Conservation
As conservation is called one since the mid-1970s logically and empirically refuted concept of evolutionary biology . According to this concept, individuals have an interest in preserving their own species and therefore display eusocial or altruistic behaviors towards members of their own species.
The concept of species conservation failed, among other things, because of its empirically refuted prediction that individuals would spare other individuals who are more closely related to them more frequently than those who are more extensive.
In fact, biological behavior can be better explained if one assumes that living beings are reciprocally altruistic or selfish and exhibited social behaviors because they can use it to increase their own fitness . Members of their own kind are in every respect even the worst competitors because they compete for the same resources . They only behave socially or cooperatively in so far as the genes that produce such behaviors in them have reproductive advantages.
Konrad Lorenz is considered an important representative of the concept of species conservation , who stuck to it all his life, although he was aware of the weak points of the concept. The zoologist Bernhard Grzimek also represented this concept all his life and used it in numerous publications as an explanation for social and cooperative behavior . It has faded into the background in German school books since the mid-1990s, but is still used by some publishers today.
The concept of species conservation was hotly debated in evolutionary biology between the mid-1970s and around the mid-1990s, but earlier this had already been argued by Richard Dawkins in his work Das egoistische Gene (1976).
Alternative evolutionary biology concepts
The selfish gene
This concept was first introduced in the book Das Selfish Gene (English original title: The Selfish Gene ) by Richard Dawkins from 1976 to a wider public.
Individual selection
The individual selection is a concept that includes the idea that the selection pressure on the phenotype depends of the individual. Here individuals reproduce to different degrees (and survive for different lengths of time) and evolutionary change is based on this. This concept established the success of the theory of evolution and has been supplemented by other important concepts since Darwin, who saw it as the only motor of evolution.
The prerequisite for a functioning individual selection is that individuals pass on their genes to the next generation with varying degrees of success. In fact, the genetic success (reproductive success) of an individual depends not only on their genetic makeup, but also on their phenotype . The reproductive success of a particular male deer does not only depend on its genes, but also largely on whether it is physically capable and has learned to find, conquer, defend and fertilize hinds. Its success is therefore also influenced by its competitiveness with other male deer in the area (characterized by age, fitness , antler size, etc.), i.e. by the interaction of its phenotype with its environment .
Relatives selection
As kin selection , the fact is known that the fate of individual genes is dependent not only on the reproductive fitness of an individual, but also on the health of his relatives who carry this gene also or highly probable. With social animals - for example monkeys - mutual help and cooperation therefore come to the fore. Non-reproductive group members therefore sometimes tend to carry out more dangerous activities for the benefit of their families, as this allows them to carry their genes into the next generation via their reproductive relatives, although they are not themselves reproductive.
For a long time, relatives selection was lumped together with species conservation. However, it has established itself as an independent concept and is compatible with the selfish gene . It can also be confirmed empirically .
Examples
Ritualized fights
The behavior of animals in which the males spare (and not kill) their inferior conspecifics in competition, even if they have the opportunity, cannot be adequately explained by the concept of species conservation. In fact, sparing an inferior opponent often represents a reproductive advantage for the winner. If one of the fighters tried to kill the other, there would be much stronger resistance, in which the superior himself might be injured or exhausted and in subsequent disputes ( with others) would have a worse starting position. Therefore, it is usually better for the superior to spare the inferior. Under these conditions, it is an advantage for the loser to signal their inferiority in order to shorten the argument and not to be too badly damaged or killed. Here, selfish motives speak from both individuals, but not a conscious effort of the two to maintain their common nature. Nevertheless, ritualized fighting behavior results in the fact that the number of individuals in the population is rarely reduced ( commentary fight , ritualization ) and thus the numerical strength of the pack , the herd or the swarm is maintained.
Intraspecific parasitism
Analogous processes have been empirically proven, for example in the case of genes that cause the mutual theft of nesting material in crows. Crows that steal nesting material from their own species have a considerable advantage, as they breed more quickly and produce more offspring. This behavior is in no way consistent with the outdated concept of conservation. However, the crows only have an advantage with their thieving as long as they only do it occasionally and unnoticed. If crows would only steal nesting material instead of collecting it themselves, stealing would soon be more costly, since each crow should then better guard and defend its own nest. The thieving behavior would then no longer have any advantage, but would even be more time-consuming than collecting new nesting material. A behavior pattern therefore evolves over evolutionary periods of time, which includes a certain degree of surveillance of one's own nest against thieves as well as the occasional theft of nesting material from other nests. This predominantly non-parasitic behavior could then at first glance suggest a conservation effort. In fact, it makes a lot of sense for every single crow to collect its own nesting material and only occasionally steal a twig from the neighbor (see also game theory and evolutionarily stable strategy ).
Conservation of the species and National Socialist ideology
The National Socialist ideology of the Third Reich had propagated the conservation of species as an essential mechanism of the theory of evolution and tried to legitimize its social Darwinist ideology by misusing this theory. The Social Darwinism leads the racial ideology of a misunderstood theory of evolution from, the term race has been wrongly equated with the concept of biological species as a reproductive community. Modern, serious-scientific work that argues with the topics of social Darwinism and racial hygiene (see eugenics and national socialist racial hygiene ), judge these social concepts very critically - on the one hand because of the National Socialist atrocities - and on the other hand for scientific reasons: the concept of a general Higher development in the course of evolution and thus a superiority of "higher developed races" cannot be scientifically justified and is not part of the theory of evolution. The ideology of social Darwinism can therefore not be derived from a scientifically founded, biological theory of evolution ( socio-cultural evolution ).
literature
- Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene. With a foreword by Wolfgang Wickler. Translated into German by Karin de Sousa Ferreira. Rowohlt Verlag , Reinbek near Hamburg 1998, ISBN 3-499-19609-3 .
- John R. Krebs, Nicolas B. Davies: Introduction to Behavioral Ecology. Blackwell, Berlin / Vienna 1996 3 , ISBN 3-8263-3046-3 .