Farms: The Truth About Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory [P1]

Productivity | Information | History | View | Quality

1. I've referred to progressives as grazers, deer, and lemmings for years. Didn't know there was a school of thought around the subject. What a rabbit hole!
2. It frustrates me that this was not apart of the biology class in my high school.
3. This video is truely amazing, thats the best video of your channel, if R wins we'll have something very like that movie: idiocracy. But maybe you're forgetting an important part of this equation, that will ultimately bring K to a massive win in the future
4. I finally understand why it is there so many rabbits but what about fleas? Every rabbit has them, to which category does parasites belong? In human version the core global total number of parasites is above 15 million if the highest American estimates are assumed.
5. I think the redpill hit too hard for everyone here
6. So we should eat more progressives?
7. How would you use this theory to explain the European situation (white population declining)?
8. Stefan I come to you for learning and with these truths, I know.
   
   Thank you.
9. What confuses me is the fact that the "r"s would actually prefer a planned economy, as in its definition tries to maintain some sort of stability and planning (even if it does otherwise in real life, with possible exceptions). Wouldn't a free market be more of an "r" thing, as it is in itself very volatile (if the society isn't already stable) even if it promotes competition which they don't like...
   
   In the example of K's theres an inherent contradiction... Free market which personifies competition, and competition is itself volatile (Meaning you can't know who will win)...and possible instability in the aftermath (losing of jobs)
   R's like planned economy which in its defintion strives for stability and kills off competition...
   
   This thing with competition/stability... seems like grasping at straws in order to tie it to the norms of Right/Left, you know...politics doesn't really revolve around the purely American definitions of right and left...
   
   Infact I'd argue that the R is for the totalitarian regime/Despotism(wolves have an alpha, idolize it and aspire for it, eventually becoming one) wheras bunnies are very much well...running around aimlessly not giving a damn (which is democracy in a nutshell)
   
   But the whole thing, seems legit to some degree...
10. You're kind of sure for a skeptic. Preach!
11. Amazing video that should have far more views.
12. The r/K Theory is a very naive way to look at politics.
    It even contradicts itself. Being no purely genetic theory, relying on
    behaviorism.
    
    While (r) is described as weak,
    (K) as strong and indisputably better,
    and according to said theory, every psychological trauma in child hood
    leads to criminalization, homosexuality or other (as they describe it)
    mental degeneration, leading to (r).
    
    People thinking for themselves first, some call them egoistic, I call
    them the ones which will decrease overpopulation, are demonized by this
    theory. Let's hunt the Homosexuals no-children-wanting, just like
    Hitler did, or what?
    
    
    In other words, we are (K), we are better than you, everyone bad is (r).
    
    Sounds just like Goebbels to me.
    You can't just simplify things to this degree. It's ludicrous.
    
    The only thing we can say is, (r) tend to be authoritarian, and (K) liberal.
    Everything else is stupid third reich garbage.
13. So much repetition...sped up to 1.5, still too much, this is why I dont listen to Stefan, not because I dont like his view, its just sooo long winded.
14. Wouldn't that mean that the Ks are the wolves? So who is really causing the stress and instability? I've always been a K, by the way. Very conservative in financial and reproductive strategies.
15. clearly, k is the dominant gene.
16. If most humans are K, why are men revered for being r?
17. Basic species evolution, survival of the most fit species seems to be missing in the education system of our children. I look out my window to all the deer in our town. The town keeps growing however the deer also live here and have less and less habitat. There are no preditors in the town and no hunting. This population of deer will be doomed to starve to death due to no control over there population. There is no hunting and the community is fined for feeding the deer. If you were to hunt for a deer for your winter freezer you would want to chose a nice healthy deer. You can only imagine the outcome when you replace people for the human in this. You would get lots of people and at some point there would be more infighting of the people for supplies. Hopefully money can not buy everything at that point. Better to have better survival skills and pass on your skilled genes on to the next generation of people.
18. Stefan,
    
    The reasoning you present here misses the mark. If r/K epigenetics in humans is a real phenomenon then political Left/Right division is only a symptom (and a factual expansion of subjective value theory), not an inherently causal/feedback factor.
    
    An organism influenced by their environment into its r or K path will acquire a set of gene expressions best suited to optimal reproduction in that environment. This 'optimal reproduction' refers to the ENTIRE genome. Only if an environment REMAINS r- or K-favorable will the genome evolve in either direction. 'More r' or 'more K' individuals tend to produce offspring with genomes better suited to that environment. In the case of humans, whose history is supposedly marked by vacillation between r and K selection, our genome evolved to express either set of traits depending on developmental factors. There is no reason for r or K traits to include antagonism toward otherwise selected individuals. As Tristan Brown said below "[The r and K strategies] are not philosophies that determine how organisms WANT the environment around them to be. They're strategies for dealing with the struggles presented by the environment."
    
    To say that there is a genetic basis for environment-changing traits (53:37 to 54:15) would require causal links between an organisms behavior and its environment. There are no such causal links, aside from humanity's unique (and pre-Industrial Revolution limited) ability to fight the Malthusian trap, so there cannot be such a basis. Instead, organisms PREFER environments that minimize existential threats. For the lizard hot places are preferable to cold, and vice versa for the penguin. R-selected humans would prefer the same things as K-selected humans, namely abundance and low predation/threat. The subjective weights on existential threats, environmental positives, and norms for r and K selected organisms are different, which is the logical basis for Left/Right epigenetic distinctions (if they exist). Human behavior always reduces to subjective value theory.
    
    EDIT: Of course, it is possible the behavior of r or K selected humans tends to create conditions that support r or K selection of offspring, which is a separate argument.
    
    Tsomv
19. Humans lost their fur and became running machines that can outrun antilopes who will collapse aften 20min? what an outlandish point. Even a house cat can outrun a fast man like Usain Bolt, who can't even sustain his 100m speed for another 100m. You'll notice that the times for 200m sprint will always be MORE than double the time for 100m. Humans are simply not good runners. Also our teeth and finger nails are simply pathetic.
20. Recommended readings: The Selfish Gene; Sociobiology.