Religions > Atheism > OT: "Intergenerational" marriages in the future (no, not "adult/child", but "adult/adult" of different generations)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2006 03:19:37 PM |
| Object: |
OT: "Intergenerational" marriages in the future (no, not "adult/child", but "adult/adult" of different generations) |
Yah, just to be clear, I'm talking about adult/adult relationships,
here. :-)
At some point in the future, if we're around long enough, our lifespans
will extend even more than they have now. Suppose we start to live a good,
healthy life for five- or even six-hundred years. At some point, we will have
reached the stage where we are no longer related enough to our living
descendants for genetic issues to be an issue. How many generations do you
suppose would need to be between an ancestor and their descendant for
reproduction between the two to pose no unacceptable risk of deformity to the
offspring?
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Inventor of the metal baseball bat. :-)
.
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Intergenerational" marriages in the future (no, not "adult/child", but "adult/adult" of different generations) |
14 Mar 2006 09:57:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:19:37 -0500, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
At some point in the future, if we're around long enough, our lifespans
will extend even more than they have now. Suppose we start to live a good,
healthy life for five- or even six-hundred years. At some point, we will have
reached the stage where we are no longer related enough to our living
descendants for genetic issues to be an issue. How many generations do you
suppose would need to be between an ancestor and their descendant for
reproduction between the two to pose no unacceptable risk of deformity to the
offspring?
If indeed at that point we are manipulating the human genome, I don't
think it will even be an issue and people will probably be plonked out
according to need or desire.
--
Novus Ordo Seclorum
MDCCLXXVI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Intergenerational" marriages in the future (no, not "adult/child", but "adult/adult" of different generations) |
14 Mar 2006 03:37:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:19:37 -0500, Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
Yah, just to be clear, I'm talking about adult/adult relationships,
here. :-)
At some point in the future, if we're around long enough, our lifespans
will extend even more than they have now. Suppose we start to live a good,
healthy life for five- or even six-hundred years. At some point, we will have
reached the stage where we are no longer related enough to our living
descendants for genetic issues to be an issue. How many generations do you
suppose would need to be between an ancestor and their descendant for
reproduction between the two to pose no unacceptable risk of deformity to the
offspring?
Another slight side-issue to it: One could be your descendant through multiple
intermediate descendants. So suppose they are related to you through this many
descendants:
1. Your great-great-great grandkid via your daughter's son's son's daughter;
2. Your great-great grandkid via your other daughter's daughter's son;
3. Your great-great-great-great grandkid via that same daughter's son's
daughter's daughter's son;
4. Your great-great-great-great-great-great grandkid via your son's son's
daughter's son's daughter's daughter's son's daughter.
There. Just how would you define how related they are to you? It isn't so hard
to figure out how many "greats" to use - the logical answer is to use the least
number of "greats" that apply through any given descendant. So this would be
youre great-great grandkid. But since they're related to you through so many
descendants, they're more related to you than someone who is only:
1. ...your great-great grandchild via your other daughter's son's daughter;
2. ...your great-great-great-great-great-great grandkid via your son's other
son's daughter's daughter's daughter's son's son's daughter.
The above is also your great-great grandchild, but they're less related to you
than the person described prior to that.
I'm going to coin a term, here - "bloodpaths". It describes the ancestral rout
from one person to one of their ancestors. A "bloodline" is much to
broad-reaching. "Bloodlines" are for describing families, a "bloodpath" is the
same thing but deals only with intermediaries directly connecting a given
ancestor/descentant pair.
In the above cases, each individual described shares one bloodpath to you in
which they are your great(x6) grandkid and your great(x2) grandkid, but one has
two other bloodpaths leading to you that should make you more genetically
related to them. Right? Or do I misunderstand?
Just curious... I think this will be it on this topic... Thanks... :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Inventor of the metal baseball bat. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
