Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

30.11.2012 Views

A.SZABÓ T. Regarding the accumulation of information in biological systems sensu lato (i.e., including social systems), it is clear that new information is accumulated during evolution in different, isolated self-reproducing compartments. These compartments were regularly isolated/connected first by chemical bounds (in the RNA world), later by membranes and cell walls (in proto-cells, cell-organs, pro- and eukaryotic monocellular organisms), dermal structures (in multicellular organisms), complicated receptor systems (in reproductively isolated but still hybridising species), up to different languages, beliefs and cultures in ethnically and/or culturally isolated, but internally and externally interacting societies. It is worth to note here that ethnobotany is a science interested mainly not in isolation, but in integration mechanisms acting on the top of this evolutionary process. The essence of botany is to accumulate knowledge on plants: to describe and understand the plant world on different sites and especially around different human societies. The share of knowledge connected with plant use and finally with cultivation (including the mass cultivation of bacteria, algae, fungi, etc.) was, is and will be a human integrative issue. The isolation mechanisms in this process, i.e., the very nature of the (relative, social) reproductive isolation between human groups and societies are poorly understood. The nature of ethnicity (language and culture) seems to be decisive. Recent books and papers on the subject (GOULD 1999, GUIBERNAU and REX 1999, MANN 2001, SMITH 1999, SOLLORS 1996, STUMPF 2001, etc.) demonstrate accordingly a raising interest toward language and ethnicity, but there are many signs of poor understanding (and sometimes even a lack of honesty) in the discussions. Since ethnicity is strongly connected with lasting and deep historical traditions, the North-American (US) model of ethnicity is a particular case not suited for generalisations. So we may presume, for example, that the lack of traditional ethnobotanical background among white Anglo-Saxon protestants from the USA is correlated perhaps more with misunderstanding than with understanding of ethnic phenomena. The content of the word “ethnicity” itself seems to be ill-defined and often erroneous for historic reasons. This is strange, because ethnic phenomena are very influential and important. The first World War started in part due to Austro-Hungarian lack of ethnic empathy and understanding (1914) and this is true for the Second World War as well (1939), not mentioning here the ethnic problems in Great Britain, the Basque problem in France and Spain, the Hungarian problem in Central-Europe, the Balkan conflicts (1990-), the Chechen, Afghan, Palestinian and many more cases. Ethnically complex territories often harbour unique plant genetic resources. It is worth to remember here that some “indicator species”, for example the cultivated Einkorn (Triticum monococcum), are quite regularly “associated” with ethnically sensitive ar- 87

Ethnobotanical studies on cultivated plants. A theoretical approach eas (SZABÓ 1978a, 1981, 1990/92, 2000, etc.). In this respect the (gene)ecological, economical and environmental importance of ethnic phenomena are above doubts. Major gene-ecological disasters both on plant side (full genetic erosion) and on human side (genocidium) are often rooted deeply in grave misinterpretation and mistreatment of ethnicity, in lack of understanding the importance of ethnobiodiversity. In the first approach, the plant factor is a minor component in ethnic conflicts. However, the management of crops, the agriculture is a basic factor in the final approach because this is the ultimate source of biological energy needed for a sustainable society. The danger of food shortage and the lack of sustainability are important sources of controversies. Globalisation causing the erosion of local ethnic and cultural traditions and followed by the erosion of plant genetic resources may even amplify some of these controversies. Many simple questions were perhaps never formulated. For example: has the affection toward plants a gender-linked component or is the common experience of ethnobotanists almost everywhere in the world concerning a better plant knowledge among women just culturally determined? Looking on the “Major Transitions in Evolution” (MAYNARD SMITH and SZATHMÁRY 1997) we may presume that group knowledge on plants contributed to the evolution of structured language and communication. There is a growing set of evidences that these human skills have gender-linked components. Another example for intriguing questions is, whether plant gathering and plant cultivation was correlated on group scale with the evolution of different brain mechanisms and consequently with components of individual and group behaviour in nomads, hunters and warriors? This possibility is again not supported yet by any good research. Consequently, the time is still not ripe to integrate ethnobotany with general human ethology preferred by CSÁNYI (1999). Definitions The plant side Spontaneous (wild) plant, economic plant, forage plant, food plant s.l. (including medical food), domesticated plant, cultivated plant are quasi-hierarchical categories, reflecting different degrees of plant interactions with human groups. The “cultivated” plant category sensu stricto includes only members totally dependent from human interactions. Such interactions began in the pre-human phase of evolution, as a continuation of co-evolution between the animal and the plant world. However, with the emergence of plant cultivation, the interaction became gradually conscious, and consequently asymmetrical. 88

Ethnobotanical studies on cultivated plants. A theoretical approach<br />

eas (SZABÓ 1978a, 1981, 1990/92, 2000, etc.). In this respect the (gene)ecological,<br />

economical and environmental importance of ethnic phenomena are above doubts.<br />

Major gene-ecological disasters both on plant side (full genetic erosion) and on human<br />

side (genocidium) are often rooted deeply in grave misinterpretation and mistreatment<br />

of ethnicity, in lack of understanding the importance of ethnobiodiversity.<br />

In the first approach, the plant factor is a minor component in ethnic conflicts. However,<br />

the management of crops, the agriculture is a basic factor in the final approach<br />

because this is the ultimate source of biological energy needed for a sustainable society.<br />

The danger of food shortage and the lack of sustainability are important<br />

sources of controversies. Globalisation causing the erosion of local ethnic and cultural<br />

traditions and followed by the erosion of plant genetic resources may even amplify<br />

some of these controversies.<br />

Many simple questions were perhaps never formulated. For example: has the affection<br />

toward plants a gender-linked component or is the common experience of ethnobotanists<br />

almost everywhere in the world concerning a better plant knowledge<br />

among women just culturally determined? Looking on the “Major Transitions in Evolution”<br />

(MAYNARD SMITH and SZATHMÁRY 1997) we may presume that group knowledge<br />

on plants contributed to the evolution of structured language and communication.<br />

There is a growing set of evidences that these human skills have gender-linked<br />

components.<br />

Another example for intriguing questions is, whether plant gathering and plant cultivation<br />

was correlated on group scale with the evolution of different brain mechanisms<br />

and consequently with components of individual and group behaviour in nomads,<br />

hunters and warriors? This possibility is again not supported yet by any good research.<br />

Consequently, the time is still not ripe to integrate ethnobotany with general<br />

human ethology preferred by CSÁNYI (1999).<br />

Definitions<br />

The plant side<br />

Spontaneous (wild) plant, economic plant, forage plant, food plant s.l. (including<br />

medical food), domesticated plant, cultivated plant are quasi-hierarchical categories,<br />

reflecting different degrees of plant interactions with human groups. The “cultivated”<br />

plant category sensu stricto includes only members totally dependent from human<br />

interactions. Such interactions began in the pre-human phase of evolution, as a continuation<br />

of co-evolution between the animal and the plant world. However, with the<br />

emergence of plant cultivation, the interaction became gradually conscious, and consequently<br />

asymmetrical.<br />

88

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!