• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Biology: The Doomed Mouse Utopia That Inspired the ‘Rats of NIMH’

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,771
Reaction score
15,240
Location
Massachusetts
Research that apparently inspired Robert C. O'Brien's Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH.

I'd really hesitate to draw parallels between dysfunction in rodent "society" and human society, but hey, if you can get a good book out of it...

Dr. John Bumpass Calhoun spent the ’60s and ’70s playing god to thousands of rodents.

Atlas Obscura said:
On July 9th, 1968, eight white mice were placed into a strange box at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Maybe “box” isn’t the right word for it; the space was more like a room, known as Universe 25, about the size of a small storage unit. The mice themselves were bright and healthy, hand-picked from the institute’s breeding stock. They were given the run of the place, which had everything they might need: food, water, climate control, hundreds of nesting boxes to choose from, and a lush floor of shredded paper and ground corn cob.

This is a far cry from a wild mouse’s life—no cats, no traps, no long winters. It’s even better than your average lab mouse’s, which is constantly interrupted by white-coated humans with scalpels or syringes. The residents of Universe 25 were mostly left alone, save for one man who would peer at them from above, and his team of similarly interested assistants. They must have thought they were the luckiest mice in the world. They couldn’t have known the truth: that within a few years, they and their descendants would all be dead.

The man who played mouse-God and came up with this doomed universe was named John Bumpass Calhoun. As Edmund Ramsden and Jon Adams detail in a paper, “Escaping the Laboratory: The Rodent Experiments of John B. Calhoun & Their Cultural Influence,” Calhoun spent his childhood traipsing around Tennessee, chasing toads, collecting turtles, and banding birds. These adventures eventually led him to a doctorate in biology, and then a job in Baltimore, where he was tasked with studying the habits of Norway rats, one of the city’s chief pests.

In 1947, to keep a close eye on his charges, Calhoun constructed a quarter-acre “rat city” behind his house, and filled it with breeding pairs. He expected to be able to house 5,000 rats there, but over the two years he observed the city, the population never exceeded 150. At that point, the rats became too stressed to reproduce. They started acting weirdly, rolling dirt into balls rather than digging normal tunnels. They hissed and fought.

...

Most frightening are the parallels he draws between rodent and human society. “I shall largely speak of mice,” he begins, “but my thoughts are on man.” Both species, he explains, are vulnerable to two types of death—that of the spirit and that of the body. Even though he had removed physical threats, doing so had forced the residents of Universe 25 into a spiritually unhealthy situation, full of crowding, overstimulation, and contact with various mouse strangers. To a society experiencing the rapid growth of cities—and reacting, in various ways, quite poorly—this story seemed familiar. Senators brought it up in meetings. It showed up in science fiction and comic books. Even Tom Wolfe, never lost for description, used Calhounian terms to describe New York City, calling all of Gotham a “behavioral sink.”

...
 

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
13,072
Reaction score
4,669
Location
USA
Website
brightdreamersbookreviews.blogspot.com
Rats may not be humans, but it definitely seems plausible that there are conditions that are ideal for - and conditions that "break" - any given species. We all evolved in highly competitive ecosystems, where populations were controlled by natural means (predation, illness, age, even simple overgrowth of resources.) We're adapted for it. We expect it, even though we don't actively acknowledge that acceptance. Removing all those controls may just be something species just aren't equipped to handle - which tangentially, makes one suspect that quests for immortal utopias are ultimately doomed to madness and collapse.
 

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,771
Reaction score
15,240
Location
Massachusetts
Oh I definitely agree that we evolved for smaller, less dense societies. And, that we're probably (as a whole) ill-suited psychologically for dense urban settings. But we're presumably smarter than rodents, so I meant I wouldn't be too quick to assume that we are as fundamentally dysfunctional as rats in denser living arrangements.

Besides, I'm quite aware that many US conservatives like to equate urban life with "all that's wrong with America", as opposed to rural life which is held up (even by many progressives) as somehow fundamentally better, more admirable.

Anyways, an interesting study I'd never read about before.
 

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
13,072
Reaction score
4,669
Location
USA
Website
brightdreamersbookreviews.blogspot.com
Oh I definitely agree that we evolved for smaller, less dense societies. And, that we're probably (as a whole) ill-suited psychologically for dense urban settings. But we're presumably smarter than rodents, so I meant I wouldn't be too quick to assume that we are as fundamentally dysfunctional as rats in denser living arrangements.

Besides, I'm quite aware that many US conservatives like to equate urban life with "all that's wrong with America", as opposed to rural life which is held up (even by many progressives) as somehow fundamentally better, more admirable.

Anyways, an interesting study I'd never read about before.


Not sure I'd be too quick to assume we're less dysfunctional than rats, myself - I mean, we're the only species known to have initiated space exploration and created long-range models to track results of our own activities in relation to the future habitability of our planet, too, and... well, I wouldn't rate our behavior as "non-dysfunctional."

It is interesting that he apparently had better results when he gave them more "creative" outlets, regulated interactions, etc., which suggests that a species needs external assistance/control to thrive beyond a certain "natural" threshold.
 

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,771
Reaction score
15,240
Location
Massachusetts
Not sure I'd be too quick to assume we're less dysfunctional than rats

Well, fair enough, I was being uncharacteristically optimistic for a change. ;)

myself - I mean, we're the only species known to have initiated space exploration and created long-range models to track results of our own activities in relation to the future habitability of our planet, too, and... well, I wouldn't rate our behavior as "non-dysfunctional."

As pessimistic as I am about our long-term prospects, we do fundamentally have something rats lack: an ability to understand cause and effect, and presumably to change our actions to avoid bad effects. I agree that too many of us, for various reasons, aren't there yet -- they don't believe that climate change is real, or that it's going to dramatically impact people everywhere. That's due to an unfortunate combination of ignorance, the science becoming politically polarized, and dump-loads of pure lies being spread by sources who benefit from keeping the status quo as long as possible.

It is interesting that he apparently had better results when he gave them more "creative" outlets, regulated interactions, etc., which suggests that a species needs external assistance/control to thrive beyond a certain "natural" threshold.

It seems to have bearing on what most of us feel about modern life in unfettered capitalistic societies: That it often lacks "meaning"? Even just talking about "work" -- how many jobs are low-paid drudgery, with no chance of feeling like your efforts matter beyond earning a buck. Not exactly a recipe for happiness.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,128
Reaction score
10,899
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Oh I definitely agree that we evolved for smaller, less dense societies. And, that we're probably (as a whole) ill-suited psychologically for dense urban settings. But we're presumably smarter than rodents, so I meant I wouldn't be too quick to assume that we are as fundamentally dysfunctional as rats in denser living arrangements.

Besides, I'm quite aware that many US conservatives like to equate urban life with "all that's wrong with America", as opposed to rural life which is held up (even by many progressives) as somehow fundamentally better, more admirable.

Anyways, an interesting study I'd never read about before.

That was an interesting link.

Of course, to US conservatives, the fact that rural life is also less than idyllic--filled with substance abuse, teen pregnancy and poverty--is blamed on urbanites as well. Never mind that far more money flows from urban counties to rural counties than the reverse.

IMO humans need something to strive for, which is why the advent of the post-work society--for anyone who isn't writing the algorithms or designing the robots--troubles me. Even with a guaranteed minimum income (and in the US, that ain't happening any time soon), people will be restless and dissatisfied. Once robots and algorithms provide everything, what's left for us to do besides hate each other? I think a lot of the hate and anger we're seeing in some parts of our society stems from the slow, creeping realization that they are increasingly redundant and irrelevant.

I wonder if there's a way to make exploring space and cleaning up the damage we've done to our planet into a "job" or challenge for the human race. It's amazing what humans can do when we see something as a crisis and work together to arrive at a solution.

This part of your linked article was interesting, BTW.

Most of the adolescent mice retreated even further from societal expectations, spending all their time eating, drinking, sleeping and grooming, and refusing to fight or to even attempt to mate. (These individuals were forever changed—when Calhoun’s colleague attempted to transplant some of them to more normal situations, they didn’t remember how to do anything.)

It makes me think about those articles about how, for the first time in several decades, the number of young people who have never had sex, who don't even date, has increased. Now, not all teens and twenty somethings choose this lifestyle because they are spending all their time playing with their phones. Some are just so busy they don't have time for relationships. But that's an aspect of our dystopia too--ambitious young people feel like they have to fill their lives with activities and go to the best schools and get the best grades to even have a chance. That's got to be rather stressful, though it's hardly utopian.

I'd argue that the rodent experiments are more a metaphor for the planet as a whole than just city environments, though. We still have plenty of threats to our existence (disease, for instance, and famines in some parts of the world). But we've repeatedly raised the carrying capacity of the Earth via agriculture and technology, and greatly increased human lifespan and lowered infant mortality via medicine. Like the rodents, our population has doubled several times in a relatively short time. Maybe we are starting to bump up against something roughly similar on a planetary, or even society-wide level.

What will we become with no frontier or safety valve? What will we become when the only dangers most of us face are human-inflicted?

I think this is probably what inspired Carolyn Ives Gilman's books (where the human race essentially stopped caring about everything and sort of gave up).
 
Last edited: