Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh - What If (vanity)
(none) | March 6, 2012 | BobL

Posted on 03/06/2012 5:15:10 PM PST by BobL

Forgive me for starting a vanity thread here, but if the issue is important enough, sometimes comments are not sufficient.

As some of you may know, there is a small army of investors that follow around Rush's sponsors. Basically they apolitical people who know that if Brand A advertises on Rush's show, Brand A's sales will go through the roof. So once Brand A starts advertising, they buy the stock (if it's available) and generally clean up (probably the surest investment strategy in existence - even Rush has talked about it). It is likely these investors that are pulling their money out of Carbonite right now, as their stock tanks. There are probably others that have shorted Carbonite, considering they shot themselves in the foot - by coming out in defense of tyranny. For investors that shorted them today (or yesterday), they would be up at least 10%, in less than two days. But the vast majority of people (including FReepers and Rush Listeners, and myself) do neither. Some of us buy their product, but that's about it.

So what if another company moves in for the kill - perhaps Mozy. I, myself, have never purchased a backup service, but I was getting close to Carbonite, especially given their advertising on Rush's show. However, since this story broke, it appears that Carbonite's product, in addition to their attitude towards Rush, leave something to be desired.

So how would a company move in for the kill - very easy. Buy national air time on Rush's show and STATE IT TO THE WORLD that you are doing this in support of free speech (as well as having a useful product) - and, believe me, Rush would be more than happy to amplify that message. If a company would do that, they would be OVERWHELMED by Rush listeners trying to make a point, and would see their stock go through the roof. Their owner(s) could cash out, probably in week after starting their ads, and never have to worry about working again. Yes, their company would have to put up with the harassment of OWS and Media Matters types, but that is the cost of doing business, and they're easy to deal with if you have a plan for them (i.e., put callers through a screening process before putting them through to humans, or just direct them to the web - not hard; for example, make them give you a real credit card number to set up an account, before putting them on with a live person).

For a huge company like Walmart, I'd say don't bother - too many people from all walks of life use them. But for a small to medium size company, even getting just 1% of Rush's 22,000,000 listeners pretty much sets them up for life. While I pick on Carbonite here, it's only because they are a public company and they have been most vocal in stabbing Rush in the back. There are also mattress companies, flower delivery companies, and (in fact) any other company that could simply explode their sales, by making a very pro-America political statement and advertising on Rush's show.

For the record, I have no investment (or shorting) of Carbonite, Mozy, or any of Rush's other advertisers (that I know of) - and certainly won't be doing it now, after posting this.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: boycott; limbaugh; rush; sandytheslut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last
To: navymom1

Oh I’ll dump them, but it does me no good to do it now since I’ve already been billed and they won’t refund the fee.


51 posted on 03/06/2012 9:01:45 PM PST by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere

It is a two party system thus yes let the socialists in our party just move to the democrats they would be welcomed by the blue dogs


52 posted on 03/06/2012 10:30:54 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BobL; Steve Van Doorn; hope; Thorliveshere
Conservatism isn't dying, per se, but it is weakening, as part of a natural cycle. I'm not sure you can do anything to strengthen it, other than wait as the cycle progresses, and Conservatism rises again (which it will, very soon).

I just finished a whole new book on why Conservatism and Liberalism exist. Each is an intellectual manifestation of a primitive Darwinian psychology which you see in nature, everywhere. Conservatism is designed to confront resource shortage, while Liberalism is designed to exploit resource excess. (see my profile for more detail on this and the r/K Theory behind it.) You see this in microbiology all the time. Place bacteria in a tough, demanding environment, and they will evolve all sorts of complex adaptations. Remove them to an environment of ease and free resources (in a petri dish) and they devolve, losing all of their complex adaptations as they evolve to simply convert free resources into more and more simpler organisms.

The problem now is that we have had a very long period of resource excess, where there has been essentially no competitive selections for any type of fitness, competitive drive, honor, loyalty, etc. In biology, that is an r-type environment, and it produces an r-type, Liberal psychology. As r-selection is wont to do, today the unmotivated, entitled welfare idiots are producing 10 less capable children a pop (all government subsidized and single parented), while we produce one or two. It's Idiocracy in action, and it is fueling a rise in Liberalism and entitlement.

I mean, you want to blame this on the Hippies, but where did you think the Hippies came from? Take every honor-bound, competitively driven male out of the populace (through drafting them for WWII), and twenty years later the children of the dregs that were left behind are the Hippies of the 60’s. This is a genetic effect.

We will continue to see Leftism increase for a bit more, until the coming debt collapse, when people will either have to compete and produce on their own, leave for somewhere else, or die. It won't be fun, as we will all have trouble supporting ourselves just like in the Depression. But the welfarites are going to find out what it is to not be able to blackmail half of the populace into paying all of their bills. I suspect a lot will leave for Venezuela, Canada, Cuba, Britain, or some other more socialist environ with free stuff for nothing. If we're smart, we'll pay for their plane ticket.

Just as in history, our successful society will gradually decline into failure, undergo an uncomfortable period of competitive selection, and then we will re-emerge without all of the unproductive dead weight or the idiotic r-type Liberalism. Think of the WWII generation coming out of the Great Depression. We'll be competitive, patriotic, loyal, and Conservative. We'll innately view Liberals as inferior, and reject their mindless ramblings as the moronic drivel it is.

If you understand evolutionary biology, it is funny how we are all just like big animals, despite all the intellect and personality. Apply r-selection pressures by providing free resources, and see a gradual diminution in competitiveness, monogamy, high-investment two-parent child rearing, and sexual chastity. All of a sudden you have a lot of cowardly, promiscuous, single parent favoring Liberals, railing-at-the-heavens-angry that they aren't just given free birth control, control over the nation, and loyal spouses.

Apply K-selection pressures, forcing competition for limited resources, and all of the goodness returns, and suddenly the populace is loyal, competitive, monogamous, chaste, polite, and desirous that children be reared properly in a two parent home. It's coming, and there is nothing Liberals can do to stop it.

