Many scientists have criticized Rushton's application of a hypothesis about rand K-selection to putative human racial differences (e.g., Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990; Lynn, 1989a, 1989b; Silverman, 1990; Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1990; Zuckerman & Brody, 1988). The criticisms of Rushton's theoretical approach by Weizmann et al. are certainly appropriate, but they were not sufficiently forceful in asserting the fact that Rushton's approach misses the point of rand K-selection: It ignores ecological processes and assumptions that are central to the concept. The r/K model is a valid context for interpreting human life history characteristics only if the investigator is prepared to study these ecological processes and assumptions in well-defined human populations. As an ecologist by training, I hope to show in this commentary what the r/K model implies ecologically, what would be necessary to apply it properly to human populations, and how Rushton's investigations are incompatible with appropriate use of the r/K model. I do not imagine that psychologists will share my degree of concern over the inappropriate use of ecological theory in this context. It would seem at first glance that my criticism of Rushton's research could be satisfied if he simply removed all attempts at evolutionary explanation from his racial comparisons. However, I will demonstrate an additional point that should still trouble psychologists: Even if this research were reworked without the claims to evolutionary legitimacy, its empirical flaws would remain unremedied. Basic methodological considerations apply to these racial comparisons irrespective of their context, whether is it biology, anthropology, psychology, or sociology.