The Economist magazine has disgustingly suggested that the union of first cousins might not be as detrimental as previously believed. The publication highlights this point in the context of an ongoing population decline in the United States, exacerbated by the current pandemic and declining birth rates. The article cites Robin Bennett, Director of Genetic Counseling at the University of Washington Department of Medicine, who states that the genetic risks associated with first-cousin marriages are minimal and similar to those presented by any other couple.
“The law against first-cousin marriage is a major form of discrimination,” says Bennett.
The Economist claims the Bible does not explicitly forbid relationships between cousins, and notes historical instances of such unions, including Charles Darwin, who married his first cousin in 1839. It concedes, however:
“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.”
Despite attempting genetic reassurances, The Economist recognizes the cultural taboo in Western society. Due to the social awkwardness of such familial dynamics, many couples involved in consanguineous relationships reportedly choose not to disclose their situation.
“Yet despite the fairly low genetic risk for most couples, the “ick” factor prevails in Western culture,” it says.
