نوشته اصلی از سوی Nilftrondheim
جامعه برای هزاران سال وجود داشته است، اما نفرت این چنین از آن نه. توضیحی منطقی برای این پدیده باید وجود داشته باشد. سخنان شما مرا بر آن داشت که دنبال مشکل در جامعه بگردم. فمینیسم، MGTOW و بسیاری از مشکلات دیگر ریشه در چیزی مشترک دارند. آزمایشات جان کلهون روی موش ها را بخوانید، سکته خواهید کرد!یک هیچ به نفع مهربد، پیشرفت تکنولوژی، زیادی جمعیت و هیکیکوموری و ...
البته همه‌اش تکنولوژی و جمعیت نیست:
Conceptual space
In the same paper there is this exchange regarding overcrowding, which I quote in full because it makes an important distinction:
Professor Mellanby said Dr Calhoun had suggested that by 1984 man was going to be as crowded as his mice and that this would have disastrous effects. Experiments had been going on for a long time with man. Man was not uniformly distributed. He lived in some communities just as crowded as Dr Calhoun's mice. Professor Mellanby had been very familiar with populations in parts of London forty years ago which were restricted communities. People seldom moved out of them. Until the children were taken to camps for holidays they had seldom been more than a quarter of a mile from their homes. They were living amidst extreme crowding and bred very successfully. Therefore, was it not possible to get an answer to this for human beings by examining such communities? Did crowded, enclosed communities behave like the mice? Or did this occur most obviously in those communities which had about the lowest population density in Sweden or the United States?
Dr Calhoun replied that 1984 was not the year in which ultimate density would be attained, but a date beyond which the opportunity for decision making and designing to avoid population catastrophe might be quickly lost. He stated, in any case, that density per se was not the major factor, that rate and quality of social interaction were paramount issues. Basic to his thesis was that despite the thousandfold increase in human numbers since the beginning of culture, some forty to fifty thousand years ago, there had been no change in effective density. The reason for this, alluded to by Professor Young, was that man had discovered a new kind of space, conceptual space, which enabled man to utilize ideas in order to mine resources and guide social relations. However, there was a breaking point for this process, at which time physical density might overwhelm man's ability to utilize conceptual space in order to cope with increasing numbers and it was that breaking point which we might be rapidly approaching. The fact that reproduction could be affected by density had been dealt with by Dr Thompson in Indianapolis (Thompson 1969). An older study for Scotland (Kincaid 1965) had shown that stillbirths and other parameters were density related. However, in terms of conceptual space, it might be the necessity for limitations to growth which might be the more difficult conceptual area for man to deal with. In that case a further increase in birth rate might be expected past the breaking point (Galle et al. 1972).
Here in Calhoun's "conceptual space" we find room for the psychological tax placed on mankind by increased complexity in the cultural, technological, and social spheres. This issue of conceptual space may implicate modern geopolitics, in which we see conflict develop among nations which were in the past removed from each other's concerns by both physical distance and conceptual distance, a lack of awareness based on lack of interaction (even where there is knowledge and limited trade). Post-industrial globalization has changed this, and for the first time in human history it has put cultures which have developed more or less in isolation from one another (i.e. geographic non-neighbors) into direct resource conflict. That human culture as it has evolved for 50,000 years has been rooted to a limited geography with an ethnically homogenous identity may be a necessary condition for stable development, and an awareness of and economic linkage to alien cultures may lead inevitably to a "clash of civilizations".
This exchange (developed further in the original paper) also shows concern for crossing a line past which population control becomes effectively impossible--this concern is shaped by Calhoun's experimental findings that even when the rat population fell the rats retained dysfunctional social behaviors and depopulation continued until extinction. While extinction is an unlikely fate for mankind (even Western man), it suggests that there may be very long term effects--and that pathology in one generation may lead to subsequent dysfunctional generations even when the main driver of the original pathology is removed. This can be viewed as either a conservative tendency of social behavior or as the destructiveness of pathology to social behavior (the latter could explain the development among advanced civilizations of high standards of ethical and moral conduct, rooted in religion, as a crucial safeguard against just such destabilizing pathology--and the evident erosion of these standards during periods of decline).
Therefore it is wrong and misleading to view the implications of Calhoun's experiment as bearing only on physical overcrowding. Care must of course be taken when drawing connections between Calhoun's rats and human populations. For example, the common existence of large, thriving population centers does not in itself refute the notion that population density leads to social pathology, because other factors can influence the sense of conceptual overcrowding, including population diversity, advances in communication, and a smaller percentage of the population originating from non-urban settings (i.e. the relative inescapability and importance of the city to cultural life). Experiments conducted on human subjects measuring performance in crowded vs. non-crowded settings cannot hope to capture long-term psychological effects of overcrowding.
پاسخ با گفت‌آورد
