If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people who would they be Would you include yourself

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?

A lot of people here thinks that with 2–3 woman and some sperm you can repopulate the Earth.
Sure, you MIGHT have a chance.
But let’s not forget that THE ENTIRE human population is gone.
So you only have 3 persons in the entire world.
THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! Just think about the electrical issue, the food issue and many many more issues.

Let’s say that 3 brave womans being 18 years old decide to save humanity fate.
They head over to a a sperm bank.
Armed with patience, some cars and lots of time they bring in as much food, baby products, water and gasoline as possible.
Also they bring some generators because in a week maximum the electricity will be gone.
Also let’s say they surround the area so no animals will bother them.
So…they decide to inseminate each other and make new babies.
Sounds like a stable plan.
Let’s say that they have medical knowledge so they can help each other give birth and the born babies are healthy and WILL NOT have any problems during their life.
A normal pregnancy takes about 9 months.
So we have 9 months in which population of Earth is 3 people.
After 9 months they all give birth to 3 child (let’s be optimistic however) so the population of Earth goes to 9 babies and 3 moms.
Let’s say that the 3 fresh moms decide to update population with new babies.
Now 19 years old, they get pregnant again.
It will be a very VERY tedious process because they are not alone anymore, they need to guard and feed and love 9 babies.

And I am pretty sure that ANYONE which had a baby knows very well how tired can a baby get you.
And I have only ONE little girl, not 3 babies!!! In the first 3 months of their life they need constant food, constant attention and you can’t really sleep normally.
So those 3 womans would have a very serious problem with getting rest.

So let’s move over….
let’s assume the womans are able to rest and feed their 9 children while they are having another 3 children in their tummy.
Let’s say that they are able to give birth without any issues and the new childrens are healthy as well.
Now after 19 months after the wiping of the entire human population on Earth we have a population of 3 moms and 18 babies.
Just imagine now difficult is for those 3 womans to take care of 18 babies!! And I said 3 babies for each, the most optimistic scenario for humanity.
A woman can have more than 3 babies but is this healthy for her organism? Can she get pregnant so quickly after just giving birth?? I am not a doctor so I can only assume these things.
And in a optimistic manner I said all these are highly probable.

But let’s move over.

We started with 3 fresh moms at 18 years old with medical knowledge.
We offered shelter, electricity, vehicles, food and water as much as they want, a high storage of babies products and food.

They know how to use a sperm bank and they get pregnant EACH “season” over and over again.
With one month break between getting pregnant they move over and over and over again.
They always make 3 babies so population of Earth improves by 9 new people.
Let’s say each woman gives birth to 2 girls and one boy.
The new born girls will start making babies when they are 16 years old, even if puberty starts at around 12.

I will use months as reference because it’s easier for me.
Their age remains in years.
So 9 months for the first birth, one month break and another 9 months for next birth.
Another month break then another 9 months until she will give birth again.
So the mathematics mean 9 months for first birth and then another 10 months to next birth.
Now, considering all facts present and no outside threat and EVERY SINGLE WOMAN and BABY is 100% healthy and with no issues, only food, shelter, clothes needed let’s add:
So it takes 20 births for the mom until her first 3 kids get to 16 years old.
(192 months = 16 years).
What will happen in these 16 years? Well the human population will get to 3 woman, 180 children of which 60 boys and 120 girls.
9 of the kids will be at their starting age of which they are able to have children on their own.
The 3 moms will be each 34 years old, 16 years of their life all they did was get pregnant, raise kids and repeat.
From the Thirteenth birth the first 9 kids can help their mom with raising the 108 present kids with feeding, changing diapers and etc.
Anyway this is a difficult task and even if it’s pretty possible to accomplish it will be a living hell for the 3 moms.
EACH 9 months you get birth to 3 babies, you take one month off and then repeat the process, WHILE taking care of the babies you already have given birth already.

Let’s say they move over and everything goes alright.
They have enough food for them, they have enough food for the babies, they have everything they need and the sperm bank is still working, with electricity from generators, fresh water and everything they need.

But 16 years have passed, what happened with the rest of planet Earth? Let’s say the 3 moms salvaged some maps and some technology.
The 9 children from the first birth are now 16 years old, they can take some cars and explore.
What would they find? I am very sure that planet Earth can do just fine without humans and in time it will return to a flourishing planet full of life, plants and animals living together without the destructive actions of humans.
But we have been on the planet and changed it.
It’s the year 2018.
Let’s say that the “wiping” happened now.
What will the Earth look like in 2034 considering no more humans are present (except the 3 moms and the 180 children they have)?? It will improve himself or the abandoned nuclear reactors and power plants will create chaos on the surface and the air will become unbreathable, filled with radiation and death?? Would the 3 moms and 180 childrens able to save the Earth and resupply the Earth with people that can learn and repair everything?
In the 21th birth the 3 moms can add another 9 childrens to the actual population.
But also the 6 first born girls can create childrens and even if a 16 years girl is very unlikely that she can give birth to 3 children let’s say she does, just for the sake of imagination.
So in the 21th birth the 3 moms add another 9 childrens and the 6 first born girls give birth to another 18 children.
In the 22th birth the second born girls can also give birth to babies so the number of “moms” gets higher each year by 6.
How much time will take to get to one thousand people? Or one million? Or one billion? Let’s do some math! For one thousand: They will need another 9 births because in each year the number of fertile womans gets higher by 6.
As well, the number of births gets higher by 18 (6 new fertile womans can EACH give birth to 3 babies).
the MOM + girls means the number of births taken in that birth year and the total number of fertile girls.
Now, after 29 births which means 24 years, the original 3 womans we saved to accomplish this tremendous task will be 42 years old and MORE than half of their life they only got pregnant and raised babies and repeated the process! This means 24 years of total silence on Earth so the population of humans can get to 1074 individuals where the oldest will be 3 womans 42 years old and the youngest 171 new born babies, from which 114 girls and 57 boys.
Well I don’t know if this factory of babies can really save humanity of it’s doom and total wiping of the human race of the surface of Earth.
Because I tried to be as optimistic as possible.
Some woman are not able to give birth to babies.
Some babies die at birth.
Some woman can only give birth once.
Some woman give birth to only ONE baby and that’s a boy.
I totally excluded all these cases.
And even so, the population of Earth can grow by +18 people per birth cycle.
Because only 6 girls can get to fertile age and each can give birth to only 3 babies, 2 of them being girls.

