Your ancestor tree also expands exponentially (almost doubling with every generation), so everyone alive around the year 1250 AD is either one of your ancestors or no-one-around-today’s ancestor (because their line died out).
We are all related about 30 mothers out.
Yeah. I had thought about that, although I realized that it’s probably a little more complex due to genetic isolation; that is, you’ve got inbreeding several generations back, even more so if your ancestors were really quite homogeneous like the Japanese. Like, instead of it being 30 mothers out, it might only be 15 or less within your region.
And a pure Native American must have a common mother with a pure Aboriginal Australian about 1600 mothers ago.
Does that take into account the relative lack of mixing among populations in different continents until recently?
Yea, a pure Native American doesn’t share a mother with an Aboriginal Australian in 1250 AD lol.
I mean, people kinda are aware of it? We all know our grandparents are old, and that’s just two generations— knowing your great grandparents is considered a rare honor because of how old they must be, and that’s just three. So a long time spanning relatively few people isn’t really a shocking revelation, is it?
I can tell my kids about their great-great grandparents.
That’s also the weird thing about the “experienced” past.
When we think about what things were like “in the past”, we think of what they were like for the oldest people we know, and if we are lucky we get a couple stories from them about their parents or grandparents.
So for me, my experienced past ends in 1930.
The experienced past is the lense through which we see the whole past, even though it’s such a tiny sliver of the actual past.
Remember this in this context: Whenever someone says “In the past X was always the case”, what they really mean was “For my grandparents X was the case”, and they likely don’t even realize that.
I somehow think that even 100 years ago mothers would start having kids sooner than 25
Remember that not everyone is a direct line of first children. The average age of the mother of the birth of A child (contrary to her first child) seems to be around age 30 over most of history according to google.
Which does make sense if you consider that women would start getting children in their late teens (puberty used to start later) and end getting children in their 40s.
That’s why for an average generation 30 years is usually taken.
there is no 0 ad
There definitely was a 0 ad, but whether that standa for anything real is another issue.
1 word: Adblockers
Is there 0 bc then?
also no, 1bc then 1 ad
Crazy how generations be like they are
The song Year 3000 by Busted makes me laugh. They’re like “your great great great granddaughter is pretty fine.” In 1000 years there were only 5 generations? They had an average breeding age of 200?!
“you’re the result of countless ejaculations”
Product of, and producer of.
How many daughters away from Star Trek time travel are we?
Anything to avoid metric.
Is 80 supposed to be little? I never knew my great-grandparents so I’m only aware of my 2 past mothers. If I knew 10 mothers that would be huge, I would know about the great-grandparents of the great-grandparents of my great-grandparents. 80 is not “only”, it’s beyond comprehension.
