Just 24 men and 24 women survive,how would we evolve?

Question

Armagedon has arrived.24 of each sex survive,assume various ages.Would the group adopt benefits?Accept idlers?Pick a leader?Would race matter?Consider all aspects of this scenario please prior to replies.

Answer 1

We wouldn't. The gene pool would be way too small. According to some experienced biologists, in order to have a species that thrives and evolves you would need a population of about 100,000.

With 24 you would wind up with too many birth defects and other genetic abnormalities (hemophelia, epilepsy, downs syndrome, etc.).

Answer 2

Prime, animal instincts would take over from "normal, logical" thinking. It would actually be a detriment if there were an equal number of males and females; it would better satiate the sex drive if there were less men, say 12 men to 24 women. However, when it comes to gathering food, more men would definitely be an advantage; obviously no more men than women.

In any case, back to the scenario... Race would matter only insofar as the men would pick as a sex partner that female closest to themselves in appearance.

However, in every human relationship, one party is dominant, and one subserviant. Eventually, one male would arise as the leader of the group, based upon intelligence, appearance, and strength. He would choose his mates first, which would be beneficial, as the genes of the strongest, most intelligent, and most attractive would be passed on more often. However, at least one of the men would not be able to reproduce, if not more. He might either challenge the leader, simply accept his position, or fend for himself and leave the group. It would be most likely that he would be the first to die.

Obviously, the women would be unable to gather food, build housing, etc. due to their pregnant state. They would therefore be responsible for the preparation of food, clothing, etc., all of those primitive and old-fashioned ideas held about women as belonging in the home. Here, however, it would be quite necessary. During the 7th and 8th months of pregnancy, the women would find such tasks more difficult. The men would have an extra strain upon them.

Eventually the women would give birth, with maybe 2 or 2 dying in the process. A good majority of the children would survive. However, this is an even greater strain upon the men, and the women still cannot leave the home; for the coming years, the women will have to remain in the home, becoming pregnant again, and caring for those children that were recently born.

In a northern environment, wintertime would be quite difficult, with possibly the entire population dying off. However, assuming the correct preparations have been made, maybe an eight of the population would die, most of those having died being children.

After a few more years, the children are now old enough to help with certain tasks. This helps the community greatly.

Eventually, the children grow to reproduce, with some incest occuring. This would ultimately be destrimental, although, having enough of both sexes would eliminate this eventually.

Answer 3

To respond to sparksalot, I would imagine that humans emerged via a scenario like this:

There was a large population of lesser primates. Some of those primates, through natural selection/mutation/evolution became a little more advanced than others. Every so often, a primate was born with a REALLY useful characteristic (e.g. opposable thumbs), and that characteristic would spread rapidly through the population. Those lacking it would die off (or retreat into the forest), and gradually only the more humanlike primates were left.

So, to get back to the original question, I think there would need to be a breeding population of more than 24 to have a viable population. But, maybe in such an apocalyptic scenario, the leaders could collect DNA samples from thousands of people before everyone except the chosen 48 died off.

Answer 4

I suggest that natural leadership and talent would come to the fore as in any society. A social order would evolve and the leaders would be valued for their intellect and skills of survival. The others would probably be grateful for the protection and allow them seniority for choosing a partner, home, food etc in payment. Like any society they would have rules in order to have some harmony and band together in order to survive. Some ppl may be scavengers and bring home useful things they've found, and possibly barter the remainder that the leaders do not need. As there are so few ppl I think they would accept every race and age provided they did not do anything too controversial. I believe they would value any person in the group for their strength,skills and leadership quality etc and not discriminate as it's all a matter of survival and companionship. Every person would matter more in this situation than within society at present.

Answer 5

The 24 women would probably mate with like 3 of the guys and families would begin from there. The women would probably pick whom they perceive to be the strongest men whether it be physically, sexually, mentally, whatever. The other 21 guys would probably either commit suicide or die soon. I don't think race would have any bearing on any of it. The men would be the leaders and the women would probably pick them as such, despite what modern feminists might argue. I think that there would be alot of cooperation and working together in finding food and shelter....probably all would be involved with that.....when kids would be born, the mothers would naturally be nurturers and the men would probably be the primary hunters. But who knows.

Answer 6

isn't the show "lost" proving that this would work now?

kidding aside - I believe it is possible to re-set up a society using all 48 people. I don't think race would matter as it would quickly become apparent that everyone counts in order to survive.

and UNLIKE 'lost', everyone would have to pull their weight to make it work.

actually - most of these answers raise an interesting point: evolutionists say we "evolved" from protoplasm or whatever slime is currently the popular theoretical term, and yet biologists say 100,000 are needed to populate the earth.... somehow the 2 don't seem to mesh very well. hmmm quick someone copy this into an "ask" box hahaha

Answer 7

There would be very little chance that they'd survive for more than a few generations.
It would take a huge population base to continue a race like this.
Infertitilty, accidental death and disease as well as hunger would all be able to wipe all of the fertile adults out in a matter of very little time.

Nice idea though, can I be one who survives?

Answer 8

Sounds like the opening episode of survivor, leaders would surface to the forefront, race would be meaningless , age might become a discrimination because of the lack of services the elderly can provide

Answer 9

We would Multiply, Multiply, Multiply! Don't look that far into the future, just seek the knowledge you have and enjoy the here and now. Why worry who and what will be here in a zillion years? You won't even exist!

Answer 10

Ask Adam and Eve,they done pretty well with just the two of them