6 ms·

>Even a single fertile couple cannot successfully reproduce in the wild (if you doubt this, watch a few episodes of Naked and Afraid). The minimum viable reprod

by hnaccy 8y ago

>Even a single fertile couple cannot successfully reproduce in the wild (if you doubt this, watch a few episodes of Naked and Afraid). The minimum viable reproductive unit for homo sapiens is a tribe or a village. Do you have evidence for this that's not a reality TV show? Edit: I have found the Lykov family who had two children in isolation; they did already have two children who would have been 13 and 6 at the time of the third child's birth in isolation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lykov_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lykov_family

asaddhamani 8y ago
I too would like to see a citation for this at least. It doesn't make sense to me why this would be the case.
- whatsstolat 8y ago
  Me too. Although I thought what he was going to say is the limited genepool would make grandchildren impossible (well nearly...) and generations after that impossible.
  - lisper 8y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17127687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17127687
    - dekhn 8y ago
      People are asking for citations to actual literature that support your claim that a pair of fertile people can't reproduce. I think what you're actually saying is that you can't bootstrap a viable population from a pair of people (which is definitely true from a population bottleneck point of view), but I think you're massively overstating your case. It would really help if you could point to some modern well-accepted textbook or paper that supports your claim.
ASalazarMX 8y ago
That's the concept of minimal viable population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population). Basically it means how much inbreeding is acceptable to have viable descendants.
- hnaccy 8y ago
  I'm aware of this concept but the comparison to Naked and Afraid and literally sterile ants made me think he was referring to some distinct idea.
  - ASalazarMX 8y ago
    I understand. In fact, classifying individual social insects as organs doesn't sit well with me also, it feels more like philosophy than biology. I think it also ignores other possibilities that could explain why sexual reproduction is reserved to a subset of a population, but well, I don't teach evolution.
pmichaud 8y ago
I don't know what evidence you'd want. The claim seems self-evidently true to me. You were able to find one wiki article on a curious case of a family who, unlike billions of other people, survived as individuals for less than 50 years in partial isolation. That's impressive, but it doesn't change the basic facts of human survival. Case in point, in the first paragraph of the link you provided about the Lykovs, the article says only one daughter yet survives (as of 1988, so they are probably all gone now). Minimum viable populations are partially about day to day survival and team work, but in the long term it's about genetic diversity which is critical for long-term population survival. Evidence: all of biology?
- Retric 8y ago
  Abakan Range is rather difficult place to live which is why they where left alone and the family was not from a culture of nomads. Yet, Agafia made it to 70 and is still alive. That suggests it's far more viable than you might think. It's just more attractive places to live currently have people living there. Opportunity's for solitude where far greater when global population was lower, but it's unlikely for such things to enter written history.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > Agafia made it to 70 and is still alive But left no descendants.
lisper 8y ago
> Do you have evidence for this that's not a reality TV show? Yes. Let's start with the fact that there are no recorded instances of an isolated human couple successfully reproducing in the wild ever. Merely having a baby doesn't count. To be a viable evolutionary strategy you have to raise that baby to maturity and then that baby has to reproduce themselves. In fact, this is not unique to humans. It's true of all simians. In fact, it's true for the vast majority of mammals. The only exceptions I can think of are some species of cats: leopards, cheetahs, tigers, mountain lions. We can also reason from first principles: you need a minimum viable population in order to maintain genetic diversity. So even if it were possible for isolated human couples to reproduce, you'd need more than one instance of this, and these families would somehow have to find each other in order to procure mates. How are they going to do that?
- Retric 8y ago
  Don't mistake modern density for a requirement. It's hard to find instances of anyone living alone for long periods, but that likely changes as you go back and there where fewer people and those people where more able to survive in the wild. I remember going into back country with some friends as a teen, miles into 'the middle of nowhere'. Second day camping I see someone run by in yoga pants pushing a stroller as it turns out we where about 300 feet from a ski trail and people would run down the mountain in the summer for fun.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Don't mistake a small loose end in a complex argument condensed to fit in an HN comment for proof that the argument is wrong.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Well the holes in your arguments are deeper than that. A viable strategy need not be the only or even the optimal strategy. If couple has kids and those kids find someone in a local tribe then both tribes and lone families would have worked. In effect you are trying to redefine his argument not just in terms of recorded history but also both couples not an individual one.
tlb 8y ago
For Lisper's overall claim to be valid, you only need the weaker result that an isolated couple's expected number of children living to adulthood is less than 2.
tejtm 8y ago
evidence you need to start with more than a single breeding pair to not go extinct https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224771432_Lynch_M_Conery_J_Brger_R_Mutation_accumulation_and_the_extinction_of_small_populations_Am_Nat_146_489-518 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224771432_Lynch_M_C...
dalbasal 8y ago
The OP isn't making absolute points, this is the point. An ant isn't really an organ, at least using normal word meanings. He means that it is effectively an organ, from a reproductive perspective. People obviously are viable reproductive organisms in a technical/literal sense. But... the way people (and our nearest cousins) actually reproduce is in couples within a tribe/village/troop. People are evolved to reproduce this way and people evolved by reproducing this way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by hnaccy 8y ago

asaddhamani 8y ago

I too would like to see a citation for this at least. It doesn't make sense to me why this would be the case.

