/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15384472]

What can be done to reverse the population decline in the Mouse Utopia experiment? And at what stage can it still be done?

[Anonymous No.15384481]

driven by fear signals in the urine that caused a stress overload according to one theory

[Anonymous No.15384487]

>>15384472
Don't have severe multigenerational inbreeding. https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia

[Anonymous No.15384512]

>>15384472
fragment into smaller communities

[Cult of Passion No.15384516]

>>15384472
Accelerate until completed.

[Anonymous No.15384532]

>>15384472
Censor "The cage is too small for us all" propaganda, even mouse can reduce it's population, so one has more, but niggers can't.

[Anonymous No.15384669]

>>15384487
inbreeding can increase fertility

[Anonymous No.15384679]

>>15384481
>driven by fear signals in the urine
oh good that means humans are fine then..

>driven by worldwide pandemic fear propaganda
>driven by fear of global warming
>driven by fear of war between russia/china and nato
>driven by fear of [social issue pushed to extremes by political forces seeking a wedge]
uhoh...

[Anonymous No.15384681]

>>15384472
Immigration

[Anonymous No.15384682]

>>15384472
Nothing can be done.
Nature's last laugh bitch.
Death to Civilisation.

[Anonymous No.15385529]

>>15384472
there is no evidence that those experiments ever took place. calhoun was the only witness

[Anonymous No.15385919]

>>15384487
Isn't that some midwit from LessWrong? He's not a scientist.

[Anonymous No.15385988]

>>15385919
it's a 200lb of fat bearded red head rationalist who jerks off to MLP cartoons a lot, best to ignore him

[Strange Love No.15387514]

>>15384472

Harsh selective sweep. Effectively allowing it to come almost to its conclusion.

>>15384487

>Don't have severe multigenerational inbreeding.

Irrelevant. Wasn't inbreeding but loss of genome pool-wide resilience due to lack of selective pressures until colony saturation started to create heavy societal stress which the non-resilient gene pool wasn't able to deal with.

[Anonymous No.15387542]

>>15385919
>>15387514
lmao the cope you know a normal person realizing they've been lied to would just admit they didn't know the facts instead of delude themselves into excuses to keep believing the lie. What's the matter? Upset you can't use a con man's false "experiment" that never replicates to peddle your malthusian BS?

[Anonymous No.15387563]

>>15384472

And Why would you want to???

>>15384516

This

the world does not need or want 8 billion plus people.

population collapse is a good thing. ideally it settles at world population around 1 billion.

[Strange Love No.15387574]

>>15387542

>malthusian

Höhöhö ... well there you are quite mistaken. A culling must be qualitative, not quantitative. ;)

[Anonymous No.15387723]

>>15387574
From my perspective, and given what I wrote, it amounts to the same thing. Regardless of how you personally feel it amounts to the fact "con man made shit up" and it doesn't, or would not to any reasonable person, evidence your claims. Not least of which being mice in the first place but you lot don't seem to care about that either. Any port in the storm for you, right?

[Anonymous No.15388740]

>>15387514
Have you ever looked at mouse plagues? they go through boom and busts despite food remaining. odd stuff

[Anonymous No.15388746]

>>15387563
>the world does not need or want 8 billion plus people.

[Anonymous No.15388866]

>>15384472
Reminder that no one has ever managed to replicate the results of John Calhoun's mouse utopia experiments, and they were crowded hell holes with no escape in which the mice had no way to know resources were effectively infinite.

[Strange Love No.15389979]

>>15387723

>From my perspective, and given what I wrote, it amounts to the same thing.

But it does not. The Malthusian retards do blame "density" and think salvation lies in thinning the herd. Delusional. Density simply pushes what is already irrevocably degenerated over the edge ... any other type of stressful pressure would do the same. The mouse utopia simply gets misinterpreted a lot, the actual damage already happens during the exponential growth phase. Yet admitting to this would point out a few ... "uncomfortable" truths. Things the delusional retards running the show today couldn't admit to, as by definition they'd be as well part of the diseased branches which need to be pruned. All must do their part and serve the cycle ... for some this will simply be in the role of fertilizer.

>>15388740

Disease would be a "alternative" stressor here (although it ofc depends on a certain density threshold). Again the exponential growth phase, the shift of energy investment from resilience to reproduction, it does weaken the whole colony to the stress that is to come.

