<opening the door> Why Plato, wut up dawg? Come on in.

Thank you, sir, you are most kind.

Have a seat, can I get you anything to drink? I was just about to make another cup of tea. Interested?

I can't say that I would care for such Eastern mysticism. Perchance you have something exuding a more Greekly lifestyle?

I believe I'm out of Ouzo. How about a Petite Syrah?

Close enough.

<pouring a glass> It's always good to see you, put your feet up and rest. Hey, are those new sandals? Where did you get them?

(Editor's Note: For the sake of brevity, I have edited the inevitable small talk about the weather and sandle sweat shops, and the eventual drunkening of Plato.)

I was just re-reading some of your books, and there are a couple of things I don't understand, and would like to have you answer a couple of questions for me… especially on your ideas of eugenics.

<in slightly slurred speach> Uh, oh. I thuppose I should be worried.

Oh no, nothing like that. You see, I'm just a computer geek in the lowest class of merchants, and haven't the mental training of my mind for such higher thought.

Alright… thoot.

Have you heard of the concept of evolution of animals and plants?

Yeah. Heard of it, but not much. in-ster-sting thtuff what ah heard.

At what point, could you judge the value or even usefulness of a mutation in an animal offspring? You know, whether it is good or bad.

Right from the beginning. A fox misthing a leg is obviously a poor animal, and one with bigger teeth will be better to eat you with my dear, and therefore be the better animal.

Are all mutations visible, and if not, how could you judge?

Obviously not. A thlight defect of an organ wouldn't be seen. But as soon as it is vithible, then it would be clear and judgment could be made.

Even if the animal had reached adulthood?

I thuppose.

It seems like you are implying that the "judger" is always accurate and has the ability to almost see into the future.

I would advocate that judges be trained in dealing with thuch matters.

But what if some mutations aren't so obvious, in that the mutations may solve problems yet un-encountered?

I have no idea what you mean.

Well, perhaps I can better explain my question with a short story…

Once there were two herdsman. The first was having problems with wolves attacking his sheep, and the second man had a problem of a breed of sheep that tended to wander. Both men had been loosing lots of sheep and wanted to do something about it. While they started staying up all night, this wasn't the best solution.

The first man thought that a dog would help him. So he bought a big dog, and that worked really well, but with increasing wolf populations, a single dog wouldn't help, and he couldn't afford to put all of his money into buying more dogs. So he bought the first dog a mate, and started to breed them.

In the litter, all of the dogs were strong and of equal constitution. But as is often the case in such made-up stories, one dog was smaller-- a runt. He had the few options, one of which involved a bag, a rock and a river.

(At this point, Plato uttered something that sounded like "thenthsible", but I couldn't be sure).

But he decided to raise the runt anyway. The dog almost seemed to be obsessive in keeping things in order, and while smaller, liked to try to push his brothers and sisters around.

Upon hearing the problems of wandering sheep of the second herdsman, the first herdsman came up with an idea, and sold him his runt. While the dog was a runt among big wolfhounds, this small dog with its obsessive personality was perfect for herding sheep.

So, let me repeat my earlier question… when can one judge a mutation?

<softly snoring>

I suppose a bit of wine can create any sort of straw man my philsophical argument may need. I guess I should invite Nietzsche over next.