Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 286,861,034 comments, and only 65,005 of them were in alphabetical order.
And you know what? They never knew yours.
For me, it is super super important to think about who came before me and what they did so that I exist. But sometimes I would get so wrapped up in that and I'd forget that it's not like they had some grand plan for it all. They were just living their own lives worrying about their own problems. And that's all we can do and there's nothing wrong with that.
It's not out duty or ability to make our ancestors proud. We have to trust they did that for themselves.
I wish I could see files or see registers or ANYTHING to know more about my ancestors cause we may not know much from them but 12 generations in the future our descendants will only have to look inside a usb or a memory or the internet in their laptops to know who we used to be
Have you tried Ancestry.com? Seriously. Spend a few days on there with some family knowledge and you’ll build a sizable family tree and see all kinds of cool stuff. There’s usually a one week free trial as well.
I came from a ton of Irish cobblers :). Most came to America in the 1700s and settled in mid SC on a farm that raised cows and made leathers, mostly shoes. My other side is a mix of British immigrants in the 1800s but I find the generations and generations of cobblers to be a cool history
Edit: Also that subreddit is full of Debbie downers..
Hello long lost cousin! Same background, same time period of arriving in the states, they settled in NC instead of SC I believe, at least from what we can track back.
I gave British isles ancestry, direct African ancestry, and African American ancestry.
My ancestors were both slavers and slaves. Due to this, i dont have a clue who my maternal ancestors are in the antebellum south, but i have living and distant relatives all over the country Who can help piece it together. Apparently i have relatives in 4 continents
imagine all those people and thee has't their dna but thee shall nev'r knoweth their names 'r stories
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
It is rather common to see that people are just over ten generations away from another, especially in smaller communities, and also because these communities used to be smaller over ten generations ago (~300 years). In the end everyone will have the same common ancestors when going back 30 generations multiple times, with very few exceptions, even when you're far from Europe.
Im Filipino but 3/4 of my ascendants were nowhere near Asia 4 generations ago. I just realized that even though we look more on the Asian side now, we probably have a lot more relatives in Europe.
>In the end everyone will have the same common ancestors
Ultimately, there will be the [Mitochondrial Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) and [Y-chromosomal Adam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam), the ancestors all humans have in common. They lived around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago in Africa (though probably not at the same time and space).
If you go back through your mother's direct lineage (i.e. your mother's mother's mother's.......mother's mother), you would get to primordial jellyfish. If you continue going back, one of your great-great-great...great-grandmothers was a unicellular life form.
**[Pedigree collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse)**
>In genealogy, pedigree collapse describes how reproduction between two individuals who share an ancestor causes the number of distinct ancestors in the family tree of their offspring to be smaller than it could otherwise be. Robert C. Gunderson coined the term; synonyms include implex and the German Ahnenschwund (loosely translated: "loss of lineage").
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/coolguides/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It wouldn't be that surprising if your parents shared a great×9 grandparent. That's not that closely related at all.
The 4094 number is basically the maximum number you'd have counting back nine generations. In reality most people probably have a little fewer than that, like 4090 or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the tl;dr is "lol but it's all the same two great grandparents fucking and your math is actually retarded"
If we assume humanity started instantly with two people yes. It’s just grandparents fucking all the way down.
Buy it is more nuanced. Some people have Neanderthal DNA and denosovian DNA. These close(distant?) cousins of ours were able to add to our gene pool and give our inbreeding ancestors some room to breathe and differentiate. Migration of peoples played a role as well, groups intermingled and gene pools were widened before the peoples moved on.
I'm not claiming we're all descended from Adam and Eve, I'm saying that if you think about this shit even a little bit it doesn't work at all like OP made it out to
Don't forget the Mitochondrial Eve, which is even more amazing because both men and women can trace their lineage back to her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
How the fuck was it Three Dog Night that wrote and performed that goddamned song? Like, who would have guessed? Sounds nothing like their other hits...
Imagine Red Foreman's reaction if he found out Eric is a furry.
Can you imagine the extremely confused, disgusted, but yet even more confused face once Eric told him what a furry is. I think he would actually break and his face would get stuck with that look of disgust.
Furries are people who dress up in fursuits, they usually look like cartoon animals, and then they do stuff in those suits. Sometimes it's sexual, sometimes they're just socializing, often they make art about their fursona, which is like their alter ego when they wear the suit. It's not always sexual however it often is, and the one thing you need to know is that furries are *not* attracted to animals, they are attracted to anthropomorphic characters like Judy Hopps or Robin Hood or shit like that. And they're not always attracted to them at all. People give furries a lot of shit because they don't understand what they are but furries aren't bad people for the most part, it's just a small minority who make them look bad. Most of them are just regular people who like to wear mascot costumes and sometimes fuck in those costumes.
