I have quite a diverse mix in my history and even though my parents were born only a few miles from each other to the eyes of many the border between them should represent a country border not simply county.
There is a great deal national or local pride in many people which is often a positive thing. However there are limits to when this remains healthy, especially when the UK inbreeding capital isn't an isolated village in the back of beyond but a sub-urban area mere miles away from one of its largest cities. I suppose it means less seats needed for family gatherings.
Why is it important and what is wrong with keeping it in the family? Anyone with a pedigree pet will tell you the answer to this immediately, and if that's not enough take a really good look at the world monarchies.
Pets are inbred to the point that insuring them costs more because their health has been damaged in the name of perceived perfection. Similar to the effect of surgery on Katie Price, but the result is not as ugly on pets. Another similarity is the IQ or lack thereof. I think the sheer stupidity of most pedigree animals would be enough to double the risk of injury and therefore insurance, but the system of no sense no feeling prevails and they are usually either unharmed or too stupid to notice the damage.
In medical circles there is the term normal for Norfolk, NFN, which is sometimes used for patients with of an issue stemming from possible inbreeding, that they can’t suggest officially. If this was a joke it would be in poor taste, unfortunately in most cases doctors are more likely to be told off for upsetting someone who is the product of inbreeding, not the patients fault, than giving inadequate care because they aren't allowed to treat it as such unless conclusively proven.
The concept of areas known for inbreeding has given rise to a raft of insulting humour about some of it is enjoyed as much by those there as elsewhere, not sure if this is a good or bad sign.
'Heh, heh, Mum, Sis that was funny.'
'Table for 2 sir.'
'Need this many seats.' showing hands
'Sorry sir groups of 12 and above have to book in advance. And sheep aren't allowed in.'
Is genetic diversity ever a bad thing. Based on the Stan Lee comics it will pave the way for mutants to rage battles in defence of us mere mortals, and others impurity of blood, blue blood brigade. If reality is anything like some fear and cloning or genetic engineering becomes common we could either stall or divert diversity and therefore evolution itself. Messing with genes is something that will happen in the future, and has potential to prevent disease and improve our race. It also comes with immense risk not least of which the potential for generating humans who may not be able to breed naturally with all but a select few others. If diversity was to be taken out of nature’s hands it could be the making of us as a species or mean breaking us into various sub species. Class divides cause by financial affluence could in time become a new type of human if they could afford alterations the rest of us couldn't, giving new meaning to the term mixed marriage.
I find this sort of stuff interesting and sometimes amusing to think of because the science fiction writers have considered many things and scientists have sought to match a few of them. We deny change at our peril, but could the sheer act of diversifying ourselves scientifically lead to compulsory inbreeding by creating new species?
This has some serious topic in it, but it is intended to be at least a bit of a laugh too. If you have something to say that is serious, profound, funny, confused or just downright appalled please let me know.
It's always been my understanding that the risk associated with inbreeding is mutations. Mutations....a scant few of which are beneficial; the majority of which give you cancer and other such useless traits. That being the case, it's always been my understanding that sexual reproduction with a biologically "ideal" spouse (eg, not with uncle dad) would minimise mutations, both the functional ones and the many more dysfunctional ones. Evolution is spurred on by the survival of mutations. Put all these thoughts together in a blender with a dozen generations of "brotherly love," and I propose you'll get 1 wolverine and 100 hobgoblins.
ReplyDeleteWithout mutation we would be primordial soup, based on the process of evolution. We have been able to generate life in labs for decades by mixing the chemical ingredients and adding a bit of heat. Bit o an anti-climax considering how much we expected it to take to create life, it turned out to be the equivalent of put the ingredients in a bowl and chuck in in the oven on gas mark 5.
ReplyDeleteMutation is an abnormality in the genetic code this can be good or bad. One could cause cancer another make you virtually immune. Genetics is a study that is so new they are getting masses wrong and learning all of the time, that's what keeps it interesting to the terminally sad like me.
A biologically ideal spouse is where things get really weird. We are all born with at least some level of mutation, does that mean we need a partner with a matching mutation so making a perfect match or one without any matching mutations which could create new ones?
One mutation that has helped us. We have a block on generating muscles that could give us the type of bite forces that other apes have. By having this we have been able to be born soft skulled and continue having growing brains longer than any other animal. So being weaker in the mouth made us able to think more, not that you would always think it.
I take your Wolverine and raise you a big brained ape who decided that reality TV is intelligent use of time. Whatever mutation caused that proves the gene pool could use a little chlorine. At least someone invented the remote control first so we can switch over as soon as they threaten to show any.