IDIOCRACY ... spoilers

[reetpleat]

Two more thoughts. Firstly, I saw the movie and loved it, but do not think it is likely. Society would collapse long before it could ever happen. But, I do not see the entire population declining. what we may see is a shift towards a polarized society in which there is an intelligent, educated elite, and a large pool of fairly stupid people wallowing in their own filth. and the elite will find it that much easier to control and manipulate them, the more stupid they are.

But honestly, this would not be so different from the past. I don't think they were intellectually stupid, but most of history is made up of a large bunch of ignorant peasants living a day to day existence, having a bunch of kids, hoping some might survive to work the farm, and delighting in base and frivolous entertainments when they were not working from morning to night. meanwhile, an elite who can use their wealth to insure successive generations of education and means live an insulated life, often making their wealth off the hard work of the masses. Hope that doesn't sound too communist

 

[Dr Doran]

Two more thoughts. Firstly, I saw the movie and loved it, but do not think it is likely. Society would collapse long before it could ever happen. But, I do not see the entire population declining. what we may see is a shift towards a polarized society in which there is an intelligent, educated elite, and a large pool of fairly stupid people wallowing in their own filth. and the elite will find it that much easier to control and manipulate them, the more stupid they are.

But honestly, this would not be so different from the past. I don't think they were intellectually stupid, but most of history is made up of a large bunch of ignorant peasants living a day to day existence, having a bunch of kids, hoping some might survive to work the farm, and delighting in base and frivolous entertainments when they were not working from morning to night. meanwhile, an elite who can use their wealth to insure successive generations of education and means live an insulated life, often making their wealth off the hard work of the masses. Hope that doesn't sound too communist

It does not sound overly communist to me at all, and as an ancient historian I feel fairly qualified to say that it seems to be a pretty accurate description.

I agree wholeheartedly with your political notes in your previous post but I hope that this thread won't fall into a vortex either literally (getting shut down) or figuratively (becoming a cluster of "ARE YOU KIDDING? ___x___ is such a fraud! How can you like him!? My guy is OBVIOUSLY the better candidate!") as can happen when politics are discussed.

I agree that both of our candidates are intelligent people.

Great to hear from you again, Matteo.

 

[jamespowers]

It does not sound overly communist to me at all, and as an ancient historian I feel fairly qualified to say that it seems to be a pretty accurate description.

I agree wholeheartedly with your political notes in your previous post but I hope that this thread won't fall into a vortex either literally (getting shut down) or figuratively (becoming a cluster of "ARE YOU KIDDING? ___x___ is such a fraud! How can you like him!? My guy is OBVIOUSLY the better candidate!") as can happen when politics are discussed.

I agree that both of our candidates are intelligent people.

Great to hear from you again, Matteo.

Are you sure Ancient Greece was that kind of a set up? Seems to me they were one of our examples here---Platos Republic etc.

 

[Diamondback]

Doran, I think you were on the money with your The Time Machine reference--one of the first things I think of when I speculate on society's direction, right alongside the late Roman Empire with its bread and circuses.

 

[jamespowers]

Doran, I think you were on the money with your The Time Machine reference--one of the first things I think of when I speculate on society's direction, right alongside the late Roman Empire with its bread and circuses.

Let's be sure to differentiate between the Republic of Rome as opposed to what happened after the republic fell. I wouldn't want Cicero mad at us.

 

[Diamondback]

That's why I specifically said Empire, James. The Republic died on Julius Caesar's watch, if not before...

 

[Dr Doran]

Thanks, Diamondback.

As for Plato's republic, that was science fiction. Plenty of eugenics, though, if that is what you are thinking about.

Athens was fairly democratic from the reforms of Kleisthenes around 510 BC, then it became highly democratic after the Ephialtic Reforms of the late 460s BC. Some modern historians speculate that these reforms were only able to take place because his popular aristocratic enemy Kimon was out of town, helping the Spartans with their humungous earthquake(s) aroud 464. Then of course Ephialtes was assassinated in, if i remember aright off the top of my head, 462. Aside from two oligarchic coups in 411 and 404, it remained pretty much democratic for several centuries -- you are right, not an oligarchy at all. But democracy was regarded as a kakistocracy by many of the aristocrats including the "Old Oligarch" who wrote an anti-democratic pamphlet probably around 415ish, and Plato had no use for democracy at all.

