填空10：
31.需要使用大量的水来种植棉花，producethe cotton和染色。
32.大量杀虫剂的使用可以节省劳力和machine。
33.杀虫剂对人有害，因为工人不懂得使用技巧，没有配备protective clothing.
34.因为irrigation problems，还导致了其他方面的问题。
35.最初的时尚设计师从freedom得到灵感。
36.棉花的生产需要energy。
37.后来时尚开始尊重nature，崇尚天然棉制品。
38.棉花的灌溉使用rain water。
39.还有设计师回收垃圾制作衣服用于sports。
40.两种棉花生产方式不同，需要使用不同的cleaning machine
A
AsDaniel Haworth is settled into a high chair and wheeled behind a black screen,a sudden look of worry furrows his 9-month-old brow. His dark blue eyes dartleft and right in search of the familiar reassurance of his mother's face. Shecalls his name and makes soothing noises, but Daniel senses something unusualis happening. He sucks his fingers for comfort, but, finding no solace, hismonth crumples, his body stiffens, and he lets rip an almighty shriek ofdistress. This is the usual expression when babies are left alone or abandoned.Mom picks him up, reassures him, and two minutes later, a chortling and alertDaniel returns to the darkened booth behind the screen and submits himself tobaby lab, a unit set up in 2005 at the University of Manchester in northwestEngland to investigate how babies think.
B
Watchinginfants piece life together, seeing their senses, emotions and motor skillstake shape, is a source of mystery and endless fascination-at least to parentsand developmental psychologist. We can decode their signals of distress or reada million messages into their first smile. But how much do we really know aboutwhat's going on behind those wide, innocent eyes? How much of theirunderstanding of and response to the world comes preloaded at birth? How much
is built from scratch by experience? Suchare the questions being explored at baby lab. Though the facility is just 18months old and has tested only 100 infants, it's already challenging currentthinking on what babies know and how they come to know it.
C
Danielis now engrossed in watching video clips of a red toy train on a circulartrack. The train disappears into a tunnel and emerges on the other side. Ahidden device above the screen is tracking Daniel's eyes as they follow thetrain and measuring the diametre of his pupils 50 times a second. As the childgets bored-or ”habituated”, as psychologists call theprocess-his attention level steadily drops. But it picks up a little wheneversome novelty is introduced. The train might be green, or it might be blue. Andsometimes an impossible thing happens-the train goes into the tunnel one colorand comes out another.
D
Variationsof experiments like this one, examining infant attention, have been a standardtool of developmental psychology ever since the Swiss pioneer of the field,Jean Piaget ,started experimenting on his children in the 1920s.Piaget's workled him to conclude that infants younger than 9 months have no innate knowledgeof how the world works or any sense of "object permanence"(thatpeople and things still exist even when they're not seen). Instead, babies mustgradually construct this knowledge from experience. Piaget's"constructivist" theories were massively influential on postwareducators and psychologist, but over the past 20 years or
so they have been largely set aside by a newgeneration of "nativist" psychologists and cognitive scientists whosemore sophisticated experiments led them to theorise that infants arrive alreadyequipped with some knowledge of the physical world and even rudimentary programmingfor math and language. Baby lab director Sylvain Sirois has been putting thesesmart-baby theories through a rigorous set of tests. His conclusions so fartend to be more Piagetian:“Babies" he says, "knownothing."
E
WhatSirois and his postgraduate assistant Lain Jackson are challenging is theinterpretation of a variety of classic experiments begun in the mid-1980s inwhich babies were shown physical events that appeared to violate such basicconcepts as gravity, solidity and contiguity. In one such experiment, byUniversity of Illinois psychologist Renee Baillargeon, a hinged wooden panelappeared to pass right through a box. Baillargeon and M.I.T's Elizabeth Spelkefound that babies as young as 31/2 months would reliably look longer at theimpossible event than at the
normal one. Their conclusion: babies haveenough built-in knowledge to recognize that some-thing is wrong.
F
Siroisdoes not take issue with the way these experiments were conducted. "Themethods are correct and replicable," he says, "it's theinterpretation that's the problem." In a critical review to be publishedin the forthcoming issue of the European Journal of Developmental Psychology,he and Jackson pour cold water over recent experiments that claim to haveobserved innate or precocious social cognition skills in infants. His ownexperiments indicate that a baby's fascination with physically impossibleevents merely reflects a response to stimuli that are novel. Data from the eyetracker and the measurement of the pupils(which widen in response to arousal orinterest show that impossible events involving familiar objects are no moreinteresting than possible events involving novel objects. In other words, whenDaniel had seen the red train come out of the tunnel green a few times, he getsas bored as when it stays the same color. The mistake of previous research,says Sirois, has been to leap to the conclusion that infants can understand theconcept of impossibility from the mere fact that they are able to perceive somenovelty in it. ”The real explanation is boring," hesays.
G
So howdo babies bridge the gap between knowing squat and drawing triangles-a taskDaniel's sister Lois,21/2, is happily tackling as she waits for her brother?"Babies have to learn everything, but as Piaget was saying, they startwith a few primitive reflexes that get things going," said Sirois. Forexample, hardwired in the brain is an instinct that draws a baby's eyes to ahuman face. From brain imaging studies we also know that the brain has some sortof visual buffer that continues to represent objects after they have beenremoved-a lingering perception rather than conceptual understanding. So whenbabies encounter novel or unexpected events, Sirois explains, "there's amismatch between the buffer and the information they're getting at that moment.And what you do when you've got a mismatch is you try to clear the buffer. Andthat takes attention." So learning, says Sirois, is essentially thelaborious business of resolving mismatches. "The thing is, you can do alot of it with this wet sticky thing called a brain. It's a fantastic,statistical-learning machine". Daniel, exams ended, picks up a plastictiger and, chewing thoughtfully upon its heat, smiles as if to agree.
