However, it made me wonder what brought out such a judgmental reaction to the union of two people. My first suspect, as with most things, biology. Research has shown that there are increased risk of genetic defects amongst children of cousins. Nature likes at least a little diversity when it comes to the coming together of two gene pools. Perhaps this knowledge is ingrained in us and thus the reaction to two cousins marrying each other. We are reacting not to the union as such, but to the health risk to the next generation. We are biased because of our concern for the well being of the collective next generation.
This bias, however, is based on at least two assumptions. The first being that this couple will have children. This is not true in today's generation and certainly not in Europe and Japan, where there is a growing population of couples who don't have and don't want kids. It is strange then to assume that it is natural that these cousins will have kids. Allow me, for a moment, to debunk that argument by saying that we are talking about a reaction that is ingrained in us over thousands if not millions of years. Marriages without the explicit purpose of procreation is a recent phenomena, so we haven't unlearned that reaction just yet. As far as our nature and generalizations go, it is a safe assumption that these cousins will have kids. Let's go with that argument, for now.
The second assumption is that the risk to the children of cousins is high. As this article points out "the risk of serious genetic defects like spina bifida and cystic fibrosis in the children of first cousins indeed exists but that it is rather small, 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points higher than for children of unrelated parents". What is even more interesting is that this same article also mentions that the risk of birth defects is the same as in women giving birth in their early 40s.
Think however to the news of your 40 year old friend who is going to have a baby. It is most likely something like "Oh I am so happy for you". OK maybe I am comparing apples to oranges here. If this cousin couple were having a baby, maybe I would have the same reaction "Congrats, I am so happy for you". How about a friend wanting to focus on her career for a few years before having kids? Surely, as far as kids go, that is more like the decision for cousins to marry each other. It is a bit of a stretch, but looking at the just the numbers, aren't both those decisions taking the same amount of risk? What is the reaction to a woman wanting to focus on her career? "Good for you". Some might even be concerned and offer a word of advice about the "right" time for everything, but nowhere near the reaction for cousins marrying each other.
Why hasn't nature ingrained the same reaction to two situations with the same amount of rsik ot the next generation? Maybe it is not biology after all. Perhaps the reaction is ingrained not by nature but by society and its norms. How much of how we react to situations is about how society perceives a situation and how it has taught us to react to them. Maybe if I grew up in a society where marrying cousins was acceptable, I wouldn't have had that reaction. Perception rather than objective evaluation dictates so much of our lives. I know I haven't made a solid case against society here, but you get the idea.
Makes you wonder though, how much of us is really objective and how much of us is trained by society to react a certain way, to think a certain way. What part, what percentage, of me embraces the world with open arms and sees it with eyes that don't judge? What part still runs on auto-pilot? Only more questions here, few answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment