In 1947, John B. Calhoun’s neighbour agreed to let him build a rat
enclosure on disused woodland behind his house in Towson, Maryland.
Calhoun would later reflect that his neighbour probably expected a few
hutches, perhaps a small run. What Calhoun built was quarter acre pen,
what he called a “rat city,” and which he seeded with five pregnant
females. Calhoun calculated that the habitat was sufficient to
accommodate as many as 5000 rats. Instead, the population levelled off
at 150, and throughout the two years Calhoun kept watch, never
exceeded 200. That the predicated maximum was never reached ought
to come as no surprise: 5000 rats would be tight indeed. A quarter acre
is little over 1000 square meters, meaning each rat would have to itself
an area of only about 2000 square centimetres, roughly the size of an
individual laboratory cage. Be that as it may, a population of only 150
seemed surprisingly low. What had happened?
We are living in a behavioral sink?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Employed in the Laboratory of Psychology of the National
Institute of Mental Health from 1954, Calhoun repeated the experiment
in specially constructed “rodent universes” – room-sized pens which
could be viewed from the attic above via windows cut through the
ceiling. Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more
provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no
predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun
described his experimental universes as “rat utopia,” “mouse paradise.”
With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only
restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space – and as
the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens
heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent “utopia” as
having become “hell” (Marsden 1972).
Dominant males became aggressive, some moving in groups,
attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted.
Some became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and
hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers
neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then
carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections
of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized
by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a
physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the
majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled
mass in the centre of the pens. Unable to breed, the population
plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the
ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once
again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like
rats and mice, and the change was permanent.
Calhoun published the results of his early experiments with the
rats at NIMH in a 1962 edition of Scientific American. That paper,
“Population Density and Social Pathology,” went on to be cited upwards
of 150 times a year.1 It has since been included as one of “Forty Studies
that Changed Psychology,” joining papers by such figures as Freud,
Pavlov, Milgram, Rorschach, Skinner, and Watson (Hock 2004). Like
Pavlov’s dogs or Skinner’s pigeons, Calhoun’s rats came to assume a
near-iconic status as emblematic animals, exemplary of the ways in
which behavioral experimentation at once marks and violates the
human-animal distinction. The macabre spectacle of crowded
psychopathological rats and the available comparisons with human life
in the densely-packed inner cities ensured the experiments were quickly
adopted as “scientific evidence” of social decay. Referenced far outside
of the fields of ecology and mental health, Calhoun’s rats have – or
certainly had – come to seem part of the common cultural stock,
shorthand for the problems of urban crowding just as Pavlov’s dogs
were for respondent conditioning. Along with their public popularity, the
experiments played a critical role in the development of disciplines and
research fields, so much so that sociologist and human ecologist Amos
Hawley (1972) would remark that the extent of their influence was itself
a “curious phenomenon.”
Here's a fun redpill study for niggers: youtu.be
post the mouse utopia youtube video
These were part of a paper I found. I remember hearing about the experiments and went looking for this.
If you think about the moral degeneracy of today, the breakdown of civil life, the increasingly alarming behavior of "gender activists", the loss of marriage as a stable institution in society, the ongoing abandonment of newborn babies by mothers not capable of supporting them, and in some cases, the rampant abuse of those children, then it becomes harder and harder to not draw a parallel between that study and our behavior in modern society today.
Anyone want to actually discuss? Please keep trolling to a minimum.
Short answer: yes.
you cannot compare rats and humans. out problem is that we allow non-whites to exist, not overpopulation. i honestly have to wonder if whites are even capable of becoming 'overpopulated' without quickly finding a practical solution
>problem is that we allow non-whites to exist, not overpopulation
you are implying there can be no overpopulation for whites; can we find cases where this is or is not the case?