Incest

[Aceflyer]

I wouldn't characterize myself as a proponent of incest, by any means, but why do you think it is such a taboo in the developed world these days? After all, in (not so distant) history, incest was commonplace, accepted, and sometimes even expected and encouraged.

 

Discuss away!

[Samapico]

Because incest does these kind of things:

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/8568/8568.jpg

 

(Wow, I managed to put in 2 Harold & Kumar references in 2 World Discussion topics)

 

 

Besides, incest pretty much prevents evolution, I'd say... weak genes would be passed on because both parties would have the same. Which also explains, whether it be a myth or not, why incest can lead to malformed children. Basically, under normal cir!@#$%^&*stances, the baby would take stronger genes of both parents, so if one has some weak/weird genes, it's no big deal because they'll be overridden by the other parent's.

[SeVeR]

Of course they didn't understand evolution back in the times when the church had people executed for it. This seems to be one thing that the church got right in the end. Evolution and natural selection are hindered like Sama said.Another related issue is homosexuality which is also detrimental to evolution, although in this case the person doesn't choose their sexuality, and therefore the church was wrong to persecute them.

 

However, in this age of contraception, having sex with your sister and not producing a child is no more wrong than homosexuality if one thinks of it as a simple physical act. However, emotional attachments can be formed which could lead to a brother and sister selecting each-other as mates, and thus, buggering up evolution again.

[Aceflyer]

I am of course talking about consensual incest, and consensual incestuous relationships. One could argue that such relationships are no more wrong than a consensual homosexual relationship and no more preventable than homosexuality.

 

As far as the issue of children from a male-female (M/F) incestuous relationship (since yes, there exists the possibility of homosexual incestuous relationships...), yes, genetically, children from a M/F incestuous relationship have a higher chance of being afflicted with recessive diseases than children from non-incestuous relationships. However, children from a M/F Sub-Saharan African relationship have a higher chance of being afflicted with sickle-cell disease than children from non-Sub-Saharan African relationships. Other examples could be found. Should these relationships then be banned as well on the grounds of genetic concerns?

 

Overall, this enters a realm analogous to the abortion debate: at what objective point do you establish a line that can't be crossed?

 

Then you have the issue of childless relationships, as SeVeR has indicated. With a childless relationship, all genetic concerns about children from said relationship would be rendered moot. Would we start regulating which couples can have children, and which couples can't?

Edited September 26, 2008 by Aceflyer

[SeVeR]

It comes down to choice again.

 

People in Sub-Saharan Africa don't choose to have sickle-cell genes.

People don't choose to be homosexual.

People do choose whether or not to have sex with their family members.

 

That's what natural selection is about in a way. If it exists, even if it's counter-evolution, then nature still has a reason for it. People are homosexual because nature made them that way, and some people have sickle-cell genes in the same way. If you choose to mess with nature then you're at fault.

[Aceflyer]

It comes down to choice again.

 

People in Sub-Saharan Africa don't choose to have sickle-cell genes.

People don't choose to be homosexual.

People do choose whether or not to have sex with their family members.

 

People can't choose who they are attracted to, or who they fall in love with.

 

They can choose whether or not to have sex with their family members, but that would be like asking a homosexual person to abstain from having sex with another person of the same gender. In other words, it would be rather cruel.

 

That's what natural selection is about in a way. If it exists, even if it's counter-evolution, then nature still has a reason for it. People are homosexual because nature made them that way, and some people have sickle-cell genes in the same way. If you choose to mess with nature then you're at fault.

 

I think that just !@#$%^&*uming that all incestuous couples get together because and only because they want to "mess with nature" is unwarranted and illogical. By the same token you could say that if people with sickle-cell genes choose to get together and have children, they are messing with nature. If you accept that nature made some people homosexual and gave other people sickle-cell genes, then why can you not accept that nature made some people incestuous?

 

In fact, as is sometimes pointed out, incest originally arose from nature. Just look at asexual reproduction: the ultimate form of incest, breeding with yourself!

[SeVeR]

Maybe nature does have a reason for incest.

 

Incest can introduce mutations into a society that may become dominant through natural selection if the environment favours it. Webbed hands and feet may be favourable in a flooded world. I use here the same reasons for homosexuality. These extremes of human-interaction, that appear counter-evolutionary, exist in order to defeat the extremes of nature. Greater diversity is what favours natural selection, and by pushing natural selection to extremes through extreme environmental changes may require extreme diversity.

