Mass is generally interpreted in the sense of being a large number. A mass muderer in that sense kills a large number of people. However, in another sense mass refers to the social mass where regulation of behaviour is induced through attraction or repulsion to the mass. A mass murderer therefore becomes unstable in the attractive and repulsive forces of the mass.

This can be very complex because the social physical effect of these very real but diffuse forces are manifest nervously and psychically. The self regulating mass forms by the social process of inclusion and exclusion. As a general rule social inclusion is rewarding, and exclusion is punishing. Society massifies as people accept these rewards and generally avoid these punishments.

However, social physics is only capable of general rules, as the "social" is a generalization from the aggregate of many parts. An excluded person or part from the mass *becomes* a punishment, or in other words an example is made of that person. A mass shooter therefore reifies the mass by violently rejecting it, its parts, its norms, its values. The logic here is massification occurs by the increasing inertia of inclusion by the coefficient of the repusion of examples of its exclusion. The mass shooter in violently rejecting these forces increases the coefficient, increasing the mass's attractive inertia, but reduces the number of parts by the number of casualties.

Demassification, or mass breakdown, as a physical invention in the realm of materiality and not theory, would resolve to halt mass killings by counteracting the coefficient of repulsion accelerated by mass murderers, and also generally reducing social massification by reducing social group reification based on a reduced impetus for acculturation in general which is closely tied with the industrial demands of political economy and reflected in the mass media and schools.

As the mass is not just parts, but also norms and values that order and organize those parts, mass inclusion has to be disincentivized. Therefore, the institution of popular culture must be depopulated. Obviously political economy relies on the institution of popular culture for mass marketing, so this institution is inherently a social organization of low entropy due to constant energy invested in its mintenance. Breaking down popular culture will be difficult because any efforts will antithetically be unpopular, but overcoming this challenge will start the process of dereification. That is, not creating solidarity out of aversion to unpopularity of norm violation and rule breaking.
-- rcarty, Sep 26 2013

Experiments https://en.wikipedi...iki/Behavioral_sink
Humans are the only animals that voluntarily squeeze too many of themselves into limited space. [Vernon, Sep 26 2013]

Wasn't there an episode of the X-Files about this ... ?
-- 8th of 7, Sep 26 2013


so the idea is to prohibit gatherings of greater-than-n for non-sanctioned purposes ? yeah, that always goes over good.
-- FlyingToaster, Sep 26 2013


The episode about demassification to stop the wave of mass killings? Moulder and Scully were in a race against time to depopulate popular culture, but Moulder was vaguely paranoid that his own actions were being recorded for a popular TV show by an alien race, and broadcasting it in time in another dimension that had ramifications on their present dimension. So the only way to stop it was to cancel the X-files, but in order to do that Moulder had to be abducted by the aliens first, to take on the real life agency of David Duchovney (sic) and ask for too much money, and then he horribly dies somehow and is written out of the show, but then Skynet sends in an aged T2000 to try and recover the shows ratings, but viewers couldn't get off on the idea of him and Gillian Anderson doing it, so the show ended, only mildly disrupting popular culture? I'd say mission successful anyway, that was a prety good episode.
-- rcarty, Sep 26 2013


No, not limit group size, but to stop mass behaviourism.
-- rcarty, Sep 26 2013


He has a point. Non social species rarely engage in mass killings of their own species, and while conflicts may be brutal they are usually one-on-one affairs. So here's the plan guys: Go feral. Choose a nice spot, maybe a hill top, or forest ravine. Pee on everything. If anyone comes into your pee zone scream at them, throw rocks, fight if needed. When you get the urge to mate add a bit of perfume or something, maybe some mense. Make sure they don't stick around. Also don't let your kids stick around, after they are weened, kick them off of your territory.

Problem solved.
-- WcW, Sep 26 2013


// Go feral. Choose a nice spot, maybe a hill top, or forest ravine. Pee on everything. If anyone comes into your pee zone scream at them, throw rocks, fight if needed. When you get the urge to mate add a bit of perfume or something, maybe some mense. Make sure they don't stick around. Also don't let your kids stick around, after they are weened, kick them off of your territory. //

Fine, except [UnaBubba] has Prior Art on that ...
-- 8th of 7, Sep 26 2013


Mass euthanasia of a significant proportion of the world population is the necessary first step in implementing any plan like this.
-- pocmloc, Sep 27 2013


mass euthanasia is normally an unacceptable practice, however releasing disextincted dinosaurs into high population centres would provide a reasonable tradeoff.
-- FlyingToaster, Sep 27 2013


… and an excellent movie.
-- 8th of 7, Sep 27 2013


No it's not euthanasia, it's about mass behaviourism, or if you like bee-hive-you're-in-ism. Dancing together or stinging intruders, looking at things with buggy compound eyes of multiple subjectivities, no just one's own but what he thinks and what she thinks etc.
-- rcarty, Sep 27 2013



random, halfbakery