Depends on what you mean by natural. There are probably situations that were similar, at some point in time. Rats that got into in a grain storage container, or were trapped there, or who knows. That was natural mouse behavior, for the lack of/constraints provided.
> This is the interesting finding I'd think, by putting the subject in un-natural settings, to see what can happen at extremes.
Interesting, maybe. Deeply unethical, certainly. I'm not against animal experimentation (although I'd never have the stomach for it myself), but it's hard to see what could be learned from these experiments except for how rats behave when placed in these strange prisons.
> Having observed the rats so closely, Calhoun now had a pretty good idea of what was limiting growth. The rats had divided themselves into eleven clans. Four had burrows conveniently located at the center of the enclosure, near where Calhoun had placed the food bins. In these privileged clans, a few dominant male rats mated with (and protected) a larger number of females. Although the high-status mothers successfully raised many pups, this wasn’t enough to offset the losses in a population that was aging and, increasingly, brawling.
> The rats from the banlieues, for their part, lived under constant stress. When they attempted to get to the food bins, the fat rats in the middle tried—often successfully—to repulse them. Along the edges of the enclosure, packs of low-ranking males roamed from burrow to burrow, harassing the females. The outer-burrow females were so exhausted that they rarely conceived, and, when they did give birth, they often abandoned their pups.
Not unless there was a group of people who had somehow figured out how to legally steal other people's UBI checks. The rats did not actually have access to infinite food. Some of the rats did, and they figured out how to monopolize that food source and exclude other rats.
It was infinite food, resources, then the rats organized around 'capturing it', or holding it for themselves. So developed an Us/Them groups, and the have-not's didn't have access.
But isn't this itself a result to study. That they organized around hording resources and letting others starve. Not all animals do this.
In a lot of ways, this is what we have in todays society isn't it? Resources are owned by just a few billionaires, while others starve.
So UBI arguments aside, the rats do seem human, or humans do seem like rats.
Then what is the counter proposal? That men are best in a state of constant warfare and conquering or being conquered. People should fight for their lives or starve. These aren't hyperbole, they are arguments being made. It's just not a great place to live, unless you are rich with your private army.
I don't necessarily think that constant warfare is required (though certainly that has been the state of humans until the last century or so) but I do think that they are best when they are occupied with providing for their own and their families' survival. People (especially men) who have nothing to do are generally not mentally or socially healthy.
Sure, if we lived on the savanna and we could survive with hunting/gathering. But if there aren't jobs, even if someone wants to work, what do they do? Or the jobs they can get don't pay enough to eat. The number of people, wal-mart employees that have full time jobs, and also on food stamps is pretty incredible.
So if we want to not have UBI, but also want people working. Then, need to either raise minim wage, or provide big government work projects or something.
So, I'm agreeing, but also saying in modern world, we cant hunt/gather, and since we don't want to have roving gangs fighting for food, or calling for revolution, we do need something to give that meaning. Some task.
But, his experiment wasn't natural was it?
He provided infinite food at no cost. That doesn't really happen in the wild.
This is the interesting finding I'd think, by putting the subject in un-natural settings, to see what can happen at extremes.