Low population worlds and genetic bottlenecks
- Thread starter Somebody
- Start date
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Seems to be an admixture of factors, considering that the overriding religion sort of banned marriage between close (and not so close) relationships.
Political and financial factors were a determining factor in partner selection; in others, social and cultural.
Political and financial factors were a determining factor in partner selection; in others, social and cultural.
The impacts of inbreeding have been massively overemphasized in popular awareness by science and pop-science that was(and still is), more or less, explicitly eugenicist(as a user in this thread has so *kindly* demonstrated for us), so theres that. Isolated populations that don't drop below ~500 will have no problems with things like that outside of external influence or cosmically bad luck, and that number comes down by quite a lot if the population has even intermittent contact with other populations, which seems somewhat inevitable to me, given the situation with jump drives. Also keep in mind that these kinds of problems occur over the course of several dozens of generations and are not actually that likely in the first place even when all of these criteria are met
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
I would expect sperm banks to be included in any permanent, non-corporate or non-military colonial outposts.
Or for genetic manipulation in utero to be standard as suggested above.
No one should be starting a low pop, low TL colony.
Moderate contact with freighter crews should inject new genes into the population.
Or for genetic manipulation in utero to be standard as suggested above.
No one should be starting a low pop, low TL colony.
Moderate contact with freighter crews should inject new genes into the population.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
All things being equal, access to enough resources and a large enough educated demographic, a planet can develop and advance it's own industrial base.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
No.
There is a certain community here in the UK who practice close cousin marriage almost exclusively.
There is a higher proportion of:
miscarriages
birth defects
stillbirths
mother fatality
infant death
childhood death
disability within the community that makes it past childhood
All of this can be proven by taking a trawl through ONS data.
CordwainerFish
Emperor Mongoose
The armpits of space that have less than 100 'inhabitants' are probably like Amundsen-Scott Station: nobody lives there, they're just doing a rotation there.
G'Naakbusters
Cosmic Mongoose
I would have thought eugenicists would be the ones insisting on "genetic purity" and illogically attacking the necessity -- or at least the benefit -- of genetic diversity. It's rather new to me to have "breeding among the same small population over and over without infusion of outside traits is a bad idea" be called eugenics. Perhaps the popular idea of "inbreeding" is overstated and the ill effects are far less drastic than is popularly imagined (it wouldn't surprise me), but I'm pretty sure "don't marry your siblings" predates theories of eugenics as a general guideline.
"Unfortunately for the eugenicists among us, there will always be those trying to decry the legitimacy of closed populations and bemoaning ethnostates and power-hoarding monarchies".
See how that works? You knew what you were doing. No moral high horse, please.
Cheetahs and Humans both have low genetic diversity, I know that much. I also know that if you put a group of animals with a genetic disorder together and have them only breed among themselves, there's no chance for the trait to be "bred out" because there are no genomes that aren't carrying that disorder being used in the genetic roulette.
I mean, "let's all breed together to share beneficial genetic traits" strikes me as far less questionable than "I won't have children for fear of passing on my genetic disorders", which is a very real decision some people make. The latter is what is defining people as detrimental to the gene pool, the former is noting that there's no such thing as detrimental genes if the scope is large enough with enough avenues of exchange.
If people are saying "my family have a genetic disposition to this illness, and since any children we have are high-risk of inheriting it, we won't have children", then the answer would seem to be "maybe marry outside of your family, and greatly decrease the risk?" While also likely introducing potentially beneficial traits to *their* family in turn.
Maybe a given population is lucky and doesn't have any genetic illnesses or vulnerabilities, so can just breed among themselves healthily. But I was always under the impression that sooner or later a pathogen to which they have no immunity would come along and wipe them out, and that new immunities and protections come from interchange and diversification.
I mean, if you take "eugenics" literally to mean "good genes", then everyone is a eugenicist. It's just that some people had odd ideas about what "good genes" were, taking a highly protectionist stance combined with the arrogant assumption that their population and in-group had "the good ones". Which is silly, because in the long run the closed population is the weaker. The "good genome" is the robust and adaptable one, and the more people in play the stronger the game.
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Sometimes cultural purity gets mixed up with genetic purity.
And there's the Bounty Mutiny and Pitcairn Island.
And the Amish and Icelanders.
And there's the Bounty Mutiny and Pitcairn Island.
And the Amish and Icelanders.
G'Naakbusters
Cosmic Mongoose
See: Solomani. Who are a fascinating exploration of this, along with every other issue that's involved in the desire to create or define a "nation". Another example of how great Traveller is at presenting complex humanity (and non-humanity
) and its universal dilemmas.To clarify, I think the issue here (if I understand it correctly) is that some people are saying that the "inbreeding/small population" idea is not accurate, in the sense that *a small, contained population doesn't by necessity equate to genetic disorders*. That is, a healthy population can breed among itself quite successfully. So I imagine people are wrong to think that "population A is 'inbred', therefore population A must have damaged genes." By the same measure, though, if genetic defects do arise -- which they can for any number of reasons, in any given population -- then they will keep piling up and propagating if there's no medium of exchange. So it's not "small, closed population = genetic problems", it's "if genetic problems do arise -- small, closed populations not good."
Basically, it's "going into the water is a bad idea because you might drown", not "if you go into the water, you will die." Quite a difference.
As an addendum, when Sigtrygg talks about certain populations having a greater incidence of medical problems, he's not saying "these people have bad genes because of their racial origin". He's saying "these people don't tend to intermarry, so any problems that do arise remain within the population." But a lot of people are so scared of the old racist take on these things -- the idea that "my identified population has the 'good genes', those people have the 'bad ones,' so we must shun/liquidate the other population" -- that they have a bad reaction to any talk of genetic distinctions in populations.
Any and all population groups and racial origins can tally up "bad genes" if they're unlucky and/or isolated enough.
G'Naakbusters
Cosmic Mongoose
Another fun, Charted Space-related wrinkle: the Hivers. The Hivers sort of go to the other extreme, encouraging -- nay, requiring -- constant interchange not to diversify but to simplify. They want any and all distinct pockets of population absorbed back into the main, for all genotypes and phenotypes to be smoothed into something universal.
The Hivers are deeply racist, in every sense. Not at all *hostile* in their racism, indeed they're among the most well-meaning of the factions behind only the Zhodani, and while the Zhodani are still largely about *human* potential and happiness, the Hivers are obsessed with *everyone's* potential and happiness. So they change every race they meet into something they approve of and assign them in the main to narrow, specific roles, while trying to "standardise" them.
It's hinted that not only do Hivers not really respect any other race, they don't respect any other being, period. They all formed their own flickering consciousness in isolation out in the wilderness. They are highly social and cooperative, but at the same time, deep down, they never *really* think any being other than them is meaningful. They're actually like the Beholders from DnD in a way, only peaceful and cooperative rather than violently hostile. Like a Beholder, a Hiver (it's hinted) thinks that the only organising principle is themselves, and much like a Beholder hates all other Beholders for their slight deviations from its perfect form, a Hiver doesn't really track with any of this "other Hivers not being like me" business....
There is (if they have their way) one Hiver phenotype and one Hiver genotype, just like there's supposed to be one language with no ambiguity (though the other races get around that by just blending languages). Not in terms of isolation or through shunning/excluding/destroying other populations, no, quite the opposite. Not "you are unlike me, therefore you are bad", but "everyone will be/is like me -- for after all, what else is there but *me*?"
The Hivers are deeply racist, in every sense. Not at all *hostile* in their racism, indeed they're among the most well-meaning of the factions behind only the Zhodani, and while the Zhodani are still largely about *human* potential and happiness, the Hivers are obsessed with *everyone's* potential and happiness. So they change every race they meet into something they approve of and assign them in the main to narrow, specific roles, while trying to "standardise" them.
It's hinted that not only do Hivers not really respect any other race, they don't respect any other being, period. They all formed their own flickering consciousness in isolation out in the wilderness. They are highly social and cooperative, but at the same time, deep down, they never *really* think any being other than them is meaningful. They're actually like the Beholders from DnD in a way, only peaceful and cooperative rather than violently hostile. Like a Beholder, a Hiver (it's hinted) thinks that the only organising principle is themselves, and much like a Beholder hates all other Beholders for their slight deviations from its perfect form, a Hiver doesn't really track with any of this "other Hivers not being like me" business....
There is (if they have their way) one Hiver phenotype and one Hiver genotype, just like there's supposed to be one language with no ambiguity (though the other races get around that by just blending languages). Not in terms of isolation or through shunning/excluding/destroying other populations, no, quite the opposite. Not "you are unlike me, therefore you are bad", but "everyone will be/is like me -- for after all, what else is there but *me*?"
Who are you arguing with? I literally did not say any any of the things you're arguing with here lmao.
G'Naakbusters
Cosmic Mongoose
"....explicitly eugenicist(as a user in this thread has so *kindly* demonstrated for us)"
To translate: "I am righteous, whereas others are not. I disparage these others, by strongly hinting that they are immoral; by context, they are racist or something akin to it, hence my disdainful wording -- "so *kindly* demonstrated".
Don't play dumb. You were saying other people were racist and ignorant. Trying to claim that you didn't call others here "explicitly eugenicist" when that's literally the term you used, is silly.
You cast aspersions on others -- explicitly other people on this forum, in this thread -- by directly calling them "explicitly eugenicist". Your comment made a snide attack on these others -- "so *kindly*". You can "laugh your arse off" all you like, don't pretend that wasn't what you were doing.
Of course, you may not have *believed* it. You may have just been engaging in moralizing puritanism.
I don't like moralizing puritanism, and I don't like the reflexive doublethink that allows for it only to then plead its absence. You know what you were doing, I know what you were doing, anyone with a basic comprehension of social interaction knows what you were doing.
"Who are you arguing with?" No-one. I am arguing a case, yes. Not arguing *with* someone. This is a discussion. "Arguing with" is another symptom of moralizing puritanism. I am *arguing*.
Last edited:
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
So the ONS is lying? The UK Office of National Statistics. Freely available Government collected data that show a clear link between genetically based medical issues and "close cousin breeding" community.
Last edited:
See: Solomani. Who are a fascinating exploration of this, along with every other issue that's involved in the desire to create or define a "nation". Another example of how great Traveller is at presenting complex humanity (and non-humanity
To clarify, I think the issue here (if I understand it correctly) is that some people are saying that the "inbreeding/small population" idea is not accurate, in the sense that *a small, contained population doesn't by necessity equate to genetic disorders*. That is, a healthy population can breed among itself quite successfully. So I imagine people are wrong to think that "population A is 'inbred', therefore population A must have damaged genes." By the same measure, though, if genetic defects do arise - by- which they can for any number of reasons, in any given population -- then they will keep piling up and propagating if there's no medium of exchange. So it's not "small, closed population = genetic problems", it's "if genetic problems do arise -- small, closed populations not good."
I would remove all reference to the idea of "genetic health", "damaged genes" etc. this is explicitly a eugenicist framework. But otherwise, sort of. The first thing is that mutation rates in mammals (and all large animals tbh) are extrewemely low, and so that's basically a non-factor here. Second, again, it really takes a very high level of isolation to produce a real population bottleneck, sigtrygg's reference to mountain people in particular, this idea was essentially fabricated by eugenicists, the virginia state eugenics program is particularly notable here, to support their agenda there. There's a number of things behind this, the main one is that these people were viewed as backwards because they were essentially subsistence farmers and this is considered a moral failure, but also there was a relatively high incidence of chronic injury because of a lack of access to medicine, with racism, race mixing, anti-irish sentiment, and resistance to government intrusion being additional factors, always good things to declare yourself in opposition to lmao. Anyway, these places were not actually isolated enough to produce a measurable level of differentiation. Third, this type of narrative leads to the massive over estimation by lay people of the effect of population bottlenecks, often its like "X population is 3 times more likely to have Y weird disease, and we think it's because of genes!!" But the actual frequencies of these things are like 1 in 10k and 3 in 10k respectively, and the genetic link is derived from one paper where a correlational link with pretty low predictive power was found. Anyway that's all I want to respond to in detail, though I will say that that last bit really puts an ignorant colonial mindset on display, and that "genetic distinctions in populations" are mostly made up and people are right to be suspicious of people that say things like that because 99% of them are doing race science, intentionally or not.Basically, it's "going into the water is a bad idea because you might drown", not "if you go into the water, you will die." Quite a difference.
As an addendum, when Sigtrygg talks about certain populations having a greater incidence of medical problems, he's not saying "these people have bad genes because of their racial origin". He's saying "these people don't tend to intermarry, so any problems that do arise remain within the population." But a lot of people are so scared of the old racist take on these things -- the idea that "my identified population has the 'good genes', those people have the 'bad ones,' so we must shun/liquidate the other population" -- that they have a bad reaction to any talk of genetic distinctions in populations.
Any and all population groups and racial origins can tally up "bad genes" if they're unlucky and/or isolated enough.
Last edited:
It's not moralizing puritanism to point out to someone that the things they're saying are transparently false to anyone with an understanding of genetics and population dynamics that goes beyond highschool biology class lmao
Also hey don't blame me, it's the weird eugenics apologia crew that brought up the more modern stuff. Anyway I know it's so hard for you to be called racist, I'll try to do better in the future ok?
Also hey don't blame me, it's the weird eugenics apologia crew that brought up the more modern stuff. Anyway I know it's so hard for you to be called racist, I'll try to do better in the future ok?
Last edited:
