ethnic capital and intermarriage
JEWS 犹太人中英
Anti-semitism 反犹太主义
• Hitler was an extreme racist and anti semitic. He wrote in "Mein Kampf(我 的奋斗）": "Aryan maximum opposite is a Jew" he put the Jews as the enemy of the world, the root of all evil things, the root of all evil, human life order. These ideas became the Hitler later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews, the theory basis to the extermination of the Jews
intelligence quotient
•
The Jews through scientific testing, the average intelligence quotient to reach more than 117, far higher than other ethnic groups. Although the Jewish population of only 16,000,000 people, accounted for less than 0.25% of the global population, but access to 27% of the world's Nobel award, Nobel prize winning probability is much higher than other ethnic groups, the probability is 108 times the global average. Einstein, Marx, Von Neumann and other historical genius shine came from a small number of people.
可持续性资本理论
B OSTON U NIVERSITY Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Working Papers SeriesNumber 9501 September 1995 THE CAPITAL THEORY APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY:A CRITICAL APPRAISALbyDavid Stern675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston MA 02215Tel: (617) 353-3083Fax: (617) 353-5986E-Mail: dstern@WWW: /sterncv.htmlThe Capital Theory Approach to Sustainability:A Critical AppraisalDavid I. SternBoston UniversityNovember 1995______________________________________________________________________________ Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston MA 02215, USA. Tel: (617) 353 3083 Fax: (617) 353 5986, E-Mail: dstern@The Capital Theory Approach to Sustainability:A Critical Appraisal______________________________________________________________________________ SummaryThis paper examines critically some recent developments in the sustainability debate. The large number of definitions of sustainability proposed in the 1980's have been refined into a smaller number of positions on the relevant questions in the 1990's. The most prominent of these are based on the idea of maintaining a capital stock. I call this the capital theory approach (CTA). Though these concepts are beginning to inform policies there are a number of difficulties in applying this approach in a theoretically valid manner and a number of critics of the use of the CTA as a guide to policy. First, I examine the internal difficulties with the CTA and continue to review criticisms from outside the neoclassical normative framework. The accounting approach obscures the underlying assumptions used and gives undue authoritativeness to the results. No account is taken of the uncertainty involved in sustainability analysis of any sort. In addition, by focusing on a representative consumer and using market (or contingent market) valuations of environmental resources, the approach (in common with most normative neoclassical economics) does not take into account distributional issues or accommodate alternative views on environmental values. Finally, I examine alternative approaches to sustainability analysis and policy making. These approaches accept the open-ended and multi-dimensional nature of sustainability and explicitly open up to political debate the questions that are at risk of being hidden inside the black-box of seemingly objective accounting.I.INTRODUCTIONThe Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) proposed that sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present generation while letting future generations meet their own needs". Economists initially had some difficulty with this concept, some dismissing it1 and others proliferating a vast number of alternative definitions and policy prescriptions (see surveys by: Pezzey, 1989; Pearce et al., 1989; Rees, 1990; Lélé, 1991).In recent years, economists have made some progress in articulating their conception of sustainability. The large number of definitions of sustainability proposed in the 1980's have been refined into a smaller number of positions on the relevant questions in the 1990's. There is agreement that sustainability implies that certain indicators of welfare or development are non-declining over the very long term, that is development is sustained (Pezzey, 1989). Sustainable development is a process of change in an economy that does not violate such a sustainability criterion. Beyond this, the dominant views are based on the idea of maintaining a capital stock as a prerequisite for sustainable development. Within this school of thought there are opposing camps which disagree on the empirical question of the degree to which various capital stocks can be substituted for each other, though there has been little actual empirical research on this question.There is a consensus among a large number of economists that the CTA is a useful means of addressing sustainability issues.2 Capital theory concepts are beginning to inform policy, as in the case of the UN recommendations on environmental accounting and the US response to them (Beardsley, 1994; Carson et al., 1994; Steer and Lutz, 1993). There are, however, a growing number of critics who question whether this is a useful way to address sustainability (eg. Norgaard, 1991; Amir, 1992; Common and Perrings, 1992; Karshenas, 1994; Pezzey, 1994; Common and Norton, 1994; Faucheux et al., 1994; Common, 1995). The literature on sustainable development and sustainability is vast and continually expanding. There are also a large number ofsurveys of that literature (eg. Tisdell, 1988; Pearce et al., 1989; Rees, 1990; Simonis, 1990; Lélé, 1991; Costanza and Daly, 1992; Pezzey, 1992; Toman et al., 1994). I do not intend to survey this literature.The aim of this paper is to present a critique of the capital theory approach to sustainability (CTA henceforth) as a basis for policy. This critique both outlines the difficulties in using and applying the CTA from a viewpoint internal to neoclassical economics and problems with this approach from a viewpoint external to neoclassical economics. I also suggest some alternative approaches to sustainability relevant analysis and policy. The neoclasscial sustainability literature generally ignores the international dimensions of the sustainability problem. I also ignore this dimension in this paper.The paper is structured as follows. In the second section, I discuss the background to the emergence of the capital theory approach, while the third section briefly outlines the basic features of the approach. The fourth section examines the limitations of the CTA from within the viewpoint of neoclassical economics and the debate between proponents of "weak sustainability" and "strong sustainability". The following sections examine the drawbacks of this paradigm from a viewpoint external to