Could a situation like M Night Shyamalan's The Village work as a social experiment?

[Maximum7]

There is a M Night Shyamalan movie called The Village where there is a village in “19th century” Pennsylvania. It is a remote village and the Elders forbid the residents from going into the woods or leaving the village because there are humanoid creatures that live there that will attack the village if the villagers enter their domain. If the villagers heed the rules, the monsters leave them alone. In reality, the elders dress as the creatures and the isolated village actually exists in the 21st century. A history professor founded this village 2 decades prior with the original intention of it being a grief counseling clinic and people originally started living there to isolate themselves from societal violence. However, their children and grandchildren (besides the elders) do not know this and dress and live as people in the 19th century did. Beyond the woods, the residents know of “the towns” that exist but aside from that, it is basically a historical “wildlife preserve” of sorts and the founder even paid the government to make it a no-fly zone (seeing planes or other flying objects would definitely expose the farce to the residents).

Aside from being morally unethical, this concept really intrigued me and it got me wondering.

If someone actually did this, would

1.) It really be bad for the residents? Ignorance is bliss and there are recent studies showing Alzheimer’s is prevalent due to our modern lifestyle and there is an established study showing that people who live in a low-tech society have almost no heart disease among them

2.) How long do you think a facade like this could be maintained? The towns population wasn’t very big and it was quite isolated. Most people were too afraid of the “creatures” to leave the village and trouble only started due to some misbehaving young people who rebelled against the adults and went into the woods. That is definitely a danger as throughout history; young adults/late teens were always somewhat rebellious and looking to defy their elders. Also human nature is incredibly curious and all societies have daredevils, so the odds are that someone would have tried to go into the woods at some point.

I won’t spoil the end if you want to watch this movie. It came out exactly 20 years ago so it’s a bit late for spoilers but I will acquiesce out of courtesy.

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Maximum7 said:

Aside from being morally unethical, this concept really intrigued me and it got me wondering.

If someone actually did this, would

1.) It really be bad for the residents?

That depends on the intent of the starting conditions, for instance, it can't be morally unethical if 'everyone's' needs are reasonably met.

9 hours ago, Maximum7 said:

2.) How long do you think a facade like this could be maintained?

As long as the population is large enough to maintain a genetic diversity, then as long as it work's.

But the real question is, what do you hope to learn?

Because society is like a fractal, it looks the same whatever the scale. 

Edited March 31 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

Sounds like the Matrix question, i.e. place people in a simulated environment, conceal the real world, all done without their consent.  Seems morally objectionable, much as anything does where one group makes all the decisions on the best interests of another group.  It makes the former group both censors of reality and prison guards.  And the people trapped in the simulation have committed no crime that would call for deprivation of their freedom. 

Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance and impoverishment of opportunity.  And, a larger point should be made here: when people in the sciences start talking about involuntary experiments on people, it just feeds the present paranoia and distrust of scientists.  

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Sounds like the Matrix question, i.e. place people in a simulated environment, conceal the real world, all done without their consent.  Seems morally objectionable, much as anything does where one group makes all the decisions on the best interests of another group.  It makes the former group both censors of reality and prison guards.  And the people trapped in the simulation have committed no crime that would call for deprivation of their freedom. 

It strikes me that it only becomes a problem, when we imagine our freedom is compromised, but that could never happen in the land of the free...

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance and impoverishment of opportunity.

Tell that to a bus driver, who's work provides for his family...

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

And, a larger point should be made here: when people in the sciences start talking about involuntary experiments on people, it just feeds the present paranoia and distrust of scientists. 

If he can't understand you and he's comfortable with that, isn't he an example of ignorance being, at least, blissful enough?

A child is far more comfortable when their boundaries are well defined and they're free within them, adults tend to assume they know better...