Minimum Viable Human Population

with Intelligent Interventions

Roman V. Yampolskiy
Computer Engineering and Computer Science
Speed School of Engineering
University of Louisville
roman.yampolskiy@louisville.edu

Abstract
Minimum Viable Populations are of interest to scholars of biology, space travel and existential
risks among others. Most published studies report MVP numbers for natural populations. In this
paper, we look at extreme theoretical values of MVP, which could be achieved with intelligent
interventions from natural or artificial agents relying on advanced technologies, such as genetic
engineering or IVF among others. Our results indicate that superintelligent agents may achieve
theoretical limits of MVP.

Keywords: De-Extinction, Existential Risk, Extinction, Minimal Viable Population, Population

Recovery

1. Introduction to Minimum Viable Population

Recent work on existential risks [1, 2] from advanced dual-use technologies such as synthetic
biology [3] or transformational artificial intelligence [4-8] considers possibility of human
extinction and can benefit from accurate estimates of critical population sizes necessary for the
civilization to survive catastrophes and to repopulate. Disappointingly, existing literature mostly
looks at unintelligent natural processes for such recovery [9]. Minimum Viable Population (MVP)
for a specie is typically estimated, via computer simulations, as 90%+ probability of survival of a
specie for 100+ years and does not take into account interventions by intelligent agents. Probability
of surviving and thriving increases with the size of the population but all population sizes have
non-zero chance of success if intelligence is involved in purposeful steering of the project. In this
short paper, we look at how technologies, either existing or anticipated to be developed, could
make even extreme values of MVP viable.

2. Minimum Viable Human Population

Estimates in the range between 150 and 40,000 individuals have been suggested for the naturally
breeding human MVP [10-12], but some studies suggest that there is no magic minimal number
[13]. Analysis of human genomes suggest a bottleneck of as few as 1,000-3,000 individuals [14]
while all of humanity can be traced back to a single Mitochondrial “Eve” [15] and Y-chromosomal
“Adam” [16]. Baum et al. [1] report that if the environment is favorable [17, 18], such as a
dedicated refuge, 100 to 500 individual may be viable [19, 20]. Marin and Beluffi estimated an
MVP of 98 would be necessary for a multi-generational voyage (6300 years) to the nearest
exoplanet with yearly evaluations of the vessel population, offspring restrictions and breeding
constraints [21]. Separated groups of as few as 70 individuals [1] may have colonized both
Polynesia and the Americas [22, 23]. Invasive species are known to be able to propagate from a
single breeding pair. We may suggest the following possibilities with regards to specific viable
population sizes, assuming near-even sex distribution:

5,000 – Viable population size without interventions.

500 – Genetic counseling may be necessary to avoid inbreeding.
50 – Maximizing offspring from different partners is necessary to provide genetic diversity.
3 – Genetic disorders of inbreeding may be prevented via “3 parent” technique [24].
2 – Usual natural reproductive process is likely to result in some offspring being viable.

The following may be viable for intelligent agents with advanced technology and could be applied
as many times as necessary to achieve desired population size:

1 – A single female and access to frozen embryos or sperm [25].

0 – Intelligent robots, future humans or aliens may recover human population by synthesizing
biological humans [26] from fossilized DNA [27-31], synthesized genomes [32], DNA banks [33-
35], DNA transmitted to space1, or cryopreserved bodies [36].

Additionally, recent work on assisted reproduction from unisexual pairs suggests that a population
of only females or only males may be sufficient for reproduction [37]. In this paper, we did not
consider some more esoteric possibilities such as exhaustive search for viable genomes via Levin
search [38, 39], re-evolving people via evolutionary simulations [40] or survival of individuals in
different brunches of the multiverse [41].

3. Conclusions
In this short paper, we reviewed commonly reported figures for Minimum Viable Populations.
Unlike previous studies, we allowed for the possibility of intelligent interventions using current or
future technologies to better understand and estimate theoretical limits on MVPs. We conclude
that with interventions from technologically advanced agents MVP can reach its theoretical limit
of zero, but of course, it is better not to approach such extremely small population sizes. Additional
gain from this exploration is in better understanding of how a backup can be created for humanity,
to repopulate the world after an existential catastrophe, and what the minimum feasible sizes for
such projects are.

Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Elon Musk and the Future of Life Institute and to Jaan Tallinn and
Effective Altruism Ventures for partially funding his work. To the best of my knowledge, this is
the first paper on Least Viable Populations, which is also a Least Publishable Unit.

1
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/691407/Human-DNA-SPACE-back-up-species-extinct
References
1. Baum, S.D., et al., Long-term trajectories of human civilization. Foresight.
2. Bostrom, N., Existential risk prevention as global priority. Global Policy, 2013. 4(1): p. 15-
31.
3. Kwok, R., Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature News, 2010. 463(7279): p. 288-290.
4. Bostrom, N., Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. 2014: Oxford University Press.
5. Yampolskiy, R., Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security. 2018, CRC Press.
6. Yampolskiy, R.V., Artificial Superintelligence: a Futuristic Approach. 2015: Chapman and
Hall/CRC.
7. Yampolskiy, R.V. Taxonomy of Pathways to Dangerous Artificial Intelligence. in AAAI
Workshop: AI, Ethics, and Society. 2016.
8. Pistono, F. and R.V. Yampolskiy, Unethical research: How to create a malevolent artificial
intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.02817, 2016.
9. Soulé, M.E., Viable populations for conservation. 1987: Cambridge university press.
10. Lynch, M., J. Conery, and R. Burger, Mutational meltdowns in sexual populations. Evolution,
1995: p. 1067-1080.
11. Impey, C., Beyond: Our future in space. 2015: WW Norton & Company.
12. Smith, C.M., Estimation of a genetically viable population for multigenerational interstellar
voyaging: Review and data for project Hyperion. Acta Astronautica, 2014. 97: p. 16-29.
13. Flather, C.H., et al., Minimum viable populations: is there a ‘magic number’for conservation
practitioners? Trends in ecology & evolution, 2011. 26(6): p. 307-316.
14. Harpending, H.C., et al., Genetic traces of ancient demography. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 1998. 95(4): p. 1961-1967.
15. Hagelberg, E., Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity? Implications for
Mitochondrial Eve. TRENDS in Genetics, 2003. 19(2): p. 84-90.
16. Callaway, E., Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time. Nature, 2013. 6.
17. Baum, S.D., D.C. Denkenberger, and J. Haqq-Misra, Isolated refuges for surviving global
catastrophes. Futures, 2015. 72: p. 45-56.
18. Turchin, A. and B.P. Green, Aquatic refuges for surviving a global catastrophe. Futures,
2017. 89: p. 26-37.
19. Hanson, R., Catastrophe, social collapse, and human extinction. Global catastrophic risks,
2007: p. 45-69.
20. Daily, G.C., A.H. Ehrlich, and P.R. Ehrlich, Optimum human population size. Race, Poverty
& the Environment, 1993: p. 9-12.
21. Marin, F. and C. Beluffi, Computing the minimal crew for a multi-generational space travel
towards Proxima Centauri b. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03856, 2018.
22. Murray-McIntosh, R.P., et al., Testing migration patterns and estimating founding population
size in Polynesia by using human mtDNA sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 1998. 95(15): p. 9047-9052.
23. Hey, J., On the number of New World founders: a population genetic portrait of the peopling
of the Americas. PLoS biology, 2005. 3(6): p. e193.
24. Amato, P., et al., Three-parent in vitro fertilization: gene replacement for the prevention of
inherited mitochondrial diseases. Fertility and sterility, 2014. 101(1): p. 31-35.
25. Adamson, G.D., et al., The number of babies born globally after treatment with the assisted
reproductive technologies (ART). Fertility and Sterility, 2013. 100(3): p. S42.
26. Yampolskiy, R.V., On the origin of synthetic life: attribution of output to a particular
algorithm. Physica Scripta, 2016. 92(1): p. 013002.
27. Shapiro, B., How to clone a mammoth: the science of de-extinction. 2015: Princeton
University Press.
28. Sherkow, J.S. and H.T. Greely, What if extinction is not forever? Science, 2013. 340(6128):
p. 32-33.
29. Jørgensen, D., Reintroduction and de-extinction. BioScience, 2013. 63(9): p. 719-720.
30. Shapiro, B., Pathways to de‐extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct
species? Functional Ecology, 2017. 31(5): p. 996-1002.
31. Fletcher, A.L., Bring ‘Em back alive: Taming the Tasmanian tiger cloning project.
Technology in Society, 2008. 30(2): p. 194-201.
32. Garfinkel, M.S., et al., Synthetic genomics: options for governance. Industrial Biotechnology,
2007. 3(4): p. 333-365.
33. Ryder, O.A., et al., DNA banks for endangered animal species. Science, 2000. 288(5464): p.
275-277.
34. McEwen, J.E. and P.R. Reilly, Stored Guthrie cards as DNA" banks". American journal of
human genetics, 1994. 55(1): p. 196.
35. Annas, G.J. and S. Elias, 23andMe and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine, 2014.
370(11): p. 985-988.
36. Ettinger, R.C. and J. Rostand, The prospect of immortality. 1965: Sidgwick and Jackson.
37. Li, Z.-K., et al., Generation of Bimaternal and Bipaternal Mice from Hypomethylated Haploid
ESCs with Imprinting Region Deletions. Cell stem cell, 2018.
38. Levin, L.A., Universal sequential search problems. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 1973.
9(3): p. 115-116.
39. Yampolskiy, R.V. The space of possible mind designs. in International Conference on
Artificial General Intelligence. 2015. Springer.
40. Yampolskiy, R.V., Why We Do Not Evolve Software? Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.07074, 2018.
41. Ćirković, M.M., Is quantum suicide painless? On an apparent violation of the principal
principle. Foundations of science, 2006. 11(3): p. 287-296.