Related-ness and ancestry

[x65943]

Sometimes I have wondered what it would be like to meet your ancestors.

But you know, it's strange to think about - but we are barely related to our ancestors at all. ~250 years or so after you are gone, you are less than 1% related to anyone on the planet - even including your own descendents. (Sure all humans share a lot of our DNA inherently, but I mean the DNA we don't have in common, the stuff that makes us look different and act different from other humans)

And then consider just how many ancestors you have. Just a few hundred years back and you are already into the thousands.

Almost makes you think if you're just trying to propagate yourself - it's not worth it to play the kids game. I guess unless you're Genghis Khan or something.

I wonder if groups like the amish ran this math a long time ago - and decided "okay time to make a small commune where our descendents will look and act like us forever"

If the world sticks around long enough - do you think the data we have today is gonna be around in a couple hundred years? Like, will my great great grandkids have digital photos of me and other ancestors on antiquated USB sticks hidden away in the attic?

How do you guys think big data might affect genealogy in the future. Imagine doing an ancestry test and it's like "Match to x65943 your great great uncle"

Another thing is the industrialized nations are almost universally experiencing demographic crisis - fertility rates are below replacement. Maybe future kids are gonna be made in labs a la Brave New World and we'll do away with this family stuff making this all irrelevant.

 

[Chary]

I lowkey always like to think that somewhere in my ancestry, I'm related to a Persian king or something fun. But instead this just makes me realize that nothing matters in life ;O;

 

[PityOnU]

I lowkey always like to think that somewhere in my ancestry, etc., etc.

More than a little off topic, but you just brought out the grumpy old man in me:

"Lowkey" and its (overly common) use as shown here is perhaps the dumbest slang word/expression I have heard in a long, long time... and I was around when "dank" was a thing.

Using the word "lowkey" when making a statement is self-refuting: No, what you're doing is not "lowkey" because 1) you are publicly announcing that you do it, and 2) drawing extra attention to it by telling people that it's meant to be "lowkey".

Wtf - y'all some weird mfers

 

[Chary]

Using the word "lowkey" when making a statement is self-refuting: No, what you're doing is not "lowkey" because 1) you are publicly announcing that you do it, and 2) drawing extra attention to it by telling people that it's meant to be "lowkey".

Wtf - y'all some weird mfers

Casual/slang english vernacular has always been weird. From kids making the word "yeet" mean anything, to most people saying something that's even more of a fail than lowkey..." I could care less". Sometimes, slang is stupid. Sometimes those stupid things are still fun to say. It just be dank that way sometimes, dawg. Lol.

 

[FAST6191]

Wandering around the world I do wonder if family trees in some places are an exercise in recursion.

That said it sounds like ideas are a better plan. They can pop back up making things interesting for centuries if you get a good, or "good", one.
Failing that where is my mind uploading device or AI I can seed?

It just be dank that way sometimes, dawg.

Careful with that one if you ever get arrested

 

[Deleted member 507653]

You forgot to include the part where science makes us live forever. Then it all becomes irrelevant.

No one gets to have kids unless they kill themselves right after c:

 

[Flame]

isnt like 99% of Asia related to Genghis Khan?

Genghis Khan puts a big flaw in theory.

edit: also it says you 1990. son 2020. so in theory i should had a son two years ago.

no wonder my imaginary wife is pissed with me.