>>11677759This /sci/ faggot, this is the place to bitch about people inaccurately displaying scientific theories.
>>11678031The problem is none of those traits are even somewhat exclusive to either r or k species.
Collectivist (ant) / individualist (spider) both r type
in-group cooperation (wolves) / competitive (asocial cats) both k type
children never separate (Meerkats) / children expelled (sunfish) both r type
None of these traits are selected for or against by k and r selection. The dude literally made a 3 hour video jacking off conservatives by talking about how great they are and is trying to pass it off as science under the guise of a very basic form of modeling reproductive strategies.
This is the definition:
The two evolutionary "strategies" are termed r-selection, for those species that produce many "cheap" offspring and live in unstable environments and K-selection for those species that produce few "expensive" offspring and live in stable environments.
If the fucker was just talking about life span, number of kids, or survivorship curve it might make sense. Instead he talks about "shame" and "harming others" which has no bearing on how much energy was put into having a child without enough mental gymnastics to sprain your frontal lobe. The only argument I could see arising is that in poor areas they are under a higher r selective pressure which is why they have larger numbers of children, but once the region industrializes the number of kids drops. Because humans are a K type species and don't normally give birth to >6 kids at one time.
Trying to hijack this for a political point is dumb. Those points could have been made point blank without support and called "alphas and betas" or "fermions and bosons" and people would still defend it because it makes them feel good. It's retarded. Might as well just call it quantum k and r selection while you're making polpopsci.