neoclassical economics and discuss alternative methods of analysis and decision-making for sustainability. The concluding section summarizes the principal points.SHIFTING DEBATE: EMERGENCE OF THE CAPITAL THEORY II. THEAPPROACHMuch of the literature on sustainable development published in the 1980's was vague (see Lélé, 1991; Rees, 1990; Simonis, 1990). There was a general lack of precision and agreement in defining sustainability, and outlining appropriate sustainability policies. This confusion stemmed in part from an imprecise demarcation between ends and means. By "ends" I mean the definition ofsustainability ie. what is to be sustained, while "means" are the methods to achieve sustainability or necessary and/or sufficient conditions that must be met in order to do the same. As the goal of policy must be a subjective choice, considerable debate surrounded and continues to surround the definition of sustainability (eg. Tisdell, 1988). As there is considerable scientific uncertainty regarding sustainability possibilities, considerable debate continues to surround policies to achieve any given goal.Sharachchandra Lélé (1991) stated that "sustainable development is in real danger of becoming a cliché like appropriate technology - a fashionable phrase that everyone pays homage to but nobody cares to define" (607). Lélé pointed out that different authors and speakers meant very different things by sustainability, and that even UNEP's and WCED's definitions of sustainable development were vague, and confused ends with means. Neither provided any scientific examination of whether their proposed policies would lead to increased sustainability. "Where the sustainable development movement has faltered is in its inability to develop a set of concepts, criteria and policies that are coherent or consistent - both externally (with physical and social reality) and internally (with each other)." (613). Judith Rees (1990) expressed extreme skepticism concerning both sustainable development and its proponents. “It is easy to see why the notion of sustainable development has become so popular ... No longer does environmental protection mean sacrifice and confrontation with dominant materialist values” (435). She also argued that sustainable development was just so much political rhetoric. A UNEP report stated: "The ratio of words to action is weighted too heavily towards the former" (quoted in Simonis, 1990, 35). In the early days of the sustainability debate, vagueness about the meaning of sustainability was advantageous in attracting the largest constituency possible, but in the longer run, greater clarity is essential for sustaining concern.In the 1990's many people have put forward much more precisely articulated definitions of sustainable development, conditions and policies required to achieve sustainability, and criteria toassess whether development is sustainable. This has coincided with a shift from a largely politically-driven dialogue to a more theory-driven dialogue. With this has come a clearer understanding of what kinds of policies would be required to move towards alternative sustainability goals, and what the limits of our knowledge are. There is a stronger awareness of the distinction between ends and means. Most, but not all (eg. Amir, 1992), analysts agree that sustainable development is a meaningful concept but that the claims of the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) that growth just had to change direction were far too simplistic.There is a general consensus, especially among economists, on the principal definition of sustainable development used by David Pearce et al. (1989, 1991): Non-declining average human welfare over time (Mäler, 1991; Pezzey, 1992; Toman et al., 1994).3 This definition of sustainability implies a departure from the strict principle of maximizing net present value in traditional cost benefit analysis (Pezzey, 1989), but otherwise it does not imply a large departure from conventional economics. John Pezzey (1989, 1994) suggests a rule of maximizing net present value subject to the sustainability constraint of non-declining mean welfare. It encompasses many but not all definitions of sustainability. For example, it excludes a definition of sustainability based on maintaining a set of ecosystem functions, which seems to be implied by the Holling-sustainability criterion (Common and Perrings, 1992; Holling, 1973, 1986) or on maintaining given stocks of natural assets irrespective of any contribution to human welfare. A sustainable ecosystem might not be an undesirable goal but it could be too strict a criterion for the goal of maintaining human welfare (Karshenas, 1994) and could in some circumstances lead to declining human welfare. Not all ecosystem functions and certainly not all natural assets may be necessary for human welfare. Some aspects of the natural world such as smallpox bacteria may be absolutely detrimental to people. In the context of the primary Pearce et al. definition, the Holling-sustainability criterion is a means not an end.The advantage of formalizing the concept of sustainability is that this renders it amenable to analysis by economic theory (eg. Barbier and Markandya, 1991; Victor, 1991; Common and Perrings, 1992; Pezzey, 1989, 1994; Asheim, 1994) and to quantitative investigations (eg. Repetto et al., 1989; Pearce and Atkinson, 1993; Proops and Atkinson, 1993; Stern, 1995). Given the above formal definition of sustainability, many economists have examined what the necessary or sufficient conditions for the achievement of sustainability might be. Out of this activity has come the CTA described in the next section. The great attractiveness of this new approach is that it suggests relatively simple rules to ensure sustainability and relatively simple indicators of sustainability. This situation has seemingly cleared away the vagueness that previously attended discussions of sustainability and prompted relatively fast action by governments and international organizations to embrace specific goals and programs aimed at achieving this notion of the necessary conditions for sustainability.III. THE ESSENCE OF THE CAPITAL THEORY APPROACHThe origins of the CTA are in the literature on economic growth and exhaustible resources that flourished in the 1970s, exemplified by the special issue of the Review of Economic Studies published in 1974 (Heal, 1974). Robert Solow (1986) built on this earlier literature and the work of John Hartwick (1977, 1978a, 1978b) to formalize the constant capital rule. In these early models there was a single non-renewable resource and a stock of manufactured capital goods. A production function produced a single output, which could be used for either consumption or investment using the two inputs. The elasticity of substitution between the