“最性感者生存”能解释文明吗？

Evolution by sexual selection is an idea that goes back to Charles Darwin. He had little doubt that it explained much about human beings, and modern biologists generally agree. One of them has even put a figure on it, concluding that some 54.8% of selection in human beings is effectively caused by reproduction of the sexiest rather than survival of the fittest.

性选择推动进化这种观点可以追溯至查尔斯·达尔文(Charles Darwin)，他坚信这一点解释了大部分人类进化过程。现代生物学家也普遍认同这种观点。其中一人甚至得出了一个数据，认为约54.8%的人类选择实际上是最性感者繁殖，而非最适者生存的结果。

Some years ago, the evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller in his book 'The Mating Mind' explored the notion that since human males woo their mates with art, poetry, music and humor, as well as with brawn, much of the expansion of our brain may have been sexually selected.

多年前，进化心理学家杰弗里·米勒(Geoffrey Miller)在他的著作《求偶思维》(Mating Mind)中论证了以下观点：既然人类男性除了发达的肌肉以外，还凭借艺术、诗歌、音乐和幽默追求配偶，那么我们的大脑增大很可能主要是性选择的结果。

Recently Jason Collins and two colleagues at the University of Western Australia, in a discussion paper posted on the Web, have made the case that sexual selection explains civilization itself. They mathematically explored the possibility that 'as females prefer males who conspicuously consume, an increasing proportion of males engage in innovation, labor and other productive activities in order to engage in conspicuous consumption. These activities contribute to technological progress and economic growth.'

最近，西澳大利亚大学(University of Western Australia)的贾森·科林斯(Jason Collins)和他的两位同事在发表于网上的一篇专题论文中指出，性选择解释了文明本身。他们用数学方法探讨了这样一种可能性：“女性更喜欢进行炫耀性消费的男性，因此从事创新、劳动和其他生产性活动以进行炫耀性消费的男性的比例越来越大。这些活动促成了技术进步和经济增长。

Psychological evidence points the same way. In one experiment, men who were shown pictures of women promptly expressed more extravagant desires for expensive luxuries, whereas women showed no such effect after seeing pictures of men. There's historical evidence, too. As Aristotle Onassis is supposed to have said, 'If women did not exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.'

心理学证据得出的结论相同。在一个实验中，看到女性照片的男性立即表达出对昂贵奢侈品的更强烈渴望，而女性看到男性照片后则没有这种反应。这一点也有历史证据。正如希腊船王亚里士多德·奥纳西斯(Aristotle Onassis)所说：“如果女性不存在，世界上的所有金钱就都没有了意义。

Moreover, Michael Shermer, in his book 'The Mind of the Market,' argues that you can trace anticapitalist egalitarianism to sexual selection. Back in the hunter-gatherer Paleolithic, inequality had reproductive consequences. The successful hunter, providing valuable protein for females, got a lot more mating opportunities than the unsuccessful. So it's possible that men still walk around with a relatively simple equation in their brains, namely that relative success at obtaining assets results in more sexual adventures and more grandchildren.

此外，迈克尔·舍默(Michael Shermer)在他的著作《市场思维》(The Mind of the Market)中指出，反资本主义的平均主义可以追溯到性选择。早在以狩猎采集为生的旧石器时代，不平等就对繁殖有影响。成功的猎人可以为女性提供有价值的蛋白质，他们比失败者获得了更多的交配机会。因此，有可能男性大脑中仍有一个相对简单的等式，即相对成功地获取财产将导致更多艳遇和更多后代。

If so, this might explain why it is relative, rather than absolute, inequality that matters so much to people today. In modern Western society, when even relatively poor people have access to transport, refrigeration, entertainment, shoes and plentiful food, you might expect that inequality would be less resented than a century ago─when none of those things might come within the reach of a poor person. What does it matter if there are people who can afford private jets and designer dresses?

若是如此，这或许能解释为什么相对不平等、而非绝对不平等令如今的人们如此耿耿于怀。在现代西方社会，即使相对贫穷的人也能获得交通工具、冷藏设施、娱乐、鞋子和充足的食物，你可能认为在当今，不平等不会像一个世纪前那么令人愤恨了──那时上述东西穷人一样也得不到。即便有些人能享受私人飞机和设计师品牌服装，那又有什么关系呢？

But clearly that isn't how people think. They resent inequality in luxuries just as much if not more than inequality in necessities. They dislike (and envy) conspicuous consumption, even if it impinges on them not at all. What hurts is not that somebody is rich, but that he is richer.

但是，显然人们并不是这么想的。他们对奢侈品消费能力不平等的愤恨并不比对必需品消费能力不平等的愤恨少。他们不喜欢（而且嫉妒）炫耀性消费，即使它根本不碍他们的事。让他们感到痛苦的不是这个人很富有，而是这个人更富有。

This is a classic statement of sexual selection. It isn't the peacock with the big-enough tail that gets to mate; it's the peacock with the biggest tail. If this sounds old-fashioned in an age of working women, gender equality and relative sexual continence, then open your eyes and look around you: The man with the most money or power still gets more sexual opportunities than the man with the least. Ask David Petraeus.

这是一个关于性选择的经典论述。得到交配权的不是有大尾巴的孔雀，而是有最大尾巴的孔雀。如果这在这个女性外出工作、性别平等和相对节欲的年代听起来很过时，那么睁开你的眼睛，看看你周围吧：最有钱或最有权的男性仍然比最没钱或最没权的男性获得更多性机会。问问戴维·彼得雷乌斯(David Petraeus)就知道了。

In human beings, females compete for males as well as vice versa. In many species, sexual selection is a force that acts on only one sex, usually the male. Peahens, which can share the best males and don't require them to be diligent parents after mating, do not grow colorful tails. But in other species, notably some seabirds and parrots, where males and females share parenting duties equally, both sexes are equally colorful─a result of competition by both sexes to attract the best mates.

在人类社会中，女性为男性而竞争，反之亦然。在许多物种中，性选择是一种只作用于一种性别──通常是雄性──的力量。雌孔雀没有长色彩鲜艳的尾巴，它们可以共享最好的雄孔雀，也不需要雄孔雀在交配后成为勤奋的父亲。但在另一些物种中，尤其是一些海鸟和鹦鹉中，雄性和雌性平等分担养育子女的责任，两种性别都同样色彩鲜艳──这是两种性别都要吸引最佳配偶的竞争的结果。