• Signtist@bookwyr.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Honestly, a family history of inbreeding doesn’t mean much for the individual so long as it’s not directly involved in their own birth. The issue with inbreeding is that every family has a few rare recessive conditions that simply don’t manifest because they’re rare enough to never be shared with the other families that they’re having kids with, but if 2 people from the same family have a kid, that kid is way more likely to end up with 2 broken copies of the gene and have the familial condition.

    However, even if your own parent has both broken copies, they can only pass 1 to you, and if your other parent is from another family, they likely won’t have the same condition, so they’ll pass you a working copy guaranteed and you’re good. It’s certainly not ideal, because it does concentrate the broken genes over time in a family if inbreeding continues, but a family history of inbreeding isn’t really much of a red flag health-wise if your own parents aren’t related.

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      In pre-colonial Australia, population numbers were so low, a lot of groups had to invent marriage laws to preserve genetic diversity. There are various “skin grouping systems” (it’s nothing to do with the colour of your skin) that say who you can marry, and the systems are designed to minimise cousin fucking and make you go travel to find a spouse so your clan will have plenty of fresh new genes and take good care of the old ones.

      First Australians had a better understanding of genetics than European royals thousands of years ago.