53 posted on 03/07/2012 4:35:45 AM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
It is a two party system thus yes let the socialists in our party just move to the democrats they would be welcomed by the blue dogs

But that is not what's happening! They're winning the party through infiltration! They will not "just move" to the democrats, they're here, and here to stay, it's just another version of the democrats (which is apparent with Romney). The party needs to clarify and magnify the differences in ideology, and that will/should cause a party split. We can not continue like this. The elites continue their grip on the GOP, how will we ever "take it back?" The house has been over-run with rats and rodents. Time for a new house.
54 posted on 03/07/2012 5:19:34 AM PST by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

“Take every honor-bound, competitively driven male out of the populace (through drafting them for WWII), and twenty years later the children of the dregs that were left behind are the Hippies of the 60’s. This is a genetic effect.”

Actually, no. The Hippies, largely, were born after 1945 - they were the kids of our war heroes. The war heroes wanted, I suspect, just wanted to make life as easy as possible for their kids, so they didn’t bother being parents to them. Then you add TV, birth control, and God knows what else, and you have the mess we have today.


55 posted on 03/07/2012 5:55:59 AM PST by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: willyd

Why mix politics and business, they ask ? Business is trust and I no longer trust Citrix to do the right thing, since they obviously can’t see right from wrong in this case.


56 posted on 03/07/2012 6:56:31 AM PST by chiller ( Elect another batch of TPartiers and it won't matter which R we elect. WE will lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Hippies took off in the beginning of the sixties, an outgrowth of the Beat Generation of the late fifties. When was a 20 year old Hippie in 1962 conceived? A Hippie conceived exactly at the end of WWII (and born almost a year later) would have been 20 in ‘66 (and the war actually lasted beyond that for many, with occupations and reconstructions). Some Hippies were born after the War, but the surge of them, which created the movement during the first half of the sixties, was conceived during it.

Hippies peaked in ‘67 or so, but that was the maximum total number, including all those from previous years, not the most Hippies born as a percentage of their specific generation. Note, a 21 year old college kid in 66 would have been born in 45, and conceived in ‘44.

By 1969-1970, the movement was passing, just as the young adults of the boomer generation were becoming the predominate form of young adult. (boomers were technically born 1946-1964 but they were not predominately conceived within a year of the war’s end. Many War heroes literally took years to reintegrate, find a wife, settle down with a job, and then have children). That time frame correlates with the sudden fall of the Hippie movement among the youth around early 1970 or so.

Some Hippie leaders and SDS types I researched were a little older, usually born just before the war. Ayers was one, if I’m not mistaken. But every generation had defectives like them. When the mass of defectives conceived during the War surged, they just benefitted from the fact that they were a little older than the surge members, and could thus exert social dominance over their younger cohorts, and become leaders. Right place, right time effect. If the Hippie surge hadn’t happened right in front of them they would have just petered out as no-name Communnist party supporters, just as many others did before them.

Some kids of veterans might have gotten caught up in the movement once it had been going for a while in the late sixties, but the movement began and got moving right as the kids conceived during the war came of age. It ended (despite the masses of sixties Hippies still pushing the free sex/rock and roll/drugs product) as the boomers swelled into the young adult movement in 1969-1970 and beyond.

The Hippie movement wasn’t due to WWII vets being irresponsible parents. Hippie psychology was a gentically imbued predisposition, just as r-type reproductive strategies are genetically imbued, and just as political affiliation shows a strong correlation with genetic influences.

Seriously, suppose I said to you I was going to stop every male who would willingly serve in the military from mating, for a period of four years. Only guys who are not psychologically willing or capable of service are allowed to mate for that period. What do you predict the offspring produced during that period would be like?

Would they resemble, in any way, the Hippie?


57 posted on 03/07/2012 7:36:05 AM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

Don’t you just hate that! As Bill Clinton once said, “I feel your pain.”


58 posted on 03/07/2012 8:17:19 AM PST by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Very nice brake down. I like to go back to the hunter gatherer period but you point out going back father can also be helpful to understand what is taking place. Because during the hunter and gathering period they wouldn't have put up with them.

this cycle if you are correct could take a very long time to play out. Look at the roman empire their end days they got lazy with nature helping them they literally starved to death with. Food that they might have had was worth more then the whole empire.

The empire fell Islam moved in and it took centuries to pick up the pieces. that is a long cycle with a huge risk of losing all of civilization for good.

59 posted on 03/07/2012 11:33:44 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
20 year hippie effect that is interesting. ~1918 (WWI) the 20 year old would be of age in 1938. This would have a more prevalent effect in Europe then here. Leftism was at its peak throughout the world at that time.

That is interesting.

60 posted on 03/07/2012 11:50:33 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

The funny thing is, this information strikes a chord deep in Liberals. If you want to shut up a Liberal online, tell them they are r-strategists, and then give them a loose explaination of r/K Theory. Say r-strategists have four traits. They avoid competition and are docile, embrace promiscuity, embrace single parenting, and have no problem with early sexual activity in youth. Tell them Conservatives are K-strategists, because they are competitive, embrace monogamy, embrace single parenting, and seek to encourage abstinence until marriage. Tell them to look it up themselves on google.

Every Liberal I have done this with online has disappeared, and will not talk to me again. Their last communications always have an air of desponandancy, and depression, before they just cut me off. they can’t even think of a response.

Deep down, it hits them, what they are, and their response is to retreat into a shell, and try to block out this work. I am so curious what will happen when this concept finally takes, and they have to face it.

I would love to be responsible, but it is probably more likely someone else with better connections among Conservatives will bring it to the fore, and crush the Liberal movement with it.

Still, I will be smiling widely.


61 posted on 03/08/2012 5:48:08 AM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BobL
If you haven't seen this, BobL:

from HOTAIR

Since the market opened on Monday through its close [yesterday], Carbonite stock (NASDAQ: CARB) has plummeted nearly 12 percent, outpacing the drop of the NASDAQ index in that same time period by nine-and-a-half points. It was also one of the biggest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday.

62 posted on 03/08/2012 10:03:01 AM PST by chiller ( Elect another batch of TPartiers and it won't matter which R we elect. WE will lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BobL

If I were you, I wouldn’t be in the stock market right now. Regardless of Limbaugh.....


63 posted on 03/08/2012 10:04:26 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
I have been attempting to understand socialists for years I think you hit it right on the head. This map and others like it has been stumping me for years. The maps show the more densely populated the region the more likely they will be socialists.

This map was from kerry Bush election

I think you figured it out. Thank you

If this is true then the r/K theory isn't really biological it is really based on our environment. Unless there is some kind of biological trigger that we are not aware of?

Now you got me thinking.

64 posted on 03/08/2012 10:34:13 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Don’t worry, I’m not. Got out years ago, just about at the peak.


65 posted on 03/08/2012 12:51:32 PM PST by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
You got my attention looked and seen your book isn't out yet.

r-selection Liberals (socialists) (left wing or downward thinking) have a fundamental belief of mass population which makes sense. Why do they advocate abortions and contraceptives? wouldn't that be against mass population rooted beliefs? And why do so many go into the teaching professions if nurturing isn't a big issue for them?

This concept makes a lot of sense to me but there are lose ends I don't understand yet.

With abortions, contraceptives and the miss conception of over population western population growth rates are at a near stand still and in many cases shrinking. countries that support Sharia law is expanding. It would seem to me it was religion in general that kept our populations growing.


Socialists are big on propaganda if something doesn't ring a bell with their spoon fed propaganda they usually don't talk about it or laugh it off.

66 posted on 03/08/2012 1:20:06 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
The book won't be available for a few weeks, so for now, check my site at www.anonymousconservative.com for more material on this. I've even got a short form paper on the research, though I'm going to update it soon.

On your questions.

>Why do they advocate abortions and contraceptives?

For the same reason they support wolves and cougars and sharks, even when they are attacking humans. r-selection’s worst enemy is a population reaching the carrying capacity of it's environment. At that point, competition takes hold, and the r-types get culled by those K-types who concentrate all their effort on producing a few high-quality offspring.

For this reason, r-types want mortality in their populace - so long as that mortality does not select for the fittest. Kill old people, OK. Kill babies, OK. Cougars eating joggers, Don't hurt the Cougar. Let the poor suffer poverty, and let that stall their reproduction? SOCIAL DARWINISM/EUGENICS/EVIL

>And why do so many go into the teaching professions if nurturing isn't a big issue for them?

A few reasons. The fundamental aspect of the r-type is Anticompetitiveness. They abhor being thrown into free competition with others. There are those who do, and those who teach. Teaching gives them authority and power, without having to actually compete with others in a real sense. Get a bachelors, get a teaching certificate, join the union, and you are set.

(That isn't to denigrate teachers. Some will go into it to nurture, and pass on to the next generation, but they will probably tend to be Conservatives. Liberals like a simple, easy path to a steady salary which isn't dependent on competing. Notice Unions are anticompetitive organizations, designed to eliminate merit based competitions. Everyone gets the same salary, and no one can be selected against for inferiority.)

>With abortions, contraceptives and the miss conception of over population western population growth rates are at a near stand still and in many cases shrinking. countries that support Sharia law is expanding.

Where r-selection meets intellect, the r-type will satiate their sex drive and their lack of nurturing together through the use of birth control during promiscuity.

r-types with less education, and less impulse control will not use birth control, and as a result the future will likely consist of r-types which are even less sane than those today, at least until resources become shorter, and K-selection enters the picture again.

>Dense populations and r-types.

In some of the research I cite, it shows that in the group competitive environment, loyalty and altruism thrive when the three R's are present. Reputation, Reciprocity, and Retribution. If everyone knows your reputation, reciprocates if it's good, and does retribution if it's not, altruism and loyalty thrive, and selfish strategies get culled.

The thing is, that works best in small groups. As groups grow larger, the effect diminishes, and lends advantage to more selfish strategies, who exploit the loyalty of others, but never reciprocate. Loyal strategies get culled, and the disloyal are left. Since Liberalism involves less loyalty to in-group (John Jost’s work), their strategy will thrive better in very large groups, where reputaiton is not as effective, and retribution (through witholding reciprocity) is not as effective. I think the r-type psychology in humans has evolved an urge to gravitate to high density population centers for this reason. Those r-types which did not prefer large population centers were gradually culled in their small groups by the three R's.

>If this is true then the r/K theory isn't really biological it is really based on our environment. Unless there is some kind of biological trigger that we are not aware of?

The best evidence is that the r-strategy is primarily a result of a dopamine receptor mutation, combined with specific early life experiences indicating a child will be uncompetitive as an adult. See “Modern Political Thought in the Context of Evolutionary Psychology” on my site.

The interesting aspect of this is that this will produce a competition between the r-type allele, and the K-type allele within the population. Alleles which evolve tricks to diminish the “market share” of their opposition will proliferate, while those that do not will fall away. As a result, r-types will evolve strategies (such as psychological drives) to thwart K-type reproduction, and Vice Versa.

>This concept makes a lot of sense to me but there are lose ends I don't understand yet.

I've got an old PDF up on my site with a chapter from the old book. The old book was written more for the Glenn Beck crowd, and was not as much pure science as the new book (which will be a lot cheaper too), but this chapter on the Transvestite cuttlefish is a good place to begin to understand how the r and K-strategies become psychologies in their adherents.

See

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/cuttlefish.pdf

67 posted on 03/08/2012 3:19:55 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Very good answers. Had me thinking all day about this.

