What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island ? IMO all this tree stuff doesn't pass my "f

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island ? IMO all this tree stuff doesn't pass my "finitist efficiency test". I don't think we should choose to work with this these super large exponential numbers just to quotient them out. Better to just us the "Family DAG" from the get-go. What must be done by real demographers, but never covered in these articles from the general public, is some sort of "outbread---diversity" distribution. There is a clearly a conservation law in that genetic variation at larger scales depends on inbreeding / genetic homogeneity at smaller scales. While I doubt the phenomenon is scale-free, there is still variation in the possible distributions at every scale. I want to know where humans have lied in that distribution-of-distributions over time. E.g. Europe is very homogeneous but if there was something more egalitarian than federalism would it be even more homogeneous? My hunch is "no" because most of these Eurasian hierarchical societies had tones of elite man + non-elite women illegitimate children who were denied elite privileges, but I'd still like to see the definitive answer.