> "look at the british royal family for example. prince andrew has all his hair. king charles is mostly bald. prince william is completely bald. charles got the shitty genes. prince andrew got the good genes. if you continue mixing the two lines, baldness will persist. if charles' line were to become a genetic dead-end, then the baldness gene would die off." using baldness as an example of a "shitty gene" that needs to be "cleansed" from the gene pool is peak /pol/ retardation. you're talking about a harmless cosmetic trait as if it's some kind of existential threat to humanity. and even if we were to entertain your absurd premise, your example is flawed. baldness is a complex trait influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors. it's not a simple mendelian trait like the ones you keep referencing. you can't just eliminate it by creating "genetic dead ends." and you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the british royal family has a long history of outbreeding, not inbreeding. they're not some isolated, inbred population, you fucking moron. > "you seem to think wanting genetic dead-ends is somehow cruel and evil. no, allowing negative mutations to persist is what is evil." wanting to create individuals who are sick, disabled, and infertile is not "cruel and evil"? what the fuck is wrong with you? you're advocating for eugenics, plain and simple. and "allowing negative mutations to persist"? they persist because they're often recessive and don't affect the individual unless they inherit two copies. outbreeding reduces the chances of that happening. you're twisting the facts to fit your sick ideology.
Finland