Karl Marx said his ideas would not work in a third word country or any country that wasn't already well developed. In other words he seemed to know his concepts were designed for a utopian r-selection system.

My question: Karl Marx/ Engels were a big aggravate of war and destruction by mass slaughter of those that made their utopian visions difficult as with Engels writings clearly states:

"the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

Engels writings on Genocide

Slav Sonderbund were considered to be the underclass people of Serbia.

In other words the rooted foundation of leftists thinking is based on war and our literal destruction. Which was shown to us by Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so on. How can r-selected (bunny rabbits) people be so blood thirsty?

68 posted on 03/09/2012 3:58:27 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Very good answers. Had me thinking all day about this.

Karl Marx said his ideas would not work in a third word country or any country that wasn't already well developed. In other words he seemed to know his concepts were designed for a utopian r-selection system.

My question: Karl Marx/ Engels were a big aggravate of war and destruction by mass slaughter of those that made their utopian visions difficult as with Engels writings clearly states:

"the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

Engels writings on Genocide

Slav Sonderbund were considered to be the underclass people of Serbia.

In other words the rooted foundation of leftists thinking is based on war and our literal destruction. Which was shown to us by Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so on. How can r-selected (bunny rabbits) people be so blood thirsty?

69 posted on 03/09/2012 3:58:39 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Brace yourself, this will be a long one.

A couple of things must be understood.

First, r-type humans and Stalin are two different animals. Stalin was a full blown psychopath, and different from the average grassroots-level r-type idiots who put him in power (though r-types will gravitate to psychopaths for reasons I will explain shortly). You see this today in the US. The average empty-headed liberal bimbo in San Francisco wouldn’t do what Rahm Emmanuel would do in the US, if Rahm had complete power. So Liberal leaders tend to be more ruthless, and even more violent than Liberals.

That said many hard-core ideologue Liberals would vote in a Stalin, and then tolerate him as he butchered Conservatives. So they are not bunny rabbits either. This has a couple of roots.

Bunny rabbits are simply r-selected. In the book, we show how r/K Selection is where ideology begins evolutionarily, but not where it’s evolution ends.

First, the r/K psychologies evolve into individual Competitiveness and Anticompetitiveness, ala the Cuttlefish example above. Here in the cuttlefish, two different psychologies are competing with each other for market share of the population. In so doing, they evolve specific behaviors designed to thwart each other’s effective reproduction. K-types compete to make themselves fitter, and increase survivability, while r-types seek to use the K-type competitions as opportunities for promiscuous cuckoldry. Again, make a few highly competent offspring, or make a lot of idiots, and hope one makes it by sheer luck.

The final piece of the puzzle is group competition (not selection). Here the r-types adopt strategies expressly designed to screw over K-types, and destroy them. Think Hippies hating servicemen, and spitting on them. It is no coincidence that the r-types evolved an open animus to the K-type humans. Hippies hated the selflessly loyal military and law enforcement for a reason.

To understand why this is, you must understand that so far we know that these psychologies are likely produced by competing alleles of at least one gene (There may be more genes, but they will likely all revolve around competing alleles as well). What this means, is that you inherit one form of the gene, you tend towards r-type behavior. You inherit the other, you tend towards K-type behavior. It’s actually more complicated, but this will do here.

So now you have a bunch of r-type genes in the populace, each attached to a myriad other genes which subtly alter psychology. Some r-type alleles are attached to genes which make them perform behaviors designed to actively compete against, and seek to destroy, K-types. Others are not, and just try to consume resources and reproduce. As time goes on, r-type genes which do not also have genes designed to recognize Competitors and seek their destruction get out-competed by those which do. Seeking the destruction of a competing allele, and wiping it out, is a huge advantage.

As a result, as group competition enters the arena, you end up with two ideologies which not only are designed to exploit environmental conditions, but which are also designed to seek the destruction of their competing alleles through various strategies.

In evolutionary biology this effect is called a “Greenbeard effect.” A specific allele evolves an ability to recognize like-alleles, and performs behaviors designed to aid the allele in others, so as to perpetuate it. The term goes back to Richard Dawkins, and his book The Selfish Gene, though the idea was older. He hypothesized an imaginary allele which produced a green beard, as well as a tendency among Greenbeards to recognize and help each other. This would give substantial advantage to this Greenbeard allele, and so the phenomenon was named.

Here, we see r-types recognizing and seeking to destroy the competing allele which causes K-type behavior, and K-types seeking to bring about circumstances of freedom and free competition which will aid them to dominate the population over the less adapted r-types, while showing altruistic loyalty to other K-types. Each allele is seeking to aid it’s own allele to gain ground in the population.

Think of r and K-type psychologies as foundational traits, which then slowly evolve by trying out a lot of psychological tendencies, and then keeping those that work (because those which don’t confer advantage get out-competed).

Liberalism has been shown to have a genetic root. John Jost showed that Liberals tend to exhibit less loyalty to in-group. Likewise he showed Liberals exhibit increased openness to out-group interests. As r-type Liberalism evolved, it added on these two traits for a reason. K-types tend to disregard out-group interests, and show loyalty to in-group because it aids them to succeed in their competitions. By adopting conflicting urges, r-types find themselves innately imbued with a psychology designed to thwart the mechanism by which K-types seek their success, from a Darwinian perspective. Those r-types which evolved to help K-types win in war were gradually culled by time, as helping K-types only helped them to outcompete these aberrant r-types.

So yes, every Liberal envys and loathes K-types, from Hippies spitting on Servicemen, to Stalin killing freedom loving people indiscriminately. I suspect it is even part of why Liberals demand our troops fight our wars with their hands tied. Subconsciously, they are programmed to want K-type deaths when possible. So if a terrorist kills ten of our troops in an IED blast - “Oh, well.” But if our troops go the terrorist’s house and kill him, without every legalistic i dotted and t crossed, well, somebody will be spending an eternity in Leavenworth, and Libs will be running it on the news 24/7 to show how awful our military is.

