This is the sixth instalment in a series of online-only Roundtables. This new content form from the Crimson Editorial Board seeks to present a diverse array of high-quality student opinions on thought-provoking issues. If you would like to submit an opinion for this week's Roundtable topic "What was Hugo Chavez’s most significant contribution?" please e-mail your 200-300 word opinion to hpickerell@college.harvard.edu before Wednesday, March 6th at 11pm. It’s Our Fault Frankly, I was not exactly surprised to discover that about half of my classmates in the now infamous Government 1310 were being accused of violating the College’s policies on academic integrity. Although I sincerely sympathize with those individuals who were falsely accused, I do not think that the University is entirely at fault here. To directly answer the question, no, Harvard does not place enough value on education. Although institutional change at the top maybe necessary, I would argue that the root of the problem truly lies with the student body itself. The scandal in Government 1310 last spring is not the first time a widespread cheating has occurred on campus, nor will it be the last. This problem is not caused by the Harvard faculty’s supposed apathy for undergraduate education, nor it is only a matter of institutional flaws within the system. Quite bluntly, the answer is human nature. Unfortunately for many students, academics is simply not regarded as a worthy pursuit or a high priority and, as a result, students will choose to spend less time finishing their problem sets and completing their readings to make gains in the other areas in their life. Of course, those who are passionate about their field of study can invest most of their time in their academic pursuits; the problem is that many students do not. The vast majority of college students, not only those at Harvard, want to have everything: leadership positions, good grades, a prestigious internship, a vibrant social life, etc. without having to make the necessary personal sacrifices to reach those goals. Instead, some may turn to cutting corners and “collaborating” with others to finish their work on time, for as long as they get the grade they want, nothing else matters. Yes, the university should attempt to evaluate not only faculty members’ contribution to academia, but also how well they perform in the classroom. Nevertheless, there is nothing the university can to do to help students from acting in their self-interest. Timothy Tsai ’14 is a government concentrator in Leverett House. He is the former Director of the Inter-Collegiate Model United Nations Team. Opportunities Outside Academics Prove Fruitful As a graduating senior concentrating in Government with a secondary in Economics, I have enrolled in classes that have run the gamut from academically intense to those considered “joke” courses. I confess that I am guilty of having enrolled in several courses not out of rapt interest in the topic, but in an effort to balance out the substantial workload of extracurricular activities. Although, in my experience, Harvard has not placed enough value on academics, it is only because the University offers experiences that go far beyond the classroom. From connections to internships across the globe, to opportunities to manage and run conferences for thousands of attendees, Harvard’s vast resources for its students serve as much value as its classes in educating the next generation of working adults. Undoubtedly, the academic reputation of Harvard contributes to the existence of these opportunities. However, having a schedule comprised entirely of academically rigorous classes would limit the ability of many students to take full advantage of Harvard’s extracurricular learning opportunities. We are students, but our role is not only to study—but it is also to learn, and Harvard offers extraordinary resources