An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies, and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants
An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies, and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants
复制标题
从进化的角度看本土植物概念的优点、谬误和混乱
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Gould
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Gould
在进化生物学中，有一个重要的、但普遍不被重视的概念，对有机特征的历史起源和当前用途进行了清晰而仔细的区分。例如，羽毛不可能是为飞行而生的，因为在小型奔跑的恐龙和鸟类之间的早期中间阶段，5%的翅膀不可能有任何空气动力学功能（尽管羽毛来自爬行动物的鳞片，可以立即提供重要的热力学好处）。但后来羽毛被用来以最典型的方式使鸟类保持在空中。同样，我们的大脑袋也不可能进化到让现代后代能够读和写，尽管这些晚得多的功能现在定义了现代用途的重要组成部分。同样，论据的后来使用，通常是在与原作者的意图不同或甚至相反的语境中，必须与最初提法的有效性和目的分开。因此，例如，达尔文的自然选择理论并没有因为后来的种族主义者和战争贩子歪曲了“生存斗争”的概念而被贬低为种族灭绝的理由。然而，我们必须承认这两种情况之间有一个关键的区别：一种生物特征的起源和后来的使用，以及一种观念的起源和后来的使用。第一种情况不涉及有意识的意图，不能接受任何道德判断。但是思想是人类为了公开的目的而产生的，我们对自己行为的后果负有一定的道德责任。一个发明家可能会因为真正曲解了他的意图（希特勒使用达尔文）而完全无罪，但与最初目的逻辑一致的不公平延伸确实会带来一些道德上的过失（19世纪的大多数学术种族主义者并没有设想或打算大屠杀，但他们的一些想法确实为“最终解决方案”提供了动力）。我想在这个框架内检验“原生植物”的概念，因为这个概念包含了一个惊人的混合物，包括合理的生物学，无效的想法，错误的延伸，伦理含义，以及有意和意外的政治用途。显然，纳粹理论家提供了最令人不寒而栗的用途。在提倡在国家高速公路沿线种植本土植物的过程中，德国高速公路的纳粹建筑师明确地将他们提出的限制与雅利安人对人民的净化进行了比较。Reinhold Tuxen希望通过这种方法“清除德国景观中不和谐的外来物质”。1942年，一组德国植物学家在呼吁消灭被认为是入侵者的凤仙花（Impatiens parviflora）时做出了明确的类比：“与反对布尔什维克主义的斗争一样，我们整个西方文化都处于危险之中，因此，与蒙古侵略者的斗争，这种文化的一个基本要素，即我们家园森林的美丽，受到威胁。”在温和浪漫主义的另一个极端，为本土植物辩护的温和论点强调了它们在生物与环境的最大和谐整合中的天然“合理性”，这是对古老的天才位点学说的现代召唤。想想我们这一代的几个例子：
An important, but widely unappreciated, concept in evolutionary biology draws a clear and careful distinction between the historical origin and current utility of organic features. Feathers, for example, could not have originated for flight because five percent of a wing in the early intermediary stages between small running dinosaurs and birds could not have served any aerodynamic function (though feathers, derived from reptilian scales, provide important thermodynamic benefits right away). But feathers were later co-opted to keep birds aloft in a most exemplary fashion. In like manner, our large brains could not have evolved in order to permit modern descendants to read and write, though these much later functions now define an important part of modern utility. Similarly, the later use of an argument, often in a context foreign or even opposite to the intent of originators, must be separated from the validity and purposes of initial formulations. Thus, for example, Darwin's theory of natural selection is not diminished because later racists and warmongers perverted the concept of a "struggle for existence" into a rationale for genocide. However, we must admit a crucial difference between the two cases: the origin and later use of a biological feature, and the origin and later use of an idea. The first case involves no conscious intent and cannot be submitted to any moral judgment. But ideas are developed by human beings for overt purposes, and we have some ethical responsibility for the consequences of our actions. An inventor may be fully exonerated for true perversions of his intent (Hitler's use of Darwin), but unfair extensions consistent with the logic of original purposes do entail some moral demerit (most academic racists of the nineteenth century did not envision or intend the Holocaust, but some of their ideas did fuel the "final solution"). I want to examine the concept of "native plants" within this framework, for this notion encompasses a remarkable mixture of sound biology, invalid ideas, false extensions, ethical implications, and political usages both intended and unanticipated. Clearly, Nazi ideologues provided the most chilling uses. 1 In advocating native plants along the Reichsautobahnen, Nazi architects of the Reich's motor highways explicitly compared their proposed restriction to Aryan purification of the people. By this procedure, Reinhold Tuxen hoped "to cleanse the German landscape of unharmonious foreign substance." 2 In 1942 a team of German botanists made the analogy explicit in calling for the extirpation of Impatiens parviflora, a supposed interloper: "As with the fight against Bolshevism, our entire Occidental culture is at stake, so with the fight against this Mongolian invader, an essential element of this culture, namely, the beauty of our home forest, is at st ake." 3 At the other extreme of kindly romanticism, gentle arguments for native plants have stressed their natural "rightness" in maximally harmonious integration of organism and environment, a modern invocation of the old doctrine of genius loci. Consider a few examples from our generation: