I'm confused about what happens to the rabbits (r/K gene theory)

[KarlJay]

Hello all.

I have what has become an important question and I'd like the correct answer and some kind of proof.

 

Rabbits and Wolves came to me from Stefan's videos on r/K selection theory.  The question is about the part where things change and the rabbits realize things are going to crash.  The reason for the importance of this is that many believe that the crash will happen pretty soon as we reach the limits of our economic system.

 

In one video I thought I heard it said that the rabbits will run to the protection of the wolves as soon as the system crashes.  However, I thought that I heard they will never change their views.  The reason this is important is that some will never change their views on something, while others seem to learn and change their views.

 

Given that the nature of the rabbits is an under developed frontal lobe, it might be the case that they can't change their views no matter what.

 

If this is the case that they can't change their views, they'll either fake it to get along and change back as soon as things change again, or they'll feel violated forever.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Stefan has said that some people will always have a view and if you take away a 'crutch' they'll feel violated and that will never change.  This comes from the discussion about blaming someone/something that isn't actually the cause.  Things like White privilege being blamed for something that it didn't cause.

 

So, off to the question:  Once the system crashes, if the rabbits change their views on economics will their views retreat back to their original views once the crash is over.

 

The reason this is important is that many have come up with solutions to the upcoming crash.  Some solutions delay things, others fix some parts and not others, while others want to replace the system with something else like complete government control.

 

So imagine that someone had a solution that actually worked without crashing the system, without replacing the system and without more government control.  If that person did this before the crash, the rabbits would remain rabbits and never change their views.  However, if that person waits until after the crash, the rabbits would change their views and at least behave more like the wolves.

 

The difference (economically speaking) is that there would be more "like mindedness" in the new system.  However, if the rabbits after the crash are just going to feel caged forever and resort to some kind of White privilege, false causation, the new system will have some of the same problems as the old system.

 

If anyone has any proof of a rabbit being happy as a wolf or changing into a wolf, I'd like to see that.

 

Thank You, KarlJay.

[RCali]

Hello, Karl. I'm going to keep this response short, as I have little time, currently, but hope it's helpful.

 

 

 

So, off to the question:  Once the system crashes, if the rabbits change their views on economics will their views retreat back to their original views once the crash is over.

 

Yes. This is obvious, seeing as there's been a civilizational cycle all throughout history. Wolves create civilizations, rabbits destroy them. Rabbits are not made extinct, each time, though. They do prevail, and corrupt the wolves' work at the soonest moment.

 

 

 

So imagine that someone had a solution that actually worked without crashing the system, without replacing the system and without more government control.  

 

Why is it important here to imagine a solution that isn't the abolition of the immoral institution that is the state? If we're still talking economy, that's the solution. The economic system that is in place is mercantilism, and, as history proves it, is not sustainable. The freer the markets, though, the more sustainable they are. Again, shown by history.

 

 

 

The difference (economically speaking) is that there would be more "like mindedness" in the new system.  However, if the rabbits after the crash are just going to feel caged forever and resort to some kind of White privilege, false causation, the new system will have some of the same problems as the old system.

 

There are no hugs to be partaken between rabbits and wolves. There's no possibility of balance between fire and water. You cannot both heal and destroy. This is the nature of r/K. Duality. Both cannot live in harmony, such are the differences. One thrives in peace and stability and security. The other thrives in stressful environments and chaos and sexuality. You will never have both embrace a happy medium of their different lifestyles.

 

Not that this matters, since a half r economic system is still an immoral system, therefore, void and null, and will eventually crash.

 

And to answer the last bit, I can think of a great proverb. "Lions do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep."

We are different species. They speak, move and eat like the rest of us, but they will care for us just as much as you'll see a cat worrying about a dog. Their will and well being will always come before ours. And vice versa.

[neeeel]

its an equilibrium. Wolves need rabbits, rabbits need wolves. I would guess its just as bad for the pendulum to go to far in the K direction.

[SmokingCrater]

You know that saying about how much fish need bicycles? That goes for hares needing wolves as well. Actually none of them need the other. Wolves need meet, rabbits need grass and w/e else the hell they eat.

[Susana]

I think the rabbits still want as many resources to spend as possible so they get jobs. I don't think they will necessarily start saving money and planning ahead as much as K's.

Note also: Sal Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" 

[neeeel]

You know that saying about how much fish need bicycles? That goes for hares needing wolves as well. Actually none of them need the other. Wolves need meet, rabbits need grass and w/e else the hell they eat.

 

then you dont understand equilibria and natural systems

[KarlJay]

Hello, Karl. I'm going to keep this response short, as I have little time, currently, but hope it's helpful.

