Poll: Are preppers democrats or republicans

[Riot]

@erudne

What's your take on what will happen to China's society? Specifically, when you analyze their male dominant presence, abandonment of female offspring and high rape rate...when using the above, how do you think that will affect them as a society?

 

[erudne]

@erudne

What's your take on what will happen to China's society? Specifically, when you analyze their male dominant presence, abandonment of female offspring and high rape rate...when using the above, how do you think that will affect them as a society?

There's no simple way to answer that question due to the various dynamics involved but:
Communist China is a reorganized Chinese dynasty that wants to re-acquire it's old dominance of the Pacific Rim as well as expand it's Asian empire, it is doing this through a soft genocide by displacing native PPl and replacing them with ethnic Chinese.
Human/ individual rights belong only to those in power , the population is simply a resource to be managed and used as one would use livestock. peasant revolts do not lead to reform, at best the hierarchy plays musical chairs for appearance sake.
The favored expression of China's expansionistic strategy uses subterfuge and covert means of aggression. China's populace is starved, oppressed even eliminated at birth, executed and the dead's organs are sold for profit China is a near perfect expression of the Marxist state based on theft, lies genocide and murder. Marx was an aggressive r-Type.

 

[RoneKiln]

I'm more conservative than most Republicans. I think most Republicans have forgotten what conservative is really meant to be.

My experience with political ideology of those leaning towards prepping appears to be very different depending on age. Older preppers I know are overwhelmingly conservative. Younger preppers I know tend to be liberal and still well armed. But the younger crowd seems to view liberal as different then the older crowd, and are just as disgusted with Democrats as most of us are of Republicans. This is why on the rare occasions I post here, I often speak out against fueling the false dichotomy of Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative and the open displays of contempt for the "other side." I'm all for contempt of many specific politicians and policies, but it's often far too easy to paint a far too wide brush when talking politics.

 

[winchester270]

Liberals live in a fairy tale, filled with rainbows and glitter. What would they need to prep for?

 

[rick benjamin]

Not a prepper or a retreat building pot growing survivalist, or a marauder.
Am an old school Republican, Boy Scout, Marine that has missed a few meals.
Grandma was a Kansas dust bowl farm wife "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

 

[coctailer]

Most preppers are into freedom. That is Libertarian or Anarchist.

 

[SHPD_Retired]

I am not affiliated with any party. I used to be independent but then it became an actual party so I had to change. I am definitely conservative but I do not follow any party platform.

 

[AMProducts]

Biologists have long noted that species will tend to evolve behaviors which best aid them to effectively exploit their environment. Among these behavioral life history traits are reproductive strategies. Reproductive strategies are, as the name implies, the strategies individuals will use to reproduce. Here we will focus upon the two strategies demonstrated in r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology.



The science behind r/K Selection theory was hashed out decades ago. It emerged as biologists pondered why some species reproduced slowly using monogamy and high-investment parenting, while other species reproduced explosively, using promiscuity and single parenting. At the time this science was developed, the researchers were wholly unaware of its relevance to our modern ideological battles in the world of politics. The terms r and K came from variables in equations which described how populations would change over time. r represented the maximal reproductive rate of an individual, while K represented the carrying capacity of an environment.

r/K selection theory describes two environmental extremes, and the strategies a population will produce to exploit each extreme. As a result of these strategies, each of these two environments will produce a very particular psychology in the individuals exposed to them.

The first environment an organism may face is the presence of freely available resources, which is referred to as an r-selective environment. This most often occurs when a predator keeps a population consistently lower than the carrying capacity of its environment. Just as rabbits do not strip their grassy fields bare due to the predation they endure, the r-strategy is designed to exploit an environment where resources are freely available, everywhere.

In r-selection, those individuals who waste time fighting for food will be out-reproduced by pacifists, who simply focus upon eating, and reproducing. Fighting also entails risks of injury or death – risks which are pointless given the free availability of resources everywhere. Hence this environment will favor a tendency towards conflict avoidance, and tend to cull the aggressive and competitive. It will also evolve tendencies towards mating as early as possible, as often as possible, with as many mates as possible, while investing as little effort as possible rearing offspring. Here, there are unlimited resources just waiting to be utilized, and even the most unfit can acquire them. As a result, it is more advantageous to produce as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness, so as to out-reproduce those who either waste time producing quality offspring or waste time competing with each other.

Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal's tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the "everyone gets a trophy" movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.

In the other environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of its environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a species.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-Selected Reproductive Strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one's offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Although total numbers of offspring will be diminished with this high-investment rearing strategy, the offspring's success in competition is what is most important in a K-selective environment. Here, wasting time producing numerous offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure. As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics. This is why when we look at K-selected species in nature, we see packs of wolves, herds of elephants, prides of lions, and pods of dolphins, and each individual is loyal to their group and its competitive success. Since the only way to survive will be to acquire one's resources by out-competing peers, this invariably produces tremendously fast rates of evolutionary advancement. For this reason, K-selected organisms are usually more evolutionarily advanced than their r-selected counterparts, and will exhibit more complex adaptations, from increased intelligence and sentience, to increased physical capabilities, to loyalty and prosociality, in species where group competition occurs.

Clearly, this mirrors the Conservative's embrace of competitions, such as war, capitalism, and even the bearing of arms in self-defense against criminals. It also mirrors the Conservatives tendency to favor family values, such as abstinence until monogamy and two-parent parenting. It even explains why Conservatives feel driven to see their nation succeed as greatly as possible, regardless of the effects this has upon other nations or just members of their out-group.

To my eye, it is inherently clear that this r/K divergence is the origin of our political divide. Indeed, while policy proposals from Conservatives are predicated upon the premise that resources are inherently limited, and individuals should have to work and demonstrate merit to acquire them, Liberals advocate on behalf of policy proposals which seem to be predicated upon an assumption that there are always more than sufficient resources to let everyone live lives of equal leisure. To a Liberal, any scarcity must clearly arise due to some individual's personal greed and evil altering a natural state of perpetual plenty.

Here, we see how these two deeply imbued psychologies generate grossly different perceptual frameworks within those who are imbued with them. Just as a Liberal will never grasp why a Conservative will look down upon frequent promiscuity and single parenting, the Conservative will never grasp why the Liberal will be so firmly opposed to free market Capitalism, or the right to self defense when threatened. Each sees an inherently different world, and is programmed to desire an inherently different environment.

In nature, since it is the individuals who best exemplify this r-selected psychological standard who will reproduce under conditions of resource abundance, their offspring will carry these traits. As time goes on, the population will gradually develop ever more extreme presentations of these traits. As we show, there is copious evidence that a genetic allele, which diminishes dopamine signaling, is associated with every facet of the r-strategy's psychology, as well as a predisposition towards political Liberalism.

In addition, the r-strategy may have evolved to be engendered within individuals by environmental stimuli as well, through a desensitization to the neurotransmitter dopamine. This effect arises from its copious release in such an environment down-regulating receptor expression and consequently reducing receptor densities in nervous tissue. We also maintain that a lack of adversity in the environment will fail to develop a drive or ability to confront adversity, through a failure to develop a brain structure called the amygdala. In summary, an organism placed in an environment devoid of adversity, and filled with pleasure, may find itself more demanding of pleasure and less tolerant of adversity, than an organism which is enured to a less hospitable environment.

Within r/K selection theory, all populations will contain some differing degrees of r and K selected psychologies. As an environment shifts to one extreme or the other, a population will adopt a more r or K-selected psychology, but this will only last as long as the environmental conditions which produced the shift continue. Under conditions of reduced mortality, and copious resource availability, both r and K-selected psychologies will be present. This will continue until such time as resources become limited, and a competitive, K-selected pressure takes hold, or predation begins to cull both sides evenly, and the K-selected individuals, being slower reproducers are relatively culled back.

Interestingly, r/K Theory not only explains a means by which our political ideologies are adaptive to a specific environment. Many have noted an increasingly masculine quality to the women in our culture, as well as a corresponding effeminate nature to our men. Rush Limbaugh will often refer to them as the Feminazis, and the Castrati. In nature, a K-selected model of rearing involves a feminine mother, who nurtures offspring and guides them away from danger, combined with a more masculine male who will aggressively confront dangers, so as to protect his family.

