Views : 9,342,355
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Dec 22, 2021 ^^
Rating : 4.91 (5,428/234,937 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2022-04-09T20:47:07.582705Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
As a practical matter, the answer is no. You need a minimum number of people to maintain enough genetic diversity to avoid long-term problems (something called "the founder effect" or a "genetic bottleneck" in Biology). I've read that that minimum number has been estimated at around 50,000 individuals. One of the reasons scientists are so worried about the cheetah population is that, not only are their numbers low, the species shows indications of exactly this sort of a troubling lack of genetic diversity.
7.3K |
I'm reminded of the "Dark Eden" trilogy by Chris Beckett. The setting is a world populated by the descendants of two stranded astronauts - the technology level is essentially stone age, but a few artefacts of the original astronauts are still kept as holy relics, various genetic defects are rife ("batface"/cleft palate and "clawfoot"/club foot in particular), and an interesting culture has arisen.
191 |
I remember hearing about a town in Italy, Stoccareddo, where almost everyone has the same last name, Bau, and most likely everyone is related. Almost everyone has red hair. They also eat extremely high fat foods and high sugar foods but have a very low occurrence of heart disease and diabetes. A majority of the population lives well into their 90s and 100s.
3.5K |
So basically it'll depend on how genetically gifted the two last people on earth are? If both have an incredibly tiny portion of negative genetic mutations, there would be a higher probability of things working out. If both were genetically perfect (is this even possible?), Then I can imagine things working out with quite a high probability.
7.5K |
This dilemma forgets to include issues regarding the risks of childbirth. Without functioning hospitals, and no nurses or midwives to assist them (presumably just the husband, a baby delivery guide, and whatever pain relievers they could scrounge up), the woman could have a much higher risk of maternal and/or infant mortality. Obviously it's doable, our ancestors were able to have kids without modern healthcare. But each time she tries to give birth, she's potentially gambling her life or the infant's life. For comparison, in England and Wales in 1895, the maternal death rate was roughly 650,000; globally in 2017, it was a little under 294,000. In ancient Rome circa 200 BCE, the infant mortality rate was 30%; globally in 2017 it was 2.9%.
5.3K |
6:20 i come home after having biology class and this is what im greeted with...
4 |
@earthwormscrawl
2 years ago
If their children, instead of paring off, mated in a matrix, with each male reproducing with every female (and vise versa), after a few generations there would be huge matrix of combinations. There would, of course, be a lot of genetic problems, but there would also be a large number of viable offspring. If the problematic people didn't reproduce, there would eventually be large, genetically diverse and stable population.
32K |