But there were 1400 other cities and not all of those were democratic, and a common ideology was that some people were just bred better and born to rule.

A completely eugenic regime was Sparta. Children born to the warrior class (the Spartiates) were examined by the ephors or "overseers," a small yearly board of magistrates, and they were exposed (i.e. left to be eaten by animals or enslaved or left to die of exposure) if they didn't look strong. So that is an example of state-controlled coercive eugenics, which I think all of us would agree is undesirable.

I could go on for a long time, obviously, as this is my main field of study at Berkeley. I am not sure if I am getting to what you were asking about, though.

 

[Dr Doran]

Edward Gibbon is mainly read for prose style at this point, not for his analysis, although I certainly like him. Since he was writing during the Enlightenment, as part of that ideology he was highly critical of Christianity and blamed a lot of the Empire's fall on Christian wimpiness and Christian lack of dedication to the Roman empire as a system. At this point there are so many postulated reasons for the fall of the Western empire (remember, Byzantium stayed intact for many, many centuries) that a German scholar recently compiled a list. It was 104, I think. From homosexuality to lead in the pipes. I'd be curious to see what Jared Diamond thinks. At this point the trend in scholarship is to deny that a fall even occurred, even in the West, and talk instead about a "transformation." Peter Brown has been the lead proponent of this (currently dominant) school for 30 years. A recent (2006) slender and excellent book by Bryan Ward-Perkins argues against that interpretation and emphasizes the mass destruction the barbarians caused and things almost too horrible to relate like mass rapes.
I have not read much or anything attributing dysgenics as a main cause of this. More like population pressures pushing the Germanic peoples south and into the borders of the empire. Plus taxation issues, and the growth of immense farming estates whose owners deliberately underestimated the numbers of workers they had living on the estates, which meant an insufficient population base to staff the Roman army.

 

[Diamondback]

Interesting--I've always thought* that the "fall" wasn't from a single-cause "magic bullet", but rather a machine-gunning--being hit with so many different things from within as well as without, there's more than enough "blame" to go around.
*Then again, my specialty is more modern history, mostly within the "Personal Vehicular Era" aside from a side-trip into the Old West...

 

[reetpleat]

It does not sound overly communist to me at all, and as an ancient historian I feel fairly qualified to say that it seems to be a pretty accurate description.

I agree wholeheartedly with your political notes in your previous post but I hope that this thread won't fall into a vortex either literally (getting shut down) or figuratively (becoming a cluster of "ARE YOU KIDDING? ___x___ is such a fraud! How can you like him!? My guy is OBVIOUSLY the better candidate!") as can happen when politics are discussed.

I agree that both of our candidates are intelligent people.

Great to hear from you again, Matteo.

Nice to chat, Doran. You should come up to seattle sometime.

I hope I was neutral enough that it would not seem partisan. I hope others will take the hint. Without commenting on the intelligence of any candidate, i am merely commenting on the way many voters used to vote for the most intelligent sophisticated candidate, while many voters profess an interest in a candidate because he seems like 'the kind of guy they could sit down and have a beer with."

I suppose there is something to be said for a candidate that comes from the people and understands your plight. But these days, cynical politicians connect with voters by vilifying certain candidates as ivory tower intellectuals with no understanding of the working man.

 

[jamespowers]

Thanks, Diamondback.

As for Plato's republic, that was science fiction. Plenty of eugenics, though, if that is what you are thinking about.

Athens was fairly democratic from the reforms of Kleisthenes around 510 BC, then it became highly democratic after the Ephialtic Reforms of the late 460s BC. Some modern historians speculate that these reforms were only able to take place because his popular aristocratic enemy Kimon was out of town, helping the Spartans with their humungous earthquake(s) aroud 464. Then of course Ephialtes was assassinated in, if i remember aright off the top of my head, 462. Aside from two oligarchic coups in 411 and 404, it remained pretty much democratic for several centuries -- you are right, not an oligarchy at all. But democracy was regarded as a kakistocracy by many of the aristocrats including the "Old Oligarch" who wrote an anti-democratic pamphlet probably around 415ish, and Plato had no use for democracy at all.

But there were 1400 other cities and not all of those were democratic, and a common ideology was that some people were just bred better and born to rule.

