SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yeah. It's certainly iffy. However, I chose to keep as many fertile men and women as possible for that exact reason. Greater numbers certainly wouldn't hurt our chances. Hell! The doctor could possibly even take sperm, and/or egg samples from the rejects before throwing them out, if we were really concerned about it.
Could the lack of sunlight be rectified in any way? Is it guaranteed to be lethal?
The only way it would ever work is if we stumbled upon another large group of survivors after we went back to the surface. Sorry, but even if we kept every single person, there's no way 12 people could rebuild the population. It's just not genetically possible.
That's why I maximized it for survival by keeping the botanist and focusing on cohesion. The only way humanity survives is if we make it to the surface, manage to feed ourselves reliably, and find other survivors.
Absolute guarantee? No. But the child will be extremely stunted and sickly. Best case scenario, it's mentally retarded and probably crippled. But it will probably succumb to either SIDS or respiratory failure as a complication of extreme rickets. Supplementation is not enough to make up for this in an infant, especially the mental impacts.
Even the adults will suffer after so long without natural light. Their mental health and sleep cycle especially, which is another reason we need the medical personnel and the priest. A baby will be much worse off.
While it is possible we could keep the baby at least alive through heavy supplementation, I think this is an unwise use of resources. It will still be severely disabled even with supplementation, and it will take resources away from the adults which they need in order to not die of sleep deprivation, or wind up becoming psychotic.