A commenter pointed to this article at Return of Kings:
Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest evolutionary relatives with whom we share anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of our genes…. the two exist under a completely opposite social order.
The chimpanzees organize themselves into a patriarchal order with the alpha male at the top… In the wild, chimpanzees exist as warrior tribes that go on regular patrols to guard their territory, engage in hunting expeditions, as well as fight wars with the other tribes.
Bonobos, on the other hand, exist in a peaceful matriarchal order. Their tribes are ruled by group of females who form a sisterhood with an alpha female as their leader. Unlike their chimpanzee counterparts, the male bonobos are weak and ineffectual… Besides the matriarchal order—which is already unique among the primates—bonobos distinguish themselves as highly sexual species. They have frequent casual sex on a daily basis (albeit lasting only about ten seconds) in every way and every pairing imaginable. Sex is used to greet, bond, decrease stress, resolve conflicts, etc.
It goes on to basically detail every aspect of r/K without actually saying the words, “r/K.” You have r-selected Bonobos with sexualized Bonobo females using sex to control effete males, Bonobo homosexuality, Bonobo pacifism, and Bonobo matriarchies. On the other side, the chimps are exactly the opposite.
These are the types of brilliant passing observations of similarities that ultimately, inevitably, lead one to suddenly see r/K Theory beneath the surface. Obviously Bonobos have relatively free resources, while chimps have to fight for their’s. As you follow the threads, you ultimately find free or restricted resources leads you to the dopamine system’s malleability, the dopamine system leads you to the amygdala’s functions, the amygdala leads you to the reproductive traits of r/K, and r/K leads you to politics. Once you come full circle, there is no looking back, because each piece interconnects with, and reinforces, the other. Politics links to amygdala. Resources link to political trends. Amygdala activity links to resources. Rearing links to amygdala. Sex links to dopamine. Dopamine links to resources, and so on, and so on. It all interlinks.
Commenter Black Knight at RoK says:
I agree. It seems like the most devastating blows against masculinity have been done in the past 10 years. Sure, feminism has been around for decades, but only recently have men been turned in to complete pussies. That’s really sad.
Notice that 10 year time frame just about encompasses the $12 Trillion in conjured money Obama has borrowed in the name of the US and given away, plus all the bailout money Bush II handed out after the 2008 financial crisis, plus the crazy spending spree Bush II let the Democratic Congress go on at the end of his term. Free resources is the root of the problem. It changes the very nature of the masses. All of that spending was dopamine, elicited in people’s brains, as well as the resultant amygdala atrophy that produces. The result is a Bonobo psychology that just emerges out of thin air.
I sometimes try to imagine how politics will look once r/K is widely known and accepted. I cannot imagine narcissistic, personal-image-obsessed liberals being able to self-identify as liberal, if that self-identification will immediately call forth all the associations with the r-strategy, from weakness and inability, to cowardice and degeneracy, to the lowly rabbit’s status in nature as a helpless prey species. Even more amazing will be watching how they handle the inevitable associations with the decline and degeneracy produced by an inherently hedonistic psychology incapable of sacrifice in the short term, to produce lasting greatness in the long term. It is even a logical explanation for why every society which trends toward r inevitably trends toward degeneracy and collapse.
Combined with the practical realization of the very real harm which arises from free resource availability and national debt spending, I cannot imagine the left will survive in anything like its current form.
Bonobos don’t use tools as a rule, while chimps commonly create tools.
I guarantee you, if a tribe of chimps ran across a tribe of bonobos in the wild, we would be renaming the bonobos “Chimp Snacks”.
how do chimps and bonobos interact?
That is a fascinating question. I’m guessing male Bonobos get their junk gnawed off violently. How female Bonobos would be treated would be really interesting, as would their effect on male chimps. That free sex would be like a dopamine eliciting drug designed to drive attitudes r.
Would be an interesting social experiment to get a male chimp infant adopted into a bonobo society and see how his life path works out.
When Male bonobos get uppity they get treated more cruelly than a female chimp in a chimp society.
“free sex would be like a dopamine eliciting drug designed to drive attitudes r”
Streaming porn… MDMA… These things actually make males effeminate. If I was a powerful ruler, I’d want my subjects watching me smash pussy while they frantically jerk off too.
I read that article the other day and was thinking about the r/K
If you have there is an article I would recommend.
http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/01/maoris-moors-and-migrants-a-history-lesson-for-civilized-humans-facing-an-ork-invasion/
It is about the Moriori and what lead to their examination. This is is a part of the article
“Nunuku’s Law: Isolated from mainland New Zealand, the Moriori developed a unique culture based on a law of peace. This was called Nunuku’s Law, after the ancestor Nunuku-whenua. After seeing bloody conflict between the Hamata people and later arrivals, he banned murder and the eating of human flesh forever. After 1791, when the British ship Chatham called at Rēkohu, Moriori came into contact with Europeans and Māori who came as crew on sealing and whaling vessels. Some settled on the islands and lived alongside the Moriori. This relative peace was shattered in 1835 when Maoris from two tribes, both from Taranaki, arrived in the Chatham Islands in search of new territories and resources.
In 1835, 24 generations after the Moriori chief Nunuku had forbidden war, the Moriori welcomed about 900 people from the two Māori tribes. Originally from Taranaki on New Zealand’s North Island, they had voyaged from Wellington on an overcrowded European vessel, the Rodney. They arrived severely weakened, but were nursed back to health by their Moriori hosts. However, they soon revealed hostile intentions and embarked on a reign of terror.
Stunned, the Moriori called a council of 1,000 men at Te Awapātiki to debate their response. The younger men were keen to repel the invaders, and argued that even though they had not fought for many centuries, they outnumbered the newcomers two-to-one and were a strong people. But the elders argued that Nunuku’s Law was a sacred covenant with their gods and could not be broken. The consequences for Moriori were devastating.”
Liberals will respond with “aw, bunnies!” Did you see the way Scalzi responded to the Gamma rabbit thing? http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/posted-without-comment.html
The penetration into the conservative narrative is what counts for r/k.
AT the RoK link, they have a picture of the Bonobos vs Chimps for Male Female average height and weight. What was interesting is that Chips are heavier (both males and females) than Bonobos(male or female), and Chimp males are on average 3 or 4 inches taller than females. Bonobos, are lighter than Chimps, but that for height, The Bonobos females were taller than the Chimp females, and that the Bonobos males were shorter than the Chimp males. Bonobos were about 1 inch in height different from one another.
I get that these are two different species, but they are ‘gene selected for something.’ Since the Bonobos males didn’t need to fight one another for females, they didn’t develop the physique for it, and since the females didn’t have big men, they also didn’t develop as large.
I’ve thought as reading over this site, that AC was wrong to imply that in terms of aggressiveness, or openness to fight it went K men, r women, r men and K women. I think that K women are more likely to fight if needed, but don’t see it as their primary role. Think of women like “Molly Pitcher” who as needs must fought serving a canon during a Revolutionary war battle after some of the men had been wounded/killed. She had been bringing water to the men and stepped up as ‘needs must.’
I think the order is K men, K women, r women and then r men. But again, K women is going to fight when she needs, not because she wants. r woman will fight when she wants, but only against other r’s or socially restricted K’s, not against real threats. This idea of needs explains why some women have been in combat say in the Israeli wars of independence (1948-49) or in the Great Patriotic war (USSR 1941-1945) but generally don’t seek it out.
I personally think that we could create a scale and a test of 1 -10 (r to K) behaviors. Except that would be a very r thing to do. Well maybe not, if it were a real attempt at real science, that would be very K ish, but the many ‘who are you like’ tests on the internet are all r boredom adventure seeking items.
I think you’re right – that nails it. K-women will fight for their kids, and be pleasant otherwise, r-women will fight to be ball-busters, and then have their kids aborted.
Good catch.
Right, my wife is certainly K-selected, but she’s been in more fights that most women her age, and certainly more than most women now in their 20s. Hell, she’s been in more fights than me. Quite a lot of them have been situations where someone apparently thought that she wouldn’t fight, and she did.
The other thing is this: she won all of them, too. Rabbits fight for show in large groups, where the point is more glory than results. Look at any ghetto riot, high school “brawl”, African gun battle, or ME visit to the Aloha Snackbar. They are all instances where hooting, chest beating, flailing, and show are the priority.
When wolves fight, we fight to end you. All the fights that I’ve been in, and all the fights my wife has been in, have all been short, fast, and quiet. No trash talk, no flailing, just a quick shuffle and then injuries.
Male rabbits fight for show in large groups. And given single motherhood shouldn’t r-selected women be more proficient in combat? Since they have to be self- sufficient as well as good in combat to protect her children.
Sweet,Gentle K-women do not stand a chance in that situation.
K-selected women in comparison to r-selected women have the protective role filled in via K-men hence their skills should be atrophied in comparsion.
Makes me wonder how you tell a good K woman from an r woman if they are both aggressive? How to tell the ball-busters from the spear-throwers?
The ball busters have the angst when they shouldn’t. The hallmark of a K is that their amygdala amps up when circumstances call for it, and it relaxes when they don’t. Learn to sense that angst in others, and you can tell a lot about the people you meet.
K women aren’t aggressive, they are defensive. She goes nuclear when threatened, but doesn’t put herself in threatening situations by choice. The r woman is aggressive towards non-threats, while she oblivious to actual threats.
The K woman is aggressive inter-tribally, and the r woman is aggressive intra-tribally.
Interesting study on Feminist vs normal women digit ratios:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01011/full