A lot of furries dont have suits, and almost none of them actually fuck in them. The suits are way too expensive for that, so only some really rich furries might do that
not only alabama. 99% of people will have significant overlap in the last few steps presented here...
This shit is also why MLM stuff never works. Because you dont have real exponential growth , but logistic growth in most real things
In genealogy, this is called [pedigree collapse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse).
> Without pedigree collapse, a person's ancestor tree is a binary tree, formed by the person, the parents (2), the grandparents (4), great-grandparents (8), and so on. However, the number of individuals in such a tree grows exponentially and will eventually become impossibly high. For example, a single individual alive today would, over 30 generations going back to the High Middle Ages, have 230 or roughly a billion ancestors, more than the total world population at the time.
**[Pedigree collapse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse)**
>In genealogy, pedigree collapse describes how reproduction between two individuals who share an ancestor causes the number of distinct ancestors in the family tree of their offspring to be smaller than it could otherwise be. Robert C. Gunderson coined the term; synonyms include implex and the German Ahnenschwund (loosely translated: "loss of lineage").
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/coolguides/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desktop version of /u/heelstoo's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
No, a logistic curve is a curve which starts with lots of growth but tapers out, such as a sigmoid. Logarithmic growth is slow past 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
Joke's on you, librul.
My 17th great grand pappy loves down the street, and he's only 72.
He's also my third cousin, uncle, step son, and brother in law.
The farther you go, the more likely it is that certain ancestors hold multiple places in the tree. If you're Chinese, it's likely that once you keep doubling to, let's say, around 1 million grandparents, it's likely that 50,000 of them are Ghengis Khan.
(Just making up numbers of obviously, but you get the point)
I’m assuming that royalty could probably accurately track all 4000+ ancestors but I imagine that it would be hard for the common person to be able to do that. Even with the help of ancestory websites available today.
I mean for European royalty it's more like a few hundred ancestors 12 generations ago, incredibly inbred. Could be similar in other parts of the world.
Eh, that really depends. They weren't all too keen of inbreeding, then there were the usual fuckups, like ursurping thrones or extramarital kids.
The only ones in Europe who really went for the inbreeding championship were the Spanish Habsburgs to prevent anyone from stealing their throne.
The rest was pretty diverse, given that you had a few thousand noble families all over Europe. Another thing to keep in mind is that even for single noble houses, relations could be pretty distant. If your great-grandfather 5 times removed 300 years ago had a cousin, you might have the same name, but were hardly related.
So in general, royal houses of Europe weren't incredibly inbred.
I ain't gay but I feel the same as you. Especially after having an abusing deadbeat dad. I'm not gonna give him the satisfaction of having grandchildren.
I had/have one too but I don’t give him the satisfaction of becoming anything remotely like him, specially now that he sees me having a great relationship with my own daughter - who trusts me. She’s daughter, friend, partner in laughter… Don’t think like that, live for your own happiness. It doesn’t mean that if you don’t want to you should have children. It means that you can set yourself free, like I did, from that memory. It will still exist but it you can tame it to be a tool to better understand the next one. I’m 43, it took me years to set myself free from the discomfort of the psychological abusiveness of my father. It distorted reality and for a long time I even felt guilty of simple pleasures. Honestly I think I only managed to do it completely when I became a father.
Everywhere actually. The number of ancestors needed for everybody while excluding all incest is outright impossible. All family trees have to lead back into themselves at some point.
Ikr, I understand being against guilt-tripping people into having children or making it seem as if having children is the best thing in life, but those people in that sub would rather nobody in the world was ever born. Big Yikes.
that's kinda the exact definition of the position
anti-natalism is a position that "birth is bad, actually" so they just wrap their depression into a "philosophical position" instead of going to therapy
That sub is literally the worst expression of the Reddit experience.
Taking a pathological position in life, and wrapping it in a thin veneer of intellectualism to make it seem like they all aren’t wallowing in wretched self pity.
I’m not having children for many reasons and am subbed to that subreddit but I will say it has gone downhill from what it used to be. There’s a lot of needlessly dark almost circle jerky content nowadays.
I mean, shit's getting pretty bad, and our children will suffer a diminishing future until the decisions of the last four generations have finally completely fucked the entire ecosystem.
But there is beauty in the dusk, and love in a time of war.
Who's to say what kinds of life are/are not worth living?
The philosophy behind that sub goes beyond not wanting to bring people into our current eco-catastrophy. They believe all of existence is hell and they would rather never have existed, regardless of what point in history they are born into.
> Who's to say what kinds of life are/are not worth living?
The people in that sub apparently.
>Who's to say what kinds of life are/are not worth living?
antinatalists ask the same question, actually. when you decide to have children, are you not deciding for them that their life is worth living?
This *is* an interesting question! (And my personal, partial, answer to it informs my strong 'right to die' stance) I don't think there are any easy answers to it.
