R/K Selection theory explains everything you ever wanted to know about political persuasions, and why. The original theory of r/k selection has been around for awhile as an attempt to explain why some animals are different from other animals in terms of reproductive strategy. The R type is like a bunny rabbit. They will mate often and with many sexual partners. The sheer number of baby bunnies born will result in at least a few of them becoming adult rabbits and passing on their genes. They run and bounce away from danger instead of fighting. They are best suited to large amounts of resources, so they don't need to compete with each other in order to reproduce. This reproductive strategy is based on quantity over quality. The K type is the wolf. Wolves hunt in packs so they are social animals. They do not run from danger, but rather fight to survive. They have to survive in an environment that is dog-eat-dog because there are simply not enough resources available for everybody. Competition, aggressiveness, monogamy, and much more invested in their young because there are much fewer wolf pups, so that each pup in a litter is a highly valuable resource in comparison to the bunny group. Quality over quantity is the name of the reproductive k strategy in an environment of limited resources. Since humans have evolved in environments of both feast and famine, we have evolved the ability to shift between the two via environmental forces regulating the size of the amygdala and pre-frontal cortex. So where do we find Rs? In cities where food is in abundance. Restaurants on every corner, supermarkets, cafes, etc. etc.etc. It's rather hard to starve in a city when you can't turn a corner without bumping into something to eat. Where do we find Ks? In less populated areas where food is much harder to obtain. Ks are just as apt to hunt and fish as they are to drive a considerable distance to a store that is just as likely to sell bait, seeds, and ammo, as cans of beans. Rs are not particularly social animals, which is why cities are such unfriendly places. Nobody says hello or g'day mate. Despite close proximity to each other, as their reproductive strategy would result in. Few people in cities are on social terms with their neighbors. Contrast that with Ks, and even though neighbors might be far and few between, everybody knows everybody else. Since Rs avoid conflict whenever possible, they are more likely to be afraid of danger, which is why big cities generally have very strict regulations on firearms, thus limiting the possibility of a violent encounter. Ks, on the other hand, do not seek out violent encounters, but prefer to be prepared for the possibility of violence, which is why firearms are actually valued. If your few neighbors are all armed, you have a much better chance to fight off the danger, whereas the R strategy is to drop a few bunny pellets while running as quickly as possible, hoping that you run a bit faster than your neighbor, so he will get eaten by the wolves instead of you. It also explains the R desire for a fiat currency, which means resources can simply be whipped up out of thin air. Ks are the ones that drone on and on about gold standards and the federal reserve being an evil entity. Precious metals are limited in quantity, whereas fiat currency is unlimited in quantity. I could go on-and-on-and-on, but I am guessing everybody can see the pattern here.
Interesting post, but it seems fallacious comparing animals who survive on instinct to humans who have the ability to reason.
I'm trying to understand why there are conservatives and progressives using evolutionary psychology. r/k selection theory explains those differences. Everything from cities that are predominantly democrat and rural areas that are predominantly republican, to democrats favoring a welfare state, to why the military is predominantly conservative is, I believe, adequately explained. Do you want to know why democrats vote for the guy or girl that says "I will give you free stuff" while republicans vote for the guy or girl that says "I'll let you keep your own stuff"? This explains it.
For a moment there I thought you had a serious topic, but your last line blew it for me. It has nothing to do with voting for "I will give you free stuff" or "I'll let you keep your own stuff". What it does have to do with is the way we process information about the world around us and how we react to it .
Ability to reason has nothing to do with two different reproductive strategies based upon quantity of resources.
C'mon, you're entering the land of absurdity. Humans reproduce like most other primates: Often. Politics has nothing to do with it. There is no "free stuff" gene.
If there is no "free stuff" gene, then how do you account for the welfare state? Sorry, but you're not arguing against my idea. You're just disagreeing with it. I understand that it isn't really the most flattering theory for the left, but look at it this way. You'll have lots more sex than conservatives.
I never liked the cities and I love to hunt and fish. I never understood how people can live right on top of each other with no place to breath or roam. I also never let city folk hunt on my property as they is more likely to mistake a cow for a deer.
Lol. Okie dokie smokey. You're not making a lick of sense. I'll grab some popcorn. Good luck and have fun.
