r/K Selection, Early America, Libertarianism, and the Future Evolution of Man

AcThinker asked in the comments how r/K played into the formation of America.

One critical aspect of r/K is that people grow uncomfortable if they are exhibiting one psychology, but are living in the opposite environment. r’s do not like living in a K-environment, nor do K’s like living in an r environment. So the environment is what molded the psychology, but one result is that the psychology is only comfortable in the environment. People try to rectify this discomfort in a few ways. Some get involved politically, and try to structure their government in the model of their respective ideology. Others move to areas where the environment more closely mirrors their reproductive strategy.

When it comes to the formation of early America, what you saw was humans migrating from England, to a very harsh environment, where support from civilization was quite sparse, and populations were not densely packed together. One early colony at Roanoke actually disappeared entirely and nobody is sure what happened to it. Indians were often not welcoming, people were quite sparsely populated, and camps had to be protected.

I view the early migration from England to America as similar to what we might see today if humans were to make Mars into a new frontier. Imagine today a harsh environment began to be colonized. It wouldn’t be a utopia and you would have to struggle mightily to survive, but you would be left alone and could limit your interactions with fellow citizens and governing structures if you wanted to, allowing you to do what you wanted. Who would migrate toward that combination of harshness and cost, to enjoy the freedom and liberty of reduced population densities?

In r/K Selection there is a third model of behavior. It is the psychology that arises when individuals are spread out to the point they do not regularly encounter others. Individuals in the field refer to r/K’s density dependence, and the break down in it as populations think out. One primary hallmark of this third psychology is a breakdown in the reflexive desire to compete seen in K-strategists, or to avoid competition in r-strategists. If they rarely encounter others, the constant reflex for competition (K) or competition-aversion (r) that marks r/K morphs into a hybridized desire to pacifistically avoid conflict, unless fighting is necessary in which case to you savage your enemy as brutally as possible. In humans, this psychology appears closely linked to libertarianism, and the example which best illustrates it is the Grizzly bear. If a Grizzly Bear reflexively fought every Grizzly he saw, he would spend a lot of time fighting Grizzlies he could have let be. Likewise, if he ran from every challenge, he would be chased constantly.

Where you find this psychology in humans, they will often be armed and aggressive if threatened, yet strangely non-judgmental and pacifistic if left alone. They don’t care about out-grouping the weirdo, though they will emphasize functionality themselves. They don’t like groups (or authority) ganging up on anyone, and reject group-conformity, even if the group considers them one of its own. Self-sufficiency will be important to them, and they will have a propensity to know how everything around them works, so they can fix it themselves if need be. They don’t care to rely on others for anything, and they have a burning desire to be able to do whatever they want, with no external interference, even as they have a burning desire to not interfere in anyone else’s life themselves.

Those first colonizers set out for an environment which more closely matched their innate reproductive strategy’s ideal environment than the monarchy. Having arrived and survived, they structured the governments of the new world to exhibit their own libertarian, Grizzly Bear psychology, and this attracted more r/K breakdown psychologies from the Old World.

As time went on, some r’s came to live in America’s cities and enjoy the bounty libertarianism created. However the primary allure of America, the primary difference between England and America, was freedom – and the potential for limited interaction between individuals and government. In this case, the libertarians in Europe had an option to render their environment congruent with their psychology by migrating, and those small numbers fled Europe for the new continent.

Early America was unique in that the initial low population densities combined with the hardships of survival, and attracted psychologies unusually obsessed with freedom. The freedom those psychologies created acted as a further attractant and distilled these strange, independent, freedom-loving souls out of first Britain, and then Europe, condensing them all in one place in fairly high density. The result was the formation of a governmental structure and nation so imbued with that nature that is has survived as a free society even in the presence of the copious r-strategist liberal morons which infest this nation today.

