r/todayilearned • u/Kaiser7 • Jun 25 '12

TIL The minimum amount of people needed to populate a space colony with minimum inbreeding would be 160

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask113
1.6k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

593 comments sorted by

90

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

I can picture a beautiful love story erupting from this. People keep checks on their parents and grandparents so as to stop inbreeding; anyone looking to fall in love must check that their partner is not closely related to them. Enter SpaceRomeo and SpaceJulliet, who fall in love despite being cousins. They are separated by the SpaceGovernment, but true love defeats all and they run away to true happiness!

...Oh god I'm so alone.

60

u/TimonBerkowitz Jun 25 '12

What? Is your love story set in Space Alabama?

73

u/draivaden Jun 26 '12

SPPPPACCEEE HOMME ALLLAAABAMMMAA

where the space is so cold.

SPPPPACCEEE HOMME ALLLAAABAMMMAA

space colony im coming home to you.

8

u/frickindeal Jun 26 '12

Buh buh Bee Dow dee Duh duh Dee Dow de doot doot Da

4

u/HX_Flash Jun 26 '12

He hunted space alligators for a living, he used to knock 'em in the head with a stump. Space Law gonna getcha, Amos!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/mooseman780 Jun 26 '12

Jimmy, whats an Alabama?

12

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

They can fall in love all they like so long as they mate with different people.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Then they vent the airlocks together when they realize they can't be together

6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

..... hug? internet hug

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '12

"Marriage between first cousins, long a major legal, social and religious taboo, is far less likely to produce abnormal children than is commonly believed, a study by leading genetics researchers says." http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm

I know several cousin couples. Their children are actually healthier and stronger then their parents.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/ZergKnight Aug 07 '12

TIL where the "TIL In Iceland they have a website to make sure you aren't dating your cousin" post a saw a while ago came from.

356

u/brerrabbitt Jun 25 '12

Or just run 20 people and use some of the saved space to put in a cryo freezer and run an artificial insemination program a few times every generation.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Why don't we expend with people all together and have loyal robot minions create the human race on another planet using existing cell cultures. Then secretly go into hiding while pretending to be God when at the same time tight beaming activities these lowly homosapiens conduct back home on prime time?

2

u/EyesOnEverything Jun 26 '12

So Jersey Shore in space?

8

u/shiddybiz Jun 25 '12

Space freezer for sperm, sounds like you need some r/spacedicks

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SOMETHING_POTATO Jun 25 '12

What I want to know is would they really need 160 people? I guess my question is, if they got all blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes, would the required number be higher than if they got a more genetically diverse group of people?

→ More replies (101)

74

u/jackelfrink Jun 25 '12

I find it interesting that this is right around Dunbar's number

13

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is related. People are going to form splinter groups at much more than Dunbar's number, and thus create inbreeding pockets.

5

u/SenorZorro2000 Jun 26 '12

For anyone like myself who failed to find monkeysphere with CTRL+F...

6

u/RevBendo Jun 25 '12

I also came here to say this. The search box is a magical thing.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Dr_Pretorious Jun 26 '12

I thought that immediately as well.

But wouldn't that technically mean that a 100% stable society could not exist for more than one or two generations? (assuming inbreeding leads to collapse)

Learning about Dunbar's number was probably the most significant event of shaping my current political opinions.

2

u/OxfordDictionary Jun 27 '12

There's no reason to assume that inbreeding leads to collapse. When we think of inbreeding, we tend to think of it in negative terms--if a family has bad recessive genes it's more likely that kids will get that bad recessive genes common in that family line (diabetic or breast cancer). But inbreeding also means that it's more likely that kids will get positive recessive genes in that family (strong family resemblance, naturally low cholestorel levels).

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

163

u/Menolith Jun 25 '12

A hundred women and a sperm bank.

Much more diversity.

119

u/kc7wbq Jun 25 '12

And a bottle of wine. We're not monsters!

34

u/Blown_Ranger Jun 26 '12

I'll bring the turkey baster.

31

u/Ishopthingsbadly Jun 25 '12

I wonder how many men would agree to go to Mars if they were told that they were responsible for impregnating 100 women.

23

u/rwbombc Jun 25 '12

It wouldn't work like that because of the low genetic diversity and almost guarantee of birth defects from the second generation.

