r/K selection theory

fschmidt's idea of coAlphas being total losers in the west actually has a fuzzily similar mainstream idea as a cousin - r/K selection theory.

I was aware of this theory for a long time, but it never occurred to me to apply it to female mate choices.

Just a copy of a post I made elsewhere where I wrote about it (rather hastily):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read a theory that women from feminist countries dislike high intelligence.

The reasoning (to simplify greatly and imo) basically is there are r and K people.

r people are dumb but concentrate on reproduction but not care of their kids.
K people are smarter and have fewer kids but concentrate on rearing those kids the best.

The theory goes that women have a evolutionarily evolved machivellian intelligence that leads them to be interested in the men who have traits most geared to spreading a womans genes (via sons born to that women).

In western countries (where the vast majority of us are from) there is very little survival hazard, rearing kids is guaranteed by government forced taxation etc...so K genes arent the best.

r genes however would spread much better because the key limit on that strategy was a lower rate of survival of offspring, which is not an issue in the west.

rK selection theory link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great find.  I was planning to post a "Are you a loser?" thread eventually to cover these issues.

Here is a puzzle.  Humans show more K-type characteristics than other primates.  Yet humans have not been in more K-type environments.  How do you explain this?  (I have an answer that I will post later.)

Umm...I have no clue.

The only difference I can think of is protohumans spread all over the world while other primates stuck to their African habitats (assuming, ofc, the out of africa theory is true).

That would be a more unstable and changing (r) environment not less. But if they were forced to travel as a group (as they are so weak) it could be like a mobile K environment.

Of course then primates who are more widespread should be more K, chimps are naturally less spread out over africa than baboons...are baboons more K? I doubt it.

Shot in the dark though.

The problem with r/K selection theory is that it assumes that the only selection criteria is survival, not reproductive ability.  In many species, males compete for reproductive rights, and this drives K-selection.  So the largest strongest elephant seal or gorilla dominates a large group of females.  It is worthwhile for females to invest in her children, particularly her sons, in this case.  This is why higher mammals like primates exhibit more K-characteristics than their environment can explain.  The more effective the males of the species are at mate-guarding, the more reproductive ability should drive K-selection.  Under normal conditions (without feminism) humans are the primates who are best at mate-guarding which explains why we are the most K.

Monogamy largely eliminates reproductive K-selection, but replaces it with what?  Monogamous cultures tend to dominate their environment and produce a K-selection environment.  This is the situation discussed by Malthus and analyzed in detail in A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World.  In this environment, the main selection criteria is child mortality.  The most successful male strategy in such an environment is to be a responsible father.  This is why Clark postulates in "A Farewell to Alms" that a stable monogamous culture for several generations produces superior genetics.

In feminist countries today, not only have we eliminated survival hazard, we have also outlawed mate guarding.  This eliminates all K-selection.