The Truth About Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory • Stefan Molyneux

In an effort to explain why the article in my last post has so tremendously diminished my hopefulness for the future of western civilization, I have decided to post this source material.

In an exercise in futile repetition of a failed strategy of education, I propose watching this source material even though many probably didn’t read that article. Maybe this video will be easier to digest.

I know, the definition of insanity.

At least I can’t be faulted for trying.

Occasionally new information can completely blow your mind - and this is one of those times!

Stefan Molyneux breaks down the basics of the genetic warfare which is the foundation of all living creatures. Different reproduction strategies have emerged over time and this is explained through r/K Selection Theory.

When you look at humanity through the lens of reproduction strategies - it's something you can never, and will never, be able to unsee!

I enjoy Stefan's usually close, but a bit off the mark in his reasoning .He puts into his stories nice simple stories to tie in to his much larger suggestions . My question to him would be that if over long periods of time , a organism can change then why with the help of mans knowledge of these processes he has not over a short time created a new creature or species . I think this vid has finally moved the man out of the reasonable into the ,not worth watching anymore . if , if , if ,if is his link to things that are are are . His mind has moved from what we can know to a model that can override the reality we can see and experience to one where everything or anything goes . I think he needs to spend some quiet time in the woods with the animals and nature ,because he has some dots very far apart he connects with any and all means ..

Yep op this is the straw that broke the camels back when it comes to wasting my time listen to a guy I thought was capable of being progressive in thought to a guy who is trapped in a world without God . I know he can cherry pick the data from the scientific studies to back up what he is saying but what he is saying does not occupy my world view . With Global cooling on the way ,maybe we will grow our fur back lol peace

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Or are you just rejecting a difficult truth because you don't want to accept it might make some sense?

I haven't watched the videos yet but I will, after all I helped finance them (or freedomainradio at any rate)
As much as I like Stefan Molyneux this smacks of Nazi Aryan race theory on the surface.
I hope to God I'm wrong about that but don't have 2 hours atm to find out.
Will watch and get back once done.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I haven't watched the videos yet but I will, after all I helped finance them (or freedomainradio at any rate)
As much as I like Stefan Molyneux this smacks of Nazi Aryan race theory on the surface.
I hope to God I'm wrong about that but don't have 2 hours atm to find out.
Will watch and get back once done.

That's part of what bothered me so much about it only it's much, much worse.

It isn't a matter of racial origin but epigenetics.

Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence.

I hope that people can watch the whole thing despite the aversion that they may have to his conclusions.

Sounds interesting I've only watched the first one so far !

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I haven't watched the videos yet but I will, after all I helped finance them (or freedomainradio at any rate)
As much as I like Stefan Molyneux this smacks of Nazi Aryan race theory on the surface.
I hope to God I'm wrong about that but don't have 2 hours atm to find out.
Will watch and get back once done.

Yes, and no. It might be argued that anyone who comes to the US for the reasons of wanting to pull themselves up by their bootstraps would almost certainly qualify as a K at least in part. For a long time, we were a nation composed of Ks.

But those Ks were from all over, not racial. Even today, you have people all over who still come here to work and make it on their own. The American Dream is a K-style creation right down the to idea of 2.4 kids and the white picket fence.

It is disturbing because it makes a scary sort of sense.

And look at governance and governance policies, which are best suited to power maintenance by an elite? Not strategies that support a nation of Ks, but policies that aid and abet rs and rs are easily ruled.

a reply to: ketsuko

Except that he concludes that 'K's prefer neither outside 'K's nor internal 'r's.

These are all presumed to be unconscious influences rather than purely programmed autonomic responses so, reason and logic can and do override any particular predisposition.

However, we all know how much influence reason and logic have.

There are also likely to be some inconsistencies but, on the whole it is disturbingly convincing.

Thanks for watching these by the way. I hope my responses don't sound combative.

a reply to: greencmp

I'm assuming it operates much like an unconscious bias would. Yes, you can think it through, but there is still that tiny impulse you have to work to override because it wants to push you in one way instinctively. It's the same sort of impulse you have to work to overcome when you are confronted with an unfamiliar food that lies outside your cultural norms - say that first time you tried sushi (not as transgressive these days but it used to be) or chowed down on a plate of some sort of fried larva.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, Cantwell referred to the “3-Brains-in-One” Brain and The Elephant and The Rider analogy.

He also refers to this interview on the Tom Woods show with Jonathan Haidt, the author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Tom Woods show: Is Reason Enough? Why Your Opponents Won’t Listen

originally posted by: PureHybAng
Sounds interesting I've only watched the first one so far !

I hope you're OK, I know it's dread inspiring despite his chipper demeanor.

Looks like it will take the Human Species another 50,000 years to get straightened out.



No small wonder.

Are you supposed to be K or r? Or can you mix both? Because I am noticing that there are things on either side of the table I identify with. My instinctive feeling when looking at this is that it's some sort of odd right wing propaganda. I hope I am wrong, and that the videos I have yet to watch (and probably will not for quite some time) explain those tables.

