当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2018年04月26日 02:25:18    日报  参与评论()人

陕西省渭南看男科好吗渭南早泄治疗什么费用渭南欧亚医院不孕不育科 Science and technology科学技术The origins of war战争的起源Old soldiers?古老的战士?The latest research suggests humans are not warriors in their genes, after all最新研究发现人类骨子里有的不是杀伐EDWARD WILSON, the inventor of the field of sociobiology, once wrote that war is embedded in our very nature.艾德华·威尔森是生物社会学领域的创始人。他曾经写道战争深植于我们的骨子里。This is a belief commonly held not just by sociobiologists but also by anthropologists and other students of human behaviour.这种观点不仅生物社会学家普遍认同,人类学家以及一些研究人类行为的学者也认同。They base it not only on the propensity of modern man to go to war with his neighbours but also on observations of the way those who still live a pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer life behave.认同的基础有两点:现代的人们有与邻为敌的倾性;对那些仍然生活在农业社会以前的采集狩猎者的观察结果。Add this to field studies of the sometimes violent behaviour of mankinds closest living relative, the chimpanzee, and the idea that making war is somehow in humanitys genes has seemed quite plausible.除此之外,还可以到野外观察一下与人类亲缘关系最为相近的黑猩猩,可以知道黑猩猩有时也有暴力行为。由此,威尔森的观点似乎相当有说力。It has even been advanced as an explanation for the extreme levels of self- sacrificial altruism people sometimes display.其实,这种观点早已有人提出过,用来解释自称牺牲的利他主义者有时表现出来的那种极端行为。But a paper in this weeks Science, by Douglas Fry and Patrik Soderberg of Abo Akademi University, in Finland, questions all this.本周,芬兰埃学术大学的道格拉斯·弗莱和帕特里克·索德伯格在《科学》杂志上发表了论文,提出了疑问。Dr Fry and Mr Soderberg have reviewed what is known about modern hunter-gatherers.他们负责对被称为现代狩猎采集者的研究做出。They suggest that although such people are far from peaceful they are also far from warlike.他们说,虽然这些人远不是和平之士,但他们也远不是好战之人。Most who die violent deaths in their societies do so at the hands of fellow tribesmen, not foreigners.在他们的社会中,多数死于同族人暴力的人,而不是外来者暴力的人,也会施展暴力。Murderers, this research suggests, humans may often be.论文称,人类可能经常会成为杀人者。But they are not the died-in-the-wool warriors of anthropological legend.但是,又不是人类学传奇上的那种马革裹尸的武士。 Dr Fry and Mr Soderberg came to this conclusion by scrutinising 21 hunter- gatherer societies from all over the world.他们两人对全世界21个猎狩社会进行了仔细观察,得出了此项结论。They looked at ethnographic studies of these groups, published over the past 100 years or so.他们浏览了这些族群的种族志研究结果。Inter alia, these studies recorded homicides and their circumstances.这些研究发表于大约100年以前,特别纪录了杀人行为以及原委。The two researchers classified such deaths into interpersonal events, interfamilial feuds, group-sanctioned executions and intergroup events.他们把死因分为人际关系矛盾,家庭不和,族群判决的死刑,族群间矛盾。Only the latter could be described as war.只有后两者称为战争。One of the 21 groups was extremely warlike.21个族群中有一个极度好战。More than half of recorded killings perpetrated by the Tiwi, an Australian people, were acts of war—and nearly half of all homicides from all causes in all 21 groups involved the Tiwi.这个族群就是澳大利亚的提维人。研究中纪录了他们的杀戮行为,其中多半数的都属战争行为。21个族群所有的杀戮原委中近半数的涉及提维族。This group was such an outlier that Dr Fry and Mr Soderberg did their analysis twice: once with and once without the Tiwi.