3 ms·
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, unl
by 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 agoAbakan 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.