It took 24 years to bring the human population to 1074 people, it’s the year 2042….
I really don’t think that humanity can advance and get back to it’s original state.

Please feel free and comment my answer, I am really curious what theories you have :)

This is a pretty despairing situation, I will try to answer as coldly and logically as possible as I only see one way in which the human race could survive in these circumstances.
I would choose 3 very young women (no older than early 20’s, at least one younger if possible), from three different races.
I would not choose myself as me (or any man) would not be particularly useful in this scenario.
Assuming I had plenty notice, time and access to a large pool of candidates I would run some tests to further whittle them down.
First, occupation – I would want one medical doctor, one midwife and one doctor with experience of IVF procedure.
Hopefully there would be some crossover between the three.
One must also have at least a basic level of aptitude for electrical work.
Secondly, fertility – all three candidates must have high fertility rates and no family history of serious medical problems
Thirdly, I would have each candidate undergo a detailed psychological evaluation to determine whether they are mentally prepared to do what would be necessary to save the human race (basically to be constantly pregnant for the next 25–30 years).
The plan would be for the three women to immediately head to the closest large sperm bank and secure it, taking any steps necessary to ensure that electricity is maintained to preserve the samples.
They would then gather all necessary food and medical supplies from nearby shops/hospitals.
They would then each impregnate themselves using the samples, give birth and repeat as many times as they are able, making sure that the same sample is never used twice.
If all went to plan, it may be possible for the three women to have 25 children each (the record for most children born to one women is 69 and IVF has a higher likelihood of conceiving twins/triplets).
If half of them are girls, they would need to start the process again once they reach puberty, although not as extreme.
If each of the girls had an average of 10 children, that would lead to a total population of 453 individuals, with just over half being men.
Because of the diversity of the sperm samples, there should be enough genetic diversity that things can go back to ‘normal’ at this point, with couples pairing off to have children as they please, although large families would still be socially encouraged.
There would be no shortage of resources for the first few decades as the remains of the current world will provide for a long time.
It would be an extremely hard life for the first three women, being constantly pregnant whilst also trying to raise a small army of babies is no joke, but it’s the only possible way that humanity survives with such a small starting sample.

OK, let’s be really realistic here.
If the entire human population of the planet except for three people are “wiped out” that means something really, really messed up has happened.
Worldwide plague reaching even the most remote locations, or a global thermonuclear war, alien invasion, zombie apocalypse, or it turns out that one of the religions is right, and a vengeful deity has wreaked havoc upon the planet.
Whatever the cause maybe, it is honestly unrealistic to imagine that any selection of three people can be found who would have the combination of fertility and survival skills to bring the human species back from this brink.
To the contrary, it is most likely that any three survivors picked will have a really, really terrible time of it.
Consider, for example, there will be no operating communication infrastructure left.
No maintenance of physical infrastructure either, so roads and bridges will quickly crumble.
No generation of electricity unless they happen upon some well-maintained solar panels.
No reliable weather prediction anymore.
If the three survivors don’t happen to be in roughly the same geographical location, chances are they will never even discover one another.
Into this sort of existence, I would be interested to see how the trio of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jung Un would fare.
Would they make it through the Winter? Who of the three would be the last man standing? And would there at some point be a resort to cannibalism?

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?
I probably would not save myself, and I probably would not include anyone that I personally know in the choice…
I would select the two healthiest and intelligent young adults that I could, and then I would also select a child which was not their own.
The criteria for the selection would be based on genetic markers more than anything else and the hopes to maintain health for the first few generations as well as some degree of genetic diversity.
I would select two young people and a child so that there would be no natural inclination towards competition between them, but instead a common goal of preservation of Life which would lead them to working better together even if their personalities would otherwise conflict.
Surely problems would arise from two parents trying to raise multiple children on their own in a world where all of the resources were dependent on their work alone…
The child upon reaching maturity , would be able to pair with the other children without a first-generational incest problem, which would extend the genetic diversity out just a touch more then any other situation that I can think of for this scenario.
Hopefully they're intelligent and make for good parents…

It would be virtually impossible for 3 people to repopulate the earth.
There is not enough genetic diversity leading to the emergence of recessive traits or congenital disorders that will ultimately lead to the collapse of any viable offspring in a few generations.
With a sperm bank, it would be theoretically possible but still unlikely given the external, non-genetic survival concerns as well.
The best chance for humanity would be 3 young and fertile women, preferably diversely mixed-race women who are already in later stages of multiple birth pregnancies, ideally from diversely mixed-race fathers.
A surgical gynecologist with a history of research in genetics.
Someone experienced in agriculture and large scale crop growth.
And an engineer with extensive background in field work.
REALISTICALLY, I wouldn’t choose those 3 because it would just be a waste with such a long shot.
I’d choose selfish options.
Ariana Grande
Alexandra Daddario
And the third one is… ME.
Obviously.
They are both young, healthy, incredibly attractive women! I’d have no chance with them pre-apocalypse.
But afterwards, 3 young, single people with nothing to do? I think I can seal the deal if I’m the only option.
Plus, since we are all so ethnically diverse, they may believe in trying to repopulate the earth and that’s A-OKAY with me!