However, when a population becomes increasingly r-selected, the nature of the sexual dimorphism and these sex-specific rearing behaviors will change. As you see a more r-strategy emerge, females of the species will need to become increasingly aggressive and masculine, since due to paternal abandonment, they must provision and protect their offspring alone. Since r-selected males are solely concerned with mating (before abandoning their mate), and fleeing from conflict, they become more diminutive, and more cowardly. The end result is the r-strategy has, inherent within it, a model of aggressive, manly females who raise children alone, and diminutive, effete males who are solely concerned with superficial, mate-attracting flash, and conflict avoidance.

So this is a fantastic article, however I think your conclusions are somewhat misleading.

For most of us in the first world, we live in a post-scarcity world, the resources we enjoy are essentially limitless on an individual basis. However, there are certain resources that are scarce, and reinforce the K-type psychology, that is namely money. To try to make a well-defined distinction in reproductive strategy as a left/right divide is wrong as name the leftist politician that has encouraged r-type reproduction in their offspring.

In general, this division exists as an economic phenomenon and stratifies based more on class than on particular ideology. It's easy to see this in both low economic status whites, as well as blacks, however as you move up in class status, there is immediately a rise in K-type reproductive habits. This is why the birthrate in the US is about 2.5 children per female. We can see plenty of examples of those in poverty that will remain in poverty due to the burden of the children they produce, and at the opposite end, there are the hyper rich that may not reproduce at all.

At the same time, the r-type strategy is more or less perpetually geared to produce less fit offspring, whether it's a matter of intelligence or strength, and the K-type strategy is geared towards producing highly fit offspring that will certainly out-perform the r-type offspring. The question is, if we assume a Pareto Distribution, if 20% of the people are to control 80% of the wealth, that means they have outcompeted the remaining 80%, which control 20% of the wealth. If we make an assumption that the top 20% is the result of K-type reproductive practice, the less selective r-type is still needed to produce the remaining 80% of the population.

As Pareto noted, it's rare to see exemptions to this distribution, regardless of reproductive strategy, forcing more individuals into the K-type would likely benefit societies to a certain extent in that the bottom cohort would simply be more competitive than r-type populations. This may create a future society that advances even more rapidly than the one we have today, however as society advances resource limits continue to expand, ensuring that there will always be an r-type cohort.

To the point, r/K distribution is a reflection of the amount of resources available to a breeding population, with the exception of species that have developed specifically to take advantage of r-type habits, when looking at humans that can be either r or K type, it is likely that this too is reflected by a Pareto distribution, as even those who accept the K strategy will produce some offspring that are simply unable to compete, and the r type through genetic variance and hybrid advantage may produce offspring that are more fit.

While the statisticians hash this out, I'm going to get back to work, there are a lot of people with more resource than me I need to compete with.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

I chose other because political affiliations cannot fully characterize real people. Political affiliation is more of an adjective to a pepper than it is a noun.

However, Geert Hofstede's cultural denensions provide 4 useful indexes; collectivism, masculenity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Where do I find a prepper in Hofstede's dementions?

Maculinity & Feminity are well balanced (hunter & gatherer)
High Uncertainty Avoidance Index
Low Power Distance except personality disorders (narcissism).
Leans toward a high individuality index; away from collectivism.

 

[rick benjamin]

It hits the fan...
The prepared hunker down while the unprepared riot and pillage
The great sorting begins...
The unprepareders die of dehydration, disease, hunger, violence.
This is known as the "great stink"
The fewer unprepared become marauders, over-run the visible prepareds
The surviving prepareders sort-through the marauders

Sociologists taste just like chicken...

 

[Just Jim]

I guess when it's over they will have a name for the survivors, those of another begining.

 

[edison bulb]

I know many who are Democrats.

 

[Chief Chris]

Libertarian

 

[closingresponse]

In between both sides of the spectrum. Left on quite a few issues, right on others.
Grew up as a prepper and never knew it really. (Farm, miles away from even the closest tiny town)
I have close friends from far right to far left who are preppers. All along the same lines too, none "crazy" about it.
Food, water, firearms,(yes even my far left friends), plans, and comms.
To me, political ideals, leanings, etc have no influence on someone being a prepper minus the extreme folk on either side.
It doesn't matter to me, just glad to see folks who care enough about themselves and their families to be as prepared as they can, no matter their political views.

 

[erudne]

I know many who are Democrats.

I fail to see how r-Type socialists expect to survive under their own power unless they simply intend to continue robbing the producers.
But that would be so unexpected.....

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

I fail to see how r-Type socialists expect to survive under their own power unless they simply intend to continue robbing the producers.
But that would be so unexpected.....

Exactly, how they vote under the current umbrella (that pesky constitution) is not how they could survive without the umbrella.

Being a Democrat-prepper simply doesn't fit into any categorical imperatives. Any democrat "prepper" would have to shed some big numbers off their Collectivism Index because SELF SUFFICIENCY is the halmark of truly being prepared.

Some people I knew used to joke about the liberal survival-plan that incorporated all the housing camps, breadlines, soup-kitchens, and other distribution lines.....and how hunger, exhaustion, and or the need for security could force a conservative into one or all of them.

 

[erudne]

Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Marxist, Jihadi survival plans, like all their other plans, are predicated upon murdering the non-compliant and stealing their stuff

 

[Riot]

I fail to see how r-Type socialists expect to survive under their own power unless they simply intend to continue robbing the producers.
But that would be so unexpected.....

It's easy to blame the rich and powerful -that they did not vote to be rich and powerful- as the cause for all the country's misfortunes.

People aren't "paying their fair share". They "didn't build that", they're simply inherited wealth and, therefore, don't deserve it.

Hardcore Liberals would see every rich entrepreneur taxed into Middle-Class or beheaded for causing the cost of living so high. Then what? The only rich would be our legislators. If that doesn't sound like a Communist state, I don't know what is!

Bah! This system is a truly flawed system....where the majority can dictate what happens to the minority- regardless of the rule of law or morality. As long as Football keeps playing and their WiFi stays on, nobody would give a crud about who is doing what in or legislative process.




Our leaders could literally be burning the world down...as long as the sheep don't smell the smoke, they couldn't care less.

 

[erudne]

It's easy to blame the rich and powerful -that they did not vote to be rich and powerful- as the cause for all the country's misfortunes.

People aren't "paying their fair share". They "didn't build that", they're simply inherited wealth and, therefore, don't deserve it.

Hardcore Liberals would see every rich entrepreneur taxed into Middle-Class or beheaded for causing the cost of living so high. Then what? The only rich would be our legislators. If that doesn't sound like a Communist state, I don't know what is!

Bah! This system is a truly flawed system....where the majority can dictate what happens to the minority- regardless of the rule of law or morality. As long as Football keeps playing and their WiFi stays on, nobody would give a crud about who is doing what in or legislative process.




Our leaders could literally be burning the world down...as long as the sheep don't smell the smoke, they couldn't care less.

why did you quote me?

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

It's easy to blame the rich and powerful -that they did not vote to be rich and powerful- as the cause for all the country's misfortunes.

People aren't "paying their fair share". They "didn't build that", they're simply inherited wealth and, therefore, don't deserve it.

Hardcore Liberals would see every rich entrepreneur taxed into Middle-Class or beheaded for causing the cost of living so high. Then what? The only rich would be our legislators. If that doesn't sound like a Communist state, I don't know what is!

Bah! This system is a truly flawed system....where the majority can dictate what happens to the minority- regardless of the rule of law or morality. As long as Football keeps playing and their WiFi stays on, nobody would give a crud about who is doing what in or legislative process.




Our leaders could literally be burning the world down...as long as the sheep don't smell the smoke, they couldn't care less.

Self-fulfilling Prophesies...example..

Take every last dime from the rich and give it all to the "poor", and within 6 months, the money will be right back where it started from. The same goes for prepping; a "redistributor" will take something, but does not have the mental foundation to keep it; they rely on the work of others.

"Minds; there are three kinds of intellegence, one is capable of thinking for itself, the other appreciates what others understand, and the 3rd understands neither for itself nor through others...the 1st is excellent, the 2nd good, and the 3rd is useless"
Niccolo Machiaveli