The bottom line is the r-type and K-type alleles have adapted to group competition, and this is why r-types will seek K-type destruction. It benefits their allele’s genetic drive to permeate the population. Those r-type alleles which did not incorporate this competitiveness with K-types into their genome were out-competed, and are no longer around in large numbers. Of course, if a full blown psychopath comes along, and seizes control of the r-type movement (not difficult, given r-types tend towards patheity), and if that psychopath then starts slaughtering K-types, the r-types are not going to stop it.

A lot of this will be obvious to people in the biological sciences, because we have seen these evolutionary forces playing out forever in other organisms.

That all said, in Liberals, there is a strong tendency towards the Stockholm Syndrome, and it is probably evolved - an outgrowth of their strategy of using betrayal in group competition. Ally with a violent enemy during war-time, and then aid the enemy to kill K-types within your own population.

As a result, Liberals will have a strong psychological tendency to ally with violent threats. Think of how they wanted to free the wonderful Uighurs in Guantanamo (who were actually in battle with our troops just prior to being caught by the Afghans). Or of how horrible it was that some terrorists had panties put on their heads in Abu Ghraib. Hell, after 9/11 there were a few hundred at a protest in Berkeley complaining about us going into Afghanistan militarily in response to 9/11.

In war, this tendency to ally with violent threats produces an ability to ally with the enemy, and bring defeat to your own population. Think of the Hippies in Vietnam, had it happened in much more primitive times. If they could have made us lose to the NVA and Vietcong (which in primitive times would have been much closer geographically), the NVA and Vietcong would have killed most of our K-type men, placed us under an occupation, and probably appointed Hippies to positions of power. That is an enormous advantage, and it would all seem to arise naturally out of the Liberal, r-type psychology which seeks to sympathize with out-groups while showing diminished loyalty to in-group. The strength with which it presents will vary with extent that one demonstrates a Liberal ideology, but as you head farther leftward, it becomes very apparent. Hippies showed this trait off the charts.

To me it is just a more complex version of the Cuttlefish battles, where as the Competitors go about their competitions seeking to win, the transvestite Anticompetitors simply do what they need to in order win from a Darwinian perspective, regardless of any rules, honor, or shame.

So when you bring up Stalin, I kind of see it from that perspective. To Communists, Stalin was the violent threat who could eliminate the K-types once and for all. He was similar to what the Hippies wanted the Vietcong to be, what the murdering rapist is to the ACLU idiot, and what the hardcore terrorist in a blacksite is to the Amnesty International type.

On the surface, the Lib will spout some bull about values, morals, etc. But at the end of the day, there is a deeper psychological game afoot, and you see it in slightly different variations in so many places as you go back through history. Let there be a violent criminal, and there will be a Lib, cozying up to him, and telling the K-types who want to eradicate him to stand down. Just give the criminal what he wants, rather than fight. This is an innate tendency to see a threat and curry favor. That is why every Communist/Socialist/Marxist revolution was led by the wrong leader. At the time, every Lib thought the leader was great, but they are innately mis-programmed idiots, so it always turns out badly. Then they turn around and blame the leader their idiot types supported for the disaster their psychology created.

If you look at it as an evolved aspect of a Darwinian competitive strategy, things become a lot clearer and a lot more of it makes sense.

Don’t make the mistake of seeing competitive/non-competitive in this. Both Liberalism and Conservatism are competitive strategies, and they have been evolving some pretty competitive aspects to their strategies for some time. In some ways, Libs are even more competitive, as they will violate every rule of honor, loyalty, and decency to get their way, and see their r-type allele dominate the population.


70 posted on 03/10/2012 10:44:44 AM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Very nice answers as always. Thank you

just throwing out a possibility here:

It could be a green-beard gene or it could be simple adaptation of the species.

Such as Grizzly bears changing their color to white at the beginning of the Quaternary Ice age that we are in which we call polar bears. Or even simpler then that and much more likely in my opinion is how pack hunting animals such as wolves doesn't show the classic pack leadership when there is a prevalence of food such as when there are a number of trash cans in the area. Or it is at least not as prevalent or noticeable.

If it is similar to the full belly wolf example those wolves that are well fed would resent having to go back too the hard difficult work of hunting. At the same time the pack leaders wouldn't mind it much at all. Obviously I am talking about humans here the full bellied humans would fight to keep the Status quo and resent the pack leaders and everything related to them.

71 posted on 03/10/2012 4:17:35 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

>It could be a green-beard gene or it could be simple adaptation of the species

Could be both. As a species, we have gone through the r and K periods again and again. Probably the biggest was when we first spread out from Africa. (and indeed, a gene which correlates with Liberalism is also highly present in migratory populations.) So as we reached the carrying capacity of the African environment, K-selection began. All of a sudden r-types were being culled in large numbers. A few had an additional urge to migrate outward, into environments with no humans. They found abundant food which they did not need to compete for. They survived, and the r-type psychology adopted that psychological predisposition. As they reached the carrying capacity of that new environment, many r-types already had an urge to migrate outward, and that trait became more prominent in them as that cycle repeated. Now today, we see that migratory populations tend to have the dopamine receptor allele associated with Liberalism, and Liberals tend to score high on novelty seeking, such as exploratory urges, in personality tests. Gradually, these traits add on, and then hang around in at least a few individuals, until they are needed in the next stage of the cycle which favors them.

As time went on, we likely both adapted traits to help us ride the waves of varying resource availability. r-types evolved strategies to persist during K-selection (probably by currying favoritism with threats, groveling before strength, and seeking to reapportion resources from successful competitors to unsuccessful r-types), as well as drives to eliminate K-types when they gained relative power during times of plenty. Meanwhile K-types evolved an innate antipathy towards r-types to try and keep their numbers limited, and punish them with expulsion from groups during group competitive environments.

>how pack hunting animals such as wolves doesn’t show the classic pack
>leadership when there is a prevalence of food such as when there are a
>number of trash cans in the area. Or it is at least not as prevalent or noticeable.

Very interesting, I did not know that. Liberals show less respect for authority and leadership on personality tests, such as done by John Jost. Of course studies on charitable giving show they give less, and are thus less altruistic, which would correlate with Jost’s work showing they have less loyalty to in-group as well, which is also less altruistic in nature. In the end, you are either a K-type group Competitor working for the group’s success (and the K-trait’s success), or you are out for yourself, hoping you are the one to perpetuate the r-trait.

Once those trashcans are gone, and K-selection returns, those wolves who maintained a drive to organize into a functional pack will see their groups rapidly out-compete those who are programmed to follow a more selfish, individualistic path. I would bet the wolves who go their own way exhibit other indices of r-selected behavior, and probably have slightly different dopamine receptor alleles from the pack wolves.

>If it is similar to the full belly wolf example those wolves that are well fed
>would resent having to go back too the hard difficult work of hunting. At
>the same time the pack leaders wouldn’t mind it much at all. Obviously I am
>talking about humans here the full bellied humans would fight to keep the
>Status quo and resent the pack leaders and everything related to them.

It’s coming. In the Roman Empire, r-selection was maintained through an influx of free foreign resources seized from conquered lands. The booty was just like the trash cans to the wolves. And as it fed the empire, it produced the growth of r-types, who then increased taxes, enlarged government, began to shirk from military service, and began trusting foreign Barbarians to run their Empire. Eventually, they ran out of foreign lands to conquer, the resource influx stopped, and K-selection returned. The r-type, resource redistributing Empire collapsed, and everyone had to survive by demonstrating ability, effort, and determination, in free competition with others. You can bet the r-types were desperate at the end.

We’ve had our own free resource influx, to support r-selection - the conjured money we just keep creating out of thin air and borrowing from everyone else. At some point, something will happen, that money will stop, and we will even have to pay it back, further exacerbating the K-selective effects on a population rife with r-types.

Those of us who self organize into rule governed groups with well established hierarchies of authority will continue to produce items and services of value, and survive handily. Those Democrat voting welfarites in urban areas will probably have it a a lot tougher, as will the average Lib, who will not function so well in such a pack type hierarchy. I would expect a goblin filled, target-rich environment will spontaneously become normal, at least for some while.

What is that old curse – May you live in interesting times?

Interesting times are coming, and it will be much better to have a K-type group Competitor psychology than an r-type Liberal psychology. On the bright side, I would expect to see a more Conservative country emerge from it, freed from the dead weight of Liberalism and it’s leaches, and wildly successful.


72 posted on 03/11/2012 12:42:30 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Very nice answers as always.

Back to the original point I made in this thread which I personally do not have an answer for and would very much like your opinion. For decades up until about 50 years ago the wealthy in this country has been mostly conservative or K-types until they realized they can vote themselves money and power.
As an example both parties were made up of mostly conservatives. Today we are barley part of one party.

Today big business goes hand in hand with government which is a socialistic system at it's finniest were the government taxes the middle class and gives it to the rich too redistribute as they both see fit.

Question:
When the money runs out and the K-type are back in power how in your opinion can we keep from allowing us to revert back into idiocy of r-type logic? In other words how can we avoid government taxing the middle class for big business to redistribute?

Propaganda or money always seems to win in a Republican system of government which means it fails the K-type environment. Even more so today with the type of media we have where money helps distribute ideas.

I honestly do not have an answer or something close to an answer. I have been brought up to believe a Republican system is the best of the worst if you know what I mean.

73 posted on 03/11/2012 2:19:57 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
maybe even a broader question.
Can the Yin and yang live together?
74 posted on 03/11/2012 2:28:01 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

>For decades up until about 50 years ago the wealthy in this country has
>been mostly conservative or K-types until they realized they can vote
>themselves money and power.

I think what you see here is the effect of an increasingly r-type population. The r-type population will exist on a spectrum of ability. Most will exhibit diminished intelligence, diminished ability, diminished adaptation. But, given the numbers which they exist in, some will also exhibit high ability, high intelligence, high functionality. That is for every few hundred thousand welfarites, there will be a Warren Buffet. When you get the r-type lack of rule adherence, lack of morality, lack of honor, and add to it high intelligence, and ability, you will see that individual soar in the hierarchy.
In a strongly K-selected society, the three R’s will kick in, and his reputation will get him little reciprocity, and some retribution. This will keep him lower in the hierarchy, and his type will be rarer at the top. However as the society becomes more r-type, that psychology will be more tolerated, and will enjoy greater favor. That is what I think we see here.
It’s not that the rich figured out that they could vote themselves more money, but rather that leftists are enjoying the ability to attain higher status as they no longer need to be afraid of the three R’s. It’s a more r-type of rich today, which is less moral, less prone to rule adherence, and less loyal to fellow citizens. Fifty years ago we’d have labeled them all Communists, and blacklisted them into oblivion. Today they support economic redistribution openly, and experience no detriment. The three R’s have temporarily been suspended due to us being in an r-type phase of the cycle, and the ability of r-types to thrive is evidence of this..

>As an example both parties were made up of mostly conservatives. Today
>we are barley part of one party.

I think this may have begun with the Hippies growing out of WWII. Our high productivity was always going to produce the free resource availability of the r-type environment, but pulling *all* of our K-types out of the breeding pool for half a decade in WWII gave the r-types a boost which it might have taken them fifty or a hundred years to get otherwise.

>Today big business goes hand in hand with government which is a
>socialistic system at it’s finest were the government taxes the middle
>class and gives it to the rich too redistribute as they both see fit.

Again, we are a more r-type society today, so the r-types are tolerated much more than they would be were the society to be overwhelmingly K-type. As K-selection returns, this too will gradually be rectified.