 

 

 

Yes. This is obvious, seeing as there's been a civilizational cycle all throughout history. Wolves create civilizations, rabbits destroy them. Rabbits are not made extinct, each time, though. They do prevail, and corrupt the wolves' work at the soonest moment.

 

 

 

Why is it important here to imagine a solution that isn't the abolition of the immoral institution that is the state? If we're still talking economy, that's the solution. The economic system that is in place is mercantilism, and, as history proves it, is not sustainable. The freer the markets, though, the more sustainable they are. Again, shown by history.

 

 

 

There are no hugs to be partaken between rabbits and wolves. There's no possibility of balance between fire and water. You cannot both heal and destroy. This is the nature of r/K. Duality. Both cannot live in harmony, such are the differences. One thrives in peace and stability and security. The other thrives in stressful environments and chaos and sexuality. You will never have both embrace a happy medium of their different lifestyles.

 

Not that this matters, since a half r economic system is still an immoral system, therefore, void and null, and will eventually crash.

 

And to answer the last bit, I can think of a great proverb. "Lions do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep."

We are different species. They speak, move and eat like the rest of us, but they will care for us just as much as you'll see a cat worrying about a dog. Their will and well being will always come before ours. And vice versa.

 

Why is it important here to imagine a solution that isn't the abolition of the immoral institution that is the state?

Because the solution I have in mind includes a second balance between the Ks and the State.  I wanted to know if there must always be a balance between rabbits and wolves or if rabbits can ever become wolves.  I've already accounted for a balance between the State and the wolves.

 

The reason for the balance between the State and the wolves is that this system doesn't replace the State, it doesn't replace the whole system.  I watched the 'debate' between Stefan and Joseph concerning a new replacement system.  I noticed a few flaws aside from the 'debate' 'logic' being used.

 

Background: I'm a systems analyst and understand well that the problem with solutions to problems is the implementation of the solution.  Best I can figure, Joseph's solution is not compatible with our mixed capitalism/socialism system and will most likely never be in place.  It's also not scalable, it seems to require full implementation or it fails.

 

The point of bringing this up, is that I contend that any solution that is not scaleable and requires removal of our current system will fail to be implemented without force and will likely fail.

 

Therefore, I've concluded that the only solution that works with the current system, must not require replacement of the current system and must be scalable (the scalable part is because most people require proof of flight before they board the plane).

 

I've put these implementation specifications (compatible and scalable) into the problem specifications and solved that part of the problem and it works.  I needed to know if the rabbits will convert to wolves or not because if not, they'll require constant regulation.

 

Ok, I'm new here and I'm not sure about extending the original topic, but I'll give it a shot...

 

If the rabbits will never become wolves and if the State gets it's power from both the rabbits and wolves, and if the wolves don't really need much (if any) State, then how can any system get the State to regulate the rabbits.

 

In other words, I can create a workable balance between the wolves and the State.  The problem is finding a way to get the State to control the rabbits or at least find a balance.  One direction that I can see for this to take place is the threat that the wolves will leave.

 

Consider: if the rabbits are dependent on things like taxes and jobs, and the wolves run the businesses that create taxes (directly and indirectly via jobs), then the businesses start to leave (directly or indirectly) then the State will realize the wolves have a choice.  This could be used to cause the State to find a balance for the rabbits as well as the wolves, but the wolves would have the upper hand.

 

What I see is a three way balance.  The State needs the wolves and the rabbits, the rabbits need the State and the wolves, the wolves need neither but have both.  The wolves actually need the state as long as the state is making the laws.

 

If the wolves leverage the power they have, the threat of the wolves not paying indirect taxes thru jobs, the State would be forced to find a balance that would reduce the states power over the wolves and they would be forced to balance with the rabbits.

 

The end choice is do the wolves leave or force the State to balance the rabbits?  Leaving seems that it'll likely end in war, staying seems to only buy more time.  (that seems like what life is, just buying time)

[SmokingCrater]

then you dont understand equilibria and natural systems

Yeah no, sorry, saying that rabbits need wolves proves that you don't know how ecosystems actually work. You seem to be confusing "needs" with regulating mechanisms. Or maybe you do know how ecosystems work and you're using sloppy language, but we're on a philosophy oriented forum here so one's terminology used in argumentation has to be spot on in order to leave as much room for misunderstandings as possible or else I don't what we're doing here.

[RCali]

 businesses that create taxes

 

I've stopped reading right here. Do you know what taxes are? Taxes aren't created. They are stolen. 