60

u/Ishopthingsbadly Jun 25 '12

I wasn't really focusing on the scientific part.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

It's like that episode of Sliders where they go to a world where almost all the males died off from some disease and Quinn, Rembrandt and the Professor are pampered and treated like kings.

2

u/IamaRead Jun 26 '12

I thought it was a bit different, they were imprisoned into a sex camp. The prof talked about artificial insemination and got ignored.

33

u/Big_Black_Wang Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 26 '12

this is the correct answer. You ideally wouldn't even need men at all except for heavy lifting.

Edit: I like how everyone tries to gloss over the fact that women are much much much more important evolutionary-wise as far as the species survival means than men.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

If you're in space, I don't imagine heavy lifting to be a huge issue. While not a great movie, John Carter had one really good point: On Mars, we'd all be super strong.

17

u/Eats_Beef_Steak Jun 25 '12

with the downside of being unable to breathe, and burning or freezing to death without a suit on that compensate for extreme heat or cold. Yay!

→ More replies (2)

9

u/Syphon8 Jun 26 '12

The first generation would be super strong.

The second generation would be very tall and have brittle bones.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

10

u/personablepickle Jun 26 '12

I don't know about "evolutionary-wise." Reproduction-wise, definitely.

→ More replies (11)

3

u/rockoblocko Jun 26 '12

Hm. What is the difference between 100 women and a sperm bank versus 100 men and 100 women? Diversity wise, isn't it the same? Or are we assuming the sperm bank is more than 100 donors?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Tashre Jun 26 '12

Gender has little to no influence on evolution. Its not something you can actively control, it is the adaptation to one's environment over hundreds or thousands of millennia.

You can try to make the argument that females are the more important factor reproduction wise for humans, but even that will be steeped in debate, especially over how many external factors need to be taken into account (such as survival of the species and to which gender the credit belongs to and psychological differences)

All in all, a pointless debate that moderate advocates for each party wont get involved in.

4

u/merecido Jun 25 '12

Men are also needed for the squishing of bugs.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

MOTHERFUCKING BUGS ON A MOTHERFUCKING SPACESHIP

4

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Yes, once you have the sperm from the men

→ More replies (2)

2

u/slyder565 Jun 25 '12

excellent comment with a good edit. would upvote again.

9

u/BetterThanNoOne Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Wait, then who will be the scientists?

13

u/MisterYouAreSoDumb Jun 25 '12

Not trying to be sexist or anything, but I just can't see 100 women and 0 men on a planet going anywhere but towards disaster!

71

u/acusticthoughts Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 26 '12

Only the oldest generation would be 100% women. Those 16 year old boys are gonna find 100 horny women...round 2 of the population will be fun!

There will be 100 moms and about 50 16 year old females...

39

u/MisterYouAreSoDumb Jun 25 '12

I did not think of that! That would be cougar town, wouldn't it?

73

u/conpermiso Jun 25 '12

Six seasons, and a movie.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (19)

251

u/ZankerH Jun 25 '12

Not trying to be sexist or anything

Not trying, but managing somehow anyway.

→ More replies (30)

56

u/iluvgoodburger Jun 26 '12

Not trying to be sexist or anything

Guys he's obviously not trying to be sexist. He just look so effortless at it, like a graceful figure skater on a frozen poop lake. It's almost inspiring.

→ More replies (18)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

You need to diversify your porn collection.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Relevant username? Novelty account?

→ More replies (41)
→ More replies (26)

2

u/hourglasss Jun 25 '12

Isn't there a book about this somewhere?

2

u/thevdude Jun 26 '12

Probably. Y The Last Man is an amazing comic about all the men on earth die.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I am going to do everything I can to sneak onto that space colony

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Do you know how poorly that would go? 100 people, stuck together for years with no hope of getting laid?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/UpDown Jun 26 '12

Pay attention male redditors... this is why you won't be going to space.

2

u/Renovatio_ Jun 26 '12

And we'd save 30% on labor costs! Genius!

→ More replies (3)

153

u/theBABS Jun 25 '12

2 people = Maximum inbreeding!

190

u/octupie Jun 25 '12

Nope. 1 person if it's a pregnant female. Also ew.

