if procreating with close relatives causes dangerous mutations and increased risks of disease, how did isolated groups of humans deal with it?
In: 562
[Oliver Sacks](https://www.oliversacks.com/oliver-sacks-books/the-island-of-the-colorblind/) wrote this book called The Island of the Colorblind that mostly talks about how the Micronesian island Pingelap deals with a large number of their residents being colorblind. While that is interesting enough to warrant a read, the whole thing starts when a few hundred years ago a tsunami (I think… it’s been 20 years since I read it) wiped out all but a few people, and what happened afterwards.
It increases the *risk*.
Also to some degree, early groups had a built in defense against genetic disease: those with it just straight up died.
There are many *many* species in the wild who went through major population pinches. It can cause problems, but can also reinforce specializations (like cheetahs)… And survival today is more important than potential issues down the road.
You may find this article from a couple days ago interesting!
[Medieval Teeth From Ancient Ashkenazi Jews Indicate ‘Genetic Bottleneck’ Variation 600 Years Ago](https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/41165/20221202/medieval-teeth-ancient-ashkenazi-jews-indicate-genetic-bottleneck-variation-600.htm)
Fun fact: *H. s. sapiens* (Dass us we subspecies) is probably the least genetically diverse animal that isn’t on an endangered list. We’re also in possession of a few extreme morphological quirks recently acquired in our evolution (including windpipes prone to blockage by our larynxes, receded snouts, structurally unsound spines and leg joints, a damn near suicidal birthing paradigm, exploding appendices, and the most overly complex and self-defeating behavioral programming in literally all of nature)
So to answer your question: Didn’t.
Latest Answers