this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
646 points (98.2% liked)

Greentext

4591 readers
782 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gilarelli@jlai.lu 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Careful anon, that's how you get a Habsburg child

[–] EvilCartyen@feddit.dk 71 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I mean, probably not with a second cousin, unless you do it for hundreds of years. Greater risk of birth defects if you have children over 30.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah even first cousins are actually not that bad, biologically speaking, if it's only done for one (or probably even two?) generation.

AFAIK the risk is about the same as having a kid after 40.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yup, and AFAIK, it's legal in some areas to have kids with your first cousin.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably legal in more places than it's illegal

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It is, in fact, legal more places than not. Cousin marriage was extremely common for thousands of years. It only really started to drop off when people started owning cars and could meet people from further away. Most places still haven't changed their laws because the cultural change was so recent, and because it's low risk enough that it's not a serious concern if it's just once in a while rather than, say, medieval European royalty shenanigans.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To be honest though, there's always going to be a risk of birth defects if you're having more than 30 kids.

If you have them like 5 at a time, you'll probably get a pretty good crop before age sets in.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Having children after 40 greatly increases chances of birth defects, I can only imagine what happens after hundreds of years.

Hmm, we'll need to ask an elf...

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And at this point, with all of the toxins from food processing/preservatives and the plastics getting into our bodies, the added risk is probably negligible.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Got a rubber?"

"Nope, but I've got plenty of microplastics"

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Microplastic is stored in the balls

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's my theory this is what will be what wipes out humanity, not climate change.

[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

Slowing ourselves down this way may be for the best. We’re starting to see inverted population age (more older than younger) in some countries, so we’ll need to solve that structural problem at least.