Okay, this is going to sound pretty terrible, but please hear me out.
I would save me and two very young pregnant teenage girls, one black African and the other East Asian.
I hope I have given enough logical reasons for my choices so you don’t think it’s just a twisted fetish fantasy 😉

It’s not even possible.
No matter what combination you pick, whether it’s two men and a woman, two women and a man, all one ethnicity or three completely different ones, the end result is the same; children that are closely related, inbreeding.
Their closely related children, inbreeding… and so on.
Three isn’t enough and you know what? I wouldn’t even if it were.
Our bodies might be wired to hang on to life by any means, but basal instincts aren’t always correct.
Life isn’t some great blessing, it’s a struggle that starts at birth and ends when you’re taking your last breath.
And for what? Nothing.
You die, and day by day, your memory and legacy begins to fade little by little until there’s nothing left.
No mark of your existence and nobody to remember you.
If an alien were to visit Earth after the human saga has finished and long gone, they would look upon where we once were and think “looks like nothing has ever been here”.
There is no way in hell I’m encouraging the short-lived and cursed attempt to revive the human race.
It would be a painful and dangerous exercise in futility.
So the three people I have to save? Those that are terminally ill and minutes, though preferably seconds, from dying.
What’s supposedly makes us human is our empathy, so show a little for those sick inbred kids that fight for survival in the wild where dangerous animals outnumber them by the million.

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?
If the world population were wiped out, then I could save no-one – the population being already dead (wiped out).
If you mean to ask, though, “If the world population were about to be wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?”, then my answer would be as follows:
I would save no-one.

My reasoning?
Well, apart from the inbreeding problems arising from this scenario, which would cause much suffering, the sufferings of life in general are substantial and it would be presumptuous (and, it could be argued, careless and compassionless of me) to thrust the weight of existence on a mass of human beings who never asked to be born yet who must suffer because of the decision of someone who had the power to prevent that suffering, yet chose not to.
Far better to let the species die out, and not attempt to resurrect it, than to do so and initiate experiences of great and often protracted suffering, possibly on a vast scale.
So, in short, I would “save” no-one – I would not catalyse an enormous amount of suffering in this way.
Because zero suffering is preferable to a greater-than-zero quantity of suffering.

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?
Three people a viable population do not make.
So bollocks to that repopulating nonsense.
Unless your hopes for the future of humanity include teeth protruding through our cheeks, anyway.
Besides, I don't think forcing some womens to try that would be a brilliant legacy for our species even if it worked.
I'm not sure I'd want to put any members of my family through the end of humanity.
“Hey [Nephew Alpha] and [Nephew Beta], you get to slowly die in the ashes of civilisation! Let's hope we can find enough food to survive!” They'd perhaps be better off going out with everybody else.
Scientists, engineers, doctors… the best they'd be able to do is build some kind of time capsule just in case some other intelligent species arises millions of years from now, so humanity won't be completely forgotten.
Yeah, I'm not helping any intelligent hippos from the future cheat at archaeology.
I can't really think of a productive use for this weird superpower I've been granted.
So I think I'd save myself and my best mates.
We could go on a drunken rampage across the planet, an epic pub crawl to literally end all pub crawls.
Maybe not the whole planet anyway, but at least as far as we could get before we died stupidly.
My money's on us going up in flames while drunkenly trying to fly a plane to continue our apocalyptic pub crawl abroad.
A fitting end to humanity, I’d say.

Yes I would definitely include myself.
I won't save my family because they are more than 3.
So I will take the obvious, called selfish by some, choices.
I will choose 2 Drop dead sexy women.
I will choose ones with very good assets so that we can have fierce threesomes.
I assume that since no one else is alive we will have everything to ourselves.
And I am also a trained pilot so I can even fly to some great places with them.
Now back to the topic.
I will choose
1.
Alexandra Daddario

She is the hottest Hollywood actress I have seen, according to me, of course.
You can google her and then you will know why I chose her.
2.
Scarlett Johansson

I don't feel the need to introduce her to anyone.
She is a bombshell in Hollywood.
Can you imagine how good it will feel to have fierce animalistic threesome with these two hotties anytime, anywhere.
And when you feel low give them a strap-on and let them fight and the winner will be who is the first to score a bullseye on other pussy.
Thanks!
Image credits: Google

Two of the brightest younger (25-35) scientific minds in the world capable of creating test tube babies from already frozen sperm and eggs.
This would be easy if implemented properly.
With the technology we currently have they could create hundreds of different genetic pools and in 42-50 (3 full re-birthing cycles given puberty usually hits around 14) years create a whole new world, full of highly intelligent and logical people.
The third person would be a loving nurturing human with very strong morals, their only job would be caring for the children and spending a minimum of 30 minutes a day with each child to help them develop properly.
This would limit the amount of children they could first raise to about 24 to give them some downtime throughout the day.
Feeding would be left to the scientist and they could give the exact nutrition for optimum health.
After about six years or so they could make another 24–48 children as the first children if raised properly could be fairly self reliant and even assist with the newborns in developing social skills.
This would very clearly change the world and reboot it rather simply with a massive gene pool.
The compounding effects of this would quickly add up.
Think 24,48,96,240,720,1420,3360,9600.
That's a 48 year cycle if when 18 the youth are given 10 children each to raise within the community all of different genetic diversity every 6 years, twice per person.
Those numbers are to be added together giving you right around 15,000 people.
At this point the population could easily reproduce normally with large families and massive diversity.
It's late and my math, if anything is lower then the actual amount but it makes sense no matter how you look at.
This is a logical answer not an emotional one and the third person would be myself, I would raise the youth and it would be very difficult but extremely rewarding.
I would do it out of selfishness and selflessness, not wanting to put anyone else through it but also understanding how much I could impact so many lives.
Hope that makes sense.
This would be done within a massive community and everyone would look after everyone else, the 6 year olds would have tons of brothers and sisters to learn from and be with, they wouldn't be abandoned in any capacity.

I find a lot of the answers to this question rather bizarre.
If there were only three people left on Earth there would be no basis for continuing the species, so why all this focus on fertility? It would be far more important that these three people had survival skills and got on with each other so they could enjoy their life until the point they either died or had to commit suicide due to lack of means of survival (there would no way they could continue living into old age under those circumstances).
I suppose it’s to accommodate the asker, but no one should go into a discussion of repopulation based on such a ridiculous setup.
Even if you accept they could “repopulate the Earth” why all this focus on preserving the different so-called “races”? Skin colour, facial features and eye colour are superficial things, why on Earth would it be important to preserve diversity in the looks department rather than different skill sets, talents and personality traits? If Homo sapiens started all over what would be wrong with everybody looking more or less the same, that would presumably make things easier for them down the line.
So I would probably go with three young Melanesians (tend to be strong, agile and cheerful people who are generally still fairly good at the whole survival thing).
No reason to complicate things unnecessarily.

