Politics Culture

r/K Selection Theory Ends All Political Debate

If there was an easy to explain theory that caused a controlled demolition of your detractors’ entire political worldview and left it neatly collapsed into its own footprint, wouldn’t you like to know how to articulate it? Incredibly, r/K selection theory seems to be able to do exactly this. It shows without a doubt why a conservative, back to traditions type of sociopolitical system is the healthiest and most natural approach for the human species to embrace.

If you logically distill any idea that applies to humans down to how it biologically and evolutionarily affects us, you will generally end up with the most beneficial system of that type. For example most people would agree that science has confirmed that concentrated sugars and fats give a temporary burst of pleasure, and that the associated dopamine surge in our brains is an evolutionary mechanism that came about to help us seek out calorically dense food sources in the wild.

The problem with this mechanism is that it leaves us susceptible to the over indulgence of highly refined sugars and oils that are so freely available in our modern post-agricultural world. Over consumption of them is linked to a range of chronic diseases and so we have to do our best to temper our pleasure seeking food desires with the knowledge that these things are harmful in excess.

If the drive for calorically rich food can be so problematic, what about our sex drive?

The reproductive strategies of different animals are born out of different environmental pressures and what types of resources (mostly food) an animal requires to survive. Because the ‘r’ selected traits in these examples below emerge strongest when animals have a near limitless access to their food, it’s usually the more herbivorous and/or lower on the food-chain type of animals that fall into this category. As you see with the ‘K’ selected traits, since these emerge out of high competition environments, you get a lot more of the omnivorous and carnivorous animals that fall into this category. If you memorize the following two sets of 5 traits and develop a solid understanding of them, you will be armed with the most effective political debating weapon ever conceived.

The 5 Traits of ‘r’ Selected Animals:

  1. Risk-aversion
  2. Promiscuity
  3. Low-investment and/or single-parenting with lots of kids
  4. Early sexualization of offspring (compared to length of lifespan)
  5. Loyalty to family over the tribe

The 5 Traits of ‘K’ Selected Animals:

  1. Competition proficiency
  2. Pair-bonding
  3. High-investment in fewer offspring with dual parenting
  4. Late sexual maturation of offspring
  5. Equal loyalty to the family and the tribe

In nature r/K selection exists on a vast spectrum. On one end you have the least parental investment possible (such as a male fish fighting for territory and then spraying a cloud of semen over thousands of unattended eggs) and on the other end you have the most investment (such as two human parents raising their child right until adulthood, and even paying their way through University). Here’s a rough idea of what this spectrum looks like with a few different animal kingdoms used as examples:

(r) Insects <— Fish <— Most Reptiles <— Most Mammals —> Most Birds —> Canines —> Humans (K)

If you were to zoom in on the most ‘K’ selected end of the spectrum that features humans, you’d find various species of primates not far behind us. If we just focused on humans however, we’d see a range within just our species as well. In the ancient and even pre-agricultural world the closer to the equator you look, the more ‘r’ selected the cultures generally were, and often still are. This was shown through a greater tendency towards polygamy and other forms of non-monogamy because resources were fairly abundant for these cultures during their evolution over the last 10,000-50,000 years.

Some people are quick to point out there’s Kings and rulers all over the world, and specifically in Europe, who have practiced polygamy in some capacity. That’s certainly true as any ruler will concentrate wealth under their control and they can then easily support multiple spouses and offspring. This was not widely accepted by the highly ‘K’ selected European public however, so it was nearly always done in secret. Exceptions to the rule tend to get a lot of people’s attention, but individual examples don’t demonstrate accurate trends.

Maori PolygamyPolygamy was also simply completely absent from the non-royal artistocratic and middle classes in Europe, whereas in more equatorial regions those classes would frequently have a small harem, never as large as a Sultan or other ruler, but still often more than one spouse. This meant a lot of men in the lowest class were either slaves who weren’t allowed to have wives, or they were forced into battle to die and free up more women to marry up the ancient economic ladder.

Having a harem of women or multiple wives is seen as a status symbol in the Middle-East, Africa, and some parts of South America. In many cases child marriage is even still practiced in these regions (‘r’ selected trait 4. above). In the business world of these regions there are far greater rates of nepotism which has the effect of reducing competition in the marketplace (‘r’ selected trait 1. and 5. above). The value systems of the people in these regions has them unable to understand why this isn’t ideal.