Interesting post! I like it when seemingly unrelated theories are connected to human behavior. You will find that the connections you are trying to make have already been pursued in the scientific literature. Here is one example that also goes into politics: http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1997/vol1/fog_a.html From this paper, however, you will find that behaviors that would typically be seen as liberal or conservative do not always fit into the r/k scheme. For example, in r species contraception and abortion would be illegal, due to the evolutionary pressure favoring high rate of population growth. However, this is in human society a conservative view point, which would put conservatives into the r category on this issue. This is where you lose me, and where it shows that you are not trying to discuss r/k theory and human behavior, but rather fit this theory into your preconceived notion that conservative are virtuous, hard working, who take care of their offspring, while liberals are lazy, breeding like rabbits, not having a care for the future. This is actually really not what r/k theory is about. Nature doesn't give any more value to the k-type wolf compared to the r-type rabbit. Both species rather find the ideal strategy for procreation in environments with different evolutionary pressures. And when it comes to procreational values: It used to be that rural folks (conservative in your classification) have lower divorce rate than city folks (liberal), but this is no longer the case, just as divorce rates between liberals and conservatives are no different from each other. So, the old meme that conservatives have family values and work ethic and liberals do not is just not true and cannot be justified by r/k theory, no matter how hard you try.
I'm more than happy to consider confirmation bias, and in fact, I welcome it. It's not that I try to be biased, but rather something that needs to be considered. However, this breeding like rabbits and not caring for their offspring is an integral aspect of r/k selection theory. I'm not making this up, and not saying that one is better than the other. With a seemingly unlimited amount of resources, it is a much more productive strategy to follow, as opposed to those organisms which have limited resources to contend with. Your last paragraph says that you do not believe in the theory, and that's cool. I don't consider current divorce rates significant since the state has made so many inroads into marriage, to the point that there really is no reason to register your relationship with the state if you're a male. The state has mucked marriage up too much to use divorce rates as evidence of anything, other than intervention by the state. yet you do admit that divorce rates have gone up, so perhaps a bit of confirmation bias on your end?
I am not an expert in r/k theory. I do believe that some of it has merit and that it can explain human behavior. What I don't believe is that it can be used justify whether conservative or liberal philosophies are morally superior. Other than that, I'd be happy to discuss the theory. One things that I also don't understand is why you propose that rural living is resource-restricted while city living is not? In my view, it is actually the other way around: Cities have a high population density and, thus, competition for resources must be more stringent than in the countryside with low population density.
Believe me, I'm not saying that one is superior over the other. Simply two different reproductive strategies resulting in different outcomes. Evolution only looks at the passing on of genes as superior, and that's where I am trying to keep this. Cities would normally be very tight for resources if not for the fact that there are so many more resources in the cities than in the country. You've got resources flooding into the cities so it's a lot harder to go shopping in the country than the city. I live in the country, and heading into town to buy vittles is a lot harder for me than it is for somebody that lives next door to a restaurant and a mcdonalds, which is quite frequently the case in the cities. It's also harder for me to commute, so my resources are limited in comparison to people who live in the city.
Forced interpretation. People are very much K-selected in terms of the animal world as a whole. Having one child at most every year is K-selection, not R-selection.
Agreed. This is also consistent with the observation that even single mothers with 4-5 children put lot more effort into their offspring than turtles, who just lay 100s of eggs and then let the offspring fend for itself. I think what you mean by resources is really convenience. On the evolutionary timescale it doesn't matter whether I can go to the next store and grab my goodies right away (city), or if I have to wait a couple of days until they are delivered from Amazon (rural). However, it does matter that people in rural areas have access to land, water natural gas etc. These are REAL resources on an evolutionary time scale. I think the country/city divide is more of an adaptation issue than evolution. On an evolutionary timescale, humans haven't really changed much in a thousand years.
The human mind works on emotion and instinct. Not very different from animals and apes. When emotions rise to absolute levels in the human mind, not much reason is left. We humans communicate with emotion (communication is emotion, mutual interaction, the one that is more dominant can put the words in such order that the other can't compete, and then emotions start to rise) The key to survive was always using emotion (to hunt for food, adrenalin), the key to survive in this information age is to get control over emotion (communications as well) But not too absolute, because nothing can become too absolute in a system or politics.
I wasn't referring to emotion. I was referring to reason. Furthermore, the theory presented explains differences between species, yet the OP is using it to explain differences between members of the same species. I don't think that is a valid application of the theory. Back to my point. Let's take the exodus from the South by blacks during the 20th century. They fled to northern industrial cities because of jobs, not because of genetic makeup. Such decisions were based on reason, not instinct. The animals used by the OP behave on instinct, i.e., they cannot do it any other way. Humans are quite different.
Using an evolutionary theory about reproduction to explain human politics. Social Darwinism at its worst.