I mean, it is really looking like one of those "Socialism is bad, billionaires worked hard, cut welfare increase military spending, more guns! Yada yada yada" things.

a reply to: greencmp

Stefan is a joke... He rambles on for way too long about absolutely nothing, deludes himself and many of his sycophant fans that he's some sort of economic philosopher. This guy I swear has the biggest bias against women, as he said in one of his videos floating around the internet, "that the reason men are assholes is because women choose to date assholes". It's a complete logical absurdity. He's a complete nutcase.

In short if your seriously going to take human behavioral biology from Stefan Molyneux I have even greater fears for the current development of the western world and the human race as a whole. However this doesn't invalidate any of what he says, he's just uneducated about the topic he's discussing.

I recommend professor Robert Sapolsky as a better source of information on this topic than this fraud.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Are you supposed to be K or r? Or can you mix both? Because I am noticing that there are things on either side of the table I identify with. My instinctive feeling when looking at this is that it's some sort of odd right wing propaganda. I hope I am wrong, and that the videos I have yet to watch (and probably will not for quite some time) explain those tables.

I mean, it is really looking like one of those "Socialism is bad, billionaires worked hard, cut welfare increase military spending, more guns! Yada yada yada" things.

He indicates that not all of these attributes are universally applicable to any particular person. Rather, from high enough above (metaphorically speaking) two distinct groups are evident and that these groups self police themselves resulting in preference for in-group behavior.

It’s more that he is saying that the instinctual bias toward left and right is at least in part motivated by subconscious predispositions which are epigentically switched on or off by experiential stimuli. We are prompted to infer that some of these traits can even be passed on.

This doesn’t mean that they are permanent, just that they are self-perpetuating if uninterrupted.

He is suggesting that the two reproductive strategies are mortal enemies of one another and are the direct result of environmental circumstances, real or perceived. If there is a glimmer of hope here it is that these toggles can be switched within individual genetic lines (we are talking about the direct descendant of any individual member of any race here, all humans share these characteristics and ability to be switched).

What is so ominous is that the two strategies might account for the intransigence that many of us encounter when attempting to adduce our various ratiocinative arguments.

In other words, our a priori logic makes inherent sense to our own conditioned state but, it is entirely incongruous to that of our intellectual opponent.

The upshot being that, despite however honestly a mediator might desire compromise or understanding between both participants in an argument, their ability to do so is necessarily restricted to a greater or lesser extent by the epigentic pressure or partiality of the disputants.

The very notions proposed by the opposite argument engender an existential defense mechanism that has the potential to override objectivity.

a reply to: greencmp

The primary issue I take is that, even just personally, there are ideals on both sides of the board that I agree with. If each area is decided by an individual gene then it's pointless to discuss since the same can be said of all traits. A lot of the side-by-side areas also simply don't make any sense as comparison to begin with.
"Rejects stable laws in favor of resource transfers" vs. "Unafraid of language."

Another problem is, as I mentioned, it truthfully just appears to be a propaganda piece saying "left wing/r is bad and sucks, right wing/K is good and awesome." The way this is written is incredibly biased. It is possible that there is useful information here, but that simple fact makes me automatically tend to ignore it.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: greencmp

The primary issue I take is that, even just personally, there are ideals on both sides of the board that I agree with. If each area is decided by an individual gene then it's pointless to discuss since the same can be said of all traits. A lot of the side-by-side areas also simply don't make any sense as comparison to begin with.
"Rejects stable laws in favor of resource transfers" vs. "Unafraid of language."

Another problem is, as I mentioned, it truthfully just appears to be a propaganda piece saying "left wing/r is bad and sucks, right wing/K is good and awesome." The way this is written is incredibly biased. It is possible that there is useful information here, but that simple fact makes me automatically tend to ignore it.

I agree but, I did make an effort to imagine the same conclusions presented without the obvious bias that he demonstrates as an apparently obvious K. It was difficult but possible. In fact, I would consider the difficulty in doing so merely additional supporting evidence for his postulate.

As a libertarian, I have been a great believer in objective truth and the supremacy of reason over emotion and instinct as the great differentiating feature of humanity.

If there is any truth to this, which I believe there is, I see very little hope for 'K's. That does not bode well for 'r's since they are so dependent upon them whether they recognize it or not. The fields of grass are in fact not infinite so starvation is the inevitable outcome of their complete dominance.

We are out of balance, this is koyaanisqatsi.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like it will take the Human Species another 50,000 years to get straightened out.

No small wonder.

I am repining.

I thought we were so close.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: greencmp

Stefan is a joke... He rambles on for way too long about absolutely nothing, deludes himself and many of his sycophant fans that he's some sort of economic philosopher. This guy I swear has the biggest bias against women, as he said in one of his videos floating around the internet, "that the reason men are assholes is because women choose to date assholes". It's a complete logical absurdity. He's a complete nutcase.

In short if your seriously going to take human behavioral biology from Stefan Molyneux I have even greater fears for the current development of the western world and the human race as a whole. However this doesn't invalidate any of what he says, he's just uneducated about the topic he's discussing.

I recommend professor Robert Sapolsky as a better source of information on this topic than this fraud.

I'll check him out, anything to get these ideas out of my head.

I am prepared to abandon logic, it would seem to be the ordinary defense mechanism as evidenced by the rising popularity of nihilism and utopianism alike.