>Question:
>When the money runs out and the K-type are back in power how in
>your opinion can we keep from allowing us to revert back into idiocy
>of r-type logic? In other words how can we avoid government taxing
>the middle class for big business to redistribute?

>Propaganda or money always seems to win in a Republican system of
>government which means it fails the K-type environment. Even more so
>today with the type of media we have where money helps distribute ideas.

>I honestly do not have an answer or something close to an answer. I have
>been brought up to believe a Republican system is the best of the worst if
>you know what I mean.

>maybe even a broader question.
>Can the Yin and yang live together?

That is the million dollar question, and like you, I don’t have an answer, and say so in the book.

I have a section in the book where I attempt to show how populations cycle between K-type, free societies, and r-type oppressed societies. Basically, a society undergoes a period of K-selection. It becomes composed of predominately K-type individuals. K-type individuals are, according to the research cited, competitive, conscientious, optimistic, and prone to loyally ally with peers in structured groups with strict hierarchies that are well designed to accomplish objectives. As a result, a K-selected society is highly productive.

Unfortunately, this high productivity makes resources freely available within their population, and creates conditions of r-selection within their population. This effect is small at first. K-type societies will give r-types just enough to allay the worst suffering. However, once r-types do not experience mortality (as will occur under conditions of high productivity due to simple morality), they will multiply faster than K-types, while exhibiting less conscientiousness, less optimism, less loyalty to in-group, and less incentive salience (desire for goal attainment – likely diminished due to diminished competitiveness). Think of the unemployed welfarite, who thinks everyone owes him a free cellphone, free healthcare, free food, free housing, and a weekly stipend to boot.
As this less productive, more reproductive cohort grows relative to the K-types, the society will gradually become more r-type. As the population becomes more r-type, r-types will find themselves provided with ever more resources by an ever more r-type government which experiences ever more r-type influence from an ever more r-type population. This then gradually, inexorably, takes the government towards the Roman example. Once there are enough r-types, their consumption and diminished productivity will exceed the productive output of the K-types, and the system will collapse, forcing K-selection upon the populace, at which point the cycle will repeat.
I put a representation of Yin and Yang on the cover of my book for that reason. If you see the actual symbol, there is a small black dot within the white Yang, and a small white dot within the black Yin. They represent “Yin within Yang” and “Yang within Yin.” Basically Yin and Yang exist in an eternal cycle, vacillating between Yin and Yang. The dots represent that Yin always contains within it the seed of Yang, and Yang always contains within it the seed of Yin. When Yin reaches it’s apex, the seed of Yang emerges and takes over, and the cycle then turns Yang, courtesy of Yin and it’s power. And Vice Versa.

It really is the same as what I see here, where the productivity which arises out of the K-type environment contains the seed of the r-type environment, and begins the next phase of the cycle, namely the r-type environment. Likewise, the r-type environment grows strong, until it eventually brings about such chaos that it contains within it the very seed of the K-selection it abhors. As r-selection reaches it’s apex, it brings about the utter collapse of the system, and a return to a type of K-selection which is it’s polar opposite. Thus r-selection has within it the seed of K-selection.

I don’t see anyway around it. Eugenics doesn’t work, because who decides who is the most capable? The only way would be to demand each man either produce for himself or die. Sort of the Thunderdome model of government. But clearly, nobody is going to enjoy the immense productivity of a K-type environment, head out for a lavish vacation in Kona, see a child on the side of the road starving because his parents are failures, and just leave him to starve. I think we are just condemned by our morality to ride the r/K roller-coaster forever. Like Sisyphus, we’ll build greatness in our society, and then Liberals will gradually tear it down by supporting failure and punishing success, until they destroy it completely, and we will begin all over again.

Yin and Yang. It can’t be stopped.


75 posted on 03/12/2012 7:52:34 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
"Yin and Yang. It can’t be stopped."

But it can be slowed down by force. The left has many examples of their brutality in recent history but there is only one example that i am aware of that the right used force on the left (or K-types on the r-types).

Remember McCarthy all he did was expose the r-types for who they were and let the K-types whom were the majority at the time vote them out. Which isn't brutality at all it was simple consumer awareness.

At that same time in the late 50's early 60's there was one country Singapore that went one step farther and locked up a large number of parliament that was associated with the party that was on the left. The country was braking away from Britain, Malaysia and the communist party which of course Malaysia are also mostly Islamic. It was a triple whammy against the K-types.
Wikipidia has a simple brake down of what took place but replace the term "race" with "Islamic uprising" and it is more accurate. PAP-UMNO_relations

To this day only the K-type's or People's Action Party is allowed access to media and other resources of information which is a direct violation of what we think of as the first amendment.

Check Singapore record today it has the least corruption and the most economic freedom in the world today.
Lee Kuan Yew left parliament last year he was the prime minister through the whole thing and now the r-type parties are starting to get some sets.

