This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Unistrut: I removed all the typos and broken links from the Bible one someone added, but it's still weirdly written and I'm on way too little sleep to properly fix it. I also have no idea what the section should be called. If we're going to add the Biblical example we should probably add the Greek and Norse ones as well.
(time passes)
I took out the "Religion" section and replaced it with a "Mythology" section that mentions Adam and Eve as the trope namer and that this plot is fairly common in religion. I added a reference to the Norse mythos only because they manage to reduce humanity to two people twice. Stupid Ragnarok.
Ununnilium: I actually thought it was more like 400 or 500 for humans.
Looney Toons: I was quoting a figure I'd heard somewhere when I added that; a quick bit of Googling reveals... we're both wrong. According to this page
if the population is statistically average, the number is around 160, equally divided between male and female. That page references this Wikipedia page as the source for the 160 figure, which itself cites a 2002 study by an anthropologist named John H. Moore as its source. I haven't tracked back further than that yet.
Cassius335: Reading the Wiki articles, I can't help wondering if there's a number of generations after which a species previously made purely from inbreeding eventually reaches a sufficent population size to be viable. Of course, this would require a significant number of that and future generations to break the ealier generations habit; but if enough do, the inbreeders more or less get bred out of the species by their stronger counterparts. Bingo, normal viable species. Wouldn't be easy, but I can see it being doable.
Kilyle: Any other good resources on this? I'm working on a story about a small group of children who survive a war and start a tribe. Initially started with some 20 kids, then realized that this was completely unviable, and switched up to some 72, but that still wears out in about three generations. The thing is, the group 230 years later has only about 32 characters—although by that point they're starting to meet people from other tribes, so genetics won't be a problem much longer. I could really use whatever info you've found useful on the topic.
OrangeAipom: Is polygamy allowed in the tribe?
:A recent study suggests that all Native Americans might come from a population as small as 60-70, so the 180 number is highly questionable. (Humans have very little genetic variation for a widespread species anyway.) For non-human species, the Chatham Islands Black Robin was once down to 5 individuals - 4 males and 1 female. There are now about 260.
Darmok: I'm trying to work out how the events of Star Trek IV (the one with the whales) are appropriate. I think it's a twist.
Antheia: It's the result of the movie's plot, isn't it? That is, it's what 's planned for the whales.
Sikon: "Shaggy God Story" is one of the greatest lines I've found on this wiki so far.
alphamone: just posting to point out that after 20 generations or so, most of the genetic abnormalities would have gone away (though you would still need to have lots of kids to make sure there are enough people born so that you can get some people that lack abnormalities, allowing the next generations to not worry about them)
Sackett: Removed this:
- The incest aspect of population growth is subverted in the Bible itself: after Cain is exiled for killing his brother Abel, he gets together with a woman who is not related to him. (Of course, this raises the question of where he got this wife from, which is lampshaded in the anti-McCarthy play Inherit the Wind: "Where the hell did she come from? ... Figure somebody pulled off another creation, over in the next county?")
Because it's not true. In the Bible Cain's wife is never identified as being unrelated to him. In extra-biblical material Cain's wife is identified as his niece. Furthermore, Adam and Eve according to the Bible had many children, both sons and daughters, not just Cain, Abel and Seth. It's implied that Cain was not their eldest child.
The confusion sets in because the Bible story is focused around which son receives the inheritance (just like the stories about Issac and Ishmael, Enos and Jacob, Joseph and his brothers). The original Old Testament was written for a tribal society and so modern readers often miss the subtext. Whoever receives the inheritance is the legitimate leader of the tribe of men (as heir to the first man, Adam). Traditionally it is held that all of Adam's sons prior to Cain openly rebelled against their father's leadership- thus renouncing their birthright. Cain was the first son to stay publicly loyal to his father and as such was the expected heir. The story of Cain and Abel is then a story of an elder brother who feared his secret rejection of his father's religion would be revealed and that he would be replaced by his younger brother as the heir. Hence the motive for killing Abel: to ensure that he would receive the birthright. Since the focus of the story is around the conflict over the inheritance from Adam, children who are not candidates are immaterial to the story and so are ignored or mentioned only as "Adam begat many sons and daughters".
Of course, most people who want explanations of all the details tend to assume that the Bible is myth or allegory anyway, so it's not a big issue anymore.
I'm having a hard time making this not sound stupid, but I remember a short story where a chemical chain reaction killed everything on the planet, and the ending was the male survivor realizing that sapient life could only return if it evolved back up from the microorganisms in his body. Was it in Rx for Tomorrow? —Document N
:That's "Adam And No Eve" by Alfred Bester.
- Thanks. Maybe I read it in Beyond Control; the title vaguely rings a bell, and I know I read Autofac and The Dead Past somewhere. —Document N
- Thanks. Maybe I read it in Beyond Control