 

Rabbits turning into wolves? Uhmmm... Basic biology? No. That will not happen.

 

I'm not sure how long you've been studying Stefan's ideas, but you're not taking into account the most important one, he's been sharing. Change through peace.

Your equation isn't taking into account that when the change will happen, it will be voluntary. The system (the state) will fall through mass ignoration. People will know the state is an abusive establishment and that it isn't there for the benefit of anyone but themselves. Children will be raised peacefuly and with no abusing. If you raise children in such a manner, identifying any threats will be much easier, and identifying manipulation will be as easy as going outside and seeing if it rains. They will not need to extensively study philosophy to figure this out, because they've been EXPERIENCING this philosophy since they've been born. If you learn to cook something better than before, you're never going to go back and cook it in the previous way.

[neeeel]

Yeah no, sorry, saying that rabbits need wolves proves that you don't know how ecosystems actually work. You seem to be confusing "needs" with regulating mechanisms. Or maybe you do know how ecosystems work and you're using sloppy language, but we're on a philosophy oriented forum here so one's terminology used in argumentation has to be spot on in order to leave as much room for misunderstandings as possible or else I don't what we're doing here.

 

 I will agree that "need" was probably the wrong word, or not accurate enough. 

 

I think my point still stands though. They are in equilibria, altering the balance either way would probably be bad for both species.

[KarlJay]

I've stopped reading right here. Do you know what taxes are? Taxes aren't created. They are stolen. 

 

Rabbits turning into wolves? Uhmmm... Basic biology? No. That will not happen.

 

I'm not sure how long you've been studying Stefan's ideas, but you're not taking into account the most important one, he's been sharing. Change through peace.

Your equation isn't taking into account that when the change will happen, it will be voluntary. The system (the state) will fall through mass ignoration. People will know the state is an abusive establishment and that it isn't there for the benefit of anyone but themselves. Children will be raised peacefuly and with no abusing. If you raise children in such a manner, identifying any threats will be much easier, and identifying manipulation will be as easy as going outside and seeing if it rains. They will not need to extensively study philosophy to figure this out, because they've been EXPERIENCING this philosophy since they've been born. If you learn to cook something better than before, you're never going to go back and cook it in the previous way.

Ok, that was a bad choice of words.  I said "businesses create taxes" when I meant to say "businesses create events that the state then taxes"  or "businesses create what is then taxed"

 

So if the business didn't engage in the taxable event, the tax wouldn't be paid to the State.  So the State has a relationship with the business, if the business shut down, the State doesn't get the tax it would have gotten because the taxable event doesn't take place.

 

So, as long as a businesses has the freedom to choose, it can choose to engage in the taxable event or not.  It's to the States benefit to have as many taxable events and/or as high a tax rate as they can.  It's generally in the interest of the business to maximize the benefit from the taxable event, which may include avoiding the taxable event all together.

 

Another way of looking at this balance is with Carrier Air closing down and leaving the US.  If the US asks (forces) Carrier to pay too much to conduct business in the US, Carrier can leave the US.  Once gone, the US gets no jobs from them (or at least fewer jobs).

 

Sorry for the mis-worded response and thanks for pointing out the goof.

 

One of the points that I wanted to show was the balance between the two.  In the case of Carrier, the balance was upset and the US lost some jobs.

 

The larger point was trying to figure out how to "keep the rabbits at bay" so that the wolves will be less of a hostage.

 

IMO, the wolves are being held in a form of slavery.  They don't get the full benefit from their work because the state forces them to pay (fees, taxes, ...).  The wolves don't want to give up their dreams, the state doesn't want to give up it's control.  As the state continues to increase their debt, the amount of taxes they'll want will increase.  They'll turn to the wolves for more taxes and the system will continue to go down hill.

 

Finding a balance point, doesn't make the state go away, and as I learned above, waiting for it to fail, doesn't make the rabbits go away.

[RCali]

 

So, as long as a businesses has the freedom to choose, it can choose to engage in the taxable event or not.

 

Taxes are not voluntary.

[KarlJay]

Taxes are not voluntary.

True, but the taxable event might be.  In other words, if the state charges you tax on a product, you might have a choice to buy it.

 

That doesn't mean that you can avoid all taxable events, but that some you can choose not to take part in.

 

Example: a business can choose where to build a factory.  If the factory is in the US, the taxes will be X, if it's in Mexico that US tax might be less.

 

The goal would be to leverage this.  This seems be underway as more companies leave and the state comes to terms (if it does) with the fact that America needs some businesses.

[labmath2]

If rabbits reproduce into extinction without predators, does that not mean they need predators for continued existence?