76 posted on 03/12/2012 3:43:03 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Very interesting. I was unaware of any place where K-types would simply crush r-types using force of government. I just assumed K-types want freedom to establish honest measures of relative fitness, absent any outside meddling in outcomes. I assumed that their desires for that would always be their undoing. I probably should have assumed that somewhere K-types would adapt to use government to eradicate the left. Maybe that adaptation to the newer stress of government will be the evolutionary future of the K-type psychology. Talk about Greenbeard.
I am not sure how good that is practically, though, or how it would work here today. My general perception (not really backed up by anything more than a knowledge of how things work in nature and cursory examinations of contemporary American politics) is that K-types tend to want free competitions, absent any interference by outside parties such as governments. As a result, true K-types tend to just want to go about their lives, striving personally, and letting the results stand alongside those of their peers, absent government meddling. r-types tend towards the manipulation of others to avoid such free competition, by their nature. So they seek to gain control of others through exploitation of circumstances and rule violations. This may be through fomenting an r-type revolution to give government the power to crush K-types, or it might just be through rule breaking such as posing as a K-type themselves, and seeking political power through deception.
As a result, I had assumed in America, that it would be inevitable for any long-lasting K-type movement to eventually become infiltrated by phoney r-types posing as K-types. These r-types would seek out political power through deception for personal gain, and then on attaining it, be inherently more open to r-type policies. I believe this is what you see in the Republican party today.
How many grassroots ideological Conservatives want to be responsible for making decisions which cause government to affect other people’s lives? That’s an outgrowth of our desire to engage in free competition as a means of honestly assessing each other’s relative fitness and apportioning reproductive ability accordingly – regardless of whether it benefits us or not. Hell, if I saw a hundred pot plants in my neighbor’s yard, I’m probably not calling the cops, and I’m not exactly pro-drug. But if he’s not bothering anyone....
If given the choice, I’m betting most K-types would turn such powers over government down, even if the campaigning and electoral processes weren’t such a pain in the ass. We’d all just rather live our lives.
Of course, every r-type today will kill to be able to tell everyone else how it is going to be, and how they are going to live. Eat this and not that, buy this eco-friendly thing, and not that, give government this much to spend on this initiative. Even our showerheads and toilets suck today because some Liberal nitwit decided everyone, everywhere, always needed to conserve *water.*
So I kind of wonder if in fifty years that K-type Singapore movement won’t be run by moderate but controlling r-types who gradually begin to favor larger government, compassionate redistribution of wealth, and the whole “for the good of the hive” concept. The slide would continue freely from there, if it happened, until a collaspe.
My own view, from a more scientific perspective is we are a work in progress, so I find this interesting as it may be a new urge which will someday enter the K-type population on a broader scale. Or it may just be lucky circumstances putting a few good leaders together at the right time to protect freedom, and keep Liberalism at bay.
Sometimes I try to picture where a super highly advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe, millions of years ahead of us, would be evolutionarily. Clearly they’d be K-type, as that is the only path which produces evolutionary advancement and can avoid devolution and the Idiocracy effect. Would their K-types have adapted additional urges to only perpetuate K-type psychologies? Would they have evolved the coldness to let the child of an r-type starve to death rather than feed it, so as to prevent that child from having ten more, and collapsing their society? Have they evolved to be they Eugenical? Are they so blindly loyal to in-group that any one would be like a Medal of Honor Winner here? Or have their K-types just evolved such an innate animus for r-types that they seize control of governments, and lock up all the Liberals? That would have a huge effect on the propagation of Liberalism itself.
Thanks for the info on Singapore, I was totally unaware of that. Maybe the K-types will eventually evolve to be more tolerant of controlling others who threaten freedom, and begin to use government in their battle with the r-types. Not sure how I feel about it, or whether it is good, but it is a possible path that could yield competitive advantage to those who follow it.


77 posted on 03/14/2012 8:05:02 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
Here is an interesting thought. The objective of the K-Type is abundance which triggers the R-type. The Objective of the R-type is to avoid the loss of abundance which brings back the K-type. Their objectives are the same which is to create or hold on to abundance.
Natures basic tendency is to not allow K-types to flourish if they are successful for very long.

The only way for K-types to hold their position other then failure of their objective would be to trick nature.

As you pointed out one could actually starve people which isn't a trick at all it is a failure of the K-types objective.

A more logical way to do it would be the fear of starvation in a time of abundance or change genetics which I am uncomfortable with.

For thousands of years one of governments primary jobs was to keep an extra stock of food for a time of crises. Up until about 20 or 30 years ago every country of the world kept extra stocks of food by keeping their silo's full or nearly full. Today our governments have no incentives for the farmers to keep extra stocks of food for a time of crises. As a result there is very little food stocks for an emergency.

The reason for this seems very simple too me there is no fear of the loss of abundance. K-types that know about this issue thinks of this in a K-type manner and believe governments want people to die. r-types whom are in control see it as there isn't anything to worry.
In other words the r-types have no real fear of the K-types return because abundance is an absolute. They resent us but do not fear us. When they actually feared us they killed us as what they did in the last century.

It is very likely sometime in our life time we will have a small world drought or some other natural or man made disaster and without our food stocks it will kill millions and reset the fear of starvation and the return of the K-types for a time.

To maintain the fear for a long period of time I can not see how that can be done without genetic changes.

78 posted on 03/14/2012 4:24:41 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

I don’t think just perceptions of fear would do it, though, as there is a concrete genetic foundation to ideology, even if it only confers a predisposition. Just tricking nature wouldn’t work. Either nature kills back the r-types through competitive tests of fitness prior to reproduction, or she doesn’t and their more prolific, less adapted models become the predominant form.

The thing is, if the r-type alleles are not actually physically culled or prevented from reproducing, they proliferate faster than K-types, and turn the population r-type, which then triggers the collapse. The problem is r-types would not tolerate a Eugenical program where welfare mothers were prevented from reproducing, as they want everyone to have the same reproductive ability, regardless of fitness or contribution to society. K-types will not tolerate it because we want everyone thrown into the competition and free, so they can endure adverse outcomes if they lose. The problem is, all of us will defer adverse outcomes if possible, so we hold them off, until the r-types grow to the point that we can’t any more, and the adversity overwhelms us all at once.

Not sure if we will ever evolve a facet to our psychology which will allow for a more constant suppression of r-types. I suspect that is what is needed to create the perpetually free society. I will say, the WWII and Korean vets I knew in Martial arts growing up were unusually hardassed. I always saw it as cold ruthlessness, but maybe it was what maintains K-type freedom in a society, and what we will return to as times get tough.


79 posted on 03/15/2012 2:04:54 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
I just wanted to thank you for this conversation. It was the most enlightening words I have ever read, I do not take that lightly.
I have been trying to understand this issue for decades and it really has gotten the best of me.
My mistake was I kept going back to hunter and gathering periods but should have realized there were no socialists back then.
I needed to look in a time of abundance. I will get your new book when it comes out.
80 posted on 03/18/2012 12:39:58 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson