r/K Selection Theory

[MSimon]

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl ... on-theory/

Interestingly, r/K Theory not only explains a means by which our political ideologies are adaptive to a specific environment. Many have noted an increasingly masculine quality to the women in our culture, as well as a corresponding effeminate nature to our men. Rush Limbaugh will often refer to them as the Feminazis, and the Castrati. In nature, a K-selected model of rearing involves a feminine mother, who nurtures offspring and guides them away from danger, combined with a more masculine male who will aggressively confront dangers, so as to protect his family.

However, when a population becomes increasingly r-selected, the nature of the sexual dimorphism and these sex-specific rearing behaviors will change. As you see a more r-strategy emerge, females of the species will need to become increasingly aggressive and masculine, since due to paternal abandonment, they must provision and protect their offspring alone. Since r-selected males are solely concerned with mating (before abandoning their mate), and fleeing from conflict, they become more diminutive, and more cowardly. The end result is the r-strategy has, inherent within it, a model of aggressive, manly females who raise children alone, and diminutive, effete males who are solely concerned with superficial, mate-attracting flash, and conflict avoidance.

Even more interestingly, as we point out in this blog post, as well as this blog post, there is evidence indicating that this phenomenon, accidentally over-expressed, may be responsible for producing males who are so effeminate that they are actually homosexual, and females who are so manly, they cross the boundary into lesbianism. Not only do the rearing behaviors and sexual characteristics change, but the males become attracted to more manly characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive females), and the females become more attracted to effeminate characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive males).

[choff]

I think the current state of reproductive strategy is more social engineering(unnatural selection) and less natural selection. U.N. Agenda 21 is geared towards reducing the human population by 90%, with males only making up 10% of the remainder. Feminism is a subdivision of this strategy, gender studies graduates find employment at the U.N., the family courts, government and NGO's. Current divorce laws discourage marriage with alimony, child support and incarceration for non support. Also domestic violence laws categorize males as perpetrators and females as victims. The male is automatically arrested in any domestic violence incident, even if he's covered in blood and bruises from his partners assault and didn't lay a hand upon her. He can be accused of rape, assault, or child molesting by his female partner and considered guilty until proven innocent based solely on her word. This is why marriage rates among young men are falling, they're usually the product of a single parent family and grew up watching dad getting the shaft from mom and the system.

[MSimon]

I think the current state of reproductive strategy is more social engineering(unnatural selection) and less natural selection. U.N. Agenda 21 is geared towards reducing the human population by 90%, with males only making up 10% of the remainder. Feminism is a subdivision of this strategy, gender studies graduates find employment at the U.N., the family courts, government and NGO's. Current divorce laws discourage marriage with alimony, child support and incarceration for non support. Also domestic violence laws categorize males as perpetrators and females as victims. The male is automatically arrested in any domestic violence incident, even if he's covered in blood and bruises from his partners assault and didn't lay a hand upon her. He can be accused of rape, assault, or child molesting by his female partner and considered guilty until proven innocent based solely on her word. This is why marriage rates among young men are falling, they're usually the product of a single parent family and grew up watching dad getting the shaft from mom and the system.

All true. But not possible in a difficult environment where what we think of as male characteristics have value.

You should read the whole linked article. And you might like my commentary on it at http://classicalvalues.com/2014/12/the- ... -politics/

As long as we live in an era of abundance we will need to maintain a mixed strategy to continue that abundance.

The rules we see are to enable female hypergamy. Women want the best sperm they can get. Without environmental pressure they will mate only with Alphas. And lots of them. Monogamy and all that goes with it are a function of scarcity and difficulty.

The problem the planners have is that they haven't a clue. They believe in the plan. They don't have the courage to let nature take its course. To leave things alone and see how it turns out. And what is true of the left is just as true of the right. They have a plan too. The right likes social plans and the left likes economic plans. Generally.

[choff]

Agenda 21 will create artificial scarcity, along with a 90% population reduction, of which only 10% will be male. The ruling 1% will use the remaining males for security work, as payment they will be allowed to partake in elite privileges. So that means the women will have to compete with each other for available males. It will be interesting to see how the ruling 1% males break down in terms of alpha/beta ration compared to the males in the bottom 99% serfs. This is all assuming the ruling families don't replace the rest of humanity with robots of course. That whole left/right nonsense is merely divide and conquer strategy, doesn't actually exist. You can read about it in Bertrand Russell's books.

[MSimon]

Agenda 21 will create artificial scarcity, along with a 90% population reduction, of which only 10% will be male. The ruling 1% will use the remaining males for security work, as payment they will be allowed to partake in elite privileges. So that means the women will have to compete with each other for available males. It will be interesting to see how the ruling 1% males break down in terms of alpha/beta ration compared to the males in the bottom 99% serfs. This is all assuming the ruling families don't replace the rest of humanity with robots of course. That whole left/right nonsense is merely divide and conquer strategy, doesn't actually exist. You can read about it in Bertrand Russell's books.

Scarcity will derail their plans. As I said. The planners are idiots.

The left/right IS nonsense. Social control from the right. Economic control from the left. The common denominator is....

[Diogenes]

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl ... on-theory/

Interestingly, r/K Theory not only explains a means by which our political ideologies are adaptive to a specific environment. Many have noted an increasingly masculine quality to the women in our culture, as well as a corresponding effeminate nature to our men. Rush Limbaugh will often refer to them as the Feminazis, and the Castrati. In nature, a K-selected model of rearing involves a feminine mother, who nurtures offspring and guides them away from danger, combined with a more masculine male who will aggressively confront dangers, so as to protect his family.

However, when a population becomes increasingly r-selected, the nature of the sexual dimorphism and these sex-specific rearing behaviors will change. As you see a more r-strategy emerge, females of the species will need to become increasingly aggressive and masculine, since due to paternal abandonment, they must provision and protect their offspring alone. Since r-selected males are solely concerned with mating (before abandoning their mate), and fleeing from conflict, they become more diminutive, and more cowardly. The end result is the r-strategy has, inherent within it, a model of aggressive, manly females who raise children alone, and diminutive, effete males who are solely concerned with superficial, mate-attracting flash, and conflict avoidance.

Even more interestingly, as we point out in this blog post, as well as this blog post, there is evidence indicating that this phenomenon, accidentally over-expressed, may be responsible for producing males who are so effeminate that they are actually homosexual, and females who are so manly, they cross the boundary into lesbianism. Not only do the rearing behaviors and sexual characteristics change, but the males become attracted to more manly characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive females), and the females become more attracted to effeminate characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive males).

Seems like I heard this story before.

[Diogenes]

Agenda 21 will create artificial scarcity, along with a 90% population reduction, of which only 10% will be male. The ruling 1% will use the remaining males for security work, as payment they will be allowed to partake in elite privileges. So that means the women will have to compete with each other for available males. It will be interesting to see how the ruling 1% males break down in terms of alpha/beta ration compared to the males in the bottom 99% serfs. This is all assuming the ruling families don't replace the rest of humanity with robots of course. That whole left/right nonsense is merely divide and conquer strategy, doesn't actually exist. You can read about it in Bertrand Russell's books.

Scarcity will derail their plans. As I said. The planners are idiots.

The left/right IS nonsense. Social control from the right. Economic control from the left. The common denominator is....

To paraphrase I.I.Rabi, the both of you aren't even wrong.

[MSimon]

I work with the left and the right on different political issues.

I see a LOT more group cohesion/cooperation on the left than on the right.

I also see the lefties changing tactics faster when a given tactic doesn't work well.

We saw that in Alcohol Prohibition. The Progressives were among the first to adopt it politically. The Conservatives were among the last to give it up.

=================

One thing Herbert Marcuse said in one of his videos struck me. Roughly: “We don’t hold that Marxism as originally expounded has all the answers. Conditions have changed.”

Marcuse was a member of the Frankfurt School that changed the thrust of Marxism from materialism to cultural issues. Giving rise to Cultural Marxism and ultimately our current Marxist President. The origin of the Frankfurt School was about 90 years ago.

The tactic of the Frankfurt School is simple. Figure out who the government is oppressing and get them to join the more government club. Stupid when you put it in such stark terms. But it is working.

The obvious counter tactic is to stop the oppression(s). The sooner the better. Instead the right is hobbled by a faction (dominant) that says, "The rules are the rules and we aren't changing them until we are hammered into the ground. If then." And so the left captures the oppressed group for life. That is because attitudes formed before about age 30 are generally life long.

BTW I read the lizard article and it has nothing to do with r/K selection.

OTOH (in contrast to the lizards) we see that in humans the more cooperative left is much less monogamous than the right. This has been a feature of the left for as long as I have been alive. Democrat parties have always been wilder.

It will be interesting to see if the new Congress can avoid the mistakes of past Republican Congresses and stay out of social issues and focus on economic issues. My guess, given past performance and current indications, is that they will not. They will do their best to hold back the tide.

