Hypothetical maximum number of embryos from one woman?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I am working on a setting in which there are a very limited number of human females remaining, and the intent is to repopulate as quickly as possible. Given a modern level of medical technology, what is the maximum number of viable eggs that could be produced by one woman assuming she is somewhere around 25 years of age and reproductively healthy?



EDIT: Just realised I should clarify, in this setting there are artificial wombs available, so it is not a matter of how many pregnancies are possible, just how many eggs could be produced per woman for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation.










share|improve this question





















  • The question should be down-voted because the "harvest all eggs from the limited number of uteri" is such an obvious answer.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago










  • @RonJohn No, it isn't. If you read the question, you will notice that I have stated "given a modern level of medical technology". Thus far, no one has provided evidence that harvesting whole ovaries can be done given modern technology.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    #1 Have we been doing that by harvesting all the eggs at once? #2 Artificial wombs are not involved in the procedure of extraction. The question makes it clear that I want to know about using a modern level of medical technology in regards to extraction, regardless of what technology will subsequently be used to grow the embryos. #3 The title is not the question. The question is very clear that I am looking for a realistic answer to a hypothetical situation. I am not intending to actually do this.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Harvesting whole ovaries isn't the answer. The eggs have to ripen. We don't know how to do that.
    – Cyn
    35 mins ago






  • 1




    For your research, focus not on women undergoing fertility treatments but on women who donate (or sell) their eggs. Not all women using fertility treatments to increase egg production will have their eggs harvested for IVF or the like. So in those cases, you don't want maximum egg production. Also, women undergoing fertility treatments are more likely to be older and they will usually have diagnosed fertility issues. So, even with the same treatments, their egg production might be lower than that of a young healthy woman donating her eggs.
    – Cyn
    8 mins ago














up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I am working on a setting in which there are a very limited number of human females remaining, and the intent is to repopulate as quickly as possible. Given a modern level of medical technology, what is the maximum number of viable eggs that could be produced by one woman assuming she is somewhere around 25 years of age and reproductively healthy?



EDIT: Just realised I should clarify, in this setting there are artificial wombs available, so it is not a matter of how many pregnancies are possible, just how many eggs could be produced per woman for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation.










share|improve this question





















  • The question should be down-voted because the "harvest all eggs from the limited number of uteri" is such an obvious answer.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago










  • @RonJohn No, it isn't. If you read the question, you will notice that I have stated "given a modern level of medical technology". Thus far, no one has provided evidence that harvesting whole ovaries can be done given modern technology.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    #1 Have we been doing that by harvesting all the eggs at once? #2 Artificial wombs are not involved in the procedure of extraction. The question makes it clear that I want to know about using a modern level of medical technology in regards to extraction, regardless of what technology will subsequently be used to grow the embryos. #3 The title is not the question. The question is very clear that I am looking for a realistic answer to a hypothetical situation. I am not intending to actually do this.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Harvesting whole ovaries isn't the answer. The eggs have to ripen. We don't know how to do that.
    – Cyn
    35 mins ago






  • 1




    For your research, focus not on women undergoing fertility treatments but on women who donate (or sell) their eggs. Not all women using fertility treatments to increase egg production will have their eggs harvested for IVF or the like. So in those cases, you don't want maximum egg production. Also, women undergoing fertility treatments are more likely to be older and they will usually have diagnosed fertility issues. So, even with the same treatments, their egg production might be lower than that of a young healthy woman donating her eggs.
    – Cyn
    8 mins ago












up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











I am working on a setting in which there are a very limited number of human females remaining, and the intent is to repopulate as quickly as possible. Given a modern level of medical technology, what is the maximum number of viable eggs that could be produced by one woman assuming she is somewhere around 25 years of age and reproductively healthy?



EDIT: Just realised I should clarify, in this setting there are artificial wombs available, so it is not a matter of how many pregnancies are possible, just how many eggs could be produced per woman for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation.










share|improve this question













I am working on a setting in which there are a very limited number of human females remaining, and the intent is to repopulate as quickly as possible. Given a modern level of medical technology, what is the maximum number of viable eggs that could be produced by one woman assuming she is somewhere around 25 years of age and reproductively healthy?