whatsstolat 8y ago
Me too. Although I thought what he was going to say is the limited genepool would make grandchildren impossible (well nearly...) and generations after that impossible.
- lisper 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17127687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17127687
  - dekhn 8y ago
    People are asking for citations to actual literature that support your claim that a pair of fertile people can't reproduce. I think what you're actually saying is that you can't bootstrap a viable population from a pair of people (which is definitely true from a population bottleneck point of view), but I think you're massively overstating your case. It would really help if you could point to some modern well-accepted textbook or paper that supports your claim.

ASalazarMX 8y ago

That's the concept of minimal viable population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population). Basically it means how much inbreeding is acceptable to have viable descendants.

hnaccy 8y ago
I'm aware of this concept but the comparison to Naked and Afraid and literally sterile ants made me think he was referring to some distinct idea.
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  I understand. In fact, classifying individual social insects as organs doesn't sit well with me also, it feels more like philosophy than biology. I think it also ignores other possibilities that could explain why sexual reproduction is reserved to a subset of a population, but well, I don't teach evolution.

pmichaud 8y ago

I don't know what evidence you'd want. The claim seems self-evidently true to me. You were able to find one wiki article on a curious case of a family who, unlike billions of other people, survived as individuals for less than 50 years in partial isolation. That's impressive, but it doesn't change the basic facts of human survival. Case in point, in the first paragraph of the link you provided about the Lykovs, the article says only one daughter yet survives (as of 1988, so they are probably all gone now). Minimum viable populations are partially about day to day survival and team work, but in the long term it's about genetic diversity which is critical for long-term population survival. Evidence: all of biology?

Retric 8y ago
Abakan Range is rather difficult place to live which is why they where left alone and the family was not from a culture of nomads. Yet, Agafia made it to 70 and is still alive. That suggests it's far more viable than you might think. It's just more attractive places to live currently have people living there. Opportunity's for solitude where far greater when global population was lower, but it's unlikely for such things to enter written history.
- lisper 8y ago
  > Agafia made it to 70 and is still alive But left no descendants.

lisper 8y ago

> Do you have evidence for this that's not a reality TV show? Yes. Let's start with the fact that there are no recorded instances of an isolated human couple successfully reproducing in the wild ever. Merely having a baby doesn't count. To be a viable evolutionary strategy you have to raise that baby to maturity and then that baby has to reproduce themselves. In fact, this is not unique to humans. It's true of all simians. In fact, it's true for the vast majority of mammals. The only exceptions I can think of are some species of cats: leopards, cheetahs, tigers, mountain lions. We can also reason from first principles: you need a minimum viable population in order to maintain genetic diversity. So even if it were possible for isolated human couples to reproduce, you'd need more than one instance of this, and these families would somehow have to find each other in order to procure mates. How are they going to do that?

Retric 8y ago
Don't mistake modern density for a requirement. It's hard to find instances of anyone living alone for long periods, but that likely changes as you go back and there where fewer people and those people where more able to survive in the wild. I remember going into back country with some friends as a teen, miles into 'the middle of nowhere'. Second day camping I see someone run by in yoga pants pushing a stroller as it turns out we where about 300 feet from a ski trail and people would run down the mountain in the summer for fun.
- lisper 8y ago
  Don't mistake a small loose end in a complex argument condensed to fit in an HN comment for proof that the argument is wrong.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Well the holes in your arguments are deeper than that. A viable strategy need not be the only or even the optimal strategy. If couple has kids and those kids find someone in a local tribe then both tribes and lone families would have worked. In effect you are trying to redefine his argument not just in terms of recorded history but also both couples not an individual one.

tlb 8y ago

For Lisper's overall claim to be valid, you only need the weaker result that an isolated couple's expected number of children living to adulthood is less than 2.

tejtm 8y ago

evidence you need to start with more than a single breeding pair to not go extinct https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224771432_Lynch_M_Conery_J_Brger_R_Mutation_accumulation_and_the_extinction_of_small_populations_Am_Nat_146_489-518 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224771432_Lynch_M_C...

dalbasal 8y ago

The OP isn't making absolute points, this is the point. An ant isn't really an organ, at least using normal word meanings. He means that it is effectively an organ, from a reproductive perspective. People obviously are viable reproductive organisms in a technical/literal sense. But... the way people (and our nearest cousins) actually reproduce is in couples within a tribe/village/troop. People are evolved to reproduce this way and people evolved by reproducing this way.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]