Machete

Engaged Member
Apr 7, 2020
2,114
3,609
Since inbreeding is so hotly debated here we should take a look of less controversial field: . Yes, chickens are incestuous to the core. This study makes a nice summary when it comes to chickens.
Animals on this planet, mankind included, are all remarkably very alike. No wonder, we all descend from that very same fish who, first, developed a spinal cord in its evolution. Yet we are not all the same. There are species who trives better then other with stagnant DNA. We, the Homo Sapiens, need to mix more out cocktail of genes.

EDIT: Just to be more precises, all vertebrates descend from that "fish", but there are also a lot of animal species who are not vertebrate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrttao

claus001

Active Member
Feb 15, 2020
665
1,377
Animals on this planet, mankind included, are all remarkably very alike. No wonder, we all descend from that very same fish who, first, developed a spinal cord in its evolution. Yet we are not all the same. There are species who trives better then other with stagnant DNA. We, the Homo Sapiens, need to mix more out cocktail of genes.

EDIT: Just to be more precises, all vertebrates descend from that "fish", but there are also a lot of animal species who are not vertebrate.
People really dance around this subject or become emotional in a weird way. The biology cross the species is extremely similar, for examples fished in Thames cannot become pregnant due to womens' birth control (they pee it down the river). Medicines are frequently tested with animal, and a lot of human behaviour has been learned from animal babies (conducting traumatic tests with babies is considered immoral). In reality most of humans find sexual relations inside the family cross, and people who practice it seldom are mentally stable. Hence the taboo. The last Egyptian Ptolemaic Dynasty is a perfect example how insane incest+power struggle can drive both men and women.
 

Yngling

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2020
1,492
3,163
Akin to how the number of predators in an area is limited by their huntable amount of prey, the size of a community of humans, who aren't sedentary yet, haven't developed agriculture or tamed wild animals for the use as livestock, is limited by their accessible food and water ressources in a area they can travel by foot in roughly three to seven days.
So the 'good' size of that group oscillates around the 'ideal' number predetermined by their environment and their available technology.
Interestingly it seems that the total Neanderthal population at any time was way below this theoretical maximum.
I don't think anyone even has a good theory why that is...

I assume there would also exist a 'preferred' composition of males vs females to meet the needs of inner social stability, hunting success and outwards security.
You assume that females didn't hunt, and I think that recent research suggests that that was not always the case.

Also, you don't account for the missing males. I don't think that males would have been driven away or killed on purpose to get to a certain optimum.

As i already mentioned a hunter-gatherer community seems to have little use for slaves
I fully agree on that.


Last but not least -given the human nature and how deep xenophobia seems to be imprinted in our genetic code- there is no reason to believe, that an encounter between two different groups of early humans was always friendly, especially since one of the most pacifying factors for those encounters, namely trade, also isn't developed yet.
Actually there is ample evidence of trade during the mesolithic.

As for the xenophobia, probably, but there is also evidence of Neanderthals and other sub-species breeding with anatomically modern humans.

I would recommend the novel The Last Neanderthal by Claire Cameron. Spoiler: it does contain incest. ;)
 

muschi26

Engaged Member
Jun 22, 2019
2,702
4,054
Didn't hunter-gatherer tribes in precolonial North America take slaves? Not 100% sure, but I think I heard something about that being the case.
 

Machete

Engaged Member
Apr 7, 2020
2,114
3,609
Interestingly it seems that the total Neanderthal population at any time was way below this theoretical maximum.
So far so good we don't really know for sure why Homo Neanderthalensis went extinct. Yes, there are theories, but no real evidence and we'll probably never know. As far as we know it was a well equipped specie and maybe just as smart as us if not slightly more. So it's hard to fathom.
 

Machete

Engaged Member
Apr 7, 2020
2,114
3,609
There hasn't been pregnancy yet, the game hints at it for some charecters. The game has a male primary MC, and a female sorta MC that you play as sometimes.
There was some creamypie option that might come back to hunt MC later.
 

Dimod

Newbie
Aug 25, 2022
25
11
Didn't hunter-gatherer tribes in precolonial North America take slaves? Not 100% sure, but I think I heard something about that being the case.
They took but it was kind of rare for men. And it was kind of yearly Republican Rome or late Imperial slavery, where slave was treated pretty well with a lot of restrictions for owners and capable to become free member of community after some 5-10 years. The only difference being it was slave of tribe rather than personal slave.
 

Dimod

Newbie
Aug 25, 2022
25
11
I have an issue with sound. There are some noises during the game, I play on laptop and thought the issue was with speakers at some frequencies as it is perfect sound on youtube. But I tried external speakers and it didn't solve the issue.
 

Yngling

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2020
1,492
3,163
So far so good we don't really know for sure why Homo Neanderthalensis went extinct. Yes, there are theories, but no real evidence and we'll probably never know. As far as we know it was a well equipped specie and maybe just as smart as us if not slightly more. So it's hard to fathom.
Once again we are going ever more off-topic but since we are (kind of) still discussing re-population after some kind of global catastrophe (as in the game) perhaps we get some leeway... ;)

Anyway... The study of Neanderthals (particularly genetically) have progressed a great deal the last 20 years or so, leading into insights that are quite revolutionary.

One theory that I think may hold water (and is somewhat related to the game topic we are discussing, namely incest and breeding in a post-apocalypse world) is that for some reason the total Neanderthal population was really small, with only several 10.000's living in Eurasia at any certain moment. The modern human population was significantly larger and the Neanderthal population was simply absorbed. It seems that in today's European population, individuals may have up to about 2% Neanderthal ancestry, which could simply be close to the demographic ratio in Europe 60.000 (or something) years ago.

