En muchas ocasiones las especies tienen que competir entre ellas para ocupar un lugar en el ecosistema. Las diferentes especies han ido adquiriendo, a lo largo de su evolución, una serie de características que les facilitan la competición. Pero las "habilidades" que les ha convenido adquirir son muy distintas según sea el ambiente en el que deben vivir. Son muy distintas las características que debe tener un ser vivo para adaptarse a un ambiente cambiante que a otro estable.
Por eso se distinguen dos grandes tipos de estrategias de supervivencia: la de la r y la de la K. Estas letras hacen referencia a la importancia relativa que tengan los parámetros K (densidad de saturación) y r (tasa de incremento) en sus ciclos de vida.
Las especies que siguen estrategia de la r suelen ser microscópicas o de tamaño pequeño, como bacterias, protozoos, plantas fugaces, animales pequeños, etc. Su población mantiene un crecimiento exponencial hasta desaparecer bruscamente cuando las condiciones cambian. Es lo que sucede, por ejemplo, cuando llueve y se forman charcos. Si la temperatura es adecuada la población de protozoos del charco crecerá rápidamente hasta que llegue un momento en el que el charco se seque o se termine el alimento y entonces la población disminuirá bruscamente.
Las especies con estrategia de la r son típicas de lugares efímeros: charcas de lluvia, montones de tierra junto a madrigueras, rocas desnudas, zonas polares, desiertos, terrenos arados, etc. Son oportunistas o pioneras, ocupan áreas nuevas con facilidad y se extienden por ellas con rapidez. El papel que cumplen en los ecosistemas es colonizarlos en las primeras etapas de su desarrollo y, para ello, suelen ser organismos que producen muchas unidades de dispersión (hasta millones y miles de millones de esporas o huevos). Pero no pueden tener éxito si la competencia es fuerte, frente a organismos con estrategia de la K.
El hombre favorece la dispersión de las especies oportunistas con sus viajes y transportes y, además, con su actividad degrada los ecosistemas facilitando su colonización por especies pioneras. Las plantas que se usan para los cultivos son, normalmente, de este tipo.
Las especies con estrategia de la K suelen ser los animales y plantas grandes y longevos. Su población se mantiene con altibajos, pero cerca de la densidad máxima (K) que puede tener, dadas esas condiciones. Es lo que sucede, por ejemplo, con los robles de un bosque, las gaviotas o los linces.
Los organismos con estrategias de la K tienen, por su tamaño, gran capacidad de competencia, gran longevidad y reducido número de descendientes. Los encontraremos en medios que permanecen estables largo tiempo (selva, bosques, regiones esteparias, etc.).
Esta ha sido la explicación desde el punto de vista de la ecología, pero aplicando esto al territorio que se nos propone: r serían los componentes colonizadores que tapizan el territorio y k aquellos que se apoyan en una estructura y la alteran. La cuestión que se nos planteó en la presentación era cómo facilitar la transición de un modelo de asentamiento r, especialmente sensible a las perturbaciones ambientales, a un modelo de asentamiento k, más estable y seguro; pasando de un modelo de ocupación continua del territorio a otro modelo de ocupación fragmentaria.
Come see @maliklovesyall X @osiris_ubiquitous tonight at the @allofrxdio event that @jknyce is DJ !!!! _______________________________ #tonight #Thursday #rxdio #ubiquitouslovetribe #RVSK (at Los Angeles, California)
TONIGHT! The Squad RVSK are performing with the homies @dangerboyla at Way Out West for the YouBloom After Party! |Sponsored by @pabstblueribbon with special guest @youknowmusa| Tickets @ concentratedevents.com #nightshow #afterparty #DTLA #PBR #dabs #dance #booze #rap #hiphop #music #live #perfomance #art #RVSK #uluvibe #japan2017 (at Los Angeles, California)
Listening to K's talk is definitely one of my new found enjoyments. Especially after hearing from the r side all day, it's nice to just have my values reiterated when I seen surrounded by the opposite daily life.
I know this is because I'm a K but damn I've never understood r's want of variety when it comes to sexual partners, or their sexuality signaling. I kind of understand the logic behind it but I sure as fuck can't empathize with it. How people move from partner to partner makes no sense to me. There's a lot of vanity that goes into it and a complete disregard for children. I get it's a legitimate strategy, but I really can't stand it. I mean the equivalent is rabbits. Like a day after a female rabbit gives birth she's ready to mate again. And you can see the women in real life that do the same. They just move on from man to man. These are the same women that leave the older children in charge of their younger ones to go out and party still. And this is the same for the men that bang anything that moves with no regard for the consequences. They're both equally unbearable to me. The reason it's so weird to me is because of how much these types of people say, "oh well sex is just so good so get all you can." As if marriage is against sex. Like, seriously? Marriage is very pro-sex, just with one person. I mean, I've made the argument a couple times in real life, I don't want sex just once, I want it all the time. And statistically married men and women have more sex than single ones. So it's something that I just can't comprehend. Because if the stated goal is sex well the way to achieve that is a monogamous relationship. But of course that takes a level of self knowledge most people don't have. Because they want something else... What it is I don't know, and in fact, I don't want to know. Because it ruins children's lives, and gives them terrible behavior as a model. And fuck that. I wish I had a better point to this rant but I really don't... Just that I'm confused and disgusted by r behavior all at the same time.
When yo' niggas make 🔥 so you gotta jam in the morning. #rvsk #lookatsquad #everythingwet #fam NP : God Talk - @kidstampede feat. @princevimana_ubiquitous
r vs K… This is a subject I’ve been wanting to write about for awhile. Although I’m totally going to miss things because let’s face it I got the info from three presentations that were over an hour each.
Both letters refer to a reproductive strategy. Apparently in biology/psychology this subject is actually really well known but you hardly ever hear about it. Let’s start with r. R is a strategy most commonly associated with rabbits. Rabbits are generally prey animals, they know they could be eaten at anytime. So their reproductive strategy is what’s commonly known as the spray and pray… Essentially have as many offspring with as many partners as possible, because you don’t know how long you’re going to live. They also have little to no investment in their children. If one or two get eaten, well, that’s why there’s 8 more to pass on the genes. As far as rabbits go too… There’s nothing really to teach their offspring. It’s eat, run, and mate. Not rocket science. Also r’s have no in-group preference. In other words, they could give a fuck about other rabbits as long as they can keep eating who cares? That’s why you don’t see rabbits ganging up on the wolf. I mean, if one gets eaten… Ooh well! It’s a legitimate strategy, hell I’m sure everyone can think of examples in their own life of the people that do this. Especially the people that choose vanity over quality. This also leads them to choose quantity over quality. In humans this also manifests with absent fathers. Because a child that sees no father around biologically assumes it’s a time of stress. In the past this mostly manifested during times of war. Which there are studies that show, fatherless children hit puberty significantly sooner than those with a father, because if the men are all gone that means the population might die at anytime so the quicker you start reproducing the better the chances of passing on those genes.
Then there’s K’s. K’s are more like wolves. They have high investment in their children. They teach them how to hunt. How to organize with other wolves in order to bring down prey. They generally have less children as well because of how much they invest. They have in-group preference which is why you see packs and how they all react to intruders and interlopers. They protect their own and are very exclusive. In humans this manifests through monogamous relationships, where the mother and father take great interest in giving their kids the best possible upbringing. Kids born into a K household reach puberty later which gives them more time to develop. Most K’s came out especially in harsher climates. Because K’s think in long term benefits only they would survive winters, because they knew they had to keep the seed crop and not eat it otherwise they wouldn’t have a harvest next year. K’s also choose quality over quantity. I’m other words, they are 100% ok with, and in fact, prefer having sex with the same person year after year instead of chasing the “new.”
The reason this is such an important topic is because a lot of politics actually revolve around the two strategies. Leftists are generally r and conservatives are generally K. Single motherhood is a consequence of too much r… Likewise the native American culture was a result largely of too much K which caused stagnation. It’s very hard not to put my own bias in here… Because I’m definitely a K. I want the marriage built together with a woman. I want one of us to stay home to raise the kids because that’s the best environment for a child to grow. So yes I’m definitely K. I didn’t used to be. My best friend has pointed out to me when we first met how I was definitely more r. Thankfully I never did the variety thing.
Mostly what I get frustrated with is the people that are definitely r but claim to want K results. It’s the man/woman that sleep around but say, “I just want love and to be with someone forever.” Like, no you don’t. Just be honest, you want to get laid. And hey, I have nothing against those that want sex only… But don’t hide it in a search for a long term relationship, because it’s bullshit. Morally I definitely get outraged because of what this does to the children involved. Kids being passed from household to household. Watching their mom/dad go through a revolving door of boyfriends/girlfriends. Learning that that’s what male/female relationships are like, because that’s all they were modeled. It makes me sick. I’ve told multiple people in my life, “I have great sympathy for your past, and how you were brought up… But the minute you have a child, I will cease to have any sympathy for you and all of it will go to the child. Because you owed that child the best. You should have had your trauma figured out before you had him/her. Because that child has no choice and is now stuck with you for 18 years.” Being a parent is a huge responsibility. But it’s also a huge gift to enjoy. And I get so angry with the parents that talk about how much of a burden their children are. That post shit about how, “I just can’t deal with my child today.” You made the choice to deal with it when you decided to have him/her. If you weren’t ready for it there’s 17 types of birth control, one of which is NOT having sex in the first place. As my favorite philosopher says, “sex is an adult game that makes real people.” I just see too many children neglected, or put into situations they never should have to face when they’re young, because their parents are crappy. And the sad thing is most don’t do the work to change their cycle. I’m from a divorced household, and I put in the work so that my future kids will never have to go through what I went through… I just always feel sad when I see another kid that repeats the mistakes of their parents and starts it all over again.