EDIT: Just realised I should clarify, in this setting there are artificial wombs available, so it is not a matter of how many pregnancies are possible, just how many eggs could be produced per woman for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation.







humans reproduction






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









Arkenstein XII

956213




956213











  • The question should be down-voted because the "harvest all eggs from the limited number of uteri" is such an obvious answer.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago










  • @RonJohn No, it isn't. If you read the question, you will notice that I have stated "given a modern level of medical technology". Thus far, no one has provided evidence that harvesting whole ovaries can be done given modern technology.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    #1 Have we been doing that by harvesting all the eggs at once? #2 Artificial wombs are not involved in the procedure of extraction. The question makes it clear that I want to know about using a modern level of medical technology in regards to extraction, regardless of what technology will subsequently be used to grow the embryos. #3 The title is not the question. The question is very clear that I am looking for a realistic answer to a hypothetical situation. I am not intending to actually do this.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Harvesting whole ovaries isn't the answer. The eggs have to ripen. We don't know how to do that.
    – Cyn
    35 mins ago






  • 1




    For your research, focus not on women undergoing fertility treatments but on women who donate (or sell) their eggs. Not all women using fertility treatments to increase egg production will have their eggs harvested for IVF or the like. So in those cases, you don't want maximum egg production. Also, women undergoing fertility treatments are more likely to be older and they will usually have diagnosed fertility issues. So, even with the same treatments, their egg production might be lower than that of a young healthy woman donating her eggs.
    – Cyn
    8 mins ago
















  • The question should be down-voted because the "harvest all eggs from the limited number of uteri" is such an obvious answer.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago










  • @RonJohn No, it isn't. If you read the question, you will notice that I have stated "given a modern level of medical technology". Thus far, no one has provided evidence that harvesting whole ovaries can be done given modern technology.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    #1 Have we been doing that by harvesting all the eggs at once? #2 Artificial wombs are not involved in the procedure of extraction. The question makes it clear that I want to know about using a modern level of medical technology in regards to extraction, regardless of what technology will subsequently be used to grow the embryos. #3 The title is not the question. The question is very clear that I am looking for a realistic answer to a hypothetical situation. I am not intending to actually do this.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Harvesting whole ovaries isn't the answer. The eggs have to ripen. We don't know how to do that.
    – Cyn
    35 mins ago






  • 1




    For your research, focus not on women undergoing fertility treatments but on women who donate (or sell) their eggs. Not all women using fertility treatments to increase egg production will have their eggs harvested for IVF or the like. So in those cases, you don't want maximum egg production. Also, women undergoing fertility treatments are more likely to be older and they will usually have diagnosed fertility issues. So, even with the same treatments, their egg production might be lower than that of a young healthy woman donating her eggs.
    – Cyn
    8 mins ago















The question should be down-voted because the "harvest all eggs from the limited number of uteri" is such an obvious answer.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago




The question should be down-voted because the "harvest all eggs from the limited number of uteri" is such an obvious answer.
– RonJohn
1 hour ago












@RonJohn No, it isn't. If you read the question, you will notice that I have stated "given a modern level of medical technology". Thus far, no one has provided evidence that harvesting whole ovaries can be done given modern technology.
– Arkenstein XII
1 hour ago




@RonJohn No, it isn't. If you read the question, you will notice that I have stated "given a modern level of medical technology". Thus far, no one has provided evidence that harvesting whole ovaries can be done given modern technology.
– Arkenstein XII
1 hour ago




1




1




#1 Have we been doing that by harvesting all the eggs at once? #2 Artificial wombs are not involved in the procedure of extraction. The question makes it clear that I want to know about using a modern level of medical technology in regards to extraction, regardless of what technology will subsequently be used to grow the embryos. #3 The title is not the question. The question is very clear that I am looking for a realistic answer to a hypothetical situation. I am not intending to actually do this.
– Arkenstein XII
1 hour ago




#1 Have we been doing that by harvesting all the eggs at once? #2 Artificial wombs are not involved in the procedure of extraction. The question makes it clear that I want to know about using a modern level of medical technology in regards to extraction, regardless of what technology will subsequently be used to grow the embryos. #3 The title is not the question. The question is very clear that I am looking for a realistic answer to a hypothetical situation. I am not intending to actually do this.
– Arkenstein XII
1 hour ago




1




1




Harvesting whole ovaries isn't the answer. The eggs have to ripen. We don't know how to do that.
– Cyn
35 mins ago




Harvesting whole ovaries isn't the answer. The eggs have to ripen. We don't know how to do that.
– Cyn
35 mins ago




1




1




For your research, focus not on women undergoing fertility treatments but on women who donate (or sell) their eggs. Not all women using fertility treatments to increase egg production will have their eggs harvested for IVF or the like. So in those cases, you don't want maximum egg production. Also, women undergoing fertility treatments are more likely to be older and they will usually have diagnosed fertility issues. So, even with the same treatments, their egg production might be lower than that of a young healthy woman donating her eggs.
– Cyn
8 mins ago




For your research, focus not on women undergoing fertility treatments but on women who donate (or sell) their eggs. Not all women using fertility treatments to increase egg production will have their eggs harvested for IVF or the like. So in those cases, you don't want maximum egg production. Also, women undergoing fertility treatments are more likely to be older and they will usually have diagnosed fertility issues. So, even with the same treatments, their egg production might be lower than that of a young healthy woman donating her eggs.
– Cyn
8 mins ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













260,000 embryos

Remember, women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have, and they don't make any new eggs during their lifetime. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty.



