/scI/, what's the minimum number of people needed to start

>>8637555
define
>inbreed itself into oblivion

>>8637559
You know how when you fuck your sister, she has a retarded baby?

8 people. as long as they haven't inbreeded before and have relatively pure genes, meaning no birth defects or medical issues/stuff

>>8637570
How'd you land on eight?

>>8637569
There's an increased risk of congenital defects, but most children will be totally fine.

>>8637573
sounds like he just quoted the matrix, i think he seriously just quoted a movie when the potential wager is the extinction of humanity.

Natural mutation of the gene pool of the POPULATION must outpace the push towards homozygosity. If the population is too small it will simply die of inbreeding, if it is a bit larger the probability that mutations become widespread increases, and the likelihood of the species evolving into another increases, and finally at a large enough population, without external evolutionary pressures it is likely that the species survives. It is not a trivial task to model how many individuals that original population would need. It is made harder by the fact that some individuals will die before breeding and the optimal non-inbreeding breeding charts would have to be enforced for the amount to be smallest possible. I'd say that five to six generations without inbreeding would probably let the species survive. so 32 or 64 individuals. It should also be noted that should the small population persist over longer periods of time, say tens or hundreds of generations, then the size of the population should be larger to be viable.

>>8637555
10,000

Found this link when reading up on generation ships.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1936-magic-number-for-space-pioneers-calculated/

The 'magic' number, assuming 200 years of space travel, is 160, however this can be brought down to 80 with social engineering.

I don't see why this couldn't be scaled to a small society for an indefinite period of time, although the article mentions a very small inbreeding risk all the same.

4.

>>8637653
Interesting article.

What about on an indefinite timeline? I was thinking of it as a combinatorics problem, I just haven't taken enough stats to know how to solve it.
There must be some distance of relation, where shared ancestry no longer matters because it's all too muddled. Just a question of how many generations it would take it make it there, and how many combinations of unrelated parents are possible in each generation.

But we could make it as complicated as we like, if you want to factor in things like infertility, mortality and mutation.

>>8637657
Not really. Unless the 4 are carefully chosen, 2 of them might be incompatible, and even if everyone is compatible, they could end up generating offspring that is unwilling to reproduce, or can't even make it through infancy.
These things are to be considered in that case.

>>8638183
>what is a minimum

>>8637657
4 females, that is.
For they'll always find a mailman, plumber or whatever needed to perpetuate the species.
N.B. historically, 1/5 males. i.e. 20% (!!!) are for all intent and purposes sterile - don't breed at all ever.

File: 1286354749262.jpg (83KB, 400x473px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x473px

>>8637555

RESEARCH IT YOURSELF AND FIGURE IT OUT, K, ELON?

>>8638295
I'm saying that 4 is not a good minimum.

>>8637555
Inbred populations still face selection pressures over the long term. If a population inbreeds long enough, negative recessive genes will die out, leaving only harmless or beneficial recessive genes. There is nothing inherently dangerous about too many recessive genes doubling up.

>>8638831
I tried explaining this to my sister and she still wouldn't fuck me.

>>8637555
4, as long as every generation has an equivalent amount of males and females, as they would otherwise be forced to fuck their half-brothers and stuff.
Each couple has 3 babies, so the population increases
>Generation - Amount
1 - 4
2 - 6
3 - 9
>3 - Whatever just don't inbreed

>>8637555
actually I think endangeredness is measured in genetic diversity, not number of individuals.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

>>8637555
1 and a sperm bank

im in second orbit and what is this

10/10 picture choice OP

>>8637555

None, because a long time ago there were zero humans.

>>8639141
"long time" being the operative words here

>>8637583
After one generation, yes, but that effect amplifies itself across generations.

I once read it's around 20000

>>8637612
Trump is that you? Are you asking /sci/ how many people we need to send to mars?

I tried mapping this out once with just 4 people. If they can have a son and daughter each they can make so many children in 3 generations that it won't matter who those children mate with in the 4th amongst themselves, as long as it's not a direct sibling.

I think it was something like 500 people

>>8639620
That's not how stuff works. Breeding with a distant relative is alright for one generation, but if you are doing it for several generations you are still going to have problems.

>>8638820
4 is a good minimum for one recessive birth defect
And OP's question is too vague to assume otherwise

>>8637612
The Architect in the Matrix specified 7 males and 16 females. A total of twenty three, which I always thought was a shallow echo of the number of human chromosomes. In any event, not eight.

>>8639617
No, to make America great we'll colonize the farthest planet in our solar system before any one even gets the idea. If us making it to the Moon was good, then imagine how great it will be to colonize Pluto.


But I need /sci/ help to figure out how many people to send to Pluto so I can tell NASA how big to make the spaceship.

>>8637555
2

>>8640444

pluto is no longer a planet, so we'd need to colonize Neptune.

>>8637555
It depends on whether or not you have control over who reproduces with who. If you assign people to breed together you can get by with a much starting population.