这个族群极度异常,两人进行了两次分析:一次涉及提维族,另一次没有。Nomads land游牧民族的土地Excluding the Tiwi, deaths in war were only 15% of the total.排除提维族,战争致死的人数是全部的15%;Including them, the figure was 34%.否则是34%。But even that is still a minority.但仍然不够充分,These numbers do not suggest hunter-gatherers are going out looking for trouble with their neighbours.不能说明问题―猎狩者跑出去找麻烦。This finding seems different from that arrived at in by Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute, in New Mexico.这项发现与新墨西哥圣菲研究所的塞缪尔·鲍尔斯年的研究结果不同。Dr Bowles looked at eight modern hunter-gatherer groups, including the Tiwi, and at archaeological evidence concerning 15 ancient ones.鲍尔斯研究了8个现代猎狩族群和15个古代猎狩族群的考古据,得出了结论:He concluded that death in warfare is so common in hunter-gatherer societies that it was an important evolutionary pressure on early Homo sapiens, and might easily account for the emergence of self-sacrificial altruism.猎狩社会中发生的战争死亡现象非常普遍,变成了早期人类进化的压力。这就轻松地说明自我牺牲的利他主义的出现。Dr Bowless analysis did not, however, separate the Tiwi from the rest, so was influenced by this outlier.然而,鲍尔斯的分析并没有把提维族与其它族分离开来,因此受到了这种异常现象的影响。Treating outliers with caution is reasonable.认真对待这种异常现象是合乎情理的。An analysis of modern warfare that looked at the 1940s would come to a different conclusion from one that looked at the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or 1990s.有一项分析着眼于1940年代的现代战事,得出的结论与着眼于1950年代,1960年代,1970年代,1980年代以及1990年代的不同。Nor could the archaeological studies clearly indicate which violent deaths were caused by war.而且考古学研究也不能说明哪一项暴力致死的原因是战争。As Dr Bowles himself says, one cannot always distinguish between deaths due to intergroup violence and that occurring within groups.正如鲍尔斯本人所说,总是分不清哪些死亡是族群间暴力所致,哪些是同族群暴力所致。Dr Bowles was not the first to conclude that war was common during human evolution.战争是人类进化当中的普遍现象,得出此结论鲍尔斯并不是第一人。Early in the 20th century, studies of the Yanomami, who live in the Amazon rainforest, suggested as much.20世纪早期,对生活在亚马逊雨林的诺马米人的研究已经进行了大量论。But that idea was overthrown when, decades later, a researcher called Brian Ferguson re-examined all documented cases of Yanomami warfare.但是,几十年后又被布莱恩·弗格森推翻。These, he found, were overwhelmingly in areas penetrated by settlers rather than in places where the Yanomami dwelt undisturbed.他重新研究了诺马米人所有的战事文献。他发现,这些战事都发生在有人迹的地方,而不是诺马米人安居的地方。Something similar happened to chimpanzee researchers.那些研究黑猩猩的学者们也进行了方式相似的研究。The first big field study of these animals was done by Jane Goodall.珍·古德进行了首次大型野外研究。Her chimps, which live in Tanzania, are often aggressive, sometimes engage in cannibalism, and even steal and kill others infants. And they do engage in something that looks like warfare.她研究的黑猩猩生活在坦桑尼亚,好斗性强,有时会残食同类,偷盗甚至杀死猩猩婴儿,跟战争相似。When a large group of chimps split, for instance, vicious intertribal conflict followed.一大群猩猩内讧时,就会产生恶性冲突。All this suggests an evolutionary origin for some of the darker aspects of human nature.这些都表明了人性中那些较黑暗面的进化起源。