TomK

I picked up on the Mouse Utopia / Calhoun Experiment from the MGTOW crowd. Fascinating to say the least. Anyway, it got me thinking about potential applications to voluntarist/anarchist societies of the future. Specifically, would this apparent "in-built" population control lead to the inevitable collapse of even the most philosophically-sound societies we might build. So I thought I'd throw it up here for some thoughts. Personally, I find the experiment to be somewhat flawed, given the constant intervention of humans in the mouse environment. If you watch the documentaries rather than read the written records, you will see researchers repeatedly handling the subjects, walking around in the larger rat environments of later experiments, disturbing nests, etc (it was the sixties, after all). In that sense, it seems similar to irrational religious and/or statist societies, with their deities as "higher powers" intervening, or the state acting as universal provider. As such, it seems a problem that will collapse such societies, rather than anarchist societies, as anarchist societies will always subject people to self-responsibility, and the ongoing motivation to strive. However, technology is an issue, given the potential ability of an anarcho-capitalist society to create a situation of universal basic-provision. And on that note, is Zietgiest doomed to mouse utopia?

Given the spoken/written word is the most effect means of communicating with other people, expressing yourself through other, inherently less effective mediums (such as statements through physical appearance) suggests problems with communication (fear, stunted development, etc), as you are avoiding genuine connections, or incapable of forming them. You are also externalising your identity, "this is me, out here, no need to look any further", which suggests you may be avoiding internal dialogue and again, genuine connection with other people. Also, I guess there is a tribal element to it, in the sense you are often conforming to existing group identities (tattoo culture, etc). And when people are drawn to such vacuous tribal identities, it's usually because they lack parental connections, and have a general weakness of personality.

Interesting. I guess the issue is not as clear cut as a suggested, it is closer to the proverbial "two children of an alcoholic", one becoming an alcoholic himself, the other never touching a drop, based on the same childhood exposure to parental alcoholism. To some, experiencing trauma creates a stronger resolve against such trauma; strongly rejecting any threat of a recurrence to themselves, or others, based on the experience and understanding they have gained. While others may become desensitised/dehumanised, and end up apathetic or indeed positive about evil, as it becomes normalised by repeated exposure. The former may end up resolving the cause of such trauma, the latter may exacerbate it. A positive and negative consequence from the same experience. However, is it necessarily beneficial to avoid potentially traumatic experiences in the first place (for example, by avoiding horror movies)? Is ignorance any better than experience, with the associated risk of desensitisation? Violence is going to occur in the world, whether you are aware of it or not, whether you expose yourself to it, or not. And who makes the more vociferous advocate against such violence? Someone who has experienced it, or exposed themselves it, or someone who who says "I don't want to look at that, I don't want to be traumatised"? As such, is exposure to trauma through art (horror movies) not a potentially beneficial insight into evil, and thus a positive way to understand and oppose such evil?

I see no problem with horror movies, as they are fiction. It is not real, there is no actual violence taking place. In that sense, it is a safe means through which to explore violence, pain, death, etc, without experiencing or inflicting it first-hand. Humans are more than capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy, and we explore many forms of fantasy through various art forms, such as books, pictures, movies, video games, etc, with such fantasy very rarely provoking any real-life damage or re-enactment. Does such fiction glorify violence? Rarely. In most cases horror-violence is clearly depicted as evil, with those who commit acts of aggression almost always the "bad guy", the monster, the disgusting inbred hill-billy. The protagonists of horror movies, in the majority of cases, defeat their attackers through violence in self-defence, and are celebrated for doing so. In fact, a significant part of the horror industry, at least until the last decade or so, was based around delivering simple moral lessons through the good/evil binary of horror (Vault of Horror, Tales from the Crypt, etc). And the more gory a horror movie becomes, the clearer the consequences of violence become in tandem. A knife is wielded, and blood, gore, and mental trauma arise. Compare this, for example, to war movies up until the last two decades, which routinely showed men being shot or stabbed once, and dying instantly without a single drop of blood, or bombs that killed only the enemy, with no "collateral damage". Horror movies deter violence, as they unambiguously demonstrate the consequences of violence. The absence of gore is in many respects the real problem in violence-depicting artwork. Imagine two movies, both involving an incident of rape. Movie A shows the initiation of a rape, but pans away behind a closing door, later returning to a traumatised victim. Movie B depicts the rape in savage detail from start to finish. Which movies best delivers the true horror of rape, and strengthens human resolve against it, the one that showed it, or the one that hid it? Just some contrary thoughts...

It is/isn't an achievement depending on what it is you do with this realisation, and how far this realisation extends. If freeing yourself from falehood allows you to move onto greater things, to further your understanding of yourself and the world around you, to be free(er) and happier, then yes, it is a huge achievement, as it will change the entire course of your life, and inevitably the lives of others, for the better. If becoming an athiest is followed by an all-consuming obsession with atheism, and a rejection of religion becomes a hatred of religion, this is less positive. You have realised a truth, but instead of changing your life for the better and moving on to new truths, you simply fall back toward the falsehood, albiet from the opposite viewpoint. Maybe this is useful in turning others away from a lie, which may in turn be an achievement of sorts, but in the context of the 'individual' is a waste as you are still a slave to a lie. Becoming an atheist, but never escaping religion. And if you simply move from one falsehood to another (goodbye Jesus, hello Mr. President!), then it is also less meaningful, as you have escaped a single falsehood rather than falsehood in general. A step in the right direction, perhaps, depending on the direction you are heading...