The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
R-selected species indeed keep on coming. But as they are exposed to a sequence of boom-and-bust cycles, they ought to "acquire" more "altruistic" traits, and become k-selected species. Of course, different scenarios are possible, and they occured numerous times throughout evolution, with various frequences.
What I may object is this assumption.
In stable or predictable environments K-selection predominates, as the ability to compete successfully for limited resources is crucial, and populations of K-selected organisms are typically very constant and close to the maximum that the environment can bear.
I know, Dawkins would say that the idyllic picture of lively organisms taking "only what they need" is in principle unstable, since more greedy individuals will start "benefitting" most and forcing everyone to an exploitation race. But first of all, the "unstable" ignorant period may last much longer than the "rational" growth-bust phase. Secondly, it is assumed that you can do nothing at "crazy" times but join the bahanalia. Well, dealing with "foolish" species and bands is indeed problematic. But the things to do to overcome habitat's degradation does not have to be wholesome participation. Nothing may be guaranteed on individual level, but what may survive more easily are collective arrangements or symbiotic relations. The harsh times are the best times for altruism!
In general, the r-selection is "justifiable" when the resources are abound. That is perhaps the story of every "innovative" disturbance: a pack of r-selected species occur and a boom follows, with a "depression" (or worse) thereafter. But however dramatic this cycle may look for participating species, the booms and busts may perform a "pedestrian" function for more complex organisms, or ecosystems. In particular, the predictable sequences of ecological successions might be more orderly than it should be expected from the determenistic chaos paradigm: the successions might be controled by a pool of genes distributed across participating organisms.
But even in times of plenty, it is not "stupid" to refrain from most effective growth, while that can last. K-selected species can be suboptimally greedy because of a genetic or habitual trait from critical times, and that can be useful on the long time scale. Of course, the art of long term survival must include dealing with "foolish" r-selected species. Living is a complicated problem - so the biological world is becoming more complicated while solving those problems. I think that cooperation and contribution to resilience pf environment must be important part of solutions against r-species. In this light, the Gaia hypothesis might become more interesting.
by Bernard - Jul 16 31 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 14 11 comments
by ARGeezer - Jul 10 18 comments
by Oui - Jul 14
by eurogreen - Jul 8 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 10 24 comments
by gmoke - Jul 4 39 comments
by Oui - Jul 9 8 comments
by Bernard - Jul 1631 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1411 comments
by Oui - Jul 14
by ARGeezer - Jul 1018 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1024 comments
by Oui - Jul 98 comments
by eurogreen - Jul 88 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 532 comments
by gmoke - Jul 439 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 252 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 26106 comments
by Oui - Jun 219 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2032 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 2013 comments
by gmoke - Jun 187 comments