Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NewCanadianMTurker t1_j9ugvm8 wrote

Wait, their population is only 727 yet they've been living on that same island for hundreds of years? Wouldn't inbreeding be a problem?

311

danathecount t1_j9updiv wrote

There is actually research on this topic, as this problem applies to colonizing space.

Apparently, you only need a starting population of 160 people to have enough genetic diversity for a healthy population, but that's in a vacuum (no pun intended). I'm sure it would be a lower number if every so often new genetics are introduced to the population - which is probably the case on Tangier Island.

On a side note, Iceland has an app where you can make sure the person you want to be with isn't related to you.

371

p314159i t1_j9w1zuv wrote

It should also be noted that the reason that app exists is not that this is a problem in iceland specifically but rather than iceland is a place where the data exists specifically because extensive records of the whole population going back generations exist.

177

CDinDC t1_j9wnhtb wrote

Iceland also needs this app because their surname system doesn’t make it clear who might be a cousin. If I meet someone with my great-grandmother’s maiden name as a last name, I know to avoid mating with them.

In Iceland, surnames are just your fathers first name + dóttir or son. It can be a lot less clear that you might be genetically connected to a hook up.

95

MattyKatty t1_j9y7i4d wrote

> If I meet someone with my great-grandmother’s maiden name as a last name, I know to avoid mating with them.

That far removed, and that being the only familial connection, you would very likely be fine. Unless your great-grandmother also happened to be her own aunt/cousin, I guess.

14

Sharrakor t1_j9yfgu3 wrote

You know your great-grandmothers' maiden names?

9

-UpsetDesk t1_j9yulbz wrote

… You don’t?

5

Sharrakor t1_j9yvewy wrote

I just remembered that I made a family tree years ago, so upon looking them up, now I do. I will probably forget before the end of the day, though.

2

NewCanadianMTurker t1_j9uq4o3 wrote

Interesting! But I'd imagine people would have to settle for a lot less than their ideal partner when there's so few to choose from. Even if the initial 160 people is composed entirely of loving couples, it would cause problems in the long-run if the children of these couples don't like each other very much.

25

zomebieclownfish t1_j9uzrfp wrote

In my experience with mating, a plethora of alcohol can bring the risk of not finding a match to nearly zero.

68

SaintUlvemann t1_j9wv6ek wrote

>But I'd imagine people would have to settle for a lot less than their ideal partner...

Well I grew up in a rural area, a town with fewer people than my intro biology class at undergrad. I've also lived in cities, including as a kid prior to moving to the rural community that I now consider my hometown.

I think that people who haven't been in small-population social contexts radically, radically underestimate just how strongly one's preferences are shaped by one's environment. Love is a sociological phenomenon, and I can't really explain it any better than that article does.

When you're living in a social context with fewer people, your sense of what makes an ideal relationship changes to fit the social context that you find yourself in. Maybe you won't have as much in common with your partner... and maybe that will be okay, and you will still enjoy the time you have together. Maybe there will be more things that annoy you about your partner... or, maybe not, since, having grown up in a similar restricted social context, you'll be more likely to share certain habits.

I'm not offering any rose-colored glasses here; life in a small community is only as good as the people around you, and people are not always good. But we people have a habit of growing and changing in accordance with our circumstances.

43

p314159i t1_j9w2a0k wrote

Jealousy over everyone thinking the same person from a limited pool is the most compatible with them seems like it would be a bigger problem than people not being able to find anyone who was compatible.

13

LurkForYourLives t1_j9xtva7 wrote

….have you met the majority of our entire world yet? Women have only relatively recently had any choice in who they married. We’ve been chattel for aeons.

1

ThomasButtz t1_j9uk609 wrote

People move away and move there. A random sailor can drop some "diversity" into a lady once in awhile. Etc Etc.

IIRC, genetically, not really a problem with basic social norms like "you and your sister don't make kids." Skipping generations and after first cousins, the genetic risk is kinda negligible.

Edit: Also, I'd have to imagine it's socially taboo. I heard from a guy that worked on St. Helena it wasn't a polite topic of conversation with the locals...

172

eatabean t1_j9v98xb wrote

He would also drop his Jersey dialect in there.

38

GhostOfPornPast t1_j9ve3sj wrote

Those are what they call "Moses babies." You put it in a basket and push it out to sea

17

h2opolopunk t1_j9w3s05 wrote

>diversity

Wasn't that an old wooden ship from the Civil War era?

18

GreenStrong t1_j9uolp1 wrote

The dialect is regional, not isolated to the island, and they probably find ways to exchange genetic material with other people in the region. Rumor has it that they go at it with enthusiasm. Just a bit down the coast they call this accent an "Ocracoke Brogue" or simply a "Hoi Toide" (high tide) accent.

Dialect changes over time in ways that are not predictable, but which follow consistent patterns, simply because we have to make words sound different from each other. The rhoticity of this dialect and fragments left over from the tail end of the great vowel shift are how linguists know this dialect has seen relatively little change. But it is a mistake to think that everyone talked this way in the 1700s. Accents in England are very diverse based on region and social class, and they were even more so before things like public education, railroads, and mass media. This Shakespeare dialog is a pretty well sourced performance of late 1600s London English, but people from other parts of the country would have sounded different, and colonists would have developed idiosyncratic regional dialects.

36

PatrickMorris t1_j9wpj4z wrote

I live generally near the island, about 30 mins away, I wouldn’t exactly call it regional. When I overhear them talk half the time I’m like what the fuck are you even saying??

The only other place I’ve experienced that is deep Appalachia.

23

myfuntimes t1_j9vlevo wrote

I’ve been to the island. Yes, inbreeding is a problem there. There’s actually some disease or something named after the island.

A lot of the tomb, stones on the island have the same two or three last names.

Also, they really aren’t super isolated.

28

bros402 t1_j9x3j2f wrote

sounds like they have a family wreath instead of a tree

0

p314159i t1_j9w1j5d wrote

Inbreeding is usually only a problem when there are multi-generational instances of cousins marriages. Singular cousin marriage so long as they are not repeated tend to not result in any apparent ill effects. The entire marriage history of Iceland has been studied and while they had more than 727 (current population 300k, it was below 100k before the 1930s) and absolutely no ill effects were observed from the range of third or fourth cousins. Even if the population never changed and everyone is your fifth or sixth cousin it is not worth worrying about.

11

Crayshack t1_j9ytvmc wrote

They aren't completely isolated. It's a relatively short boat ride to get to Crisfield. It's kind of similar to any small town of that size that has a larger city nearby. There's some intermingling and some people that travel back and forth regularly.

3

tyty657 t1_j9wxa3t wrote

Nope anything past 200 starting is enough genetic diversity.

1