4 ms·

One reproductive pair is not sufficient. This can be a religious not a scientific sound statement. Also: if one of them fails (giving birth, hunting, fishing or

• s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I was coming at it from the perspective of science, not religion or culture. I think it is scientifically accurate for the reasons outlined in my original post. Of course more people are better, but the question was about the minimum possible. If there are scientific arguments why this is not possible, I would like to hear them. For example, the average person is claimed to have 1 deadly recessive genes. One could find people with none. Alternatively, this would only result in 25% child fatality, which isn't fun, but also isn't a show stopper.
  • Renegado 5y ago
    Sure, theoretical science. Practical science says that inbreeding extinguishes evolution and the physical and mental health of descendants. Therefore your model cannot work, neither theoretically. The original question was what was the minimum time and number of survivors to restore the civilization after the Armageddon. The equation is: more people - less time or less people - more time. The other conditions may vary.