outside of academics to do so. Charlene Wong ’13 is a government concentrator in Currier House. She is the Secretary General of World Model United Nations. A Necessary Balancing Act Whether Harvard places enough value on academics is an irrelevant question that neglects to address exactly how Harvard students and professors navigate their commitments on campus. Now, the real issue here is a question of balance. Both students and professors maintain a fragile balance between two primary activities. Students divide their time between academic coursework and extracurricular engagements, which include jobs, internships, and fellowship hunting. Professors divide their time between teaching and research. The primary complaint implied by the supposed fall of academics at Harvard is thus twofold: First, students do not pay enough attention to their academic coursework, instead overcommitting to extracurricular engagements, including pre-professional concerns. Second, professors do not pay enough attention to their teaching, instead overcommitting to their respective research agendas. Reality check: It is impossible for anyone to dictate exactly how anyone else should spend his time. It is also almost impossible to produce the kind of cultural change beckoned by this ongoing lament for the fall of academics. And not just that—it is absolutely necessary that students and professors sustain this double life of competing professional and personal interests. Among the primary benefits and salvations of studying at a research university is that you do not simply take a class with a professor who knows a lot about something and can teach it to you. You’re taking a class with someone who is also actively shaping and driving the future of that field. We cannot simply ask that professors teach more and research less, since it is their research commitments that make Harvard the academic powerhouse that it is. And more—what makes Harvard’s undergraduate culture so intense and chaotic is that we must uphold our own double lives: taking classes and leading organizations, producing plays, founding start-ups, and the rest. Harvard is boot camp, and it is boot camp precisely because we, for whatever reason, require ourselves to do everything and be everywhere at the same time. Of course, some will devote their lives to schoolwork (especially those for whom this work is actually pre-professional). Others would not take any assignment seriously if it meant more time to work on their pet projects. To each his own: If anything, Harvard’s undergraduate and professional culture appears to be encapsulated by this attitude. Nicholas Rinehart ’14, a Crimson arts editor, is a literature concentrator in Lowell House. Where Has All the Academics Gone? Academic rigor, as of late, seems to be sliding downwards at Harvard. Many students who emerge from this institution cannot confidently name themselves as “scholars” and “academics,” but as “pre-professionals,” despite all the rhetoric of the liberal arts curriculum. Our conversations tend to be less deep and academically focused than they might be—perhaps this is a reaction to the stresses of a busy undergraduate career packed with extracurricular activities. Therein may lie another problem. In my experience, debates over politics, philosophy, and intellectual issues appear to be on a downward trend and students are no longer focused solely on academics, choosing to also split their energies on sports, organizations, and other activities. Harvard, as of late, is doing little to stymie this decline in intellectual curiosity, using grade inflation to boost contentment with minimal levels of effort in the classroom. Although it is true that time spent in classes and on coursework varies differently among our many concentrations, in general, it seems like students are spending less time in libraries, looking up supplementary resources, and engaging in academic dialogue. This is, of course, not to say we have lost all respect for academics, but that the culture at Harvard has shifted quite markedly from where its focus should be: academics. We have over 400 official student organizations and each student boasts a leadership position of sorts, using these titles to pad resumes for life after college. But Harvard should stress that students should continue their love of learning and that there is no shame in the pursuit of garnering arcane knowledge and obscure facts. Although it is true that the world is changing and becoming more competitive and that extracurricular activities do provide outlets for application of academia and networking opportunities, Harvard should move towards again standing, first and foremost, firmly and proudly behind academia. Kathy Wang ’14 is a government concentrator in Pforzheimer House. “Learning for Learning’s Sake” Is the Privilege of the Few Society tells us that education is an investment in our future. And not just ours—after all, “human capital” increases growth for the economy as a whole. Like any investor, we students, and our parents, expect a return. The majority of students here, for whom entering the middle class or at least remaining in it is not a guarantee bequeathed to them, naturally expect those returns to be denominated in dollars. Truly, as long as we as a society view education as an economic good or a commodity, only those who have enough other commodities to begin with will rationally use their education for something as, unfortunately, economically worthless as “learning for learning’s sake.” Although Harvard’s financial aid program has succeeded in allowing students of nearly all socioeconomic backgrounds to attend this university, we cannot pretend that the demands on all these students once they get here are the same. Some have to work two, three jobs just to pay for such luxuries as cell phone service or detergent, not to mention a meal in the square once in a while. Even those students whose families can afford to pay for these basics are expected to graduate with an income to support not only themselves but eventually their families, who are often breaking the bank to send them here. “Academics,” as distinguished from merely getting good grades, good recommendations, and other resume-padding accomplishments, can only ever be the top priority for students insulated from these economic pressures. And that is very few of us. As if these individual circumstances were not enough to force us to make education a means, not an end, society too promotes the narrative of education as economic necessity. President Obama frequently touts the economic importance of higher education in the globalized economy, where “skills” earn a growing premium. Politicians like Governor Rick Scott of Florida propose giving more financial aid to students in science, math, engineering, and technology fields—providing an economic incentive to study what will earn you more money and better the economy regardless of your academic interests. The common scorn against “useless” liberal arts degrees reflects a larger social value: Education should be directed toward immediate, monetary benefits, not such worthless tasks as, say, thinking critically about the world in which we live. Academics, not just in the humanities but all theoretical fields, are by definition distinct from the pragmatic, not tied down by the material here and now. Academics are transcendent. Students attend college, Harvard especially, to gain access to the material world, to get at least a modest return on their significant monetary investment. Professors are here to help us do that—just look at grade inflation, which makes us more likely to get jobs and them more likely to keep theirs. And Harvard cannot hate the reputation, not to mention the donations, that comes with producing the most billionaires of any school in the world. No, Harvard does not place enough value on academics. The students do not, the professors do not, and the administration does not. Why would they? Daniel E. Backman ’15 is a social studies concentrator in Mather House. 原文见 http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/8/Roundtable-academics/
To display this email in a browser, please click here Latest Impact Factors We are delighted to inform you that the recently released Impact Factor figures show, once again, a strong performance for almost all of Elsevier's Chemical Engineering journals. The Journal of Catalysis reaches an all time high with an Impact Factor of 6.002 . And whilst almost all titles show an increase in IF for the 5th consecutive year, we would like to highlight the significant increases for Advanced Powder Technology (+ 91%), Food Bioproducts Processing (+ 60%) and Desalination (+ 39%). As publishers of 15 of the top 20 Impact Factor titles in the field, we are indebted to the contributions of our authors, reviewers and editors. Further highlights include: Journal of Catalysis 2010 Impact Factor WAS 5.415 2011 Impact Factor NOW 6.002 Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2010 Impact Factor WAS 4.749 2011 Impact Factor NOW 5.625 Journal of Membrane Science 2010 Impact Factor WAS 3.673 2011 Impact Factor NOW 3.850 Chemical Engineering Journal 2010 Impact Factor WAS 3.074 2011 Impact Factor NOW 3.461 Dyes and Pigments 2010 Impact Factor WAS 2.635 2011 Impact Factor NOW 3.126 Listed alphabetically Journal title 2011 Impact Factor Advanced Powder Technology 1.612 Applied Catalysis A, General 3.903 Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 5.625 Applied Energy 5.106 Biochemical Engineering Journal 2.645 Catalysis Communications 2.986 Catalysis Today 3.407 Chemical Engineering Processing: Process Intensification 1.924 Chemical Engineering Journal 3.461 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1.968 Chemical Engineering Science 2.431 Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 0.826 Combustion and Flame 3.585 Computers and Chemical Engineering 2.320 Desalination 2.590 Dyes and Pigments 3.126 Filtration Separation 0.111 Fluid Phase Equilibria 2.139 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1.940 Fuel 3.248 Fuel Processing Technology 2.945 Hydrometallurgy 2.027 International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 2.170 International Journal of Mineral Processing 1.304 Journal of Aerosol Science 2.447 Journal of Bionic Engineering 1.023 Journal of Catalysis 6.002 Journal of Colloid And Interface Science 3.070 Journal of Food Engineering 2.414 Journal of Hazardous Materials 4.173 Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 1.977 Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 0.913 Journal of Membrane Science 3.850 Journal of Molecular Catalysis. A, Chemical 2.947 Journal of Molecular Catalysis. B, Enzymatic 2.735 Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 1.348 Journal of Process Control 1.696 Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 2.110 Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 3.285 Minerals Engineering 1.352 Particuology 1.423 Powder Technology 2.080 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 3.633 Process Biochemistry 2.627 Process Safety and Environmental Protection 1.050 Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 14.220 Reactive and Functional Polymers 2.479 Separation and Purification Technology 2.921 The Journal of Supercritical Fluids 2.860 Utilities Policy 0.804 Water Research 4.865 Journal Performance Measurements Journal performance measurements offer a systematic, objective means to critically evaluate journals, and several indicators are available. Click here for more information For the latest news visit: www.elsevier.com/chemicalengineering * Journal Citation Reports, published by Thomson Reuters, 2012 Data Protection Notice: This News from our Journals e-mail has been sent to xupeiyang@vip.163.com from Elsevier ST Journals E-news, Elsevier Limited, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, registered in England with registered number 1982084. To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please click here to add our address to your safe senders list. You are receiving this e-mail because you have registered on the Elsevier Science Technology Journals e-News site, indicating an interest in relevant products and services. If you no longer wish to receive communications of this type from us, you can visit this page to unsubscribe . Please visit our E-news site to manage your communication preferences with us. For all enquiries, problems or suggestions regarding this service, please contact: stjnlsemarketing@elsevier.com . Copyright 2012 Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved. | Elsevier Website Privacy Policy
To display this email in a browser, please click here Latest Impact Factors We are pleased to bring you the latest Impact Factor figures from Elsevier's Inorganic Chemistry journals. Thanks to the contributions of our authors, reviewers and editors, Elsevier publishes 10 out of the top 20 Impact Factor and 6 out of the top 10 most cited titles. With an Impact Factor of 12.110 - an increase of just over 20% from last year - Coordination Chemistry Reviews remains the number 1 Impact Factor journal in its field. Also noteworthy is the 18% increase in Impact Factor for the Journal of Fluorine Chemistry . Further highlights include... Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2010 Impact Factor WAS 10.018 2011 Impact Factor NOW 12.110 Journal of Organometallic Chemistry 2010 Impact Factor WAS 2.205 2011 Impact Factor NOW 2.384 Journal of Fluorine Chemistry 2010 Impact Factor WAS 1.719 2011 Impact Factor NOW 2.033 Listed by highest Impact Factor Journal title 2011 Impact Factor Coordination Chemistry Reviews 12.110 Progress in Solid State Chemistry 4.188 Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 3.354 Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2.652 Journal of Organometallic Chemistry 2.384 Journal of Solid State Chemistry 2.159 Polyhedron 2.057 Journal of Fluorine Chemistry 2.033 Inorganic Chemistry Communications 1.972 Solid State Sciences 1.856 Inorganica Chimica Acta 1.846 Bioorganic Chemistry 1.211 Applied Radiation and Isotopes 1.172 Journal Performance Measurements Journal performance measurements offer a systematic, objective means to critically evaluate journals, and several indicators are available. Click here for more information For the latest news visit: www.elsevier.com/chemistry * Journal Citation Reports, published by Thomson Reuters, 2012 Data Protection Notice: This News from our Journals e-mail has been sent to xupeiyang@vip.163.com from Elsevier ST Journals E-news, Elsevier Limited, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, registered in England with registered number 1982084. To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please click here to add our address to your safe senders list. You are receiving this e-mail because you have registered on the Elsevier Science Technology Journals e-News site, indicating an interest in relevant products and services. If you no longer wish to receive communications of this type from us, you can visit this page to unsubscribe . Please visit our E-news site to manage your communication preferences with us. For all enquiries, problems or suggestions regarding this service, please contact: stjnlsemarketing@elsevier.com . Copyright 2012 Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved. | Elsevier Website Privacy Policy
To display this email in a browser, please click here Latest Impact Factors We are pleased to bring you the latest Impact Factor figures from Elsevier's Organic and Medicinal Chemistry journals. Again Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry Letters (31,475 citations) and Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry (22,584 citations) are the 2nd and 3rd most cited journals in Medicinal Chemistry and Tetrahedron Letters (76,620 citations) the most cited letters journal in Chemistry. We would also like to highlight an increase in the Impact Factor for Carbohydrate Research of almost 23%. We thank all the authors, reviewers and editors, for making these journals such a success. Further highlights include... Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2010 Impact Factor WAS 9.312 2011 Impact Factor NOW 9.850 Carbohydrate Polymers 2010 Impact Factor WAS 3.463 2011 Impact Factor NOW 3.628 European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2010 Impact Factor WAS 3.193 2011 Impact Factor NOW 3.346 Phytochemistry 2010 Impact Factor WAS 3.150 2011 Impact Factor NOW 3.351 Carbohydrate Research 2010 Impact Factor WAS 1.898 2011 Impact Factor NOW 2.332 Listed alphabetically Journal title 2011 Impact Factor NOW Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry 2.921 Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry Letters 2.554 Bioorganic Chemistry 1.211 Carbohydrate Polymers 3.628 Carbohydrate Research 2.332 Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 9.850 Drug Discovery Today 6.828 European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 3.346 Fitoterapia 1.848 Heterocycles 0.999 Journal of Ethnopharmacology 3.014 Journal of Fluorine Chemistry 2.033 Journal of Organometallic Chemistry 2.384 Mendeleev Communications 0.901 Phytochemistry 3.351 Phytochemistry Letters 1.222 Progress in Organic Coatings 1.977 Tetrahedron 3.025 Tetrahedron Letters 2.683 Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2.652 Journal Performance Measurements Journal performance measurements offer a systematic, objective means to critically evaluate journals, and several indicators are available. Click here for more information For the latest news visit: www.elsevier.com/chemistry * Journal Citation Reports, published by Thomson Reuters, 2012 Data Protection Notice: This News from our Journals e-mail has been sent to xupeiyang@vip.163.com from Elsevier ST Journals E-news, Elsevier Limited, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, registered in England with registered number 1982084. To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please click here to add our address to your safe senders list. You are receiving this e-mail because you have registered on the Elsevier Science Technology Journals e-News site, indicating an interest in relevant products and services. If you no longer wish to receive communications of this type from us, you can visit this page to unsubscribe . Please visit our E-news site to manage your communication preferences with us. For all enquiries, problems or suggestions regarding this service, please contact: stjnlsemarketing@elsevier.com . Copyright 2012 Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved. | Elsevier Website Privacy Policy
好不容易和敬仰的席宁老师互通了email，先赞一下席宁老师对待学生的态度，几乎是瞬间就回复了邮件，很客气的说： I would like to have a chance to chat with you over the phone. Could you please let me know what number and when it is convenient for me to call you? 兴奋之中，傻不拉几的就回复到：随时可以！ 写在这里就是希望能给自己告诫，永远别说，随时可以！ 人家问你什么时间方便，其实是一份很正式的约定，礼貌的做法是一定给出具体时间，哪怕对方不合适再修改。说随时可以就是放弃约定，对方也也就无从下手。 “随时可以”还体现出了对自己时间的不尊重，对方可不一定体谅你谦卑的心情，一旦认定你是个随意的人，自然也没有下文。 • 整理资料 找到很久前写下的话，声明一下原创。 铁杵能磨成针，但木杵只能磨成牙签，材料不对，再努力也没用 都是草,竹子可以比树长得高,芦苇也有天分,但是喝再多的水,晒再多的太阳也长不成参天大 草. 同样的一瓶饮料，便利店里卖3元，五星饭店里卖60元，很多的时候，一个人的价值取决于所 在的位置
学生完成了一篇论文，投稿到哪个期刊，一直在纠结之中。学生要毕业，当然希望能投一个发表快的期刊，比如BMC，MDPI的期刊都是open access，投稿周期是比较短的，回审稿意见一般1个月左右，基本不超过2个月，发表约3个月左右。但是期刊的版面费收费不低，如BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making和Molecules收费都在12000RMB左右。elsevier的期刊大部分是免费的，一直想尝试投稿，但经验不多，总担心投稿周期太长。 schattauer的期刊收费比较折中，也是 open access，感觉 投稿周期应该不长，但没投稿经验。 主要的纠结之处在于： open access的期刊一般是比较快，但版面费高，这样的期刊发表多了，也是一个不小的负担，毕竟科研经费预算有限；不收版面费的期刊，又担心投稿周期太长，耽误事。交叉学科的论文可选择的期刊数量相对比较少一些。文章暂时还不具备投稿 Nucleic Acids Research， Bioinformatics等学科权威期刊的水平。 目前考虑在下面4个期刊中选择一个，最理想的是 Journal of Biomedical Informatics，免费哦，不知审稿周期如何？另外，收版面费的期刊会比不收版面费的期刊容易命中吗？希望得到有经验同行的指点。 (1) Methods of Information in Medicine (IF 1.472) 版面费：The first 5 pages in print of an article are free of charge (i.e., about 22,000 characters incl. space bars, please deduct 1500 char. including space bars for each figure or table). Authors who submit an article that exceeds 5 pages in print (including references, figures and tables), will be charged 125.00（欧元） for each page exceeding the number of 5 pages, to be paid to the publisher before the article is published. (2) BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (IF 2.23) 版面费：In 2011 the article-processing charge is ￡1175/US$1825/1360(欧元). (3) Molecules (IF 1.974) 版面费：1400 CHF (4) Journal of Biomedical Informatics (IF 1.719) 版面费：no charges. Chemistry Central Journal IF 1.65 http://www.journal.chemistrycentral.com/ 版面费 5000元左右 Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling IF 2.033 http://www.sciencedirect.com/jmgm Combinatorial Chemistry High Throughput Screening IF 2.573 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cchts
在人类，还有一种死亡的形式，个体还有能力继续生存，但他不想这样，一心要想结束自己的生命。有伤心过度的，有追求无望的，有为爱殉情的，有为皇家尽忠的，有为“尊严”的，有为自由的，有的则纯粹是撒泼打滚的小孩子脾气。有一首流传极广的主题歌叫做“suicide is painless”，主旋律这样唱道： That suicide is painless It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it，if I please 自杀并不痛苦，它带来许多转机。我可以承受或逃避，只要我愿意。这样的思想，跟“若为自由故，二者皆可抛”差不多，只是对自由的理解有点不同。因为传统的原因，我们对“活着”太过重视，往往把自杀看作是懦弱（其实许多人活着，只是因为没有自杀的勇气）和不负责任。那么多人关心你、依恋你、依靠你，你却丢下他们不管，那不是自私、懦弱、不负责任吗？其实，这样的指责跟“自绝于人民”的指责差不多。如果这是仅有的理由，就可以得出这样的结论：那些孤寡老人、孤儿、光棍汉、流浪汉，那些无牵无挂者，几乎没有人需要他们，就可以自杀了？他们的自杀就不受谴责了？所以，我们对待生命的态度是很功利的，而不是从尊重生命本身来考虑问题。 其实，自杀是更需要勇气的事情。生命只有一次，所以，和那些苟活者相比，能放弃唯一的东西，克服亿万年进化出来的求生意志，难道不需要更大的勇气吗？为什么非要苦苦等待那个自己体会不到的“节日”呢？ 自杀的功利性在我们的文化中是很值得注意的，一哭二闹三上吊的孩子气导致的自杀，所占的比例不低。有的乍看起来脱离了孩子气，譬如女子为了报复负心郎，先上网公布自己的爱情史，然后庄严宣布于某月某日自尽，其实仍不是基于对生命认真的思考。由于历史与文化的原因，这种自暴自弃的孩子气，表现在日常生活的各个方面。有的人因感情被欺骗而痛恨异性，性生活混乱，而一旦被描述成孩子气的“报复”，就能得到同情和理解，而忘记她的本能或许根本就倾向于此。 与此相比，我看到的一个自杀事件就毫无孩子气。因为是在网上论坛看的，不知道是哪个国家，但肯定是西方的。一个人决定自杀，先悄悄变卖了值钱的东西，资助需要的人。然后写下遗嘱，要捐献自己的器官。最后跑到一座大桥上，做好准备，平静地给急救中心打电话，通知他们来摘取器官。这种认真自杀的态度，会尽可能地隐藏自己的意图，一次不成，还会静悄悄地继续努力。而那些孩子气的以自杀为手段的，会潜意识地或明明白白地故意让人知道，并在事后像战斗英雄或黑社会老大一样夸耀自己的刀疤，或像劳教释放者一样炫耀自己的经历。 全球每年有近百万人自杀，这个数字高于战争中的牺牲者，也高于任何一种致死的疾病。根据美国的统计数据，自杀者中，男性多于女性。有人认为，这是因为男女在遗传上的心理结构不同。我同意此说法，自杀其实是一种没有生还希望的冒险（当然，有人喝了假冒伪劣的农药自杀未遂）。男人的冒险精神远远高于女性，是基于开拓未知交配机会的企图。在交配资源有限的情况下（除了有足够的钱去妓院，对于雄性来说情况总是这样的），雄性是不吝惜生命去冒险的，否则，生命就没有意义了。虽说是留得青山在，不怕没柴烧，在许多情形下，山头是别人的山头，是不能随便上去砍柴的，战败等于死亡。与其退缩，还不如就豁出去了。所以，许多明知不可为而为之的冒险，其实跟自杀差不多。人肉炸弹或炮灰很容易被培训出来，就是充分利用了人的本能。在战争和种族冲突中，自杀常被理解成利他行为，或是亲缘选择（原始部落之间的战争，战友之间无疑是有亲属关系的）。这样的成分应该是有的，但从动物的利他行为看，人类的利他行为不该有这样普遍。况且，利他行为不是那么容易被培养（想像一下吧，学习雷锋好榜样唱了多少年吧，大街上依然没有多少雷锋同志）。相反，生殖本能却很容易诱导，几盘塑料光碟就能使不少青少年犯罪。 在西方，讨论自杀的网站和论坛不少，其内容并不只局限于自杀的方法和是否应该自杀。我的大概印象是，他们对自杀是否痛苦很关心，对自杀的方法很有研究，这体现了他们对待死亡的态度。所谓生命的尊严不在于活多少岁，而是生存的质量，有没有痛苦，是否受到虐待。出生时是否痛苦，那是没法选择的（或曰：对人而言，最善之策是不要出生），但对于死亡，个人是有自由的。这种态度从屠宰动物的方式可见一斑。我在美国生活过半年，刚去时，觉得猪肉、鸡肉腥味很重，吃起来有点恶心。后来，朋友告诉我，他们屠宰动物不像我们先用刀放血，而是电击致死，这样动物会少点痛苦。我们有五千年的文明，要不是改革开放，可能不屑于考虑这样的事情。甚至，来自孔孟之乡的人们，杀猪前极尽所能给猪灌水，甚至灌混水沟里的水，有的甚至被灌死。政府打击注水肉，从没提起过动物死亡前的痛苦，只是为了保护消费者的利益--人的利益。对利益的狭隘理解，也导致我们的很长是时期内忽视了刑讯逼供，只要没留下残疾，不影响劳动能力，往往不能得到赔偿。几千年来，我们只强调杀人偿命借债还钱，而对虐待罪没有足够的认识--虐待他人也是罪大恶极，也需要还钱。 有一个论坛，本来是讨论节日和自杀的关系，英文缩写正好是ASH--灰飞烟灭的灰。现在，它仅仅是一个论坛（已几乎被垃圾广告淹没），其对自杀的态度是，不鼓励也不劝阻。这样的态度可能是人类文明的发展方向，当一个人真正觉得生存毫无意义，心理治疗无效，社会就应该尊重他的选择，并想办法让他毫无痛苦地离开。从对待生育、堕胎和安乐死的态度转变，大概能看出这样的趋势。人类是经过生存斗争发展起来的，当生存无忧，斗争已没必要，生活就失去了目标。有人会问，我为什么还要存在下去呢？我的存在有什么意义？就是为了让亲人感到安慰？万物之中，唯有人会考虑这样的问题，所以是很哲学的问题，没有人能很好地回答。死亡，是唯一一个只需要哲学家思考的问题（若干哲学家说过类似的话），而不是医生或科学家的问题。科学家的任务是怎样才能让人延长寿命，而不管人是否需要长寿。医生的任务是拖延人的死亡时间，而不管病人是否痛不欲生或生不如死。
标签: please
