3 ms·

Of course. If in the experiment, they had simulated the effect of predators on the population and routinely culled the population to stay within some range, th

by jhou2 10y ago

Of course. If in the experiment, they had simulated the effect of predators on the population and routinely culled the population to stay within some range, then probably the mice would have lived happily ever after generation after generation without any overcrowding and stressful effects. That entirely misses the point of the experiment. Human beings in some societies are reaching the point where disease, fatal accidents, and similar stressful or population-reducing effects are minimized. For example, Silicon Valley. I'm not so sure though whether it is a utopia though. Physical living space, aka real estate, in SV is certainly at a premium. And I've seen similar cases mirroring the study's "beautiful ones", the drinkers, and rowdy youths. There are parallels and insights to be drawn from these studies of mice and men.

sandworm101 10y ago
I think it goes beyond population control. Simply removing the mice might not be enough. They have to see and fear the cat. Some have to be successful in avoiding the cat. They may develop behaviors and social order specifically to address the cat threat. Disappearing individuals randomly might have a radically unnatural impact. With humans, it's also not as simple as population control. The presence of other species, even predators, is a cornerstone of our evolution and culture. We are afraid of the dark for a reason. We protect our kids from the unknown for a reason. We keep dogs as guards for a reason. A world truly without predators might result in very different culture. I'm often taken aback by how people who live in regions without large predators (UK, Japan) differ in their views on nature from those who walk beside predators every day (Canada/Australia). Talk to a tourist on a beach about shark attacks. Then talk to a surfer. The former has strong opinions but isn't under any real threat. The later is often much more tolerant of sharks despite the increased risk (see Australia's shark cull debates). Even a slight but real risk of dangerous predators, imho, gives one a much greater respect for nature.

by jhou2 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

I think it goes beyond population control. Simply removing the mice might not be enough. They have to see and fear the cat. Some have to be successful in avoiding the cat. They may develop behaviors and social order specifically to address the cat threat. Disappearing individuals randomly might have a radically unnatural impact. With humans, it's also not as simple as population control. The presence of other species, even predators, is a cornerstone of our evolution and culture. We are afraid of the dark for a reason. We protect our kids from the unknown for a reason. We keep dogs as guards for a reason. A world truly without predators might result in very different culture. I'm often taken aback by how people who live in regions without large predators (UK, Japan) differ in their views on nature from those who walk beside predators every day (Canada/Australia). Talk to a tourist on a beach about shark attacks. Then talk to a surfer. The former has strong opinions but isn't under any real threat. The later is often much more tolerant of sharks despite the increased risk (see Australia's shark cull debates). Even a slight but real risk of dangerous predators, imho, gives one a much greater respect for nature.