The novelty of being so free does wear off for our
protagonist, who soon suffers a level of loneliness that drives him to a
suicide attempt. But just before he extinguishes the last XY chromosomes on the
planet, he finds the last woman on Earth. A woman who wastes no time in eroding
his freedoms, insisting that they use correct grammar and still stop at stop
signs.
The lone pair faces the inevitable question: can they repopulate the Earth? To do so,
their children would have to mate with one another, or mom and dad, in order to
rebuild the human race. All the incestuous taboos aside, is this even
genetically possible?If just one man and one woman are left to repopulate Earth, then their “family tree” would look more like a family pole. |
Some real-life
examples of the consequences of inbreeding can be found in places where there
are restricted breeding opportunities – for example, within monarchies,
islanders, or closed societies. Hemophilia was notoriously prevalent in
European royal families. Some Amish societies have a larger number of children
born with extra digits on their hands or feet. Jews of Eastern European descent
tend to have higher rates of a number of genetic diseases, including cystic
fibrosis.
To understand why children of incestuous mating are often
plagued by these rare diseases and disorders, we need to review some genetics.
For each gene in our 46 chromosomes, we actually possess two copies called
alleles – one came from mom, the other from dad. Alleles can be dominant or
recessive, the former being expressed while the latter is not. So if you have a
bad gene, it could be masked if you have a dominant allele; in other words, you
would not exhibit that trait but you would be a carrier. If you mate with
someone who also has a recessive allele for that gene, there is a chance your
child will be born with two copies of the recessive allele. Such a child would
exhibit that gene defect.
The net result of inbreeding is that the resulting population loses a diverse genetic portfolio, which means they are less resistant to rare diseases and deformities. The smaller the gene pool, the faster it gets dirty. Such individuals would also have less diverse immune systems, making it much easier for a single germ to wipe them all out. That would be an ironic twist of fate since there was something peculiar in the genomes of the last man and woman that kept them alive during the mass extinction!
In addition to the genetic landmines, the family would
likely have a very difficult time overcoming the innate resistance most species
have against inbreeding. Evolution knows that inbreeding is not good for the
species, so it engineered a built-in “incest taboo” that creates a strong
aversion to such behavior. A devil’s advocate, however, could argue that the
biological barrier to familial sex could be overcome through artificial
insemination.
There are practical concerns to consider as well. The last man and woman, as well as their kids, would need to have large numbers of children and, unless one of the founders happens to be a doctor, it is hard to imagine many of these babies surviving in such a world. Even if they (and mom) survive childbirth, there are countless opportunities for them to perish in this type of environment before reaching childrearing age.
Considering the collective evidence, it seems virtually
impossible that just two people could repopulate the planet. But that doesn’t
make The Last Man on Earth any less fun to watch.
Alkuraya FS (2012). Discovery of rare homozygous mutations from studies of consanguineous pedigrees. Current protocols in human genetics / editorial board, Jonathan L. Haines ... [et al.], Chapter 6 PMID: 23074070
Hey J (2005). On the number of New World founders: a population genetic portrait of the peopling of the Americas. PLoS biology, 3 (6) PMID: 15898833
This an interesting concept. In theory, it seems feasible that two people could repopulate the planet. Who knows what kind of interesting populations might come from the process, and what positive and negative evolutionary traits might arise throughout the generations. Still, survival of the fittest has to have contributed extensively to the humans of today, and we are not perfect. Good enough to reproduce and get our offspring to reproduction age and so on. Maybe in the end, the rest is self-correcting?
ReplyDeleteAbout this "incest taboo" that has supposèdly "evolved": even among humans there is considerable variation in the rules. Brother-sister unions (think pharoah) could be considered mere extreme consanguinity (all grandparents shared, vs one set of shared grandparents). Consanguinity is considered permissible in many cultures, including most western societies. The genetic disadvantages are presumably outweighed by the stable environment (=property) rights conserved in a family. Consanguinous unions are much studied, and are not so bad as all that, providing there are no pre-existing genetic conditions in the lineage. Incest taboos among humans in the Pacific are interestingly different, though my knowledge of this is exceedingly slim.
ReplyDeleteAs for the animal kingdom, It is a curious fact that all thoroughbred horses in England are descended from only three stallions imported from Arabia in the 18th century. The horse racing scene seems healthy enough.
So though personally I'm a believer in the value of hybrid vigour, I think we should acknowledge the ideological nature of this discussion, and I'd be more optimistic about the outcome of the last man/last woman scenario than you. I guess it would depend on which man and which woman. Obviously that's a much chancier situation that starting off from a population of 7 billion...
The mutations are not a reaction response and also to adapt to new living conditions. mean changes in the external environment and food?
ReplyDeleteThe mutations are not a reaction response and also to adapt to new living conditions. mean changes in the external environment and food?
ReplyDelete