A second study, though, conducted in Congo-Brazzaville by David Morgan and Crickette Sanz of Washington University, in St Louis, came to contrary conclusions.华盛顿大学圣路易斯分校的大卫·根和克瑞斯克特-桑兹在刚果共和国进行了又一项研究,得出了相反的结论:It found chimps to be peaceful creatures.此处的黑猩猩是安静的动物。For a while, that confused primatologists.这又使灵长类学家迷惑不解。The difference between the two populations turns out to be density.两处猩群的生活差别越来越大。The Tanzanian chimps are crowded together as deforestation around their reserve reduces the amount of habitat available.在坦桑尼亚,黑猩猩所生活的自然保护区周边地区进行了大量的森林采伐,减少了栖息之地的数量,只能团抱度日。Those in Congo do not, at least yet, suffer in this way.刚果的则没有。Chimps, then, do offer a useful lesson on the origin of warfare—just not the one that was originally believed.非洲黑猩猩确实能让人了解到冲突的起源―并不是先前的那样。Groups of chimpanzees, like groups of people, will fight each other if need be, but will otherwise leave each other alone.群居的黑猩猩跟群居的人类一样,矛盾激化时也会打架,再不了就是谁也不理谁。Whether modern, industrial man is less or more warlike than his hunter-gatherer ancestors is impossible to determine.跟人类的猎狩祖先相比,现代化、工业化之下的人是否更加好战,还是不太好战,已经不得而知。The machine gun is so much more lethal than the bow and arrow that comparisons are meaningless.机的杀伤力比弓箭要更大,但这种比较是无意义的。One thing that is true, though, is that murder rates have fallen over the centuries, as policing has sp and the routine carrying of weapons has diminished.有一点是肯定的,近几个世纪来,警力扩大了,带的惯例减少了,谋杀率下降了。Modern society may not have done anything about war. But peace is a lot more peaceful.现代社会可能没有改变战争,但社会秩序要更稳定了。 /201309/258713澄城县人民医院治疗包皮包茎多少钱

渭南欧亚医院泌尿科主任名字Books and Arts; Book Review;Political philosophy; Mightier than the sword;文艺;书评;政治哲学;雄文胜武;The collected thoughts on this, that and the other of two clever men;两位智者对于世间百态的思想汇聚;When writers are grand enough, they can produce books by recycling their journalism, lectures, academic papers and other jottings. Sometimes that can seem dated and lazy. Sometimes it is a treat: the assorted pieces come together to create a great mosaic. Neither “Facts are Subversive” by Timothy Garton Ash, an Oxford-based writer and academic, nor “Grays Anatomy” by John Gray, a political philosopher, fall into the first trap (or at least very rarely). They are both good s. But neither quite reaches the goal of the whole being more interesting than the parts.当作者之声名足够显赫时,他们只需将其新闻稿件、讲演录、学术论文以及其他只言片语回炉再加工一番,新书便告完成。有时,这种做法似乎是在偷工减料地翻炒冷饭;有时,它却为读者奉上一场新的盛宴:混杂的碎片化零为整,一幅伟大的镶嵌作品从中诞生。无论是由身处牛津的作家与学者——提西·加顿·阿什所著之《事实方具颠覆性》,还是政治哲学家约翰·格雷的作品——《格雷剖析录》,都未陷入前一种窘境(至少基本上如此),两者皆为优秀的读物;不过,它们也未完全实现令整体胜于部分的目标。Mr Garton Ash is incapable of writing a dull article. Unlike some famous-name writers, he is proud to be a reporter: whatever the subject, he digs diligently. He observes sharply and with a dry donnish wit that deserves greater play. A remarkable wordsmith, at his best he has an echo of one of his great heroes, George Orwell. The pieces range from his first stamping-grounds of Germany and central Europe to the bigger themes he took on later (such as Britains neurotic “dont know, dont trust, dont care” relationship with Europe) and to more exotic places, including Brazil, Iran and Myanmar.