经济学人下载:动物性取向—本能(2)

Ms Monk and her co-authors question the first assumption by pointing out that
Monk女士和她的共著者质疑了第一个假设，他们指出

many animals seem to mate at a frequency far higher than looks necessary merely to reproduce—
许多动物的交配频率似乎远远高于为了繁殖所必需的频率—

meaning that the proportional costs of any instance of sexual activity which does not produce offspring must be low.
这意味着任何不产生后代的性行为的比例成本一定很低。

If this is true, it reverses the burden of proof. The cost of the sensory and neurological mechanisms needed to identify another's sex,
如果是这样，那么它就颠覆了举证责任。识别另一个性别所需的感官和神经机制的成本很高，

and thus permit sex-discriminating mating behaviour, is high.
因此允许性别判断交配行为。

Sometimes, that will be a price worth paying, especially if a long-term relationship is involved in reproduction, as it is in most birds and some mammals.
有时，这是值得付出的代价，特别是如果一段长期的关系涉及到生殖，就像大多数鸟类和一些哺乳动物一样。

But it is the evolution of sex-discrimination for which special-case exemptions must be sought, not the evolution of same-sex behaviour.
但特殊情况下，必须寻求性别判断的演变，而不是同性行为的演变。

The second assumption is even easier to challenge.
对第二种假设提出质疑甚至更加容易。

Typically, evolutionary biologists assume that traits shared widely across a related group
通常情况下，进化生物学家认为，在一个相关群体中广泛共享的特征

are likely to have evolved in an ancestral population, not repeatedly and separately in each lineage.
很可能是在一个祖先群体中进化而来的，而不是在每个谱系中重复和独立的。

Ms Monk and her colleagues argue that cognitive biases in the subject's practitioners
Monk女士和她的同事认为主体从业人员的认知偏差

have pushed them to look for fantastic explanations for the evolution of same-sex behaviours in a range of animals,
促使他们为各种动物的同性行为进化寻找奇妙的解释

rather than considering the perhaps more reasonable explanation for its persistence,
而不是为其存在寻找更加合理的解释，

that it is a low-cost ancestral trait that has little evolutionary reason to disappear.
它的存在是一种低成本的祖先特征，在进化上几乎没有理由消失。

Although the idea that same-sex behaviour has always been a norm is scientifically intriguing,
虽然从科学上来讲，同性行为一直是一种常态的这种想法很有趣，

the paper's authors are also making a broader point about human beings' pursuit of knowledge.
但该论文的作者也就人类对知识的追求提出了一个更广泛的观点。

Ms Monk says that the paper's authors met through a Twitter account which promotes the work of LGBT scientists.
Monk女士表示该论文的作者们通过一个推特账号进行了会面，该账号旨在推广LGBT科学家的工作。

This was a serendipitous encounter which gave them space to explore an idea
这是一次偶然的相遇，给了他们空间去探索

that might have been dismissed at first sight in a more conventional setting. The group includes people with a range of sexual orientations,
一个在更传统环境中可能第一眼就被忽略的想法。这个群体包括了各种性取向的人，

so naturally they had an incentive to ask whether mainstream evolutionary biology's view of sexual orientation is correct.
因此，他们自然有动机提问—主流进化生物学关于性取向的观点是否正确。

Their hypothesis still needs testing.
他们的假设仍有待验证。

That will mean zoologists gathering more observational data on sexual behaviour of animals in the wild—and doing so with an open mind.
这将意味着动物学家要收集更多关于野外动物性行为的观察性数据，而且要保持开放的心态。

The authors themselves are also mulling approaches involving computer modelling,
作者们本身也在考虑采用计算机建模的方法，

which might show that a group of organisms behaving according to their theory
这可能表明一组根据他们研究的有机体行为

is capable of reaching the distribution of sexual behaviours seen in the wild today.
能够得出今天野外所见的性行为分布。

If their hypothesis is confirmed, it raises the question of which other facets of scientific knowledge might be being obscured
如果他们的假设得到证实，这就提出了一个问题，即科学知识的哪些其他方面可能被掩盖了

because the backgrounds of practitioners in those fields do not lead them to ask unconventional questions.
因为那些领域的从业人员的背景不会让他们提出非常规的问题。

Ms Monk's and her colleagues' theory may yet turn notions of the evolution of animal sexual behaviour on their head.
Monk女士以及她同事的理论可能会颠覆动物性行为进化的观念。

With a broader array of minds focused on other problems, other fields might follow, too.
随着更广泛的思想集中在其他问题上，其他领域可能也会跟进。