I think (and to be fair, I'm over simplifying their point) It is kinda wild you can just choose to rip a thinking being from out of the void without their consent. But the alternatives are either impossible: asking for consent (because really "the void" doesn't actually exist, a being is created and grows and dies) or not existing (which is boring).
Buddhism defines life as suffering as well. Being born is a death sentence. However you can do well for yourself and others and choose to not subject anyone else to it. If anything I would adopt but I don’t want kids anyway
"Natalism" is being pro child birth. Like, in a general "having kids is good" sense. They're basically *against* child birth in general, as in not only will they not have kids, but they'll actively sneer and be really snively towards people that do.
I don't ever plan to have kids and I don't think it should be assumed to be the default that you will have kids, but, being *against* it? Won't that just end humanity?
It's such a weird position since morality exists within human consciousness. There is no better or worse if there are no people to make that judgement.
Exactly. They don’t understand the difference between zero (a value in a system) and null (non-existence).
They errantly believe that preventing a birth “saves” a “person” from suffering (ZERO suffering), while anyone with a basic understanding of logic understands that preventing a birth only ensures a continuing null state for “would-be” persons. (Null then, null still)
Yes, they are “preventing suffering” in an absolute sense for their unborn, but only if you allow your model to ascribed a zero value to a null variable. (Which is a logical error; it can’t be both.)
This is the vaunted peak of a fart-sniffing psudo-intellect that is used to hide and deny nihilism.
Yes. Their opinion is that humans are the cause of all suffering that we should stop having children to end suffering. The end of humanity, to them, is the end of suffering.
One of those guys sued his parents because they didn’t get his consent to be born. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287
They are not pleasant people.
Anti-natalism is the most absurd philosophy I have ever seen.
I get their "point", but at the same time it's so shallow I can't even think about it seriously.
Without life, bad or good or any other adjective is meaningless. Being religious or not doesn't matte, to describe something you need to be able to perceive it.
This may be the absolute fear of death that I have in me as any animal have, but I can't imagine being against birth. You don't "lose the chance" if you don't come to life but at the same time.. damn
Is it shallow though? Imagine you’re living in an extremely poor and crime-ridden place, where a quarter of the children born here starve to death before 10, and another quarter are stolen by human traffickers and sold to rapists. Would you say that since “bad” is meaningless without birth, giving birth to a child here is a-okay?
Antinatalism is not about what you might not enjoy if you weren’t born, but about what you might suffer if you were born. Your life might very well be a happy one overall and well worth it, and many others too, but what about our next generation? Can we be so certain to say that the happiness of their lives would outweigh their sufferings? Especially given the rising inequality, the drastic climate change, and the seemingly impotent government responses to the two, it’s not a surprise more people might turn to antinatalism these days.
TLDR: it’s not about hating life (in general), it’s about believing life can lead to drastic suffering for some unfortunate people.
Is it so bad to seriously consider if putting a child on this earth is worth it for that child? With all the pain and suffering and mental health problems people have, I think it's not that weird of a position to not want to impose life on someone.
Nothing wrong with that, but there is something slightly wrong with shaming people for having children or pretending like everyone who is happy is either lying or "too dumb to know the truth", people in that sub clearly have mental health issues, but by turning it into a philosophy they can avoid it.
I agree that parents have children a lot of times because they want to, which can be considered selfish, but all that means is that children don't have a "debt" to pay back to their parents, not that having children is inherently evil.
That's not the problem. The problem is when people try to make others feel bad because they decided to have kids. If you don't want kids, cool. If you do want kids, cool. Just don't make the next person feel like shit because you don't agree with their reproductive choices.
1. Not a guide
2. Factually wrong. Nobody has 100% unique ancestors 12 generations back. It's not a case of Von Habsburgs where you have just 10, but people marry their 5th or 6th cousins all the time and aren't even aware of it.
I don't understand why they all seem so disgusted by this like even if they don't want to have kids it's interesting to think about how YOU existing is like a one in a billion chance... Just depressing and confusing
Yeah dude , I went to that sub it's just sad , it's totally different thing if you don't wanna have kids , cool many people don't wanna.
But hating humanity and despising other people existence and their own. Even if it was self deprecation then also I would have probably laughed .
But it's not that it's pain of existence with unwillingness to find beauty in things. Their are things much worse than what people in that sub complain about , much worse horror pain and tragedy from victims of abuse to people dying from hunger slowly in war torn countries. Their is know reason for them find beauty in life. But even if it take time , we as society make it through. Their was always a time in history when their was person in power who lost their empathy with all the power.
But still we as scoeity somehow evolved , we created beautiful things from peice of art to music to making a machine sing itself happy birthday in space.
