Brüne Martin
Department of Psychiatry, University of Bochum, LWL Hospital, Germany.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2007 Oct 5;2:21. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-2-21.
The hypothesis that anatomically modern homo sapiens could have undergone changes akin to those observed in domesticated animals has been contemplated in the biological sciences for at least 150 years. The idea had already plagued philosophers such as Rousseau, who considered the civilization of man as going against human nature, and eventually "sparked over" to the medical sciences in the late 19th and early 20th century. At that time, human "self-domestication" appealed to psychiatry, because it served as a causal explanation for the alleged degeneration of the "erbgut" (genetic material) of entire populations and the presumed increase of mental disorders. Consequently, Social Darwinists emphasised preventing procreation by people of "lower genetic value" and positively selecting favourable traits in others. Both tendencies culminated in euthanasia and breeding programs ("Lebensborn") during the Nazi regime in Germany. Whether or not domestication actually plays a role in some anatomical changes since the late Pleistocene period is, from a biological standpoint, contentious, and the currently resurrected debate depends, in part, on the definitional criteria applied. However, the example of human self-domestication may illustrate that scientific ideas, especially when dealing with human biology, are prone to misuse, particularly if "is" is confused with "ought", i.e., if moral principles are deduced from biological facts. Although such naturalistic fallacies appear to be banned, modern genetics may, at least in theory, pose similar ethical problems to medicine, including psychiatry. In times during which studies into the genetics of psychiatric disorders are scientifically more valued than studies into environmental causation of disorders (which is currently the case), the prospects of genetic therapy may be tempting to alter the human genome in patients, probably at costs that no-one can foresee. In the case of "self-domestication", it is proposed that human characteristics resembling domesticated traits in animals should be labelled "domestication-like", or better, objectively described as genuine adaptations to sedentism.
解剖学意义上的现代智人可能经历了类似于家养动物所观察到的变化这一假说,在生物科学领域已被思考了至少150年。这个想法早已困扰着像卢梭这样的哲学家,他认为人类文明违背了人性,最终在19世纪末20世纪初“蔓延”到了医学领域。当时,人类“自我驯化”吸引了精神病学,因为它为整个人口所谓的“遗传物质”退化以及精神障碍假定的增加提供了因果解释。因此,社会达尔文主义者强调阻止“遗传价值较低”的人生育,并积极选择其他人的有利特征。这两种趋势在纳粹德国政权时期的安乐死和繁殖计划(“生命之源”)中达到了顶峰。从生物学角度来看,自晚更新世以来驯化是否真的在某些解剖学变化中起作用是有争议的,目前重新引发的争论部分取决于所应用的定义标准。然而,人类自我驯化的例子可能说明,科学观念,尤其是在涉及人类生物学时,容易被滥用,特别是如果“是”与“应该”被混淆,即如果从生物学事实中推导出道德原则。尽管这种自然主义谬误似乎已被禁止,但现代遗传学至少在理论上可能给医学,包括精神病学带来类似的伦理问题。在对精神疾病遗传学的研究比疾病环境病因学的研究更受科学重视的时期(目前就是这种情况),基因治疗的前景可能会诱使人们改变患者的人类基因组,而代价可能是无人能够预见的。就“自我驯化”而言,有人提出,类似于动物驯化特征的人类特征应被标记为“类驯化”,或者更好的是,客观地描述为对定居生活的真正适应。