[OT] Short sci-fi story: The Lifeboat

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You can presume that these 'nice' aliens would have found a world fairly close to earth in major characteristics but they cannot have had time to think of all of the details like light wavelengths.

True, for this to work I think we'd have to make the basic assumption that earth type worlds are fairly common. Plentiful enough that the aliens could find one suitable for us in their planetary database that is far enough off the beaten track that the refugees weren't likely to be discovered in a short time.

Of course, since this is a story our assumption doesn't have to be likely for it to be realistic. It only has to be plausible.

[Intimidator]

And the next major problem is gene/DNA diversity.

Because john's group excist of only 50 to 60 people (if I read it correctly) that is far to less for having an descent genepool to survive more then 4 or 5 generations before you start to get inbreeding.

I read somewhere (a long time ago) that you need at least 300 people to prevent the problem of inbreeding but I'm not an bioligist so if someone can fill me in please do so..........

[clark]

Inbreeding (not that I am advocating it) is not a problem in and of itself, it only increases the chances of negative double recceive gene expressing itself. You end up with higher instances of defects because there is less diversity by which to recombine into stronger forms.

[Intimidator]

Yes indeed, but that would be a major problem if you are trying to let the human race survive with only 200 people (the 2 Groups together)

Maybe if they start with an accurate genealogical tree from day one, it might be possible but only just (made some fictive trees myself regarding this story)


Intimidator

BTW. isn't it so that there will be a higher chance on down-syndrome when inbreeding..!!!

[geoschmo]

I think what clark is trying to say is that while inbreeding will raise the risk of some birth defects, it won't neccesarily cause problems with the population as a whole. With the lower level of medical care available to the survivors those born with them will likely die without reproducing. In fact the mortality rate as a percentage of population will likely be higher then normal just due to disease and accidents because of this. It's a cold brutal math when you think of it from our modern perspective.

[Gandalf Parker]

I remember one story where the relocated population was too small to provide a stable base. The result was basically a return to a pre-caveman state then working their way forward again into a stable diverse genetic base.

I watch the science channel alot and I see where they tracked down a single group of men entering europe and then a volcano split them into the tribes which developed racial differences (Racial Eve). So I guess its possible that a very low number can work their way back out of the problems without dying off.

[ June 17, 2004, 18:53: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[dogscoff]

When I wrote the first part I had genetic diverstiy in mind. FOr some reason I had 30 in my head as the "magic number" but Intimidator's 300 sounds more sensible. Of course the diversity within the Groups would be a factor affecting that number- had the entire settlement been related to start with, you'd definitely have a problem, but as it is we have three significant family Groups (although plenty of in-laws and yong cousins in there adding flavour to the mix) and a fair few unrelated stragglers, and then there's also the other settlement across the way. That should be enough for a few generations at least, and by then you might be able to start looking to the third group across the continent (forgotten about them, hadn't you?)

As for the total number in the settlement- we know there are 19 in John's group, about the same in the african Groups and the kiwis are as yet uncounted, but so far we've named or described at least half a dozen of them. Personally I'm inclined to imagine theirs as the largest group, maybe up near the thirty mark or even more.

Ther next question is, is 60-70 ppl too large a group for such a primitive, hand-to-mouth economy? Would it be better from a social and agricultural perspective to split it into two or three closely-linked but discrete settlements? I'm personally of the opinion that without a really cohesive society and mindset, (which is unlikely in such a random collection of ppl, despite their shared adversities) a group that size would splinter naturally.