Okay, so, I think humans are screwed.
I woke up this morning to find everyone dead except for my 2 most recent crushes, R and L.
R is 18 and L is 14 or 15.
After talking to them, they explained how everyone was dead.
YouTube had livestreams going about the YouTubers suffering some terrible illness, with the symtoms being:
It was the whole shabam.
They would start to gain the ability to stand up, then just drop dead.
It starts with vommitting, then continues down the list.
It seems me, R, and L were immune to this disease.
We need to try to repopulate some of the world.
It is the only way to give humanity a chance at survival.
There is a long time until we can guarantee the survival of the human race.
The goal is to have as many offspring as possible with L and R.
Hopefully, there are enough males and females that the lines can cross a few times.
But I have little hope for the survival of our species.
But at least I get a little happiness out of this mess.

My answer assumes I have some kind of knowledge about the people I am saving even if I have never met them.
I would not save myself, as it would severely hamper the ability to save the human race if both I and my son were chosen.
I would like for both women to be in perfect health, with a family history of being fertile and having easy pregnancies.
For the specific reason I chose a farmer and a doctor, well I think having people around who can grow food, and take care of health needs would be far more invaluable than pretty much any other career would be.
This scenario would eventually give my son 6 females to have children with to continue the human race, and the Doctor and Farmer would be able to make sure my son not only survives until adulthood, but also they ensure he is fed and healthy.

One young female – healthy, smart, with excellent childbearing potential.
One adult female
One adult male
At least one of the two adults should be knowledgeable in medicine, aviation, and engineering.
The females must be sexually attracted to the male and vice versa.
This human dynamics is necessary because women are not just baby making machines.
So it is most motivational for the females to mate with a male that they are attracted to, and most motivational for the male to be the father of the first generation.
Everyone (3) understands that inbreeding is terrible for their child, so there is the incentive to select and deliver their future son/daughter-in-law.
This pattern will persist until there is sufficient diversity in the group.

From the genius characters in this classic movie:
Dr.
Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”
(1964) Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man.
Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr.
Strangelove
: Regrettably, yes.
But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious.
.
.
service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

The world is doomed.
Three people cannot repopulate.
Might as well have fun with it.
(background music)
Oh, no! My entire family was wiped out before I could do anything to save them! Now I’m forced to live out my days on a fully stocked tropical island with unlimited food, water, medicine, and entertainment (which somehow still continues to update despite everyone being dead), having furious, animalistic threesomes with Krista Allen and Yvonne Strahovski!
And due to the mysterious nature of this particular apocalypse, all of us will remain in our physical prime but will still eventually die of old age!
THE HORROR!

It would simply be a waste of time saving only 3 people.
Regardless of their race, sex or whether they are pregnant or not, there is not enough genetic diversity to enable to the human race to survive.
At the very least you would need at LEAST a dozen breeding pairs to provide enough genetic variance and many scientific viewpoints on this subject say you should have at least 20 pairs.
So saving 3 people would be nothing but a lingering death sentence for those 3.
Humanity would still die.
It would just take a little longer.

I would save the lives of three of the happiest hermits, for obvious reasons.
Or I would choose a top historian, scientist, and artist.
I wouldn't try to find the absolute best – I would look for a mixture of brilliance and resilience.
This is because it would take a lot to have the will to not only live but continue working under such circumstances.
The historian would write what happened, the scientist would conserve important specimens, and the artist would express the zeitgeist of the apocalypse.
Hopefully their works would be entertaining for future aliens.
One thing I wouldn't do is ask women to turn themselves into perpetual baby machines for the rest of their lives (most likely very short lives, due to the probable lack of medical care).
No need for such selfless suffering when the world is better off without humanity anyway, environmentally speaking.

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?

A lot of people here thinks that with 2–3 woman and some sperm you can repopulate the Earth.
Sure, you MIGHT have a chance.
But let’s not forget that THE ENTIRE human population is gone.
So you only have 3 persons in the entire world.
THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! Just think about the electrical issue, the food issue and many many more issues.

Let’s say that 3 brave womans being 18 years old decide to save humanity fate.
They head over to a a sperm bank.
Armed with patience, some cars and lots of time they bring in as much food, baby products, water and gasoline as possible.
Also they bring some generators because in a week maximum the electricity will be gone.
Also let’s say they surround the area so no animals will bother them.
So…they decide to inseminate each other and make new babies.
Sounds like a stable plan.
Let’s say that they have medical knowledge so they can help each other give birth and the born babies are healthy and WILL NOT have any problems during their life.
A normal pregnancy takes about 9 months.
So we have 9 months in which population of Earth is 3 people.
After 9 months they all give birth to 3 child (let’s be optimistic however) so the population of Earth goes to 9 babies and 3 moms.
Let’s say that the 3 fresh moms decide to update population with new babies.
Now 19 years old, they get pregnant again.
It will be a very VERY tedious process because they are not alone anymore, they need to guard and feed and love 9 babies.

And I am pretty sure that ANYONE which had a baby knows very well how tired can a baby get you.
And I have only ONE little girl, not 3 babies!!! In the first 3 months of their life they need constant food, constant attention and you can’t really sleep normally.
So those 3 womans would have a very serious problem with getting rest.

So let’s move over….
let’s assume the womans are able to rest and feed their 9 children while they are having another 3 children in their tummy.
Let’s say that they are able to give birth without any issues and the new childrens are healthy as well.
Now after 19 months after the wiping of the entire human population on Earth we have a population of 3 moms and 18 babies.
Just imagine now difficult is for those 3 womans to take care of 18 babies!! And I said 3 babies for each, the most optimistic scenario for humanity.
A woman can have more than 3 babies but is this healthy for her organism? Can she get pregnant so quickly after just giving birth?? I am not a doctor so I can only assume these things.
And in a optimistic manner I said all these are highly probable.