If you were to extract all those eggs at a young age, and had some kind of artificial womb to grow the babies, then you could have a lot of babies.



Now, if you waited till she was 25 to harvest the eggs, then it's going to be a lot less.



11,000 a month till age 12 = 1,584,000.

Then 1000 a month from 12 to 25 = 156,000.

So you are looking at around 260,000, give or take a few.






share|improve this answer






















  • I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago










  • @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
    – AndyD273
    1 hour ago










  • While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
    – Aaron
    38 mins ago

















up vote
2
down vote













https://www.rogelcancercenter.org/fertility-preservation/for-female-patients/normal-ovarian-function



You start with about 1 million eggs at birth but these decline per month. At puberty you have about 300.000 eggs left. In the 30 to 40 years after puberty these are also depleted. This means at a "worst case" you lose about 10.000 eggs per year, assuming puberty for women starts around 12 years (again keeping it low for a worst case scenario) you would have 170.000 eggs remaining.



So given enough artificial wombs, you harvest the entire ovaries and use techniques to have a 100% success rate if maturing and infecti... I mean fertilising the eggs with male DNA, you would have a pretty awesome growth.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago







  • 1




    @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
    – Willk
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago

















up vote
2
down vote













Recent research has suggested that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that people can generate new eggs within their bodies that were not in there when they were born.



On the other hand, some other smart people have looked at the research and the evidence and remain quite dubious.



On the gripping hand, I don't see any data on the rate of egg creation, which is sort of what your specific question requires, so you're still kind of on your own.






share|improve this answer




















  • gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
    – Willk
    1 hour ago










  • @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago

















up vote
0
down vote













Assuming a woman is fertile from age 13 to age 48, producing one egg per month, she can produce about $12 cdot 35 = 420$ eggs.



If you take her from age 25, this means about 276 eggs.






share|improve this answer




















  • My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
    – L.Dutch♦
    2 hours ago










  • That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago

















up vote
0
down vote













I wasn't sure if you could just take them all at once, but someone said in comment elsewhere that you cannot. I leave the route where you can below in case OP wants to go that way, especially since there is some advanced technology. But going the route where you cannot...



For each woman who wants to contribute to this, I will assume the slowest normal production of approximately 1 per month. In 10 years, that should lead to greater than 100 children. Approximately half of them are themselves female, and at approximately that time those new females can contribute as well. For each one of them who does, the same pattern continues.



So worst case scenario is that every decade the population multiplies by approximately 100. In 2 decades, that is a factor of 10000, 3 decades is 1 million, 4 decades is 100 million, 5 decades is 10 billion which is more than are on Earth today. And there will be no problem whatsoever with fertilization from males at this rate of population growth.



So a planet can be completely repopulated, at least by the numbers, in 1 person's lifetime.



But remember, that is from 1 starting woman who wants to contribute. For 100 starting, subtract 1 decade from the repopulation. Further, some people suggest that you should have tens of thousands of people minimum for a repopulation due to genetic diversity, so if you have that then subtract 2 decades. The planet has plenty of population in 2 decades, is fully repopulated (to today's level) in 3 decades. In 4+ decades it has a huge number.




Previous Answer (the fast track to full repopulation in 2 years)



My initial reaction was the same as in Andy's answer (though I did comment there about how I was not sure if you could just take them all at any time), but since your purpose is planetary repopulation you can go a step further.



  1. That is per woman, but only the women who contribute. Some might not.


  2. That is just the first generation of repopulation...


So you do your first generation of repopulation, and you have approximately (number_of_women * 100000) new people now, but approximately half of them will be female as well, so if this is the route you are going, in just 1 year you can do this again with females which possess even more eggs, on the order of a million.



I will assume for a moment that "a very limited number of human females remaining" is 10. Let us ignore genetic diversity for a moment, as this calculation is just to make a statement about population growth rate. So we have 10 females.



10 * 100000 = 1 million babies next year



Then you collect the eggs from the new females, approximately 500000 females at approximately 1 million eggs each...



500000 * 1 million = 500 billion new babies that year



So in only 2 years you have gone from a few humans to 500 billion; that is already 100 times more people than are on our planet today. And if you did the same thing again the next year, there would be... what's after a trillion again? Whatever, a huge number of people.



However!...



Those eggs need to be fertilized, so now you have to ask the same kind of question about males. They generate a lot of sperm all the time, and each 1 could fertilize a very lot of eggs, but not a million of them all at once. So you would need to fertilize them in large batches which would slow this all down a bit. However, this slower rate is still exponential crazy-super-high rate of population growth, and once again total repopulation would not take long at all.