加顿·阿什不会撰写那些干涩无趣的文章,与某些知名作家不同,他为身为记者而自豪:无论面对何种主题,他都会勤奋挖掘素材。其一针见血,字里行间所透出之学究式的冷冷嘲讽,让人读来不禁有大材小用之叹。这位非凡的语言大师在其巅峰时期,甚至能在笔下中重现乔治·奥威尔当年的风采,而后者正是加顿·阿什心目中的伟大英雄人物之一。本书收录的零散作品,其范围从他最初频繁涉足的德国与中欧,延伸到他于日后挑战的更大主题(英国与欧洲之间神经质一般的“不知、不信、不顾”关系便为一例),并一直远达更富异域情调的地区,其中包括巴西、伊朗和缅甸。His aim is to chronicle the history of the “nameless decade”, the period that began with the terrorist attacks on America in September 2001 and ended with the election of Barack Obama last year. The subjects encompassed in that time include authoritarian governments, the challenge to liberalism raised by Islam and the corrosive combination of the Bush administrations bungled foreign policy and Europes unthinking anti-Americanism.加顿·阿什旨在为“无名年代”修史,这一时期始于2001年九月美国所受之恐怖袭击,止于去年巴拉克·奥巴马当选。其间所含的主题包括威权主义政府、伊斯兰教向自由主义发起的挑战,以及由布什政府的外交失策与欧洲轻率的反美思潮所构成之恶性结合。But Mr Garton Ashs silver nib wiggles past those constraints. The best essays in the book are timeless. One is a nuanced and convincing piece, both sympathetic and devastating, about Günter Grass, the German novelist, who revealed in his memoirs that he had briefly been in the Waffen SS. Did that taint Mr Grasss books, or his role in public life, or both or neither? Was it the wartime service that was shameful, or its concealment over decades? Mr Garton Ash brings the er sure-footedly through the thickets of Germanys post-war history and through the marshy ground of moral relativism. He points to the real scandal: that Mr Grass was himself so casually splenetic over so many years about other peoples shortcomings, while concealing his own.不过加顿·阿什的妙笔却如行云流水一般无拘无束,书中最佳的作品并不为时代背景所累。其中,关于德国小说家君特·格拉斯的一篇文章细致入微、令人信,字词间既存有恻隐,又不留情面;这位德国作家在其回忆录中透露,当年曾短暂效力于纳粹党卫军。这段历史是令其著作黯然失色?还是使他在公共生活中所扮演的角色沾上污点?或者说两者都未能幸免,抑或皆不受其影响?究竟是战时役一事令其蒙羞,还是日后数十年之隐瞒为人不齿?在加顿·阿什的带领下,读者们步履稳健地穿过了德国战后历史的迷宫,走出了道德相对主义的泥潭,真正的丑行被他指出:这么多年以来,格拉斯在给自己遮羞的同时,却对他人的短处如此随意地表现出义愤填膺之状。Another excellent piece touches on a comparable issue: the list of suspected communist sympathisers that Orwell supplied to the British authorities in 1949. Again, Mr Garton Ash is scrupulously fair, highlighting Orwells sincere (and justifiable) fear of communist infiltration, as well as his fumbling feelings for Celia Kirwan, the British official involved.另一篇杰作则涉及到一个与前例有可比性的话题:奥威尔于1949年向英国当局提交的那份共产主义疑似同情者的名单。加顿·阿什再一次地表现出了一丝不苟的公正态度,在文中强调了奥威尔对共产主义渗透行为的真切恐惧(这种恐惧也非杞人忧天),以及他对希莲·柯雯(涉及此事的英国官员)所抱有的为爱所醉之情。Some of the reworked articles are commendable journalism, but do not quite stand the test of time. Mr Garton Ashs observations from his trip to Iran in 2005 seem a bit whiskery now. It is nostalgic to about the fall of crony capitalism in Ukraine five years ago. But the er is left hankering to know what Mr Garton Ash thinks about the mess that has succeeded it. A fiercer editor might have left out such pieces, and pruned the authors occasional lapses into self-indulgence (using “proleptic” once is fine, twice is tiresome). That may not matter in individual newspaper columns. It jars when collected in a book.