How to fix the human race- according to Plato's Republic

[Alvein]

“to develop a prime herd our best men must come together with the best women as often as possible, the worst with the worst as seldom as possible"

Genius or idiot?

Liberal or conservative?

Republican(the form of government) or communist?

"shut up dude who cares"?

[SquareHead]

Makes sense does it not? But it depends on one's opinion of heredity vs. environment.

[Joe Camacho]

I wouldn't call him a genius, that's pretty obvious. People do it with crops, with cattle, with pure breeds, etc.

You could argue that it's conservative, in the sense that it's *not* liberal, because you wouldn't be able to choose your husband or wife.

And I don't really think it really matters if it's republican or communist. This theory could be applied in both.

It's interesting that in the real world, things go the other way around, or "best" men and women don't "come together" as often as possible, while the "worst" have as much kids as they can.

[Alvein]

Yeah I was thinking about the last thing you mentioned Joe.
Is it inherent that this will never work? Mainly because once people become more educated they generally have less children.

However,might low brithrate a problem? Plato doesn't seem to realize that. In his world we would probably have real issues with sustaining a population, because it appears that there is this negative correlation between brithrate and education, at least from what I've learned. If you stop "the worst from coming together with the worst," who's going to do the crappy jobs? Or, here's another thought, maybe Plato actually wants another herd other than the prime, and he's saying there should be this herd that is unprime?

So practical implementation of this policy seems difficult--especially in the advanced industrial world. I'm at a loss here, how could we ever get something like this to happen.

Possibly Plato never intended this part of the book to be examined out of the greater context, which is his analogy, but I think it's worth looking at on it's own, just because I'm a nerdy political theorist .

[SquareHead]

What about the product of the worst of the worst that come out paradoxically better than some of the best. Some of our greater minds came from what could be called the worst. I'm sure the benefits of a system where people were not allowed to have children unless deemed appropriate by the state would eclipse the possibility of great minds coming from people who shouldnt procreate, but there could be other reasons why this is not such a good idea.

Besides in ways, it has been done. With royal families and all that mess that came with it. Were they truly any better than the rest?

Edit: Before someone comes in and accuses me of it, I will admit it. I do know nothing of what I am talking about.

[sweener2001]

royalty alone can't classify you as the best. not the way plato is talking.

[kieran_]

plato liked boys

[neoblaze]

one word:

individualism

[bobthebuilder]

Sounds like eugenics. Hitler tried to do the same thing, but failed.

Just found this article looking for any documented results of Hitlers experiments: http://www.newnation.org/Millard/Breeding-Humans.html
Anybody ever heard of that super strong baby?

[badinsults]

On the other hand, Charles Galton Darwin stated in his book The Next Million Years that it is impossible to breed humans, and that the quality of a person comes more from their upbringing than their genetics. Darwin was one of the biggest promoters of eugenics in the 20s, which goes to show how his experience with it demonstrated how it just didn't work. You rarely hear about what happened to the "bred" people in Germany from the Nazi days. They certainly did not grow up in the best of situations and did not become superior people.

[Joe Camacho]

I think that "the best" aren't necessary the ones with better genes. Plato could also mean the best in terms of social, economic or cultural ways. I think we all acknowledge by now that intelligence, social, economic and cultural traits aren't passed down by genetics, at least, they aren't *THE* way to pass down them.

We can remember what happened with royalty during the middle ages, most of them had blood diseases and other genetics problems because they breed between them.

We also have, as Badinsults said, the studies in Eugenics that the Nazis did during WWII, most of those babies are grown men and women now. But even if they were "genetically" superior, they lack the cutural, economic and social influences that could really "unlock" their potencial.

What about the product of the worst of the worst that come out paradoxically better than some of the best. Some of our greater minds came from what could be called the worst. I'm sure the benefits of a system where people were not allowed to have children unless deemed appropriate by the state would eclipse the possibility of great minds coming from people who shouldnt procreate, but there could be other reasons why this is not such a good idea.

This is the same argument used against abortion, My answer: We don't know, but the probabilities are against them. We cannot deny that there isn't a chance of them of being "good people". But if a person is born, grows and lives in a negative enviroment, it's more likely to become a product of his or her enviroment.

So I really think that it is possible, but rather than grouping *just* for their genetic traits, we need to analize their other human characteristics.

And in this day and age, I find it even *more* likely, with the increase of assembly robots and other tasks that can be done without the need of lots and lots of workers. In the "practical" or "material" sense, it can be done.

During Plato's and Roman times, slaves were a must, they were valuable property. Citizens needed *good* reasons to kill their slaves, and not because it was against the law, they had the ius abutendi over them, but it wasn't *convenient*.

But in current times, you would need to "cleanse" the population, which isn't acceptable by global institutions, at least in countries with a lot of "worse people".

[lockharte]

It's interesting that in the real world, things go the other way around, or "best" men and women don't "come together" as often as possible, while the "worst" have as much kids as they can.

interesting, i remember reading a book about how IQs in industrialized countries in the world have been steadily declining in the past few decades. the author postulated your reply was the reason why. he also went to say that the most notable decline came after WWII. reason because since army recruits are required to pass an "IQ test" before joining up, and obviously WWII killed millions of soldiers. thus he concluded WWII (and WWI) killed off the smarter half of men during the 20th century.


this hypothesis can be countered by the Flynn effect, which basically states that the IQ average around the world as actually been increasing. but then this observation can easily be explained by the fact that the general educational level of world has been improving, as living standards are increasing. but in western europe, the standard of living, educational level, has flatlined, but IQ in those nations are falling. so europeans are becoming more stupid, in relation to the rest of the world?

[Deathlike2]

The quote is quite right and I guess that would be a brilliant statement (at least I think so. It appears to be more of an observation rather than a "liberal or conservative view". I don't think he's being explicit though as the "best" is very subjective.

In regards to royalty/rich/athletic/intelligence breeding with people of similar traits, it appears to me that on the surface it "appears" logical that you want to do that, factoring in the "DNA factor".. but upbringing/the environment is a more significant factor. I think the "perception" that we must breed the "perfect person" is faulty in many ways... There have been many statistics that have shown that children in families that make more money tend to also be more intelligent. However, this doesn't really show the other side of the argument as much... we still have rich douchebags in society after all (see Paris Hilton). You will tend to find someone that is poor, but also very intelligent. It's more like chaos theory or something at times. As much as you can find that person that would bring world peace, you have a fairly good chance you'll find a nutcase that wants to nuke the world. There is an order of balance after all (whether we agree with it or not).

Of course, I could be way off. I do think that the world is getting smarter overall.. but we're still producing morons that make retarded posts on the zboard. So, think about that when you ponder. Maybe it's just me that Americans are becoming stupid when it comes to family matters+enviornment (I don't hear Canada having crazy shit like Colombine.) Maybe I think everyone else is a little more intelligent than we do (really, there are foreigners that speak+write better English than Americans)... but can you really put a finger on what is the sole cause...? It's the human factor. It is random and chaotic. You will never get the answer you want (by special breeding), but you sure can influence it.

[whicker]

Most other posts have already covered this, but...

My opinion on this subject is that "best" is always subjective. Who's defining what "best" is? Very muscular and strong, but dumb as a rock, like Big Tom Thanksgiving turkeys? Very intelligent but wimpy? What's the goal, can any nation even agree on any sort of goal?

Now, we don't so much need a class of wealthy "purebreds" and a lesser mutant class to do all the work. That's really a throwback into slavery.

Also, wtf does IQ have to do with this? It's really subjective, and if it is truly being normalized correctly, the average IQ is always going to be 100.

I don't hear Canada having crazy shit like Colombine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting


I don't believe that "stupid" people shouldn't breed. HOWEVER, it makes me angry when people with genetic defects that can be passed down still knowingly have children. "Oh, modern medicine can handle my child should it develop the condition". "It's my right to have a child" blah blah blah sort of things.

Stupid things like Dichromatic color blindness, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Galactosemia, Familial adenomatous polyposis (whew) are some of the things no human should have to face, because they're PREVENTABLE.

So yeah, "broken" people shouldn't breed, but that's if they care enough not to.

[Deathlike2]

whicker, I didn't think you would take me that literally I meant basically that other countries don't face the school shootings in the same frequency as the US...

I'd swear genetic defects are caused from stuff like smoking and/or bad stuff during pregenecy.. but meh. I don't think you can simply force people not to procreate.. but at least prevent/reduce the possibility of a birth defect... but meh.

[Joe Camacho]

I will take more time to respond to other posts, but I would like to say this first:

we still have rich douchebags in society after all (see Paris Hilton).

