R-selective species reproduce a lot, don't invest much in individuals...

r-selective species reproduce a lot, don't invest much in individuals, and value self determination more than K-selection species. Examples include rodents, insects, weeds, and bacteria

K-selection species reproduce a little, invest a lot in each individual, and value cooperation more than r-selection species. Examples include elephants, whales, and humans

Conservatives are very closely analogous to r-selection species
Liberals are very closely analogous to K-selection species

K-selection species evolved later and are generally considered more advanced, since they pass the threshold which holds back r-selection species due to their lack of longterm offspring-nurturing, allowing epigenetic information to be passed down in the form of taught behaviors and culture

r-selection strategies are good in rural areas without much of a coordinated support system (lack of infrastructure, lack of centralized resources - have more kids in case some die)

K-selection strategies are good in urban areas with a much more advanced coordinate support system (robust infrastructure, robustly centralized resources - have fewer kids but invest more in them because they probably won't die)

Both aspects are important I guess, but when it comes to overall success K-selective organisms objectively have a longer investment horizon and more compound gains. Ideally you want a balance between investment and enjoyment of the investment, but most people get it wrong and invest with a shorter time horizon.

r-selective pests are successful and will live forever, but they will never be anything more than pests. K-selective animals will never die out either because they are the only ones that can eventually travel to space and stuff.

Education is an inherently K-selective strategy. And conservatives tend to be against it like r-selective species would be. I don't want to go as far as to compare them to weeds and bacteria, but the analogy is oddly fitting

>muh r/K selection
go learn population genetics brainlet

I'd love to, any good books on the topic you can suggest user?

principles of population genetics

this, also stop retardedly projecting it on other things

Can you explain how it's incorrect though

You're not wrong but conservatives v. liberals trollposts* belong on /pol/.

*just because you're not trolling doesn't mean it won't produce mostly trollpost responses.

>people who agree with me are
>people who disagree with me are

ain't I so educated

How about provide an actual refutation of my argument.

Yeah I thought of that, pol got it all backwards. Also rember conservatives don't think long term on environmental issues, like rabbits eating all the grass, they don't understand that well that resources are limited.

You didn't make an argument, you just said that conservatives are dumb because they tend to have more kids than liberals.

Also non-human animals don't have reason so they can't be educated and also can't be against education.

return to /pol/

I didn't say anything about anyone being dumb, I made a detailed analogy between r vs. K selective species and made no side comments saying whether liberals or conservatives are better. You're straw manning

The binary view has been ditched in favour of a more naunced view - as far as I know. It is now called life history theory.
And yeah I've seen this stuff on rightwing sites too, don't you just love it when a good argument - that fits your belief like perfect - comes together?
Don't worry tho: everyone is doing it.

It's just an analogy. Yeah, the more nuanced view applies more accurately I'm sure, but at the extremes the general view applies as well. Everyone is doing what?

Wrong.

Here is a, very liberal, r-selected subspecies. They survive by continually popping out babies that require a slightly lesser gestation period.

>Education is an inherently K-selective strategy.
How so?
I really do not see a connection, you can have many kids and they all will get education.
What is preventing you from having 10 kids and getting them all into school?
Do you have any data such as education of child vs. number of siblings? No?
Then you have no argument here, just a claim, which you didn't bother to check.
I am not saying this is false, but just that you have no evidence.

>And conservatives tend to be against it
I am by no means a conservative, but this is straight up retarded. Nobody is "against education", this is a giant straw men and the opposite of what all conservative parties in the world actually argue for.
Even Merkel is technically a fucking conservative (although she is quite bad at conserving anything) and calling her or her party "anti education" would be just a lie.
Provide me with one programs of any conservative party in the world in which they say anything about education being bad.

>How about provide an actual refutation of my argument.
You argument boils down to defining the things you do not like as conservative and the things you like as the opposite of what you defined conservatism as.
Not that I am a particular fan of conservatism either, but this is just flat out retarded.
You also fail to provide any data you just make claims such as:
>r-selection strategies are good in rural areas without much of a coordinated support system
which may or may not be true, but you do not provide any data (which might very well exist).
Any data on child mortality inside/outside of cities? Any data on reproductive rates of humans outside and inside cities? NO?
Then come back after you actually have an argument and not a blind conjecture.

The kids will fail if you just have lots of them then ignore them and send them to school. As for conservatives being against education, have you never been to America? And it's well known that historically in rural areas families had more children because it's likely that some would die, and they needed farmhands.

All of your caveats have common knowledge refutations

>His evidence for conservatives "being against education" is "have you ever been to America, bro?"

As the other user said, you're just spouting a baseless conjecture. Both ideologies have their idiots.

Can you not read?
Show me evidence. All you are doing is saying things which you provide no evidence for or against.

>As for conservatives being against education, have you never been to America?
No. And how is that stopping you from pointing out anything about their policies?
Did they enact any laws which criminalize education, or do they have any party policies against it?
If you do not have that you just have blind assertion, without any value.

>it's well known
That is an appeal to common knowledge, stop these fucking fallacies.
Saying that something is "well known" is not an argument for anything, it is something you say which is not falsifiable without any data.

>historically in rural areas families had more children because it's likely that some would die
I have always heard that this applied not only to rural areas but cities too. Again, do you have any data or even expert opinion for your claims?

>All of your caveats have common knowledge refutations
COMMON KNOWLEDGE IS NOT EVIDENCE.
You are not making an argument, when you say "it is common sense that ..." or "it is known ..." you need to provide data.

If you say:
>r-selection strategies are good in rural areas without much of a coordinated support system
You need to also provide evidence for that.

Which does not mean that you are wrong, just that you did not make an arguemnt.

r-selection: chinks, curry niggers and niggers

k-selection: whites

although whites start to stagnate when there is peace

This.

>K-selection species evolved later and are generally considered more advanced
>more advanced
get out of here with this hierarchy garbage.

We're all the same species, arguing that how many kids you have changes your selection and attributing that to political views ignores the fact that both kids will still live for 50-80 years and the parental investment should be the same for both kids.