛爾蘭科克大學精神科醫師泰德·迪南(Ted Dinan)表示:「目前的市場行銷簡直就是狂野西部的無政府狀態。」 所幸,對於美國、英國與加拿大的消費者來說,這些國家的學者已開發出名為《益生菌指南》(The Probiotic Guide)的應用程式,幫助用戶搜尋益生菌產品,並查詢是否有科學證據支持其功效。不過,目前尚無同樣完善的益生元產品指南。 選錯產品可能不會帶來太大好處,但通常也不至於造成嚴重傷害。「你基本上不可能攝取過量的益生菌,」雷丁大學微生物學家格倫·吉布森(Glenn Gibson)說。但若攝取過多益生元,則可能暫時擾亂腸道菌叢。最常見的副作用是什麼?「脹氣排氣,」他說,「但這頂多只是讓他人不太舒服罷了。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
4 months ago
23 minutes

出國趣
76-4 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~為什麼印度人都違規? + 小分享: 日本北海道之旅:日本的精緻與封閉~我遇到海嘯警報啊!!!
Why all Indians are** rule-breakers** Because the state makes it impossible not to be Jul 3rd 2025|4 min read IF YOU HAVE ever relaxed with a cold Kingfisher beer at the end of a long, sweaty day in Mumbai, the party capital of India, you have almost certainly broken the law. Specifically, you violated section 40 of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949, under which you must hold a permit to drink booze. A first offence is punishable by a fine of 10,000 rupees ($115) and up to six months in prison. Welcome to India, where everything is against the law. According to Vidhi, a legal think-tank in Delhi, India has 7,305 crimes at the national level, three-quarters of which attract imprisonment. India is hardly alone in overcriminalisation. But even America, not exactly known as soft on crime, had a more modest 5,199 federal crimes at last count in 2019. China imposes the death penalty for 46 crimes. In India the number is 301 (though rarely applied). The central government’s ardour for lawmaking and punishment is infectious. India’s 28 states, which control vast swathes of policy, are no less assiduous in regulating everyday life. The state of Uttarakhand, to pick one, requires couples in live-in relationships to register (and pay a fee) within 30 days of shacking up. Failure to comply attracts a fine and up to three months in prison. What of love lost? The unhappy couple must de-register (and pay another fee). Uttarakhand is particularly energetic but few states pass up the chance to make citizens visit the registrar. Then there are tax rules that make almost everyone cower. Renters paying over a lowish threshold must withhold a proportion of the rent from landlords and deposit it with the state as tax, which can involve obtaining a special tax number and hiring an accountant. Some people must pay income tax four times a year. Penalties for errors or delays are high. In June the authorities increased fines for misreported income or false deductions to “up to 200% of the tax due, 24% annual interest, and even prosecution”. There is no leeway for honest mistakes. Businesses have it worse. Companies that grow beyond even a small size must compulsorily register for a goods-and-services tax, disincentivising expansion. They must register in each state in which they have any activity, even if they have no physical presence there. They must also pay taxes withheld from buyers every month, regardless of whether they have been paid. Big companies have legal and compliance departments. Small ones struggle. A convoluted tax code means it is easy to mess up. Beyond the big-ticket items of crime and tax there exists a third category of rules so baffling it defies labels. Cities build fancy new elevated roads only to set speed limits as low as 30km per hour (18mph). Local authorities brick up entrances to public spaces for “safety reasons”. Airport security confiscates packets of spice mixes but allows packets of noodles that contain packets of spice mixes. It is hard to escape the sense that there is no logic behind the rules. That is because there isn’t, say people who have worked with government. Policy can be made just because an official says “I think it’s a good idea.” To save energy, a central-government minister says air-conditioners should function only between 20°C and 28°C,** boasting of** a “first-of-its-kind experiment”. A minister in Kerala wants to fine people who use their phones while crossing the street. In Goa, a holiday state, a new policy makes it mandatory for beach shacks to serve “freshly cooked Goan cuisine”. The tourism minister stipulates that this means fish curry and rice, though there is no such clause. The usual excuse for India’s surfeit of laws and rules is colonialism’s legacy. Indeed, in 2023 India decriminalised 183 defunct provisions in 42 laws. The government is working on a second rationalisation and setting up a deregulation commission to ease the burden on business. A tax bill is in the works. These are welcome moves. But the deeper problem lies in the attitudes of politicians and bureaucrats. “We think the state must have a say in every aspect of an individual’s life,” says Arghya Sengupta of Vidhi. “Everything is game for legislation.” The outcome is to make Indians less law-abiding, not more. Why follow the rules when everything is verboten? Why start a business or expand a successful one if it will only attract attention and more compliance? One high-ranking official complains that the state sets impossibly high standards and then claims that Indians are lawless. But “You have made it impossible for them to follow the law.” ■ 為什麼印度人都違規? 因為國家讓人無法不違規 2025年7月3日 如果你曾在孟買──印度的派對之都──結束一整天汗流浹背的日子後,輕鬆地來一瓶冰涼的金飛蛇啤酒,那麼你幾乎可以確定已經違法了。具體來說,你違反了《1949年孟買禁酒法》第40條,根據該法令,飲酒必須持有特別許可證。首次違規可處10,000盧比(約115美元)罰金,甚至可被判處6個月徒刑。 歡迎來到印度——一個萬事皆可能違法的國度。根據德里法律智庫 Vidhi 的統計,印度全國層級的刑事罪行多達7,305項,其中四分之三可處以監禁。印度並非唯一法律過度氾濫的國家;但即使是對犯罪向來強硬的美國,2019年統計時聯邦刑事罪也只有5,199項。中國對46種罪行處以死刑,而印度的數字是301項(雖然極少執行)。 聯邦政府對立法與懲罰的熱情,已傳染至地方。印度的28個邦也熱衷於干預日常生活。舉例來說,北阿坎德邦規定同居情侶必須在30天內登記並繳交費用,否則將面臨罰款與最高三個月的徒刑。若情變分手,還需重新登記取消,並再次繳費。雖說北阿坎德的作法格外積極,但其他邦也幾乎不放過任何一次讓人民跑一趟登記處的機會。 然後是令人膽寒的稅務規定。租金超過一定門檻的房客必須預扣部分租金作為稅金代繳給政府,這往往涉及申請特殊稅號,甚至需聘請會計師。有些人一年必須報繳四次所得稅。錯誤或延誤的罰金極高。今年6月,當局更提高了錯報收入或虛報扣除的罰則:罰金最高為應繳稅額的200%、年息24%,甚至可能遭起訴。誠實錯誤亦無從通融。 企業的處境更為艱難。公司一旦規模稍有擴張,便強制要求登記營業稅(GST),反而成為擴張的阻力。此外,只要企業在某個邦有業務行為(即使沒有實體據點),就必須向該邦登記並繳稅。即使尚未收款,也要預繳從買家那邊預扣的稅金。大公司尚有法務與稽核部門處理,小公司則苦不堪言。複雜的稅制也讓出錯變得再容易不過。 除了刑事與稅務這類重大事項外,還有一類荒謬至極、難以歸類的規定。城市建好高架道路,卻將限速設為30公里/小時。地方政府為了「安全」封磚公園出入口。機場安檢沒收香料包,卻放行內含香料的泡麵包。這些規則彷彿毫無邏輯。 事實上,這正是問題所在。與政府合作過的人坦言,政策常常是官員一句「我覺得這是個好主意」就拍板定案。例如中央部長為了節能,宣稱冷氣溫度應限定在20°C到28°C之間,還說這是「全球首創實驗」。喀拉拉邦的部長建議,行人過馬路時若滑手機應處罰。在渡假勝地果阿邦,新規定則強制海灘小吃店必須供應「現煮的果阿料理」,觀光部長進一步定義為「魚咖哩與米飯」,但法條中卻未明文規定。 這一切的常見藉口,是「殖民遺產」。確實,印度於2023年廢除42部法律中的183條過時條文,並正著手進行第二波法規清理,同時設立「去管制委員會」以減輕企業負擔,稅改法案也正在制定中。這些都是正向發展。 然而,根本問題出在官僚與政治人物的思維模式。Vidhi 的阿加雅‧森古塔(Arghya Sengupta)指出:「我們總認為,國家應該參與個人生活的每一個層面,什麼都可以立法。」 這樣的結果不是讓人民更守法,而是更習於違法。當所有事都被禁止,誰還想遵守規則?誰又願意創業或擴張事業,只為招來更多監管?一名高層官員不滿地說,國家設定了高不可攀的標準,卻又責怪印度人無視法律。但真正的問題是:「你讓他們根本無法守法。」 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
4 months ago
33 minutes

出國趣
76-3 克洛伊的經濟學人 Chloe's Economist~ 用種子改變全世界兩千萬民貧困農民 Simon Groot 的生平故事+ 小分享: 高雄的悲慘世界
Simon Groot scattered better plant seeds across the world The seedsman from Enkhuizen died on July 6th, aged 90 What started him thinking was a cabbage. Not any old cabbage, but the variety, “Glory of Enkhuizen”, which his family company, Sluis and Groot, had produced in that town in North Holland in 1899. It was a beautiful cabbage, round, compact, with a light-green head framed in darker leaves. It could weigh as much as three kilograms, had a sweet flavour, and was easy to grow, as it did all over Europe. But not here. Simon Groot was walking in the highlands of Java, on a sales trip for the company in 1965, when he came across a field of them. They were a sorry sight, sparse and with misshapen heads. Clearly the seed was not quite right, messed up or mixed in, adulterated somehow; he hated nothing more than bad seed. But it was also clear that these cabbages, which shrugged off frost, did not enjoy a semitropical climate and could not cope with local pests and diseases. Meanwhile the farmers who had sown them, unable to sell them, remained as poor as ever. For 16 years he brooded on this. It became his mission. In 1981, when Sluis and Groot was sold to Sandoz, he branched out on his own to improve the seeds, crops, trade and nutrition of the tropical parts of the world. **The staple grains *(especially wheat in India and rice in China) had been hybridised already, with great success, but lowly vegetables had been ignored. He, by contrast, loved them. Producing fine vegetable and flower seed had been the family business since 1867, when venerable, bearded Groots had* pioneered **the work in Enkhuizen. Seeds had been lucky for the town, too; because of close contacts with local farmers, it did not suffer the famine that followed the war. For him the vegetables of tropical Asia were a cornucopia of species he had never met before. Amaranth, with grain-heads like huge catkins; kangkong, or water spinach, growing in any fresh water; mung beans, full of protein in both seeds and sprouts; daikon, tatsoi, choy sum. All were packed with vitamins and good nutrition. As a seedsman more used to cauliflowers and potatoes, he was fascinated. As a market man, here was a huge chance. He