A completely eugenic regime was Sparta. Children born to the warrior class (the Spartiates) were examined by the ephors or "overseers," a small yearly board of magistrates, and they were exposed (i.e. left to be eaten by animals or enslaved or left to die of exposure) if they didn't look strong. So that is an example of state-controlled coercive eugenics, which I think all of us would agree is undesirable.

I could go on for a long time, obviously, as this is my main field of study at Berkeley. I am not sure if I am getting to what you were asking about, though.

See. In short, I got you on that one. lol lol I don't think I mentioned Sparta though. That is a case all its own but it was fairly democratic---aside from the exposure and all.
I love the term Oligarchy. I use that often around here as it seems to be the case many times.
I don't think Imentioned Sparta though. That is a case all its own but it was fairly democratic---aside from the exposure and all.
Hmmmmm....Kakistocracy resulting from a Democracy. Seems right in some senses. Good thing we are a Democratic Republic.
Aristocrats always sniff at Democracy because it dilutes their power.
I see you got the relevance of The Republic.

 

[jamespowers]

That's why I specifically said Empire, James. The Republic died on Julius Caesar's watch, if not before...

Well, shortly thereafter. I would say that Cicero's death marked the death of the Republic period.

 

[jamespowers]

Edward Gibbon is mainly read for prose style at this point, not for his analysis, although I certainly like him. Since he was writing during the Enlightenment, as part of that ideology he was highly critical of Christianity and blamed a lot of the Empire's fall on Christian wimpiness and Christian lack of dedication to the Roman empire as a system. At this point there are so many postulated reasons for the fall of the Western empire (remember, Byzantium stayed intact for many, many centuries) that a German scholar recently compiled a list. It was 104, I think. From homosexuality to lead in the pipes. I'd be curious to see what Jared Diamond thinks. At this point the trend in scholarship is to deny that a fall even occurred, even in the West, and talk instead about a "transformation." Peter Brown has been the lead proponent of this (currently dominant) school for 30 years. A recent (2006) slender and excellent book by Bryan Ward-Perkins argues against that interpretation and emphasizes the mass destruction the barbarians caused and things almost too horrible to relate like mass rapes.
I have not read much or anything attributing dysgenics as a main cause of this. More like population pressures pushing the Germanic peoples south and into the borders of the empire. Plus taxation issues, and the growth of immense farming estates whose owners deliberately underestimated the numbers of workers they had living on the estates, which meant an insufficient population base to staff the Roman army.

I think I fall in with Perkins. Rome had barbarians in it and against it. Their armies became staffed by people from outside the Roman empire that were not really given a stake in the survival of the state and thus had not reason to defend it as such. Then there were those people that painted themselves blue and attacked the Romans.

 

[Dr Doran]

Interesting--I've always thought* that the "fall" wasn't from a single-cause "magic bullet", but rather a machine-gunning--being hit with so many different things from within as well as without, there's more than enough "blame" to go around.
*Then again, my specialty is more modern history, mostly within the "Personal Vehicular Era" aside from a side-trip into the Old West...

Agreed -- few huge events are monocausal.
Even if you point out a hurricane as a huge event, one could argue that if the infrastructure of a place has been allowed to rot, people won't be able to deal with the hurricane. Thus you have another cause.

 

[Diamondback]

Doran, that's not argument, that's fact. lol

 

[Dr Doran]

See. In short, I got you on that one. lol lol I don't think I mentioned Sparta though. That is a case all its own but it was fairly democratic---aside from the exposure and all.
I love the term Oligarchy. I use that often around here as it seems to be the case many times.
I don't think Imentioned Sparta though. That is a case all its own but it was fairly democratic---aside from the exposure and all.
Hmmmmm....Kakistocracy resulting from a Democracy. Seems right in some senses. Good thing we are a Democratic Republic.
Aristocrats always sniff at Democracy because it dilutes their power.
I see you got the relevance of The Republic.

I must not have understood your point. Ancient Greece was composed of many independent cities. I thought you were referring to Greece in the collective. Some cities were oligarchic, some democratic, a few were monarchic until monarchy went out of style in many places around 500 BC and then came back in after Alexander the Great (356 - 323 BC), when you had a Seleucid empire, a Ptolemaic Empire, a Macedonian Empire, and then a Pergamese Empire. The rulers of these were called basileis which in that period meant kings.

Many things are relevant in the Republic of Plato; I am not precisely certain what you exactly meant.