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?
very relevant to this discussion, showing unnatural selectors having an effect on both population genetics and in behavior. thank you...
Except the world is far from overpopulated, we're just shit at managing our resources. It's just too easy to make a quick buck of cheap chinese garbage so everyone can have one in their home cuz "muh freedom"
The most interesting part to me was the melanin-aggression connection. Fits why most blacks are r-selected
Europe was populated beyond carrying capacity in the late Middle Ages.
>le r/K meme
that, and human communication is 100000x more advanced that rats
...
hello rato
this
>ayo hol up
>bix noods
Etc etc
>bix nood
I said human
I'm not sure communication is a component of this. Most of these errant behaviors were suggested to be directly related to environmental pressures.
As it stands, if you compare 50 years ago to today, both in terms of population growth, and in terms of conflict, social issues (gender rights baloney, etc.) and other factors, you see a rise in dysfunction. If you go back even further, accounting for missing discoveries and knowledge, I think you will see that these behaviors appear to have a consistent pattern...
So it's accelerated. Sheeeeeit.
...
Well humans have group planning and religiosity
>le everyone I don't le like is le rebbit meme
>Except the world is far from overpopulated, we're just shit at managing our resources.
Resource management would not resolve the issues we are facing; if anything, it would make the conditions worse. The point was that, in a resource rich "grow" environment, the population will continue to overshoot past the carry capacity, and as a result of these pressures, social aberrations develop.
We have horror stories of young mothers trying to cook their babies in microwaves. How fucking stupid, sick, twisted, or all of the above do you have to be, to cook your own offspring?
Hell, how many times has Sup Forums posted video clips of black woomen beating small children?
Yes, but people are more hostile and virtueless in dense cities imo. NYC, Vegas for example
hello rato
Djdhwifbkabdoabakfbiabr in g original
I wish you all would shut the fuck up and quit your whining and moaning and belly-aching. "Muh degeneracy" "Muh gays" "Muh civilization" "Muh morals" You faggots have always existed. You cried about interracial marriage. You cried about television. You cried about giving women the right to vote. You cried about the radio. You cried about giving workers rights. You cried about ending slavery. You cried about trains. You cried about guns. You cried about books. You cried about numbers and letters. You cried about the wheel. You all think everything and anything new is going to rip apart the fabric of humanity and turn everyone into sex-crazed dog-humping cannibals. All you do all day is cry about how wonderful the good old days were, and your peers in the good old days thought the same, and so on and so on and so on back to the first caveman that thought fire was bad and was afraid of it. You just want the world to think exactly like you do and stay put right where we are and just never progress.
explains a lot about city-dwelling retards
and then the enlightenment led to the creation of advanced irrigation, plumbing, synthetic fertilizers, the steam engine, and antibiotics.
see my point here?
>The point was that, in a resource rich "grow" environment, the population will continue to overshoot past the carry capacity, and as a result of these pressures, social aberrations develop.
When the people aren't educated, sure. The more intelligent a people the less likely they are to reproduce; probably why (((they))) are trying to bridge the gap with rapefugees.
As for the fucked up shit, pick any time in history, ever. Shit like that was still happening. People just suck; we just see more of it because of the Internet.
I have no experience with non-American cities but I'd chalk up the common man's apathy to his neighbor as American Culture. We all think our time is the most important and that we're all the main character of this story.
Yes and no. Only certain classes or groups will collaps. Also, big cities first, the land might stand stable.
Humans live in groups, even when living in the same building. Each group will collaps independently of the other, because they dont influence themselves as strong as within. When the majority has turned to chaos, the rest will save themselves.
Calhoun was right, but humans are more complex.
that is fear, fear of the future that is reinforce by people that have been hurt and here is where that kind of people comes to express it
and well i should't have said that kind of people because i'm here for the same reason
That's the problem, though. Whites are the only real humans. The rest are little more than animals. Some of those are less than animals. But they don't have either the intelligence or the genetic drive to keep their homes from being overrun. Even Asians, the most civilized nonwhites, have this problem.
The issue is the white man's pathological altruism. They see a nigger and they think "his features are similar to mine. He must be like me." When in fact, it's much like homoerectus mating with homosapien. We're not the same species, but we're close enough to reproduce and so we think they're human when they're not. This causes us to believe that they will behave like humans, and they don't.
Africa is basically the garden of eden. They never developed the need to stop breeding because their land is capable of supporting an absolutely massive amount of people before problems arise. Europeans don't have that luxury, because our winters were harsh and our land was fickle.
