原創翻譯:龍騰網 //www.oewjxg.com.cn 翻譯:翻譯熊 轉載請注明出處


Western intellectual life today ischaracterized by a marked schizophrenia. On the one hand, virtually everyoneaccepts the scientific theory of Charles Darwin concerning the emergence and evolutionof the various species in the world, including humanity, through the processnatural selection. The only exceptions to this rule are a few Creationisthold-outs. On the other hand, our culture denies the biological reality of raceand the relevance of hereditarian thinking to human societies. Our egalitarianculture rejects heredity’s implications intoto — both the descriptive (in-born human differences betweenindividuals and races) and prescriptive (e.g. eugenics). Given how tabooracialist thinking still is, it is then useful — in order to think freely — togo back to the roots of evolutionary thinking by looking at what Darwin himselfhad to say about human evolution and racial differences.


The concept of race or lineage is central toDarwin’s evolutionary thinking. His classic The Origin of Species is indeed subtitled By Means of Natural Selection of thePreservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In oneplace, Darwin defines a race as the “successive generations” of a particularpopulation (102). Darwin’s model for evolutionary change is simple andpowerful: every species will tend to bear too many offspring, leading tooverpopulation, a huge percentage of these will die before reaching maturity orin competition with others (whether of the same species or not), those whosurvive this struggle will be those with the traits best suited for theirparticular environment. The constant generation and culling of “races,” that isto say new of populations with different traits, is then central to his system,which also applies to human evolution.

達爾文的進化模型簡單而強大: 每一個物種都會傾向于生育過多的后代,導致物種數量過剩,其中很大一部分會在成熟前死亡,或者在與其他物種競爭(無論是否屬于同一物種)時死亡, 那些在這場斗爭中幸存下來的將是那些最適合他們特定環境的。

Darwin takes differences in intellectualability for granted, both between individuals and races: “The variability ordiversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention thegreater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that nota word need here be said” (45). Furthermore: “The individuals of the samespecies graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence”(100). He had no doubt that psychological traits such as personality andintelligence were heritable:


Inregard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses,and other domestic animals.[2] Besidesspecial tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper,&c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almostevery family; and we now know through the admirable labours of Mr [Francis]Galton, that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of highfaculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certainthat insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families. . . .
Domesticatedanimals vary more than those in a state of nature; and this is apparently dueto the diversified and changing nature of the conditions to which they havebeen subjected. In this respect the different races of man resembledomesticated animals, and so do the individuals of the same race, wheninhabiting a very wide area, like that of America. We see the influence ofdiversified conditions in the more civilised nations; for the members belongingto different grades of rank, and following different occupations, present agreater range of character than do the members of barbarous nations. (45–46)

就精神素質而言,它們的傳播在我們的狗、馬和其他家畜身上表現得很明顯。除了特殊的品味和習慣,一般的智力、勇氣、壞脾氣和好脾氣,等等。,當然是可以傳遞的。對于人類,我們在幾乎每個家庭中都看到了類似的事實;我們現在通過(弗朗西斯)高爾頓先生令人欽佩的努力知道,天才意味著高級官能奇妙而復雜的結合,往往是遺傳的; 另一方面,可以肯定的是,精神錯亂和退化的精神力量同樣存在于家庭之中……

家養動物比自然狀態下的動物變化更大;這顯然是由于他們所受條件的多樣性和不斷變化的性質。在這方面,人類的不同種族就像馴養的動物一樣,當人類居住在一個非常廣闊的地區時,就像美國一樣,同一種族的個體也是如此。我們看到,在文明程度更高的國家,多樣化的環境產生了影響;對于屬于不同等級、從事不同職業的成員來說,他們比野蠻民族的成員具有更廣泛的特征。(第45 – 46頁)

Humanity’s Moral Improvement Through PerpetualTribal Warfare
Darwinasserts that the same relentless struggle for survival was the driver forhumanity’s evolution into a more intelligent, social, and even moral being.Human tribes spread across the globe, reproduced beyond the ability of theirenvironment to sustain them, and entered into relentless competition andwarfare with other tribes.
Darwinconsiders the emergence of pro-social traits such as sympathy, love of kin,shame, and regret to be central to human evolution. These feelings werecertainly not universal however. He observes that prehistoric tribes, likemodern savage tribes, were perpetually at war with one another. “It is noargument against savage man being a social animal, that the tribes inhabitingadjacent districts are almost always at war with each other; for the socialinstincts never extend to all the individuals of the same species” (132).



Darwinfirmly believes that group selection was the mechanism by which many humanpsychological traits emerged. Group selection means that traits not necessarilybeneficial to the individual but rather to the group (such as altruism) spreadthrough competition between groups (forinstance: one tribe defeats and exterminates another tribe through itsindividuals’ superior willingness to sacrifice themselves). The group selectionhypothesis is considered controversial today in some evolutionary circles.Darwin for his part wrote:
A community which includes a large number of well-endowedindividuals increases in number, and is victorious over other less favouredones; even although each separate member gains no advantage over the others ofthe same community . . . [Certain mental] faculties have been chiefly, or evenexclusively, gained for the benefit of the community, and the individualsthereof, have at the same time gained an advantage indirectly. (83)

When two tribes of prim man, living inthe same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal)the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithfulmembers, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defendeach other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. Let it beborn in mind how all-important in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelityand courage must be. . . . Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, andwithout coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualitieswould spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time itwould, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some othertribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities wouldslowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world.
Darwin also argued that humans had an in-bornproclivity for other pro-social behaviors, such as language and religiosity.


Adaptive Traditional Culture
Mankind’sspecificity is also in being both a genetic and profoundly cultural being. Our individual andcollective behavior are powerfully influenced by both our genetic inheritanceand our particular, highly-fungible cultural norms and practices. We wouldexpect the tribes with both a genetic propensity and a culture favoringgroup-solidarity and organization to overcome less well-endowed tribes.
[A]n increase in the number of well-endowedmen and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give animmense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many memberswho, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity,obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and tosacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most othertribes; and this would be natural selection. (157)



Nature’s Communitarian Ethos
Darwinpersonally adhered to a liberal, high-minded and humane Christian-inspiredmorality typical of the Victorian middle classes. Yet, he cannot help butobserve that nature’s law is extremely cruel, with the proverbial “favoredraces” often triumphing through a ruthless ethos brutally subordinating theinterests of the individual to that of the group. Darwin takes the example ofbees, an even more social animal than humans, who when under resource pressureexterminate superfluous individuals:
In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty,though they admire widely different objects, so they might have a have sense ofright and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct.If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely thesame conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarriedfemales would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill theirbrothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no onewould think of interfering.



Darwinadds in a footnote that primitive human patterns are quite similar: “many ormost savages [solve] the problem by female infanticide, polyandry andpromiscuous intercourse” (122). (From a strictly evolutionary point of view, ahuman community under pressure from other tribes and a poor environment maybenefit from fewer females, preferring to dedicate scarce resources to fightingmales.)
Darwin’scritics were quite cognizant of the potential threat posed by his theory toliberal and Christian ethics. He writes:
Miss Cobbe, in commenting (‘Darwinism and his Morals’ ‘TheologicalReview’, April, 1872, pp. 188-191) on the same illustration, says, the principles of social duty would bethus reversed; and by this, I presume, she means that the fulfillment of socialduty would tend to the injury of individuals; but she overlooks the fact, whichshe would doubtless admit, that the instincts of the bee have been acquired forthe good of the community. She goes so far as to say that if the theory ofethics advocated in this chapter were ever generally accepted, ‘I cannot butbelieve that in the hour of their triumph would be sounded the knell of thevirtue of mankind!’ It is to be hoped that the belief in the permanence ofvirtue on this earth is not held by many persons on so weak a tenure.


科布小姐在評論(《達爾文主義和他的道德》,《神學評論》,1872年)同一幅插圖時說,社會責任的原則將因此而顛倒; 我想,她的意思是,履行社會責任往往會對個人造成傷害;但她忽略了一個事實,她肯定會承認,蜜蜂的本能是為了群體的利益而獲得的。她甚至說,如果本章所提倡的倫理理論曾經被普遍接受,“我不得不相信,在他們勝利的時刻,將敲響人類美德的喪鐘!” ……

Darwin observes that animal communities arecollectivist and hierarchically organized, with different roles according tothe nature of each individual, so as to optimize collective well-being andsurvival. When threatened, bull bison form a ring around the herd, protectingthe young and females in the center (124). Put another way, the herdinstinctively and collectively discriminates againstmales, putting their security at risk, so that the herd as a whole benefitsfrom their superior strength and the sacrifice of their reduced reproductivue (sperm is far more easily replaced than ovaries).


Darwinadds that both herd animals and human tribes exterminate weaker members topromote the survival of the group:
[Animals] will expel a wounded animal from their herd, or gore orworry it to death. This is almost the blackest fact in natural history, unless,indeed, the explanation which has been suggested is true, that their instinctor reason leads them to expel an injured companion, lest beasts of prey,including man, should be tempted to follow the troop. In this case theirconduct is not much worse than that of the North American Indians, who leavetheir feeble comrades to perish on the plains; or the Fijians, who, when theirparents get old, or fall ill, bury them alive.


Today, even seven decades after World War II,in the background of all this looms the legacy of Adolf Hitler. Evolutionaryand hereditary principles were widely accepted in the early twentieth century.In that intellectual and cultural context, Hitler transformed his nationpolitically and culturally, believing that a zealous, communitarian, warlike,expansionary, racial, and ethno-nationalist ethos would enable Germany’ssalvation and the biological and spiritual improvement of mankind. Hitlerbelieved his leadership and politics adhered closely to what he called “the lawof life.”[6] It is indeed an uncomfortable fact formany evolutionists that many of passages in Mein Kampf are eerily reminiscent of Darwin’s ownaccount of human history, in particular the emergence of morality through eonsof tribal warfare.

今天,甚至在第二次世界大戰結束70年后,在這一切的背景下,阿道夫·希特勒的遺產依然隱約可見。進化和遺傳原則在20世紀早期被廣泛接受。在這樣的知識和文化背景下,希特勒在政治和文化上改變了他的國家,他相信一個熱心的、社群主義的、好戰的、擴張的、種族主義的和民族主義的精神將使德國獲得救贖,使人類的生理和精神得到改善。希特勒相信他的領導和政治嚴格遵循他所謂的“生命法則”。 對許多進化論者來說,《我的奮斗》中的許多段落都令人毛骨悚然地回憶起達爾文對人類歷史的描述,尤其是通過亙古的部落戰爭而出現的道德,這確實是一個令人不安的事實。

Inthe end, Darwin seems to endorse a communitarian ethic moderated and informedby reason (my emphasis):
In the case of the lower animals it seems much more appropriate tospeak of their social instincts, as having been developed for the general goodrather than for the general happiness of the species. The term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest numberof individuals in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect,under the conditions to which they are subjected.As the social instincts both of man and the lower animals have no doubt beendeveloped by nearly the same steps, it would be advisable to take as thestandard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather thanthe general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require somelimitation account of political ethics.

The ideas of Locke and Rousseau — extollingequality, rights, and the popular will as ends-in-themselves — have led to perpetualconfusion among our people and to our inexorable collapse since the beginningthe twentieth century. In 1914, we essentially dominated the world and made upa third of human population. Before 2100, a blink of an eye in historical letalone evolutionary terms, we will have lost control not only of our colonialempires but even of our own homelands, being reduced to minorities in not onlyNorth America but even Western Europe. We will make up less than 5 percent ofthe global population. The triumph of liberal-democracy’s individualist andegalitarian principles have coincided with Europeans’ evolutionary suicide.