Personal View site logo
Mouse Utopia Experiment
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1644264/pdf/procrsmed00338-0007.pdf

  • 5 Replies sorted by
  • DouglasHornDouglasHorn

    It's like a horror movie.

  • jrdjrd

    It's like a horror movie.

    Actually, I thought it was a pretty accurate description of modern times -- hundreds of millions of people with no social role, because there's no meaningful work for them. The behavior of the "beautiful people" mice is hilarious -- a perfect account of self-loving celebrity and CEO culture.

    The only thing preventing us from going the way of this experiment is social welfare programs and all those hated wealth redistribution programs. Take that away, and it's all over.

  • DouglasHornDouglasHorn

    Yes. That's what I meant.

    That said, there are some important differences. First, those are mice, not men (& women). There's a pretty big difference at certain levels. Not much at others.

    Also, those mice were bred for lab experiments and something important may have been bred out of them that wouldn't exist in wild mice (or men).

    Also, crowding aside, the mice didn't seem to have to do any "work" or hunting for their food. There was no scarcity to stimulate mental activity or thin the herd.

    However, it's still a pretty horrifying experiment that seems to say a lot about our future. What I found most intriguing is that equilibrium was never restored. The entire population died out. This runs fairly counter to many assumptions about crowding, scarcity, etc.

  • brianlbrianl

    Yes, redistribution has become an ugly word, but what's the alternative? This video is a great argument for birth control. Little people, I mean poor people have too many kids! Here's a related article on the Epstein/Axtell computer model on inequality. http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_sresults.php?2260

  • bwhitzbwhitz

    Redistribution only works with strict population control, where everyone meets a certain IQ/ability threshold, AND a certain genetic health standard. So, the big "E" word. An actual free-market system does this more naturally, and I believe, more morally... as all people "have a chance"... vs pure genetic screening that may not include all factors. Either way though... there is no "magical" system that lets "all people" live a moderate standard no matter what. People cannot live "for free" in nature. It doesn't exist. Redistribution to those who are not contributing, AT LEAST, equal or greater wealth will always end up in collapse. You simply cannot have a civilization that consumes more than in being produced. It fundamentally impossible, no matter what you believe.

    At 100% perfect redistribution... people in the USA could live the equivalent of a 35,000-45,000 a year lifestyle for about 2 years until everything collapses... and this is assuming ALL BILLIONAIRES agree to forfeit ALL OF THEIR WEALTH and sell ALL ASSETS... including the ones that are generating wealth in the first place.

    Redistribution and welfare programs in countries like the US are LUNACY... unless the population is about 75% lower and filled with all geniuses and scientists. And no, it's not because of "greed" or rich people "having it all" or "consumerism". It's just a big math problem. Humans aren't free from the constraints of nature just because "we feel like it".

Add a Comment