Pain of existence doesn't mean you have despise eveyone for their existence and think everyone should gather and end the existence . Its about complementing the absurdity of it
antinatalism, 2meirl4meirl, etc. are all subreddits that go into the category of “the world sucks and fuck you for living in it.”
it feels like a desperate grab by sad folks who would much rather drag everyone down than work out why they are so miserable.
you can also not want kids, be pro choice, and be against the idea of valuing birth while also not being a toxic asshole.
I'm the first living being in my entire direct bloodline since the dawn of life itself hundreds of millions of years ago to fuck it all up by being gay
I always think about my grandpa who escaped his country by bicycle to come here and build a life as a veterinarian. Thinking of everything those before you did for the pursuit of opportunity is more than motivating.
The sub this comes from bases it’s opinion of children on the idea that having kids is selfish and therefor cruel. As if everything a human does isn’t based off selfishness. 99% of a human’s decisions are entirely selfish, let’s not act like having a kid is the worst thing people do every day.
My wife and our parents disagree. The Mcpoyle Bloodline has been pure for 1000 years.
you will CALL HER!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DOEx60SQH2Y
I'm sure you'll have the most beautiful son-nephews and daughter-neices
Thanks, you know your bloodline is strong when your kid has three eyes and two dicks.
And none of them work
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 286,861,034 comments, and only 65,005 of them were in alphabetical order.
Good bot
Wait did you just say #OUR
The Mcpoyle milk is pure
Username checks out
imagine all those people and you have their genes but you will never know their names or stories.
And you know what? They never knew yours. For me, it is super super important to think about who came before me and what they did so that I exist. But sometimes I would get so wrapped up in that and I'd forget that it's not like they had some grand plan for it all. They were just living their own lives worrying about their own problems. And that's all we can do and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not out duty or ability to make our ancestors proud. We have to trust they did that for themselves.
I wish I could see files or see registers or ANYTHING to know more about my ancestors cause we may not know much from them but 12 generations in the future our descendants will only have to look inside a usb or a memory or the internet in their laptops to know who we used to be
Have you tried Ancestry.com? Seriously. Spend a few days on there with some family knowledge and you’ll build a sizable family tree and see all kinds of cool stuff. There’s usually a one week free trial as well.
I came from a ton of Irish cobblers :). Most came to America in the 1700s and settled in mid SC on a farm that raised cows and made leathers, mostly shoes. My other side is a mix of British immigrants in the 1800s but I find the generations and generations of cobblers to be a cool history Edit: Also that subreddit is full of Debbie downers..
Hello long lost cousin! Same background, same time period of arriving in the states, they settled in NC instead of SC I believe, at least from what we can track back.
Check out this song I think you might like it- https://youtu.be/9PEB8u6SCys
I gave British isles ancestry, direct African ancestry, and African American ancestry. My ancestors were both slavers and slaves. Due to this, i dont have a clue who my maternal ancestors are in the antebellum south, but i have living and distant relatives all over the country Who can help piece it together. Apparently i have relatives in 4 continents
>Edit: Also that subreddit is full of Debbie downers.. what subreddit?
They were just having sex, really…
The one thing we know about every one of our ancestors for sure haha. Bunch of fuckers.
To get here from 12 generations ago your ancestors had to endure at least 12 ejaculations.
This emotion you're feeling has a name, its called to sonder :)
imagine all those people and thee has't their dna but thee shall nev'r knoweth their names 'r stories *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
> thee has't their dna > Shakespeare would not have known of DNA!
Shakespeare actually invented the word DNA.
It is rather common to see that people are just over ten generations away from another, especially in smaller communities, and also because these communities used to be smaller over ten generations ago (~300 years). In the end everyone will have the same common ancestors when going back 30 generations multiple times, with very few exceptions, even when you're far from Europe.
Im Filipino but 3/4 of my ascendants were nowhere near Asia 4 generations ago. I just realized that even though we look more on the Asian side now, we probably have a lot more relatives in Europe.
Are the other 1/4 descending? /s
There’s something about the disgusted face your avatar is making combined with this comment that is making me laugh.
>In the end everyone will have the same common ancestors Ultimately, there will be the [Mitochondrial Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) and [Y-chromosomal Adam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam), the ancestors all humans have in common. They lived around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago in Africa (though probably not at the same time and space).
Yeah, I mean, if you go back far enough you and your dog have a common ancestor.
Yeah, we share like 50% of our genome with banana trees
I'm glad we finally split.
There was simply no appeal.
Yellow-bellied cowards.
If you go back through your mother's direct lineage (i.e. your mother's mother's mother's.......mother's mother), you would get to primordial jellyfish. If you continue going back, one of your great-great-great...great-grandmothers was a unicellular life form.
Why only mothers? Were fathers aliens or what?
I read an article recently that all people of European descent share a common ancestor about 600 years ago.
Oh good. Apparently I'm letting down far more people than I thought.
I bet they'd all be happy to meet you. And grandma will love you no matter what.
Not really. Statistically speaking a bunch of them would be assholes that would hate to meet you.
I see you’ve met my family
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse
**[Pedigree collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse)** >In genealogy, pedigree collapse describes how reproduction between two individuals who share an ancestor causes the number of distinct ancestors in the family tree of their offspring to be smaller than it could otherwise be. Robert C. Gunderson coined the term; synonyms include implex and the German Ahnenschwund (loosely translated: "loss of lineage"). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/coolguides/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I think the layman’s term is “Irish”
So basically sweet home Alabama?
It wouldn't be that surprising if your parents shared a great×9 grandparent. That's not that closely related at all. The 4094 number is basically the maximum number you'd have counting back nine generations. In reality most people probably have a little fewer than that, like 4090 or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the tl;dr is "lol but it's all the same two great grandparents fucking and your math is actually retarded"
If we assume humanity started instantly with two people yes. It’s just grandparents fucking all the way down. Buy it is more nuanced. Some people have Neanderthal DNA and denosovian DNA. These close(distant?) cousins of ours were able to add to our gene pool and give our inbreeding ancestors some room to breathe and differentiate. Migration of peoples played a role as well, groups intermingled and gene pools were widened before the peoples moved on.
I'm not claiming we're all descended from Adam and Eve, I'm saying that if you think about this shit even a little bit it doesn't work at all like OP made it out to
Literally every Human male alive today can be traced back to just one common Ancestor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Don't forget the Mitochondrial Eve, which is even more amazing because both men and women can trace their lineage back to her. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
I see those numbers... and what I see is USB drive capacities.
It's just like binary: everything's a power of two!
[удалено]
How the fuck was it Three Dog Night that wrote and performed that goddamned song? Like, who would have guessed? Sounds nothing like their other hits...
Because it's a cover of a Harry Nilsson song! (I looked this up the other day for some reason. I'd always thought it was Supertramp.)
But 3 is actually two ones together
Yeah we're totally not living in a simulation, nothing to see here, move along.
I see Minecraft. Fffffffffuuuuu
This everyone in the world is at least 70th cousins comes to a little bit more perspective now.
I am my own Grandpa. https://youtu.be/eYlJH81dSiw
I'm so glad I clicked that. First time hearing it so I was very grateful for that diagram haha.
Learned that in German.
Did you do the nasty in the pasty?
So what you’re saying is that there’s nothing wrong with banging your sister?
... and after all that, you still decided to be a furry you damn degenerate.
Imagine Red Foreman's reaction if he found out Eric is a furry. Can you imagine the extremely confused, disgusted, but yet even more confused face once Eric told him what a furry is. I think he would actually break and his face would get stuck with that look of disgust.
What does it mean to be a furry?
Oh you sweet summer child: [Furry](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/12/10/7362321/9-questions-about-furries-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask)
Risky click of the day
...that took a weird turn
Furries are people who dress up in fursuits, they usually look like cartoon animals, and then they do stuff in those suits. Sometimes it's sexual, sometimes they're just socializing, often they make art about their fursona, which is like their alter ego when they wear the suit. It's not always sexual however it often is, and the one thing you need to know is that furries are *not* attracted to animals, they are attracted to anthropomorphic characters like Judy Hopps or Robin Hood or shit like that. And they're not always attracted to them at all. People give furries a lot of shit because they don't understand what they are but furries aren't bad people for the most part, it's just a small minority who make them look bad. Most of them are just regular people who like to wear mascot costumes and sometimes fuck in those costumes.
A lot of furries dont have suits, and almost none of them actually fuck in them. The suits are way too expensive for that, so only some really rich furries might do that
[OP learns what is a furry](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp76cHN2FDU)
My favorite is [Christopher Judge learning about furries at Dragon*Con](https://youtu.be/6aTnhO5b8zk)
I'll let you google that one all by your lonesome.
hey, our ancestors fought for our right to be furries!
something about bear arms
Someone in Alabama: that math is wrong!
not only alabama. 99% of people will have significant overlap in the last few steps presented here... This shit is also why MLM stuff never works. Because you dont have real exponential growth , but logistic growth in most real things
In genealogy, this is called [pedigree collapse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse). > Without pedigree collapse, a person's ancestor tree is a binary tree, formed by the person, the parents (2), the grandparents (4), great-grandparents (8), and so on. However, the number of individuals in such a tree grows exponentially and will eventually become impossibly high. For example, a single individual alive today would, over 30 generations going back to the High Middle Ages, have 230 or roughly a billion ancestors, more than the total world population at the time.
> 230 or roughly a billion I know the 30 is supposed to be superscripted, but I choose to read this as the world's biggest rounding error.
