...were the only survivors, would you have "relations" with your family to create a new race of people? Family would include immediate along with cousins, aunts and uncles. Or would you rather have humans die off for good?
2007-12-13 20:30:55 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Naw , let the race die off. The thought of most of my "family" trying to rebuilt the world almost makes me sick.
2007-12-13 20:39:41 · answer #1 · answered by Carl P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a strange question? Are you attracted to a family member and need to justify it?
Even if your family was to only humans to survive. They wouldn't be able to re-populate the world as they would be genetically similar. The third inbred generation would be so retarded and de formed.
Their is no chance of it surviving if it depended on only on family.
2007-12-13 21:06:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I can understand how you would ask this. You've never seen my family. I'm the best looking and still not much to shout about. i would rather see the species die.
2007-12-13 20:35:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the race would have to die.
Unfortunately, consanguinity (too closely related) can produce genetic drift and mutations. Look what it did to kENTUCKY...(and Texas, for that matter)
2007-12-13 20:52:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Die off -then you can solve" the great mystery"
2007-12-13 20:38:05 · answer #5 · answered by bill 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We cross the bridge when we are already there.
2007-12-13 20:37:02 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
hmmm. i think we would just die off!
2007-12-14 00:03:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not the uncles, that would be gay.
2007-12-13 20:38:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