Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by andrei_says_ 3144 days ago
I recently re-read the story about the rat park experiment.

http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/rat-park/

The gist of it is that yes, rats do get addicted to morphine and prefer it to food, but only if kept in cages.

The rats living in a much less confined space with other rats, allowed to play, nest, have sex and do pretty much all the rat fun things not only did not get addicted to morphine but even waned themselves off of it.

Speaks a lot to the causes which this epidemic is a symptom of and makes me think that addressing it will not be an easy or quick process.

3 comments

It's not really a well designed study and it's one that hasn't replicated well.

But people still love bringing it up, especially here on HN where people seem to think they know better than the experts on everything to do with medicine.

Some sources on this? I’d love to read more.
Makes the guy who brought up sources look stupid
Not at all. Seeing what the OP has seen allows a better evaluation. I wish more online groups put more weight on sources.
Says sources discredit his point then provides sources that do neither.
I agree that rat park isn't great.

But there are very different patterns of prescribing of opioids across the US and eg UK.

Why is this?

Something I often think about is whether having a job - the agency to by one's own hand change one's prospects in life, to "provide for one's family" - is our equivalent of this "less confined space." In a post-automation post-scarcity world, despite boundless entertainment and resources (things that would make rats perfectly happy)... would ennui still drive people towards self-destructive behavior? And in fact, would the optimization of that entertainment (see: usedopamine.com ) actually prime people's brains towards addiction, towards whatever form the next opioid epidemic might take? We understand so little about our own minds and how they might respond to the world we are ushering in.
Post scarcity? Where, when, and for who? Our current economic models don't work for that unfortunately.

Edit: I should add there are a couple post scarcity instances in recent history. Establishment of America, and post WW2. These also coincided with the least income inequality. But those periods don't last.

In what ways were the Establishment of America, and post WW2 post scarcity?

US inflation adjusted per capita GDP is higher today than at either of those times. While I do not think GDP is a great metric, I cannot think of any metric where we, as a society, have less "stuff" to go around then before.

It’s not the amount of stuff, it’s the inequality.
Interesting hypothesis. How does it explain the doctor in the article, or the lawyers, entertainers, and other wealthy people who wind up addicted?
It probably doesn’t and the uptick in the deaths of comparatively advantaged groups doesn’t fit the model well. Addiction and distress have well documented links with things like unemployment rates correlating well with ODs and deaths. However despite wealthy people featuring in the article the vast majority of the deaths, ODs and incarcerations aren’t in the group you describe.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/artic...

Right, but "post-scarcity" is about stuff, no?
If you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the need for meaning / meaningful contribution is extremely important.

I’d say that jobs in the context of survival are useful, but we as human beings also need a sense of accomplishment, of being useful to others beyond the value associated with mere profit.