surpassed his own expectations. By the 2020s the seeds produced by his company, East-West Seed, had improved the incomes of 20m small farmers in more than 80 countries, from Asia to Latin America to Africa. The company’s red-arrow logo was as well-known to them as the sign for Coca-Cola. He also set up a programme in which successful farmers trained their neighbours. With better seed, farmers stayed in farming, market traders had more to sell and consumers had healthier diets. That simple formula lifted everyone. Seeds came first, carefully bred by cross-pollination to produce the right traits. But the farmers were key. He talked to them constantly, a tall and almost colonial figure in his white clothes and sun-hat, to learn to think with them. Most of them had plots of only one or two hectares, so vegetables were an ideal crop. Routinely, though, the glossy packets they started with had bad genetics inside. They then saved the seed from their crop from year to year, because they were poor and it cost nothing. So, inevitably, their harvests declined. Yet they were most reluctant to change. When he set up his first base in the Philippines in 1982 and, after many months, produced his first **hybridised **seed, farmers were loth to try it. The plant was ampalaya or bitter gourd, not unlike a fat, warty cucumber, astringent but useful to bulk out a stir-fry; so many farmers already grew it. The new variety was called “Jade Star”. It could resist downy mildew, its chief threat, but almost all the trial crops failed. Hence the importance of any farmer who had succeeded passing on his knowledge of how to handle the seeds, space them, **fertilise and irrigate **them. Seed was all about trust: trust that the tiny speck you sowed would grow into the plant you imagined. Both would take time to appear. Over decades, though, the farmers were won over. When the crops did well, they were extraordinary: healthy, profuse and vigorous. As more vegetables were hybridised, tomatoes began to flourish in the Indonesian lowlands, where they could not grow before; productivity per plant of bird’s eye chili, a Thai favourite, increased by 30-40%, and long beans grew like forests. Farm incomes doubled and sometimes even tripled. Certain cases became famous. One woman did so well with chai sim, a leaf vegetable, that she built a kitchen and bought a motorbike. Another produced a pile of pumpkins worth $3,500 from $6-worth of seed. Hybridisation meant that seed from the crop could not be kept, because the second crop would be unreliable. But he set the price of new seed as low as he could. In 2017 the company sold 24m “value-packs”, enough for a small plot, for the equivalent of a dollar each. Any profits went to growth and research. The farmers seemed to take this system in their stride. When he visited them in later years they cheered for joy and held parties for him. In 2019 he was awarded the World Food Prize, a nutritional equivalent of the