Tldr Niggers aren't human
>"Muh degeneracy" "Muh gays" "Muh civilization" "Muh morals" You faggots have always existed.
But you haven't. That's the point. These things are signs of decay in the cycle of a civilization. There are always people who want to keep things "stable", but "stable" does not mean "static", it means not doing things that have been shown time and time again to not work. Cutting your dick off and pretending that you can have kids when you have no XX chromosome doesn't work; nor has passing yourself off in a dress to be a woman, your anus just won't make anything other than poop.
But there are plenty of clever people advancing civilization while having babies. And I don't see them running around in drag with mutilated genitals.
>video very related to current social conditions
youtube.com
The person making the "enlightened advancements" was, in fact, the very person you complain about - someone who is "status quo".
I propose a shocking and aggressive solution to the problem in human societies.
Cut off all forms of social safety nets and bring in brutal repression of theft and violence. We humans have some very dirty tricks up our sleeves and it's time to introduce a harsh bit of sink or swim philosophy into modern society.
I don't not believe my solution to be a likely one. Instead what I believe will happen is a return to rigid authoritarian rule in the form of a modern Empire.
>Instead what I believe will happen is a return to rigid authoritarian rule in the form of a modern Empire.
We are already there. America is an Empire, we just refuse to admit or believe it.
>Even Asians, the most civilized nonwhites, have this problem.
That is a function of their culture; one that places male surnames over female means fewer females through attrition; is it any surprise that it leads to an unbalanced society in China?
>turn everyone into sex-crazed dog-humping cannibals
>dog fucking ruled legal in a Canadian court
>man recently ate another man's face in Florida while on bath salts
...please, do tell.
I should be clearer. We have an empire as a matter of fact right now. We do not have modern Alexander Hamiltons preaching pure Elitist dogma. (I'm not aware of any.) It's one thing to function as an Empire. It is something much harsher to proclaim small elite groups of people as "better than everyone else." When the egalitarian fantasy becomes unprofitable, it will be discarded. A big part of classic empires is that the royal class was seen as better fit, thus deserving of control over everyone else.
>You just want the world to think exactly like you do and stay put right where we are and just never progress.
YOU are the reason we do not progress. We waste time on "my fee fees", "CIS pwiviwedges", and other bullshit, instead of "how do we find a way to fight off cancer", "how do we feed people without causing them to fuck like rabbits and starve to death", and so on. You bitch at us about complete fabrications of your mind, things that no-one gives two shits about, and then whore yourself for attention; is it any wonder so many of you adopt children because you won't go through the process of procreation?
We simply want to find a way to secure not just our individual futures, but the futures of our children. We want them to critically think about their decisions, instead of just "it feels when I fuck it, so I should keep fucking it".
>A big part of classic empires is that the royal class was seen as better fit, thus deserving of control over everyone else
It's been tried. European Royalty managed to eventually inbreed and collapse.
I suppose it is inevitable that our society will decline, and we happen to be on the downward cycle. So be it...perhaps it makes more sense to discuss how people in the past dealt with the decline, and not only survived it, but thrived in it.
combined with
makes me wonder...
...if you select for friendly traits, and interbreed, would it resolve all of the issues in ? Could you eventually crossbreed to a point where negative traits are suppressed?
Suppressed? Probably not. Traits don't really ever disappear afaik and can always show back up
True, but...
>find black woman with selective traits
>fuck her from here to next Sunday
>make babies, lots of babies
>babies then selected for traits
>repeat process, with Mullato & white
>repeat again
>repeat again
>repeat again
Yes, there will be traits that can surface, but will the resulting 1/32nd offspring have sufficient changes?
yes and this study should be familiarized by all serious Sup Forums anons
Well you can already see the effects of that from 19th century slave sex. American blacks have a higher IQ than African blacks, even when selected for culture.
Their skin is also noticeably lighter (in cases where they aren't fresh off a Somali boat)
It's probably just get to like 99.999999999999% after infinite, but society isn't in a controlled environment
It's also worth noting that recessive/dominant gene hierarchy would play a role. The recessive genes (white, niceness, blue eyes, etc) could disappear in a single generation
Everyone fails, eventually. That's entropy. But first, does an aristocratic society offer some benefits to what we have now? This is how we should see it.
We already have an aristocratic society, it's just that entry is currently based on wealth rather than heredity.