Any time a business selects someone for a job based on any factor besides their proficiency, such as promoting someone because they’re a family member or having to adhere to gender/racial affirmative action laws, this causes a loss of potential economic growth within that company and then the larger market as a result. If a culture’s entire economy functions in this ‘r’ selected way it’s clear how technological progress slows down.

By contrast the further North you go in the world, such as Asia or Europe where these populations evolved for 40,000-50,000 years in climates that were resource scarce, K selected traits have been more strongly selected for over time. Monogamous pair-bonding (often for life), dual parenting, strong in-group trust for the tribe (family is important to ‘K’ selected people, but not to the detriment of the tribe), and a greater willingness to cooperate and trade rather than conquer and steal, due to high-trust having been a behaviour trait selected for epigenetically during the last ice age.

Arminius WifeIt’s important to point out that European conquest internally or externally didn’t really take off in a major way until after an ‘r’ selected Middle Eastern religion came in and subverted the native beliefs throughout Europe. Indigenous ‘K’ selected pre-Christian Europeans were definitely capable of war, but it was more rooted in self-defense and survival than a desire for conquest and empire building. Imperialism came about from extreme changes in social structure which can be explained with r/K selection theory.

While Christianity is far more ‘K’ selected than say Marxism, it’s still more ‘r’ selected than the pre-Christian European social orders. An exception to this would be the Roman empire which was based on a pagan belief system, but through its expansion and conquest it gradually became increasingly ‘r’ selected from things like the abundance of sex slaves they kept. This eventually turned into all out sexual degeneracy practiced by many Romans, but especially the elites.

“This is in the sense that the matrimonial bond was strictly observed by the Germanic peoples, this being compared favorably against licentiousness in Rome.”
“No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted. ”
-Tacitus, Germania (Ch. 18, 19)

I hope this post has been enlightening for you to what is without a doubt the type of social system that leads to the most prosperity, happiness, and sustainable growth within a culture. If you’re still not convinced, I’ll soon have some more posts up where I’ll be going over the identifying factors of how the West is clearly rapidly falling towards all out ‘r’ selective destruction. Then I’ll round out the series by discussing the most common criticisms of r/K selection theory, so do leave a comment if you perceive some sort of fault in these ideas!

You Might Also Like

13 Comments

  • Reply
    Mike
    December 10, 2015 at 7:26 pm

    !great article

    • Reply
      Basim
      March 5, 2016 at 6:44 pm

      Thus proving my point that it takes an ialsneny immaadture and inseadcure man to be into polygamy. What kind of illogadical human being thinks that women should only be with one man but men should be with tons of women? By that logic, there would not be enough women for everya0man.

  • Reply
    greenlight
    December 12, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    great post. what an interesting thought. first time reading theory like that.

    redice brought me here. looking forward to go through yr stuff!

    cheers!

    richie, slovakia.

    • Reply
      Nasro
      March 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm

      Dedee R “Thus proving my point that it takes an inneasly immaadture and inseadcure man to be into polygamy.”How did Ia0Thus prove your point that it takes an inneasly immaadture and inseadcure man to be into polygamy, again?bahaadhaadhaadhahah

  • Reply
    Will
    December 13, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    Very interesting. It’s as if, institutionally western humanity is being mentally bred to carry more ‘meme’s’ with these “r” based characteristics. What do you think is the core reason for these trends Govan?

  • Reply
    Jarl
    January 7, 2016 at 7:57 am

    I like this sort of reasoning but there appear to be a couple of problems with your application of this particular theory.

    First, the last of your five points implies that K selected people are ethnocentric. I thought as per Kevin MacDonald that Northern Europeans were relatively less ethnocentric than r selected types? Perhaps this just needs some clarification.

    Second, you seem a little too willing to discount apparent contrary evidence, such as Roman imperialism, by arguing along ad hoc lines. I find this particular part highly tendentious, as it displays your intention to push the explanatory power of the theory beyond its legitimate bounds and into what strikes me as biological reductionist territory. The Romans were an aggressive, expansionist people long before Christianity. There are also the Vikings.

    • Reply
      Govan Kilgour
      January 18, 2016 at 3:57 am

      Thanks for you comment. I realized my wording and perhaps even grasp and understanding of the concept around #5 wasn’t quite right, so I thought about it and updated the post. I changed the ‘r’ selected 5. to “Loyalty to family over the tribe” and the ‘K’ selected 5. to “Equal loyalty to the family and the tribe”.

      The problem with European societies all around the world today is that they’ve been indoctrinated with the view that the whole world is our tribe and so our natural high trust ‘K’ selected trait gets applied to absolutely everyone.

      “The Romans were an aggressive, expansionist people long before Christianity. There are also the Vikings.”

      Well firstly exceptions don’t negate the rule. I did offer some explanations as to why the Romans did that, but another factor is that agriculture itself tends to move some ‘K’ selected traits into ‘r’ territory. Accumulated wealth (first in the form of accumulated grain, which wasn’t possible in hunter gatherer societies where all these ‘K’ traits developed) can negatively affect people and cause them to slip into ‘r’ whether it’s addiction to the pleasures wealth can bring, or the accumulation of more wealth by conquering other lands. Most pre-Christian Norther European pagans retained a lot of ‘K’ traits because they were still partly hunting and gathering, or had only very recently begun to farm full time.

      The vikings went on raids as a defensive response to Christianity’s imposition on the pagan Germanic world. It wasn’t until after Charlemagne slaughtered thousands of Saxons and cut down their sacred oaks in the Northern forests that the pillaging began. The prime targets for their attacks were always churches and Christian lands, but again some fighting inevitably happened even before this time and it was never expansionistic to the point where we could call it ‘r’ selected in my opinion.

  • Reply
    Summary of the Coordinated Sexual Assaults by Foreigners Against Europeans on N.Y.E. – Govan Kilgour
    January 18, 2016 at 2:42 am

    […] so I will appeal to this part of ‘r’ selected people and ask you, during times when a ‘K’ selected society (the only productive type of society) rallies to save itself, what has happened to those of you that attempt to stick by your degenerate […]

  • Reply
    slavgard
    March 16, 2016 at 1:56 am

    excellent break up of the r/k theory! good job govan.

  • Reply
    clash royale
    December 6, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Excellent post. I used too be checking continuously this weblog and I’m inspired!
    Extremely helpful information specifically thhe final section 🙂 I deal with such info much.
    I usaed to be looking for this particular info for
    a very long time. Thanks and best of luck.

  • Reply
    kamagra
    December 15, 2016 at 2:51 am

    Hi just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the images aren’t loading properly.
    I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different web browsers and
    both show the same results.

    • Reply
      Govan Kilgour
      February 3, 2017 at 12:04 am

      I’m not sure what to say, I have no problem loading them.

  • Reply
    kc
    January 9, 2017 at 11:11 pm

    I stumbled upon the concept yesterday and spent hours in front of the screen digging deeper and trying to find flaws, subsequently finding your blog. r/K so fundamentally changes the way we should look at politics and the political spectrum, that, once understood, our constructs of left and right will never be the same again. I short, it is not their fault.
    The theory developed and accepted in the 1950’s by Ecologists Robert MacArthur and E.O. Wilson in their works on Island Biogeography was titled the r/K Selection Theory. It was and remains uncontroversial in its application to the orgins of the species and fits neatly within the accepted Darwinian views and explains the social habits and basic constructs within the animal kingdoms.
    The r/K Selection theory has recently been applied to politics in a book called ‘The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics” and this ground breaking work is buzzing through the internet and causing heads to explode on the left because it is so precise, so absolutely accurate and explains in undeniable terms the chasm between the left and right of politics. If the theory holds true Socialism Vs Conservativism is to a large degree genetic.
    I quote in part from the book but in simple terms r being a rabbit and K being a wolf.
    r being a socialist and K being a conservative
    Why do people adopt different political ideologies? How can seemingly equal intellects, presented with the same facts and circumstances disagree so vehemently over how society should be structured? What psychological undercurrents guide people to adopt Conservative or Liberal political beliefs, and where did they come from?
    The answer lies in a well-known concept in biology, termed r/K Selection Theory. r/K Theory examines how all populations tend to adopt one of two psychologies as a means of adapting their behavior to the presence or absence of environmental resources. The two strategies, termed r and K, each correlate perfectly with the psychologies underlying Liberalism and Conservatism.
    One strategy, named the r-strategy, imbues those who are programmed with it to be averse to all peer on peer competition, embrace promiscuity, embrace single parenting, and support early onset sexual activity in youth. Obviously, this mirrors the Liberal philosophy’s aversion to individual Darwinian competitions such as capitalism and self-defense with firearms, as well as group competitions such as war. Likewise, Liberalism is tolerant of promiscuity, tolerant of single parenting, and more prone to support early sex education for children and the sexualization of cultural influences. Designed to exploit a plethora of resources, one will often find this r-type strategy embodied within prey species, where predation has lowered the population’s numbers, and thereby increased the resources available to its individuals.
    The other strategy, termed the K-strategy, imbues those who pursue it with a fierce competitiveness, as well as tendencies towards abstinence until monogamy, two-parent parenting, and delaying sexual activity until later in life. Obviously, this mirrors Conservatism’s acceptance of all sorts of competitive social schemes, from free market capitalism, to war, to individuals owning and carrying private weapons for self-defense. Conservatives also tend to favor abstinence until monogamy, two parent parenting with an emphasis upon “family values,” and children being shielded from any sexualized stimuli until later in life. This strategy is found most commonly in species which lack predation, and whose populations have grown to the point individuals must compete with each other for the limited environmental resources that they are rapidly running out of.
    Meticulously substantiated with the latest research in fields from neurobiology to human behavioral ecology, this work offers an unprecedented view into not just what governs our political battles, but why these battles have arisen within our species in the first place. From showing how these two strategies adapt in other more complex species in nature, to examining what genetic and neurostructural mechanisms may produce these divergences between individuals, to showing what this theory indicates our future may hold, this work is the most thorough analysis to date of just why we have two political ideologies, why they will never agree, and why we will tend to become even more partisan in the future.

