r vs K strategy

For those of you who were following our conversation at the last Future Salon on r vs K strategy, I got the r and K backwards. r strategists are the ones with the high reproductive and mortality rate, K strategists are the ones with the low reproductive and mortality rate. For an explanation, see Checks on Population Growth.

Basically, the context of the conversation goes like this: Michael was discussing terrorism, and saying that eventually a terrorist group will get their hands on nuclear weapons. I asked if he thought this was a situation of r-strategy vs K-strategy. The link here is that terrorists depend on a continuous supply of 'expendable' people for suicide attacks. Large supply of 'expendable' people suggests tendency towards r-strategy (to use the correct term this time.)

From a biologists point of view, humans are a fundamentally K-strategist species. However, within human societies, there are, arguably, tendencies towards r- or K- strategy. During the Iraq war, I got the distinct impression that most of the Iraqi casualties were part of large extended families -- everyone getting killed was getting killed alongside their brothers, sisters, cousins etc. I also got the impression that they were mostly teenagers. So I got the impression that Iraq is a place where people basically start pumping out babies as soon as they are of reproductive age.

What makes this interesting is the reason for the difference explained on the webpage. The reason is the *stability* of the environment. A highly stable environment favors K-strategy. A highly *unstable* environment favors r-strategy. The fact that we see tendencies to r-strategy in Iraq but K-strategy here tells us that Iraq is an unstable environment while the US has a stable environment.

So the question I put to Mike was: is terrorism basically a contest of r-strategy vs K-strategy. He said 'yes'.

But here's the thing. It's not like terrorists wake up every morning and say, "Hey, we've got to preserve the r-strategy way of life!"

But if terrorists do succeed in getting nuclear weapons, they may in fact fundamentally destabilize the political and economic structure of the world, and create an environment that, ironically, favors r-strategy.

Comments

[Adam Rehage]

With all do respect to the philosophical presumptions made i feel as though this comparison is ridiculous since the classification of "r" and "k" strategist refers purely to survivorship at the most basic level (living to procreate)and cultural proliferation has no bearing on the strategem when speaking of the "r' and "k'

[Nicolas Brown]

I know that I am very late in replying, but for the benefit of people who, like me, find this page through Google or some other means, I would like to correct a few infos.

Firstly, I do not think that Iraqis make babies just because of the war. High natality rates are found everywhere in so-called underdevelopped countries. Environments are very unstable not only in war-torn areas, but also in countries where mothers are unsure of whether their children will survive until adulthood, whether because of famine, disease or violence. I suggested that no matter what rationale mothers invoke, the underlying pressure to have children in such contexts is a genetic propensity to ensure that at least some offsprings survive till they mate themselves. In fact, when asked about their motivations to have kids, people in unstable areas of the planet aknowledge that the chances of loosing infants is an important factor in their decision.

Also, I would like to correct Mr Rehage who, in his comment, claims that r- and K-strategies do not apply to culture. There is in fact a whole field of study called memetics that does just that: trying to explain ideas and cultures from the perspective of the theory of evolution. I suggest reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", Brodie's "Virus of the mind" or Blackmore's "The Meme Machine".