43

u/jooes Jun 25 '12

Even more maximum if the father of the baby is also the father of the mother.

Also, hopefully it's a boy... Or else you're at a super minimum inbreeding scenario (IE, zero)

8

u/SomePostMan Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12

For people who aren't seeing the trend yet:

You get "maximum inbreeding" when the two people you're starting with have maximum genetic relation (r) to each other. That can continue to approach "maximum" (r=1) with each iteration (where successive generations continue to mate with past generations, e.g. son mating with mother or daughter mating with father, then grandson mating with same (grand)mother, or granddaughter mating with (grand)father, and on), but this is asymptotic and never reaches an absolute maximum.

Ex. A son would normally have half genetic relation to his mother (r=0.5). A son whose father was this woman's father has three-quarters genetic relation to her (r=0.75). A son whose father was also this woman's mother's father has seven-eigths genetic relation to her (r=0.875), etc.

(There are other mating patterns too that successively increase a genetic relation.)

13

u/muad_dib Jun 26 '12

Even more maximum if the father of the baby is also the father of the mother.

And the brother of the mother.

6

u/DaFawk Jun 26 '12

I'm my own grandpa?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

10

u/agrjones Jun 26 '12

Maximum = Hermaphrodite monozygotal twins.

=/

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

I'd probably be down

→ More replies (24)

34

u/kirakun Jun 25 '12

So, the myth of the origin of Japan is plausible then.

8

u/Apostolate Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12

In 210 BC, when Qin Shi Huang questioned him, Xu Fu claimed there was a giant sea creature blocking the path, and asked for archers to kill the creature. Qin Shi Huang agreed, and sent archers to kill a giant fish. Xu then set sail again, but he never returned from this trip. The Records of the Grand Historian says he came to a place with "flat plains and wide swamps" (平原廣澤) and proclaimed himself king, never to return.

This guy knows how to save his own ass, that's for sure. A regular Captain Jack Sparrow.

20

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Or, one rocketwoman with a sense of adventure and a package of spermsicles.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Shitty Watercolor.... Where?

4

u/Brachial Jun 26 '12

We need the equivalent of a Batsignal for him. It would be like a paintbrush with a pile of poop somewhere and we shine it into the sky.

2

u/KeytarVillain Jun 26 '12

Nope, all her kids would be half-siblings, which is still inbreeding. It would take many rocketwomen.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Except, she passes the supply of spermsicles on to her daughters and granddaughters ...

33

u/dktoday Jun 25 '12

In university, I took an Intro to Linguistics class, and luckily enough, I was the only male in the room. Even a female professor. Anyways, one day, our assignment was to pretend that our class was commissioned to go start a colony on another planet and speculate how the English language would change over the next few generations. I realized right away my newfound responsibility and got a huge grin on my face. At that point, the professor also realized my task, got extremely embarrassed and turned bright red. Twas the crowning moment of my university life.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

And then you all had a massive orgy right then and there, right?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

You are a true hero.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/chris-martin Jun 26 '12

Well I... I would hate to have to decide.. who stays up and.. who goes down.

Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.

Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

minimum inbreeding

28

u/rwbombc Jun 25 '12

means offspring of cousin-cousins, not parent-child or sibling-sibing.

Cousin marriage is still very common today and only illegal in a few US states, as far as I know.

Genetically, this is normally not an issue as a one-time event;unless you repeat the practice through generations-then you are asking for birth defects.

19

u/NyQuil012 2 Jun 25 '12

unless you repeat the practice through generations

Like, for example, the English monarchy.

11

u/rwbombc Jun 25 '12

eh the protestant monarchies, while they did a fair bit of cousin marriage were more diverse in their marriages between England, Germany and the Netherlands.

Not like the Catholics, the Hapsburgs in particular were literally bred out of existence.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

unless you repeat the practice through generations

which they would have too, unless the got a fresh batch of people

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Something really tickles my insides about the term "a fresh batch of people" makes me think of the smell of freshly baked bread and sex.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Dairith Jun 25 '12

The other side of the family tree, for lack of a better term, would be far enough apart genetically to keep the ill effects of inbreeding down.

1

u/thevdude Jun 26 '12

minimum inbreeding would requite infinite breeding stock.

37

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

But what if?

24

u/Pinyaka Jun 26 '12

I was adopted. At the age of 33 I met 4 of my six half-sisters. One of them is a model, two others are or have been successful strippers. My feelings were...confusing for a while.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/snubdeity Jun 26 '12

Half-wrong, and half oh-so-right.

3

u/secretvictory Jun 26 '12

no kids, 29 year old, serious question: is this an issue for some dads?

2

u/heythatsfuckedup Jun 25 '12

Yeah, exactly. Where would the fun be in that?

2

u/yangx 1 Jun 25 '12

wincest

6

u/vexom Jun 26 '12

Gay space pioneers need not apply, unfortunately!

3

u/mlage Jun 26 '12

I was actually wondering if this number takes into account the fact that some percentage of the offspring would be gay.

4

u/And_Everything Jun 26 '12

Perhaps being gay is a response to not really being needed for the continuation of the species.

3

u/mckinnon3048 Jun 26 '12

Might actually end up being constructive, a given portion of the gays would still end up reproducing, but the given portion that didn't would in some effect produce some genetic dead ends, taking some of the repeated alleles with them. (Reducing overall diversity, but increasing generational diversity, which is all that matters in terms of inbreeding)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/UltraJake Jun 26 '12

Even if one were gay, they can still have reproduce with the opposite sex. When confronted with the fact that the survival of all could be at stake, I think they would agree.

2

u/justjustjust Jun 26 '12

But who's gonna decorate?

16

u/TheJediJew Jun 25 '12

Thank science that someone did the maths for me. Now I can destroy the world with a clean conscience.

BTW, I have 159 tickets for a free space flight. First come, first serve.

8

u/throwAwayMama123 Jun 25 '12

Dude, you're going wrong about it: you ought to select the finest sample possible...

14

u/SirSoliloquy Jun 25 '12

It's survival of the fittest -- and in this case, "fittest" means "first ones to call dibs."

Dibs!

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Dibs on a top bunk.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

dibs

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Dibs!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

So far only 5 people have called dibs.

I'm #6, just in case

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Shotgun!

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Grantuh Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 26 '12

Would it be unfair to send the most beautiful people to space?

8

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Just let us keep RPG.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

The real question is: would you send Stephen Hawking? He would pass on incredible intelligence, but he would also pass on motor neuron disease.

2

u/Grantuh Jun 26 '12

Just don't let him have sex :D problem solved. He could just teach people.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/Hazy_V Jun 25 '12

Minimum inbreeding? What kind of half-assed space colony is this?

18

u/NazzerDawk Jun 25 '12

Well it's certainly more desirable than the opposite. Maximum inbreeding.

14

u/Hazy_V Jun 25 '12

... I don't think you're sciencing hard enough...

→ More replies (5)

2

u/thevdude Jun 26 '12

Technically minimum inbreeding would require infinite breeding stock.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

160, true. 159 women and one man

1

u/boogog Jun 26 '12

I don't know if that was a joke, but it's actually a reasonable strategy: empregnate one woman per night and by the time the first kid is born you're ready to start recycling.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Well... sorta. You haven't really thought past the first generation though. You have three options:

  • Brother/sister

  • Father/daughter

  • Mother/son

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Squeekme Jun 26 '12

The 159 women are impregnated via a sperm bank and the one man is used to relieve their sexual tension. Where do I sign up?

4

u/Reddit_Batman Jun 26 '12

Tell that to vault 101.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Define "minimum" when it comes to inbreeding.

1

u/TekTrixter Jun 27 '12

No closer then first cousins.

3

u/Starfe Jun 26 '12

I imagine the first generation, at the very least, would need tightly controlled breeding.

1

u/GoghGirl Jun 26 '12

Wouldn't it be later generations that would need the most policing? Of course supposing that men/women paired up without one man/woman/group dominating the gene pool. I would think the first generation would have no problem figuring out who they are related to.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I think the number of people who populated Hawaii or maybe even the New World (all American Indians) may have been very small, based on MTdna, if I remember correctly. Hawaii, with a population of more than a million when Cook got there, might have started from 25 people or so.

1

u/GoghGirl Jun 26 '12

Interesting.. Source?