    r/K Political application

    Non competitive/Highly competition : As simple as support for open borders. Everyone welcome. R does not care and K will fight to protect its territory.

    Highly promiscuous/Monogamist, stable family unit : Goes without saying but support for the early sexualisation of children is a hallmark of the left. Think multiple partners, sexual liberation and inter sex relationships, no care for the traditional family unit/marriage. Safe Schools, promotion and pursuit of all levels of sexual gratification

    Low investment single parenting/High investment dual parenting and family unit : 5 children to 3 fathers, on welfare and no child support. Father has nothing to do with upbringing of children Vs the stable family unit and high investment by both parents and extended family in the child’s upbringing.

    Early sexual maturity and activity/Late sexual maturity and activity : Safe Schools and the early sexualisation of children

    Low loyalty in group/High loyalty in group : This is a glitch in the theory because by any measure the group think mentality of the left does engender loyalty within the group but will they stick around if the going gets tough? Do they abandon their own under difficult circumstances? K’s are more “through thick and thin”.

    Access to abundant resources/Limited resources which must be pursued with vigour : R’s typically rely on the provision of resources, in abundant supply, by others. Welfare, taxpayer/state supported work and never need worry about supply. It is endless magic pudding. Just eat and breed and someone will pay the bill. K’s are the lifters r’s are the leaners but to a degree, this is stereotyping.

    flight/fight: Pacifist Vs fight to defend. Peaceniks/negotiate at all costs Vs War if necessary
    Open borders Vs Border protection.
    Gun control Vs Gun ownership

    Smaller more feminine males and larger more dominant and aggressive females/ Alpha male : The hipster/girly man/ metro sexual male. Large. Domineering, aggressive feminist female Vs Alpha Male, man the breadwinner, protector and female the more submissive home keeper and nurturer for the family.

    Breed with many partners quantity not quality/Selective high quality, not quantity offspring where the female will tend to mate with the alpha male to ensure the highest quality genes carry forward and offspring has best chance of survival : Nothing needs be said. The comparisons are stark

    The table is my take from my day of reading yesterday. Does not mean it is right but it is my right to interpret what I have read and draw my own conclusions, just as it is someone else’s right to disagree. The parallels between the r/K Selection Theory as it applies to animals and the application of the theory to politics is however compelling, thought provoking and uncannily accurate (stereotyping considered) and while it is not the definitive analysis it goes a long way to explaining why, when faced with the same set of facts and circumstances, 2 nominally intelligent people, can come to 2 totally opposing views.

    There also has be a learned response implication because we do often change ourselves, from r’s to K’s as we get older and maybe this is what separates us from the animals. The ability to learn and adapt.

  • Leave a Reply