{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045542904748680925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021105248542071648, 'mean_word_length': 5.231833910034602, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Self-regulation, a persisting misinterpretation of the workings of biology

From time to time ideas that are based on a misunderstanding of how biology works are put forward to explain observed events in nature. Previously I have challenged one such belief: that animals can reproduce successfully in the absence of food that would support such breeding, raising young that would benefit from an anticipated future supply of good food (White 2007, 2013a). Now I am challenging the converse of this idea; that animals can ‘self-regulate’ by voluntarily producing fewer offspring than the currently available food would support, so as to conserve some of that food for the next generation. This concept of self-regulation enjoyed its heyday some 60 years ago (Wynne-Edwards 1959; Chitty 1960). But, as discussed below, this is an erroneous concept. However, this idea has now been revived. Wallach et al. (2015) propose that populations of smaller mesopredators are regulated by larger apex predators, but the latter are ‘relatively safe from predation’ and therefore their population growth must be limited either by the abundance of their prey or by ‘an internal mechanism of [socially mediated] self-regulation’ (p. 1454). The authors, citing Estes et al. (2011), say that because there is evidence ‘hinting that apex predators may not be bottom–up driven’, they must therefore be self-regulating (p. 1454). This, Wallace et al. (2015) say, enables these large predators to produce fewer offspring than their maximum reproductive potential would allow, and so regulate their populations ‘at sustainable levels’ below that which their available resources (their prey) would support (p. 1454). As evidence that large predators can self-regulate, Wallach et al. (2015) selected four major life history traits that they consider are ‘likely to contribute’ to apex predators being able ‘to limit their own population density (self-regulation)’. This, they say, ‘may enable’ them to produce fewer individuals than ‘the species’ maximum reproductive potential’, so that they ‘do not overexploit their resources’ (Wallach et al. 2015, p. 1455). The four selected traits are: ‘Reproductive strategies’ (‘r’ and ‘K’ life history strategies); ‘Family planning’ (female reproductive suppression and infanticide); ‘Female territoriality’; and ‘Cooperative behaviour’ (cooperative hunting and parental care). First, the authors’ conclusions are influenced by studies of populations of large predators that have been severely disrupted by human interference and persecution (Estes et al. 2011; Ripple et al. 2014). Such disruption can severely mask the essential ‘bottom–up’ limitation of these populations by the availability of their food (Everatt et al. 2015). But, in addition, there is extensive evidence clearly demonstrating (not hinting) that all predators, large and small, are ‘bottom–up’ limited by the abundance of their prey (White 2013b, and references therein). Second, self-regulation does not exist in populations that evolved by natural selection (White 1993, chapter 1.5). Unlike humans consciously choosing the ‘best’ animals and plants from which to breed the next generation, natural selection is simply the totally mindless and passive failure of most neonate organisms to survive for long enough in a hostile environment to reproduce. This leaves only those few that (for many different reasons) do survive to pass their genes to the next generation. Therefore because it is only those that do survive to reproduce that determine future generations, and because the inadequate and constantly