/sci/ - Science & Math

r-selective species reproduce a lot, don't invest much in individuals, and value self determination more than K-selection species. Examples include rodents, insects, weeds, and bacteria

K-selection species reproduce a little, invest a lot in each individual, and value cooperation more than r-selection species. Examples include elephants, whales, and humans

Conservatives are very closely analogous to r-selection species
Liberals are very closely analogous to K-selection species

K-selection species evolved later and are generally considered more advanced, since they pass the threshold which holds back r-selection species due to their lack of longterm offspring-nurturing, allowing epigenetic information to be passed down in the form of taught behaviors and culture

r-selection strategies are good in rural areas without much of a coordinated support system (lack of infrastructure, lack of centralized resources - have more kids in case some die)

K-selection strategies are good in urban areas with a much more advanced coordinate support system (robust infrastructure, robustly centralized resources - have fewer kids but invest more in them because they probably won't die)

Both aspects are important I guess, but when it comes to overall success K-selective organisms objectively have a longer investment horizon and more compound gains. Ideally you want a balance between investment and enjoyment of the investment, but most people get it wrong and invest with a shorter time horizon.

r-selective pests are successful and will live forever, but they will never be anything more than pests. K-selective animals will never die out either because they are the only ones that can eventually travel to space and stuff.

Education is an inherently K-selective strategy. And conservatives tend to be against it like r-selective species would be. I don't want to go as far as to compare them to weeds and bacteria, but the analogy is oddly fitting

Hi, i know this is abit off topic but i figured its related to the medical field.

Ive just been perscribed protopic, its a strong cream for exzma but the 0.03 is just for children and i should be taking the 0.1%. I have a few questions:

Does the percentage mean that 99.97% of this cream is just a kind of netrual patroleum jelly or something and the other 0.03 is pure Tacrolimus (in this case).

If i apply 3 times as much, will it have the same effect? if will it just stack on top of each other and the cream at the top wont actual make contact with the skin.

If a condition can be cured by a 0.1% cream, will a 0.03% cure it but 3 times as slow? or is there like a borderline of strengh that needs to cure it for example anything below 0.05 will have no effect. Or is it different for every condition.

Thanks for any answers :)

will humans ever evolve to become omnivores or even carnivores?

2 (Two) centuries later there are still people who don't get how evolution by natural selection works; there are people right now, living among us, some of them scientists, who actually think the DNA was "intelligently programmed" and somehow imbued with "information". These people cannot fathom that DNA is itself a product of evolution.

How do I deal with this, because it really triggers me to no end. Should I just stop talking to people who defend that?