But let’s move over.

We started with 3 fresh moms at 18 years old with medical knowledge.
We offered shelter, electricity, vehicles, food and water as much as they want, a high storage of babies products and food.

They know how to use a sperm bank and they get pregnant EACH “season” over and over again.
With one month break between getting pregnant they move over and over and over again.
They always make 3 babies so population of Earth improves by 9 new people.
Let’s say each woman gives birth to 2 girls and one boy.
The new born girls will start making babies when they are 16 years old, even if puberty starts at around 12.

I will use months as reference because it’s easier for me.
Their age remains in years.
So 9 months for the first birth, one month break and another 9 months for next birth.
Another month break then another 9 months until she will give birth again.
So the mathematics mean 9 months for first birth and then another 10 months to next birth.
Now, considering all facts present and no outside threat and EVERY SINGLE WOMAN and BABY is 100% healthy and with no issues, only food, shelter, clothes needed let’s add:
So it takes 20 births for the mom until her first 3 kids get to 16 years old.
(192 months = 16 years).
What will happen in these 16 years? Well the human population will get to 3 woman, 180 children of which 60 boys and 120 girls.
9 of the kids will be at their starting age of which they are able to have children on their own.
The 3 moms will be each 34 years old, 16 years of their life all they did was get pregnant, raise kids and repeat.
From the Thirteenth birth the first 9 kids can help their mom with raising the 108 present kids with feeding, changing diapers and etc.
Anyway this is a difficult task and even if it’s pretty possible to accomplish it will be a living hell for the 3 moms.
EACH 9 months you get birth to 3 babies, you take one month off and then repeat the process, WHILE taking care of the babies you already have given birth already.

Let’s say they move over and everything goes alright.
They have enough food for them, they have enough food for the babies, they have everything they need and the sperm bank is still working, with electricity from generators, fresh water and everything they need.

But 16 years have passed, what happened with the rest of planet Earth? Let’s say the 3 moms salvaged some maps and some technology.
The 9 children from the first birth are now 16 years old, they can take some cars and explore.
What would they find? I am very sure that planet Earth can do just fine without humans and in time it will return to a flourishing planet full of life, plants and animals living together without the destructive actions of humans.
But we have been on the planet and changed it.
It’s the year 2018.
Let’s say that the “wiping” happened now.
What will the Earth look like in 2034 considering no more humans are present (except the 3 moms and the 180 children they have)?? It will improve himself or the abandoned nuclear reactors and power plants will create chaos on the surface and the air will become unbreathable, filled with radiation and death?? Would the 3 moms and 180 childrens able to save the Earth and resupply the Earth with people that can learn and repair everything?
In the 21th birth the 3 moms can add another 9 childrens to the actual population.
But also the 6 first born girls can create childrens and even if a 16 years girl is very unlikely that she can give birth to 3 children let’s say she does, just for the sake of imagination.
So in the 21th birth the 3 moms add another 9 childrens and the 6 first born girls give birth to another 18 children.
In the 22th birth the second born girls can also give birth to babies so the number of “moms” gets higher each year by 6.
How much time will take to get to one thousand people? Or one million? Or one billion? Let’s do some math! For one thousand: They will need another 9 births because in each year the number of fertile womans gets higher by 6.
As well, the number of births gets higher by 18 (6 new fertile womans can EACH give birth to 3 babies).
the MOM + girls means the number of births taken in that birth year and the total number of fertile girls.
Now, after 29 births which means 24 years, the original 3 womans we saved to accomplish this tremendous task will be 42 years old and MORE than half of their life they only got pregnant and raised babies and repeated the process! This means 24 years of total silence on Earth so the population of humans can get to 1074 individuals where the oldest will be 3 womans 42 years old and the youngest 171 new born babies, from which 114 girls and 57 boys.
Well I don’t know if this factory of babies can really save humanity of it’s doom and total wiping of the human race of the surface of Earth.
Because I tried to be as optimistic as possible.
Some woman are not able to give birth to babies.
Some babies die at birth.
Some woman can only give birth once.
Some woman give birth to only ONE baby and that’s a boy.
I totally excluded all these cases.
And even so, the population of Earth can grow by +18 people per birth cycle.
Because only 6 girls can get to fertile age and each can give birth to only 3 babies, 2 of them being girls.

It took 24 years to bring the human population to 1074 people, it’s the year 2042….
I really don’t think that humanity can advance and get back to it’s original state.

Please feel free and comment my answer, I am really curious what theories you have :)

This is a pretty despairing situation, I will try to answer as coldly and logically as possible as I only see one way in which the human race could survive in these circumstances.
I would choose 3 very young women (no older than early 20’s, at least one younger if possible), from three different races.
I would not choose myself as me (or any man) would not be particularly useful in this scenario.
Assuming I had plenty notice, time and access to a large pool of candidates I would run some tests to further whittle them down.
First, occupation – I would want one medical doctor, one midwife and one doctor with experience of IVF procedure.
Hopefully there would be some crossover between the three.
One must also have at least a basic level of aptitude for electrical work.
Secondly, fertility – all three candidates must have high fertility rates and no family history of serious medical problems
Thirdly, I would have each candidate undergo a detailed psychological evaluation to determine whether they are mentally prepared to do what would be necessary to save the human race (basically to be constantly pregnant for the next 25–30 years).
The plan would be for the three women to immediately head to the closest large sperm bank and secure it, taking any steps necessary to ensure that electricity is maintained to preserve the samples.
They would then gather all necessary food and medical supplies from nearby shops/hospitals.
They would then each impregnate themselves using the samples, give birth and repeat as many times as they are able, making sure that the same sample is never used twice.
If all went to plan, it may be possible for the three women to have 25 children each (the record for most children born to one women is 69 and IVF has a higher likelihood of conceiving twins/triplets).
If half of them are girls, they would need to start the process again once they reach puberty, although not as extreme.
If each of the girls had an average of 10 children, that would lead to a total population of 453 individuals, with just over half being men.
Because of the diversity of the sperm samples, there should be enough genetic diversity that things can go back to ‘normal’ at this point, with couples pairing off to have children as they please, although large families would still be socially encouraged.
There would be no shortage of resources for the first few decades as the remains of the current world will provide for a long time.
It would be an extremely hard life for the first three women, being constantly pregnant whilst also trying to raise a small army of babies is no joke, but it’s the only possible way that humanity survives with such a small starting sample.