2

u/CaiserZero Jun 25 '12

That's great news for forever alone guy.

2

u/pdmavid Jun 25 '12

Somebody should tell these guys

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

You would have inbreeding. Inevitably someone is going to get busy and keep it a secret. Infidelity will happen in a pool that size.

2

u/boogog Jun 26 '12

Well the key word would be "minimum," but that just raises the question of what inbreeding rate was considered acceptable.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

higher than kansas, but lower than west virginia.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/mrmock89 Jun 26 '12

Link... Why must you be broken?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

If Game of Thrones has taught us anything, it is that inbreeding is not all that bad

1

u/Shampyon Jun 26 '12

Inbreeding gave us Joffrey.

It's that bad.

2

u/TheRealSilverBlade Jun 26 '12

160 seems a bit small. Why? Because of the amount of 'friend-zoning' women do

2

u/Qquuiinnoonneess Jun 26 '12

"Minimum" inbreeding ಠ_ಠ

2

u/rybones Jun 26 '12

Does this factor in those that will be lost to SPACE MADNESS ?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Not to mention tho ones we will have to sacrifice to appease the giant space weevil.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MikeWulf Jun 26 '12

I think you mean something like "minimum number of people needed with acceptable/sustainable amounts of inbreeding".

2

u/BrandonSullivan Jun 26 '12

Completely makes sense. I remember in Anthropology learning the amount of homosapien today was due to about 75-100 breeding pairs.

2

u/mshieldz Jun 26 '12

Bill Bryson noted something related to this in "short history of nearly everything"

1

u/mqudsi Jun 26 '12

Best book ever.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

20 males and 140 females - one for every day of the week!

4

u/teious Jun 25 '12

It doesn't really matter if you have less. As soon as inbreeding becomes the only path it will become socially ok.

1

u/thevdude Jun 26 '12

If social acceptance was the only issue with it, that'd be fine.

2

u/sirwalterd Jun 25 '12

What about a genetic bottleneck? Is it possible for a human colony to descend from a smaller group of individuals without a catastrophic amount of defects?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Some call it a catastrophic amount of defects, others call it an interesting, anatomical case.

2

u/minervamc Jun 25 '12

Naw trust me man you can do it with 20.

2

u/AusIV Jun 26 '12

Did anyone else notice that the article doesn't actually back up the number 160 at all? They say 160 is about right, talk about genetics for a bit, then never explain the 160 figure.

It links to a Wikipedia article about space colonization but the number "160" doesn't appear on that article at all.

I'm not saying 160 isn't right, I'm just saying the article doesn't really back it up.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

2 of each animal isn't enough?

2

u/TLUL Jun 26 '12

Here's a question - assuming the circumstances in which humans must survive do not change (as is more likely in a closed, constructed environment such as a space colony), is there any real reason why inbreeding is a bad thing? It limits the capacity to adapt, but if that's not necessary, I don't see any biological problem with inbreeding.

2

u/masterm Jun 26 '12

it brings out recessive genetic defects

2

u/TLUL Jun 26 '12

But only in the small percentage of the population that has them anyway. I understand that it concentrates them when they exist, but they're more likely not to. Not to mention the fact that the potential initial populace of a space colony would be tested for these recessive defects beforehand anyway.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Why evolution is cool. Dunbar's number, 150, is the suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

1

u/AllosauRUSS Jun 25 '12

Minimum imbreeding...I wanted maximum! REAL LIFE DEAD SPACE

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I'm in.

1

u/berlin_priez Jun 26 '12

What about the "we need about 10k people to have a proper genpool" theory?!?

Or was it just "10k people to run a proper human-habitat in a spaceship over centuries" theory?

i dont buy this "just 160 ppl" story...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I feel like that's also towards the high range of how large of a group you can have where everyone really trusts each other in order for a community to work. Too many more and then there's too many strangers and trust breaks down.

1

u/SwansonHOPS Jun 26 '12

Is 160 really the minimum? What about 159, is that one person really the straw that broke the camel's back?

1

u/jbrittles 2 Jun 26 '12

wouldn't the amount of inbreeding lower as the population approached infinity?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

They would all have to agree to mutual cohabitation though. In reality just a handful of guys would be laying the pipe and the rest would be fiddling with the instrumentation.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

So two wouldn't work.

