R/K selection theory

>r/K selection theory
debunked and highly unscientific

what kind of argument is this?
they take contraceptions because they don't want to have kids.

if contraceptive didn't exist they would use stuff like animals interiors, cumming outiside or straight up anal sex to avoid pregnancy.

wow all those digits
and no argument

>debunked and highly unscientific
Has been around the scientific (biology) community for a long while now, any source to back up the debunked claim?

If r/K selection theory was real we'd have sexy cows to fuck as well as real girls.

Attached: milk.jpg (92x211, 5K)

kek, you really are retarded brainlet..south(negro) italy?
humans do a lot of stuff subconsciously, evolutionary adaptian doesn't have to be exhibit as conscious decision with clear outcome.it's usually the other way around.
leftists fuck around and don't care that much about their children -> r-psychology behavior evolved to have as many kids(consume free resources) with as many partners possible(variety)...it's maladaption with contraceptives, leftists wouldn't even be the issue in 2-3 generations because they would die out, but they fail to see shitskin out-groups as dangerous and invite them to fuck up lives of our children and grand children.

I'm not even going to try and refute the application of a theory describing the carry capacity of an environment for a species and its relation to population size to politicial orientation. There's nothing to refute because it's just vague nonsense. What's it even mean, that liberal ideas are single parents? It's one of many kinds of politicial theory trying to legitimize itself by poorly applying science.

On the off chance that it's stupid enough to mean liberals are r species and conservatives are K, humans are the same species living in the same environment, occupying the same ecological niche. It just doesn't make any sense.

The theory itself has been debunked because of its vagueness and several experiments showing it isn't true. The theory is, at its core, an attempt to model the populations of species in different ecological niches. But it's very vague. What constitutes many offspring? A wolf gives birth to four to six pups per litter. An elephant gives birth to one. Is a wolf therefore a K species?

And what about environmental stability? What exactly is it? Because all environments have some instability. Is the winter months of the artic rabbit unstable? Or the droughts that make the elephants on savannas thirsty? Or does it mean a population boom and bust that happens with algal blooms?

There are formal experiments debunking how there are tons of organisms who not only share a mixed bag of supposedly r and k traits which you can Google scholar at your leisure, but you can skip that by using common sense. There are so many animals that don't exhibit this behavior. Like meerkats, who are staunchly family oriented yet give birth like rabbits.

BBC is a kike demoralizing tactic. It has been for decades. As much as I hate kikes l have to admire their persistence.

so hispanics are rabbits?

>muh bbc

Attached: 20180619_072151.jpg (1920x1100, 537K)

Wow all those arguments
And no digits.

But they ARE a fundamentally superior organism in the Darwinian sense. Their existence is secure. Yours is not, despite your technology and philosophy and Aryan beauty and whatnot

>rabbits
>competition averse

I guess you've never seen males tear each other to shreds