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129517%2fhypothetical-maximum-number-of-embryos-from-one-woman%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    5
    down vote













    260,000 embryos

    Remember, women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have, and they don't make any new eggs during their lifetime. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty.



    If you were to extract all those eggs at a young age, and had some kind of artificial womb to grow the babies, then you could have a lot of babies.



    Now, if you waited till she was 25 to harvest the eggs, then it's going to be a lot less.



    11,000 a month till age 12 = 1,584,000.

    Then 1000 a month from 12 to 25 = 156,000.

    So you are looking at around 260,000, give or take a few.






    share|improve this answer






















    • I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago










    • @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
      – AndyD273
      1 hour ago










    • While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
      – Aaron
      38 mins ago














    up vote
    5
    down vote













    260,000 embryos

    Remember, women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have, and they don't make any new eggs during their lifetime. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty.



    If you were to extract all those eggs at a young age, and had some kind of artificial womb to grow the babies, then you could have a lot of babies.



    Now, if you waited till she was 25 to harvest the eggs, then it's going to be a lot less.



    11,000 a month till age 12 = 1,584,000.

    Then 1000 a month from 12 to 25 = 156,000.

    So you are looking at around 260,000, give or take a few.






    share|improve this answer






















    • I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago










    • @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
      – AndyD273
      1 hour ago










    • While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
      – Aaron
      38 mins ago












    up vote
    5
    down vote










    up vote
    5
    down vote









    260,000 embryos

    Remember, women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have, and they don't make any new eggs during their lifetime. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty.



    If you were to extract all those eggs at a young age, and had some kind of artificial womb to grow the babies, then you could have a lot of babies.



    Now, if you waited till she was 25 to harvest the eggs, then it's going to be a lot less.



    11,000 a month till age 12 = 1,584,000.

    Then 1000 a month from 12 to 25 = 156,000.

    So you are looking at around 260,000, give or take a few.






    share|improve this answer














    260,000 embryos

    Remember, women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have, and they don't make any new eggs during their lifetime. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty.



    If you were to extract all those eggs at a young age, and had some kind of artificial womb to grow the babies, then you could have a lot of babies.



    Now, if you waited till she was 25 to harvest the eggs, then it's going to be a lot less.



    11,000 a month till age 12 = 1,584,000.

    Then 1000 a month from 12 to 25 = 156,000.

    So you are looking at around 260,000, give or take a few.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 2 hours ago









    AndyD273

    29.9k253130




    29.9k253130











    • I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago










    • @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
      – AndyD273
      1 hour ago










    • While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
      – Aaron
      38 mins ago
















    • I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago










    • @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
      – AndyD273
      1 hour ago










    • While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
      – Aaron
      38 mins ago















    I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago




    I think you should edit the numbers in this answer. Looking at your own linked article the diagram for example shows a logarithmic scale that is already between 200.000 and 500.000 by the time they hit 18. The article lists this: "To recap, the average woman will have three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand eggs at the time of puberty.". The article then mentions that from puberty you lose 1000 eggs per month.
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago












    @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
    – AndyD273
    1 hour ago




    @Demigan they don't really specify what age puberty is i the article. I have heard that it is happening younger, but it's still a case by case basis. That being said, I missed the bit about 1000 eggs lost a month. so I can update that number.
    – AndyD273
    1 hour ago












    While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
    – Aaron
    38 mins ago




    While this was my first reaction as well when reading the question, another issue needs to be addressed, to which I do not know the answer: are they all ready and available for this at all times? When a doctor removes eggs for this purpose, can they just choose any at all, or is there some concept of egg maturity that needs to be taken into account? I assume that all could be taken and used, but I'm not sure.
    – Aaron
    38 mins ago










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    https://www.rogelcancercenter.org/fertility-preservation/for-female-patients/normal-ovarian-function



    You start with about 1 million eggs at birth but these decline per month. At puberty you have about 300.000 eggs left. In the 30 to 40 years after puberty these are also depleted. This means at a "worst case" you lose about 10.000 eggs per year, assuming puberty for women starts around 12 years (again keeping it low for a worst case scenario) you would have 170.000 eggs remaining.



    So given enough artificial wombs, you harvest the entire ovaries and use techniques to have a 100% success rate if maturing and infecti... I mean fertilising the eggs with male DNA, you would have a pretty awesome growth.