Imagine if we could purchase gravitational drives and Mr Fusion powerplants at the local hardware store, and weld capsules that would take us to Mars, where the freshly terraformed, food-less, government-less planet awaited, these psychologies would be packing up right now with seeds, guns, ammo, livestock, and whatever else they could fit into their capsules to escape the r-selected utopias we’re all living in now. If you landed there, not many of those folk would want a government with lots of regulations and red tape, or a government-funded welfare state.

Unfortunately the r/K breakdown psychology of libertarianism is doomed in the short term. Where it congregates in great numbers, greatness follows, a glut ensues, and then it is inevitably diluted by the explosion of r-strategist rabbits. Lacking the drive to police its own ranks aggressively and purge the r’s who want everyone controlled, and the K’s who desire group-conformity in pursuit of success, libertarianism just can’t maintain its own purity as the success accumulates, and population densities grow. In leaving everyone else alone, they seal their own fate, since humans in dense populations will always go r or K, depending on resource availability.

I suspect that will change with the advent of cheap space travel, and the eventual ability of individuals to spread out, remain mobile, and self-sort in space. But until then, with all of us mired geographically, the one option in the political world everyone should be able to agree on will remain the minority strategy that only a precious few will embrace.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

15 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
9 years ago

[…] By Anonymous Conservative […]

Sig Sawyer
Sig Sawyer
9 years ago

All too true. Having that kind of bear psychology was what made me more or less a liberal before finding your site: I figured that as long as everybody lived and let live, society would get along fine: liberals seemed like well-intentioned but overzealous fussy mothers and conservatives seemed irrationally intent on conforming people to their ‘personal’ morality.

I was totally unaware how much leftists were working to sabotage the whole thing, and how much stronger and happier most normal people are, even poor or in competition, when they exist in cultural continuity with their neighbors.

I still can’t help but see non-bears as Aristotle’s ‘happy slaves’ though. On one last note, a lot of bears won’t isolate themselves geographically but socially, especially in r-society where they can be effectively alone even in a sea of people. Very intelligent people tend to have weak desire to in-group, but they can still be of use to society. Think of DaVinci holed up in his workshop; it behooves a K-society to give these people space to be individuals and incentive them to contribute rather than isolate themselves.

infowarrior1
9 years ago

What’s your opinion on monarchy and the environment it creates?

Sig Sawyer
Sig Sawyer
Reply to  Anonymous Conservative
9 years ago

I think that the actual form of government is largely irrelevant to the health and functionality of a society. The government is a natural result of the culture and the genitically influenced psychologies of its people: look how differently democracy works in south America versus Japan versus India versus africa. If the people are in-group loyal and k-selected with strong spiritual bonds their nation will be internally peaceful and prosperous, whether it’s a protector-aristocracy of the Anglo-Saxons, minimalist American Republic, or Roman Empire where the leader is a god.

ACThinker
ACThinker
Reply to  Anonymous Conservative
9 years ago

The problem of any government was identified by Hielien in Starship Troopers – they exist until they no longer provide the needed services. Basically the government tends to be optimal to certain start conditions, when those conditions are changed and no longer exist it is less optimal and faces a breakdown.
As for “royal blood” there is some argument from the human bio diversity crowd that we are still evolving and we’d react to pressures just like bacteria on a slat. Given that alliances and attempts to keep the power in the family were consistent through history, there is some argument that genes for leading would concentrate, however so would defects as you begin to get to much interbreeding.

BTW, on aliens, sadly we are likely one of the first evolved intelligent species based on Main Sequence Stars, and probability. Not a guarantee, just a high probability.

Nathan
Nathan
Reply to  infowarrior1
9 years ago

r/K theory has some resonance with the Kyklos theory advanced by Aristotle, which saw democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy as part of a cycle:

“According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the cycle, it rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy… Originally society is in anarchy but the strongest figure emerges and sets up a monarchy. The monarch’s descendants, who because of their family’s power lack virtue, become despots and the monarchy degenerates into a tyranny. Because of the excesses of the ruler the tyranny is overthrown by the leading citizens of the state who set up an aristocracy. They too quickly forget about virtue and the state becomes an oligarchy. These oligarchs are overthrown by the people who set up a democracy. Democracy soon becomes corrupt and degenerates into mob rule, beginning the cycle anew.”