[pithy namefaggery No.15389991]

>>15389979
I mentioned mouse plagues because they're part of a strange phenomena also found in insects studies and historical human settlements.

you get exponential growth, followed by a crash, followed by sometimes a recovery then extinction unless some external factor modifies something
Linton Herbert was the name of the guy I heard it from. not sure about all his conclusions but i thought his ideas had something to them

[Strange Love No.15390095]

>>15389991

Cyclicality, feedback, oscillation, yesss. Perhaps THE deepest mechanism of nature, straight from intracellular signalling to whole biosphere dynamics. This is very important to understand but initially hard to "grasp" in its entirety and universality. It is ofc not entirely "cyclical" as in perfect repetition, there's always a cut, a point of apparent discontinuity. A moment of catastrophy, a selective sweep, a Ragnarök event. The "reason" is actually simple, we're after all not dealing with a static system here, very much the opposite! Complex structures which stabilize and replicate themselves at the "expense" of the environment, running along the axis of entropic gradients ... this is semi-stability, if it would "calcify" into a fully stable form it would be dead, lifeless. Instead, it "rotates" or rather oscillates (if thought linearized in the time gradient) around this axis of its own (in)stability.

[Strange Love No.15390151]

>>15390095

.. so overall, the oscillation in case of our mice here (ignoring for simplicity's sake how it interacts with the environment and vice versa) does slowly but steadily (ok, often exponentially) shift the colony into a "new" set of conditions which previously did not apply ... for example higher population density (favoring transmission of disease), increased stress (inhibiting resistance mechanisms), loss of resilience (in favor of "outgrowing" the competition by more fertility). The current trajectory of the oscillating line becomes unstable then, and usually some otherwise even "minor" outside disturbance (the discontinuity event) will then trigger or even catalyze the trajectory reversal of our oscillating line. The new set of conditions comes into full effect, selective factors flip from the previous set to the new one. Thing is, we can assume that most species on a total gene pool level are actually adapted to just such an oscillation ... could even call it their own "personal" Schwingung (again without looking at environment interactions). Now the colony collapse might appear catastrophic for those caught up in it but for the species it is simply business as usual, it is almost even THE adaptive mode ensuring its survival if seen over longer time intervals ... or several peaks of the oscillation.

[Anonymous No.15390161]

>>15390095
Yeah I don't know anything about that, Linton said he built a model based on his findings he found that if his breeding populations were too big then they collapsed into extinction. he carried out insect tests as well, even found a way to modify this behaviour through epigenetic markers

[Strange Love No.15390203]

>>15390161

>even found a way to modify this behaviour through epigenetic markers

Interesting, might wanna look the exact experimental setting up here. Could be that these epigenetic markers here were actually in "inbuilt" mechanism acting as a population level adaptive switch, kinda to "anticipate" the point where the density collapse occurs (important here, in interaction with the species' environmental niche ... the density function might be different or not even apply in a lab setting instead) ... assuming here ofc this modification did prevent collapse, without knowing the experiment this could have been "shifted forward" instead. That's how I'd understand it, the gene pool of the species "knows" it would enter into a collapse scenario so once a density close to this threshold is reached the increasing "stress" does activate what we could think of as a genomic failsafe to prepare the individuals for what is to come.

[Anonymous No.15390218]

>>15390203
he seemed to think it was because the group became too unrelated on average which reduced fertility some how, i can try and find it, he was a bit of an oddball but I felt some of his arguments were valid enough to investigate

[Anonymous No.15390232]

maybe there is an illusion of control

[Strange Love No.15390243]

>>15390218

>the group became too unrelated on average which reduced fertility some how

Hmm, might fit. The "unrelated" part might imply a possible mechanism to escape the oscillation ... divergence, speciation, ofc that would require expansion into a new "niche". Fertility effects would ofc too make sense here if seen from the "investment" side with exponential growth and niche saturation. Feel free to dump a link here, would like to read that later if you can find it again ... :)

[Anonymous No.15391229]

>>15388866
>and they were crowded hell holes with no escape in which the mice had no way to know resources were effectively infinite.
this perfectly explains why cities are dysgenic and produce such insane ideas as "global heating" and "transsexualism."

[Anonymous No.15391466]

>>15390218
I tried finding his site and since I last found it internet search engines seem to have become unusable? What the hell happened to google?

http://nobabies.net/index.html
I'll warn you the site is a bit homespun and he goes off on weird tangents but the insect stuff was pretty interesting

[Anonymous No.15391513]

>>15387542
>denies that behavior of mouse utopia is clearly and obviously analogous to state of many things in modern society
>uses buzzwords without understanding their meaning
>undeserved smugness

relax bud

[Anonymous No.15391556]

>>15391466
oh and he tried making youtube vids, some are interesting
https://youtu.be/sYFRe2SqKk4

[Anonymous No.15391560]

>>15384472
Hard times create strong mice
Strong mice create good times
Good times create weak mice
Weak mice create hard times

[Anonymous No.15391771]

>>15390218
>he seemed to think it was because the group became too unrelated on average which reduced fertility some how
You know, you could learn something about actual science and actual biology relating to the real study of genetics, and therefore the actual thing you're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Drift_and_fixation
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_population_size
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutational_meltdown
For drift and speciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Modes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_zone
And introgression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans

Fairly asked, what does this have to do with fertility?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatric_speciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation
And so models of effective population size constraints on speciation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3233714/
Therefore depends on,
1. Effective founder population size (ancestral genetic diversity preserved in current population)
2. Time from reproductive isolation
3. Rates of interpopulation genetic divergence (any cause)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_divergence

So the answer is low mutation rate, fairly preserved "goldilocks (for stasis)" effective population size, miniscule population isolation time, etc, amount to evolutionary stasis.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015665118
So no, we do not have fertility problems, neither from high mutagenic load nor genetic difference.

[Anonymous No.15391781]

>>15391771
>So no, we do not have fertility problems, neither from high mutagenic load nor genetic difference.
I don't recall mentioning either?

[Anonymous No.15391788]

>>15384472
that utopia is not paradise, but hell
freedom matters

[Anonymous No.15391805]

>>15391781
>I don't recall mentioning either?
Did you forget the context of the thread? If it is with respect to genetic drift and mutagenic load on divergence resulting in fertility incompatibility, this definitely does not apply to humans. Similarly, if it is a matter of inbreeding (which it plainly is) with respect to Calhoun's work humans do not qualify there either.

Neither calhoun's work applies in either sense to humans nor does the apparent work, given by the titles I see from the schizo linked here >>15391466 apply to the reality of biology and what we currently know about human populations.

My question is why in the fuck do you people pursue nutcases instead of the actual science to find relevant answers?

[Anonymous No.15391818]

>>15391771
>So no, we do not have fertility problems, neither from high mutagenic load nor genetic difference.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Anonymous No.15391824]

>>15391805
I think you've assumed I was talking specifically about something when I wasn't. I'm wary of what you call "nutcases" but often they have an idea or two worth investigating further

If you're so well read on the topic you ought to at least be familiar with Sibly's paper or others' comparing fertility against group size or relatedness right?

[Anonymous No.15391852]

>>15389979
>But it does not. The Malthusian retards do blame "density" and think salvation lies in thinning the herd. Delusional. Density simply pushes what is already irrevocably degenerated over the edge ... any other type of stressful pressure would do the same.
Naturally, what I covered here >>15391771 refutes any inferences you may think you can draw and with respect to the discussion that followed. So far as pertains to any claims of fertility with respect to anything to do with human genetic variation or mechanisms thereof, as speculated about per >>15390203 For other cases, relevant research on a non-genomic basis would involve ecology and carrying capacity of population dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
With respect to speculating as to "causes" ultimately reflecting a "qualitative carrying capacity" rather than mere caloric estimates as with other species.

It naturally follows that if humans are no longer tied qualitatively to fecundity, as you see in transitions from high infant mortality hunter-gatherer societies and primitive agriculture to industrial societies. As qualitative aspects of life cease depending upon fecundity, and options like birth control exist to allow planning how many children are born, it stands to reason people aren't blind to the obvious detriment of exceeding the "qualitative carrying capacity" of their economic situation. Mere passive reality suffices to reinforce this fact.
>>15391824
>I think you've assumed I was talking specifically about something when I wasn't
I think you think they're not connected when they are. Be fair, I have a very small text limit to work with.
>If you're so well read on the topic you ought to at least be familiar with Sibly's paper or others' comparing fertility against group size or relatedness right?
Especially with respect to relatedness and kin selection. I am familiar, and we're not in the 1980s anymore. Want me to discuss research on group dynamics and group selection?

[Anonymous No.15391858]

>>15391852
If you can answer why there's a positive relationship between relatedness and fertility then go ahead?

[Anonymous No.15391882]

>>15391852
>With respect to speculating as to "causes" ultimately reflecting a "qualitative carrying capacity" rather than mere caloric estimates as with other species.
With respect to Sibly's 2005 paper his compiled results suggested that a species population size could naturally exceed the carrying capacity of the local environment. I wondered if this might partly be a factor in island dwarfism?

[Anonymous No.15391934]

>>15391858
>If you can answer why there's a positive relationship between relatedness and fertility then go ahead?
Depends on degree of relatedness and in what sense. The first and most obvious answer is "because of geographic proximity", and that is so obvious I'm not sure if you meant the question in another sense. If you want a different answer for a different aspect of that question you need to get a whole lot more specific.
>>15391882
>With respect to Sibly's 2005 paper his compiled results suggested that a species population size could naturally exceed the carrying capacity of the local environment. I wondered if this might partly be a factor in island dwarfism?
I assume you mean "On the regulation of populations of mammals, birds, fish and insects."? For the concave relationship I am pretty sure, if memory serves, that just comports with standard carrying capacity. As for spending much of their time above it, that depends entirely on the resource "bank" relative to consumption. Carrying capacity with respect to food supply, depending on what food supply we're talking about, certainly can exceed replacement level and keep exceeding it for a very long time. In the worst end-case scenario that can result in catastrophic and sudden extinction, or severe population declines as formerly seen in the U.S. with deer populations.

In both cases the answers to your question seem to be very obvious, so I am not sure if you intended something more specific. If so, you'll need to explain what you mean more precisely. "carrying capacity" as in resource replenishment rate equivalence is different from "effective resource exhaustion"
>I wondered if this might partly be a factor in island dwarfism?
Certainly could. Though there are numerous factors that would play in to size some of which mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism#Possible_causes

[Anonymous No.15391940]

>>15391934
It's old work but what about Price, & Waser papers on Delphinium nelsonii, They examined seed set rates.

[Anonymous No.15391992]

>>15391940
I don't get the relevance? As a matter of botany I wouldn't be familiar. Especially old work.

[Anonymous No.15392009]

>>15391992
Not that important, It's just a couple of studies that compare the seed set rate between meadow flowers pollinated with pollen taken from plants growing at various distances. they found it initially increased then decreased as the pollen was sourced from further away. they dissected some and found pollen tube differences.

[Anonymous No.15392081]

>>15392009
As a general thing tolerance for mutation, or error threshold, and mutation rates or related, considerably differs between Kingdom, domain, and so on. Depending on what you're doing you will find far higher variation of significance among more basal organisms with far shorter adaptation times. Among the fastest is therefore, of course, viruses. Leading to humorously titled articles such as this one,
"Why are RNA virus mutation rates so damn high?"
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000003
Also, population mutation rate as a general rule is many times higher than species or fixation rates of those mutations. I.e. pedigree rate vs. phylogeny rate, most mutations are not preserved in populations over evolutionary timescales.

In any event within "higher eukaryotes", so below domain level and into kingdoms (flora vs fauna). There are also considerably different mutation rates with respect to genome size and how that's used between flora/fauna or further at the phylum level and below. For certain viruses the incredibly high mutation rate and low genome size makes it highly adaptive, and the same is true for various flora or fauna "within domain" or within kingdom. As in, advantage of genome size vs. mutation rate relative to others in the same class or category is a matter of selection pressure and fitness advantage.

Point is that it's relative, and so there can't be some "hard generalized rule" in spite of the general trend between domains with respect to genome size and mutation rate. Within domain there's quite a lot of variation, and hence error threshold is a matter of population size/effective size in particular within a species.

[Anonymous No.15392093]

>>15392081
>>15392009
Sorry I might've flown too high there and did not communicate well. The reason that's relevant is that what may impact or be significant for advantage in some given flora or some given fauna does not on its face have general implication nor applicability. Which is why some particular work on some given plant, or some given species in some given condition, does not imply relevance to some other species or humans in general. Same goes for degree of mutation or genetic variation given humans have comparatively very low phylogenic mutation rates as well as low effective population ancestry.

It all kind of converges together, evidence wise, and that might be really hard to appreciate if you don't have a very wide reading of the subject matter. That also makes it very hard to communicate properly except in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.15392587]

>>15392093
>Sorry I might've flown too high there and did not communicate well
You deviated on an irrelevant tangent about viruses and mutations. I honestly I don't see how any of your points have properly addressed the apparent phenomena of a correlation between fertility and relatedness; or population size and physical displacement as a proxy for relatedness.
I know of only a limited number of studies that have looked at this phenomena so it's a little difficult to argue this in depth or fully back up every position. But the studies I am aware of are tentatively suggestive of a general even cross kingdom trend between fertility and genetic similarity. What the mechanism behind this process could be I am unsure. If this mechanism exists it is obviously somewhat separate from other factors such as pollution or stress.

Since we were talking about the Calhoun mouse study I brought up mouse plagues and insects because they seem in a few observed cases to experience a rapid population upswing followed a decline sometimes to extinction that isn't explained by exhaustion of the food supply as would would usually have expected, and although disease propagation could be a factor I find it less appealing as one compared to population genetics one that might involve some sort of epigenetic regulator.

[Strange Love No.15392656]

>>15391852

>carrying capacity

Irrelevant here. As I said, saturation (which is not nearly achieved yet) would merely provide the stressor to "reveal" the now intrinsic instability of the population. Can easily replace that with any other destabilizing event. Again, Calhoun is misunderstood if the saturation is seen as the CAUSE of the collapse ... all it did was trigger the inevitable.

>"qualitative carrying capacity"

Perhaps a bad designation for what I mean here. Better call it "qualitative load bearing capacity". This primarily acts on the group level, not the individual ... refer to how buildings tend to collapse, the ground floor supports might be fine but if the ones at the top are weak and give in the whole thing comes down as the shifting weight load of the upper failing floors does very well suffice to go over the capacity of the (still intact) ones in the lower.

>It naturally follows that if humans are no longer tied qualitatively to fecundity

Oh but we were until "recently". Plenty enough to leave a strong imprint on the gene pool to this day.

>as you see in transitions from high infant mortality hunter-gatherer societies and primitive agriculture to industrial societies

And what does that change again? Was there even remotely enough time to adapt on a genomic level? Your gene pool is still that of an equilibrium between HG and farmer genetics (btw two different distinct sub clades, this is important to consider here), the fecundity effects under which farmer adaption occured is now most of your population baseline (I do hope you're familiar with the term "Verhausschweinung") ... now along comes industrialization, the stressor in our little utopia here ...

>it stands to reason people aren't blind

Oh ya think ... :D

[Anonymous No.15392664]

>>15384472
Why would you?

[Anonymous No.15392665]

>>15392656
Have you read this?
>Low fertility increases descendant socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial society
>2012 Goodman, Koupil, Lawson
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2012.1415

[Strange Love No.15392677]

>>15392665

Not yet but will now, thx! Judging from the abstract for now this is very much one of likely several mechanisms which decrease overall population resilience and promote instability. A colony level stressor (or rather the outward effect of a deeper underlying stressor within the socioeconomic substructure).

[Anonymous No.15392678]

>>15392587
>I honestly I don't see how any of your points have properly addressed the apparent phenomena of a correlation between fertility and relatedness
>>15391934
>>Depends on degree of relatedness and in what sense. The first and most obvious answer is "because of geographic proximity", and that is so obvious I'm not sure if you meant the question in another sense. If you want a different answer for a different aspect of that question you need to get a whole lot more specific.
>>15392587
>What the mechanism behind this process could be I am unsure.
I don't know maybe something to do with the major confound being geographical proximity and morphological variation inhibiting mate choice even among those genetically compatible. STILL to do with geographical proximity. But hey what do I know "nothing" I said somehow applies to your genius idea with no cited literature. Try reading what people write.
>and although disease propagation could be a factor I find it less appealing as one compared to population genetics one that might involve some sort of epigenetic regulator.
You prefer assuming things not in evidence? Really? Couldn't tell.

[Anonymous No.15392694]

>>15392656
>Irrelevant here.
Almost like I pointed that out and explained that whole distinction between qualitative versus mere basal survival need.
>Better call it "qualitative load bearing capacity".
This is nonsense.
>Oh but we were until "recently". Plenty enough to leave a strong imprint on the gene pool to this day.
This is also nonsense.
>the fecundity effects under which farmer adaption occured
This is even more nonsense.
>Oh ya think ... :D
I do. You don't appear to. Next time try doing more than shitting on the keyboard and maybe cite some relevant literature for your hot takes beyond a bunch of value judgments and mistakes about genetics to 'support' asinine notions about fecundity.

[Anonymous No.15392697]

>>15392678
>the major confound being geographical proximity and morphological variation inhibiting mate choice even among those genetically compatible. STILL to do with geographical proximity.
Helgason's 2008 study on 200 years of icelandic marriage and birth records found that geographical proximity was only a proxy for relatedness, they found relatedness the strongest correlate and quite consistent over the generations studied.

I don't dismiss the effect of disease in some cases it clearly plays a role but I find the evidence seems to be there to support a possible mechanism involving group genetic similarity.

[Anonymous No.15392724]

>>15392697
>Helgason's 2008 study on 200 years of icelandic marriage and birth records found that geographical proximity was only a proxy for relatedness, they found relatedness the strongest correlate and quite consistent over the generations studied.
Did you not notice wild variations every 25 years and flips between miniscule high-error fractions of children in figure C? This is the definition of a spurious correlation.
>I find the evidence seems to be there to support a possible mechanism involving group genetic similarity.
In spite of the fact what I presume to be your primary evidence has an effect size hovering around 0 with margins of error larger than the total range of variation at 95% CI. And only being a correlation.

[Anonymous No.15392732]

>>15392724
>figure c
Did you miss the purpose of that graph?

[Anonymous No.15392746]

>>15392732
>Did you miss the purpose of that graph?
Oh go ahead you tell me. I'm all ears. Meanwhile here's some general resources to help you figure out what the fuck you're talking about,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies#Assortative_mating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating#In_humans
Literature review https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0463
The main issue in population study is, as stated, population stratification primarily along geographical proximity lines. Also those along socioeconomic and, where relevant, ethnic ones.

Here's the thing though. Assortative mating works out phenotypically simply as a matter of compatibility especially in modern populations with wider geographic freedom. To any extent degree of kinship may matter in probability of assortative compatibility would, particularly these days, be over-ridden by further freedoms and self-selection.

The main difference you're trying to argue, however, seems to be a direct effect on fertility rate over and above what could otherwise be explained by degree of trait assortativity and other factors. You need a good deal more evidence for that than "correlation = causation cuz I want it to".

[Anonymous No.15392759]

>>15392746
So you actually didn't understand it? That's kind of sad.

[Anonymous No.15392762]

>>15385919
>>15385988
>appeal to authority
*brapt* uh oh stinky

[Anonymous No.15392772]

>>15392759
>So you actually didn't understand it? That's kind of sad.
I read the actual study and the supplemental material figure C is based on. Same for figure B. So what I suspect is happening is you're taking the claims presented in figure B at face value and dismissing the fact it's necessarily based on data shown in figure C, measure of error included. Hence my pointing out the huge measure of error and spurious nature demonstrated by figure C.

But fine, ignore all that because you're innumerate. Typical of people with weird ideas in any case. Changes nothing about what I already told you here.>>15392746 So go ahead and pout because your best evidence is shit. Too damn bad. Learn some basic statistics.

[Anonymous No.15392778]

>>15392664
Because he ain't a piece of shit trying to kill the experiment subjects for dumb reasons...

[Strange Love No.15392786]

>>15392694

>This is nonsense.

Oh ya think ... ;)
Btw I am rather inclined to tell you to read a fucking book on the basics of biology there, your insight seems to be, well, mediocre at best ... or at least your weasly little attempt to wiggle out of an actual reply to this is. Won't let that slide, newb.

[Anonymous No.15392792]

>>15392786
Still waiting on a single relevant citation relating to or evidencing any of your ideas however poorly expressed. You are literally being beat out by a guy currently going "correlation = causation cuz I want it to" pouting over how bad his evidence is. That's a really fucking low bar.

[Anonymous No.15392810]

>>15392772
What I mean is that they only compiled the data into geographical proximity in response to comments on the original paper that found a link between relatedness and fertility. they even state that the data best aligns geographical proximity to fertility during the period of social flux and urbanisation when relatedness and proximity were more aligned.

The part of their study that I think raises the most interesting questions is actually the decline from 3rd cousins to 8th cousins. Since it is the most statistically robust component.

[Anonymous No.15392851]

>>15392810
>The part of their study that I think raises the most interesting questions is actually the decline from 3rd cousins to 8th cousins. Since it is the most statistically robust component.
So what part of "correlation is not causation" do you not understand? That's a long known artifact in consanguinity research, one immediate example to mind is a 1999 paper or thereabouts and similar research on kinship and fertility in the middle-east. Want to know why the decline there? Likelihood of familiarity and therefore general assortativity as described before >>15392746. There's a reason I said it's going to be nigh impossible to disentangle confounds to find such a purportedly weak effect, let alone an inconsistent weak effect.
>What I mean is that they only compiled the data into geographical proximity in response to comments on the original paper that found a link between relatedness and fertility.
Which, by the way, follows the same pattern and has the same degree of error as kinship association in the actual paper and in the supplemental from the paper. It is just another way to illustrate the spurious nature and temporal variability of this notion.

Degree of kinship relatedness to fertility is not consistent through time in this data, and neither is marital radius, or anything else. I have no idea why you chose such a poor correlation to claim causation from when you could've fished for far better ones in the middle-east where consanguinity continues to this day.

[Strange Love No.15392957]

>>15392792

Still waiting for a single shred of own thought ... or still looking through a pile of literature for something that might just contradict what I said. Ridiculous. Can't even argue with "your" evidence there, huh. Cognitive equivalent of a limp dick I suppose. Know what, forget it ... better things to do. :)

[Anonymous No.15392969]

>>15392957
That's about what I expected. Yawn.

[Anonymous No.15392970]

>>15392851
assortative mating clearly plays a role I'm not sure why you think i have any doubt of that. The utility of iceland is the relative social stability and equality, the middle east has many more compounding variables
I'd prefer non human data but I'm not paid for this so my reading and finding relevant research has to on my free time. It's not ideal and likely need better groundwork and a stats refresher. But such is life.
I did get into some data on pig breeding but it mostly dealt with inbreeding depression calculations. I think there's a good data source of pedigree and performance data with fairly large sample sizes there but it not exactly a free choice system

[Anonymous No.15393163]

>>15392970
The main issue I would have is only if supposing the strength of the evidence is greater than what it is. Given how poor the evidence is, and the confounds, I would not describe it as evidenced at all. Keep in mind consanguity research is as old as some relative of Darwin, and I have seen quite a lot of it here or there over time. These days much of it concerns the middle east or religiously isolated populations like amish.

[Anonymous No.15393605]

>>15393163
You mean Galton or some other member of their extensive family?

There's definitely a pattern in population collapse cycles I'm not sure what the causes are or where I could find legit data unless I somehow did it myself with beetles/flies or something.
I think some sort of conguineity effect might be at play whether it's inbreeding depression or something harder to pin down. I doubt I'll ever find an answer but the topic fascinates me enough that I come back to it erattically.
Humans are tricky to study and animal behavioural models don't transfer well.

[Anonymous No.15393660]

>>15393605
If you could tell me what kind of data you're looking at giving you that idea, whether as relates to humans specifically or otherwise, I could probably give you the relevant particulars or citations pertaining from research. Or find it. From memory I have no idea what, beyond research on carrying capacity, you are referring do. Dynamic population models in most animals are fairly well studied, some as old as 100 years ago and possibly older.

Other than some philosophical malthusian nonsense cynicism just-so stories nobody ever has any actual relevant data. If you mean corresponding fecundity decline in developed nations, that is more the "qualitative" carrying capacity modern society facilitates and allows. Nor is that necessarily a bad thing. "Population collapse" has a very different sort of connotation.

[Anonymous No.15393682]

>>15393660
Anything mammals can do, humans can have a psychomatic equivalent, if it's not the full chemistry

[Anonymous No.15393703]

>>15393660
I don't remember the paper but it was some sort of bark bug.
they said the population exploded then collapsed, recovered part way then fully collapsed if I find it again I'll have a better idea.

[Anonymous No.15393762]

>>15393682
>Anything mammals can do, humans can have a psychomatic equivalent, if it's not the full chemistry
Not really helpful in estimating your thinking beyond "for some reason person thinks there is some analogy for some reason"
>>15393703
>they said the population exploded then collapsed, recovered part way then fully collapsed if I find it again I'll have a better idea.
It would be a lot more helpful if you could refer to something that gave you this idea in the first place. Surely, not simply unexplained population cycles in an insect. Surely.

[Anonymous No.15393787]

>>15393762
I got into the topic 4-5 years ago, they presented a multiple example across different species showing a similar pattern, the beetles were just the most data. of course that was a few years and hard drive failures ago so i've lost what i saved

[Anonymous No.15393814]

>>15393762
You have google

search any reaction by verbalizing the whole process

[Anonymous No.15393888]

>>15393787
Well as mentioned most of the research would be on population dynamics specifically population cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_cycle
Other things that are non-cyclic in the ordinary sense would be matters of extinctions, ecology loss, climactic changes, disease, the list goes on. Though there are cycles, just of a different order and category, such as glaciation cycles. Long term population isolation and outbreeding depression from hybridization may be somewhat related to ecological cycles due to climate and founder populations.