two inputs was one which implied that natural resources were essential but that the average product of resources could rise without bound given sufficient manufactured capital.The models relate to the notion of sustainability as non-declining welfare through the assumption that welfare is a monotonically increasing function of consumption (eg. Mäler, 1991). The path ofconsumption over time (and therefore of the capital stock) in these model economies depends on the intertemporal optimization rule. Under the Rawlsian maxi-min condition consumption must be constant. No net saving is permissible as this is regarded as an unjust burden on the present generation. Under the Ramsey utilitarian approach with zero discounting consumption can increase without bound (Solow, 1974). Here the present generation may be forced to accept a subsistence standard of living if this can benefit the future generations however richer they might be. Paths that maximize net present value with positive discount rates typically peak and then decline so that they are not sustainable (Pezzey, 1994). Pezzey (1989) suggested a hybrid version which maximizes net present value subject to an intertemporal constraint that utility be non-declining. In this case utility will first increase until it reaches a maximum sustainable level. This has attracted consensus as the general optimizing criterion for sustainable development. Geir Asheim (1991) derives this condition more formally.Under the assumption that the elasticity of substitution is one, non-declining consumption depends on the maintenance of the aggregate capital stock ie. conventional capital plus natural resources, used to produce consumption (and investment) goods (Solow, 1986). Aggregate capital, W t,and the change in aggregate capital are defined by:W t=p Kt K t + p Rt S t (1)∆W t=p Kt∆K t + p Rt R t (2)where S is the stock of non-renewable resources and R the use per period. K is the manufactured capital stock and the p i are the relevant prices. In the absence of depreciation of manufactured capital, maintenance of the capital stock implies investment of the rents from the depletion of the natural resource in manufactured capital - the Hartwick rule (Hartwick 1977, 1978a, 1978b). Income is defined using the Hicksian notion (Hicks, 1946) that income is the maximum consumption in a period consistent with the maintenance of wealth. Sustainable income is,therefore, the maximum consumption in a period consistent with the maintenance of aggregate capital intact (Weitzman, 1976; Mäler, 1991) and for a flow of income to be sustainable, the stock of capital needs to be constant or increasing over time (Solow, 1986).The initial work can be extended in various ways. The definition of capital that satisfies these conditions can be extended to include a number of categories of "capital": natural, manufactured, human, and institutional.4 Natural capital is a term used by many authors (it seems Smith (1977) was the first) for the aggregate of natural resource stocks that produce inputs of services or commodities for the economy. Some of the components of natural capital may be renewable resources. Manufactured capital refers to the standard neoclassical definition of "a factor of production produced by the economic system" (Pearce, 1992). Human capital also follows the standard definition. Institutional capital includes the institutions and knowledge necessary for the organization and reproduction of the economic system. It includes the ethical or moral capital referred to by Fred Hirsch (1976) and the cultural capital referred to by Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke (1992). For convenience I give the name 'artificial capital' to the latter three categories jointly. None of these concepts is unproblematic and natural capital is perhaps the most problematic. Technical change and population growth can also be accommodated (see Solow, 1986).Empirical implementation of the CTA tends to focus on measurement of sustainable income (eg. El Serafy, 1989; Repetto, 1989) or net capital accumulation (eg. Pearce and Atkinson, 1993; Proops and Atkinson, 1993) rather than on direct estimation of the capital stock.5 The theoretical models that underpin the CTA typically assume a Cobb-Douglas production function with constant returns to scale, no population growth, and no technological change. Any indices of net capital accumulation which attempt to make even a first approximation to reality must take these variables into account. None of the recent empirical studies does so. For example, David Pearce and Giles Atkinson (1993) present data from eighteen countries on savings and depreciation of natural andmanufactured capital as a proportion of GNP. They demonstrate that only eight countries had non-declining stocks of total capital, measured at market prices, and thus passed a weak sustainability criterion of a constant aggregate capital stock, but their methodology ignores population growth, returns to scale or technological change.IV.INTERNAL APPRAISAL OF THE CAPITAL THEORY APPROACHIn this section, I take as given the basic assumptions and rationale of neoclassical economics and highlight some of the technical problems that are encountered in using the CTA as an operational guide to policy. From a neoclassical standpoint these might be seen as difficulties in the positive theory that may lead to difficulties in the normative theory of sustainability policy. In the following section, I take as given solutions to these technical difficulties and examine some of the problems inherent in the normative neoclassical approach to sustainability.a.Limits to Substitution in Production and "Strong Sustainability"Capital theorists are divided among proponents of weak sustainability and strong sustainability. This terminology is confusing as it suggests that the various writers have differing ideas of what sustainability is.6 In fact they agree on that issue, but differ on what is the minimum set of necessary conditions for achieving sustainability. The criterion that distinguishes the categories is the degree of substitutability believed to be possible between natural and artificial capital.7The weak sustainability viewpoint follows from the early literature and holds that the relevant capital stock is an aggregate stock of artificial and natural capital. Weak sustainability assumes that the elasticity of substitution between natural capital and artificial capital is one and therefore that there are no natural resources that contribute to human welfare that cannot be asymptotically replaced by other forms of capital. Reductions in natural capital may be offset by increases inartificial capital. It is sometimes implied that this might be not only a necessary condition but also a sufficient condition for achieving