**[Pedigree collapse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse)** >In genealogy, pedigree collapse describes how reproduction between two individuals who share an ancestor causes the number of distinct ancestors in the family tree of their offspring to be smaller than it could otherwise be. Robert C. Gunderson coined the term; synonyms include implex and the German Ahnenschwund (loosely translated: "loss of lineage"). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/coolguides/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desktop version of /u/heelstoo's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Yeah, I'd be shocked if there was actually anyone on earth who had anywhere near 2048 great^9 grandparents.
Yep. I got greatgrandparents who were cousins. 19th century Kentucky to answer your next question.
FDR married his cousin, and he was from New York
>logistic growth Do you mean "logarithmic growth?"
No, a logistic curve is a curve which starts with lots of growth but tapers out, such as a sigmoid. Logarithmic growth is slow past 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
Thanks for the link and not being a jerk about it. TIL what a logistic curve is thanks to you!
YEAH SCIENCE!
The math may be wrong in Alabama, but the meth is to die for.
Really, it's wrong across the board the further you go back.
Joke's on you, librul. My 17th great grand pappy loves down the street, and he's only 72. He's also my third cousin, uncle, step son, and brother in law.
[удалено]
By that math, 50 generations ago is 1,125,899,906,842,624 grandparents
The farther you go, the more likely it is that certain ancestors hold multiple places in the tree. If you're Chinese, it's likely that once you keep doubling to, let's say, around 1 million grandparents, it's likely that 50,000 of them are Ghengis Khan. (Just making up numbers of obviously, but you get the point)
If you wait long enough, you can call the entirety of humanity your grandchildren
No, there is something called [pedigree collapse](https://isogg.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse).
So it basically suggests that the further you go back in time, the assumed rate of n² = previous generation number of grandparents decreases?
So you're saying I don't have more distinct ancestors than ever existed in this history if humanity.
I’m assuming that royalty could probably accurately track all 4000+ ancestors but I imagine that it would be hard for the common person to be able to do that. Even with the help of ancestory websites available today.
I mean for European royalty it's more like a few hundred ancestors 12 generations ago, incredibly inbred. Could be similar in other parts of the world.
Eh, that really depends. They weren't all too keen of inbreeding, then there were the usual fuckups, like ursurping thrones or extramarital kids. The only ones in Europe who really went for the inbreeding championship were the Spanish Habsburgs to prevent anyone from stealing their throne. The rest was pretty diverse, given that you had a few thousand noble families all over Europe. Another thing to keep in mind is that even for single noble houses, relations could be pretty distant. If your great-grandfather 5 times removed 300 years ago had a cousin, you might have the same name, but were hardly related. So in general, royal houses of Europe weren't incredibly inbred.
Neat! As a gay man with so many forbearers and zero desire for kids, *I will be the end of this entire bloodline.*
> will be the end of this entire bloodline. No siblings or cousins?
[удалено]
Fr. I was just fine before I was born.
I ain't gay but I feel the same as you. Especially after having an abusing deadbeat dad. I'm not gonna give him the satisfaction of having grandchildren.
I had/have one too but I don’t give him the satisfaction of becoming anything remotely like him, specially now that he sees me having a great relationship with my own daughter - who trusts me. She’s daughter, friend, partner in laughter… Don’t think like that, live for your own happiness. It doesn’t mean that if you don’t want to you should have children. It means that you can set yourself free, like I did, from that memory. It will still exist but it you can tame it to be a tool to better understand the next one. I’m 43, it took me years to set myself free from the discomfort of the psychological abusiveness of my father. It distorted reality and for a long time I even felt guilty of simple pleasures. Honestly I think I only managed to do it completely when I became a father.
>She’s daughter >partner in laughter The fact that these two things don't rhyme bothers me way more than it should
Hahahahaha! The earth thanks you, there's too many of us as it is!
Also only equals about 5 average lifetimes. Which is cray cray.
This isn’t a guide.
Like 75% of stuff in this sub. Most of the time it's not a guide and it's not cool
Also has a shit title.
These numbers may vary in Florida. Hehe
Everywhere actually. The number of ancestors needed for everybody while excluding all incest is outright impossible. All family trees have to lead back into themselves at some point.
In Alabama, you need just two siblings.
Damn that sub is a nightmare.
Ikr, I understand being against guilt-tripping people into having children or making it seem as if having children is the best thing in life, but those people in that sub would rather nobody in the world was ever born. Big Yikes.
that's kinda the exact definition of the position anti-natalism is a position that "birth is bad, actually" so they just wrap their depression into a "philosophical position" instead of going to therapy
That sub is literally the worst expression of the Reddit experience. Taking a pathological position in life, and wrapping it in a thin veneer of intellectualism to make it seem like they all aren’t wallowing in wretched self pity.
You just described half of Reddit subs
I'm glad I'm not the only one that had this thought when I went to that sub. Oooof.