    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago







    • 1




      @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
      – Willk
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
      – RonJohn
      1 hour ago














    up vote
    2
    down vote













    https://www.rogelcancercenter.org/fertility-preservation/for-female-patients/normal-ovarian-function



    You start with about 1 million eggs at birth but these decline per month. At puberty you have about 300.000 eggs left. In the 30 to 40 years after puberty these are also depleted. This means at a "worst case" you lose about 10.000 eggs per year, assuming puberty for women starts around 12 years (again keeping it low for a worst case scenario) you would have 170.000 eggs remaining.



    So given enough artificial wombs, you harvest the entire ovaries and use techniques to have a 100% success rate if maturing and infecti... I mean fertilising the eggs with male DNA, you would have a pretty awesome growth.






    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago







    • 1




      @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
      – Willk
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
      – RonJohn
      1 hour ago












    up vote
    2
    down vote










    up vote
    2
    down vote









    https://www.rogelcancercenter.org/fertility-preservation/for-female-patients/normal-ovarian-function



    You start with about 1 million eggs at birth but these decline per month. At puberty you have about 300.000 eggs left. In the 30 to 40 years after puberty these are also depleted. This means at a "worst case" you lose about 10.000 eggs per year, assuming puberty for women starts around 12 years (again keeping it low for a worst case scenario) you would have 170.000 eggs remaining.



    So given enough artificial wombs, you harvest the entire ovaries and use techniques to have a 100% success rate if maturing and infecti... I mean fertilising the eggs with male DNA, you would have a pretty awesome growth.






    share|improve this answer












    https://www.rogelcancercenter.org/fertility-preservation/for-female-patients/normal-ovarian-function



    You start with about 1 million eggs at birth but these decline per month. At puberty you have about 300.000 eggs left. In the 30 to 40 years after puberty these are also depleted. This means at a "worst case" you lose about 10.000 eggs per year, assuming puberty for women starts around 12 years (again keeping it low for a worst case scenario) you would have 170.000 eggs remaining.



    So given enough artificial wombs, you harvest the entire ovaries and use techniques to have a 100% success rate if maturing and infecti... I mean fertilising the eggs with male DNA, you would have a pretty awesome growth.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    Demigan

    5,8911432




    5,8911432







    • 1




      This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago







    • 1




      @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
      – Willk
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
      – RonJohn
      1 hour ago












    • 1




      This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago







    • 1




      @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
      – Willk
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
      – Demigan
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
      – RonJohn
      1 hour ago







    1




    1




    This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago





    This assumes that the woman in question is willing to have her ovaries removed, which seems like it'd have health consequences for her? Also, is harvesting eggs from whole ovaries even possible given modern technology?
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago





    1




    1




    @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago




    @ArkensteinXII There's a limited number of females remaining, artificial wombs are available with apparently no limit to them as the question is about the amount of eggs available and harvesting is apparently possible as well. So I would guess that the women have little question in willingness, and considering the technology they could leave a portion of the ovaries or perhaps use a technique where they keep the Ovaries inside the womb but extract most of the eggs in several operation sessions (likely through endoscopic operations through the uterus, no sense cutting them open).
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago




    2




    2




    With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
    – Willk
    1 hour ago




    With current tech it is possible to harvest wedges of ovary, freeze them away, and later get out eggs and make babies with them. fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)32178-7/fulltext
    – Willk
    1 hour ago




    1




    1




    @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago




    @RonJohn I could change the answer but I don't think there's much point. The question is about the amount of eggs available, the answer lists the amount available. If the OP wants to give the women some choice in the matter that's his call and I think his choice on how much freedom those women get in his story.
    – Demigan
    1 hour ago




    1




    1




    This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago




    This is a good answer; don't change it. I was just emphasizing that willingness has nothing to do with it.
    – RonJohn
    1 hour ago










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Recent research has suggested that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that people can generate new eggs within their bodies that were not in there when they were born.



    On the other hand, some other smart people have looked at the research and the evidence and remain quite dubious.



    On the gripping hand, I don't see any data on the rate of egg creation, which is sort of what your specific question requires, so you're still kind of on your own.






    share|improve this answer




















    • gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
      – Willk
      1 hour ago










    • @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
      – Arkenstein XII
      1 hour ago














    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Recent research has suggested that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that people can generate new eggs within their bodies that were not in there when they were born.



    On the other hand, some other smart people have looked at the research and the evidence and remain quite dubious.



    On the gripping hand, I don't see any data on the rate of egg creation, which is sort of what your specific question requires, so you're still kind of on your own.






    share|improve this answer




















    • gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
      – Willk
      1 hour ago










    • @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
      – Arkenstein XII
      1 hour ago












    up vote
    2
    down vote










    up vote
    2
    down vote









    Recent research has suggested that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that people can generate new eggs within their bodies that were not in there when they were born.



    On the other hand, some other smart people have looked at the research and the evidence and remain quite dubious.