It seems that Neanderthals for some reason struggled with low fertility or with huge child mortality, preventing the population from growing even when there was an abundance of food.
 

mrttao

Forum Fanatic
Jun 11, 2021
4,521
7,373
While the dangers of incest are exaggerated... they are exaggerated by necessity.
As any society that does not go into extreme anti-incest ends up being destroyed by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scrumptious Hotcock

selberdreher

Member
Dec 29, 2017
448
940
Once again we are going ever more off-topic but since we are (kind of) still discussing re-population after some kind of global catastrophe (as in the game) perhaps we get some leeway...
Yes, i hope we get some leeway here, because inter- and inbreeding of prehistoric human species can be seen as related to Desert Stalkers setting. At least the mutants are definetly not really H. sapiens sapiens anymore, and the decayed seem to have undergone also significant changes. Not sure about the hive, they could be 'just' a kind of a cult, but i think i remember something about a telepathic link between the queen and her followers? Dunno.

Let me adress some of your remarks once again before we probably should move on and put this topic to rest.
Interestingly it seems that the total Neanderthal population at any time was way below this theoretical maximum.
The bigger the animal the fewer offspring they tend to have. Humans are pregnant for nine months and are fertile again shortly after giving birth, the gestation period for neanderthals could have been something like 10 or 12 months with a bigger gap before they could conceive again. Also for the bigger part of their existence their habitat eurasia was a much harsher environment to live in than africa. There may have been enough big game for hunting, but an ice age can put serious constraints on their ability to survive in great numbers.
You assume that females didn't hunt, and I think that recent research suggests that that was not always the case.
It is true, women went hunting. However, they usually went for small game like rabbits, lizards and birds in the closer area not more than one day away. The hunt for big and dangerous animals was usually carried out by a group of men, especially if it was a campaign over several days.
Also, you don't account for the missing males. I don't think that males would have been driven away or killed on purpose to get to a certain optimum.
I think we can blame that on testosterone, the Y-chromosome and the generally more dangerous lifestyle of prehistoric men, as hunting and warfare tends to be a life-threatening business. Even nowadays, with far better medicine and a far less dangerous life, fewer boys than girls reach adulthood. So i expect a group of early humans didn't normally need to take any action beyond that.
Actually there is ample evidence of trade during the mesolithic.
Which isn't surprising, because the mesolithic age (in europe) is already very late in human history, starting at around 9.600 BC and ending with the neolithic revolution which introduced agriculture, sedentariness and the further diversification of professions.
Let me recall the introduction of potentially tradeable goods (of course the list is not exhaustive)
ceramics: roughly 20.000 years ago
goats: domesticated roughly 13.000 years ago
agriculture: roughly 11.500 years ago in the fertile crescent area
sheeps and cattle: domesticated roughly 10.000 years ago
horses: domesticated roughly 5.500 years ago
the wheel: used as potter's wheel 7.000 years ago and 1000 years later on carriages
For the overwhelming (roughly 280.000 years) part of human history those weren't available as trade goods.
As for the xenophobia, probably, but there is also evidence of Neanderthals and other sub-species breeding with anatomically modern humans.
I already stated, there was indeed some interbreeding, and of course there may have been also friendly encounters between alien groups of humans. H. sapiens existed alongside our brethren (like the neanderthals, but also H. erectus) for twohundred-thousand years, and for the bigger part of that period we were the betas: fewer in numbers (especially in the early millenias compared to H. erectus), in a smaller area (again H. erectus, who already spread to europe and asia), and weaker (neanderthals) to boot.
There is a reason xenophobia (which isn't the same as racism) is ingrained in our genetic code, and to this day we need to make a conscious effort to overcome it. Being wary of strangers was (and to a degree still is) an important survival strategy.

Now how does this all applies to Desert Stalkers post-apocalyptic world?
Eradicate the decayed and the hive and get friendly with the mutants and absorb their gene pool into Zeta, before it happens the other way 'round.
:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peh and Yngling

Kellermann

Engaged Member
Oct 20, 2020
3,613
11,654
One of the best games there is, no kinda incel boy theme. Not a heavy sandbox game either and pretty nice story! I've struggle find an entertaining game like this after I played this. I support it all the way :)
Completely agree (and not to mention the interesting and entertaining thread discussions about the game). I am proud to pop your like cherry.
 

Yngling

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2020
1,492
3,163
As any society that does not go into extreme anti-incest ends up being destroyed by it.
That was kind of the point of the discussion.

But do you have evidence for that?

The case presented here for example:
https://f95zone.to/threads/desert-stalker-v0-10b-zetan.68105/post-9201595
https://f95zone.to/threads/desert-stalker-v0-10b-zetan.68105/post-9203340
In that culture, apparently first-cousin marriages were very common from the 14th Century onwards, it seems to point to genetic disadvantages but not to destruction.
 

Dimod

Newbie
Aug 25, 2022
25
11
While the dangers of incest are exaggerated... they are exaggerated by necessity.
As any society that does not go into extreme anti-incest ends up being destroyed by it.
Let's say it is completely wrong. All animals had initially small group of members with one ancestor more often than not. It was realy close incest until mb a hundred generations. And look we still exist.
The issue with incest is that we can live for thousands of years with no issues, but if a problem happens and it is not so easy to notice bad mutation early, this society, spicies etc becomes extinct
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yngling
4.80 star(s) 584 Votes