https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments
Thoughts on this?

Basically a scientist conducted an experiment on an array of mice in which factors such as food, water and nesting material were infinite and no natural predators were accounted for. The only limited resource included was the availability of space.

What he discovered was astonishing. After roughly a year the population peaked, and then dramatically stagnated. Infants were expelled from the society, males began to lose interest in maintaining territory/females, and females subsequently became more aggressive than the males. This resulted in a dramatic fall in population size, breakdown of social structure, and a reverse in behavioural patterns. Neither sex wanted to reproduce with each other.

Now obviously humanity =/= mice, but when we reach a post scarcity economy, is there any chance something like this happening to society?

I'll start:

"And then my boyfriend told me"

"We need to talk"

Mum: "What's this, anon?"

Summer is for normies

Spring and Autumn is just mild winter

Winter for GOAT season.

When I tip my fedora like the good gentlesir that I am.

Quote from: unironically being ironic on August 22, 2015, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: ॐ Nuka on August 22, 2015, 04:45:19 PM

Quote from: unironically being ironic on August 22, 2015, 04:42:05 PM

Quote from: ॐ Nuka on August 22, 2015, 04:36:56 PM

Even I've changed my thoughts on weed, since it's legal here in California and I've tried it and seen its benefits on other people. Cigarettes and alcohol are worse, and yet they're perfectly fine and legal; smoking may be restricted in a lot of areas, but it's legal the moment you turn 18, and drinking is treated like it's a normal part of adult life. The only real damage you'd from weed get is from smoking it, and that's only because smoke can damage your lungs.

The rest of the country needs to pull its head out of its ass.

I don't think it's accurate to suggest Marijuana 100% harmless though. There are damning studies out there that imply THC adversely affects mental illness in the long run.

Still doesn't justify its illegality, but some food for thought there.

Cigarettes and alcohol are significantly worse, which is what I'm saying.
I mean, alcohol straight up eats away at your brain.

What do you mean by it affects mental illness though? Does mean people who already have a condition, or..?

Regular usage increases the chances of developing a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia.

Again, not a viable reason to keep it criminalized, but I don't think it's intellectually honest to take the position that Cannabis is 100% harmless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/

Well to be fair I never said it was 100% harmless, just that it's not nearly as bad as other substances that are perfectly legal. However that is good to know.

Not to be a scrupulous prick, but you did say the only real damage incurred from smoking cannabis is smoking it.

Even I've changed my thoughts on weed, since it's legal here in California and I've tried it and seen its benefits on other people. Cigarettes and alcohol are worse, and yet they're perfectly fine and legal; smoking may be restricted in a lot of areas, but it's legal the moment you turn 18, and drinking is treated like it's a normal part of adult life. The only real damage you'd from weed get is from smoking it, and that's only because smoke can damage your lungs.

The rest of the country needs to pull its head out of its ass.

I don't think it's accurate to suggest Marijuana is 100% harmless though. There are damning studies out there that imply THC adversely affects mental illness in the long run.

Still doesn't justify its illegality, but some food for thought there.

crashing this airshow with no survivors

le halo elitist meme

Halo 3 is the best Halo game IMO because I've had the most fun with it. I really don't care if its campaign is lacking in narrative, and I really don't care if 343 crafted a better story in Gaylo 4. It's a barrel load of fun, and its multiplayer is a vast improvement in comparison to its glitchfest predecessor.

We harness evolution to our advantage all the time, and we've been doing it for a while now. I mean, take a look at all the animals we've domesticated and evolutionarily honed. The chihuahua looks nothing like the Gray wolf anymore, and the pig while similar, is a completely different species to its predecessor, the Eurasian Wild Boar.

So really, the unnatural argument (even when it comes to humans) really holds no truck in the scientific community when humanity has been inadvertently augmenting the evolutionary process for thousands of years, both for agricultural and survival purposes.

CAN'T_WAKE_UP.png

Your dad literally hates fun.

Can we please nuke NK and turn it into some Fallout theme park or something? That way it would boost the South's economy and actually turn the North into something contributory to the world for once.

Interesting point made about unit cohesion and such.

Would you say the same if this was still the 1920's and white men didn't want black men serving with them in the military?

IMO, there's no reason to keep women out of a role they are able to perform. If the men in the unit don't like it, that's their problem.

It's not about "liking" something. I'm sure a unit comprised mostly of straight males day in and day out would be ecstatic about new female company.

The point is whether it affects their subconscious ability to do their job properly, and there's a plethora of evidence in the IDF to suggest that the presence of females in a combat situation does, probably due to a variety of biological reasons.

Wouldn't be surprised if they lowered the bar for them tbh.

But if they actually did get in on their own merit then good on them.