ACThinker
ACThinker
9 years ago

First, Thanks for giving this some thought. A general theory like yours should apply or be able to be seen as applying at all times/places.

Second, I think I see that the initial (pre 1650’s) settlement is mostly a sort of wolf or grizzly settlement – ie heavy self reliance being required. At the time of independence, I can still see that being in play. Taxation (a form of resource constriction) doesn’t have to be high to be very meaningful.

Consider that if you have 100 farmers providing all the food for a population of 125 people – the other 25 are carpenters, blacksmiths, and other persons whose primary job is not growing food. Now tax away 3% (the tax on tea)… suddenly you don’t have the food for 125, but only about 121. Talk about resource restriction. – there is no food for 4 people. *

Now the K’ types decide that it is intolerable to have their tea taxed.

I think this sort of restriction is what will happen soon in the world as K’s mimic r’ behavior because they are tired of being suckers. Every time this happens the resources get a little more limited.

* At the time of the American revolution there were about 80% of the people farmed and the rest did no farm work. Today, it is about 2 farmers per hundred people. Ways to get a head as a society. Step 1 produce enough excess food that you can support soldiers and scientist.

Nathan
Nathan
9 years ago

Very excellent post AC. I am friends on facebook with many libertarians and most of them are in sparsely populated areas like Wyoming or VT/NH/ME, and my experiences talking to them accords with everything you’ve said. It also helps explain certain things, like why conservatives are more natural allies than liberals, why the idea of self-defense and independence is so emphasized, and why non-libertarians mock it as being ridiculous or impractical. For example, when a liberal says freedom would never work because who would help the poor and who would stop the Vester Lee Flannigans, what they really mean is THEY do not feel compelled to help the poor or defend themselves.

Phelps
Phelps
Reply to  Nathan
9 years ago

The last part is the most personally devastating argument to use on liberals. The “what does that say about Americans” argument.

Obamacare: “what you are really saying is that Americans are so callous that they would let thier neighbors die of curable diseases rather than support a charity.” (Response: silence)

Gun control: “so what you are saying is that you think the cops are psycoptahic racists, but you would rather see them with a gun than your 60 year old neighbor or a 30 year old black guy.” (Response: silence)

(The obamacare argument was my first attempt at outgrouping based on r/k psychology, and it worked PERFECTLY. I remember the shock and amygdala overload vividly.)

trackback
9 years ago

[…] r/K Selection, Early America, Libertarianism, and the Future Evolution of Man | […]

Phelps
Phelps
9 years ago

A couple of things — one, religion is inextricable from the American experiment. The leaders tended to be Grizzley (I like that metaphor) deists, but there is no doubt that the puritan (and even more extreme like Quaker and barker) strains were the Everyman.

The English not only didn’t get them, they were happy to see the phanatiques go. The chicken and egg part is did they go to Massachusetts (as the English vernacular went) to exercise their religion, or were they attracted to both for the same reasons? In other words, is social conservatism simply K selection expressing? (I’ve never been liberal, but I’ve become less libertarian and more social con over time. I’m still pretty libertarian as far as “throw them in jail!” But I’m much less libertine-abiding and more “don’t talk to that heathen” as I get older.)

The second thing was the intense desire I felt when I thought about the idea of being able to weld together a spaceship and light off for a frontier. If that was an option, I think the squaw and I would be paying the penalties to liquidate our 401Ks and pensions, and lighting off for Mars.

The same way my anscestors put GTT signs on thier doors in Kentucky, I would drop a GTM sign on my door here in Texas and say, “you can all go to hell, I’m going to Mars.”