The article explores a change taking place today in the fields of biology and social anthropology, signaling a shared desire to transcend the heuristic effects of the opposition between nature and culture. Acceptance of the idea that random mutations are the sole driving force behind the process of natural selection overlooks the agentive capacity of non-human living beings, revealing an anthropocentric inspiration. To critique the rhetoric surrounding the principle of natural selection, I turn to the anthropology of Tim Ingold and his analysis of the metaphors that illustrate the principle. I disagree with the author, however, when he argues that these metaphors do not adequately illustrate neo-Darwinian premises. Instead, I believe that they are faithful since their apparent contradiction expresses the unease of neo-Darwinian theory itself when it combines randomness and teleology. New currents in biology, such as biosemiotics, attribute evolutionary importance to epigenetic changes. From the evolutionary perspective, they also highlight the importance of recognizing that the entire lived world possesses the capacity for agency, not just human beings. Within social anthropology, the so-called ontological turn and multispecies ethnography have been working with a new conception of the person, extendible to non-human beings, including the latter to compose a single collective with humans. Thus we can observe an attempt on the part of biologists and anthropologists alike to move beyond anthropocentrism, producer and product of the opposition between nature and culture.

这篇文章探讨了当今生物学和社会人类学领域发生的变化，表明了一种共同的愿望，即超越自然与文化之间对立的启发式影响。接受随机突变是自然选择过程背后的唯一驱动力的观点，忽略了非人类生物的代理能力，揭示了以人类为中心的灵感。为了批评围绕自然选择原则的言论，我转向蒂姆·英戈尔德的人类学和他对说明该原则的隐喻的分析。然而，我不同意作者的观点，他认为这些隐喻没有充分说明新达尔文主义的前提。反而，我相信他们是忠实的，因为他们明显的矛盾表达了新达尔文理论本身在结合随机性和目的论时的不安。生物学中的新潮流，例如生物符号学，将进化的重要性归因于表观遗传变化。从进化的角度来看，他们还强调了认识到整个生活世界都具有代理能力的重要性，而不仅仅是人类。在社会人类学中，所谓的本体论转向和多物种民族志一直在研究人的新概念，可扩展到非人类，包括后者与人类组成一个单一的集体。因此，我们可以观察到生物学家和人类学家都试图超越人类中心主义，