Not what I was told. Type 1 was genetic, type 2 was diet related. I may be wrong, but why else would the diabetic history have been required on the health history?

2 of 5 in that generation (my mother, her sister and 3 brothers). I've never been diagnosed with type 1, nor type 2, but that has always weighed on me to manage my diet.

Yes. And as I said, on the personal level that is very hard to accept. But on a species level, it is necessary. I would not want my child to die from measles, but I had them as a child and did not die. I also had the chicken pox (itched liked hell, and I have pock marks to prove that I had them). But the reality is that by having same and surviving, my progeny are stronger than those who didn't suffer through them and survive and pass along genes that are not strong against those maladies.

This is a difficult issue, like many that involve medical implications that involve life. At a personal level, I think that it needs to be addressed. At the species level, it weakens the ability of us to survive long term.

I say that as one who suffers from "hay fever." I worked on my grandparent's dairy farm every summer from about 8 to 15. This deficiency is certainly a detriment to the gene pool of the species homo-sapiens. I'm happy not to have been eliminated prior to my creation, but am realistic enough to understand that passing along such tendencies to my progeny make them and their subsequent progeny less capable of success.

Do you suggest that diabetes is a condition that should be propagated?

Not at all.

It is more than type 2. My two uncles had type 1 and I was always checked for it, due to that.