Seems that experimentation, regardless of what the historians tell us about the rise of modern science, has always been with us. It’s in our nature to be curious. We lift up rocks to see what lies beneath; we open seed pods; we…
Without some legal and moral protections, we have experimented on one another just to satisfy our innate curiosity. History is filled with cruelties perpetrated by “experimenters” who justified their actions on the basis of “furthering knowledge.” Regimes like Hitler’s were infamous for the Mengele mentality. And Nazi Germany wasn’t the first place where experimentation negatively affected individual humans. Herodotus tells in Euterpe, his second book of the “histories,” of the Egyptian king Psammetichos who isolated two babies because he wanted to see what language they would speak when left without contemporary influence.
Psammetichos wanted to test the notion that the Egyptians were the oldest of human “races.” Although Egyptians of the time believed in their primacy, Phyrgians also believed in their primacy among human races. To test these beliefs, the king had two newborns put into a room by themselves, receiving milk from she-goats and being tended to by a lone shepherd who never spoke when he entered the room. Psammetichos wanted to hear what language the children would speak when they became toddlers. One day the shepherd entered to hear the children say bekos. After searching through the languages of all neighboring peoples, Psammetichos’ “linguistic anthropologists” informed him that the Phrygians’ word for bread was bekos. “Ah!” Psammetichos might have uttered, “the Phrygians were first!” In Herodotus’ words: “...guided by an indication such as this, the Egyptians were brought to allow that the Phrygians were a more ancient people than themselves.”* Psammetichos recognized the primacy of others.
Nice of him to acknowledge the results of his cruel and unscientific experiment. Imagine the two children’s lives during and beyond that experiment. They had a feral life imposed on them. Typically, feral children have trouble becoming “civilized,” regardless of attention given by well-meaning adults. Language has been a particular problem for some. The brain seems to need some early exposure to words and syntax for successful mastery. But that’s beside the point here. Experimentation on others is the focus, and there seems to be little that restricts humans in that regard save an overriding set of rules.
Even our attempts to “civilize” others might be seen as cruel experiments. Take the story of Orundellico (AKA Jemmy Button, Jeremy Button, 1815-1864?), the Tiera del Fuegan taken from his native village and family by highly religious Captain FitzRoy of HMS Beagle. Fitzroy believed the farther one’s endemic country was from the Garden of Eden, the more primitive the race of humans. Tierra del Fuego is pretty far from the supposed place of the Garden, so Orundellico was assumed to be primitive. FitzRoy took him to England, dressed him in English clothes, made him a celebrity, and taught him English. When FitzRoy returned with Charles Darwin to Tierra del Fuego, Jemmy left the Englishmen, shed his English clothes, and rejoined his wife and village, never expressing a desire to return to England and “civilization.” FitzRoy took this as proof of the effect of distance from Eden. In doing so, FitzRoy acknowledged his own primacy. Amazing, isn’t it, that FitzRoy was traveling at the time with one of the premier scientists of the nineteenth century yet still held his own anthropologically erroneous beliefs. Poor Jemmy. All he wanted to do is live with his family.
Take from these two tales what you will but consider both in light of how we view past and contemporary humans. Each of us is an anthropologist or sociologist of sorts, and each runs experiments on other humans, seeking both to understand their own origins in light of our own and to assimilate them to our way of thinking and acting. In almost all instances the experimenter believes himself or herself to be superior in some way to the subjects of the experiments. It seems that proof of primacy is the prime motivation.
All human experiments say as much about the experimenter as they say about the experimental subjects. Regardless of his faulty methodology, Psammetichos was willing to acknowledge that his people held a faulty view with regard to their primacy. In contrast, FitzRoy continued to believe that distance from the Garden of Eden determined the primitiveness of a people. By today’s standards, both operated unethically. But the ancient king seemed willing to acknowledge his and his people’s fallibility as he accepted the results of his anthropological-sociological experiment, whereas the more modern Captain FitzRoy refused to relinquish his beliefs.
When will we ever learn that our experimental interference in other lives isn’t always a good thing?
*Macaulay, G. C., Translator, The History of Herodotus by Herodotus: In Two Volumes, Vol. 1, Book II, The Second Book of the Histories, Called Euterpe, MacMillan and Co., London and New York, 1890. p. 1.
Without some legal and moral protections, we have experimented on one another just to satisfy our innate curiosity. History is filled with cruelties perpetrated by “experimenters” who justified their actions on the basis of “furthering knowledge.” Regimes like Hitler’s were infamous for the Mengele mentality. And Nazi Germany wasn’t the first place where experimentation negatively affected individual humans. Herodotus tells in Euterpe, his second book of the “histories,” of the Egyptian king Psammetichos who isolated two babies because he wanted to see what language they would speak when left without contemporary influence.
Psammetichos wanted to test the notion that the Egyptians were the oldest of human “races.” Although Egyptians of the time believed in their primacy, Phyrgians also believed in their primacy among human races. To test these beliefs, the king had two newborns put into a room by themselves, receiving milk from she-goats and being tended to by a lone shepherd who never spoke when he entered the room. Psammetichos wanted to hear what language the children would speak when they became toddlers. One day the shepherd entered to hear the children say bekos. After searching through the languages of all neighboring peoples, Psammetichos’ “linguistic anthropologists” informed him that the Phrygians’ word for bread was bekos. “Ah!” Psammetichos might have uttered, “the Phrygians were first!” In Herodotus’ words: “...guided by an indication such as this, the Egyptians were brought to allow that the Phrygians were a more ancient people than themselves.”* Psammetichos recognized the primacy of others.
Nice of him to acknowledge the results of his cruel and unscientific experiment. Imagine the two children’s lives during and beyond that experiment. They had a feral life imposed on them. Typically, feral children have trouble becoming “civilized,” regardless of attention given by well-meaning adults. Language has been a particular problem for some. The brain seems to need some early exposure to words and syntax for successful mastery. But that’s beside the point here. Experimentation on others is the focus, and there seems to be little that restricts humans in that regard save an overriding set of rules.
Even our attempts to “civilize” others might be seen as cruel experiments. Take the story of Orundellico (AKA Jemmy Button, Jeremy Button, 1815-1864?), the Tiera del Fuegan taken from his native village and family by highly religious Captain FitzRoy of HMS Beagle. Fitzroy believed the farther one’s endemic country was from the Garden of Eden, the more primitive the race of humans. Tierra del Fuego is pretty far from the supposed place of the Garden, so Orundellico was assumed to be primitive. FitzRoy took him to England, dressed him in English clothes, made him a celebrity, and taught him English. When FitzRoy returned with Charles Darwin to Tierra del Fuego, Jemmy left the Englishmen, shed his English clothes, and rejoined his wife and village, never expressing a desire to return to England and “civilization.” FitzRoy took this as proof of the effect of distance from Eden. In doing so, FitzRoy acknowledged his own primacy. Amazing, isn’t it, that FitzRoy was traveling at the time with one of the premier scientists of the nineteenth century yet still held his own anthropologically erroneous beliefs. Poor Jemmy. All he wanted to do is live with his family.
Take from these two tales what you will but consider both in light of how we view past and contemporary humans. Each of us is an anthropologist or sociologist of sorts, and each runs experiments on other humans, seeking both to understand their own origins in light of our own and to assimilate them to our way of thinking and acting. In almost all instances the experimenter believes himself or herself to be superior in some way to the subjects of the experiments. It seems that proof of primacy is the prime motivation.
All human experiments say as much about the experimenter as they say about the experimental subjects. Regardless of his faulty methodology, Psammetichos was willing to acknowledge that his people held a faulty view with regard to their primacy. In contrast, FitzRoy continued to believe that distance from the Garden of Eden determined the primitiveness of a people. By today’s standards, both operated unethically. But the ancient king seemed willing to acknowledge his and his people’s fallibility as he accepted the results of his anthropological-sociological experiment, whereas the more modern Captain FitzRoy refused to relinquish his beliefs.
When will we ever learn that our experimental interference in other lives isn’t always a good thing?
*Macaulay, G. C., Translator, The History of Herodotus by Herodotus: In Two Volumes, Vol. 1, Book II, The Second Book of the Histories, Called Euterpe, MacMillan and Co., London and New York, 1890. p. 1.
RSS Feed