含有〈人类〉标签的文章(5)

[译文]根本没有种族这回事

Such a thing
种族这回事

作者:Gregory Cochran @ 2016-4-19
译者:Tankman
校对:龙泉
来源:https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/such-a-thing/

“there’s no such thing as race” is a standard sentence in the United States and Europe. Conventional wisdom, and like so much conventional wisdom, false.

“没有种族这回事”在欧美,这是老生常谈。传统观点,甚至如此传统的观点,是错误的。

Of course there is.

种族,当然是存在的。

First you need to define your terms. I would suggest that any population – a group whose members have mated within that group, almost entirely, for some time – and has experienced strong-enough natural selection to change significantly in some trait that we give a shit abo(more...)

标签: | |
7094
Such a thing 种族这回事 作者:Gregory Cochran @ 2016-4-19 译者:Tankman 校对:龙泉 来源:https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/such-a-thing/ “there’s no such thing as race” is a standard sentence in the United States and Europe. Conventional wisdom, and like so much conventional wisdom, false. “没有种族这回事”在欧美,这是老生常谈。传统观点,甚至如此传统的观点,是错误的。 Of course there is. 种族,当然是存在的。 First you need to define your terms. I would suggest that any population – a group whose members have mated within that group, almost entirely, for some time – and has experienced strong-enough natural selection to change significantly in some trait that we give a shit about can usefully be considered a race. Or a ‘goklu’, where goklu has exactly the same operational meaning as race, without having yet acquired any toxic associations. 首先,你得需要为你的术语给出定义。我的建议是:任何人群,群内成员交配繁衍(有时几乎只在群内交配),并且经历了足够强度的自然选择因而显著改变了一些被我们所在意的重要性状,那么方便起见,这样的群体便可称作一个种族。或者叫它“格克鲁”【译注:作者生造词】也行,在此处,格克鲁有着和种族完全一样的操作性意义,但尚未像后者那样获得毒性。 Low levels of inward gene flow allow selection to change the frequencies of alleles, so mating within the group is important. Usually this endogamy is a natural consequence of geography (not much gene flow across the Atlantic before Columbus) but sometimes it has been caused by social rules, as in the case of the Ashkenazi Jews or the Hindu castes. 低水平的外来基因流入,让自然选择得以改变等位基因的频率,因此交配限于群内这一点是重要的。通常这种内婚是地理分割的自然结果(如哥伦布之前,大西洋两岸并未发生很多基因转移),但有时社会规则也会导致内婚,如阿什肯納茲犹太人和印度种姓制度。 Low inward gene flow: in order for significant differences in the neutral genome to accumulate, there must have been < 1 immigrant per generation for tens of of thousands of years or more. That has happened sometimes, and not just with Neanderthals: sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians were that separate until fairly recently, and have that kind of differences in their neutral genomes. For that matter, Bushmen and Bantu were genetically distinct for an even longer period. So it takes only a little gene flow to stop drift in its tracks. 低水平的外来基因流入:为了累积中性基因组的显著差异,在数万年甚至更长时间内,每代的外来迁入率必须小于1%【编注:依下文内容可知,此处原文漏了百分号】。这种情况时有发生,而且不止在尼安德特人身上:撒哈拉以南的非洲人和欧亚人种间的隔离状态,直到相当晚近时才结束。而他们的中性基因组也有这种差别。同样的,布希曼人和班图人在更长的时间内,在遗传学上有显著不同。所以,只需要一小点基因转移,就能让遗传漂变改变轨迹。 Selection can be a lot stronger, and it takes more gene flow to scotch it. You could have effective selection for IQ among the Ashkenazi Jews even in the presence of as much as 0.5% inward gene flow per generation from the general European population. 2% would have been too much, though. 选择压力的作用则可强大得多,需要更多的基因流入才能抵消。即使目前经历了每代0.5%的来自欧洲人口的外来基因流入,你仍可以在阿什肯納茲犹太人中观察到针对智商的让人印象深刻的选择压力。不过,也许2%的外来基因流入会抵消选择压力的效果。 A long period of genetic isolation does not automatically generate differences in any particular trait: but it does show that there has been an extended opportunity for selection to operate effectively and generate population differences. 长期的遗传隔离不能自动产生任何特有性状上的不同:但是它的确显示了选择压力更起作用,并导致种群差异。 So when we see differences, how old are they? and how can we tell? Plausible selection pressures could generates one-std trait differences in as little as a thousand years, and in some cases, like the Ashkenazim, it likely has. In other cases it may have operated over tens of thousands of years, even as much as quarter of a million years (Bushmen/Pygmies versus other humans). 所以,当我们看到差异时,如何得知这些差异发生多久了?某些情况下,在短短一千年里,合理的选择压力可以产生一个标准差的性状差异,阿什肯納茲犹太人很可能就是这样。其他情况下可能要花上几万年甚至长达二三十万年(比如布须曼人/俾格米人相对于其他人类的差异)。 If the trait in question is characteristic of a geographically extended population, you might suspect that selection had operated over a long time. But since we now know that there have been many population expansions and replacements, you might be wrong. Ancient DNA may be a better guide. 如果讨论的性状属于一个在地理上广泛分布的人群,你一定会怀疑自然选择已经作用了很长时间。但是既然我们现在知道很多人口扩张和替代现象,你的猜测可能是错的。古代DNA可能是更好的线索。 So sometimes the explanation for the differences between two populations may go back deep into the Ice Age, but it might also have happened since the birth of agriculture, or even since the fall of Rome. 所以有时解释两个种群间的差异,可能要回溯到冰河时代,但它也可能发生在农业起源之后,甚至是罗马灭亡之后。 Suppose you have a one-std difference in some trait between two populations? What can we say about the genetic architecture? Well, sometime it boils down to the presence or absence of a single allele. Other times it is caused by a shift in the frequencies of a number of alleles that each have a small effect on the trait. 假如在两个种群间,一些性状存在一个标准差的差距,在遗传构成方面,我们有何结论?有时,这归结于某个等位基因的存在或缺失。也有时,这是因为多个等位基因的频率漂变,每个(对)等位基因对性状均有一些影响。 African-Americans average about 1-std lower in white count. That’s all due to the Duffy allele. All else equal, northern Europeans are a couple of centimeters taller than southern Europeans: that is caused by frequency differences in hundreds of alleles affecting height, a shift that on the whole has increased the frequency of plus variants. 非裔美国人平均比美国白人矮一个标准差。这完全归因于Duffy等位基因。其他条件相同时,北欧人比南欧人高一两厘米:这是因为数百个影响身高的等位基因的频率差异,某个漂变作用于这些等位基因上,增加了正向变异的频数。 So what to say to someone that asks about the ‘race gene’? First, you tell her that she’s an idiot. The complex of shovel-shaped incisors, thick hair, small breasts, more eccrine sweat glands, and a different shape to the hangy-down part of the ear, fixed in northeast Asia, is indeed caused by a single allele, an EDAR variant that is essentially nonexistent in Europe or Africa. On the other hand, Pygmy height, or the lack of it, is influenced by a number of alleles. 所以如果有人问道“人种基因”的问题,该怎么回答呢?首先,你告诉她她是个白痴。铲形门齿,浓密头发,小乳房,小汗腺发达,以及耳垂的不同形状,这些集中于东北亚人种的组合性状,实际上是由同一个等位基因带来的,一个不存在于欧非人种中的EDAR变异。另一方面,俾格米人的身高,或者说身高很低,则反映了大量等位基因的影响。 But the genetic architecture isn’t all that important: it’s the differences that matter. Pygmies are really short – that’s what matters. 但是遗传结构并不一定都那么重要:重要的是性状差异。比如俾格米人真的很矮,这才是要紧的。 Along those lines, Lewontin and other bullshit artists have tried to argue that genetic statistics are such that human groups can’t really be different. Most genetic variation in humans is within-group, rather than between-group: so fucking what? the same is true for dogs: am I supposed to think that pit bulls and Chihuahuas and border collies are ‘really the same’? 类似的,列万廷或者其他喷子一直试图争辩,遗传统计学反映了人类族群并非真的不同。人类的大多数遗传学变异出现在族群内,而非族群之间:那又如何?对狗来说也一样啊:难道我就应该认为斗牛犬和吉娃娃和边境牧羊犬“真的是一样的”吗? Having more plus variants in the alleles that affect a particular quantitative trait doesn’t show up in these genetic statistics (like Fst) at all. Neither would a big frequency difference in a single allele that had a big effect, like EDAR. 这些遗传统计学差异(例如Fst,【译注:费雪统计量,衡量种群间基因差异程度】)完全不能反映影响了特定性状的数据对应的等位基因含有更多正向变异。也不能反映某一有显著影响的单个等位基因在频数上的巨大差异,例如EDAR。 People are mostly about as different as they seem to be. There are exceptions, cases where an environmental insult makes a fair amount of difference. This is particularly the case with height, where nutritional status can easily create a 1-std difference. But height is influenced by genetics, too, and the shortest people (the Pygmies) are short for genetic reasons, not because they’re starving. 一般来说,人群间的差异看上去有多大,他们的基因差异就有多大。环境冲击是一个例外,它也可以导致相当多的差异。尤其是身高,营养环境可以造成一个标准差的差异。但基因也可以影响身高。最矮的人群(俾格米人)长得矮就是因为基因而非饥饿。 What about the magic immunity of the brain to natural selection? That’s nonsense, of course. We know, for sure, that different goklus have different distributions of personality traits – because they act significantly differently with 24 hours of birth. All the psychometric results indicate that goklus vary in intelligence too [perhaps 3 stds from highest to lowest] probably largely because of differences in the frequency of many alleles with small effects. 关于自然选择,难道大脑就能神奇的免于其影响吗?这当然是胡扯。我们确定知道,不同种族在人格特质上有不同的分布——出生24小时之后,人们的行为就明显不同。所有智商测试结果都表明不同种族在智商上也有差异(最低水平与最高水平间约有三个标准差),这可能归因于众多影响智商的等位基因在频率上的差别。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]为什么你会讨厌自己的声音

Why you probably hate the sound of your own voice
为什么你可能会讨厌自己的声音

作者:Rachel Feltman @ 2015-6-16
译者:Marcel ZHANG(微博:@马赫塞勒张)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:The Washington Post,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/16/why-you-probably-hate-the-sound-of-your-own-voice/

Whether you’ve heard yourself talking on the radio or just gabbing in a friend’s Instagram video, you probably know the sound of your own voice — and chances are pretty good that you hate it.