I can't think of anything that would generally evidence some idea of interspecies or even more broadly animalia wide "population cycles" not attributable to simple empirical facts such as those pertaining to carrying capacity. Primarily population control is achieved in nature via predator populations, beyond food related carrying capacity.

Nearest thing I can think of is rare cases where there is a density dependent relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_dependence which can be mediated by things like intraspecific competition. Note the examples are primarily parasites. The point I am trying to get across is this cute notion advanced by Malthusian types is just not sensible. There is no generalizable "population collapse epigenome" shared among animals strictly as some matter of density dependence or similar. Hell, US deer populations nearly collapsed entirely in the 20th century when we almost eliminated wolves due to their populations not being kept in check by predation. There's far more variation than similarity in mammals on this score, excepting where typically populations are managed via predation/food.

[Anonymous No.15393895]

>>15384472
But /sci/ told me experiments have to be replicated several times to be taken seriously. What happened to that?

[Anonymous No.15393900]

>>15393888
So you were in the woods chasing deers and happened to kill wolves...

[Anonymous No.15394738]

>>15384472
the experiments were flawed; his goal was to achieve the shitscape horror society outcomes - not to get objective results.

[Anonymous No.15396249]

>>15384472
Take all the animals out of the enclosure and house them separately.

[Anonymous No.15396264]

>>15396249
Locking them in individual cages isn't a valid experiment.

[Anonymous No.15396305]

>>15388866
It's psuedoscience and only tells that biological beings go insane when the whole group is deprived of their senses

[Anonymous No.15396403]

>>15396305
That's a lot

[Anonymous No.15396476]

>>15387723
lol stupid nigger

[bodhi No.15396480]

>>15388866
>mouse
>know
they don't know anything you retarded dip shit. Do you think mice do life planning? the food is there or it isn't. holy shit you are mental

[bodhi No.15396482]

>>15390095
high IQ post, this Aryan gets it

[Anonymous No.15396483]

>>15396403
"Mental illness" is conjured up lies to doublethink the "mentally ill" when they are suffering from living inside the sensory deprivation chamber that is modern. Forced to "socialize" until pure self destruction when people need to live and see nature.

[Anonymous No.15396506]

>>15396483
To many inferetions

[Anonymous No.15398434]

Saving this bread

[bodhi No.15398455]

>>15393895
/sci/ also needed a "peer reviewed" paper by some psued before they ever acknowledged anything to be true but that all flew out the window when big daddy gov told them to get the clot shot for the flu. It's almost like the hacks here just do what they are told with no real thoughts or principles of their own

[bodhi No.15398478]

>>15389991
https://ugetube.com/watch/how-civilizations-fall-by-design-wash-rinse-repeat_DTRzLJJolhRD1Fr.html

[Anonymous No.15400042]

>>15384472
Feed them edibles

[bodhi No.15401296]

>>15398455
btw to add to this, when /sci/ says "peer reviewed" what they really mean is "establishment approved." Nothing is true to a psued hack until it has been approved by the ministry of information because most of the people here arent smart enough to determine what is true or not based on the information itself

[Anonymous No.15401724]

>>15384472
Realistically? The whole experiment is doomed to result in disaster due to combination of incest and stress inducing environment. This place is hellhole for wandering, exploratory mammals like mice. Not to mention the fact that it's very likely that this place got over saturated via stress pheromones over time, since I doubt that this place was adequately cleaned. We can casually breed massive amounts of mice and rats and no sane breeder keeps his animals like that.

[Strange Love No.15402951]

>>15396482

Damn ignorant younglings, srsly ... ^^

[Anonymous No.15402997]

>>15384472
The mouse "utopia" is not analogous to any human societies.

[Anonymous No.15403015]

The thing is Humans are not like mice. The latter is a prey animal who usually has its numbers culled by predators, and it's not unreasonable to think that their social structure has evolved to depend on getting thinned by snakes/birds/whatever. It's likely impossible to reverse the mouse utopia without evolving the mice to slowly not get predated on.

Humans don't have natural predators and thus probably don't experience this, probably. It seems recent human fertility declines have been due to resource restrictions and not a utopia, what with peak oil, phosphorous shortages, etc. We've bred enough to exhaust resources and population declines will be due to that.

[Anonymous No.15403041]

>>15403015
Actually whites are animals who get regularly preyed on by Jews, so it does indeed seem whites will die out by the end of the century.

[Anonymous No.15403087]

>>15384512
this is the only answer