OK, let’s be really realistic here.
If the entire human population of the planet except for three people are “wiped out” that means something really, really messed up has happened.
Worldwide plague reaching even the most remote locations, or a global thermonuclear war, alien invasion, zombie apocalypse, or it turns out that one of the religions is right, and a vengeful deity has wreaked havoc upon the planet.
Whatever the cause maybe, it is honestly unrealistic to imagine that any selection of three people can be found who would have the combination of fertility and survival skills to bring the human species back from this brink.
To the contrary, it is most likely that any three survivors picked will have a really, really terrible time of it.
Consider, for example, there will be no operating communication infrastructure left.
No maintenance of physical infrastructure either, so roads and bridges will quickly crumble.
No generation of electricity unless they happen upon some well-maintained solar panels.
No reliable weather prediction anymore.
If the three survivors don’t happen to be in roughly the same geographical location, chances are they will never even discover one another.
Into this sort of existence, I would be interested to see how the trio of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jung Un would fare.
Would they make it through the Winter? Who of the three would be the last man standing? And would there at some point be a resort to cannibalism?

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?
I probably would not save myself, and I probably would not include anyone that I personally know in the choice…
I would select the two healthiest and intelligent young adults that I could, and then I would also select a child which was not their own.
The criteria for the selection would be based on genetic markers more than anything else and the hopes to maintain health for the first few generations as well as some degree of genetic diversity.
I would select two young people and a child so that there would be no natural inclination towards competition between them, but instead a common goal of preservation of Life which would lead them to working better together even if their personalities would otherwise conflict.
Surely problems would arise from two parents trying to raise multiple children on their own in a world where all of the resources were dependent on their work alone…
The child upon reaching maturity , would be able to pair with the other children without a first-generational incest problem, which would extend the genetic diversity out just a touch more then any other situation that I can think of for this scenario.
Hopefully they're intelligent and make for good parents…

It would be virtually impossible for 3 people to repopulate the earth.
There is not enough genetic diversity leading to the emergence of recessive traits or congenital disorders that will ultimately lead to the collapse of any viable offspring in a few generations.
With a sperm bank, it would be theoretically possible but still unlikely given the external, non-genetic survival concerns as well.
The best chance for humanity would be 3 young and fertile women, preferably diversely mixed-race women who are already in later stages of multiple birth pregnancies, ideally from diversely mixed-race fathers.
A surgical gynecologist with a history of research in genetics.
Someone experienced in agriculture and large scale crop growth.
And an engineer with extensive background in field work.
REALISTICALLY, I wouldn’t choose those 3 because it would just be a waste with such a long shot.
I’d choose selfish options.
Ariana Grande
Alexandra Daddario
And the third one is… ME.
Obviously.
They are both young, healthy, incredibly attractive women! I’d have no chance with them pre-apocalypse.
But afterwards, 3 young, single people with nothing to do? I think I can seal the deal if I’m the only option.
Plus, since we are all so ethnically diverse, they may believe in trying to repopulate the earth and that’s A-OKAY with me!

Okay, this is going to sound pretty terrible, but please hear me out.
I would save me and two very young pregnant teenage girls, one black African and the other East Asian.
I hope I have given enough logical reasons for my choices so you don’t think it’s just a twisted fetish fantasy 😉

It’s not even possible.
No matter what combination you pick, whether it’s two men and a woman, two women and a man, all one ethnicity or three completely different ones, the end result is the same; children that are closely related, inbreeding.
Their closely related children, inbreeding… and so on.
Three isn’t enough and you know what? I wouldn’t even if it were.
Our bodies might be wired to hang on to life by any means, but basal instincts aren’t always correct.
Life isn’t some great blessing, it’s a struggle that starts at birth and ends when you’re taking your last breath.
And for what? Nothing.
You die, and day by day, your memory and legacy begins to fade little by little until there’s nothing left.
No mark of your existence and nobody to remember you.
If an alien were to visit Earth after the human saga has finished and long gone, they would look upon where we once were and think “looks like nothing has ever been here”.
There is no way in hell I’m encouraging the short-lived and cursed attempt to revive the human race.
It would be a painful and dangerous exercise in futility.
So the three people I have to save? Those that are terminally ill and minutes, though preferably seconds, from dying.
What’s supposedly makes us human is our empathy, so show a little for those sick inbred kids that fight for survival in the wild where dangerous animals outnumber them by the million.

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?
If the world population were wiped out, then I could save no-one – the population being already dead (wiped out).
If you mean to ask, though, “If the world population were about to be wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?”, then my answer would be as follows:
I would save no-one.

My reasoning?
Well, apart from the inbreeding problems arising from this scenario, which would cause much suffering, the sufferings of life in general are substantial and it would be presumptuous (and, it could be argued, careless and compassionless of me) to thrust the weight of existence on a mass of human beings who never asked to be born yet who must suffer because of the decision of someone who had the power to prevent that suffering, yet chose not to.
Far better to let the species die out, and not attempt to resurrect it, than to do so and initiate experiences of great and often protracted suffering, possibly on a vast scale.
So, in short, I would “save” no-one – I would not catalyse an enormous amount of suffering in this way.
Because zero suffering is preferable to a greater-than-zero quantity of suffering.

