Effect of the Great Depression It is difficult to measure the human cost of the Great Depression. The material hardships were bad enough. Men and women lived in lean-tos made of scrap wood and metal, and families went without meat and fresh vegetables for months, existing on a diet of soup and beans. The psychological burden was even greater4: Americans suffered through year after year of grinding poverty with no letup in sight. The unemployed stood in line for hours waiting for relief checks, veterans sold apples or pencils on street comers, their manhood—once prized so highly by the nation—now in question. People left the city for the countryside but found no salvation on the farm. Crops rotted in the fields because prices were too low to make harvesting worthwhile; sheriffs fended off angry crowds as banks foreclosed long overdue mortgages on once prosperous farms. Few escaped the suffering. African Americans who had left the poverty of the rural South for factory jobs in the North were among the first to be laid off. Mexican Americans, who had flowed in to replace European immigrants, met with competition from angry citizens, now willing to do stoop labor in the fields and work as track layers on the railroads. Immigration officials used technicalities to halt the flow across the Rio Grande and even to reverse it; nearly a half million Mexicans were deported in the 1930s, including families with children born in the United States. The poor—black, brown, and white—survived because they knew better than most Americans how to exist in poverty. They stayed in bed in cold weather, both to keep warm and to avoid unnecessary burning up of calories; they patched their shoes with pieces of rubber from discarded tires, heated only the kitchens of their homes, and ate scraps of food that others would reject. The middle class, which had always lived with high expectations, was hit hard. Professionals and white-collar workers refused to ask for charity even while their families went without food; one New York dentist and his wife turned on the gas and left a note saying, “We want to get out of the way before we are forced to accept relief money.” People who fell behind in their mortgage payments lost their homes and then faced eviction when they could not pay the rent. Health care declined. Middle-class people stopped going to doctors and dentists regularly, unable to make the required cash payment in advance for services rendered. Even the well-to-do were affected, giving up many of their former luxuries and weighed down with guilt as they watched former friends and business associates join the ranks of the impoverished. “My father lost everything in the Depression” became an all-too-familiar refrain among young people who dropped out of college. Many Americans sought escape in movement. Men, boys, and some women, rode the rails in search of jobs, hopping freights to move south in the winter or west in the summer. On the Missouri Pacific alone, the number of vagrants increased from just over 13,000 in 1929 to nearly 200,000 in 1931. One town in the Southwest hired special policemen to keep vagrants from leaving the boxcars. Those who became tramps had to keep on the move, but they did find a sense of community in the hobo jungles that sprang up along the major railroad routes. Here a man could find a place to eat and sleep, and people with whom to share his misery. Louis Banks, a black veteran, told interviewer Studs Terkel what these informal camps were like: Black and white, it didn’t make any difference who you were, cause everybody was poor. All friendly, sleep in a jungle. We used to take a big pot and cook food, cabbage, meat and beans all together. We all set together, we made a tent. Twenty-five or thirty would be out on the side of the rail, white and colored: They didn’t have no mothers or sisters, they didn’t have no home, they were dirty, they had overalls on, they didn’t have no food, they didn’t have anything.
相关问题推荐
-
Working Together Against the Infectious Diseases There is another area that really may sound like it’s outside the range of politics and Iraqi people where we’re cooperating together, but it’s an area that is vital to the well-being of the Chinese people, the American people, the people in the world, and it’s now we’re working together to deal with the dangers inherent in infectious diseases. China’s sobering experience with SARS stands as a lesson to all countries on the challenge of infectious diseases. I have called HIV/AIDS the world’s greatest weapon of mass destruction today. It threatens to kill tens of millions of men, women and children—in the Caribbean, in Latin America, in the subcontinent, especially in Africa—and yes, it is a danger to China as well. And China’s government is facing up to this crisis, working with us. The United States has told China we are ready to help. Last month, our Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson spoke in China of President Bush’s interest in furthering our practical cooperation on HIV/AIDS and other health issues. Specialists from our Centers for Disease Control are working on the ground with their Chinese counterparts. Our National Institute of Health has granted $14.8 million to help China upgrade its health care infrastructure. My friends, it is upon such concrete forms of cooperation on issues of regional and global importance that a 21st century US-China relationship will be built, issue by issue, experience by experience, challenge by challenge, initiative by initiative, program by program. As China participates more actively in world affairs, we will extend our welcome. Building and sustaining a healthy overall relationship is good for America, it is good for China, it is good for the region, and good for the international community.
-
Healthcare Reform During the past two decades, all of the industrialized nations have enacted some form of healthcare reform. America is no exception. Just a few years ago, the U. S. was consumed by a vigorous public debate about healthcare. In the end, the debate reaffirmed that the U. S. would retain its essentially market-based system. Instead of reform imposed from the top down, 3 the American healthcare system underwent some rather profound self-reform, driven by powerful market forces. The market—not the government—managed to wring inflation out of the private healthcare market. 4 Today, it appears that U.S. healthcare costs are again on the rise. At the same time, American patients—like patients elsewhere—are becoming more vocal5 about the restrictions many face in their healthcare plans. Talk of government-led reform is once again in the air. 6 We must think twice, though, before embarking on “reform” if that means imposing further restrictions on our healthcare markets. The more sensible course is to introduce policies that make the market work better—that is, to the advantage of consumers. I base this argument on our company’s decades of experience in healthcare systems around the world, which has given us a unique global perspective on the right and wrong way to reform healthcare. The wrong way is to impose layer after layer of regulation and restrictions. We have seen this approach tried in many countries, and we have always see it fail—fail to hold down costs, and fail to provide the best quality care. Medicine is changing at so rapid a pace that no government agency or expert commission can keep up with it. Only an open, informed and competitive market can do that. This lesson holds true for the U. S., and for all countries contemplating healthcare reform. Free markets do what governments mean to do—but can’t. The right approach10 is to foster a flexible, market-based system in which consumers have rights, responsibilities, and choices. Healthcare systems do not work if patients are treated as passive recipients of services: 11 they do work if consumers are well-informed about quality, costs, and new treatments, and are free to act responsibly on that knowledge. Of course, reform should never be driven purely by cost considerations. Instead, we ought to devise new ways of funding healthcare that will make it possible for all patients to afford the best care. Ideally, these new approaches would not only reward individuals and families but also encourage innovation, which can make healthcare systems more efficient, more productive, and ultimately of greater value for patients. The path we choose will have enormous implications for all of us. We are in a golden age of science, and no field of scientific inquiry holds more promise than that of biomedicine. 13 Not only can we look forward to the discovery of cures for chronic and acute disease, but also to the development of enabling therapies that can help people enjoy more rewarding and productive lives.14 New drugs are already helping people who would once have been disabled by arthritis or cardiovascular disease stay active and mobile.15 More effective anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are beginning to relieve the crippling illness of the mind, allowing sufferers to function normally and happily in society. The promise is quite simply—one of longer, healthier lives. 16 What is at issue are the pace and breadth of discovery, and how quickly we can make the benefits of our knowledge available to the patients who need them. Therefore, the policy environment the biomedical industry will face in the next century may make or break the next wave of biomedical breakthroughs. 17 Will that environment include protection for intellectual property, freedom for the market to determine price, and support for a robust science base? 18 Will healthcare systems nurture innovation, or remove incentives for discovery? Will they give consumers information and options, or impose stringent rules and regulations that limit access and choice? For the U. S., as for the
-
Robot Even before the first robot was built, the subject of robotics was controversial. The word "robot" was coined in 1921 by a Czech playwright who wrote about a colony of machines endowed with artificial intelligence that eventually turned against3 their human creators. Although that account was fictional, the first industrial robots were in use by the early 1960s. Today, we continue to be intrigued by robots and their potential for both good and evil. Basically, a robot is any machine that performs work or other actions normally done by humans. Most robots are used in factories to make products such as cars and electronics. Others are used to explore underwater, in volcanoes and even on other planets. Robots consist of three main components: a brain, which is usually a computer; actuators and mechanical parts such as motors, wheels and gears; and sensors for detecting images, sound, temperature, motion and light. With these basic components, robots can interact with their environment and perform the tasks they are designed to carry out. The advantages are obvious — robots can do things humans just don’t want to do, and they are usually more cost effective. Robots can also do things more precisely than humans and allow progress in medical science and other useful advances. But, as with any machine, a robot can break down and even cause disaster. There’s also the possibility that wicked people will use robots for evil purposes. Yet this is also true with other forms of technology such as weapons and biological material. Robots will probably be used even more in the future. They will continue to do tasks where danger, repetition, cost or the need for precision prevents humans from performing. As to whether they will be used for good or evil, that depends on the nature of the humans who create them.
-
The Truth about Genetically Modified Food At almost every public lecture I give, someone asks me my opinion on genetic modification—whatever be the topic of the lecture. Genetic modification (GM) has the power to save lives through its use in medicine, such as the production of insulin for diabetics or the treatment of genetic disorders. The current outcry comes when it is used to produce food. Some of these public concerns reflect real problems, but others are fuelled by misinformation and overdramatisation. There is nothing new about crop modification; plant breeders have been doing it since agriculture began. The wonderful range of apples or potatoes we now enjoy is the result of crossing different varieties. Cabbages, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale and broccoli all originated from one botanical species. Modern molecular biology has enabled us to go much further. We can now isolate the gene for a particular characteristic of an organism and transfer it to another species. It is this practice of transforming a plant with alien genes—perhaps from an animal or bacterium—that is causing all the controversy. There are three main concerns. Scientists can now take a gene for resistance to a particular herbicide and transfer it to a crop: when these plants are sprayed with weed-killer, the weeds are destroyed while the crop is unharmed. A prime concern is the harmful effect this could have on the biodiversity of farmland, where so many insects, birds and other animals depend upon “weed” species. Another fear is that alien genes from a GM plant could escape into a wild population of a related species. Since plants are fertilized by pollen that is carried through their, often for great distances, this is entirely possible. A wild species modified in this way with pesticide resistance could become a “super-weed”, while a species that becomes unnaturally resistant to animals that feed on it could disrupt the food chain. The third worry concerns a proposal to produce seeds for cereals that cannot germinate to produce next year’s seeds. This “terminator technology” would be of obvious advantage to seed companies, since farms would be forced to buy new weed annually. But the same technology could be devastating to some farmers in the developing world who depend upon saving some seeds for next year’s crop. Fortunately this technology is not yet in use and there has been strong pressure to abandon it. I would not hesitate to eat a GM vegetable—it is most unlikely that the current modifications are harmful to the consumer, despite what we read in the press. However, the introduction of animal genes into food plants presents considerable ethical difficulties to vegetarinsarians and member of religious that forbid the eating of certain animals. This is one of the reasons people are demanding that tall genetically modified food products be clearly labeled. The public have a fight to know what they are eating and a fight to choose. I believe that in my own nation GM is well regulated, but this cannot be said for some other countries. One of the problems is that at the moment this technology is commercially motivated. Because the compositions developing GM food want to introduce it as quickly as possible, in my opinion, it is being rushed into without adequate research or precautions. Genetic’ modification is here to stay, and there is no doubt it will save lives. But ,like so many other scientific discoveries, such as splitting the atom, it can be seriously misused. Instead of condemning the technique, we, should ensure it is used wisely. We need to evaluate each application carefully, from environmental and ethical standpoints, and we must urge governments and companies to use it for good rather than for greed.
-
Green Gene Technology For the past 10,000 years humans have influenced the plants they use at first unknowingly, later by design. Today’s crops have been created by a process of selection and classical breeding. More specific improvements in breeding will be possible in future. Science has cracked the genetic information code. Green gene technology is an effective tool in crop breeding, enabling us to develop new crops even more rapidly and specifically. We can make them more efficient, optimizing their contents and valuable substances to suit the wishes and requirements of customers and the processing industry. Their metabolism can be individually modified, making them produce starch, protein and fats with special properties. Through gene transfer plants can be made more resistant to viruses, bacteria, harmful fungi and insect pests. Genetically modified plants can be cultivated to possess improved stress behavior, with the result that they absorb water better in dry locations and can make more efficient use of soil nutrients. We can also optimize weed control. To do so, we make crops tolerant to environmentally sound and easily degradable herbicides. This is not as simple as it sounds. But we have been successful: Innovator has been on the Canadian market since 1995. This is the first oilseed rape variety to contain the glufosinate tolerance gene, facilitating the use of AgrEvo’s broad-spectrum herbicide liberty. We are committed to green gene technology, with which we aim to make crop breeding even more efficient and environmentally friendly. Before being brought on to the market these genetically modified plants are researched and tested for years until the questions posed regarding their safety have been answered. This is a great opportunity for us to realize our vision: the use of faster methods to breed varieties which will continue to provide us with sufficient food and raw materials in future. Our fossil reserves will soon be exhausted. Experts estimate that we only have enough oil for another 43 years and natural gas for less than 60. This means we must rethink and act accordingly, using new crop varieties to step up the move to replenishable sources of raw materials and energy. In other words, green gene technology is the key technology for sustainable agriculture.