Another debatable question arises when one contemplates the whole biosphere, the conjoined life of the earth. How could it have turned out to possess such stability and coherence, resembling as it does a sort of enormous developing embryo, with nothing but chance events to determine its emergence? Lovelock and Margulis, facing this problem, have proposed the Gaia Hypothesis, which is, in brief, that the earth is itself a form of life, "a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet." Lovelock postulates, in addition, that "the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been an is activelymade fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself."
當我們把整個生物圈，即地球上連在一起的整個生命加以仔細考慮時，就會出現另外一個可爭論的問題。在只有偶然事件起決定作用的情況下，地球生物圈怎么會像一種巨大的發育著的胚胎一樣，具有如此的穩定性和一致性呢？面對這一問題，洛夫洛克和馬古利斯提出了蓋亞假說。簡言之，這個假說認為，地球本身是一種生命形式，“一個復雜的統一體，它包括地球生物圈、大氣層、海洋和土壤；其總和構成一個反饋或控制系統，這個系統為地球上的生命尋求最佳的物理和化學環境。”洛夫洛克還假定，“生命本身的存在一直而且現在仍然積極在使地球表面、大氣層和海洋的物理及化學條件變得適宜和舒服。”
This notion is beginning to stir up a few signs of storm, and if it catches on, as I think it will, we will soon find the biological community split into fuming factions, one side saying that the evolved biosphere displays evidences of design and purpose, the other decrying such heresy. I believe that students should learn as much as they can about the argument.
一些跡象表明這一見解已開始激起風暴。如果這一見解流行起來——我認為會這樣的——我們不久就會見到生物學界分裂為怒氣沖沖的兩派，一派說，生物圈的進化顯示出是有計劃有意圖地進行的，而另一派則詆毀這種異端邪說。我認為學生應該盡可能多地了解這一爭論。
One more current battle involving the unknown is between sociobiologists and antisociobiologists, and it is a marvel for students to behold. To observe, in open-mouthed astonishment, onegroup of highly intelligent, beautifully trained, knowledgeable, and imaginative scientists maintaining that all behavior, animal and human, is governed exclusively by genes, and another group of equally talented scientists asserting that all behaviors is set and determined by the environment or by culture, is an educational experience that no college student should be allowed to miss. The essential lesson to be learned has nothing to do with the relative validity of the facts underlying the argument. It is the argument itself that is the education: we do not yet know enough to settle such questions.
目前正在進行的也是牽涉到未知世界的另一場論戰，是在社會生物學家和反社會生物學家之間進行的。這是一個可使學生大開眼界的絕妙事例。一群極其聰明的、受過良好訓練的、知識淵博、富于想像的科學家堅持認為，一切行為，不管是動物的還是人類的，都完全是由基因支配的，而另一群同樣才氣橫溢的科學家則斷言，一切行為都是由環境或文化所決定的。這場會使人看得目瞪口呆的爭論，很有教育意義，任何一個大學生都不應該錯過觀看的機會。這里要學的至關重要的一課，與論據相對說來是否可靠并無關系。爭論本身才是教育意義之所在：迄今為止，我們的知識還不足以解決這樣的一些問題。
評論
打印