Nobel. His work, however, was far from done. In Asia he still hoped to shift more farmers away from rice; the world had plenty of that, and carbohydrates, as well as meat, were starting to feature too much in Asian diets. Plants needed constant fortifying to adapt to climate change. And he had barely made a start on Africa, where small farmers were struggling terribly and the potential for growth was so obvious. In one of his late interviews he appeared with an array of home-grown vegetables in front of him. His tomatoes and French beans, laid out on a dark-wood table, looked as glossy and beautiful as a still life from the Dutch Golden Age. The vegetable he most often chose to pose with, however, was not the “Glory of Enkhuizen”. It was the warty, bitter, ugly “Jade Star”, which had transformed the lives of his farmer-friends 6,000 miles away. ■ 西蒙・格魯特將更優良的種子撒播至全球各地 來自恩克赫伊曾(Enkhuizen)的種子商於7月6日辭世,享壽90歲。 讓他開始思考的,是一顆高麗菜。不是普通的高麗菜,而是「恩克赫伊曾的榮耀」(Glory of Enkhuizen)這個品種,早在1899年,他的家族公司 Sluis and Groot 就在荷蘭北部的這座小鎮育出這種高麗菜。這是一種漂亮的高麗菜,圓潤緊實,淺綠色的菜心外圍包著深綠色葉片。重量可達三公斤,味道甘甜,容易種植,在歐洲各地都表現良好。 但在這裡卻不行。1965年,西蒙・格魯特在爪哇高地為公司出差推銷種子時,發現一片種滿這種高麗菜的田地。這些菜看起來慘兮兮,稀疏又畸形。很明顯,種子有問題,可能是品質不佳、混雜或遭到摻假;而他最痛恨的,正是壞種子。更重要的是,這種耐霜的高麗菜根本不適合在亞熱帶氣候中生長,也無法抵禦當地的病蟲害。種下它們的農民無法出售這些作物,仍一貧如洗。 他為此苦思了16年,最終這成了他的使命。1981年,Sluis and Groot 被賣給了瑞士的山多士公司(Sandoz),他決定自行創業,致力於改善熱帶地區的種子、農作物、貿易與營養狀況。當時主要糧食(特別是印度的小麥與中國的稻米)已透過雜交育種成功改良,但蔬菜這類「不起眼」的作物卻遭到忽視。然而,他恰恰最愛蔬菜。自1867年起,他家族便開始培育優良的蔬菜與花卉種子,那些鬍鬚滿面的格魯特祖先在恩克赫伊曾率先展開這項事業。種子對這座城鎮也是福氣,因為與農民密切合作,它在戰後逃過了飢荒。 對他來說,熱帶亞洲的蔬菜簡直像是裝滿新奇物種的寶庫:像巨大花穗的莧菜、可在淡水中生長的空心菜、種子與芽都富含蛋白質的綠豆、白蘿蔔、塌棵菜與菜心……它們全都營養豐富、含有大量維生素。對這位習慣花椰菜和馬鈴薯的種子商來說,一切都令人著迷。從市場角度來看,這更是個巨大機會。 他甚至超越了自己最初的期望。到了2020年代,他創立的「東西種子公司」(East-West Seed)所生產的種子,已提升了全球80多國、2千萬小農的收入,範圍涵蓋亞洲、拉丁美洲與非洲。公司那個紅箭頭的標誌對他們而言如同可口可樂的標誌般熟悉。他還建立了一套制度,讓成功的農民教導鄰里。種子好,農民就能繼續耕作,市場有更多貨源,消費者也吃得更健康。這簡單的循環讓所有人受益。 種子是根本,透過雜交育種培育出理想性狀。但農民才是關鍵。他常常親自與農民對話,一身白衣、戴著太陽帽,身形高大、神似殖民地官員,只為學著與他們一同思考。他們大多只有一兩公頃的小田地,因此蔬菜是理想作物。然而,開始種植時買的精美包裝裡,常常裝著劣質基因的種子。他們因貧窮而習慣自行留種,年復一年,導致產量不斷下滑。 但他們極不願意改變。1982年,他在菲律賓設立第一個基地,花了好幾個月才培育出第一批雜交種子。當時的作物是「苦瓜」(Ampalaya),一種像疙瘩黃瓜、味道澀卻常用來炒菜的蔬菜;許多農民本來就種它。他的新品種名為「翡翠之星」(Jade Star),可抵抗霜黴病——這是主要威脅——但幾乎所有試驗作物都失敗了。這也凸顯出,成功的農民如何傳授種植技巧(如種子處理、株距、施肥、灌溉)至關重要。種子全憑信任:相信那顆微小的顆粒會長成你心中想像的植株。而這兩者都需要時間培養。 數十年過後,農民終於被說服。當作物成功時,成果驚人:健壯、繁茂又旺盛。隨著越來越多蔬菜被雜交改良,番茄在印尼低地得以生長,這 在以前是不可能的;泰國愛吃的朝天椒單株產量提高三到四成;長豆長得像森林一樣。農民收入翻倍甚至三倍。有些案例成了佳話。有位婦人種菜心賺了足夠的錢蓋廚房、買機車;另一位用6美元的種子種出價值3500美元的南瓜。 雜交種的缺點是:收成後的種子無法再用,第二代品質不穩。但他總是盡可能將種子售價壓低。2017年,公司販售了2400萬包「超值小包裝」種子,足夠種一小塊地,每包只要一美元左右。利潤全投入成長與研發。農民對這制度似乎欣然接受。多年後他回訪時,農民會歡呼迎接,還為他開派對。 2019年,他榮獲「世界糧食獎」,這被視為營養界的諾貝爾獎。但他自認任務遠未完成。在亞洲,他仍希望更多農民轉作非稻米作物——世界上稻米與碳水已過剩,亞洲飲食中碳水與肉類佔比過高。他還指出,植物需不斷強化,以因應氣候變遷。而在非洲,他才剛起步;那裡的小農情況艱難,但潛力巨大。 在晚年一次受訪時,他面前擺滿自家種的蔬菜。紅蕃茄、四季豆擺在深色木桌上,彷彿一幅荷蘭黃金時代的靜物畫。但他最常與之合影的蔬菜,卻不是那顆「恩克赫伊曾的榮耀」,而是那顆疙疙瘩瘩、苦澀難看、卻改變了6000英里外農民命運的「翡翠之星」。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn
Show more...
4 months ago
35 minutes

出國趣
想要出國留學、打工度假還是自助旅行嗎?兩位英文老師跟你一起拓展視野、提升英文實力、討論國際時事,Let's Fun Fun 學英文,爽爽出國去! -- Hosting provided by SoundOn