Hey, i've read the intro and the first part: a remark to the authors: Calhoun experiment haven't been published, this is vrey much popsci, and it is hard to look at the "results" and make conclusions or inference about human behavior. A much better study was by hammock[0], with control group and no anthropomosrphism from the author.
I have some contempt for papers using Calhoun. It's fine for movies, but not for serious business. If "The limit to growth" used him for his models, nobody would have taken them seriously. If you want more impact an credibility, you might want to reword everything and use newer studies of overpopulation "in mice" (or not a all, and present this like a partisan point of view, imho it is better than justifying by bad science)
That's an entirely valid point. We'll seriously consider taking it out. It provides an interesting case study and allows for some interesting conjecture, but it certainly isn't core to the arguments we hope to make and its lack of credibility probably does more harm than good to our overall arguments.
I have some contempt for papers using Calhoun. It's fine for movies, but not for serious business. If "The limit to growth" used him for his models, nobody would have taken them seriously. If you want more impact an credibility, you might want to reword everything and use newer studies of overpopulation "in mice" (or not a all, and present this like a partisan point of view, imho it is better than justifying by bad science)
[0] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Behavioral-changes-due...