Saint_Circa OP t1_jacylfk wrote on February 28, 2023 at 3:27 PM

Reply to comment by ohhoneyno_ in I Know Why So Many People Go Missing From National Parks. by Saint_Circa

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Or how it differs from what I'm saying rather. I think you're looking at 'family' from a nuclear family perspective. Whereas in great depression era families it was very common for aunts and uncles and grandmothers and grandfathers to all be a part of the same household. This is what made tenement buildings so disgusting.

Cousins reproducing after one generation probably wouldn't have a major result at least physically, but the further you go the more messed up things get.

The most prevalent case of things like this occurring would be the "Blue family" of Kentucky.

but overall, There were several loopholes in the feral people theory that led me to dismiss the feral people theory. As I clearly stated in my account.

ohhoneyno_ t1_jaczgr5 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 3:33 PM

The point is that this wouldn't start or end with one nuclear family merging. It would keep splitting because you're no longer looking at a nuclear family. You're looking at an extended family who would progressively branch out. So, yes, maybe your brother is your first cousin but what if your second cousin gets on with a first generation? We would have to be assuming that only one subset of family members are reproducing with others of that one subset like cousins for example but it would be more complex than that because a second cousin (the child of two first cousins) could procreate with a first aunt or an original settler. Do you see what I mean? You can inbreed somewhat safely and that's why Papua new guinea has stable tribes. What if we consider a possible Hills Have Eyes/Roanoke theory? What if, instead of eating/cannibalizing hikers, we bring them into the family so to speak? Elderly, not so much, but children? Thats new breeding stock.