Posted on 03/08/2007 7:46:04 PM PST by ofwaihhbtn
There would be no eugenics and the sordid consequences of eugenics had the darwinoids not established themselves among Christian haters.
And how can marriages be made most beneficial? --that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?
In what particulars?
Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?
True.
And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?
From the best.
And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?
I choose only those of ripe age.
And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?
Certainly.
And the same of horses and animals in general?
Undoubtedly.
Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!
Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any particular skill?
Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man.
That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding?
I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage.
And we were very right.
And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of marriages and births.
How so?
Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.
Very true.
Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.
Certainly, he replied.
We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.
To be sure, he said.
And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as many sons as possible.
True.
And the proper officers, whether male or female or both, for offices are to be held by women as well as by men --
Yes --
The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.
Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the guardians is to be kept pure.
They will provide for their nurture, and will bring the mothers to the fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognizes her own child; and other wet-nurses may be engaged if more are required. Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long; and the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants.
You suppose the wives of our guardians to have a fine easy time of it when they are having children.
Why, said I, and so they ought. Let us, however, proceed with our scheme. We were saying that the parents should be in the prime of life?
Very true.
And what is the prime of life? May it not be defined as a period of about twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty in a man's?
Which years do you mean to include?
A woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear children to the State, and continue to bear them until forty; a man may begin at five-and-twenty, when he has passed the point at which the pulse of life beats quickest, and continue to beget children until he be fifty-five.
Certainly, he said, both in men and women those years are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigour.
Any one above or below the prescribed ages who takes part in the public hymeneals shall be said to have done an unholy and unrighteous thing; the child of which he is the father, if it steals into life, will have been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices and prayers, which at each hymeneal priestesses and priest and the whole city will offer, that the new generation may be better and more useful than their good and useful parents, whereas his child will be the offspring of darkness and strange lust.
Very true, he replied.
And the same law will apply to any one of those within the prescribed age who forms a connection with any woman in the prime of life without the sanction of the rulers; for we shall say that he is raising up a bastard to the State, uncertified and unconsecrated.
Very true, he replied.
This applies, however, only to those who are within the specified age: after that we allow them to range at will, except that a man may not marry his daughter or his daughter's daughter, or his mother or his mother's mother; and women, on the other hand, are prohibited from marrying their sons or fathers, or son's son or father's father, and so on in either direction. And we grant all this, accompanying the permission with strict orders to prevent any embryo which may come into being from seeing the light; and if any force a way to the birth, the parents must understand that the offspring of such an union cannot be maintained, and arrange accordingly.
That also, he said, is a reasonable proposition. But how will they know who are fathers and daughters, and so on?
They will never know. The way will be this: --dating from the day of the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married will call all the male children who are born in the seventh and tenth month afterwards his sons, and the female children his daughters, and they will call him father, and he will call their children his grandchildren, and they will call the elder generation grandfathers and grandmothers. All who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers came together will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, as I was saying, will be forbidden to inter-marry. This, however, is not to be understood as an absolute prohibition of the marriage of brothers and sisters; if the lot favours them, and they receive the sanction of the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them.
Quite right, he replied.
Such is the scheme, Glaucon, according to which the guardians of our State are to have their wives and families in common. And now you would have the argument show that this community is consistent with the rest of our polity, and also that nothing can be better --would you not?
Yes, certainly.
Shall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves what ought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in the organization of a State, --what is the greatest I good, and what is the greatest evil, and then consider whether our previous description has the stamp of the good or of the evil?
By all means.
Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the bond of unity?
There cannot.
And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains --where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?
No doubt.
Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized --when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?
Certainly.
Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the use of the terms 'mine' and 'not mine,' 'his' and 'not his.'
Exactly so.
And is not that the best-ordered State in which the greatest number of persons apply the terms 'mine' and 'not mine' in the same way to the same thing?
Quite true.
Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of the individual --as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt, the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a center and forming one kingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and sympathizes all together with the part affected, and we say that the man has a pain in his finger; and the same expression is used about any other part of the body, which has a sensation of pain at suffering or of pleasure at the alleviation of suffering.
Very true, he replied; and I agree with you that in the best-ordered State there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which you describe.
Then when any one of the citizens experiences any good or evil, the whole State will make his case their own, and will either rejoice or sorrow with him?
Yes, he said, that is what will happen in a well-ordered State.
Plato advocated the state-supervised selective breeding of children, and certainly that was long before the 'dawinoids' as you have put it, came along...
http://www.galileolibrary.com/ebooks/eu05/platorepublic_page_65.htm
Whoops. Kept getting error messages when posting.
#127 was for meant for you js
Eleni
LOL.
The point is, Darwin did not invent eugenics...
And oh yes, apology accepted for blaming me for the triple posting...
Darwin did not invent eugenics...
Now, you are changing what you originally said...because you originally said, "There would be no eugenics", and then proceeded to try to lay the existence of eugenics at the feet of those who supported Darwins beliefs...now you change your tune, and admit, that eugenics did exist,before Darwin, but claim that those who support Darwins beliefs drove eugenics lower...there is quite a difference between those two statements..
Regardless of what you said previously, or what you are saying now, its only a matter of opinion, your own personl opinion...which is fine, it serves you for your needs...but since its only an opinion, its validity extends only to yourself...
Nonsense. Animal breeding and human eugenics formed part of the theoretical underpinning for the theory of evolution -- not the other way round.
Study some history of science, and don't continue being such an embarrassment.
I seriously doubt andysandmikesmom was attempting to debate the angels dancing on you.
How is Plato's description of eugenics not biological? You are making distinctions that are not differences.
The bigger problem for you is that reformers and totalitarians always adopt the jargon of whatever ideology is currently viewed as most benign. When kings and princes wanted to justify their power, they turned to the Bible. When slaveholders wanted to justify owning slaves, they turned to the Bible.
If you wish to conflate ideas and bad behavior, you are in trouble. You are making the same argument gun grabbers make. It's the weapon, not the person who fires it.
The obvious reality is that there is no evidence for ID. The people you are talking to have a lot of sense and do science for a living. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Some ding-ding replied on an earlier post that this statement is not "scientific" but is "philosophical." That's the kind of baloney that passes for wisdom with you guys. In Newton's day, science was called "natural philosophy." To suggest that, because we now have a slightly different name for science, Newton's statement is not "scientific," is the epitome of ignorance.
Science has evolved and has been refined since the days of Newton. It also does not change the fact that Newton's statement is philosophical in nature. There is no empirical data, nor any theoretical basis for Newton to have meant it in any other fashion. The rest of his works reference theory to observation. He even derived calculus to make his connections. But with respect to your quote, it was his opinion. And it carries the same weight of truth as any other subjective opinion. It certainly does not rise to the level of absolute truth. Creationists are used to thinking in terms of prophets and their revelations of divine truth. Scientists are not prophets, nor are revealers of truth.
You misunderstand the personalities of science. Certainly Newton is respected and revered, as well as Kelvin whom you quoted in a different post, but science does not canonize its practicioners.
FR has been lagging badly for me today, too.
Tense attempt?...now you are projecting...
You changed what you were saying, you took two different positions...that is not an attempt to strike discord, that is only pointing out what you did, in attempt to figure out just exactly what you meant...
As for the rest of your post, utter nonsense...
My mistake here. We are in agreement on this, although Darwin was more interested in talking directly to animal breeders than reading Plato.
The most important point is that animal breeding has been well documented for thousands of years, as has the human concern for eugenics. Biologists understand the problem of inbreeding and the negative consequences of reducing diversity. Eugenics is a political and social phenomenon, not a science based phenomenon.
Another demonstration of the anti-science motivation of eugenics as practiced in Germany is that it was implemented by killing off the brightest members of the population and promoting the breeding of vermin. Hardly good husbandry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.