Anyway, what IS the minimum number of surviving humans to plausibly repopulate?
-
-
Replying to @BootlegGirl
oooh, i know this one! coincidentally (?) the bare minimum is about level with our dunbar number at ~150
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pallasinine
Only 150 people? I thought it would have to be in the thousands at least?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @pallasinine
It's reasonable to 1 want a buffer 2 have a society that believes the number higher 3 have another reason a higher buffer number preferred
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The main issue is managing genetic diseases over deep time -- smaller the starting number the harder it is
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This is why IRL there's projects among communities like Ashkenazi Jews to have v detailed records to track diseases like Tay-Sachs
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Btw for this reason the 50/500 rule assumes a maximally diverse starting population
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The more consanguinity within the population -- i.e. families etc -- the bigger it needs to be obviously
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
50 is big enough so that it's unlikely any one genetic disease can take over a whole generation if you're careful
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
500 is big enough that, over time, genetic diseases can be bred out of the population w/o sacrificing diversity
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Bc you have enough of a gene pool for mutations and evolution to occur
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @pallasinine
Hm, that makes part of my plot harder to work with
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @pallasinine
It's not *impossible* for a smaller group to survive for a certain amount of time
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.