The Evolution of Hunters

I found this news really astonishing. Seeming plausible, the discovery provides a most sound evidence to argue how we homo sapiens started our evolution. Below is excerpted from news of Science. The original report is on Current Biology whose full text I have no access to.

Spear-Wielding Chimps Seen Hunting Bush Babies

Ann Gibbons

The right to bear arms has long been considered a distinctly human privilege. But apparently the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to chimpanzees too, at least while they're out hunting small game.

Researchers in Senegal recently spotted wild chimpanzees biting the tips of sticks, which they then used like spears to jab small primates called bush babies. Anthropologist Jill Pruetz of Iowa State University in Ames was astonished when her project manager saw a chimp thrust a sharpened stick into a hole in a tree and pull out a limp bush baby to eat, according to a report in the 6 March issue of Current Biology.

Bush baby, beware. Senegal chimps like this one attacked bush babies with sharpened sticks (inset). CREDIT: P. BERTOLANI/CAMBRIDGE (PHOTO AND INSET)

"This is stunning," says primatologist Craig Stanford of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It's the first time a nonhuman primate has been known to make a lethal weapon for hunting other animals, he says. "This is no anecdote, as they have 22 cases," adds primatologist William McGrew of Cambridge University in the U.K. "Once again, chimpanzees exceed our imaginations."

Anthropologists have known for some time that chimpanzees are adept at making and using stick and stone tools, for example to probe termite mounds or crack nuts. And researchers have seen gangs of male chimps kill monkeys by beating and biting. But they thought only humans used tools to hunt.

Pruetz's team, working at the Fongoli research site in the wooded savanna of Senegal, observed chimps breaking off green branches and in four cases using their incisors to sharpen the points. The chimps, which typically weigh 26 to 60 kilograms, were hunting nocturnal bush babies, 100- to 300-gram primates that hide by day in holes in trees. In all, Pruetz and Paco Bertolani, a graduate student at Cambridge University, documented 10 different chimps thrusting the tools into holes in 22 instances. "This is habitual," says Pruetz, whose team logged 2500 hours of observations.

Other researchers were impressed by the observations, although some noted that the researchers saw only one bush baby actually killed. "Could they have been rooting around for something else?" asks primate behavior ecologist John Mitani of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Pruetz says the chimps' intent was clear: They jabbed the sticks in the holes with enough force to injure prey and far more vigorously than when probing for termites. And bush baby remains were common in chimp feces, indicating they were regular fare.

In another surprising twist, most hunters were females. "It's a double whammy," says Pruetz. "It doesn't fit the old paradigm of Man the Hunter." Make that Chimp the Hunter.

离开雷锋的日子

早上偶然在公交车的电视上看到雷锋叔叔的影像，才恍然想起今天是三月五日，只记得两会，却冷落了昔日的偶像。

还记得我上学时学的第一首歌“学习雷锋好榜样”，而今依然能整段整段地哼唱。现在的孩子呢？我想大概是连听都没听过了吧，刚看到对昆明和重庆小学的采访报导，据说半数以上的孩子都不知道雷锋是谁。想不到世界变得这么快。

时不时听人说起，看见路上有老人摔倒，有心去扶一把，又怕反被讹诈。世风如此，无怪乎坐在电影院里看《离开雷锋的日子》我会禁不住泪流满面，大概一半是怀念昔日“同志间火一样的热情”，一半是因现实的冷漠而心酸。但是又能责怪谁呢？

正像罗大佑在他的第一张专辑《之乎者也》中唱的一样：“很久以前我们的祖先曾经就这么说，现在看看我们的青年他们在讲什么，但是你要想想你到底要他们怎么做。”“雷锋已经过时了”，这话不错，现今的文化已然没有雷锋的容身之地，而这样的文化是我们亲手改变的，你不可能要求一个孩子脱离现实的文化氛围去刻意地法古，一缚众咻的努力毫无意义，这是文化传承的必然规律，违背这一规律的人将很难在这个群体当中生存。过年回家休假的时候，侄儿向我炫耀他捡到的手机，被我毫不留情地批评了，可是我又有些后悔了，因为我知道我这样格格不入的说教定然是徒劳的，只会徒增隔阂而已，虽然那隔阂早已是客观存在的。

雷锋的行为，在我的学术中称为“利他（Altruism）”，多年以来，它一直是生物学、社会学和经济学研究上的一个热点问题。既然基因是“自私的”，又为何会出现“利他行为”？利他是基因决定的吗？在部分程度上的回答是“是”。还是以前提到过的Hamilton的Red Queen理论，“我会跳进河里救我的两个兄弟，或者八个堂兄弟”，由亲缘关系决定的利他行为仍然是在基因水平上仍然是自私的。这个理论几乎可以解释除人之外的任何社会性动物的利他行为，而人的利他行为超出了基因控制的范围，因为我们会乐于帮助与自己素不相识的人。雷锋似的舍己为人，从进化的角度来讲的确是不折不扣的傻子行为，如果单单从个体选择的水平上考虑，这种个体无疑是随机变异产生的失败品，必然会遭到淘汰。但是人类的社会比蚂蚁的社会更复杂，我们能够建造一种远比蚁巢更为奇妙的宏大建筑，那就是文化。如果一种文化倾向于保护利他主义者，那么雷锋的存在就是正当其时的。

很显然，利他主义者的存在是有利于他们所在的社会整体的，但是个体的生存终究还是要通过个体水平的博弈实现的，因此必须有社会文化对他们加以保护和扶持。正如Martin Nowak用数学方法给出的简洁清晰的证明一样，利他文化的形成，需要声望（reputation）制度的建立。如果一个人行善能够得到大家的尊敬，一个人作恶会遭到群众的唾弃，那么这个社会就会逐步走向“公平”；反之，如果一个社会善恶不辨，那么人人都会被迫转变成自私的小人。

雷锋在中国被遗忘，至少是由两个过程共同造成的。一方面，政府为了鼓励个人致富，将公共媒体上的雷锋、焦裕禄统统换成了比尔盖茨、张朝阳，官方宣传方向的转变，极大地扭转着习惯于服从领导的中国人的价值观。但仅仅如此还不够。另一方面，中国的经济制度开始从封闭的计划经济转向开放的市场经济，社会的流动性空前增强，但是相应的监督制度和信用体系却一直处于空白状态。一个人暴富之后即可一走了之，没人知道到底我手中的钱是黑是白，外界看到的只是一个富翁的光辉形象。包二奶、包三奶，这是个人隐私，居委会大妈再也管不着了。即便民众怨声载道，也苦于民主制度的缺失而告状无门，与其螳臂当车，不如随波逐流。于是这两股力量的结合，就形成了一个牢不可破的正反馈回路，推动着我们的社会向着自私理性的极点收敛。在这样的社会环境之下成长起来的新一代，从corruption trap中挣脱的几率是微乎其微的。

这就是中国，一个正在以道德沦丧为代价迅速膨胀着的超级大国，一个由左翼政党执政的右倾国家，令中国人和外国人很困惑，因此在明镜周刊上出现了长达5页的杂烩文章，却不知道该用什么词汇来概括才贴切，索性干脆用RED CHINA, INC.这个怪异的名字来称呼这个恐怖的怪胎。

行为上的自私并不能遮盖内心的不安与无奈，在离开雷锋的日子里，人们不得不寻找新的精神慰藉。于是在轰轰烈烈的无产阶级文化大革命三十年之后，中国人又开始纷纷涌向各种中西样式的教堂和寺庙，在祷告声中享受久违的内心平衡与温暖。素昧平生者互称兄弟，不分贫富坦诚相待，与其说这是圣者的教诲，不如说是我们刚刚失去的东西。抬头仔细看看，那十字架上的其实不过是一个神圣化的雷锋，换句话说，雷锋精神其实也就是世俗版的福音，只是世俗的雷锋无法许诺一个美丽的天堂而已。

我不禁开始想念雷锋了。

正月十五“雨”打灯

今早一拉开窗帘，大吃一惊：哟，居然下雪了。要搁三五年前可能习以为常，如今可就是新奇事物了。

在东北老家有句谚语：八月十五云遮月，正月十五雪打灯。我实在是想不出这两个相隔半年的天气现象之间能有怎样的相关性，不过相信劳动人民的智慧总该有些道理可讲——当然，有效期仅限于过去那个玉皇大帝统治的时代。自从工业革命开始，不说是换成了人定胜天，起码也要平起平坐了。证据？今年回家过年被雨淋了，这个证据够生动的，全球变暖也不至于这么夸张吧。从新闻报导上来看，近两年全世界的气候都有癫痫发作的迹象，照这个趋势下去，以后再想“三九四九冰上走”恐怕得先苦练一身好轻功才行了。

The Arctic: The northern-most part of the world has the worst case of fever on the planet. Pack ice and permafrost are disappearing. As they go, they are taking polar bears and traditional Eskimo culture with them. --Excerpted from Spiegel

早年听说全球变暖这个新名词的时候还以为是每一天的气温都均匀地上升一点儿，那似乎倒也无所谓。没想到事实是这样一个风起云涌的变暖方式，可是够要命的。当然气候变化预测的难度实在是大了点儿，根据历史记录validate一个模型倒是不难，要能用未来的实际变化Calibrate它可就真的了不起了（上研究生课的时候老师把这两个词搞反了，结果自己也跟着以讹传讹好长时间，要不是今天在Models in Ecosystem Science里看到了正解，还不知要传到啥时候去呢）。
如果用Carpenter的模型来套，这两年的气候波动是不是预示着全球的气候系统正在从一个稳态向另一个稳态过渡呢？如果确实是这样的话，那么这个变化就会是一个不可逆的变化，也就是说一旦变暖后的气候系统稳定下来，就算人类到退回石器时代气温也很难降回去了。

虽然戈尔的纪录片刚刚拿了奥斯卡奖，但好莱坞终究不是白宫，只有失意者才会以这种方式聊以慰藉。看中美两国为京都议定书死皮赖脸瞪眼说瞎话的样子，Drama of the Commons看来又要发展成Tragedy of the Commons了。是福不是祸，是祸躲不过，准备好雨伞迎接正月十五雨打灯吧。

Minutes to Midnight

Hi, Zhengji, I found this essay on Magnum. And I think it might be exciting for you to explore a distinct Australia. Enjoy it.

Following a journey of 90,000 kilometers, Trent Parke explored the Australian hinterland in an attempt to find his place within an Australia vastly different from the one in which he grew up.

梦

梦里，床边的墙上开了一扇小窗，我扶着窗沿探出头去，看见祖母正在灶台前烧火，房门一开，是祖父的身影，身后是开满花的院落，还有青砖路尽头油漆斑驳的大门。我叫了一声“爷”，梦醒了，而眼泪没有中止。清醒的时候太累，泰山崩于前而色不改，只有在梦里可以畅快淋漓地大笑和痛哭。

多年之后又去寻找记忆中的院落，只找到一大片新建的整齐的居民小区。泥泞狭窄的街道，街对面熟悉的药厂大院，临街老赵家的镶牙所，胡同口儿时的游乐场……岁月裹挟着童年回忆的瓦砾一起不知所踪，只剩下早年烟草局的三层旧楼还能充当地标，使我不至于在自己的家门口迷路。

此刻这个瞬间将过去与未来齐刷刷地劈成两半，而埋在过去的宝藏，只有通过梦的大门才能找得到。每天用去三分之一的时间睡眠，绝不是浪费，也不仅仅是休闲，那是我在寻找我的宝藏。

何为“文化”

要定义一件东西，总可以从多个角度来入手。比方说要描述“什么是人”，搞医学的人会讲一节生理课；而像我这样生态学出身的则只会从行为上做区分。我念书的时候政治课讲的是马克思的唯物主义（现在大概还在讲），印象最深的一句就是“劳动创造人”，此理论认为人与动物的标志性区别在于“制造工具”。其实最早的说法是“使用工具”的，后来发现很多并不高等的动物都会使用工具（比如海獭、鹦鹉等等），所以有必要把标准提高一点儿。可是再后来又有研究者发现黑猩猩也能制造简单的工具，不过马克思早就仙逝了，现在在中国讲政治课的可没有闲情逸致做什么订正，睁一眼闭一眼唬弄小孩子好了，有谁在意？

在我看来，“工具说”并非完全没有道理，只是过于狭隘。从行为上来看，人与其他社会性动物的根本性区别在于“文化”，而“工具”只是其具体而微的表象之一——那么，什么是文化？

昨天坐在家里看CCTV10的“绿色空间”节目，听到这样一段解说词：“（黑猩猩在砸坚果）有的种群习惯用石块，有的则习惯用木棒，在相似的环境中产生并延续的社会行为差异，这就是文化。”妙哉！言简意赅，毋需多语。

从基因上讲，人的利他性社会行为同蚂蚁并没有本质区别，因此威尔逊把两者同时归入《社会生物学》不无道理。当然，反对进化论的上帝的子民不会同意，据最新调查，在被认为科技最为发达的美利坚合众国，民众中相信人猿同祖的不及半数，而相信神创的比例则在不断上升（布什战胜戈尔也能从侧面反映出这一倾向）。其实这种分歧本身就已经说明了分歧的缘由，即文化。

Illustration: Cathy Wilcox

蚂蚁的社会行为可以用Hamilton的“红皇后”理论完美的解释，所以它是基因进化决定的。但是对人来说，父子支持同一党派更多的是受教育而不是遗传因素所影响；反之亦然，素昧平生者可以因共同的志趣结成团体，亲族兄弟可能因政见不同而分裂对峙。文化已然在基因决定的亲缘关系水平之上更为显著地塑造着人类社会的格局，为了实现幸福，有的选择民主，有的拥护独裁，正如同针对砸坚果的问题，有的选择石块，有的选择木棒一样。很多时候，文化的多样性同生物的多样性一样，难以区分绝对的优劣，因此才会出现等级主义、平等主义、宿命论、个人主义和隐士等多种不同文化观念长期共存的情况。不管未来如何，必须承认正是在文化的护佑之下我们才得以突破部落的藩篱，义无反顾地拥抱全球化的骇浪。

诚然，文化的进化并不是完全独立于基因的进化（因此不必担心“人猿星球”的噩梦会出现），但是自人类翻越更新世走入文明时代以来，文化进化的速度确实远远超越了基因进化的步伐，这才使得我们能够轻易地区分出小布什和黑猩猩，尽管他们在照片上看起来如此相似。

from Vasculata

A Journey of Discovery: Reflections

Holling is writing his reflections, and I find it valuable for people who are involved in ecology, sociology, and even politics. Below is a preface from him.

Buzz Holling February 20th, 2007 in Reflections

As I write this, it is mid September 2006. I am writing in a sun-drenched room at our cottage in Ontario, thinking of the unrolling events of the last few months. It is a surprising time with some light events and some very dark ones.

For me, the light, bright events, come from the birth of twin grandsons, living on Vancouver Island. They turn my mind from the present dark colors of international and US politics and governance, and add balance in the promise youth opens for the future. And, on the same positive note, I have also met a large group of new and old friends, on two recent trips- one trip to South Africa and one to Montreal, where we met bubbling communities of people, young and old, experimenting in new options for interracial design and novel social and scientific experimentation. The collapse of apartheid in South Africa has slowly opened huge potential and hope. This is just the opposite of the public mood I see in the United States.

It stunned me to discover that major new centers, truly international in character, have emerged for resilience studies and policies- for the world’s coral reefs in Australia, for climate change in the UK and for regional and global social and ecological systems in Sweden. And all this is apparently influenced deeply by the discoveries and experiments presented by my own work over the last decades. All that says the world is exuberantly healthy and productive. But there are other, very dark events.

In the United States, the mood and currents of thought and politics perceived among good friends at our main home in the small fishing village of Cedar Key, on the Gulf of Mexico is depressing. They are good friends, but now deeply pessimistic ones. The political situation in the United States is quite simply ugly. It is a time when the power of the state has achieved a rigidity unseen since the triumphs of the falling of the Berlin Wall. Politicians have reacted to extreme disturbances, like the appalling terrorist attacks of 9/11, with a powerful military response, a blind view of history and cultures, and a greedy desire for narrow benefit. Global economic expansion and dependence on peaking oil supplies, particularly in the Middle East, lock geopolitics into a self-destructive state, from which transformation is extraordinarily difficult.

It is the classically destructive phase of the mature part of an adaptive cycle. It is also potentially creative, because opportunities for innovative experiments and novel enterprises start to open at such times. It is a time of potentially creative destruction. And a recent mid term election in the United States in November 2006 at least hints at a shift into a renewal that requires deep changes nationally and internationally. Democracy is indeed a huge invention that stimulates assessment of a society and institutions whose leaders have become rigid and myopic. Democracy, at times, can trigger its renewal.

That is what I want to end up discussing here. But I want to get to that point by musing about the personal contributions I’ve made, my colleagues have made and our colleagues in science have at times questioned, at times supported. That is the true skepticism of science unfolding. At times it is turned over by truly novel discoveries- a kind of Kuhnian revolution of thought and approach. I think that transformation has happened, and I will describe my personal journey in science that, with other such journeys, contributed to the transformation.

These reflections will be presented in a series of posts over the next few weeks.