If the world population were wiped out and you could only save three people, who would they be? Would you include yourself?
Three people a viable population do not make.
So bollocks to that repopulating nonsense.
Unless your hopes for the future of humanity include teeth protruding through our cheeks, anyway.
Besides, I don't think forcing some womens to try that would be a brilliant legacy for our species even if it worked.
I'm not sure I'd want to put any members of my family through the end of humanity.
“Hey [Nephew Alpha] and [Nephew Beta], you get to slowly die in the ashes of civilisation! Let's hope we can find enough food to survive!” They'd perhaps be better off going out with everybody else.
Scientists, engineers, doctors… the best they'd be able to do is build some kind of time capsule just in case some other intelligent species arises millions of years from now, so humanity won't be completely forgotten.
Yeah, I'm not helping any intelligent hippos from the future cheat at archaeology.
I can't really think of a productive use for this weird superpower I've been granted.
So I think I'd save myself and my best mates.
We could go on a drunken rampage across the planet, an epic pub crawl to literally end all pub crawls.
Maybe not the whole planet anyway, but at least as far as we could get before we died stupidly.
My money's on us going up in flames while drunkenly trying to fly a plane to continue our apocalyptic pub crawl abroad.
A fitting end to humanity, I’d say.

Yes I would definitely include myself.
I won't save my family because they are more than 3.
So I will take the obvious, called selfish by some, choices.
I will choose 2 Drop dead sexy women.
I will choose ones with very good assets so that we can have fierce threesomes.
I assume that since no one else is alive we will have everything to ourselves.
And I am also a trained pilot so I can even fly to some great places with them.
Now back to the topic.
I will choose
1.
Alexandra Daddario

She is the hottest Hollywood actress I have seen, according to me, of course.
You can google her and then you will know why I chose her.
2.
Scarlett Johansson

I don't feel the need to introduce her to anyone.
She is a bombshell in Hollywood.
Can you imagine how good it will feel to have fierce animalistic threesome with these two hotties anytime, anywhere.
And when you feel low give them a strap-on and let them fight and the winner will be who is the first to score a bullseye on other pussy.
Thanks!
Image credits: Google

Two of the brightest younger (25-35) scientific minds in the world capable of creating test tube babies from already frozen sperm and eggs.
This would be easy if implemented properly.
With the technology we currently have they could create hundreds of different genetic pools and in 42-50 (3 full re-birthing cycles given puberty usually hits around 14) years create a whole new world, full of highly intelligent and logical people.
The third person would be a loving nurturing human with very strong morals, their only job would be caring for the children and spending a minimum of 30 minutes a day with each child to help them develop properly.
This would limit the amount of children they could first raise to about 24 to give them some downtime throughout the day.
Feeding would be left to the scientist and they could give the exact nutrition for optimum health.
After about six years or so they could make another 24–48 children as the first children if raised properly could be fairly self reliant and even assist with the newborns in developing social skills.
This would very clearly change the world and reboot it rather simply with a massive gene pool.
The compounding effects of this would quickly add up.
Think 24,48,96,240,720,1420,3360,9600.
That's a 48 year cycle if when 18 the youth are given 10 children each to raise within the community all of different genetic diversity every 6 years, twice per person.
Those numbers are to be added together giving you right around 15,000 people.
At this point the population could easily reproduce normally with large families and massive diversity.
It's late and my math, if anything is lower then the actual amount but it makes sense no matter how you look at.
This is a logical answer not an emotional one and the third person would be myself, I would raise the youth and it would be very difficult but extremely rewarding.
I would do it out of selfishness and selflessness, not wanting to put anyone else through it but also understanding how much I could impact so many lives.
Hope that makes sense.
This would be done within a massive community and everyone would look after everyone else, the 6 year olds would have tons of brothers and sisters to learn from and be with, they wouldn't be abandoned in any capacity.

I find a lot of the answers to this question rather bizarre.
If there were only three people left on Earth there would be no basis for continuing the species, so why all this focus on fertility? It would be far more important that these three people had survival skills and got on with each other so they could enjoy their life until the point they either died or had to commit suicide due to lack of means of survival (there would no way they could continue living into old age under those circumstances).
I suppose it’s to accommodate the asker, but no one should go into a discussion of repopulation based on such a ridiculous setup.
Even if you accept they could “repopulate the Earth” why all this focus on preserving the different so-called “races”? Skin colour, facial features and eye colour are superficial things, why on Earth would it be important to preserve diversity in the looks department rather than different skill sets, talents and personality traits? If Homo sapiens started all over what would be wrong with everybody looking more or less the same, that would presumably make things easier for them down the line.
So I would probably go with three young Melanesians (tend to be strong, agile and cheerful people who are generally still fairly good at the whole survival thing).
No reason to complicate things unnecessarily.

Okay, so, I think humans are screwed.
I woke up this morning to find everyone dead except for my 2 most recent crushes, R and L.
R is 18 and L is 14 or 15.
After talking to them, they explained how everyone was dead.
YouTube had livestreams going about the YouTubers suffering some terrible illness, with the symtoms being:
It was the whole shabam.
They would start to gain the ability to stand up, then just drop dead.
It starts with vommitting, then continues down the list.
It seems me, R, and L were immune to this disease.
We need to try to repopulate some of the world.
It is the only way to give humanity a chance at survival.
There is a long time until we can guarantee the survival of the human race.
The goal is to have as many offspring as possible with L and R.
Hopefully, there are enough males and females that the lines can cross a few times.
But I have little hope for the survival of our species.
But at least I get a little happiness out of this mess.

My answer assumes I have some kind of knowledge about the people I am saving even if I have never met them.
I would not save myself, as it would severely hamper the ability to save the human race if both I and my son were chosen.
I would like for both women to be in perfect health, with a family history of being fertile and having easy pregnancies.
For the specific reason I chose a farmer and a doctor, well I think having people around who can grow food, and take care of health needs would be far more invaluable than pretty much any other career would be.
This scenario would eventually give my son 6 females to have children with to continue the human race, and the Doctor and Farmer would be able to make sure my son not only survives until adulthood, but also they ensure he is fed and healthy.