在经过重新修订的文章中,有一些是可圈可点的新闻稿件,不过它们并不能完全经受住时间的考验。加顿·阿什从其2005年伊朗之行中得出的观察结论在今天看来已有几分过时;他关于五年前权贵资本主义在乌克兰垮台的文章,如今读来确实令人怀念往昔;但读者们想了解加顿·阿什对于政权更迭之后的乱局有何见解的渴望却未得到满足。换做一位下手更狠的编辑,此类文章大概会被略去,而作者偶然的败笔也会被修剪成随性之举的模样(比如,“预期中”一词若只用一次颇为出,但再用一次便会令人审美疲劳)。对于个别的报纸专栏而言,出现这一问题可能无伤大雅;但汇集成书后,它便显得甚为刺眼。Mr Grays book is darker, grittier and more ambitious. Mr Garton Ash is happy to lambast the Wests specific shortcomings but Mr Gray sets out to unpick the shallow philosophical foundations of the whole edifice, in particular the modern myths about progress and perfectibility. He demolishes the theory that we have reached the “end of history”, the dogmas of secular liberalism, the weaknesses of financial casino capitalism and the limits of energy-intensive economic growth. Such targets deserve his scrutiny and Mr Grays criticisms are cogent. But he tends to overdo it. Again and again (and again) he attacks the people he calls “neoliberals” without pinning down whom (apart from Tony Blair) he is attacking. The er is left feeling a straw man has been dissected.格雷的著作则更富阴郁而强硬的气息,其创作野心也更为远大。加顿·阿什乐于抨击西方存在的具体缺陷,但格雷却着手拆解整个体系的浅薄哲学根基,尤其是关于进步和完美性的现代神话。在他的笔下,人类已达到“历史的终结”之理论,世俗自由主义的教义、金融资本主义(的种种缺陷)以及能源密集型经济增长(的极限)被一一推翻。由格雷对此类问题加以缜密研究,实非牛刀杀鸡之举,而其批判也颇为中肯;不过他却往往走得太远,一次一次(又一次)地,格雷对他所称的“新自由主义者”加以口诛笔伐,然而却几乎从不指明其具体的抨击对象(托尼·布莱尔是一个例外)。这让读者们不禁感到,格雷所剖开的只是一个稻草人而已。The finest pieces in Mr Grays book are satire. One is a Swiftian essay in favour of torture (which some serious-minded lefties took at face value). Even better is a devastating parody of the Marxist approach to linguistics, involving a (fictional) visit by Ludwig Wittgenstein to the Soviet Union, and his relationship with an (invented) Hungarian academic, L. Revai, who idealises the grunts of slave labourers as a proletarian Ursprache.此书中最好的作品当属讽刺文学。一篇持酷刑(某些一本正经的左翼人士便未能辨出其弦外之音)的斯威夫特式随笔可算在其中;而另一篇极佳的戏仿之作更令人叫绝,此文模仿了语言学的马克思主义研究模式,其情节包括路德维希·维特根斯坦对苏联的一次(虚构的)访问,以及他与(作者创造出的)匈牙利学者L·列瓦伊的交往,这位匈牙利学者将奴工的咕哝声理想化,将之提升至无产阶级原始语的高度。In Mr Grays most substantial essay, “An agenda for Green conservatism”, he attempts to rescue conservatism from the ideological excesses of the 1980s. This is a thought-provoking enterprise, deserving a book on its own. But if it became a book, the authors views on such things as the failings of professional monopolies in education and health would benefit from more statistics and fewer assertions—calling, perhaps, for investment in a researcher.而在其最有分量的文章“绿色保守主义之议程”中,格雷试图将保守主义从二十世纪八十年代的意识形态泛滥中拯救出来。这一尝试之举引人深思,话题本身甚至值得以专著加以探讨。但若果真成书,那么作者对诸如教育与健康领域职业垄断的失败等议题所持有的见解,便需从更多的统计数据中获益,而凭空断言在其中所起的作用则应减少——这可能需要在研究者方面的投入。As Mr Garton Ash rightly points out, it is facts, ultimately, that are subversive.正如加顿·阿什恰如其分之言:最终,具有颠覆性的其实还是事实。 /201304/235288华阴市妇幼保健中医院看男科好吗 大荔县人民医院男科专家

渭南欧亚男科医院简介 渭南阳萎医院渭南市中医医院割包皮



商洛市有泌尿科吗 渭南早泄治疗要花多少钱58专家 [详细]
渭南割包皮 韩城市妇幼保健中医院前列腺炎多少钱 [详细]
渭南治疗前列腺肥大哪里最好 咨询专家渭南哪个大医院治疗男性问题好排名时讯 [详细]
网上分类渭南妇保医院治疗睾丸炎多少钱 渭南治疗生殖器疱疹最好的男科医院39专家渭南市第一医院看泌尿科怎么样 [详细]