Incest Is Best? The Economist Says Copulating-Cousins Cool "In Most Cases"
With America facing population collapse thanks to a pandemic which compounded already-shrinking birth rates, petrified young men who don't want to get #MeToo'd for trying to get past 1st base, and record numbers of young Americans identifying as anything but heterosexual, The Economist wants you to know that it's "probably fine" to bang your cousin, which they also note is "illegal in 25 American states."
After a dig at Kentucky for a 'quickly withdrawn' proposal to remove "first cousin" from the state list of incestuous family relations, the article goes on to 'ackshually' explain that the risk of genetic mutations among the offspring of first cousins is 'greater' than non-incest relations, however 'the increase is quite small.'
Justifying 'kissing cousins' further, The Economist suggests that it's unfair to prevent incest because "Many other couples face far higher risks of genetic complications for their offspring, and those unions are not banned," such as people with recessive genes for certain disorders, such as sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, their offspring has a 25% chance of being born with that disorder, "Yet those marriages are allowed."
"The law against first-cousin marriage is a major form of discrimination," said University of Washington Department of Medicine Director of Genetic Counseling, Robin Bennett (M.S., CGC, (she/her)).
According to Bennett, "the risks are very low and not much different than for any other couple."
The Economist then goes on to let us know that 'the Bible does not directly ban sexual relations between cousins,' ("how else would all of mankind have descended from Adam and Eve?" they write), though "The Roman Catholic Church did later prohibit first cousins from marrying, though exceptions were made for a fee."
That said, there are limits, even for The Economist...
Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary biology, who married his first cousin in 1839, was reportedly conflicted about his own arrangement. The Darwins had ten children, but three of them died during childhood and three of his surviving children never had any offspring with their spouses. Some historians surmise that the children suffered from genetic abnormalities due to their parents being closely related—the families of Darwin and his wife had a long history of intermarriage.
Yet despite the fairly low genetic risk for most couples, the “ick” factor prevails in Western culture. The family dynamics can be difficult to explain to others. Many consanguineous couples choose to keep quiet, says Ms Bennett. For this reason it is difficult to know how many of these couples exist in America. -The Economist
Maybe the plan is to either get people banging their cousins, or keep the border open while praising Biden's amazing 'jobs recovery'?
NEW - The United States has just undergone its most substantial one-year population increase in history, with growth exceeding 3.8 million people in 2023, primarily attributed to illegal immigration, according to a recent report by John Burns Research and Consulting.
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) February 17, 2024
Under… pic.twitter.com/2BRANQUrPF
Also 'probably' just fine?