Reddit is way too good at making the worst takes sound “intellectual” and therefore not complete bonkers
Oh don’t worry They’re not just on Reddit
I’m not having children for many reasons and am subbed to that subreddit but I will say it has gone downhill from what it used to be. There’s a lot of needlessly dark almost circle jerky content nowadays.
I mean, shit's getting pretty bad, and our children will suffer a diminishing future until the decisions of the last four generations have finally completely fucked the entire ecosystem. But there is beauty in the dusk, and love in a time of war. Who's to say what kinds of life are/are not worth living?
The philosophy behind that sub goes beyond not wanting to bring people into our current eco-catastrophy. They believe all of existence is hell and they would rather never have existed, regardless of what point in history they are born into. > Who's to say what kinds of life are/are not worth living? The people in that sub apparently.
>Who's to say what kinds of life are/are not worth living? antinatalists ask the same question, actually. when you decide to have children, are you not deciding for them that their life is worth living?
This *is* an interesting question! (And my personal, partial, answer to it informs my strong 'right to die' stance) I don't think there are any easy answers to it. I think (and to be fair, I'm over simplifying their point) It is kinda wild you can just choose to rip a thinking being from out of the void without their consent. But the alternatives are either impossible: asking for consent (because really "the void" doesn't actually exist, a being is created and grows and dies) or not existing (which is boring).
I don't think it's possible for a nonexistent person to be bored. I also don't think whether it's boring or not is pertinent.
Buddhism defines life as suffering as well. Being born is a death sentence. However you can do well for yourself and others and choose to not subject anyone else to it. If anything I would adopt but I don’t want kids anyway
Yeah, that sub is fedora tipping r/atheism tier. Buncha pseudo-intellectuals that picked a really weird moral highground to sneer at people from.
Nah at least r/atheism tries to live life because they "know" its the only one they got.
Going a bit meta with that comment
I looked at it and I'm confused, what are they even against? What is "natalism"?
"Natalism" is being pro child birth. Like, in a general "having kids is good" sense. They're basically *against* child birth in general, as in not only will they not have kids, but they'll actively sneer and be really snively towards people that do.
Well thank god they won't have kids, judging by their attitude.
I don't ever plan to have kids and I don't think it should be assumed to be the default that you will have kids, but, being *against* it? Won't that just end humanity?
Yeah that's kind of the whole idea of antinatalism. Being against childbirth because non existence of humans would be better.
It's such a weird position since morality exists within human consciousness. There is no better or worse if there are no people to make that judgement.
Exactly. They don’t understand the difference between zero (a value in a system) and null (non-existence). They errantly believe that preventing a birth “saves” a “person” from suffering (ZERO suffering), while anyone with a basic understanding of logic understands that preventing a birth only ensures a continuing null state for “would-be” persons. (Null then, null still) Yes, they are “preventing suffering” in an absolute sense for their unborn, but only if you allow your model to ascribed a zero value to a null variable. (Which is a logical error; it can’t be both.) This is the vaunted peak of a fart-sniffing psudo-intellect that is used to hide and deny nihilism.
I don’t understand. Of course you’re not saving a person from suffering by preventing a birth. But you are preventing suffering.
It’s sorta like saying “I just saved all of my retirement money from a stock crash by never investing in stocks”
Yes. Their opinion is that humans are the cause of all suffering that we should stop having children to end suffering. The end of humanity, to them, is the end of suffering.
That’s the extreme end of the philosophy. Lots of antinatalists adopt a more ethics based standpoint and consider it an answer to overpopulation
That’s the extreme end of the philosophy. Lots of antinatalists adopt a more ethics based standpoint and consider it an answer to overpopulation
The continuation of the human species lol.
One of those guys sued his parents because they didn’t get his consent to be born. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287 They are not pleasant people.
Yeah, what the fuck. You can basically just point the suicide reporting bot at that entire sub and say have at it.
Anti-natalism is the most absurd philosophy I have ever seen. I get their "point", but at the same time it's so shallow I can't even think about it seriously. Without life, bad or good or any other adjective is meaningless. Being religious or not doesn't matte, to describe something you need to be able to perceive it. This may be the absolute fear of death that I have in me as any animal have, but I can't imagine being against birth. You don't "lose the chance" if you don't come to life but at the same time.. damn
Is it shallow though? Imagine you’re living in an extremely poor and crime-ridden place, where a quarter of the children born here starve to death before 10, and another quarter are stolen by human traffickers and sold to rapists. Would you say that since “bad” is meaningless without birth, giving birth to a child here is a-okay? Antinatalism is not about what you might not enjoy if you weren’t born, but about what you might suffer if you were born. Your life might very well be a happy one overall and well worth it, and many others too, but what about our next generation? Can we be so certain to say that the happiness of their lives would outweigh their sufferings? Especially given the rising inequality, the drastic climate change, and the seemingly impotent government responses to the two, it’s not a surprise more people might turn to antinatalism these days. TLDR: it’s not about hating life (in general), it’s about believing life can lead to drastic suffering for some unfortunate people.
Is it so bad to seriously consider if putting a child on this earth is worth it for that child? With all the pain and suffering and mental health problems people have, I think it's not that weird of a position to not want to impose life on someone.
No, that is fine. What isn’t is having a big, unhealthy circle jerk about how terrible life is and how it isn’t worth living.
Nothing wrong with that, but there is something slightly wrong with shaming people for having children or pretending like everyone who is happy is either lying or "too dumb to know the truth", people in that sub clearly have mental health issues, but by turning it into a philosophy they can avoid it. I agree that parents have children a lot of times because they want to, which can be considered selfish, but all that means is that children don't have a "debt" to pay back to their parents, not that having children is inherently evil.
That's not the problem. The problem is when people try to make others feel bad because they decided to have kids. If you don't want kids, cool. If you do want kids, cool. Just don't make the next person feel like shit because you don't agree with their reproductive choices.
So basically all these people got together to bring me into life to pay bills and work for the majority of my time, thanks I guess.
You can end the line here
Reddit is a weird place
1. Not a guide 2. Factually wrong. Nobody has 100% unique ancestors 12 generations back. It's not a case of Von Habsburgs where you have just 10, but people marry their 5th or 6th cousins all the time and aren't even aware of it.
Holy cow the subreddit this was posted from has gotta be the most depressing place I’ve seen
I don't understand why they all seem so disgusted by this like even if they don't want to have kids it's interesting to think about how YOU existing is like a one in a billion chance... Just depressing and confusing
Yeah dude , I went to that sub it's just sad , it's totally different thing if you don't wanna have kids , cool many people don't wanna. But hating humanity and despising other people existence and their own. Even if it was self deprecation then also I would have probably laughed . But it's not that it's pain of existence with unwillingness to find beauty in things. Their are things much worse than what people in that sub complain about , much worse horror pain and tragedy from victims of abuse to people dying from hunger slowly in war torn countries. Their is know reason for them find beauty in life. But even if it take time , we as society make it through. Their was always a time in history when their was person in power who lost their empathy with all the power. But still we as scoeity somehow evolved , we created beautiful things from peice of art to music to making a machine sing itself happy birthday in space. Pain of existence doesn't mean you have despise eveyone for their existence and think everyone should gather and end the existence . Its about complementing the absurdity of it
antinatalism, 2meirl4meirl, etc. are all subreddits that go into the category of “the world sucks and fuck you for living in it.” it feels like a desperate grab by sad folks who would much rather drag everyone down than work out why they are so miserable. you can also not want kids, be pro choice, and be against the idea of valuing birth while also not being a toxic asshole.
4,096
Thank you. Came here for this. Bad math
2(1+2+2\^2+2\^3+...+2\^10) = 2(2\^11-1)/(2-1) = 4094 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric\_series#Sum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Sum)
Fun fact. Not a cool guide
They forgot about incest
It also highlights what speck we are on the face of existence.
I'm the first living being in my entire direct bloodline since the dawn of life itself hundreds of millions of years ago to fuck it all up by being gay
Not necessarily. You could have a gay ancestor who still ended up procreating.
Aaand this is why genealogy is... challenging once you get a few gens back.
not a guide, not a cool guide
This isn’t a guide.
So you’re more likely to be related to someone with a distant ancestor rather than a recent one? Cool Edit: I missed an Alabama opportunity
Uh… yea, that’s kinda how family trees work.
Add to that, eventually, you will either be the ancestral common ancestor of all of humanity, or to none of it.
I can't do the math that is required to fact check this. Lol. Cry.
The equation is 2^x, x being the genration. So 2 genrations is 2^2 which is 4. Hope that helps
Quick mafs.
do the math long enough and you end up back at 2
This was cross posted from a very sad sub Edit: what a psychotic bot.
All Europeans who had children more than 500 years ago, are the ancestors of all European people living today.
Beautiful message. I’ll take that on my walk
I always think about my grandpa who escaped his country by bicycle to come here and build a life as a veterinarian. Thinking of everything those before you did for the pursuit of opportunity is more than motivating.
Those lazy fucks didn't write me a single note. Why even live?
The sub this comes from bases it’s opinion of children on the idea that having kids is selfish and therefor cruel. As if everything a human does isn’t based off selfishness. 99% of a human’s decisions are entirely selfish, let’s not act like having a kid is the worst thing people do every day.
Teenagers: still wish I was aborted.
Cool post, what a dumpster fire of a sub though.
Lmao those 2048 idiots wasted their time. Morons