What's the minimum number of people needed to survive an apocalypse?

Live Science ^ | 05/05/2021 | By Patrick Pester

[crusty old prospector]

Just ask Noah.

[HighSierra5]

Me.

[Cboldt]

-- Zero. Is that not the goal of the greenies, that humanity is bad for Mother Gaia? --

Follow the so-called science. Zero, humans spring up when the conditions are right. There are trillions of planets in the universe ...

[BenLurkin]

http://www.lerctr.org/~transit/healy/going.wav

[Rinnwald]

3 guys and a girl was doomed to failure, even if the life support had worked.

[marktwain]

It is extremely difficult to find a plausible “end of the world as we know it” scenario that reduces the world population by even 99%, let alone 99.999%.

Even a reduction of 99.999% would leave 3000 people in the United States alone.

[BenLurkin]

500,000 “One percenters” and 4,500,000 staff.

[wgmalabama]

That sound like a living hell.

[Fiji Hill]

An apocalypse is a disclosure.

[Larry Lucido]

“A sufficient number of breeding-age individuals of the opposite sex,”

So, back to men and women, I see.

[wgmalabama]

Would they bump into each other at the mall?

[Old Yeller]

I would have guessed two (male and female) and the female is of child bearing age and not sterilized from taking the “vaccine”.

[Larry Lucido]

“No more snu-snu!”

[wgmalabama]

But 20% of the population is 🏳️‍🌈

[marktwain]

Much depends on how an apocalypse would occur.

The only thing in the historical record which "might" reach that level of extinction in a short term event would be a asteroid strike.

All out nuclear war doesn't even come close.

The obvious thing for survivors to do would be set up a radio station and advertise for other survivors to come to them. Survivors would probably be clustered around each other.

All survivors would have abundant resources. Other people would be highly valued.

It would be a golden age for a few hundred years, until the population bred up enough to develop separate tribes and nations.

[SubMareener]

Short answer: EIGHT! Been there, done that.

[BenLurkin]

If I recall correctly there can’t be less than 500 without eventually getting disastrous birth defects.

[BenLurkin]

Why populations can’t be saved by a single breeding pair
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-populations-pair.html

[ifinnegan]

Same as the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop: three.

[Jewbacca]

No you, 100 young beauties, and 5 young boys who can cross breed later but aren’t a problem now.