Eh. I discovered that a married couple I know are first cousins, and have two very normal kids, so I looked into it.
From a genetics stand point, the risk of inbred related health risks are pretty negligible. I think it basically doubled the risk, on very small chances to begin with.
Yeah, it’s still kind of weird and rude to talk about.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the age portion of this law is the creepy part. It was my own bias that made the first cousins part weird. As others mentioned, it was pretty common for our tribal ancestors.
It’s pretty common still in multiple countries and in some migrant subcultures living in other countries. The consequences over multiple generations are not pretty.
Imo it’s still a bad idea to allow it. Even between first cousins of a family without a history of inbreeding, doubling the chance of genetic disorders is not nothing. Scale it up to many people doing it and it becomes a heavy burden on healthcare systems. And in countries with socialized healthcare, it’s not really fair that everyone has to contribute more to healthcare because some people want to defy genetics. Imo again.
You’re spot on. The average risk of some genetic issue occurring in a standard pregnancy is about 3%, and the average risk between 3rd degree relatives, such as first cousins, is about 6%. I used to be a genetic counselor, and I’d seen a few first cousin cases, and even a case of double-first cousins, which was a higher risk, but still not as high as the much more run-of-the-mill scenario of a couple both being carriers of any given recessive genetic condition. People freak out about it because of the jokes about inbred families, but the much bigger issue with it is the power dynamic, especially concerning age. When you hear incest, you shouldn’t be worried about kids with 6 toes, you should be worried about rape.
Eh. I discovered that a married couple I know are first cousins, and have two very normal kids, so I looked into it.
From a genetics stand point, the risk of inbred related health risks are pretty negligible. I think it basically doubled the risk, on very small chances to begin with.
Yeah, it’s still kind of weird and rude to talk about.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the age portion of this law is the creepy part. It was my own bias that made the first cousins part weird. As others mentioned, it was pretty common for our tribal ancestors.
It’s pretty common still in multiple countries and in some migrant subcultures living in other countries. The consequences over multiple generations are not pretty.
An article with examples: https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-cousin-marriages-create-high-risk-of-genetic-disorders/a-60687452
Imo it’s still a bad idea to allow it. Even between first cousins of a family without a history of inbreeding, doubling the chance of genetic disorders is not nothing. Scale it up to many people doing it and it becomes a heavy burden on healthcare systems. And in countries with socialized healthcare, it’s not really fair that everyone has to contribute more to healthcare because some people want to defy genetics. Imo again.
You’re spot on. The average risk of some genetic issue occurring in a standard pregnancy is about 3%, and the average risk between 3rd degree relatives, such as first cousins, is about 6%. I used to be a genetic counselor, and I’d seen a few first cousin cases, and even a case of double-first cousins, which was a higher risk, but still not as high as the much more run-of-the-mill scenario of a couple both being carriers of any given recessive genetic condition. People freak out about it because of the jokes about inbred families, but the much bigger issue with it is the power dynamic, especially concerning age. When you hear incest, you shouldn’t be worried about kids with 6 toes, you should be worried about rape.
Maybe things that are ok in a small tribal village shouldn’t necessarily be in a larger interconnected modern civilization
“Discovered” and no source to your claims… I don’t think so, Rudy.