r/K Sexual Selection Theory

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:43 am

Page 2.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Harbal » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:36 am

Wizard wrote:Shut the fuck up, retards.

Go join some retard forum. Philosophy requires more intelligence than the two of you combined, retards.
r/K selection theory is applied to species, not to the difference in behaviour of individual members of the species, surely. Isn't it?
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby peitho » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:39 pm

Harbal wrote:
Wizard wrote:Shut the fuck up, retards.

Go join some retard forum. Philosophy requires more intelligence than the two of you combined, retards.
r/K selection theory is applied to species, not to the difference in behaviour of individual members of the species, surely. Isn't it?

Are individuals not what makes a species?
Is species other than the individuals belonging to its category?
peitho
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Only_Humean » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:45 pm

Wizard warned for his earlier comments.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:27 pm

Wizard wrote:Sex is reproduction, so, same thing.

Not all reproduction is sex. That was my point. =>

I was not or not primarily talking about "reproduction and sex" but about "reproduction and selection", secondarily also about "reproduction and sexual selection". Sex is not necessary for reproduction. There are many living beings which have no sex and nonetheless offspring. They reproduce themselves without sex, and they are very successful without sex.

The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby peitho » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:41 pm

When is sex not reproduction?
peitho
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:45 pm

Oh damn, the Gustapo is sending me letters this morning telling me I can't defend myself and my threads against R-----s. So I'll call them "R's" and you fine R's will know what I mean.

Mind your K's and R's.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:49 pm

Arminius wrote:The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.

lol no

Very wrong. Lower animals don't have "sex for pleasure" but strictly procreational. Because it's a waste of resources to have "R"ecreational sex. Recreational sex, sex for pleasure, only happens in an Abundant environment, with bountiful resources (created by K-type farmers and excess nourishment). Abundant environments are rare in nature, not common. Animals form equilibrium with their habitats.

Humans produce artificial abundance due to technology (better farming techniques, transportation, communication, etc.) thus attracting more R-tards...I mean, R-types to them.

Metaphorically, a K-type mind with a higher quality thread, creating an abundance of wisdom, knowledge, information, intelligence, will also attract the....ahem...R-types to it.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Wizard » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:13 pm

Arminius wrote:The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.

Yes but even asexual reproduction of single-cell organisms demonstrates R/K-type mechanisms. For example, a glob of cells will expand and populate quickly when nutrients are added to a petri dish (R-expression, positive reproductive rate). But the cells will literally consume themselves, cannibalize, eat its own body and own kind, when nutrients are absent (K-expression, negative reproductive rate).

You can apply this analogy directly to human populations. I've read, over the years, many claims about "white genocide" and the negative reproductive rate of white people. R/K-selection explains this easily and simply. When a population ("white people") is very K-selective then it will retain a negative reproductive rate.

Thus, to cause expansion of population, you must have a suitable environment to it. In humanity, and especially with the white race, this implies a lot of civilization, artificial technologies (medicines, cars, entertainment, food abundance, etc). So even "white people", or any human group, can be explained with R/K-types and selections.

Culture is also another factor that coincides with this theory.


For example, when a state makes it technically *ILLEGAL* to have sex with these females, but not that females, then this will predict the reactive behaviors of R or K-types.

R-types tend to be "Criminals" of society, breaking the rules, trying to gain access to the females off limits to them (rape, premarital sex, sex with women who cannot "consent", age limits on sex like 15-18 year old girls, etc).
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:22 pm

Wizard wrote:
Arminius wrote:The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.

lol no

Very wrong. Lower animals don't have "sex for pleasure" ....

I was talking about ALL living beings and the fact that the PRIMITIVE living beings NEED NO SEX FOR THEIR REPRODUCTION. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Sex is a relatively new phenomenon of evolution.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:36 pm

Wizard wrote:
Arminius wrote:The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.

Yes but even asexual reproduction of single-cell organisms demonstrates R/K-type mechanisms.

I did NOT say that the r-strategy and the k-strategy had nothing to do with asexual reproduction.

I remind you of what I said in my first post of this thread:

Arminius wrote:The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily to do with selection or even with the sexual selection. Primarily they have to do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the English wording "r/k selection" or even "r/k sexual selection" is misleading.

Image
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.

So I did NOT say that the r-strategy and the k-strategy had nothing to do with asexual reproduction.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby peitho » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:55 pm

What is species, and what is an individual part of species?
When you guys say "species" what do you mean?
What is this category made up of?
peitho
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Dan~ » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:35 am

Wizard wrote:Shut the fuck up, retards.
Go join some retard forum. Philosophy requires more intelligence than the two of you combined, retards.


Why ask a general group of people a question then tell them to shut up when they give you an answer?
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Be ware dumbasses that think they are intellectuals.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10177
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Wizard » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:44 am

peitho wrote:What is species, and what is an individual part of species?
When you guys say "species" what do you mean?
What is this category made up of?

Specie literally means 'Spec', 'Type', Category. This is why a female is a different specie than males, because, the female type is an evolved organism that spec-ifically is intended to breed, bear, and birth children. The male spec-ie does not. This is the result of sexual evolution, separation of asexual organisms, into a multiplicity of spec-ies.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Wizard » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:45 am

Dan~ wrote:Why ask a general group of people a question then tell them to shut up when they give you an answer?

Don't pretend to be stupid, Dan. You know full well that you, and others, are not asking serious questions or being respectful, but are instead trolling and acting like dipshits, inserting childish personal attacks and innuendos (like I'm a "misogynist" even if that were true, has nothing to do with this thread and the OP).

So quit acting like you don't know, when you do.
phyllo wrote:Before the internet, there were these things called books. There were special buildings full of them.

James S Saint wrote:It is the mostly blind builders struggling against the entirely blind destroyers in an effort to find the light.
"The light is here"
"No it isn't"
"The light is there"
"I don't see it"
"The light exists"
"No it doesn't"

... on and on ...
User avatar
Wizard
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Only_Humean » Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:18 am

Wizard wrote:Oh damn, the Gustapo is sending me letters this morning telling me I can't defend myself and my threads against R-----s. So I'll call them "R's" and you fine R's will know what I mean.

Mind your K's and R's.


I'll refrain from drawing conclusions on your opinion of the moderating staff, but they will also know what you mean and respond accordingly.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: r/K Sexual Selection Theory

Postby Only_Humean » Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:22 am

Dan~ wrote:
Wizard wrote:Shut the fuck up, retards.
Go join some retard forum. Philosophy requires more intelligence than the two of you combined, retards.


Why ask a general group of people a question then tell them to shut up when they give you an answer?


Because (as I've just found out) it's RU/UR. He's permanently banned because all of his personae eventually end up being nothing but foaming troll accounts.

Wizard won't be back. Apologies for interrupting the discussions.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users