r or K elected; which one do you adhere to most hypothetically speaking?

[de Burgh II]

As the name implies, r-selected species are those that emphasize high growth rates, typically exploit less-crowded ecological niches, and produce many offspring [...]

In others words, would you adhere to maintaining higher birthrates that is proportional to a well-balanced society with plenty of food/beverages, housing and other necessities that can sustain yourself indefinitely.

Or...

By contrast, K-selected species display traits associated with living at densities close to carrying capacity and typically are strong competitors in such crowded niches that invest more heavily in fewer offspring [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

As reiterated verbatim, would you adhere more to keeping lower birthrates that is still within a sustainable threshold; housing, food/beverage and other necessities are not a problem.

As humans, I feel this notion is very applicable to humans theoretically as well as empirically. If you were given the choice to freely pick a strategy without any restrictions nor societal pressures...

Which strategy would you be inclined to choose out of your own free will?

[Taizhou]

K without a doubt. The world is overpopulated as it is.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Few offspring with heavy investment in their development.

[Aldaris]

Obviously, there is no correct answer, as both strategies are potentially viable, which is beyond evident in ecology. There are examples of species, prime in their ecological niches, which utilize either one. Optimal choice is a function of many, many variables and if one of the strategies was always superior, natural selection would have eliminated the other one long time ago. Specifically applied to humans though, K seems to be a better pick in most cases.

[The Lawspeaker]

K/selection (of course). This country is like a bath tube that's about to flow over.