Bài Tập Trắc Nghiệm Chuyên Đề: Đọc hiểu: thông tin chi tiết (Tiếng Anh Lớp 10, 11, 12)

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. [I] Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash “carbon-neutral” or “net-zero” across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell “carbon-neutral” flights, filling stations boast about “net-zero” fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. [II] Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. [III] No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for “green” paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. [IV] Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. [I] Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash “carbon-neutral” or “net-zero” across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell “carbon-neutral” flights, filling stations boast about “net-zero” fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. [II] Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. [III] No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for “green” paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. [IV] Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

The concept of project farming, where farmers come together to collaborate on large-scale agricultural projects, has gained significant traction, and modern technology keeps this collaboration on track. Advanced technologies such as GPS, sensors, drones, and data analytics are used to optimise agricultural practices. Additionally, the collected real-time data on soil conditions, weather patterns, and plant growth enables farmers to accelerate the decision-making process that maximises productivity while minimising resource wastage. GPS technology allows farmers to precisely map out their fields and create customised planting plans. This ensures that seeds are sown at optimal locations based on soil characteristics and previous yield data. By avoiding areas with poor fertility, farmers can increase their overall crop yield. Camera traps provide advance warnings of insects, so farmers do not have to treat the whole field. This, therefore, helps curb chemical runoff and save money for every party involved in the project. Technology also plays a vital role in optimising irrigation practices for sustainable agriculture. Specialised equipment reports dryness hour by hour, and weather apps forecast rain for the week ahead. Automated valves give each zone exactly the water it needs and pause when clouds are approaching. This cuts pumping costs and protects groundwater while keeping the crop healthy. On dry continents, such savings keep projects economically viable. The digital trail does not stop at the farm gate. Cloud platforms let project farmers, processors, and truck drivers input harvest weights, storage temperatures, and delivery times the moment they change, while blockchain records freeze each entry so customers can trust it. Analytic tools combine seasons of records to forecast demand, spot price opportunities, and mark weak points in the workflow. This allows project farmers to anticipate market demand, exploit resource allocation, and plan for potential challenges.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash "carbon-neutral" or "net-zero" across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell "carbon-neutral" flights, filling stations boast about "net-zero" fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for "green" paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash "carbon-neutral" or "net-zero" across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell "carbon-neutral" flights, filling stations boast about "net-zero" fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for "green" paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

When several farmers merge plots into a single "project farm", they use digital tools to make that teamwork far more effective. GPS mapping, drones, and in-field sensors build a live, shared picture of soil types, weather shifts, and plant growth. Because everyone works on the same data, the team can settle seeding dates, determine when to spray, and track machinery in real time. What once depended on guesswork is now driven by verifiable information.

With GPS technology, farmers can accurately map out their fields and create customised planting plans. Seeding machines change their rate on the fly, drones spray pests on targeted zones, and smart spreaders apply fertiliser only where data shows a need. Because inputs go exactly where they help, fields yield more while chemical runoff falls. Trials report considerable savings on seed, fuel, and sprays – benefits the partners split at the season's end.

Water management is just as precise. Specialised equipment tracks moisture every hour, and forecast apps predict rain, wind, or heatwaves. Automated pumps deliver measured water amounts to thirsty zones and stop when a storm is coming, slashing waste and energy bills. The result is steadier yields in dry years, fewer nutrients washed away, and a smaller water footprint for the whole partnership. Smart irrigation also helps limit weed growth, reducing herbicide use.

The journey from field to market is equally digital. Cloud platforms record harvest weights, storage temperatures, and shipment times the moment they change, while blockchain records freeze each entry so customers can rely on it. Analytic tools browse the records to indicate weak points in the procedure, forecast prices, and suggest better planting plans for the next season to project partners. This makes project farming both profitable and sustainable.

The concept of project farming, where farmers come together to collaborate on large-scale agricultural projects, has gained significant traction, and modern technology keeps this collaboration on track. Advanced technologies such as GPS, sensors, drones, and data analytics are used to optimise agricultural practices. Additionally, the collected real-time data on soil conditions, weather patterns, and plant growth enables farmers to accelerate the decision-making process that maximises productivity while minimising resource wastage. GPS technology allows farmers to precisely map out their fields and create customised planting plans. This ensures that seeds are sown at optimal locations based on soil characteristics and previous yield data. By avoiding areas with poor fertility, farmers can increase their overall crop yield. Camera traps provide advance warnings of insects, so farmers do not have to treat the whole field. This, therefore, helps curb chemical runoff and save money for every party involved in the project. Technology also plays a vital role in optimising irrigation practices for sustainable agriculture. Specialised equipment reports dryness hour by hour, and weather apps forecast rain for the week ahead. Automated valves give each zone exactly the water it needs and pause when clouds are approaching. This cuts pumping costs and protects groundwater while keeping the crop healthy. On dry continents, such savings keep projects economically viable. The digital trail does not stop at the farm gate. Cloud platforms let project farmers, processors, and truck drivers input harvest weights, storage temperatures, and delivery times the moment they change; while blockchain records freeze each entry so customers can trust it. Analytic tools combine seasons of records to forecast demand, spot price opportunities, and mark weak points in the workflow. This allows project farmers to anticipate market demand, exploit resource allocation, and plan for potential challenges.

We are living through a boom in greenwashing – the strategic use of comforting environmental claims to disguise business-as-usual pollution. Picture a chief executive whose company emits millions of tonnes of CO₂. Genuine decarbonisation would require bruising boardroom discussions, huge capital outlays, and a complete redesign of the firm’s model. Far easier is to hire a creative agency to plaster products with labels such as “carbon-neutral” or “ret-zero,” calming critics, investors; and even eco-conscious children while emissions continue unsolved. This tactic meets consumers at every turn. Airline websites promise guilt-free flights, petrol pumps boast zero-impact fuel, and even supermarket bacon is marketed as net-zero. Advertising trickery is ancient, yet today’s greenwashing – the practice of deliberately covering ongoing pollution in eco-friendly language – has flourished only recently. The expression surfaced in the 1980s amid oil spills and growing climate science, but the real explosion has come as public anxiety over global heating and biodiversity loss has intensified. Faced with mounting scrutiny, many boards prefer glossy PR to structural reform. Such corporate sleight of hand has become so pervasive that regulators in Europe and the United States are scrambling to tighten rules on environmental claims, yet enforcement still lags behind marketing creativity. The fossil-fuel sector exemplifies the issue. After decades covertly sowing doubt about climate science, oil and gas giants have grasped that direct denial is reputationally toxic. They have therefore swapped their denial tactics for a “green” paint-sprayer, trumpeting token investments in renewables while expanding drilling. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the emission cuts urgently required to avert climate breakdown. Whereas denial invites opposition, greenwashing kills the public into believing problems are already solved. Under this collective illusion, pressure on high-emitting firms evaporates and the radical decisions needed to transform energy, transport, and food systems are delayed indefinitely. Greenwashing thus acts as a soothing lullaby, leading society toward ecological ruin with a tune of comforting half-truths. Exposing this deception is essential if clichés are to be replaced by real, measurable emission cuts.

We are living through a boom in greenwashing – the strategic use of comforting environmental claims to disguise business-as-usual pollution. Picture a chief executive whose company emits millions of tonnes of CO₂. Genuine decarbonisation would require bruising boardroom discussions, huge capital outlays, and a complete redesign of the firm’s model. Far easier is to hire a creative agency to plaster products with labels such as “carbon-neutral” or “ret-zero,” calming critics, investors; and even eco-conscious children while emissions continue unsolved. This tactic meets consumers at every turn. Airline websites promise guilt-free flights, petrol pumps boast zero-impact fuel, and even supermarket bacon is marketed as net-zero. Advertising trickery is ancient, yet today’s greenwashing – the practice of deliberately covering ongoing pollution in eco-friendly language – has flourished only recently. The expression surfaced in the 1980s amid oil spills and growing climate science, but the real explosion has come as public anxiety over global heating and biodiversity loss has intensified. Faced with mounting scrutiny, many boards prefer glossy PR to structural reform. Such corporate sleight of hand has become so pervasive that regulators in Europe and the United States are scrambling to tighten rules on environmental claims, yet enforcement still lags behind marketing creativity. The fossil-fuel sector exemplifies the issue. After decades covertly sowing doubt about climate science, oil and gas giants have grasped that direct denial is reputationally toxic. They have therefore swapped their denial tactics for a “green” paint-sprayer, trumpeting token investments in renewables while expanding drilling. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the emission cuts urgently required to avert climate breakdown. Whereas denial invites opposition, greenwashing kills the public into believing problems are already solved. Under this collective illusion, pressure on high-emitting firms evaporates and the radical decisions needed to transform energy, transport, and food systems are delayed indefinitely. Greenwashing thus acts as a soothing lullaby, leading society toward ecological ruin with a tune of comforting half-truths. Exposing this deception is essential if clichés are to be replaced by real, measurable emission cuts.

Have you ever tried playing the kind of video games that your parents played? Over the last few years, the Museum of Science in Manchester has held an exhibition which invites visitors to do exactly that. It offers them the chance to play games from the last 40 years, in various sessions throughout the day. These video games sessions have now become one of the main attractions of the museum. They are full of people playing a wide range of games every day. However, visitors often choose the ones they are familiar with. For example, parents will choose the games they used to play in their childhood. There’s also an educational purpose to the games. For instance, some old types of computers, dating back 40 years, are also available. They were originally employed in classrooms to teach pupils to write their own computer programs. Now, the museum is holding workshops encouraging children to learn similar skills - and they’re still very popular. The sessions are also seen as social events, as people discover how much fun it is to play video games with other family members. And there’s also an area called Power Up! where a number of visitors can enjoy playing the same game together. However, through the exhibition, the organisers also aim to show that video gaming is an important industry that employs many skilled people. People who enjoy gaming will also understand all the hard work, talent, and imagination that go into creating these amazing games.

We often have stereotypical images of rockers as rebellious, classical music fans as quiet and modest, and lovers of rap as loquacious and outgoing. But is it really true that our musical tastes reveal our personality? According to a recent research from a university in Edinburgh, it is. Professor North, one of the researchers, says that people often express their identity through the kind of music they listen to, the kind of clothes they wear and their hobbies and interests. So, it is not surprising that people’s taste in music says something about their personality. The researchers interviewed more than 36,000 participants from around the world, asked them about their musical tastes, and gave them personality tests. But did the research prove that our stereotypical images are right? Here are some of the results: (1) lovers of indie music are not very confident, gentle or hard-working, but they are very creative; (2) country and western fans are hard-working and not shy; (3) rap fans are outgoing and confident; (4) fans of pop songs are not creative, but are hard-working, gentle and outgoing; and (5) the best fans to be are soul fans, because they are creative, confident, outgoing and gentle. Perhaps the most surprising result was that classical music fans and heavy metal fans have very similar personalities. People think of heavy metal fans as being very sad and unhappy. But like classical fans, they are in fact easy-going and creative, and not very outgoing. Professor North also says that the results explain why so many people are good friends with people who like the same music. Heavy metal fans in Sweden have more in common with heavy metal fans in Brazil than with, say, Swedish fans of pop. The results also explain that, since music is likely to be closely connected to our personalities, some of us are very passionate about what we listen to. However, the research does not say what people who listen to lots of different types of music are like. Perhaps they are perfectly balanced. So, what does your music say about you?

If you walk into the streets and see someone throwing a plastic bottle on the ground, you’ll probably get annoyed. But do we react in the same way when we see people throwing rubbish into the sea? We all know how rubbish ruins the environment on land, but we often forget the influence that it can have on environments like the sea, lakes and rivers, too. First of all, water pollution looks terrible. Many beautiful beaches can become covered in rubbish when whatever we have thrown into the water comes ashore. Even rivers and lakes have some plastic bags and bottles floating in them. Secondly, rubbish can hurt animals and birds that live in or by the water. If they see a plastic bottle, they may think it is food. However, when they try and eat the bottle, it can get caught in their mouth or stomach and stop them from eating anything else. Plastic bottles can also stop dolphins from breathing. Sometimes, fishing boats leave bits of fishing net behind in the water. Fish can get caught in these and die. Finally, people forget that plastics contain chemicals that stay in the water. This is very bad for both fish and plants. If you eat fish containing these chemicals, then you can also get ill. In conclusion, we need to worry about water pollution as much as we care about land or air. We should all protect the seas, lakes and rivers, and remember to take our rubbish away with us.

“Have smartphones destroyed a generation?” Jean Twenge - a psychology professor at San Diego State University - asked in her controversial book, Gen. In the book, she argues that those born after 1995 are facing “a mental-health crisis”, and she believes it can be linked to growing up with their noses pressed against a screen. Her newest study provides more support for that connection, showing that teens who spent more than an hour or two a day interacting with their gadgets were less happy on average than those who had more face time with others. Twenge’s conclusions have come up against criticism in the past. Some have accused her work of oversimplifying or overlooking data that may tell a slightly different story. Twenge recognises that her study suggests only a link between screen use and psychological well-being. A possible explanation is that kids are running to their screens to escape from the things in life that are making them unhappy. However, the surveys can’t say whether screen time directly changes teens’ mental health, the research states. Philanthropist Melinda Gates, whose three children were also born after 1995, wrote in The Washington Post, “phones and apps aren’t good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who don’t yet have the emotional tools to overcome life’s problems, they can aggravate the difficulties of growing up.” At the same time, she said, kids are learning on their devices and connecting in novel ways. Other studies have explored the connection between social media and isolation and how “likes” activate the brain’s reward centre. Some analyses have found that moderate use of these technologies is not harmful in itself and can even improve children’s social skills and build emotional strength. There is no doubt that people are spending more time on these devices and that technology is having a major impact on kids and adults alike. “These are really important devices that have changed our lives in so many ways, not just for the worse but for the better,” said Amanda Lenhart, deputy director of the Better Life Lab at New America. But the latest research “is looking straight at technology and wanting it to be the scapegoat.”

The Japanese love inventing and they are very good at it. But there is one inventor who has invented more things than anyone else in Japan - Dr. Nakamats. He has designed over 4,000 new inventions over the last fifty years. He is most well-known for his unusual inventions. He designed many strange things such as glasses which look like eyes so you can’t notice them, shoes which have steel springs so that you can jump in them, and a pillow which stops you from falling asleep when you are driving. How does he come up with these ideas? He finds listening to Beethoven helpful. But the thing that makes him most creative is holding his breath underwater. He dives into his swimming pool every day and stays underwater as long as he can. He believes that less oxygen in the brain is good for new ideas. He also dives with a pencil and a notebook which he invented. He needs to write down his ideas immediately in the water because they disappear quickly. Dr. Nakamats believes that eating the right food is important for creativity, and he has invented some snacks that he says are good for your brain. He has also invented an armchair which helps to enhance your brainpower. He sits in the chair every day to give him more good ideas. Dr. Nakamats is now in his eighties, but he plans to live until he is 144 years old, so he still has plenty of time to develop even more new ideas.

Action movies are exciting and a lot of fun to watch, but they also involve scenes of great risk and danger. In the language of filmmaking, dangerous actions are called stunts. Who performs these stunts? This work is too dangerous for regular actors. Movie companies usually hire special stunt people to stand in for the actors in scenes that are unsafe. Movie producers don't like to let actors do their own stunt work. If the actors injure themselves, it can delay the production schedule. Using stunt people also saves time. Most stunt people have years of experience, which enables them to perform their stunts with a minimum of risk. It would take too long to train the actors to perform dangerous scenes safely. Some people who love the thrill of dangerous sports such as skydiving or rock climbing think it would be easy to work as a stunt person. But it isn’t enough to be a risk-taker. Stunt performers also have to know what to do if anything goes wrong. In addition to risk-taking and meticulous attention to detail and planning, stunt work requires being in top physical condition. Although there are a few training programmes for stunt performers, most provide only an overview of the profession. Normally, the people who attend these programmes already have experience in dangerous sports, rescue work, or the military. So the best way to prepare for a career in stunt work is to train in an area that involves strong physical conditioning and has an element of physical danger. Modern filmmaking techniques have changed the way some dangerous scenes are filmed. For example, computer-generated images make it possible to show stunts that would be too dangerous or expensive for real stunt people to perform. Computer-generated images are often used today to create big fight scenes, car crashes, and explosions. However, they are not always the best choice. Many audiences want to see real people perform actual stunts. Also, the rising popularity of made-for-TV movies around the world ensures that there is still plenty for stunt people in the film industry.

Device-centred communication has become almost universal over the past twenty years. More than three quarters of people in the world now own a mobile device, and more than half communicate via social networking. It is now hard to imagine a world without mobile devices consisting of such things as mobile phones, laptops and tablets. They allow us to stay in touch with a large network of friends, no matter where they are. But many experts say that communicating with a device is nothing like talking with someone in person. “Body language, eye contact and tone of voice can tell us so much,” psychologist Mary Peters says. “And none of those exist on a device. Even video chat removes many subtle clues.” We don’t know to what extent these technologies will permanently change the way people interact. People will always want to meet up with others in small and large groups. Indeed, it is fair to say that social media makes it easier than ever before for people to organise social events. However, there is still a danger that device-centred communication may have a negative long-term impact on the way people interact with each other on a day-to-day basis. We must not, therefore, lose sight of the need to focus on the actual people around us, and remember that they deserve our real – not virtual – attention. The idea of a culture where people always have a screen between them sounds a bit funny, because deep understanding comes when we see the reactions on other people’s faces.

Device-centred communication has become almost universal over the past twenty years. More than three quarters of people in the world now own a mobile device, and more than half communicate via social networking. It is now hard to imagine a world without mobile devices consisting of such things as mobile phones, laptops and tablets. They allow us to stay in touch with a large network of friends, no matter where they are. But many experts say that communicating with a device is nothing like talking with someone in person. “Body language, eye contact and tone of voice can tell us so much,” psychologist Mary Peters says. “And none of those exist on a device. Even video chat removes many subtle clues.” We don’t know to what extent these technologies will permanently change the way people interact. People will always want to meet up with others in small and large groups. Indeed, it is fair to say that social media makes it easier than ever before for people to organise social events. However, there is still a danger that device-centred communication may have a negative long-term impact on the way people interact with each other on a day-to-day basis. We must not, therefore, lose sight of the need to focus on the actual people around us, and remember that they deserve our real – not virtual – attention. The idea of a culture where people always have a screen between them sounds a bit funny, because deep understanding comes when we see the reactions on other people’s faces.

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

The Japanese love inventing and they are very good at it. But there is one inventor who has invented more things than anyone else in Japan - Dr. Nakamats. He has designed over 4,000 new inventions over the last fifty years. He is most well-known for his unusual inventions. He designed many strange things such as glasses which look like eyes so you can’t notice them, shoes which have steel springs so that you can jump in them, and a pillow which stops you from falling asleep when you are driving. How does he come up with these ideas? He finds listening to Beethoven helpful. But the thing that makes him most creative is holding his breath underwater. He dives into his swimming pool every day and stays underwater as long as he can. He believes that less oxygen in the brain is good for new ideas. He also dives with a pencil and a notebook which he invented. He needs to write down his ideas immediately in the water because they disappear quickly. Dr. Nakamats believes that eating the right food is important for creativity, and he has invented some snacks that he says are good for your brain. He has also invented an armchair which helps to enhance your brainpower. He sits in the chair every day to give him more good ideas. Dr. Nakamats is now in his eighties, but he plans to live until he is 144 years old, so he still has plenty of time to develop even more new ideas.

The Japanese love inventing and they are very good at it. But there is one inventor who has invented more things than anyone else in Japan - Dr. Nakamats. He has designed over 4,000 new inventions over the last fifty years. He is most well-known for his unusual inventions. He designed many strange things such as glasses which look like eyes so you can’t notice them, shoes which have steel springs so that you can jump in them, and a pillow which stops you from falling asleep when you are driving. How does he come up with these ideas? He finds listening to Beethoven helpful. But the thing that makes him most creative is holding his breath underwater. He dives into his swimming pool every day and stays underwater as long as he can. He believes that less oxygen in the brain is good for new ideas. He also dives with a pencil and a notebook which he invented. He needs to write down his ideas immediately in the water because they disappear quickly. Dr. Nakamats believes that eating the right food is important for creativity, and he has invented some snacks that he says are good for your brain. He has also invented an armchair which helps to enhance your brainpower. He sits in the chair every day to give him more good ideas. Dr. Nakamats is now in his eighties, but he plans to live until he is 144 years old, so he still has plenty of time to develop even more new ideas.