Shii Posted:

Recessive genes aren’t necessarily dangerous, thus the comma separating the two. Dangerous and/or recessive genes come to light when you re-introduce the same genes together over and over.

If all recessive genes were in fact dangerous, you wouldn’t need that extra adjective in the first place, so your given explanation doesn’t really justify the inclusion of the comma. That said, I don’t think your grammar is technically incorrect, but it certainly isn’t optimal. You’re talking about recessive genes that are dangerous; the comma is unnecessary. As a quick example, you might talk about a “large metal ball”, but not a “large, metal ball”. The descriptors are intended to work together, rather than independently, as your statement concerns genes which must be recessive to be considered dangerous within the context of your argument as a whole. Thus, separating the two words via comma isn’t needed, and is a bit distracting.

Back on topic, I realize that nine people isn’t going to result in an incredibly diverse gene pool to pull from. But if I’m going to make any motions whatsoever to rebuild humanity, I’d much rather give my group a few generations of genetic diversity, allowing plenty of time to scout for other survivors and further diversify the population. I reckon taking a few such precautions is ultimately better than resigning the future of the human race to inbreeding right off the bat, and it certainly isn’t any worse.