Not sure what you're responding to.

How are you arguing that people who are beautiful don't have more options for mate selection, or that intelligent people aren't more likely to accumulate wealth?

I understand the difference between r vs K selection, but that seems like a non sequitur in response to my previous post.

Birth rates go down with income. You don't have to reason you way to that from first principles, because it's an empirically observable fact.

Right... I'm not disputing that. But it does not relate to my point.

I think it refutes your point. You claimed that the ability to accumulate wealth is rewarded because those people have the best chance of improving the fitness of the species. But those people are the least likely to do anything to perpetuate the species.

I see now. I suppose fitness is an overloaded term, but in terms of survival of a species, I think it'd be difficult to argue that an r-selected reproduction strategy is better than a K-selected reproduction strategy in terms of improving fitness.

That'd be like saying antelope are more adapted to their environment than lions.

In human terms, I'd argue that K-selected children are much more likely to make the types of breakthroughs that will advance the human species e.g. curing disease, scientific discovery, space travel, etc.

Jinx!