Mouse Society Experiment

[нσтησσвParticipant 830]

Experiment:

Interpretation by sandman:

Thoughts? are we smart enough to prevail? or are we as stupid as mice?

My Goal: To Leave Society.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

The least intelligent conversations you will ever have are about other people (gossip). In print, this is the National Enquirer. The conversations of average intelligence are about events. In print, this is newspapers. The most intelligent conversations are about ideas. In print, this is Popular Mechanics, Omni… and posts like this one. Thanks for this post Noob.

I agree with most of Sandman’s assessment in his comparison of the growth of the mouse population as it compares to the growth of the human population, with one exception. Sandman said that 500 million people is not an adequate number for the world human population to remain healthy, but I don’t necessarily agree. The behavior of these mice, and humans by extension, is influenced by population density, but it is local population density. For example, the populations of Asian cities contribute to the world population, and it was noted that population density in some of these Asian cities is higher than average. But that higher than average population density in those cities does not affect the behavior of anyone except the individuals in those cities who are exposed to it daily.

I see the debate about what the ideal world population would be, but I don’t think that’s the finish line on the discussion. I think the real measurement that needs to be discerned is not the ideal total human population of the planet, but the ideal distribution of that population to create the ideal local population density. For obvious reasons the Sahara, for example is always likely to be relatively uninhabited, regardless of the total population of the planet.

I hope humans are smart enough to collectively realize at some point that zero population growth is sustainable, and exponential population growth is not. But when I hear people raise concerns about the effect on the economy, or the reaction of some religions to birth control, or the welfare mentality that I can have a dozen children and someone else should have to pay for them… it occurs to me that if humans are not smart enough to acknowledge and accept this reality, that the inflexible laws of nature and arithmetic will eventually enforce it in a way that will be much less comfortable.

I think instead of sitting around wondering why the ideal number for total human population is, we might be more efficient to be sitting around discussing what number of us the planet will tolerate, and then figuring out how to distribute that population to create local population densities with the least amount of negative/violent influence on behavior.

But these are just my own thoughts and observations. I’m looking forward to reading those of other mgtows.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

I would say you can already see the effects of high population density and overwhelming social interaction in urban Japan. People blame their declining population on the extended recession they’ve been experiencing but I would argue that the recession is indicative of the impending collapse of the population.

In the mouse utopia studies, civilization collapsed not because of an economic downturn but because new members of the society had no way to establish themselves into an already crowded social order and so fought for status or withdrew. This withdrawal, which you can very clearly see in Japanese culture, was the fundamental driver of the mouse population collapse and, I believe, is the reason that Japan’s economic downturn has continued for a generation, going on two generations now.

The question for me is can the reduction in population level out at some point. In the mouse utopia studies, the factors leading to the eventual crash of population were not clearly described. Perhaps there is a second equilibrium phase where density drops low enough that it’s possible for the fighters and the drop-outs to re-emerge? Or are their social conditionings as outcasts going to overpower their reproductive urges and prevent even a reduced population from stabilizing?

And where in this equation are MGTOW? Interesting to consider, don’t you think?

[нσтησσвParticipant 830]

in my opinion, i believe that with technology we can easily increase earth’s sustainable capacity; what i do perceive as being the issue is society.
more specifically the lack of societal rolls ( jobs ) – aside from standard mgtow reasons 😛

As it stands we have all of the technology required to create near unlimited amounts of food.
The technology to build skyscrapers.
plumbing.
leds.

the only thing that is missing is efficient power generation, of which was actually solved in the 1950s but ignored by the us government due to politics.
china will be the first country in the world to have large scale thorium-based energy generation ( 2020-2025 ) or even just MSR’s in general.

land is no limiting factor when you have the technology to double, triple, quadruple it or whatever 100 times over. Earths crust is 40km deep, could probably multiply the amount of land by 2000 times without getting close to being half way through it.

The issue is that after technology automates all manual labour jobs, a population of more than 500 million people may be all that society can handle… unless society can stop the inevitable increasing wealth gap.

My Goal: To Leave Society.

[Author]

Posts