One way that K-selected humans are different from K-selected animals

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

One way that K-selected humans are different from K-selected animals

trident766
I don't think there is any species on the planet that is as connected as humans. A wolf might be connected to its pack, but it is completely unaffected by the wolves a thousand miles away. This is because the pack survives through its interactions with nature rather than interactions with the greater wolf population.

Humans however are much more dependent on the greater human society. For example, you go to the grocery to buy the food you need to survive, which was farmed by people you have never seen. Something happens all the way in China and the costs of things go up, i.e. survival becomes more difficult. So it is clear that our survival depends on not just our own efforts, but the efforts of all of humanity. If people around the world are inefficient, it makes life more difficult for you. If you think in these terms, it is easy to see that if K-selectedness in humans raises the carrying capacity, whereas r-selectedness lowers the carrying capacity. This is different from wolves where r-selectedness or K-selectedness wolf population has no impact on the carrying capacity.

If the carrying capacity is far above the population number, you would expect the population to become more r-selected, and this would make the carrying capacity fall until it reaches the population number. But if it takes time for the carrying capacity to fall, then the carrying capacity will end up falling far below the population level.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One way that K-selected humans are different from K-selected animals

fschmidt
Administrator
I assume K-selectedness correlates with group cooperation in which case this would impact the carrying capacity of wolves, which is one reason why wolves are K-selected.  But generally Malthusian limits prevent carrying capacity from significantly exceeding the population.  Humans break this rule with advances in technology that increase carrying capacity much faster than the increases in selection/Malthusian pressure, and this does allow r-selected humans to prosper.  But religious subgroups can avoid this fate by having rules that drive the r-selected out of their group and into the general population.  The general population must inevitably face crisis, but religious subgroups can avoid this.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One way that K-selected humans are different from K-selected animals

Opposition
This is why I instinctively (but wrongly) hate the free market.

Let the bad businesses fail, you say. Well, alright, but every time a business fails, it hurts me and not them. They just reincorporate and avoid all consequences, but it's everyone else who feels the ripples.

There might be five farms that farm different kinds of food and serve one community. Say that one day, one farm starts adding actual shit to its food. They're on some new age kick about how it's good.

Let them do it, you say, it's on them if they fail. The free market should decide.

Except that when they do fail, hundreds of people will starve until the other farms pick up the pace.

So the bad farm gets bailed out, so that people don't starve.

Then they continue adding shit to their food, because private property, and because I have no right to tell them what to do with their stuff.

The last is correct and moral unfortunately. I shouldn't be allowed to tell people what to do with their stuff.