Meow

I really must learn to check thread titles!

Miss Anne Thrope

Nothing explains Chelsea fans...

scrubbedexpat141

That shit's fascinating.

Cypselos

This has been perfectly normal for much of human history. Like most things, normal and desirable aren't necessarily the same, but the problem with it from a genetic standpoint is that in the modern era it's much more likely that the unfortunates born with defects survive. In the past they didn't and the gene pool tended to work its issues out. IIRC this actually works better with brother-sister pairings than cousins where the genetic mix and potential for defects is bigger...

90% of human history took place in hunter-gatherer bands and tiny settlements where this sort of thing was inevitable

Beakersful

About a year or so ago I remember reading a news article with social workers going out into the South Asian communities in West Yorkshire to try and spread the message that repeated marriages with first cousins, generation after generation, were resulting in approximately 25% of children to these marriages being born disabled. Taken against the average for the country this was a major health issue that could not be avoided anymore. Whilst a perfectly legal situation, the law allowing originally it never assumed this situation would occur (pre-immigration) Therefore the families who are producing these disabled babies have to sit down, look at the evidence and make a personal choice to break the cycle and get some DNA into their family blood that will protect their lineage. It's a pure science decision in my view. Nothing to do with law, religion, family. It's not an extinction level threat, but 25% disabled.......action needs taking.

Alexa

Right, and now that everybody knows it is wrong and why, people are still doing it....ah well!

Bahtatboy

And how did the muggles get on?

Beakersful

It was a small piece, hidden in the centre of a paper. It was not front page news. It was a sensitive, 'politically correct' issue that perhaps no one wants to deal with because of the racial/cultural undertones. It was a year ago, I've heard nothing since.

I think we can all imagine given the the parties that exist in society just how far that campaign went.

Meow

Even setting aside the medical and scientific issues it's just vile. It may be legal but in my mind it is also incest, even if not the exact definition. Marrying and having sex with your cousin? Vile!

Boomhauer

I was wondering, since all humans are descended from a small band of hunter gatherers, the early humans had to inbreed and probably for tens of thousands of years afterwards?

Meow

I'm no biblical expert, but I understand that Adam & Eve had two sons. What happened next?

NorthernLad

The Hills Have Eyes or Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be compulsory viewing for school kids.

the_red_sheep

The theory is that a genetically viable population could grow from around 160 individuals - 80 men, 80 women - so they wouldn't have had to inbred for too long.

al dente

Now I am going to spend a happy hour planning the other 159 who should be included.

kittycat1

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Meow
Luckily this lot don't have the gene for methemoglobinemia which gives a person blue skin. It's a hereditary condition and the best known case is a family of blue people, the Fugates, in Kentucky many years ago. They married too close for a few generations so the odd rogue and generally dormant gene became stronger and there were quite a number of them with blue skin./QUOTE]

I thought that was a wind up so had to google it! and I found papa smurf!