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.
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