不论是通过听到自己在广播上讲话,或是在朋友的Instagram视频里闲聊,你可能都已经了解了自己的声音,而且你很可能并不喜欢这个声音。

As the video above explains, your voice as you hear it when you speak out loud is very different from the voice the rest of the world perceives. That(more...)

标签: | |
6967
Why you probably hate the sound of your own voice 为什么你可能会讨厌自己的声音 作者:Rachel Feltman @ 2015-6-16 译者:Marcel ZHANG(微博:@马赫塞勒张) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:The Washington Post,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/16/why-you-probably-hate-the-sound-of-your-own-voice/ Whether you've heard yourself talking on the radio or just gabbing in a friend's Instagram video, you probably know the sound of your own voice -- and chances are pretty good that you hate it. 不论是通过听到自己在广播上讲话,或是在朋友的Instagram视频里闲聊,你可能都已经了解了自己的声音,而且你很可能并不喜欢这个声音。 As the video above explains, your voice as you hear it when you speak out loud is very different from the voice the rest of the world perceives. That's because it comes to you via a different channel than everyone else. 你在你大声讲话时自己听到的声音跟其他人听到的大不相同。那是因为声音传播给其他人和传播给你自己所通过的是不同的途径。 When sound waves from the outside world -- someone else's voice, for example -- hit the outer ear, they're siphoned straight through the ear canal to hit the ear drum, creating vibrations that the brain will translate into sound. 当从外界传来的声波(比如其他人发出的声音)抵达外耳时,鼓膜会直接通过耳道将其接收并产生震动,再由大脑将这些震动转化为声音。 When we talk, our ear drums and inner ears vibrate from the sound waves we're putting out into the air. But they also have another source of vibration -- the movements caused by the production of the sound. Our vocal cords and airways are trembling, too, and those vibrations make their way over to auditory processing as well. 当我们讲话时,我们的鼓膜和内耳会因我们向空气中发出的声波而产生震动。但是他们还有其他的震动源,那就是发声时触发的动作。我们的声带和气道也在颤动,而且这些震动也同样参与到了听觉进程当中。 Your body is better at carrying low, rich tones than the air is. So when those two sources of sound get combined into one perception of your own voice, it sounds lower and richer. That's why hearing the way your voice sounds without all the body vibes can be off-putting -- it's unfamiliar -- or even unpleasant, because of the relative tininess. 你的身体比空气更容易传递低沉浑厚的声调。所以,当两种声源合并成为了你对自己声音的感知时,它听起来会相对更加低沉浑厚。这就是为什么你听到自己没有通过身体共鸣的声音会感到反感、陌生甚至是厌恶了,因为那声音相对更单薄。 The sound of your own voice isn't the only place where daily perception can butt up against the ugly truth: We often feel uncomfortable when we see our bodies as other people see them, too. 你自己的声音并不是日常认知与丑陋现实针锋相对的唯一情形。当我们以其他人看我们的方式看到自己的身体时,时常也会觉得有点难受。 Think about it: Chances are good that most of the times that you look at yourself, it's thanks to a mirror or some other reflective surface. But those are mirror images -- our bodies are flipped. Because most faces are pretty asymmetrical (under close observation, anyway), a flip can create really jarring changes. That's why you might wince at photos that show the real you instead of a mirror image. 大家可以想一下,我们要看到自己,大多数情况基本都要借助镜子或者其他反射面。但这些都是镜像,我们的身体是经过翻转的。因为大多数的人脸都是不太对称的(反正在近距离观察下就是这样的),所以一个翻转就能造成令人不快的差别。这就是为什么你在照片中看到真正的自己而不是镜像时可能会眉头紧蹙了。 “We see ourselves in the mirror all the time—you brush your teeth, you shave, you put on makeup,” Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Center, told The Atlantic. “Looking at yourself in the mirror becomes a firm impression. You have that familiarity. Familiarity breeds liking. You’ve established a preference for that look of your face.” 媒体心理学研究中心(Media Psychology Center)主任帕梅拉·拉特利奇在接受《大西洋月刊》采访时说:“我们时常都会在镜子里看到自己,比如刷牙、剃须和化妆的时候。故而镜中的自己就变成了一种固定印象。那么你就会对其产生熟悉感,久而久之这种熟悉感就会催生出喜爱之情,这样一来你便确立了对自己的那种形象的偏爱。” So it should come as no surprise that being reminded that our faces -- and voices -- are slightly different than we think them to be can be a bit unnerving. 所以,当我们想起来我们的形象和声音与我们印象中的不太一致时,也难怪会感到有点懊恼。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

沐猿而冠·第2章·男女·导言

作为有性繁殖生物,两性关系自然对人类有着头等重要性;和其他有性生物一样,过去的觅偶策略(mating strategies)在很大程度上造就了今天的我们,它在我们的身体、心理和文化上都留下了深刻烙印,许多习俗和制度元素也都是实施这些策略的结果,这是一个重要且富有启发却往往被忽视的事实。

用生物学眼光看,这种烙印比比皆是:睾丸重量显示男性间的精子战争曾相当激烈,永久性乳房则显示男性也曾有机会挑剔配偶,发情期和性肿胀的消失表明,我们祖先迫切需要某种机制将夫妻天天栓在一起,大量分布的性敏感区似乎也是为了配合这一需要,其尺寸在灵长类中傲视群雄的阴茎,或许暗示了男性在求偶中曾广泛使用强迫手段的历史……

当我们把目光转向文化时,性策略的痕迹同样明显:我们有许多发达的第二性征,也努力装扮自己以求吸引异性,同时却又用衣物遮掩最具性刺(more...)

标签: | | |
6820
作为有性繁殖生物,两性关系自然对人类有着头等重要性;和其他有性生物一样,过去的觅偶策略(mating strategies)在很大程度上造就了今天的我们,它在我们的身体、心理和文化上都留下了深刻烙印,许多习俗和制度元素也都是实施这些策略的结果,这是一个重要且富有启发却往往被忽视的事实。 用生物学眼光看,这种烙印比比皆是:睾丸重量显示男性间的精子战争曾相当激烈,永久性乳房则显示男性也曾有机会挑剔配偶,发情期和性肿胀的消失表明,我们祖先迫切需要某种机制将夫妻天天栓在一起,大量分布的性敏感区似乎也是为了配合这一需要,其尺寸在灵长类中傲视群雄的阴茎,或许暗示了男性在求偶中曾广泛使用强迫手段的历史…… 当我们把目光转向文化时,性策略的痕迹同样明显:我们有许多发达的第二性征,也努力装扮自己以求吸引异性,同时却又用衣物遮掩最具性刺激的部位,如此构造了一个精心调控收放自如的信号系统,因为我们的性魅力是定向投送的,适当遮掩才能避免在错误时机向错误对象发送性信号,那会带来严重后果,这表明我们对配偶相当挑剔,也会因交配而承担巨大责任。 这一可调控信号机制,将我们的性魅力表达与感知能力塑造得极为精妙,创造出了从最大胆奔放到最含蓄微妙的种种性吸引和性暗示方式,这些元素也渗透进了服饰、语言、戏曲、文学等等创造物中,全面而深刻的影响了我们的审美情趣和艺术创作。 人类性心理中另一些机制则更为特别,女性对配偶出轨的细微线索异常敏感,也对任何潜在对手在配偶面前的出现表现得十分警惕,而且忍不住会对其竞争实力进行评估,并与自己做一番比较;男性的敏感点不太一样,无论他们在做什么,只要有适龄女性出现,就会表现得更要强好斗争胜;这些特性,都和我们的觅偶策略与婚配模式有关。 抚养孩子的需要,迫使我们建立固定配偶关系,但同时我们的性策略又相当机会主义,并不那么专一,所以在觅偶过程中,两性都需要以某种方式让对方相信自己的承诺,男性用一种看起来高度非理性的颠狂状态来证明其难以自拔的迷恋和不顾一切的许诺,女性则用羞怯和矜持来证明其贞洁和自爱。 雄性历来倾向于广种薄收的数量策略,但人类婴儿的脆弱性和沉重抚养负担却迫使男性经营长期关系,他们为此作出了巨大投入,实际上,这是促使男性辛勤劳作和在社会竞技场的拼搏奋斗的主要动机,对于这样的巨额投资,他们自然会寻求某种保障来控制亲子关系不确定所带来的风险,反过来,女性也会寻求一种机制来确保男性履行其持续投入于长期关系的承诺。 这场博弈的结果是一整套婚姻契约和与之配合的性伦理规范,要求双方忠诚守诺;然而,此类规范赋予两性的责任是不对称的,一方面要求女性贞洁专一,同时却往往容许男性寻求更多性伙伴,只要不影响他们继续履行对已有婚姻的责任,在基督教文明主导世界之前,多数社会的性伦理都正式接受多妻关系。 但这又明显不同于狮子或海豹那样的多偶关系,而是一种允许男性在确保履行既有责任的前提下,按其资源能力决定配偶数量的弹性多妻制,这一安排或许是因为,人类若要成功狩猎,并在相邻群体的争斗中取胜,必须依靠团队合作,因而不能接受海豹那样的赢家通吃局面,而必须在合作团伙内分享性资源,但分享比例不必是均等的,可以随个体在团队内地位而异。 这一局面将雄性间古老的配偶竞争引向了全新方向,尽管人类男性也会像雄孔雀那样展示优良禀赋,或像公鸡那样一对一搏斗,但更多采用的是组织化竞争手段(正如他们在狩猎和战争中所做的),其中最古老也最普遍的,是父系家族组织,从凭借对共同祖先的个人记忆而维系的小型家族,到依靠符号、仪式和神话而维系的氏族、宗族、部落等更大规模血缘组织,组织化竞争推动着社会结构和制度向日益复杂的方向发展。 由于父系家族常与外婚制([[exogamy]])相搭配,因而通婚关系往往成为不同父系群体之间建立合作联盟的基础,而适当选择通婚对象,也是个人、家族和部落经营其合作网络以扩大自身政治权力的重要手段;长期持续的通婚关系,既是超越父系家族之上的更高层政治共同体得以维系的纽带,也是在更大范围内形成共同文化的重要途径。 一旦通婚有了这样的功能,族内的待嫁女性以及她们的禀赋和声誉,便成了家族经营其政治实力的宝贵资源,因而具有了家族公共资产的性质,这便为家族(尤其是从家族势力中获益较多的上层人物)严格执行其性规范以维护家族声誉提供了强大激励;不难发现,越是宗族组织发达、宗族间竞争激烈的地方,对贞节牌坊的需求和惩罚越轨者的冲动便越是强烈。 通婚在维系合作纽带和建立共同文化上的作用,在社会各阶层之间并不同步,每个层次上的跨群体合作与文化融合,总是首先在这些群体的上层人物之间发生,而下层大众的通婚和交往范围都更为局限,结果是,任何一个多层次大型共同体的任一层次上,无论在语言、知识、生活方式,还是价值观念、历史记忆、民族认同上,都会出现上层融合而下层分异的情况。 婚姻的上述社会性功能,也促使父母们强化了对子女婚姻的控制,导致各种形式的包办婚广为流行:童婚、攀附婚、买卖婚、政治婚,等等;此时,一桩婚姻的缔结不再只是夫妻双方的事情,而是两个家族关系的全面整合,相应的,离婚将是这一关系网的一次大撕裂;如此一来,青年男女便逐渐丧失了恋爱婚姻自由,并被束缚在日益严苛的性伦理之中。 直到近代(西方更早些)以来,家族的社会结构功能逐渐被教会、学校、企业、社团、政府等其他组织所取代,社会变得更富流动性,个人才得以从那张严丝合缝、笼罩一切的伦理之网中挣脱出来,获得独立和自主,恋爱、婚姻和家庭生活才与公共生活隔离开来,成为闲人莫入的私属领地,一个避风港。  
[译文]音乐起源与人类进化

人类进化历程中的音乐
Music in Human Evolution

作者:Kevin Simler @ 2015-10-16
译者:Veidt(@Veidt)
校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
来源:Melting Asphalt,http://www.meltingasphalt.com/music-in-human-evolution/

I just finished the strangest, most disconcerting little book. It’s called Why Do People Sing?: Music in Human Evolution by Joseph Jordania.

我刚刚读完了一本让人称奇,又极为令人不安的小书——Joseph Jordania的《为什么人们会唱歌?——人类进化历程中的音乐》。

If the title hasn’t already piqued your interest, its thesis surely will. The thesis is wild, bold, and original, but makes an eerie amount of sense. If true, it would be a revolution — and I don’t use the term lightly — in how we understand the evolution of music, cooperation, warfare, and even religion.

如果这个标题还不足以激起你的兴趣,那么书中的理论一定会让你兴味盎然。该书论点狂野大胆又富于原创,但却合乎情理到可怕的程度。如果成立,它将成为我们理解音乐,人类合作,战争甚至宗教之演化过程的一项革命性理论——我一般不轻易使用“革命性”这个词。

I have my reservations about Jordania’s theory (and his book), but I’ll save them for a later time. As Daniel Dennett once wrote about another remarkable theory:

对于Jordania的理论(以及这本书)我仍有一些保留意见,但我打算把它们留到以后再讨论。正如Daniel Dennett曾就另一项卓越理论所写道的:

I think first it is very important to understand [the] project, to see a little bit more about what the whole shape of it is, and delay the barrage of nitpicking objections and criticisms until we have seen what the edifice as a whole is. After all, on the face of it, [the project] is preposterous… [but] I take it very seriously.

我认为首要的任务是理解这项理论,多看看它的整体是什么样的,在我们完全看清整个理论大厦前,不要急着接二连三地提出那些挑剔的反对和批评。尽管该理论表面看来荒诞不经……但我会很认真地对待它。

These are exactly my feelings about Jordania’s project. Seemingly preposterous, but worth taking very seriously.

对于Jordania的工作,我的感觉也正是如此。它看似荒谬,却值得我们非常认真地对待。

0.STYLIZED FACTS
0.典型事实

I’m going to share Jordania’s theory with you, but first I want to present a set of “stylized facts” — curious, disparate, and nearly inexplicable phenomena that would seem to have little relation to each other. Then I’ll present the theory that (uncannily) links them all together and explains everything.

下面我将与你分享Jordania的理论,但首先,我想向你呈现一组“典型事实”——这是一组奇怪的,完全不同的,而且几乎无法解释的现象,互相之间看起来也没什么联系。之后,我会展示这项能够(以一种不可思议的方式)将它们联系在一起并且解释这一切现象的理论。

OK, brace yourself. Here come the facts:

打起精神,做好准备。让我们来看看这些“典型事实”:

  • When our ancestors [1] first moved from the forest to the savannah, we were not yet capable of making tools. But early hominid evolution tended away from a physiology that would have helped us hunt and/or defend ourselves from predators. Our canine teeth receded, we became slower and weaker, and we didn’t develop tough skin (in fact the opposite).
  • 当我们的祖先第一次从森林中迁徙到热带稀树草原时,人类还没有获得制造工具的能力。但从生理学上看,早期原始人类的进化却并不利于人们狩猎以及防御捕食者。人类的犬齿退化了,运动变得缓慢,身体也变得更弱,而且也没有进化出坚韧的皮肤(事实上恰恰相反)。
  • Lion evolution and migration seems to have mirrored early hominid patterns, both spatiotemporally and (in some ways) behaviorally and morphologically. Lions, for example, are the only social species of cat.
  • 狮子的进化以及迁徙模式看起来与早期人类恰好互为镜像,不论从时间和空间上,还是从(某些方面的)行为和形态上说都是如此。举个例子,狮子是唯一一种群居的猫科动物。
  • Humans are the only ground-dwelling species that sings. There are over 4000 singing species — mostly birds, but also gibbons, dolphins, whales, and seals. But they all sing from water or the trees. When a bird lands on the ground, it invariably stops singing.
  • 人类是唯一一种会唱歌的地栖动物。世界上有超过4000种会唱歌的物种——其中大多数都是鸟类,此外还包括长臂猿,海豚,鲸类和海豹。但是这些物种全都是在水中或者树上唱歌。不论哪种鸟类,一旦降落到陆地上,它都会停止歌唱。
  • Of all singing creatures, humans are the only ones who use rhythm.
  • 在所有会唱歌的生物中,人类是唯一会使用韵律的。
  • When we sing, we almost always dance, even if it’s just nodding along or tapping a foot. Both singing and dancing (whether together or separate) are group activities used across the world in tribal bonding rituals. Isolated ethnic groups have remarkably similar styles of song and dance.
  • 当我们唱歌时,我们几乎也总会跳起舞来,即使这种“舞蹈”也许仅仅是随着歌声点头,或者用脚打着节拍。歌唱和舞蹈(不论是同时或是分开进行的)是在世界各地的部落情感强化仪式中广泛使用的集体活动。相互孤立的族群常有着非常相似的歌曲和舞蹈风格。
  • Rhythmic chanting and dancing induce trance states.
  • 有节律的吟唱和舞蹈会诱导人进入恍惚状态。
  • Early hominids quite possibly ate their dead, and (some while later) definitely started burying them. The instinct to preserve a dead human body from mutilation, and then to dispose of it, is fairly universal. E.g. we strive to retrieve corpses even from a battlefield.
  • 早期的原始人很有可能食用同类尸体,但(在晚些时候)肯定开始埋葬尸体了。保护尸体不被损毁,将尸体妥善处置,是一种相当普遍的人类本能。一个典型的例证是,人们即使在战场上也会努力将同伴的尸体取回。

I hope you are intrigued. Each of these facts is hard to explain even in isolation. So a theory that can unify and account for all of them will have to be either profound or crazy — or both.

我希望上述事实激发了你的好奇心。这些事实中的每一条即使是孤立地来看也很难解释。一个能对这些事实做出统一解释的理论要么很深刻,要么很疯狂——也许二者兼有。

At this point I’m going to present Jordania’s theory as clearly and comprehensively as I can. I’ll interpolate a bit and add my own explanatory flare, but the ideas come straight out of his book.

接下来我将尽可能清晰而全面地展示Jordania的理论。我会不时插入一些自己的解释性看法,但其中的观点则直接来自于他的著作。

(more...)

标签: | | |
6478
人类进化历程中的音乐 Music in Human Evolution 作者:Kevin Simler @ 2015-10-16 译者:Veidt(@Veidt) 校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 来源:Melting Asphalt,http://www.meltingasphalt.com/music-in-human-evolution/ I just finished the strangest, most disconcerting little book. It's called Why Do People Sing?: Music in Human Evolution by Joseph Jordania. 我刚刚读完了一本让人称奇,又极为令人不安的小书——Joseph Jordania的《为什么人们会唱歌?——人类进化历程中的音乐》。 If the title hasn't already piqued your interest, its thesis surely will. The thesis is wild, bold, and original, but makes an eerie amount of sense. If true, it would be a revolution — and I don't use the term lightly — in how we understand the evolution of music, cooperation, warfare, and even religion. 如果这个标题还不足以激起你的兴趣,那么书中的理论一定会让你兴味盎然。该书论点狂野大胆又富于原创,但却合乎情理到可怕的程度。如果成立,它将成为我们理解音乐,人类合作,战争甚至宗教之演化过程的一项革命性理论——我一般不轻易使用“革命性”这个词。 I have my reservations about Jordania's theory (and his book), but I'll save them for a later time. As Daniel Dennett once wrote about another remarkable theory: 对于Jordania的理论(以及这本书)我仍有一些保留意见,但我打算把它们留到以后再讨论。正如Daniel Dennett曾就另一项卓越理论所写道的:
I think first it is very important to understand [the] project, to see a little bit more about what the whole shape of it is, and delay the barrage of nitpicking objections and criticisms until we have seen what the edifice as a whole is. After all, on the face of it, [the project] is preposterous... [but] I take it very seriously. 我认为首要的任务是理解这项理论,多看看它的整体是什么样的,在我们完全看清整个理论大厦前,不要急着接二连三地提出那些挑剔的反对和批评。尽管该理论表面看来荒诞不经……但我会很认真地对待它。
These are exactly my feelings about Jordania's project. Seemingly preposterous, but worth taking very seriously. 对于Jordania的工作,我的感觉也正是如此。它看似荒谬,却值得我们非常认真地对待。 0.STYLIZED FACTS 0.典型事实 I'm going to share Jordania's theory with you, but first I want to present a set of "stylized facts" — curious, disparate, and nearly inexplicable phenomena that would seem to have little relation to each other. Then I'll present the theory that (uncannily) links them all together and explains everything. 下面我将与你分享Jordania的理论,但首先,我想向你呈现一组“典型事实”——这是一组奇怪的,完全不同的,而且几乎无法解释的现象,互相之间看起来也没什么联系。之后,我会展示这项能够(以一种不可思议的方式)将它们联系在一起并且解释这一切现象的理论。 OK, brace yourself. Here come the facts: 打起精神,做好准备。让我们来看看这些“典型事实”:
  • When our ancestors [1] first moved from the forest to the savannah, we were not yet capable of making tools. But early hominid evolution tended away from a physiology that would have helped us hunt and/or defend ourselves from predators. Our canine teeth receded, we became slower and weaker, and we didn't develop tough skin (in fact the opposite).
  • 当我们的祖先第一次从森林中迁徙到热带稀树草原时,人类还没有获得制造工具的能力。但从生理学上看,早期原始人类的进化却并不利于人们狩猎以及防御捕食者。人类的犬齿退化了,运动变得缓慢,身体也变得更弱,而且也没有进化出坚韧的皮肤(事实上恰恰相反)。
  • Lion evolution and migration seems to have mirrored early hominid patterns, both spatiotemporally and (in some ways) behaviorally and morphologically. Lions, for example, are the only social species of cat.
  • 狮子的进化以及迁徙模式看起来与早期人类恰好互为镜像,不论从时间和空间上,还是从(某些方面的)行为和形态上说都是如此。举个例子,狮子是唯一一种群居的猫科动物。
  • Humans are the only ground-dwelling species that sings. There are over 4000 singing species — mostly birds, but also gibbons, dolphins, whales, and seals. But they all sing from water or the trees. When a bird lands on the ground, it invariably stops singing.
  • 人类是唯一一种会唱歌的地栖动物。世界上有超过4000种会唱歌的物种——其中大多数都是鸟类,此外还包括长臂猿,海豚,鲸类和海豹。但是这些物种全都是在水中或者树上唱歌。不论哪种鸟类,一旦降落到陆地上,它都会停止歌唱。
  • Of all singing creatures, humans are the only ones who use rhythm.
  • 在所有会唱歌的生物中,人类是唯一会使用韵律的。
  • When we sing, we almost always dance, even if it's just nodding along or tapping a foot. Both singing and dancing (whether together or separate) are group activities used across the world in tribal bonding rituals. Isolated ethnic groups have remarkably similar styles of song and dance.
  • 当我们唱歌时,我们几乎也总会跳起舞来,即使这种“舞蹈”也许仅仅是随着歌声点头,或者用脚打着节拍。歌唱和舞蹈(不论是同时或是分开进行的)是在世界各地的部落情感强化仪式中广泛使用的集体活动。相互孤立的族群常有着非常相似的歌曲和舞蹈风格。
  • Rhythmic chanting and dancing induce trance states.
  • 有节律的吟唱和舞蹈会诱导人进入恍惚状态。
  • Early hominids quite possibly ate their dead, and (some while later) definitely started burying them. The instinct to preserve a dead human body from mutilation, and then to dispose of it, is fairly universal. E.g. we strive to retrieve corpses even from a battlefield.
  • 早期的原始人很有可能食用同类尸体,但(在晚些时候)肯定开始埋葬尸体了。保护尸体不被损毁,将尸体妥善处置,是一种相当普遍的人类本能。一个典型的例证是,人们即使在战场上也会努力将同伴的尸体取回。
I hope you are intrigued. Each of these facts is hard to explain even in isolation. So a theory that can unify and account for all of them will have to be either profound or crazy — or both. 我希望上述事实激发了你的好奇心。这些事实中的每一条即使是孤立地来看也很难解释。一个能对这些事实做出统一解释的理论要么很深刻,要么很疯狂——也许二者兼有。 At this point I'm going to present Jordania's theory as clearly and comprehensively as I can. I'll interpolate a bit and add my own explanatory flare, but the ideas come straight out of his book. 接下来我将尽可能清晰而全面地展示Jordania的理论。我会不时插入一些自己的解释性看法,但其中的观点则直接来自于他的著作。 1.HUNTERS OR SCAVENGERS? 1.猎人还是腐食者? When human ancestors first descended from the trees and stepped out onto the grasslands, they faced two critical problems: acquiring food and defending themselves from predators. We'll discuss food acquisition in this section and defense in the next section, but as you'll see they're linked by a similar mechanism. 当人类祖先第一次从树上下来走进草原时,他们面临着两个至关重要的问题:获取食物以及防御捕食者的捕杀。我们会这一节里讨论食物的获取,之后在下一节里讨论防御问题。但正如你将看到的,这两个问题实际上是由一种类似的机制联系在一起的。 I hadn't thought deeply about these problems until I read Jordania's book. I always imagined, naively, that early humans had been "hunter-gatherers." While this is true of later humans, it's almost certainly not true of our earliest savannah-dwelling ancestors. Gathering? yes. But hunting, especially big-game hunting, was out of the question. As I mentioned, our earliest ancestors hadn't yet learned how to make or use tools beyond simple rocks and sticks, and we were fairly weak. 在读到Jordania的书之前,我从来没有深入地思考过这些问题。我总是天真地设想,早期人类是“狩猎-采集者”。虽然之后的人类的确如此,但对于最早生活在热带稀树草原上的人类祖先而言,这几乎是不可能的。他们会采集食物吗?是的。但是狩猎,尤其是大规模的群体狩猎,则是完全不现实的。我之前提到过,除了简单的石块和树枝以外,我们最早的祖先还没有学会如何制造和使用工具,而且人类的身体也相当弱。 Yet we certainly ate meat — the archaeological record is pretty clear on that. So there's a growing consensus that we were actually scavengers (or perhaps "scavenger-gatherers"). 但是当时的人类显然是吃肉的——在这方面有相当清楚的考古学证据。所以现在学术界有了一种越来越强的共识,认为早期人类实际上是食腐者(或者也可称为“食腐-采集者”)。 Now there are two types of scavenging, two strategies for "carcass acquisition": passive and confrontational. Passive scavenging occurs when the scavenger comes across an undefended carcass. If the carcass was the result of a natural (non-predatory) death, there will be plenty to eat, assuming the scavenger finds it before putrefaction sets in (about 48 hours). 食腐行为可以分为两类,分别对应着两种不同的获取尸体方式:被动式获取和对抗式获取。当食腐者发现一具无守卫的尸体时,我们称之为被动式食腐。如果尸体是自然死亡(而非被捕食)的结果,就会有大量可供食用的肉,前提是食腐者能在尸体腐烂之前找到它(这个时间窗口约为48小时)。 But even if the carcass was killed and eaten by a predator, there's going to be some meat left on the bone. And, just as important, inside the bone. Marrow was an excellent source of calories for our early ancestors, and we were in a unique position to access it, since we could use rocks as primitive tools to break the bones open. 但即使尸体被某个掠食者杀死并吃掉,骨头上也会剩下一些肉。而且同样重要的是,在骨头里面也有可供食用的东西。对于我们早期祖先而言,骨髓是一种优质的能量来源,而且人类在获取骨髓方面处于独特的优势地位,因为人类可以将石头作为一种原始工具将骨头砸开。 The archeological record shows bones that were repeatedly smashed with "hammering stones," as well as bones that had scrape-marks, indicating that we also used sharp stones to carve off some of the clingier meat. 考古学记录显示,有些骨头被反复地用“锤石”敲碎,而有些骨头上则有刮擦的痕迹,这表明人类同样会使用锋利的石头以切下一些粘在骨头上的肉。 Now, confrontational scavenging is where it gets interesting — and also more circumstantial. Confrontational scavenging, also known as power or aggressive scavenging, happens when an animal (or group of animals) comes across a carcass that's in the process of being eaten, whether by the original predator or another scavenger. In this case, a confrontation ensues, and to the victor go the spoils. 相对来说,对抗式的食腐行为则更有趣,虽然支持证据也更为间接。对抗式食腐也被称为力量式或侵略式食腐,它通常是指当一只(或一群)动物遭遇了一具正在被其他动物(可能是最初的捕食者,也可能是其它食腐者)食用的尸体。在这种情况下,对抗随之而来,而胜者则将获得战利品。 Whether our ancestors practiced confrontational scavenging is hard to determine, given the evidence available to us at this point, but it's not a crazy idea. It happens all the time in the (non-human) animal kingdom, as when a pack of hyenas scares a lion away from its kill. 通过当前所能获得的证据,我们很难确定人类祖先是否有过对抗式食腐行为,但这并不是一个疯狂的想法。在动物王国(不包括人类)中,对抗式的食腐行为时刻都在发生,例如一群鬣狗会将一头狮子从它杀死的猎物身边吓走。 2.DEFENSE FROM PREDATORS 2.防御捕食者的捕杀 Along with finding food, defense from predators is crucial to the survival of any species, and ours presents a puzzle. 除了寻找食物之外,防御捕食者的捕杀对于任何物种的生存而言都至关重要,而我们祖先在这方面则给我们留下了一个谜题。 We definitely had predators — lions, principally, but also other big cats (jaguars, leopards), as well as hyenas and maybe crocodiles. (Or more accurately, the ancestors of those species, since they've been evolving just as we have. Hyena-ancestors, for example, were much larger than their modern descendants.) 很明显,有些动物会捕杀人类——主要是狮子,但也包括其它的大型猫科动物(美洲虎,豹子等),此外,鬣狗,可能还有鳄鱼,也会将人类当作捕猎对象。(更准确地说,是这些动物的祖先,因为和人类一样,这些物种也一直在进化。举例来说,鬣狗的祖先就比它们生活在今天的后代要大得多。) Physically, early humans were quite weak — and getting weaker with each generation. As I mentioned earlier, our canines were receding and our skin was growing softer. And we were getting bigger, it's true, but not stronger. Our size developed in service of bipedalism, which made us both weaker and slower(!). 从身体上说,早期人类是很弱的——而且还在一代代地变得更弱。正如我之前所提到的,人类的犬齿在退化,而且皮肤也变得更加柔软。人类的体型在变得更大,这是事实,但并没有变得更强壮。人类的体型是为了适应两足行走而变得更大,但这却让人类的身体变得更弱,也变得更慢。 A chimpanzee, for instance, is roughly twice as strong as a modern human, and can run just as fast if not faster. In the general case, bipedalism results in slower sprinting speeds, even if it increases efficiency (allowing us to walk/run for longer stretches). 例如,黑猩猩身体的强壮程度大约是现代人的两倍,而且并不比人类跑得慢。总体上说,两足行走降低了人类短距离奔跑的速度,即使它的确提升了效率(这让我们能够行走/奔跑更长的距离)。 Across the animal kingdom there are various strategies for evading or defending against predators, known in the literature as antipredator adaptations. Each adaptation defends against one of the four stages of predation: detection, attack, capture, and consumption. 在整个动物王国中,存在许多不同的躲避或防御捕食者捕杀的策略,这些策略在文献中被称为反捕食者适应性。每一种适应性都是为了防御猎食过程中的四个阶段之一:侦查、攻击、捕捉和摄食。 To evade detection, for example, most species pursue a strategy of crypsis, aka hiding. To evade capture, species rely on speed, burrowing, climbing into trees, etc. And to evade consumption, species develop physical defenses like claws, fangs, horns, shells (or at least a tough hide), venom, etc. 例如,为了躲避捕食者的侦查,多数物种都会采用一种保护色策略,或者叫隐藏策略。而不同的物种会依靠速度、挖洞、爬树等不同方式来躲避捕食者的捕捉。为了逃避捕食者的摄食,各物种进化出了多种身体上的防御机制,例如利爪、尖牙、长角、贝壳(或至少是一个坚硬的藏身之所)、毒液等等。 But early humans weren't doing any of these things. Physiologically, we weren't getting stronger or faster, or developing sharper claws or teeth or tougher skin. Nor were we trying to hide. Habitual bipedalism has its benefits, but going unnoticed in the grass certainly isn't one of them. 但是早期人类却没有做到以上的任何一件事情。生理上,人类没有变得更强壮或更快速,也没有进化出尖利的爪牙或强韧的皮肤。人类也没有试图将自己隐藏起来。习惯于两足行走当然有它的好处,但是这却让人类无法在草丛里行走时不被发现。 In fact, we seem to have evolved to become more noticeable, more conspicuous. We grew taller, we sang and made noise (the only animal who sings from the ground), we painted our bodies, and we developed strong body odor. [2] 事实上,人类似乎进化得更加容易引起注意了。人类变得更高,唱歌并且发出噪音(人类是唯一一种会在地上唱歌的动物),在身体上绘上色彩,并且进化出了浓重的体味。[2] The strategy of being conspicuous is known as aposematism: apo (away from) + sematism (signalling) = counter-signalling. Aposematism is an antipredator adaptation which prevents an attack from happening in the first place, by making it easier for the predator to recognize you as unprofitable. 这种故意引起注意的策略通常被称作“警示信号”(aposematism):这个词的词根apo-意为“远离”,-sematism则意为“信号”,合起来的意思就是“反向信号”。“警示信号”是一种能从根源上防止捕食者发动攻击的反捕食者适应性策略,它让捕食者很容易地意识到将你作为捕食对象是一件无利可图的事情。 Species who counter-signal (aposematically) abound in nature, but they all have something up their sleeves, so to speak. Being conspicuous is a viable strategy only when you're advertising an otherwise invisible weapon. Consider the following aposematic species from across the animal kingdom: 自然世界中有许多采取这类(有警示作用的)“反向信号”策略的物种,但是可以说所有这些物种都有自己的杀手锏。只有当你的行为实际上是为了突出某种看不见的武器时,故意引起注意才是一个有效的策略。让我们来看看动物王国中的这些采用“警示信号”策略的物种: Each of these species has a powerful defensive weapon — often some kind of venom/poison, but also noxious odors. And most species advertise this with distinctive coloration (bright and high-contrast), but some use other signals. Rattlesnakes and bees use sound, for example, and many species, including zorillas, 'mark their territory' using scents. [3] 所有的这些物种都拥有各自强大的防御武器——通常是某种毒液或毒物,也有一些是有毒气体。而其中大多数物种都会通过独特的颜色(艳丽而对比度鲜明的)来给自己的武器打广告,但有些物种也会通过其它信号来达到这个目的。例如,响尾蛇和蜜蜂使用声音,而包括非洲臭鼬在内的许多物种则通过气味来“标识”自己的领地。 Aposematism (being conspicuous) doesn't help an organism in a single encounter with a predator; in fact it's a liability. But it helps with repeated encounters. When a predator gets sprayed by a skunk or stung by a bee, it quickly learns to avoid future encounters with all members of the species. 这种(故意引起注意的)“警示信号”策略无法孤立地在一次与捕食者的遭遇中帮助某一个体逃出生天;事实上,这反而是一种拖累。但是一旦与捕食者的遭遇频繁地重复发生,这种策略就能发挥作用。当某个捕食者被臭鼬放出的气体熏到或是被蜂刺蜇过之后,它会迅速地学会在以后尽量避免去碰这些不好惹的物种。 All of this raises a most important question: how did early humans manage to get away with aposematism? What defensive weapons did we have up our sleeves? 所有这些都引出了一个最为重要的问题:早期人类是如何做到通过“警示信号”让捕食者远离自己的?他们到底有什么能够用于防身的“杀手锏”? The answer probably won't surprise you: we used stones. It's how we used them (section 4) that's so unusual. 答案大概不会让你感到吃惊:人类会使用石器。但不寻常的地方则在于人类使用石器的方式(我们会在第4节讨论这个话题)。 3.STONES 3.石器 Stones were the most fundamental weapon at our disposal — the only means we had of causing actual physical damage to another animal. 石器是人类能够支配的最基础的武器——也是人类唯一能够对其它动物造成物理伤害的方式。 When we first started living on the savannah, we hadn't yet developed the hand/eye coordination necessary to hunt with stones (or to make and use other tools for that purpose). But self-defense is a much simpler proposition, for a number of reasons. 当人类最初开始在稀树草原上生活时,我们祖先还没有进化出使用石器捕猎所必需的手眼协调能力(或者制造和使用其它工具以进行捕猎的能力)。但由于以下的一些原因,使用石器自卫则是一个简单得多的命题。 First, using stones to hunt requires a lot of force and a lot of dexterity. You need to hit a target that's moving away from you at high speed, and gravity is not on your side. But defense is different. Defense happens up close. It's much easier to bash a lion with a large rock when the lion is coming toward you. And bringing the rock down allows gravity to work for you rather than against you. 首先,使用石器捕猎要求很大的力量以及很高的敏捷度。你需要能够准确地打中一个快速离你而去的目标,而且重力也并不站在你这一边。但自我防御则完全不同。通常防御都发生在很近的距离内。当一头狮子向你跑来时,用一块大石头砸中它会变得容易很多。而且将石头从上往下砸的动作也能够让重力助你一臂之力,而不是相反。 Moreover, attack and defense are fundamentally asymmetrical. Like in a lawsuit, where the prosecution assumes the burden of proof, in a hunt the predator assumes the burden of actually killing its prey. But to succeed at defense, you don't need to kill your would-be predator — you only need to injure it. If a lion or other competitor gets injured while attacking a human, it will flee the scene, opting to lose a meal rather than risk its life by continuing to fight. 除此之外,进攻和防御从根本上说也是两种完全不对称的行为。就像在一场诉讼中,举证的责任是由原告承担的,在一场捕猎中,杀死猎物的重担完全落在了捕食者的肩上。但是要在防御中获胜,你并不需要杀死潜在的捕猎者——你只需要弄伤它就行了。如果一头狮子或者其它捕食者在攻击人的时候受到伤害,它通常会逃离现场,相比于冒着生命危险继续搏斗下去,捕食者显然更愿意选择少吃这一顿。 And finally, defense was easier for early humans because we helped each other. In most of these circumstances (while being attacked and during confrontational scavenging raids), we had group members by our sides, ready to throw their own stones if others in the group became incapacitated. 最后,对于早期人类而言,防御捕食者之所以变得更容易,还因为人类会互相帮助。在绝大多数情况下(当遇到捕食者的攻击,以及在对抗式食腐的遭遇战中),人类拥有众多一起战斗的同伴,如果同伴中有人丧失了行动能力,他们时刻都准备着掷出手中的石头以帮助他。 Cooperation was indeed our biggest advantage, and our early ancestors refined it, quite literally, to a high art. 事实上,协作才是人类所拥有的最大优势,而我们的祖先则将这个优势发扬光大,毫不夸张地说,他们将协作上升到了艺术的高度。 4.AUDIO-VISUAL INTIMIDATION DISPLAY 4.恐吓性视听展示 Here, finally, is the crux of Jordania's thesis. His claim is that early humans developed a unique defense he calls the Audio-Visual Intimidation Display: 到这里,我们终于触及了Jordania理论中最关键的部分。他的观点是,早期人类发展出了一种被他称作“恐吓性视听展示”的独特防御机制。
My suggestion is that our ancestors turned loud singing into a central element of their defence system against predators. They started using loud, rhythmic singing and shouting accompanied by vigorous, threatening body movements and object throwing to defend themselves from predators. [4] 我对此的看法是,人类祖先将大声歌唱的行为转化为了对抗捕食者的防御机制中的一个核心要素。他们使用大声而富有节律的歌唱和叫喊,伴以有力而富有威胁性的身体动作以及向对方投掷各种物品来防御捕食者的进攻。
Before we go any further, I'd like you to see the AVID in action. Amazingly, some 'primitive' ethnic groups have maintained an AVID-like tradition into modern times. The kailao war dance of the Wallisian people and the Samoan cibi are two examples, but the best-documented tradition is the haka of the New Zealand Māori. 在我们更进一步之前,我希望你能够看看“恐吓性视听展示”(AVID)这种行为是什么样子的。令人惊讶的是,一些“原始的”人类族群将此类传统保留到了现代。瓦利斯群岛原住民的kailao战舞和萨摩亚人的cibi战舞是其中的两个例子,而被记载得最全面的此类传统则是新西兰毛利人的haka战舞。 Wikipedia describes the haka as 维基百科对haka战舞的描述如下:
a traditional ancestral war cry, dance or challenge from the Māori people of New Zealand. It is a posture dance performed by a group, with vigorous movements and stamping of the feet with rhythmically shouted accompaniment.... 新西兰毛利人的一种继承自祖先的传统战争呼喊、舞蹈或挑战形式。这是一种由群体表演的姿势性舞蹈,伴之以有力的动作和脚步的冲踏以及有节奏的大声喊叫... Various actions are employed in the course of a performance, including facial contortions such as showing the whites of the eyes and the poking out of the tongue, and a wide variety of vigorous body actions such as slapping the hands against the body and stamping of the feet. As well as chanted words, a variety of cries and grunts are used. 整个表演过程中包含了多种行为,包括面部表情的扭曲——例如翻出眼白和伸出舌头,以及一系列有力的身体动作——例如用手掌拍击身体和脚步的冲踏。还有高声喊出的话语,一系列的呼喊和低沉的咕哝声都被用于其中。
For a demonstration we now turn to YouTube. Here's a video of a haka by the New Zealand army, showing just how visually and auditorily intimidating it could be: 现在让我们上YouTube来看看haka战舞的演示。下面是一段新西兰军队表演的haka战舞,这段视频充分显示了这种战舞在视觉和听觉上具有多么强的恐吓力量: https://youtu.be/-rDoV0EBu44 And here's a more traditional version: 下面这段视频则记录了一段更传统的haka战舞: https://youtu.be/BI851yJUQQw The point of the AVID (of which the haka is the best-known example) is: “恐吓性视听展示”(haka战舞是其中最富盛名的例子)的意义在于:
  • To intimidate competitors with loud sounds. Shouting in unison is clearly the best way to do this, because the result is far louder than any sound an individual human can make. But clapping, slapping, stomping, and banging rocks together would have added nicely to the cacophony.
  • 用响亮的声音来恐吓对手。同时发出喊声显然是最好的办法,因为这种喊声比单独的一个人所能发出的声音要响亮得多。而同时伴以击掌,拍击身体,跺脚以及敲击石头这些动作则能够恰如其分地为这种刺耳的声音添油加醋。
  • To intimidate competitors visually. The synchronized movements, body paint, and bizarre gestures (including facial expressions) would confuse and intimidate even the fiercest competitors.
  • 在视觉上恐吓对手。这些同步的动作,身体上的绘画,以及奇怪的姿势(包括面部的奇怪表情)能够迷惑和恐吓甚至是那些最强悍的对手。
  • To project the image of a single, powerful organism. As Jordania puts it, "rhythmically well-organized group vocalizations [and movements] send a strong message to the predator about the unity and determination of the group." Although the group is composed of individual humans, during an AVID the group acts as if it were a single, multiheaded, many-armed creature. In some ways it's a fiction, but as far as the competitor is concerned, if the movements and actions are sufficiently coordinated, the group becomes a unitary beast for all intents and purposes.
  • 为了呈现一个强大的单一有机体的形象。如同Jordania所说,“富有节奏的有序的集体发声(和动作)向捕食者传递着关于这个群体的团结和决心的强烈信息。”尽管群体是由单独的个人组成的,在“恐吓性视听展示”的过程中,这样一个群体所表现出的行为就好像它是一个有着多个脑袋和无数只手的单一生物个体。从某种角度看来,这是一种欺骗行为,但是对于这个群体的对手来说,如果这种动作和行为足够地协调,这个群体实际上就成为了一只整一的怪兽。
Remember, the AVID would have been used for confrontational scavenging as well as defense against predators — and would have included rocks as physical weapons to fall back on when the intimidation display wasn't perfectly effective as a non-contact defense. 记住,“恐吓性视听展示”除了会在防御捕食者的攻击时使用之外,也同样适用于对抗性食腐的场景——而这种恐吓性的展示行为毕竟只是一种非接触的防御行为,一旦它不能完美地发挥作用,人们还需要求助于石头这样的物理性武器。 5.BATTLE TRANCE 5.“战斗恍惚”状态 Jordania also suggests that humans evolved a specific state of consciousness — the battle trance — to go along with the Audio-Visual Intimidation Display. This state has several characteristics: Jordania还认为,伴随着“恐吓性视听展示”行为,人类进化出了一种被称为“战斗恍惚”的特殊意识状态。这种状态有如下的几个特征:
  • Analgesia and aphobia — no pain and no fear.
  • 痛感缺失和恐惧缺失——感受不到疼痛和恐惧。
  • Neglect of individual survival instincts.
  • 忽视了个体的生存本能。
  • Loss of individual identity and acquisition of a collective identity.
  • 失去个人身份意识并获得集体的身份意识。
Central to the battle trance is the notion of collective or group identity: “战斗恍惚”状态的核心是集体(或群体)认同的概念:
Like in a well-established combat unit, where in the heat of the battle one can sacrifice his own life to save a friend's life, human ancestors developed the feel of group identity. The feel of group identity is based on the total trust and dedication of each member of the group to the common interest. 在一个稳固的作战单位中,当战斗进行得如火如荼时,一个战士可以为了拯救伙伴的生命牺牲自己。同样的,人类祖先也进化出了一种类似的集体认同感。集体认同感建立在对集体中所有成员的完全信任和对于集体共同利益的奉献精神之上。 Group identity kicks in when there is a critical situation, a mortal danger for survival of the group or any of its members. In such moments, the noble principle of 'One for all, all for one' rules any individual self-preserving instinct, fear and pain. 在某个生死攸关的时刻,当整个集体或其中某个成员的生存处于危险之中,集体身份意识就会发挥作用。在这样的时刻,“我为人人,人人为我”这种高尚的原则会超越任何个体的自我保护本能、恐惧和疼痛,主导集体成员的行为。
This state of consciousness may have originally evolved for parents (especially mothers) to defend their children when threatened, but it was repurposed for group defense and confrontational scavenging. And in the process, we developed a new trigger for it: rhythmic chanting and synchronized body movements. 这种意识状态可能最初是从父母(尤其是母亲)在受到威胁时保护孩子的本能中进化出来的,但之后被用于集体防御和对抗性食腐行为中。而在这个过程中,人类发展出了一种新的触发这种状态的机制:有节奏的吟唱和同步化的肢体动作。
Evolution supplied powerful neurological mechanisms to make this feeling a positive experience. Going into group identity brings the most exhilarating feelings to every member of the group. Every member of the group feels bigger, feel stronger, and virtually feels immortal.... Group members in such an altered state of mind, when they share total trust with each other, emotionally believe that the group cannot be defeated. 进化为将这种感觉变成一种积极的体验提供了强大的神经机制。进入集体身份意识状态为集体中的所有成员带来了一种最为振奋的感觉。集体中的所有人都感觉到自己变得更大,更强,并且几乎感觉到自己是不朽的……在这意识状态中,集体成员分享着对彼此的完全信任,他们会在感情上相信这个集体是不可战胜的。 This unique altered state of mind is supported (and most likely caused) by the powerful neurological substances such as endorphins and oxytocin, which are momentarily released in the brain when a critical survival situations arises. As the neurological substances are released into the brain, feelings of pain and fear are blocked, and total trust and exhilaration of being part of a supernaturally strong unit becomes overwhelming. 这种特别的意识状态是由诸如脑内啡(endorphin)和催产素(oxytocin)这类强大的神经物质所支持的(而且非常可能是由它们引发的),当某种生死攸关的状况出现时,大脑中会暂时释放出这些物质。一旦它们被释放到大脑中,疼痛和恐惧的感觉就被阻断了,而成为某个超自然的强大整体的一部分所带来的完全信任和振奋感则变得不可阻挡。
Actual combat isn't as central to our lives in the 21st century, but the battle trance and feelings of collective identity still echo in many of our modern rituals of solidarity, which I wrote about last year, and they're particularly pronounced in religion/politics and team/spectator sports. 真实的战斗在我们21世纪的生活中已经变得不那么重要了,但正如我在去年曾写道过的,在许多现代的团体性仪式中,我们仍然可以找到“战斗恍惚”和集体身份意识状态的影子。在宗教性/政治性活动以及集体性/观赏性体育项目中,它们表现得尤其明显。 6.CANNIBALISM (AND BURIAL) OF THE DEAD 6.吃掉(并埋葬)同类的尸体 As if Jordania's theory didn't cover enough ground already, he has one last surprise in store for us. He claims that early humans practiced cannibalism of their dead as a key part of their comprehensive antipredator strategy. 即使到了这里,Jordania的理论似乎仍然意犹未尽,他还为我们准备了最后一个惊喜。他声称,早期人类吃掉自己同类尸体这种行为实际上是他们整体的防御捕食者捕杀策略中非常重要的一环。 If you recall from section 2, the goal of aposematism is to advertise that, as a piece of prey, you are decidedly unprofitable for the predator. If a predator can easily recognize you (and other members of your species), and remembers getting burned during past encounters, it will quickly learn to stop attacking you in the first place. 回想一下我们在第2节里所提到的,“警示信号”这种策略的目的是让捕食者确认将你作为食物是一件无利可图的事情。如果捕食者能够轻易地认出你(以及你同类的其它成员),并且记起在之前的教训,它就会迅速意识到从一开始就不应该向你发起攻击。 Given this strategy, it's very important not to let the lions (or any other predator) get away with killing and eating a human. The more our ancestors were able to reinforce the message that humans are not a (good) meal, the safer they would be across repeated encounters. This was especially important for early humans because, unlike an actually poisonous species, human meat is worth eating, if a predator can get away with it. 在这种策略之下,不要让狮子(或者其它的任何捕食者)成功地杀死并吃掉人类就变得非常重要。人类祖先们越是能够强化“人类不是好食物”这条信息,在与捕食者们不断的重复相遇中他们就会越安全。对于早期人类来说这一点尤其重要,因为人并不是一种有毒性的物种,如果捕食者能够成功地捕杀人类,人肉其实是很有食用价值的。 This implies a heavy selection pressure for the following behaviors among our ancestors: 这就意味着,自然选择在引导人类祖先做出如下一些行为方面施加了很重的压力:
  • If a predator attacks during a confrontation, make sure it gets injured.
  • 如果捕食者在对抗中发动了攻击,必须保证将它弄伤。
  • If a predator manages to kill one of your fellow humans, don't let it eat. Retrieve the body of your fallen comrade or your whole tribe will be in danger.
  • 如果捕食者成功地杀死了你的同类,不要让它吃掉尸体。将你死去同伴的尸体弄回来,否则你的整个部落都将处于危险之中。
  • When a human dies naturally, make sure the corpse is properly disposed of. The corpse is a liability because a predator will associate even a scavenged meal (of human meat) with 'profitability'.
  • 当一个人自然死亡,必须保证尸体被以一种适当的方式处理掉。人类尸体实际上会成为一种负担,因为即使是一顿腐肉(人肉)大餐也会让捕食者认为吃人肉是有利可图的。
None of this implies that our ancestors had to practice cannibalism of their dead. Any means of keeping human meat out of the mouths of predators would have been effective. But there's some evidence that suggests cannibalism (stone scrapings on human bones similar to the scrapings on the bones of other animals), and if calories were hard to come by, it might have been an ecological necessity. 上面的任何一点都不意味着人类的祖先必须吃掉同类的尸体。任何一种不让人肉落入捕食者口中的方法都是有效的。但是一些证据表明人类的确会吃掉同类的尸体(人骨上和其它动物的骨头上都有类似的的石器划痕),而且如果能量并不是那么容易获取,吃掉同类尸体可能也是一种生态上的必要做法。 CONCLUSION 结论 There's so much more to say about this theory, but I'll save most of it for another time. 关于Jordania的这个理论,可说的还有很多,但我会把它们留到以后。 I'd just like to end by showing how some our beliefs and behaviors take on new significance in light of Jordania's theory, especially those that relate to how we handle the bodies of our dead. 我只是希望通过展示Jordania的理论能够如何为人类的一些信仰和行为赋予新的意义来结束这篇文章,特别是那些与我们处理同类尸体的方式相关的部分。 Funerary traditions vary widely around the world, but all have one thing in common: disposal of the body. Mechanisms include burial, entombment, mummification, burial at sea, sky burial [5], and ritual cannibalism, and even more exotic mechanisms like hanging coffins or tree burial. 世界各地的葬礼传统差异非常大,但是所有这些传统都有一个共同的特征:将尸体处理掉。处理尸体的机制包括土葬、墓葬、干尸化、海葬、天葬以及食人仪式,甚至还存在一些更加奇异的机制,例如悬棺葬和树葬等。 The common reasons given for disposal practices are all public-health-related, but intentional burial is at least 225,000 years old. Of course our ancestors wouldn't want a corpse rotting in their camp, but there's quite a leap from disposal to burial. Why not just drag the corpse away from camp and expose it to the elements? 通常人们对于这些处理尸体方式的解释都与公共卫生相关,但是人类从至少22.5万年前就开始有意识地埋葬尸体了。我们的祖先们当然不会希望尸体在他们的营地中腐烂,但是从处理掉尸体到埋葬尸体是一个不小的飞跃。他们为什么不只是简单地把尸体拖到远离营地的地方然后让它自然腐烂呢? Jordania's theory doesn't predict how exactly we should dispose of our dead, but it predicts that we should care an awful lot about it (i.e. that it should be something sacred), and that we should be especially concerned that the body doesn't fall into the wrong hands. In Paleolithic times, this ensured that our ancestors retrieved the bodies of their comrades when they were killed by predators. Jordania的理论并没有对人类应该如何处理尸体做出具体的预言,但是它预测了人类应该对处理尸体的方式给予高度重视(例如,它应该是一种神圣的仪式),而且人类需要特别注意不能让尸体落入那些它不应该落入的对象手里。在石器时代,这意味着我们祖先会将他们被杀死的同伴尸体从捕食者那里抢回来。 But you can see vestiges of this in historic times — e.g. in our concern for salvaging bodies of the war dead. Mutilating or otherwise desecrating the war dead is an ancient practice, a ghastly way for the victor to show utter dominance over the loser. 但在历史上的各个时期中,你都能看到这种做法的痕迹——例如在战争中人们对于寻回战死者尸体的关切。毁尸或是以其它方式亵渎敌方战死者的尸体是一种古老的传统,这是一种胜者用以展示对失败者的完全统治的可怕方式。 And finally, Jordania's theory helps explain the religious nature of our funerary practices. Burial has always been a quintessentially religious practice. For example, we date the earliest religious behavior in our ancestors by when they started burying their dead. But religions are fundamentally about the living — a set of beliefs and practices that relate to collective identity and tribal cohesion. 最后,Jordania的理论还能够帮助解释人类葬礼活动的宗教性。葬礼一直是一项典型的宗教活动。例如,我们总是将人类祖先最早的宗教行为追溯到他们开始埋葬同类尸体的时刻。但是宗教从本质上说是关于活着的人的——它是一系列与集体身份意识和部落凝聚力相关的信仰和实践。 Why do religions care about the disposal of corpses? This has always puzzled me. It's always seemed like such a mundane concern. When someone dies, that should be the end of what we care about, and removing the body should be no more sacred than taking out the trash. Chimpanzees, for instance, can perceive when another chimp passes away (and mourn), but they soon lose interest in the body. 为什么宗教会关注处理处理尸体的方式?我长久以来都被这个问题困扰着。因为对尸体的处理看起来总是更像一个世俗的问题。当一个人死去,我们对于他的关注也应该随之结束了,而将尸体处理掉这件事情并不应该比我们清除垃圾的行为更加神圣。例如,当同类死去时,黑猩猩会对此有所感知(并感到悲伤),但是它们会迅速失去对同类尸体的兴趣。 But if Jordania is right, it's no coincidence that death rituals are intimately bound up with collective identity, because they're two parts of the same system. 但如果Jordania是对的,那么与死亡相关的仪式会与集体身份意识天然地联系在一起就并不是巧合了,因为它们实际上是从属于同一个体系的两个部分。 ------------------------------------ Update 2015/10/16. For the record, I don't think Jordania's theory explains (or even tries to explain) the lyrical aspects of music — only rhythm. But it's the only plausible account I've read that explains how music may have helped us survive. There's always the mate-selection hypothesis, of course. 更新于2015年10月16日。郑重声明,我并不认为Jordania的理论解释了(甚至仅仅是试图解释)音乐的抒情部分——他的理论所解释的仅仅是音乐的韵律部分。但这是我所读到过的唯一能够合理地解释音乐是如何帮助人类生存下来的理论。当然,关于这方面的理论还有配偶选择假说。 Endnotes 尾注 [1] human ancestors. I'm going to write about "human ancestors" and "early humans" — or sometimes simply "us" — knowing that there are more precise terms to describe the different stages (and branches) of our evolutionary path. Please forgive me — I'm not particularly steeped in the distinctions, and I doubt many of my readers are either. [1] 人类祖先。在下面我将会经常使用“人类祖先”以及“早期人类”——有时也会仅仅使用“我们”这个代词——来指代人类进化道路上的不同阶段(以及分支),虽然我知道还有更加精确的术语来描述它,但请原谅我在这里没有使用它们,因为我并不觉得这些术语之间的差异有多么重要,而且我怀疑我的读者中许多人也和我有同感。 [2] singing, body painting, body odor. It's unclear whether early humans actually sang habitually, painted their bodies, or had B.O., but modern humans certainly do, and there's a case to be made for our ancestors as well. Red ochre is noted as far back as 100,000 years ago, but earlier humans could easily have used simpler preparations like blood or berries, which would have left no trace in the archeological record. [2] 歌唱,体绘,和体味。现在仍不清楚早期人类是否会习惯性地歌唱、在身体上绘画、或者有体味,但现代人身上显然的确存在这些特点,而对于我们祖先而言,也的确存在这方面的可能性。氧化铁作为一种红色颜料最早可以追溯到十万年前,但早期人类也许能够轻易地使用血液和浆果这些更简单的颜料,而这些则并不会在考古学记录上留下痕迹。 [3] aposematism. A particularly interesting example is stotting — when a gazelle springs into the air by lifting all four feet off the ground simultaneously. Stotting is an aposematic display because (1) it makes the gazelle more visible, but (2) it's an honest signal of unprofitability. By stotting, a gazelle signals to a potential predator, "I'm in peak physical condition. Don't both chasing me, because I can easily outrun you." [3] “警示信号”策略。这方面一个特别有趣的例子是“跳跑”——这指的是羚羊四蹄同时离地,将身体弹到空中。“跳跑”之所以是一种具有警示信号的策略,主要是因为(1)它让羚羊更容易被看见,(2)这是一种真实地表明向羚羊发动攻击无利可图的信号。通过“跳跑”的动作,羚羊向潜在的捕食者发出了这样一个信号,“我的身体状态正处在巅峰。不用费工夫来追我了,因为我可以轻易地跑赢你。” [4] Audio-Visual Intimidation Display. I'm taking a couple liberties here. For one, Jordania calls it an "intimidating" display, but I prefer the noun form. But more substantively, Jordania lumps our morphological changes (bipedalism, hair, etc.) into the AVID, whereas I'm presenting the AVID as just the behavioral part (rhythmic chanting and dancing). [4] “恐吓性视听展示”。在这里我有两处自由发挥的地方。其一是Jordania在表达“恐吓性”这个意思时实际上使用的是intimidating这个词,但是我觉得使用名词形式更好一些。而更具实质意义的一点区别则是,Jordania将人类的一些形态学变化(例如双足行走,毛发等)也归入了“恐吓性视听展示”的范畴,而我仅仅对“恐吓性视听展示”的行为部分(有节奏地喊叫和舞蹈)进行了说明。 [5] sky burial. Yes, during a sky burial we let another animal eat our corpses, but they are always scavenging birds (e.g. vultures), never a potential predator. See also Dakhma for the Zoroastrian tradition. [5] 天葬。在天葬仪式中人类的确让别的动物吃掉了同类的尸体,但是这类动物都是腐食性的鸟类(例如秃鹫),而从来不会是某种潜在的捕食者。关于这个问题,可参考Dakhma对于琐罗亚斯德教传统的论著。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

沐猿而冠·第1章·饮食·导言

第一章  饮食

18世纪的法国美食家布里亚-萨瓦兰[1]曾说:“告诉我你吃些什么,我就能说出你是个什么样的人。”这句名言在1923年美国某报的一则牛肉广告上被精简为“你是你所吃”,从此广为流传,并成为众多美食书籍、电影和电视片的标题。

虽有所夸大,但这句话确有其洞见,实际上,把其中的“吃”换成穿、住、读、玩、驾驶、交往、欣赏等等动词,在不同程度上都可成立;或者说,人的各种行为,都体现着其个性、价值观、身份、文化归属,乃至人性,其中一些比另一些表现得更鲜明;实际上,当我们将所有这样的句子全部罗列出来时,便回答了那著名的门卫之问:“你是谁?”

在表明“我是谁”的生活各方面中,饮食有着根本重要性,因为吃什么和怎么吃,构成了所谓生计模式的基础,而后者无论是在生物学家考察一个物种时,还是人类学家考察一个族群一种文化时,都是首先要弄清楚的事情,它锚定了物种和文化的基本面貌。

因为我们曾是狩猎猿,所以(more...)

标签: | | | |
5472
第一章  饮食 18世纪的法国美食家布里亚-萨瓦兰[1]曾说:“告诉我你吃些什么,我就能说出你是个什么样的人。”这句名言在1923年美国某报的一则牛肉广告上被精简为“你是你所吃”,从此广为流传,并成为众多美食书籍、电影和电视片的标题。 虽有所夸大,但这句话确有其洞见,实际上,把其中的“吃”换成穿、住、读、玩、驾驶、交往、欣赏等等动词,在不同程度上都可成立;或者说,人的各种行为,都体现着其个性、价值观、身份、文化归属,乃至人性,其中一些比另一些表现得更鲜明;实际上,当我们将所有这样的句子全部罗列出来时,便回答了那著名的门卫之问:“你是谁?” 在表明“我是谁”的生活各方面中,饮食有着根本重要性,因为吃什么和怎么吃,构成了所谓生计模式的基础,而后者无论是在生物学家考察一个物种时,还是人类学家考察一个族群一种文化时,都是首先要弄清楚的事情,它锚定了物种和文化的基本面貌。 因为我们曾是狩猎猿,所以比我们的猿类近亲更爱吃肉,更难抵御肉脂的芳香,但我们仍背着灵长类的包袱:不能合成维生素c,所以无法像其他食肉动物那样放弃水果和蔬菜;因为我们吃更多肉,加上会用火加工食物,我们的肠道短了许多,也不再那么耗能,才供养得起高能耗的大脑。 为了长途追逐猎物,我们有了适合长跑的直立体型和长腿,为了解决长跑中的散热问题,又有了裸露皮肤和发达汗腺;为了猎取大型动物,我们发展了团队合作能力;因为大猎物的肉一下子吃不完,我们学会了分享肉食(却较少分享素食),建立了互惠关系,最终发展成了我们丰富的社会性。 因为有了畜牧业,牛羊奶成为重要食物,有些族群将乳糖消化能力延长到了整个成年期;因为有了谷物种植,我们过上了定居生活,因为从种植到收获历时漫长,我们学会了延迟满足而变得更有耐心,也学会了做长远计划,并更加善于数数、称量和计算,为此后的更多创造性活动打下了基础。 自从人类走出非洲散布全球,不同种群占据了差异极大的生态位,食物构成也各自发生了剧烈改变,并由此而发展出多姿多彩的文化;同为渔猎采集者,以驯鹿为食的北欧萨米(Sami)人随驯鹿觅食路线而迁移,而以鲑鱼和贝类为食的西北海岸印第安人则定居在沿岸河口,因为洄游鲑鱼总是回到其出生河口,而贝类也不会迁徙。 对于多数转向农业的族群,食物结构的改变带来了意义更为深远的后果,农业让单位土地提供了多得多的卡路里,供养了高出此前两个数量级的密集人口,但它提供的营养却往往是不均衡的,特别是缺乏动物蛋白,于是各农业社会都发展出了适合自己生态位的蛋白匮乏应对方式,他们找到的不同方案也在很大程度上塑造了多样文化。 在非灌溉种植区,常需要休耕轮作才能保持土地肥力,这恰好为农牧混业创造了条件,也是解决蛋白匮乏的良方;在肥沃高产的灌溉区,所有可耕地都被种上粮食,假如周围有不可耕的山林河泽可供渔猎,倒还可利用农闲稍作添补,当缺乏这样的条件时,人们只能挖空心思搜罗各种小动物以获取蛋白质,或者像印度农民那样,只喝奶不吃肉,以便从少量牲畜持续获取蛋白质;在蛋白匮乏最严重的地方,甚至可能发展出食人俗和以获取人肉为目的的战争机制。 谷物易于保存,其季节性也要求它必须被存储,而存储需要仓库,同时,耕地比狩猎领地更易于确定边界和归属,这些都推动了财产权的发展,也使经济活动的重心从游团和氏族转向个体家庭;但同时,财产的存在也对劫掠构成了诱惑,而保护财产需要比家庭更大的组织,于是社会组织向多层次结构发展,以核心家庭为基础,经血缘纽带而联合成为家族、村社和部落。 肉奶则不易保存,许多民族很晚才掌握肉类干制技术,一头牲畜的肉远超出单个家庭的一次消费量,而牲畜却又稀缺而珍贵,因而,集体飨宴在很长时期内仍是消费肉食的主要方式,这也为共同体提供了一种强化其合作纽带的机会,为此人们编织了种种理由设立众多节庆,飨宴也是家庭在盖房等需要找人帮忙的大事中支付报酬的重要方式;在传统农业社会,穷人多数肉食都来自各种宴席。 农业还带来了另一项重大变化,谷物基本不含盐,加上我们屠宰和加工肉类的方式(放血和水煮,相对于狩猎者的生吃或烤制),丢失了肉类中的大部分盐,结果大大减少了从主食中摄取的盐分,只能另外添加,而盐在自然界并非随处可得,由此带来的交换需求,催生了一项古老而普遍的贸易,盐的贸易反过来又推动了对文明发展起过关键作用的食物保存技术。 关于什么是可食或不可食的,每个族群有自己的答案,每个人也有不同的偏好与禁忌;作为一种文化元素,食谱经由幼年期一个特殊学习机制而得以传承;一两岁的幼儿不拒绝任何食物,而且勇于尝试,喜欢把什么东西都往嘴里塞,同时,他们会对父母的鼓励和阻止作出反应,由此了解什么是可吃的。 这个学习窗口大约在三周岁时关闭,此时他们突然对食物变得挑剔起来,只接受那些之前得到父母许可的食物,这份食谱于是便固定下来,限定了其此后一生食物选择的基本范围,或许要到成年后很久,才又开始尝试一些新食物,但远不会像学习期那么开放,让一个英国人爱上吃蝗虫,让一个江南人爱上吃牛胃内容物,机会都很渺茫。 下一次当你发现自己喜欢某道菜而讨厌另一道时,或许会让你对从小接受的父母教育,你儿时生活的那个地方,你孕育于其中的那个文化,你的远古祖先如何在所处环境中谋划生存之道,你所继承的农耕与狩猎遗产,所背负的灵长类包袱,总而言之,对通往你作为人而存在的那条漫长历史道路,获得更真切的体会。 --------------------------- [1]让·安泰尔姆·布里亚-萨瓦兰([[Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin]]),1755-1826,法国律师兼政治家,但主要以美食家而为后人所知,著有《厨房里的哲学家》(The Physiology of Taste),有中译本。