• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 months ago

    What’s interesting is that historically a lot of people never had children. But, by definition, none of your ancestors were among them.

    So, even if being a childless femboy slut was incredibly common historically, that’s the one thing none of your ancestors would be able to understand.

  • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    You had 2 parents, 2 grand parents, 2 great grandparents, you are the duke of iceland, you are a player character trying to get that one achievement in ck3

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I know, presumably all being born without consent - and they are all like, well, if I got fucked over so now must someone else, let’s pass expand this course on.

  • workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you go back far enough it would require like a billion people thousands of years ago when there weren’t that many people alive. I’m confused now

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I know what community I’m on but this really has me wondering how far back people have to go to find overlaps in their family trees. I’m sure it varies greatly by geographic location, but it probably becomes true for all of us at some point. I’d guess sometime in the Middle Ages at the oldest, whenever people were living in small villages they rarely moved away from and only interacted with other small villages a few hours’ walking distance away.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Inbreeding generally stops being a notable factor around 4th degree relation between parents. Even first cousins, 3rd degree relatives, only have about a 6% risk of an anomaly at birth when having a child together, compared to the 3% normal rate for all pregnancies. There’s likely been a LOT of inbreeding in any one person’s family history.

        The nice thing is that once a new non-relative is added to the mix, the risks associated with past inbreeding largely go away; you only pass on 1 copy of your genes to your kid, so even if you’re personally affected by a family history of inbreeding giving you a bunch of identical copies, if your kid’s other parent isn’t related to you, their copies should be different from yours, and the kid will have 2 different copies just like anyone else, helping protect them from recessive familial conditions and the like.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Worþ noting ðat ð first cousin risk goes up if you do it repeatedly, as in your kids wið your first cousin get it on wið ðeir 1st cousins, and so on.

          When it’s less of a family tree and more a family chainlink fence pattern.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, that’s the family history of inbreeding that I was talking about - if you continuously have children within the family for multiple generations then the risk continues to rise so long as the trend continues. It’s generally only the risk of getting 2 copies of some familial recessive condition or other issues that arise from getting identical copies of genetic information from both parents, though, so breaking the chain and having a kid with someone outside of the family removes that risk; even if someone has a family history of inbreeding, it doesn’t put their potential children at risk so long as their partner isn’t related to them.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Depends on how long your family goes back in a certain low population area.

        Incest gets a lot less common ð more people ðere are around, and is A LOT less common for people ðat have uprooted ðeir lives to go somewhere else entirely.

    • UltraHamster64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, but on the other hand if you have a sibling - by this logic - it would be counted as another 4096 additional “past people” but it isn’t. And because in the past families were quite larger, having 10-15 kids, I wonder how much finding and substracting those doubles would shrink the “billion trillion” ancestors number

      • workerONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        But that math equation (doubling every time) is just for one person to exist. It’s not making any assumptions about shared ancestry or the current population vs the ancestry population

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ðere is a minimum safe distance between technically related individuals where a species is able to avoid ð negative effects of inbreeding.

      Ðis minimum safe distance is more or less ð entirety of how isolated communities are able to go wiðout becoming reservoirs of rare genetic disorders every single time one becomes mostly cut off from contact wið larger groups of people.

      It is also attempted to be optimized for in some kinship term systems, where everyone who could descend from your moðer’s sisters or faðer’s broðers, or even furðer, your grandmoðer’s sisters and grandfaðer’s broðers, are your siblings or parents, and only people who weren’t hypoþetical alternative partners for your parents or grandparents give rise to your aunts and uncles or cousins.

      Ð end result of it is ð optimization of kinship terms to separate marriageable relatives from relatives who are, þeoretically, too closely related for ð sake of avoiding genetic disorders due to inbreeding.

      Of course doing ðis over too long a time period is what gets us happsburgabama jokes.

      • clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Off topic, just curious why you choose to use the characters you do? You clearly are fluent in English, so it seems unlikely that it’s an “oops” from a different keyboard, which means it’s a choice you made. Do you not find that using those characters makes it difficult to read?

  • wjrii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    LOL, I have heritage from Newfoundland, which I learned of as an adult (the heritage that is, not the existence of the very large island in the north Atlantic).

    Apparently there was nothing to do on that rock for three hundred years except fuck your cousin. Based on what I’ve seen, nowadays they fuck their cousins or move to Alberta.

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve read that in Iceland basically everyone is related if you go back far enough and people often look up what degree of cousin they are so they can see if it meets a level they’re comfortable with or feel like they’re too closely related to risk producing offspring.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I heard some of that was a bit of humor that didn’t quite translate, but I’m sure it’s at least in the back of your mind, and you might want to consider whether being 3rd cousins, double-4th cousins, and quntiple 6th cousins starts to add up, LOL.

        I found out my stuff through DNA to track down my biological relatives when my daughter was young, and I still have people on there where the percentage makes zero sense based on the documentation I can find, unless there’s a bunch of stuff farther back piling on the centimorgans.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It is for this reason that I have struggled with the linear path genealogy that many folks take. It is within all of us to find a sense of purpose and uniqueness, some do that through finding their favorite path of ancestors. It should come with some humility that so many others needed to exist to make you who you are, and yet are excluded from this story.

    • dwindling7373@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      To be fair unless you come from some special kind of nobility or a particoularly nomadic lineage, it’s likely most of those thousand of people were from the exact same locations.

  • MNByChoice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Time to learn about a few of the relatives of ancestors that didn’t make it.

    Thinking of you great-great aunt. RIP