    On the gripping hand, I don't see any data on the rate of egg creation, which is sort of what your specific question requires, so you're still kind of on your own.






    share|improve this answer












    Recent research has suggested that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that people can generate new eggs within their bodies that were not in there when they were born.



    On the other hand, some other smart people have looked at the research and the evidence and remain quite dubious.



    On the gripping hand, I don't see any data on the rate of egg creation, which is sort of what your specific question requires, so you're still kind of on your own.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 1 hour ago









    Roger

    9708




    9708











    • gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
      – Willk
      1 hour ago










    • @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
      – Arkenstein XII
      1 hour ago
















    • gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
      – Willk
      1 hour ago










    • @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
      – Arkenstein XII
      1 hour ago















    gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
    – Willk
    1 hour ago




    gripping hand! nice, Heechee dude.
    – Willk
    1 hour ago












    @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago




    @Roger You're not wrong. The research I have done seems to indicate that the total number of eggs a woman has and whether new ones are produced are not relevant. Whatever the answers to those questions may be, the maximum number that can be medically extracted safely and given modern technology is going to be much lower than that. However, what that number would be given these technological and biological limitations continues to elude me.
    – Arkenstein XII
    1 hour ago










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Assuming a woman is fertile from age 13 to age 48, producing one egg per month, she can produce about $12 cdot 35 = 420$ eggs.



    If you take her from age 25, this means about 276 eggs.






    share|improve this answer




















    • My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago






    • 2




      @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
      – L.Dutch♦
      2 hours ago










    • That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago














    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Assuming a woman is fertile from age 13 to age 48, producing one egg per month, she can produce about $12 cdot 35 = 420$ eggs.



    If you take her from age 25, this means about 276 eggs.






    share|improve this answer




















    • My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago






    • 2




      @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
      – L.Dutch♦
      2 hours ago










    • That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago












    up vote
    0
    down vote










    up vote
    0
    down vote









    Assuming a woman is fertile from age 13 to age 48, producing one egg per month, she can produce about $12 cdot 35 = 420$ eggs.



    If you take her from age 25, this means about 276 eggs.






    share|improve this answer












    Assuming a woman is fertile from age 13 to age 48, producing one egg per month, she can produce about $12 cdot 35 = 420$ eggs.



    If you take her from age 25, this means about 276 eggs.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    L.Dutch♦

    67.4k20162318




    67.4k20162318











    • My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago






    • 2




      @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
      – L.Dutch♦
      2 hours ago










    • That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago
















    • My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago






    • 2




      @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
      – L.Dutch♦
      2 hours ago










    • That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
      – Arkenstein XII
      2 hours ago















    My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago




    My understanding is that there are modern IVF techniques that can induce the release of many more eggs, however I can't find any information on how many, or whether the technique can be done repeatedly. Hoping someone might know!
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago




    2




    2




    @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
    – L.Dutch♦
    2 hours ago




    @ArkensteinXII, if I recall correctly more than 10 in a single shot of hormonal stimulation is dangerous for the woman health
    – L.Dutch♦
    2 hours ago












    That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago




    That's good to know. Thanks! Any idea whether the hormonal stimulation has a limit on how many times it can be repeated?
    – Arkenstein XII
    2 hours ago










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I wasn't sure if you could just take them all at once, but someone said in comment elsewhere that you cannot. I leave the route where you can below in case OP wants to go that way, especially since there is some advanced technology. But going the route where you cannot...



    For each woman who wants to contribute to this, I will assume the slowest normal production of approximately 1 per month. In 10 years, that should lead to greater than 100 children. Approximately half of them are themselves female, and at approximately that time those new females can contribute as well. For each one of them who does, the same pattern continues.



    So worst case scenario is that every decade the population multiplies by approximately 100. In 2 decades, that is a factor of 10000, 3 decades is 1 million, 4 decades is 100 million, 5 decades is 10 billion which is more than are on Earth today. And there will be no problem whatsoever with fertilization from males at this rate of population growth.



    So a planet can be completely repopulated, at least by the numbers, in 1 person's lifetime.



    But remember, that is from 1 starting woman who wants to contribute. For 100 starting, subtract 1 decade from the repopulation. Further, some people suggest that you should have tens of thousands of people minimum for a repopulation due to genetic diversity, so if you have that then subtract 2 decades. The planet has plenty of population in 2 decades, is fully repopulated (to today's level) in 3 decades. In 4+ decades it has a huge number.




    Previous Answer (the fast track to full repopulation in 2 years)



    My initial reaction was the same as in Andy's answer (though I did comment there about how I was not sure if you could just take them all at any time), but since your purpose is planetary repopulation you can go a step further.



    1. That is per woman, but only the women who contribute. Some might not.


    2. That is just the first generation of repopulation...


    So you do your first generation of repopulation, and you have approximately (number_of_women * 100000) new people now, but approximately half of them will be female as well, so if this is the route you are going, in just 1 year you can do this again with females which possess even more eggs, on the order of a million.



    I will assume for a moment that "a very limited number of human females remaining" is 10. Let us ignore genetic diversity for a moment, as this calculation is just to make a statement about population growth rate. So we have 10 females.



    10 * 100000 = 1 million babies next year



    Then you collect the eggs from the new females, approximately 500000 females at approximately 1 million eggs each...



    500000 * 1 million = 500 billion new babies that year



    So in only 2 years you have gone from a few humans to 500 billion; that is already 100 times more people than are on our planet today. And if you did the same thing again the next year, there would be... what's after a trillion again? Whatever, a huge number of people.



    However!...



    Those eggs need to be fertilized, so now you have to ask the same kind of question about males. They generate a lot of sperm all the time, and each 1 could fertilize a very lot of eggs, but not a million of them all at once. So you would need to fertilize them in large batches which would slow this all down a bit. However, this slower rate is still exponential crazy-super-high rate of population growth, and once again total repopulation would not take long at all.






    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      I wasn't sure if you could just take them all at once, but someone said in comment elsewhere that you cannot. I leave the route where you can below in case OP wants to go that way, especially since there is some advanced technology. But going the route where you cannot...



      For each woman who wants to contribute to this, I will assume the slowest normal production of approximately 1 per month. In 10 years, that should lead to greater than 100 children. Approximately half of them are themselves female, and at approximately that time those new females can contribute as well. For each one of them who does, the same pattern continues.



      So worst case scenario is that every decade the population multiplies by approximately 100. In 2 decades, that is a factor of 10000, 3 decades is 1 million, 4 decades is 100 million, 5 decades is 10 billion which is more than are on Earth today. And there will be no problem whatsoever with fertilization from males at this rate of population growth.



      So a planet can be completely repopulated, at least by the numbers, in 1 person's lifetime.



      But remember, that is from 1 starting woman who wants to contribute. For 100 starting, subtract 1 decade from the repopulation. Further, some people suggest that you should have tens of thousands of people minimum for a repopulation due to genetic diversity, so if you have that then subtract 2 decades. The planet has plenty of population in 2 decades, is fully repopulated (to today's level) in 3 decades. In 4+ decades it has a huge number.




      Previous Answer (the fast track to full repopulation in 2 years)



      My initial reaction was the same as in Andy's answer (though I did comment there about how I was not sure if you could just take them all at any time), but since your purpose is planetary repopulation you can go a step further.



      1. That is per woman, but only the women who contribute. Some might not.


      2. That is just the first generation of repopulation...


      So you do your first generation of repopulation, and you have approximately (number_of_women * 100000) new people now, but approximately half of them will be female as well, so if this is the route you are going, in just 1 year you can do this again with females which possess even more eggs, on the order of a million.



      I will assume for a moment that "a very limited number of human females remaining" is 10. Let us ignore genetic diversity for a moment, as this calculation is just to make a statement about population growth rate. So we have 10 females.



      10 * 100000 = 1 million babies next year



      Then you collect the eggs from the new females, approximately 500000 females at approximately 1 million eggs each...



      500000 * 1 million = 500 billion new babies that year



      So in only 2 years you have gone from a few humans to 500 billion; that is already 100 times more people than are on our planet today. And if you did the same thing again the next year, there would be... what's after a trillion again? Whatever, a huge number of people.



      However!...



      Those eggs need to be fertilized, so now you have to ask the same kind of question about males. They generate a lot of sperm all the time, and each 1 could fertilize a very lot of eggs, but not a million of them all at once. So you would need to fertilize them in large batches which would slow this all down a bit. However, this slower rate is still exponential crazy-super-high rate of population growth, and once again total repopulation would not take long at all.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        I wasn't sure if you could just take them all at once, but someone said in comment elsewhere that you cannot. I leave the route where you can below in case OP wants to go that way, especially since there is some advanced technology. But going the route where you cannot...



        For each woman who wants to contribute to this, I will assume the slowest normal production of approximately 1 per month. In 10 years, that should lead to greater than 100 children. Approximately half of them are themselves female, and at approximately that time those new females can contribute as well. For each one of them who does, the same pattern continues.



        So worst case scenario is that every decade the population multiplies by approximately 100. In 2 decades, that is a factor of 10000, 3 decades is 1 million, 4 decades is 100 million, 5 decades is 10 billion which is more than are on Earth today. And there will be no problem whatsoever with fertilization from males at this rate of population growth.



        So a planet can be completely repopulated, at least by the numbers, in 1 person's lifetime.



        But remember, that is from 1 starting woman who wants to contribute. For 100 starting, subtract 1 decade from the repopulation. Further, some people suggest that you should have tens of thousands of people minimum for a repopulation due to genetic diversity, so if you have that then subtract 2 decades. The planet has plenty of population in 2 decades, is fully repopulated (to today's level) in 3 decades. In 4+ decades it has a huge number.




        Previous Answer (the fast track to full repopulation in 2 years)



        My initial reaction was the same as in Andy's answer (though I did comment there about how I was not sure if you could just take them all at any time), but since your purpose is planetary repopulation you can go a step further.



        1. That is per woman, but only the women who contribute. Some might not.


        2. That is just the first generation of repopulation...


        So you do your first generation of repopulation, and you have approximately (number_of_women * 100000) new people now, but approximately half of them will be female as well, so if this is the route you are going, in just 1 year you can do this again with females which possess even more eggs, on the order of a million.



        I will assume for a moment that "a very limited number of human females remaining" is 10. Let us ignore genetic diversity for a moment, as this calculation is just to make a statement about population growth rate. So we have 10 females.



        10 * 100000 = 1 million babies next year



        Then you collect the eggs from the new females, approximately 500000 females at approximately 1 million eggs each...



        500000 * 1 million = 500 billion new babies that year



        So in only 2 years you have gone from a few humans to 500 billion; that is already 100 times more people than are on our planet today. And if you did the same thing again the next year, there would be... what's after a trillion again? Whatever, a huge number of people.



        However!...



        Those eggs need to be fertilized, so now you have to ask the same kind of question about males. They generate a lot of sperm all the time, and each 1 could fertilize a very lot of eggs, but not a million of them all at once. So you would need to fertilize them in large batches which would slow this all down a bit. However, this slower rate is still exponential crazy-super-high rate of population growth, and once again total repopulation would not take long at all.






        share|improve this answer














        I wasn't sure if you could just take them all at once, but someone said in comment elsewhere that you cannot. I leave the route where you can below in case OP wants to go that way, especially since there is some advanced technology. But going the route where you cannot...



        For each woman who wants to contribute to this, I will assume the slowest normal production of approximately 1 per month. In 10 years, that should lead to greater than 100 children. Approximately half of them are themselves female, and at approximately that time those new females can contribute as well. For each one of them who does, the same pattern continues.



        So worst case scenario is that every decade the population multiplies by approximately 100. In 2 decades, that is a factor of 10000, 3 decades is 1 million, 4 decades is 100 million, 5 decades is 10 billion which is more than are on Earth today. And there will be no problem whatsoever with fertilization from males at this rate of population growth.



        So a planet can be completely repopulated, at least by the numbers, in 1 person's lifetime.



        But remember, that is from 1 starting woman who wants to contribute. For 100 starting, subtract 1 decade from the repopulation. Further, some people suggest that you should have tens of thousands of people minimum for a repopulation due to genetic diversity, so if you have that then subtract 2 decades. The planet has plenty of population in 2 decades, is fully repopulated (to today's level) in 3 decades. In 4+ decades it has a huge number.




        Previous Answer (the fast track to full repopulation in 2 years)



        My initial reaction was the same as in Andy's answer (though I did comment there about how I was not sure if you could just take them all at any time), but since your purpose is planetary repopulation you can go a step further.



        1. That is per woman, but only the women who contribute. Some might not.


        2. That is just the first generation of repopulation...


        So you do your first generation of repopulation, and you have approximately (number_of_women * 100000) new people now, but approximately half of them will be female as well, so if this is the route you are going, in just 1 year you can do this again with females which possess even more eggs, on the order of a million.



        I will assume for a moment that "a very limited number of human females remaining" is 10. Let us ignore genetic diversity for a moment, as this calculation is just to make a statement about population growth rate. So we have 10 females.



        10 * 100000 = 1 million babies next year



        Then you collect the eggs from the new females, approximately 500000 females at approximately 1 million eggs each...



        500000 * 1 million = 500 billion new babies that year



        So in only 2 years you have gone from a few humans to 500 billion; that is already 100 times more people than are on our planet today. And if you did the same thing again the next year, there would be... what's after a trillion again? Whatever, a huge number of people.



        However!...



        Those eggs need to be fertilized, so now you have to ask the same kind of question about males. They generate a lot of sperm all the time, and each 1 could fertilize a very lot of eggs, but not a million of them all at once. So you would need to fertilize them in large batches which would slow this all down a bit. However, this slower rate is still exponential crazy-super-high rate of population growth, and once again total repopulation would not take long at all.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 10 mins ago

























        answered 26 mins ago









        Aaron

        2,301518




        2,301518



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129517%2fhypothetical-maximum-number-of-embryos-from-one-woman%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?