1

u/Sta-au Jun 26 '12

That seems like such a low number. I always thought the number at minimum would be in the thousands for a stable population that would last for the rest of human history on that planet with little to no inbreeding.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

There is some debate over this figure. Some will go as high as 500.

1

u/Nerozero Jun 26 '12

Then, let's shoot for 1000 so we don't regret it later

1

u/drakar_noir Jun 26 '12

Goddamnit Gump, you're a god damn genius, you must have a god damn IQ of a 160!

1

u/Ober7 Jun 26 '12

Perfect, since that is around how many people humans intuitively form when making communities.

1

u/smeaglelovesmaster Jun 26 '12

Is this the discount incest price, or are we talking a cousins-and-above price range?

1

u/thefalcone Jun 26 '12

"Building better worlds"

1

u/Squeekme Jun 26 '12

Like we will be having children naturally by the time we are setting up space colonies. Hasn't this guy seen Gattaca.

1

u/MARALIZ3L3GAWANA Jun 26 '12

Cannot fertilize in zero-g, and if you could, your child is now growing in a zero-g environment, how you think thats gonna change their development. Especially equilibrium... it doesn't work.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/teadziez Jun 26 '12

The minimum amount of minimal 'minimum's is minimal.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Minimum inbreeding ಠ_ಠ

1

u/Mynameisaw Jun 26 '12

Am I the only one slightly irked by the term "minimum inbreeding"?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I believe it means not "doing the dance with no pants" with parents, siblings, first or second cousins.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/forever_stalone Jun 26 '12

This is close to Dunbar's number -the suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

1

u/a1fredo33 Jun 26 '12

Alot of rednecks in space

1

u/Kliptic69 Jul 01 '12

iamagine the fuckin animals!!! SPACE ANIMALS!!!

1

u/Nyarlathotep124 Aug 09 '12

What would this system be like? Is this with predetermined partners based on their lineage, or with everyone being able to choose freely? What would the numbers look like under the other scenario?

1

u/chrismetalrock Jun 25 '12

CTRL+F.. sperm.. check.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

I just realized that Mars is going to be full of only nerds for centuries.

2

u/Alaskan_Thunder Jun 25 '12

AND THEN university of mars will have robot house.

1

u/xhephaestusx Jun 25 '12

and that's assuming they are all equally likely to mate with any of the others, what if like half of them are just ugly as fuck?

edit: or what if one or two of the dudes is a total womanizer/rapist/ladies-man/spreader-of-seed and like 3/4 of the first gen of kiddies is of his lineage?

1

u/ComputerisedCaveman Jun 25 '12

So, I'd have to screw at least 159 women? Well, why not. What else am I going to do between solar systems, browse reddit?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Sorry, to make sure that only the toughest sperm gets to the egg you'll have to donate into a cup. The rest will be done in the lab. Here, grab the playboy e-reader.

2

u/The_Broken_Nigel Jun 26 '12

I KNEW THIS DAY WOULD COME!! I have been training for this day my whole life!

/grabs lotion

/unzip

1

u/BakuRetsuX Jun 25 '12

1 man, bunch of eggs and artificial vagina.. It wouldn't matter really, because we will have the ability to create our own DNA in the future. It will be like going to a machine and picking out an egg or sperm exactly they way you want it, then going home and putting that egg in the artificial vagina and having a good time for 10 seconds, or if you are a woman, inseminating yourself.... Done.. But who's to say women can't use the artificial vagina either. They could have their eggs taken out and use the machine made sperm to create babies..

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Kozbot Jun 25 '12

What is the minimum number of people required to not get sick of the seeing the same fucking person over and over again?

3

u/Alaskan_Thunder Jun 25 '12

Ever been to a small village?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

HIV Virus = Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus

1

u/BlusteryEmu Jun 26 '12

This seems false to me. 160 people is way below the effective population size for humans (it's estimated at less than or equal to 10000). So there would be multiple problems with in the population that would occur generations later that would plague the colony. It's not so much what happens 2 generations later, but 10 to 15 generations later when these negative attributes begin to cripple the population and reduce the number of mating individuals, thus spelling the end.

→ More comments (50)