Similarly: we all come from an unbroken line of people who had children.
It may be that throughout history not having kids is common. Gay people who never had children may have been common. Ugly, poor or unpleasant people who never managed to find a partner may have been common. Asexual people may have been common.
Straight people who had sex but never had kids were probably not common, just because good contraception wasn’t available.
Still, if you’re a person who, for whatever reason, is not going to have kids, none of your direct ancestors can understand that life.
A bloodline ending is also probably incredibly common. But, not once in our direct ancestors has a bloodline ever ended.
That’s actually one of the things that got me thinking about this. My family has a tradition that the first born son always gets a certain first name. My dad’s the third-born male, so he didn’t get the name, and didn’t pass it down to me. But, his oldest brother did, so it’s my cousin’s name.
My cousin’s probably not going to have kids. Or, if he does, they’d be happy little accidents who aren’t part of the family and don’t get the first-born-son name. So that name and that tradition dies with him. It’s a bit unfortunate because over time that first name has become less common and I like the name. So, for the first time in centuries(?) there won’t be someone with that name.
I thought about it a bit, and realized, it’s probably actually fairly common. When you’re the end of a chain like that, you might feel pressured because everybody before you had carried on the tradition and passed on the name. However, that has to be the case, because if your father or grandfather had failed to pass on the name, you wouldn’t be around to see it.
There are probably “bloodlines” ending all the time. But if you’re part of a “bloodline”, it probably feels like a big deal because everybody until you has ensured it survived.
(Having said that, “bloodlines” are a dumb concept, since each parent provides about 50% of the DNA. So, even if you’re a “Trey” and share the same name with your dad and grandfather, you only share half your DNA with your dad and a quarter with your grandfather. In a sense, you could say that the strength of every bloodline is cut in half with every generation. That is, unless you’re breeding with blood relatives, and then the bloodline may be strong, but the genetic disorders are even stronger.)
I don’t know what a selfish gene is and I cba to read a textbook right now, but IF you really want to take this seriously, a recessive gene is enough to make the statement untrue.
I do however suspect that this joke law was meant as a joke.
Similarly: we all come from an unbroken line of people who had children.
It may be that throughout history not having kids is common. Gay people who never had children may have been common. Ugly, poor or unpleasant people who never managed to find a partner may have been common. Asexual people may have been common.
Straight people who had sex but never had kids were probably not common, just because good contraception wasn’t available.
Still, if you’re a person who, for whatever reason, is not going to have kids, none of your direct ancestors can understand that life.
My bloodline ends with me, and everything ive ever done has culminated in this exact moment (at time of writing)
A bloodline ending is also probably incredibly common. But, not once in our direct ancestors has a bloodline ever ended.
That’s actually one of the things that got me thinking about this. My family has a tradition that the first born son always gets a certain first name. My dad’s the third-born male, so he didn’t get the name, and didn’t pass it down to me. But, his oldest brother did, so it’s my cousin’s name.
My cousin’s probably not going to have kids. Or, if he does, they’d be happy little accidents who aren’t part of the family and don’t get the first-born-son name. So that name and that tradition dies with him. It’s a bit unfortunate because over time that first name has become less common and I like the name. So, for the first time in centuries(?) there won’t be someone with that name.
I thought about it a bit, and realized, it’s probably actually fairly common. When you’re the end of a chain like that, you might feel pressured because everybody before you had carried on the tradition and passed on the name. However, that has to be the case, because if your father or grandfather had failed to pass on the name, you wouldn’t be around to see it.
There are probably “bloodlines” ending all the time. But if you’re part of a “bloodline”, it probably feels like a big deal because everybody until you has ensured it survived.
(Having said that, “bloodlines” are a dumb concept, since each parent provides about 50% of the DNA. So, even if you’re a “Trey” and share the same name with your dad and grandfather, you only share half your DNA with your dad and a quarter with your grandfather. In a sense, you could say that the strength of every bloodline is cut in half with every generation. That is, unless you’re breeding with blood relatives, and then the bloodline may be strong, but the genetic disorders are even stronger.)
First law of socio-genetics: Celibacy is not hereditary
From some book of Murphy’s laws I found at home as a kid and fell in love with
Not necessarily accurate, though.
See selfish genes (ideally from someone other than Dawkins), and gay uncle hypothesis.
I don’t know what a selfish gene is and I cba to read a textbook right now, but IF you really want to take this seriously, a recessive gene is enough to make the statement untrue.
I do however suspect that this joke law was meant as a joke.
Also the unfortunate truth of rape. Rapists aren’t exactly picky