= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
Should we use eugenic reasons forbid the marriage of women over 40 planing on having babies as well? The defect rate in children is the same just so you know. In the Western world most people are pretty out-bred, one generation of inbreeding does very little damage and very few Westerners will choose to marry their cousins generation after generation.
By “the Western world” you mean the Americas or some subset thereof? Because I doubt there's that much genetic diversity in, say, Iceland (and in Italy there are some small towns where one or two family names comprise the majority of the population).
The Western world. You need to keep in mind that inbreeding is the human norm. Europe, at least any part that was under Catholic influence for a few centuries is a massive outlier in its low rates of consanguineous marriage.
They might not marry close relatives (say, those with common ancestors from 200 years ago), but when it's customary to only marry people from your own town with a population of 1000, this means that lots of your ancestors from 500 years ago are your spouse's ancestors too, so you still share lots of genes.
Urbanization in the 19th and 20th century mean this is very seldom still the case. How many people live in such small towns? And those who more often find spouses via work or in the course of their education, which seldom takes place in such small towns.
In any case the defect rates for such towns are only very seldom a problem. A better point in your favour might be the relative close relatedness of say the Aksenazi Jews.