There are huge savings to be made from ending the culture war Republicans are addicted to. They could end it on economic grounds if nothing else.

My expectation is that the next President will be a Democrat. And Republicans will at least get whittled in Congress if not defeated.

The decline of religion as a dominant force in America will in the longer term help Republicans become more adaptable. After a lot more damage has been done by the Democrats.

[Diogenes]

BTW I read the lizard article and it has nothing to do with r/K selection.

You didn't like my little joke? No, it does not specifically have to do with r/K selection, it has to do with a sort of orbiting evolution where characteristics keep getting swapped around every generation in a cyclic repeating manner.


Not so very different from the point being made as to the changes in population which may result from r type mentality vs K type mentality. Often as one is on the upswing, the other is on the downswing, just like the lizards.


I personally think our current r type environment is fake. Artificial. It is borrowed prosperity which cannot continue. (120 trillion debt or so. When this baby crashes, it's going to be a beaut.)


I also think I have repeatedly summed up this guy's premise with my observation that prosperity is the primary cause of liberalism. Good times make bad people. Bad times make good people.



But excellent article, by the way. It succinctly sums up a lot of concepts I have pondered over the years.

[MSimon]

I don't see the good times going away. And I don't see the K's putting much thought into how to make good people in good times. Most of the thinking runs along your lines --> "come the collapse..."

If you like that kind of pron here is a very good example: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl ... d-society/

BTW lots of amygdala talk in that article. Not one mention of the main signaling mechanism for that organ. endocannabinoids. Maybe they are blinded by the culture war. Heh.

[djolds1]

I personally think our current r type environment is fake. Artificial. It is borrowed prosperity which cannot continue. (120 trillion debt or so. When this baby crashes, it's going to be a beaut.)

I also think I have repeatedly summed up this guy's premise with my observation that prosperity is the primary cause of liberalism. Good times make bad people. Bad times make good people.

Full agreement. A very close echo of my own analysis.

As to the demographics - we're in a mouse utopia on the downcycle.

I don't see the good times going away. And I don't see the K's putting much thought into how to make good people in good times. Most of the thinking runs along your lines --> "come the collapse..."

Collapse pretty much IS the solution. Read (or watch) Joseph Tainter's take on the subject. Everything bloats to collapse.

[MSimon]

On top of that your claim to universal truth is now shown by you to be false. Your truth is only good for bad times. By your own admission.

I am of the opinion that there is a more universal set of rules. I'm not sure what they are yet. But I'm thinking about it.

[MSimon]

I personally think our current r type environment is fake. Artificial. It is borrowed prosperity which cannot continue. (120 trillion debt or so. When this baby crashes, it's going to be a beaut.)

I also think I have repeatedly summed up this guy's premise with my observation that prosperity is the primary cause of liberalism. Good times make bad people. Bad times make good people.

Full agreement. A very close echo of my own analysis.

As to the demographics - we're in a mouse utopia on the downcycle.

I don't see the good times going away. And I don't see the K's putting much thought into how to make good people in good times. Most of the thinking runs along your lines --> "come the collapse..."

Collapse pretty much IS the solution. Read (or watch) Joseph Tainter's take on the subject. Everything bloats to collapse.

Except humans seem to do the opposite. Above about $4K per capita income humans reproduce at less than replacement rate. It is happening all around the world. The only exception I know of is the Jews in Israel.

And your point above about debt which I didn't address is not a carrying capacity or development problem. It is a banking problem. The debts will get written off if that is required. We USED to do it regularly.

Material wealth will still exist. Productive capacity will still exist. That is the real wealth.

[MSimon]

Ah. Too complex to respond. Well the amount of complexity that can be handled has taken an exponential jump with computers. Maybe even an exponential of an exponential jump.

But I do agree to some extent. We have too much government for comfort. Too many laws. Too much wasted in trying to herd people. Too many people who believe in herding. And it doesn't matter the party. Both believe in herding.

There are incredible savings to be had from ending herding. You know my bit about $1 trillion a year... The only thing standing between us and that savings is the culture warriors on the right. That is about 5% to 10% of the economy right there.

Americans are pretty smart though. When they figure out what to do they will go at it with a vengeance.

====================

When it comes to ending Prohibition I'm trying to convince my friends that the complexification of adding taxes and regulation to mollify conservatives is not the way to go. And you know what happens when things get too complex? Black markets.

[paperburn1]

Every society collapses given enough time. dynamics of life change with every advancement. until a collapse and reformation happens. Show me one time in history when it did not?