One young female – healthy, smart, with excellent childbearing potential.
One adult female
One adult male
At least one of the two adults should be knowledgeable in medicine, aviation, and engineering.
The females must be sexually attracted to the male and vice versa.
This human dynamics is necessary because women are not just baby making machines.
So it is most motivational for the females to mate with a male that they are attracted to, and most motivational for the male to be the father of the first generation.
Everyone (3) understands that inbreeding is terrible for their child, so there is the incentive to select and deliver their future son/daughter-in-law.
This pattern will persist until there is sufficient diversity in the group.

From the genius characters in this classic movie:
Dr.
Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”
(1964)
Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man.
Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr.
Strangelove
: Regrettably, yes.
But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious.
.
.
service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

The world is doomed.
Three people cannot repopulate.
Might as well have fun with it.
(background music)
Oh, no! My entire family was wiped out before I could do anything to save them! Now I’m forced to live out my days on a fully stocked tropical island with unlimited food, water, medicine, and entertainment (which somehow still continues to update despite everyone being dead), having furious, animalistic threesomes with Krista Allen and Yvonne Strahovski!
And due to the mysterious nature of this particular apocalypse, all of us will remain in our physical prime but will still eventually die of old age!
THE HORROR!

It would simply be a waste of time saving only 3 people.
Regardless of their race, sex or whether they are pregnant or not, there is not enough genetic diversity to enable to the human race to survive.
At the very least you would need at LEAST a dozen breeding pairs to provide enough genetic variance and many scientific viewpoints on this subject say you should have at least 20 pairs.
So saving 3 people would be nothing but a lingering death sentence for those 3.
Humanity would still die.
It would just take a little longer.

I would save the lives of three of the happiest hermits, for obvious reasons.
Or I would choose a top historian, scientist, and artist.
I wouldn't try to find the absolute best – I would look for a mixture of brilliance and resilience.
This is because it would take a lot to have the will to not only live but continue working under such circumstances.
The historian would write what happened, the scientist would conserve important specimens, and the artist would express the zeitgeist of the apocalypse.
Hopefully their works would be entertaining for future aliens.
One thing I wouldn't do is ask women to turn themselves into perpetual baby machines for the rest of their lives (most likely very short lives, due to the probable lack of medical care).
No need for such selfless suffering when the world is better off without humanity anyway, environmentally speaking.

Hmmmmm
Well, I honestly am not sure what to do in this situation.
Sure, I guess it would be interesting to see this go over, what the Earth is like without anyone on it.
I think I would save myself, if only to keep my dogs alive, from there I am not too sure…
Saving members of my family seems like a futile effort, the depression would probably leave them to commit suicide.
Maybe I’d save a couple people I like to talk to?
I’m not sure, I feel like surviving may be worse than dying for a lot of people.
I suppose what I could do as an individual is keep all the animals in my town alive, or at least a decent portion of them.
I suppose I could do the generic thing and save three smart female individuals for reproduction purposes, but it seems futile as well.
I honestly have no clue what to do in this situation, I don’t know who would want to be saved.
I say that I would want to walk around and experience the world alone above, but if the situation were to actually happen I would not live very long afterwards.
Maybe save an isolated family that already live by themselves? That could work.
Gives them some time and doesn’t really change their lifestyle.
I’ll go with that.

Three people isn't enough to repopulate the world, so I might as well pick a couple of people who I can enjoy my remaining time with.
(Yes, I'm picking myself as one survivor.
)
I'm not picking my kids, my wife, or any of my family, because living in this post humanity world is probably going to suck.
So I'm going to pick two women who I'm really attracted to.
They will both have to be sexually eager and willing, fairly young, athletic, intelligent, and witty.
One should be a doctor or have a strong medical background, to help keep us well.
The other should have a survivalist background with skills like farming, gardening, and animal husbandry.
I'd prefer one be partially Asian, as I'm attracted to Asian ladies.
The other can be any race, as long as she's pretty, athletic, and preferably petite.
Ideally, they both are bi-sexual too.
My thought is that we'll live somewhere tropical and have lots of sex for a while, until it gets to hard to live without modern conveniences anymore, then we'll off ourselves.

Something to consider when looking at the strict maths of repopulation are the 'grandmother effect' and the contraceptive effect of breast feeding.
Humans are unusual in that we often have members of our tribes who are females that have lived past their reproductive years (other animals have similar strategies but these are usually sisters of a single dominant female).
Grandmothers are experienced in childcare and can be a great help in raising their grandchildren while the mother rests or assists with the hundreds of activities that contribute to survival.
If we're talking about a civilization ending event then babies will of necessity be breast fed.
This tends to lower fertility.
In reality it will be more like 18 months on average between births.
So to answer the question from a purely repopulation point of view you're looking at one hunter/wide ranging forager, one gatherer/mother and one child carer (grandmother)/domestic worker.
Of course these will overlap.
On the face of it I don't think 3 will work.

I would save the smartest doctor and engineer and the most fearless, athletic soldier.
Depending on the danger level in the environment, I would make sure the doctor or engineer had some physical fitness and combat training.
Doctor for remedying illness, engineer for life sustaining technology (fire, electricity, shelter, farming, weaponry), and soldier to ward off environmental threats like wild animals.
The doctor and engineer would also have to double as educators since they are both more essential than a devoted teacher with secondary skills in either engineering or medicine.
Doctor and engineer are neither specialized, but both adaptive.
If the doctor and engineer worked in the military, that would be a huge plus.
I would also make it two men and one woman assuming environmental threats are high.
There can be a limit on procreation in order to protect the woman and the offspring.
This way you can have two men to protect the woman as she nurses her child.
On the other hand, you could also do two women and one man to accelerate procreation with less protection from the environment.
Arguably, you could also have three women if they salvage a sperm bank or something.
I would also likely not save myself since I am neither the smartest, strongest, or most skilled in these professions.
To do so would be morally unethical towards the survival of the human intelligence.

Updated: 07.07.2019 — 2:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *