Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@djechlin I'm not sure about that, it's definitely not a good thing in terms of genetic diversity - but assuming that Y chromosome is not badly defective a greater short term problem for individuals would be getting two copies of the same gene, both from the original man, which is a recipe for recessive genetic disorders. At least that won't happen with the Y chromosome.
@MartineVotvik The offspring of the man are half-siblings so when they reproduce with each other it is a problematic level of inbreeding in accordance with Coefficient of relationship - not as bad as full siblings but still not ideal.
@MartineVotvik Another useful way of expressing it is that if a man impregnates 10,000 women, each of his chromosome are expected to be found 5000±50 times in the next generation, the chance of any one his chromosomes being found fewer than 4850 times is only 0.27%. It's simple coin-toss statistics because of each chromosome pair either one or the other will be passed on. The result is that his genetic material will be massively duplicated as surely as you can't in reality roll heads 10000 times in a row with a fair coin.
@MartineVotvik But it's statistically correct. If a man has 10000 offspring the chance of any of his genetic material not being passed on is literally infinitesimal. If I had said "If he mates with one woman, he passes on 50% of his DNA, and if he mates with a second woman, he has passed on 100% of his DNA because 50%+50% = 100%", then you would have a valid point. But what I have said in my answer is simply correct.
@MartineVotvik yes there is a chance but even if a tiny percentage isn't passed on it doesn't mean doom for the species as there are also factors which increase genetic diversity (i.e. random mutation and funny businesses with retroviruses and such), it is not the case that a population strictly loses genetic diversity over time, if it were the case there would be no life on earth as everything would die out.
@Scott A terrorist or terrorist organization is vastly weaker than a government, so it is a very poor analogy. You will find that people are more amenable to being extorted when faced with the prospect of overwhelming damage they are powerless to prevent.
@MichaelKjörling it's not just the cost of replacing the satellites, it's the opportunity cost of losing years of service of the existing satellites. No more GPS. No more satellite TV/Internet. Global communications greatly hampered. Spy Satellites: gone. Furthermore your logic only works if the cost of replacing our satellites, plus the opportunity cost of their loss, plus the cost of defeating the battlestar plus the cost of collateral damage from the fighting, is less than the cost of what he wants. It's not like he's just going to destroy the satellites then go to Mars.
This is the same analysis I was going to do. However I think that the Virial theorem means that only half of the gravitational potential energy becomes thermal energy of the body and the rest is radiated away during the collapse. Obviously the unrealistic solid iron shell is going to trap more heat than in the "hail of ingots" approach, but it might be reasonable to halve the surface temperature to account for the huge blast of radiation during the collapse.