In the case of Paris Hilton, and lots of other "dumb rich people", is that they are rich because their relatives are rich. Her father was the smart guy that built the Hilton Hotel empire. But you can't really credit her of her money.

[Deathlike2]

I will take more time to respond to other posts, but I would like to say this first:

we still have rich douchebags in society after all (see Paris Hilton).

In the case of Paris Hilton, and lots of other "dumb rich people", is that they are rich because their relatives are rich. Her father was the smart guy that built the Hilton Hotel empire. But you can't really credit her of her money.

Tis true, but realize she'll inherit said money at some point or another. The problem with inheriting money is that it tends to breed people without the same "drive" that poor people do. On the hand, the biggest factor is still the enviornment you live in.

[badinsults]

I don't hear Canada having crazy shit like Colombine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

Oh, and don't forget these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial ... l_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pius_X ... l_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myer ... l_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Poly ... e_massacre

[corronchilejano]

I really find it an ambiguous statement. Wich are the "best men" and the "best women"?

Certainly, in a biological level, more resistant humans with perfect body and mental health certainly haven´t made humanity advance. Most of human beings findings are made by people who are troubled in one way or another.

In a more class-based approach (rich people and poor people), rich doesn´t necesarily mean "best people". My two cents: Hollywood, "entertainment" became being stupid or having sex all the time.

I really don't think that humanity is in a moment where they can "judge" which people are better than others. Heck, I don't think that's possible.

Maybe in small, confined enviroments this may have some meaning, but anyone who has studied General Systems Theory (and it's not that complicated, it's actually fun really) knows that systems that acquire complexity can't be analyzed at a particle level. Only the system as whole can be studied, for it is not the sum of is parts.

Final Note: The latest school shootings makes you wonder... what are we focusing in?

[Joe Camacho]

In a more class-based approach (rich people and poor people), rich doesn´t necesarily mean "best people". My two cents: Hollywood, "entertainment" became being stupid or having sex all the time.

"Religion is seen by the common man as true, the wise man as false, and the leader as useful." Just apply it to the entertainment industry.

That their target market is "stupid", it doesn't make the creators of it "stupid", they just give them what will sell, are they to blame?. If there weren't a demand for "stupid entertainment", it wouldn't sell, so the creators would need another way of making money. I find the ability of being able to detectand create trends and fads, very useful and smart.

Paris Hilton: The ones behing her (Or even her, I can't say, if she does it conciously, then she is even smarter than I thought.), exploits the stupidness of her character, because it's liked by the people. If it wouldn't sell, you wouldn't see her.

[Deathlike2]

That their target market is "stupid", it doesn't make the creators of it "stupid", they just give them what will sell, are they to blame?. If there weren't a demand for "stupid entertainment", it wouldn't sell, so the creators would need another way of making money. I find the ability of being able to detectand create trends and fads, very useful and smart.

Paris Hilton: The ones behing her (Or even her, I can't say, if she does it conciously, then she is even smarter than I thought.), exploits the stupidness of her character, because it's liked by the people. If it wouldn't sell, you wouldn't see her.

Speaking of entertainment+religion... we have seen instances where people are amused by "the meat loaf that looks like Mary" or "that chip looks like Jesus" and stuff like that. Even though FOX pretty much airs a lot of random crap, you'd be surprised how people who would watch such junk on the air.. but hey.... that's how it works.

[Joe Camacho]

That their target market is "stupid", it doesn't make the creators of it "stupid", they just give them what will sell, are they to blame?. If there weren't a demand for "stupid entertainment", it wouldn't sell, so the creators would need another way of making money. I find the ability of being able to detectand create trends and fads, very useful and smart.

Paris Hilton: The ones behing her (Or even her, I can't say, if she does it conciously, then she is even smarter than I thought.), exploits the stupidness of her character, because it's liked by the people. If it wouldn't sell, you wouldn't see her.

Speaking of entertainment+religion... we have seen instances where people are amused by "the meat loaf that looks like Mary" or "that chip looks like Jesus" and stuff like that. Even though FOX pretty much airs a lot of random crap, you'd be surprised how people who would watch such junk on the air.. but hey.... that's how it works.

I live in Mx. that stuff happens *DAILY*, there are actually chapels built where a piece of rock looks like the Virgin Mary, or Jesus.

[sweener2001]

that's funny stuff.

the idea behind a miracle is that it helps someone out. there is not one bible miracle that was performed that was not for the benefit of someone.

how does a column of dripped chocolate help anyone out?