sustainability (eg. Solow, 1986, 1993).Proponents of the strong sustainability viewpoint such as Robert Costanza and Herman Daly (1992) argue that though this is a necessary condition for sustainability it cannot possibly be a sufficient condition. Instead, a minimum necessary condition is that separate stocks of aggregate natural capital and aggregate artificial capital must be maintained. Costanza and Daly (1992) state: "It is important for operational purposes to define sustainable development in terms of constant or nondeclining total natural capital, rather than in terms of nondeclining utility" (39).8 Other analysts such as members of the "London School" hold views between these two extremes (see Victor, 1991). They argue that though it is possible to substitute between natural and artificial capital there are certain stocks of "critical natural capital" for which no substitutes exist. A necessary condition for sustainability is that these individual stocks must be maintained in addition to the general aggregate capital stock.The weak sustainability condition violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as a minimum quantity of energy is required to transform matter into economically useful products (Hall et al., 1986) and energy cannot be produced inside the economic system.9 It also violates the First Law on the grounds of mass balance (Pezzey, 1994). Also ecological principles concerning the importance of diversity in system resilience (Common and Perrings, 1992) imply that minimum quantities of a large number of different capital stocks (eg. species) are required to maintain life support services. The London School view and strong sustainability accommodate these facts by assuming that there are lower bounds on the stocks of natural capital required to support the economy, in terms of the supply of materials and energy, and in terms of the assimilative capacity of the environment, and that certain categories of critical natural capital cannot be replaced by other forms of capital.Beyond this recognition it is an empirical question as to how far artificial capital can substitute for natural capital. There has been little work on this at scales relevant to sustainability. However, the econometric evidence from studies of manufacturing industry suggest on the whole that energy and capital are complements (Berndt and Wood, 1979).In some ways the concept of maintaining a constant stock of aggregate natural capital is even more bizarre than maintaining a non-declining stock of total capital. It seems more reasonable to suggest that artificial capital might replace some of the functions of natural capital than to suggest that in general various natural resources may be substitutes for each other. How can oil reserves substitute for clean air, or iron deposits for topsoil? Recognizing this, some of the strong sustainability proponents have dropped the idea of maintaining an aggregate natural capital stock as proposed by Costanza and Daly (1992) and instead argue that minimum stocks of all natural resources should be maintained (Faucheux and O'Connor, 1995). However, this can no longer really be considered an example of the CTA. Instead it is an approach that depends on the concept of safe minimum standards or the precautionary principle. The essence of the CTA is that some aggregation of resources using monetary valuations is proposed as an indicator for sustainability.The types of models which admit an index of aggregate capital, whether aggregate natural capital or aggregate total capital, is very limited. Construction of aggregate indices or subindices of inputs depend on the production function being weakly separable in those subgroups (Berndt and Christensen, 1973). For example it is only possible to construct an index of aggregate natural capital if the marginal rate of substitution between two forms of natural capital is independent of the quantities of labor or capital employed. This seems an unlikely proposition as the exploitation of many natural resources is impractical without large capital stocks. For example, in the production of caught fish, the marginal rate of substitution, and under perfect competition the price ratio, between stocks of fresh water fish and marine fish should be independent of the number of fishingboats available. This is clearly not the case. People are not likely to put a high value on the stock of deep sea fish when they do not have boats to catch them with.If substitution is limited, technological progress might reduce the quantity of natural resource inputs required per unit of output. However, there are arguments that indicate that technical progress itself is bounded (see Pezzey, 1994; Stern, 1994). One of these (Pezzey, 1994) is that, just as in the case of substitution, ultimately the laws of thermodynamics limit the minimization of resource inputs per unit output. Stern (1994) argues that unknown useful knowledge is itself a nonrenewable resource. Technological progress is the extraction of this knowledge from the environment and the investment of resources in this activity will eventually be subject to diminishing returns.Limits to substitution in production might be thought of in a much broader way to include nonlinearities and threshold effects. This view is sometimes described as the "ecological" viewpoint on sustainability (Common and Perrings, 1992; Common, 1995) or as the importance of maintaining the "resilience" of ecological systems rather than any specific stocks or species. This approach derives largely from the work of Holling (1973, 1986). In this view ecosystems are locally stable in the presence of small shocks or perturbations but may be irreversibly altered by large shocks. Structural changes in ecosystems such as those that come about through human interference and particularly simplification, may make these systems more susceptible to losing resilience and being permanently degraded. There is clearly some substitutability between species or inorganic elements in the role of maintaining ecosystem productivity, however, beyond a certain point this substitutability may suddenly fail to hold true. This approach also asks us to look at development paths as much less linear and predictable than is implied in the CTA literature.All things considered, what emerges is a quite different approach to sustainability policy. It is probable that substitution between natural and artificial capital is limited, as is ultimately technicalchange. Additionally the joint economy-ecosystem system may be subject to nonlinear dynamics. This implies that eventually the economy must approach a steady state where the volume of physical economic activity is dependent on the maximum economic and sustainable yield of renewable resources or face decline ie. profit (or utility) maximizing use of renewable resources subject to the sustainability constraint. As in Herman Daly's vision (Daly, 1977) qualitative change in the nature of economic output is still possible. Sustainability policy would require not just maintaining some stocks of renewable resources but also working to reduce "threats to sustainability" (Common, 1995) that might cause the system to pass over a threshold and reduce long-run productivity.The notion of Hicksian income originally applied to an individual price-taking firm (Faucheux and O'Connor, 1995). However, even here it is not apparent that the myopic policy of maintaining capital intact from year to year is the best or only way to ensure the sustainability of profits into the future. If a competing firm makes an innovation that renders the firm's capital stock obsolete, the latter's income may drop to zero. This is despite it previously following a policy of maintaining its capital intact. The firm's income measured up to this point is clearly seen to be unsustainable. In fact its policy has been shown to be irrelevant to long-run sustainability. In the real world firms will carry out activities that may not contribute to the year to year maintenance of capital and will reduce short-run profits such as research and development and attempts to gain market share.10 These activities make the firm more resilient against future shocks and hence enhance sustainability.b.Prices for AggregationSupposing that the necessary separability conditions are met so that aggregation of a capital stock is possible, analysts still have to obtain an appropriate set of prices so that the value of the capital stock is a sustainability relevant value. The CTA is more or less tautological if we use the "right" prices. However, these correct "sustainability prices" are unknown and unknowable. A number of。
传统家庭和现代家庭的区别英语作文高中
传统家庭和现代家庭的区别英语作文高中全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1Families Ain't What They Used to BeYo, what's up fam? Today I want to rap about how families have changed over time. Back in the day, most families were pretty traditional, but nowadays things are way different. Let me break it down for you.Traditional FamiliesIn traditional families, there was usually a dad who went to work to be the breadwinner, and a mom who stayed home to take care of the kids and the household. The parents were married, and the kids were their biological children that they had together.Roles were pretty rigid - dad did masculine stuff like mowing the lawn and fixing the car, while mom did feminine tasks like cooking, cleaning, and child-rearing. Extended family like grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins lived close by and were involved in each other's lives.Most traditional families were also part of the same racial, ethnic, and religious communities that shared the same values and customs when it came to stuff like holidays, food, clothes, you name it. Having kids out of wedlock or getting divorced was majorly frowned upon back then.Modern FamiliesThese days, the whole concept of family has been flipped on its head. For starters, way more women are working outside the home and becoming the primary breadwinners. At the same time, there are tons of stay-at-home dads now too.Roles are much more flexible - fathers can be nurturing caregivers, while mothers can be tough disciplinarians. Chores and responsibilities get split up however works best for each individual modern family situation.There's also a huge increase in single-parent households headed by just a mom or dad. Sometimes those single parents never married the other biological parent. Other times, the parents got divorced down the line.Speaking of divorce, that's become way more accepted and commonplace these days. And even when parents do staymarried, more families are choosing not to have kids at all or just have one kid.Family structures have gotten super diverse too. Now you've got all kinds of blended families with step-parents andstep-siblings. LGBTQ couples of the same gender are able to get married and have kids through adoption, surrogacy, or other methods.There's also a lot more racial, ethnic, and religious intermarriage happening compared to back in the day. Families come in all shapes, sizes and backgrounds.Extended families tend to be more spread out geographically as well. It's not as common to have multiple generations living together under one roof or in the same neighborhood.My Two CentsPersonally, I don't think one type of family setup is necessarily better than another. Every family has its own unique situation, and what works for one might not work for another.I do think modern families provide more freedom, flexibility and acceptance around how to structure family life in a way that's suitable for each individual circumstance. But I also seevalue in some of the traditional family values like commitment, sacrifice, and prioritizing family.At the end of the day, what really matters is that families provide a loving, stable, and supportive environment for raising kids with strong morals and values. As long as there's love, respect and open communication, a family can take on any form and still be a fam.Agree? Disagree? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Make sure to smash that like button while you're at it! I'm out, peace!篇2The Changing Face of FamiliesBeing part of a family is something that pretty much everyone experiences. But have you ever stopped to think about how different families can be? There's no one-size-fits-all definition of what a "normal" family looks like nowadays. The traditional idea of a family that lots of people grew up with - a mom, a dad, and kids all living together - is just one type among many these days.In the past, the traditional nuclear family was kind of the default. A married couple would have children, and one parent(usually the dad) would go out and work to earn money, while the other parent (usually the mom) would stay home and take care of the kids and household. Grandparents and other extended family members sometimes lived together too or at least nearby. This type of traditional family structure was really widespread and considered basically the norm.But today's families come in all kinds of shapes and sizes that simply weren't as common back then. More women are working outside the home now, and lots of families have both parents employed. Some kids are being raised by just one parent rather than two. Other families have same-sex parents. There are stepfamilies where the parents got remarried after a divorce and brought kids from previous marriages together. Some kids are adopted or live with grandparents or other relatives as guardians. The list goes on!Another big difference between traditional and modern families is how household