Leftists continually proclaim that conservatives don’t respect science. This is especially true when it comes to so-called “climate change science”. Many of us believe such “science” to be bogus, created by leftists for political and financial gain and/or to destroy the fabric of America’s way of life.
It is interesting that when real science is put before leftists, they turn up their nose or just plain ignore it. This is evidenced in many areas, not the least of which is science related to socialism and social engineering.
Example One: John S. Roberts (Young Conservatives, 4/19/15) forwarded an article from The Federalist Papers. The article concerned an economics professor at Texas Tech who failed his entire class. That class “insisted that socialism would work since no one would be poor and no one would be rich – a great equalizer.”
In response, the professor decided to carry out an experiment. He told the students that he would average all grades for each exam. Everyone would receive the same grade. No one would receive an “A” and no one would fail.
After the first test, all the students received the average grade of “B”. Those who studied hard were upset and those who didn’t were pleased.
When it was time for the second exam, those who hadn’t studied much for the first exam studied even less. Those who had studied harder for the first test studied less for the second, realizing they wouldn’t get an “A” anyway. The results were as would be expected. All students received the average grade of “D”.
Of course, no one was happy. But when the third exam came around all students received the average grade of “F”. The students blamed one another and “bickered”. No one would “study for anyone else”. They all failed the class.
The professor was astute. He told the class that socialism would follow the same course, as had the class, all because of the basic human principle of incentive. “The harder people try to succeed the greater their reward, but when a government takes all the reward away (as does socialism) no one will try or succeed.” The result of socialism is lack of initiative and ultimate failure. (If incentive offers purpose it might be added that the destructive impact of taking away purpose is the ultimate learning here.)
This experiment was carried out real time and the result is indisputable. The left ignores it.
Example Two: For those who are not fond of real life, descriptive study, a much more rigorous project was carried out in the late 1950’s by American ethologist John Calhoun. He created a series of experiments to test the effects of overpopulation on the behavior of social animals, in this case mice and rats. He chose rodents as these reproduce rapidly thus allowing him to observe the development of several generations of mice in a relatively short space of time. The mice were placed in a confined space. In each version of the experiment, separate rooms were provided within the space. Food and water were plentiful and readily available for the taking. This work is sometimes called the “mice utopia” studies.
Calhoun and his researchers “found that in a space-limited/resource unlimited environment, the population of mice would explode; peak-out and then collapse to extinction”. In other words, if we put too many mice together in one confined but stress-free space, give them everything they need equally, and require no work on their part, the society will collapse.
In the case of the mice in their so-called utopia, a set of stages occurred each time the experiment was carried out. In the first or “strive” stage the mice explored and gained familiarity with their environment, establishing subgroups in the separate rooms. In the “exploit” period, the population exploded. Some subgroups became overpopulated. In the third, or “equilibrium” stage, the population peaked and the mice civilization collapsed. Because space was socially defined, new generations were inhibited. The mice showed different types of social dysfunctions. Some became violent. Males fought each other for acceptance and those that where defeated withdrew. Some males became repeated targets of attacks. If they did become impregnated, many female mice didn’t carry to full term. If they did they often didn’t parent. Many males demonstrated sexual deviation, cannibalism, frenetic over-activity, and/or pathological withdrawal, emerging to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep.
It was at this point that the researchers often observed the development of the “behavioral sink”. Individual mice would rarely eat except in the company of other mice, leading to the development of extreme population densities in the room adopted for eating. According to Calhoun, “Infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population. Newer generations became withdrawn, spending their days grooming obsessively and dedicating their time solely to eating, drinking and sleeping. This generation, for all the emphasis they placed on grooming, would not reproduce. Moreover, these mice were noted to be unintelligent compared to previous generations.”
The fourth phase was the “decline”. In this phase the population plummeted. In at least one version, the last mouse died 600 days after the experiment began.
While the studies were designed to look at the impact of limited space on populations, much more was gained. Obviously, cramming individuals together brings ultimate chaos and destruction. Doing so with no incentive to provide for their own needs leads to aggression, violence, focusing on appearance, lack of parenting, and ending procreation. The result of having no purpose is complete annihilation of the “civilization”.
While this study was carried out with rodents, examples within our own species abound. Easter Island (historically) and Japan, South Korea, and much of Europe (currently) provide clear examples. On a smaller scale, subcultures such as those in South Chicago, North Minneapolis, and East Los Angeles offer further examples.
Once again, the science is clear. Putting too many people together in high-density neighborhoods for better “social control” is not a good thing. Eliminating purpose by removing incentives for interdependent self-sufficiency makes it worse. Those seeking social control (e.g., regional planning commissions, leftist politicians, and moronic bureaucrats) promote both. Both are critical to the establishment of socialism, and socialism cannot succeed.
Leftists such as Tom Steyer, Democracy Alliance members, and other one-world fanatics don’t want to acknowledge their craving for easily controllable, high density “utopias” populated by unthinking, government-dependent automatons. They therefore ignore the science.
Science and real life experience around the world teaches us the real consequences of socialism. We have seen the true face of “utopia”. It is not pretty.