Joseph Shaw decided to take a shot at r/K theory, and made the mistake of linking to me:
http://www.lmschairman.org/2016/02/social-conservatism-and-social.html
“r/K selection theory. Some people think it explains everything in the universe. Most people haven’t heard of it. The second group are onto something. But at the risk of giving some rather strange ideas unwarrented publicity, I’m going to use this post to warn my readers about it. Because although presenting itself as a defence of the family, it is not just wrong-headed, but actually dangerous.”
“Some people think it explains everything in the universe.” <- Do tell who.
Concern troll is concerned, but he isn't very smart. Perhaps he should consult Wikipedia before debunking next time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_adaptive_strategy_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_strategies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
Shaw’s summary of r/K theory is flawed in its emphasis on predation and resources. r vs K is a distinction between two biological competition strategies: quantity versus quality.
“Despite immediately falling foul of the facts – welfare-addicted developed countries have seen their birth-rates fall, not rise”
We are talking about evolutionary effects. They do not operate as intended in modern environments until evolution has time to account for those environments. Welfare without contraception = population boom. This is abundantly visible in Africa, where IQ and infrastructure are too low to permit contraception, and population explodes to the Malthusian limit.
Furthermore, r recipients of welfare have excellent birthrates. It is the K middle class victims of women’s lib and marriage 2.0 who reproduce below replacement.
“the analysis is popular because it speaks to an enduring stereotype: that of the respectable and foresightful class or race, vs. the feckless and fecund class or race. “
The stereotype is true.
“The possibility of the superior species or race being overwhelmed by the inferior, by sheer weight of numbers, seemed a paradox to people brought up on Darwin: how could it be allowed to happen? “
I don’t know, how does an IQ 140 human die of a virus?
“If that didn’t work, perhaps the elite races and social groups had a responsibility, a destiny in fact, to assist nature, by colonisation, programmes of compulsory sterilisation, enslavement, even warfare and wholesale annihilation.”
The consequences of ideas do not make them false. Biology means you will all die. Biology is not false.
Anyhow, you are not smart enough to work out the actual intellectual consequences of belief in r/K. You are an emotional thinker who gets scared by threatening concepts.
“The fundamental problem with it is that the r/K contrast is too simplistic to support the generalisations made on its basis.”
A generalization is a simplification.
“While the basic dilemma of breeding may seem a truism,”
It is not. Populations can be neither r nor K selected. They can simply suck.
Likewise, survival of the fittest is not a truism. There are many causes of death unrelated to any definition of fitness, however stretched.
“For example, trees are slow-maturing, very long-lived, large, and by plant standards complex organisms, but once they’ve put in the investment many of them shower the countryside with tens of thousands of tiny seeds. r or K?”
Does it occur to you that smarter people have already thought about this?
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/csr-theory-vs-rk-selection-theory/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_adaptive_strategy_theory
“Social insects: are they r or K? Like trees, they invest heavily in a system that can mass-produce offspring. But then again, only a few of these offspring can themselves breed. What does that tell us, in r/K terms? Well, actually, nothing. Their breeding strategy varies in a way completely unanticipated by the binary r/K analysis.”
LMGTFY:
Google Books
https://quizlet.com/53301008/insect-biology-test-2-flash-cards/
“Many large mammals of the ocean and plain give birth to offspring which can immediately swim or walk and keep up with their mothers. Small mammals in burrows have blind and helpless babies, totally dependant on their parents. r or K? The question is meaningless because in such cases the correlations predicted by the theory don’t hold true. It is other factors which make the difference.”
Shrimp spew helpless eggs: r. Seahorses care for eggs: K.
Helpless babies are more K than independent ones. Able to walk != independent. See biological concept of life history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
Any species can contain both r and K traits. To argue otherwise is Platonism. Call this RE1: Repeated Error 1.
“What of forward planning? Squirrels store nuts in holes, bears fatten up their own bodies for winter hibernation. Theorists tell us that r animals spend all their time eating, not storing, so does this make squirrels more K than the larger, more complex, predator bears? There is no non-arbitrary answer. If to fatten yourself up in case of future shortages is a K characteristic, then among humans couch-potatoes are more K than gym bunnies.”
RE1. There is a non-arbitrary answer: bears have slower life histories, invest more in offspring, smaller litters: K.
“Similarly, we are told that sea turtles are a classic case of r, because they abandon their eggs in a hole on a beach, whereas birds look after the chicks. But turtles are larger, more complex, and vastly more long-lived, so the rest of the correlations fail. On reflection, however, the investment into the offspring factor doesn’t work either. The turtle puts extra resources into the eggs for the growing baby turtle, which makes it possible for the hatchlings to fend for themselves immediately they emerge. The only r thing about them turns out to be the lack of interaction between the generations. Everything which is supposed to be correllated with that is not found in this case.”
RE1.
“In sum, the r/K contrast is an attempt to impose a simplistic dichotomy onto the vast variety and complexity of the natural world, and apart from a few carefully-chosen cases it does not apply neatly, or at all, and the conclusions the theory promises don’t follow.”
In sum you are logically incompetent, intellectually lazy, and topically ignorant.
“respectable Darwinians will tell you natural selection doesn’t work at the level of groups.”
Sure it does. Homo Sapiens sapiens has exterminated lots of inferior hominids and human races.
“there is very rarely any genetic reason for individuals or groups to promote the success of other individuals or groups who are similar to themselves, over individuals and groups who are dissimilar.”
Cooperation is hard. Congratulations on rediscovering Prisoner’s Dilemma. For advanced study, see: Outbreeding, Hajnal Line.
“this is what is happening when nicely-brought up and expensively educated liberal politicians recruit a welfare-depenant underclass, let alone a Muslim immigrant community, as a voting block. Contrary to the r/K theory, these are alliances between groups with nothing in common in terms of attitudes, lifestyle, or, come to that, breeding patterns.”
You miss the entire thesis of Anonymous Conservative, the principal proponent of sociopolitical r/K. r competes against K via betrayal, inviting far to defeat near on its behalf. Liberals weaponize black underclass and Muslim terrorists to destroy and enslave K right-wing American high proles and middle class.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/
“Its implications are horrifying, and it is, in any case, completely false.”
It is an established biological principle, and your post has horrifying implications for your intellect.
r/K is the grandaddy of CSR and life history theory, among others. The implications of its theoretical descendants when applied to humans are more brutal, not less. The proper response to criticism of sociopolitical applications of r/K theory is to reply, “Right you are, let’s apply the latest scientific consensus instead!”
Bloody ruderal midwits.