roles and responsibilities are divided up. Back in the day, gender roles were very rigid - dads were the breadwinners working to support the family financially, and moms focused solely on housework and childrearing. But those strict roles have really loosened up a lot now. In many households, both parents work and share responsibilities aroundthe house and with the kids more equally. Parenting duties and decisions get made jointly rather than defaulting to traditional gender roles.Family values around things like authority, discipline, and independence have shifted too. Traditional families tended to be more hierarchical and patriarchal, with the father as the ultimate authority figure that kids were expected to obey without question. Sparing the rod was certainly not sparing the child back then - physical punishment was a lot more acceptable and common for disciplining kids who stepped out of line. And from an early age, children were encouraged to be independent and self-sufficient.Nowadays, parenting philosophies tend to favor more of an equal partnership between parents and kids built on mutual communication, understanding, and respect rather than strict obedience to authority. There's a bigger emphasis on nurturing kids' self-esteem and creating a supportive environment for them to find their own way. Physical discipline is a lot less accepted, if used at all. At the same time, some would say modern parenting is overprotective and doesn't pushself-reliance as much as it should.You can see differences in modern vs. traditional family lifestyles and values all around too. For one thing, parents today are just straight-up way busier. With most households being dual-income, kids are shuttled between school, activities, childcare, and parents' workplaces in this crazy juggling act that traditional families rarely had to deal with. Evening family meal times are a lot less regular when everyone is running in different directions.Technology has totally changed family dynamics too. Both parents and kids often have their faces glued to phones, tablets, and other screens for entertainment, communication, or remote work/schooling instead of engaging with each other directly. Sharing photos and updates via social media substitutes forin-person bonding time. Some families are closer than ever with tech helping them stay connected across long distances, while others lament diluted real human interaction.In terms of family values, there's been a definite shift towards wanting kids to explore their own interests and identities rather than conforming to predetermined roles or following strictly in their parents' footsteps. Open-mindedness, creativity, and figuring out your own passions is prized.Traditions get mixed and blended as increasing diversity brings all kinds of cultural backgrounds together in modern society.So while that traditional nuclear family is still around in some form, it's just one of many flavors that families come in today. The boundaries and structure of family life look way different for many modern families compared to how things used to be. There's a lot more diversity in how families organize themselves, divide up roles and responsibilities, apply discipline, develop values, and go about their daily lives. Family is still a core part of society, but what it means to be a family has stretched and expanded.篇3The Changing Face of FamiliesHey there! Today I want to talk about something that's been on my mind a lot lately – how families have changed over time. You see, when I look at my own family compared to my grandparents' generation, there are some pretty big differences. And I think it's fascinating to explore what those changes are and why they've happened.Let's start by looking at what a "traditional" family used to look like back in the day. We're talking pre-1960s here. Typically,you had a mom who stayed home to take care of the house and kids, and a dad who went out to work and brought in the paycheck. The family values centered around clearly defined roles – dad was the breadwinner and disciplinarian, while mom raised the kids and managed the household. Having a bunch of kids was common too, since birth control wasn't as accessible.Family dynamics were also quite hierarchical. The parents held ultimate authority, and children were expected to be obedient and deferential. Questioning your elders or talking back was a big no-no. Families tended to be quite insular too, sticking close to their own relatives and ethnic/religious communities. Divorce was really frowned upon and somewhat rare, so marriages usually lasted till death did they part.Contrast that with the modern family of today, and you'll see some stark differences. For one, the rigid gender roles have largely gone out the window. Both parents are just as likely to work outside the home, and household responsibilities get divided more equally. Having just one or two kids is more the norm now, since people are choosing to have smaller families.Family hierarchies have also become a lot flatter, with a stronger emphasis on open communication between parents and children. We're encouraged to question things, share ouropinions, and have our voices heard from a young age. There's less blind obedience and more of a friendship-based dynamic.Modern families are a lot more open and fluid too. Divorce rates have risen, remarriages and blended families withstep-parents/siblings are common. Same-sex couples having kids is no longer an oddity either. We're a lot more accepting of different family structures that deviate from the traditional nuclear ideal.Another big change is how invested grandparents tend to be in raising their grandkids these days. In my grandparents' era, grandparents were mostly hands-off and let the parents take charge. But now, we rely a lot more on grandparents for things like daycare and babysitting while both parents work. Their role is a lot more integral to the family unit.So those are some of the biggest shifts I've noticed. Of course, I'm just scratching the surface here – I could go on and on about things like the influence of social media, changing cultural values, economic pressures, and so on.But I think what it all boils down to is that the modern family has become a lot more fluid, egalitarian, and open to different forms and structures. There's less stigma around divorce, single parenthood, etc. We've moved away from those rigid 1950snorms of strictly defined gender roles and hierarchical family dynamics.At the same time, the foundation is still there – families are all about providing love, support, stability and guidance as we grow up, no matter what the family structure looks like. Things like strong moral values, close bonds, quality time together –those core family qualities remain just as important as ever.So which is better – traditional or modern? I don't think there's really a right or wrong answer. Both models have their pros and cons. Traditional families provided a very clearly defined, stable family structure. But maybe they were a bit too rigid and restrictive at times. Modern families have a lot more freedom and flexibility. But that openness can make things feel a bit messy or looser at times too.Ultimately, I think the most important thing is that families –whether traditional or modern – provide kids with the love, values and solid foundation they need to grow intowell-adjusted adults. As long as that's there, the specific structure or dynamics of a family matter less.Those are just my two cents though! I'd love to hear your perspectives. How have families changed in your view? What are the pros and cons of traditional versus modern family models?I'm really curious to discuss this more. Families are such a core part of how we're raised and who we become. It's endlessly fascinating to analyze how they continue to evolve with the times!。
两宋时期民族关系与社会交流150字小作文
两宋时期民族关系与社会交流150字小作文During the Song Dynasty, there was a complex relationship between different ethnic groups in China. The Han Chinese were the dominant group, but there were also significant populations of other ethnicities such as the Khitan and Jurchen.宋代的时候，中国各民族之间存在着复杂的关系。
汉族是主导群体，但还有大量其他民族如契丹族和女真族。
The interactions between these ethnic groups were often marked by conflict and tension. The Khitan and Jurchen were nomadic peoples who frequently raided settled Chinese territories, leading to animosity between the groups.这些民族之间的互动经常充满了冲突和紧张。
契丹族和女真族是游牧民族，经常袭击定居的中国领土，导致两者之间产生敌意。
Despite the conflicts, there were also periods of peaceful coexistence and cultural exchange between the different ethnic groups. Trade,intermarriage, and diplomatic alliances were common ways in which the Song Dynasty fostered relationships with neighboring peoples.尽管存在冲突，但不同民族之间也存在着和平共处和文化交流的时期。
北京外国语大学2008年复语同传真题及答案
北京外国语大学2008年硕士研究生入学考试（复语班）一、将下列段落译为汉语（25分）Nevertheless, instead of expanding north, the Japanese moved south. By 1937, the conflict had spread to all of eastern China and the war had begun in earnest. Anti-Japanese feeling was exacerbated by the attack by the Japanese on Chinese soldiers and civilians at the Marco Polo Bridge, next to which was a vital railway line, in July 1937. Because of its strategic importance (it was only ten miles west of Beijing), Japanese troops in northern China had been conducting manoeuvres in the area. However, on 7 July 1937, after a Japanese night manoeuvre during which the Chinese had fired some shells, a Japanese soldier went missing. In retaliation, the Japanese attacked and war commenced. This may rightly be designated the first battle of the Second World War.By the end of July, Japanese soldiers had not only seized the bridge but taken control of the entire Tientsin–Peking region. The speed with which Japanese troops conquered parts of China was astounding. By 1938, Ca nton had ‘fallen’ and, despite notable military victories, including one in the town of Taierzhuang in southern Shantung, where 30,000 Japanese soldiers were killed by Nationalist Chinese troops, the Chinese were at a distinct disadvantage. The Japanese military was vastly superior. As late as 1940, China had only 150 military aircraft compared with the Japanese total of over 1,000. By the end of 1939, the whole of the north-eastern quarter of China was under Japanese occupation. Still, the Chinese did not surrender, forcing Japan to move still further inland, lengthening supply routes and stretching manpower to absolute limits. What followed was a war of attrition. (268 words)尽管如此，日本人没有选择在中国北方扩张，而是转而南下。
interracial marriage
By XiYue
basic facts
• 跨族婚姻在英文里有多种表述， “ｍｉｓｃｅｇｅｎａｔｉｏｎ”是比较旧的表述， 意思是不同种族人的通婚或同居，特指是白人和其他种族之间；现在比较通用的表述是 ｉｎｔｅｒｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ或ｍｉｘｅｄ • 跨族婚姻一般有三种形式ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ指的是婚姻双方来自不同的种族、族裔集团。 • 跨宗教（ｉｎｔｅｒｆａｉｔｈ • 跨族裔（ｉｎｔｅｒｅｔｈｎｉｃ • 跨种族（ｉｎｔｅｒｒａｃｉａｌ ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ） ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ） ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ）
• In1967,16 states still had laws against interracial marriage,but attitude were changing. • Interracial multiethnic fusion started after World II and happened in the suburbs. • Interracial marriages are becoming more accepted. • Courts invalidated interracial marriage,struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. • The world would be better off if there were more interracial marriges. • For interracial couples,love knows no color.
1. Pay more attention to human rights
常用金融英语词汇的翻译
常用金融英语词汇的翻译acquiring company 收购公司bad loan 呆帐chart of cash flow 现金流量表clearly-established ownership 产权清晰debt to equity 债转股diversity of equities 股权多元化economy of scale 规模经济emerging economies 新兴经济exchange-rate regime 汇率机制fund and financing 筹资融资global financial architecture 全球金融体系global integration, globality 全球一体化，全球化go public 上市growth spurt? （经济的）急剧增长have one's "two commas" 百万富翁hedge against? 套期保值housing mortgage 住房按揭holdings 控股，所持股份holding company 控股公司initial offerings 原始股initial public offerings 首次公募innovative business 创新企业intellectual capital 智力资本inter-bank lending 拆借internet customer 网上客户investment payoff period? 投资回收期joint-stock 参股mall rat 爱逛商店的年轻人means of production 生产要素(the)medical cost social pool for major diseases 大病医疗费用社会统筹mergers and acquisitions 并购mobile-phone banking 移动电话银行业moods 人气net potato 网虫non-store seling 直销offering 新股online-banking 网上银行业online-finance 在线金融online client （银行的）网上客户paper profit? 帐面收益physical assets 有形资产project fund system 项目资本金制度pyramid sale 传销recapitalize 资产重组regional corrency blocks 地区货币集团regulate 调控sell off? 变现share(stock) option 期权，股票认购权smart card 智能卡slash prices 杀价spare capacity 闲置的生产能力strong growth 强劲的增长势头switch trade 转手贸易take…public 上市tap the idle assets 盘活存量资产transaction （银行的）交易transfer payment from the exchequer 财政转移支付venture-capital 风险资本virtual bank 虚拟银行wire transfer 电子转帐?经济金融术语汉英对照表A-BA安全网safety net按可比口径on comparable basis按轻重缓急to prioritize暗补implicit subsidy暗亏hidden lossB颁发营业执照to license;to grant a licence to办理存款业务to take deposits保护农民的生产积极性to protect farmers'incentive to produce备付金（超额准备金）excess reserves本外币并账consolidation of domestic and foreign currencyaccounts本外币对冲操作sterilization operation本位利益localized interest;departmentalism奔小康to strive to prosper;to strive to become well-to-do避税（请见“逃税”）tax avoidance币种搭配不当currency mismatch币种构成currency composition变相社会集资disguised irregular（or illegal）fund raising表外科目（业务）off-balance-sheet items（operation）薄弱环节weaknesses;loopholes不变成本fixed cost不变价at constant price;in real terms不动产real estate不良贷款problem loans；non-performing loansC财务公司finance companies财政赤字fiscal deficit财政挤银行fiscal pressure on the central bank（over monetary policy）财政政策与货币政策的配合coordination of fiscal and monetary policies采取循序渐进的方法in a phased and sequenced manner操作弹性operational flexibility操纵汇率to manipulate exchange rate产品构成product composition;product mix产品积压stock pile;excessive inventory产销率current period inventory;（即期库存，不含前期库存）sales/output ratio产销衔接marketability产业政策industrial policy长期国债treasury bonds敞口头寸open position炒股to speculate in the stock market承购包销underwrite（securities）成套机电产品complete sets of equipment;complete plant（s）城市信用社urban credit cooperatives（UCCs）城市合作银行urban cooperative banks;municipal united banks城市商业银行municipal commercial banks城乡居民收入增长超过物价涨幅real growth in household income持续升温persistent overheating重复布点duplicate projects重置成本replacement cost重组计划restructuring plan筹资渠道funding sources;financing channels初见成效initial success出口统一管理、归口经营canalization of exports出口退税export tax rebate储蓄存款household deposits（不完全等同于西方的savingsdeposits，前者包括活期存款，后者不包括。
民族交往与交融50字作文
民族交往与交融50字作文英文回答：Ethnic interaction and integration are essential for the development and progress of society. When different ethnic groups come together, they bring with them their unique cultures, traditions, and perspectives. This exchange of ideas and experiences leads to a more diverse and inclusive society.One way in which ethnic groups interact and blend is through cultural festivals and celebrations. These events provide an opportunity for people from different backgrounds to come together and learn about each other's customs and traditions. For example, in my hometown, we have an annual multicultural festival where people from various ethnic backgrounds showcase their traditional dances, music, and cuisine. It is a wonderful opportunity to experience different cultures and appreciate the diversity within our community.Another important aspect of ethnic interaction and integration is through intermarriage. When individuals from different ethnic backgrounds marry, they not only bring together their families but also create a unique blend of cultures. This can lead to the development of newtraditions and customs that are a beautiful fusion of both cultures. For instance, a friend of mine comes from a Chinese and Indian background. Her wedding ceremony incorporated elements from both cultures, such as wearing a traditional Indian saree and performing a Chinese tea ceremony. It was a beautiful representation of the harmonious blending of two different ethnicities.Furthermore, education plays a crucial role in promoting ethnic interaction and integration. Schools and universities are places where individuals from diverse backgrounds come together to learn and grow. Through classroom discussions, group projects, and extracurricular activities, students have the opportunity to interact with peers from different ethnicities. This fosters understanding, tolerance, and appreciation for differentcultures. Additionally, educational institutions can organize cultural exchange programs, where students can visit other countries and experience firsthand the customs and traditions of different ethnic groups.In conclusion, ethnic interaction and integration are vital for the development of a diverse and inclusive society. Cultural festivals, intermarriage, and education all contribute to the blending of different ethnicities. These interactions not only promote understanding and tolerance but also create a rich tapestry of traditions and customs. Embracing and celebrating our differences can lead to a more harmonious and united society.中文回答：民族交往与交融对于社会的发展和进步至关重要。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Out-group ties/ bridging social capital 桥接型社
会资本：网络关系较为疏远，但彼此拥有共同利益者所形 成的连结，如同事，社区团体等，有助于外部资源的连结 与资讯的畅通，能促进相对异质人群或团体间的联系与互 动。
Influences on Intermarriage
Gender: previous contradictory studies---no gender differences in patterns of intermarriage vs. no diminution of the disproportionate intermarriage rate of Jewish men (status theory). Socioeconomic Status: high levels of education predicts reduced likelihood of intermarriage. Migrant Status: endogamy among later generations declines. Age: older cohorts are less likely to have married non Jews than more recent ones.
Social Capital
Ethnic social capital is the extent and nature of an individual’s ties to members of a given ethnic group. In-group ties/ bridging social capital 结合型社会
Data and Method
Discussion
Background
Previous studies of ethnicity study have focused on the role played by structural factors in assimilation and related processes. This paper integrates existing structure-centered approaches with the concepts of ethnic human and social capital in a soft rational choice theory framework.
Ethnic Capital and Intermarriage: A Case Study of American Jews
Benjamin T. Philips and Sylvia Barack Fishman Brandeis University
Background
Influential Factors of intermarriage
Human Capital
An individual’s skills and knowledge applicable to the task. The ability to produce the ethnic commodities (cooking ethnic dishes, speaking an ethnic language, celebrating ethnic festivals) depends on the level of ethnic human capital, which depends on the environment in which the individual is raised.
Ethnic Human Capital: greater parental investment in ethno-religious human capital will lead to lower rate of intermarriage among their children. Ethnic Social Capital: the more a person’s social capital resides in consolidated ties in a particular group, the more disapproval of intermarriage. Environment: regional variation in intermarriage rate--- the west> the South> Midwest> Northeast, suggesting that environmental impact on intermarriage proxies for the demographic composition of the marriage market.
Soiodemographic status
Ethnic human capital variables Social capital
Environment
Discussion
The results demonstrate that variations in ethnic capital play a critical role in assimilatory outcomes. Social capital was particularly important. Both of these concepts has been shown to provide significantly greater explanatory power. Whether the concepts outlined in this paper apply the other ethnic communities is an important question and will hopefully be answered by future research.
Data and Methods
This paper uses data from the National Jewish Population Survey. To add context and texture to the quantitative data, qualitative data was drawn from in-depth interviews of 127 households, composed of 68 intermarried, 36 inmarried, and 23 conversionary households with children.
The ratio between these forms will influence the impact of ethnic human capital.
Why Choose American Jews?
To demonstrate the usefulness of an ethnic capital approach to assimilation, we examine the cause of intermarriage, a key product of and contributor to intermarriage among American Jews. Jewish intermarriage rate:50% Environmental odds of intermarriage rate: 98% American Jewry may represent the outer limits of resisting assimilation.