 

Thanks for the argument Ace, i think i agree.

[Aceflyer]

Thanks SeVeR.

[Bak]

Another related issue is homosexuality which is also detrimental to evolution

wat? by that argument worker bees are detrimental to evolution

[»Lynx]

As for incest being good because it could cause webbed hands and feet, which could be better for swimming - I think the answer to that one lies in that keyword 'could', as it's far more likely that an child born of incestuous parents could turn out with hemochromatosis, which is probably something that's a little less evolutionarily beneficial. I think that all the crazy eugenics research has proven that incest is probably a bad idea.

 

Now, as to whether we should 'allow' incestuous relationships? That's another ballgame completely. Is it illegal for a mother to smoke cigarettes or drink while pregnant (I think not, but I really can't be arsed to cite this) - this could ultimately also cause birth defects, premature birth and whatever else, however - it's not quite abortion. Abortion is purposefully 'killing' the child, however if a defected child is born - it's still born, and can still - by definition live it's life.

 

'Another related issue is homosexuality which is also detrimental to evolution'

 

However, an extreme would be that survival is more important than evolution - therefore, if somebody believed they'd live a more prosperous, comfortable or whatever life due to homosexuality, they'd choose to be homosexual. After all, this is a completely level-headed and fair argument, as no researcher has found (although I realise this doesn't mean they don't exist) any genetic or biological differences between homosexual and heterosexual people, so one could say that their environment modelled them to be homosexual.

 

'People can't choose who they are attracted to, or who they fall in love with.'

 

I beg to differ there. The only studies that would back that opinion would be attraction to natural smells, and looks. These are natural defences to prevent incestuous relationships, however, environmental differences can help sway these natural 'safeguards'.

 

'If you accept that nature made some people homosexual and gave other people sickle-cell genes, then why can you not accept that nature made some people incestuous?'

 

I don't accept that 'nature' makes people homosexual, as what I've already stated, no 'gay gene' has been found, although it has been disputed. Sickle cell, on the other hand, is quite different, and isn't completely evolutionarily detrimental. Sickle cell anaemia suffers are immune to malaria, which actually creates a survival value in carrying the genes. (Also, please bear mind to sickle cell trait)

 

I'm still quite a sceptic to people being genuinely attracted to their sister. The science just seems to point to many other conclusions than 'nature did it',,,

 

-Lynx

 

(Ps. I'm drunk and tired, so will edit later)

[»Purge]

Cleaned up off-topic posts.

 

Incest is useless because there is a world out there apart from your family.

[Machu]

Once, upon a time there were 2 siblings that !@#$%^&*ed each other.

 

They had a mutant baby.

 

It was only acceptable back then because they didn't know what we know now.

[Aceflyer]

Machu, you doth overexaggerate things.

[»Lynx]

Sounded pretty logical to me, if maybe a little harsh.

 

-Lynx

[rootbear75]

I just want to say:

 

For incest, think about dog breeding. Do you know how the hip-displacement or w/e its called happened? it was because of in-breeding among breeders of German Shepherds, and other dog breeds. If you have incestuous relationships often, and produce offspring from them, certain diseases will be commonplace.

[»Blocks]

Basically, under normal cir!@#$%^&*stances, the baby would take stronger genes of both parents, so if one has some weak/weird genes, it's no big deal because they'll be overridden by the other parent's.

Baby does not take. Baby gets. If you had two parents who were neither carriers for nor afflicted by any hereditary disease, their baby would not get a hereditary disease. However, random mutations are more likely to be passed on and expressed through repeated mating by related individuals.

 

Here's an interesting related read from Digg a while ago: I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Blocks

[Aceflyer]

Great article dude, thanks for sharing it with us Blocks.

[Dagger171]

Yeah, that was a very interestng article.

[Dav]

I should think that it was a taboo long before the church or modern genetics.

 

It was probably observed that small groups of humans whom did not mate outside of the family were more likely to become unwell, a probably scenario when man formed small hunter gatherer groups. This may have been interpreted as vengeance from god(s) for incest or a number of things.

 

The way of thinking would have been around when the bible was written and inserted.

 

Or at least this is my theory.

 

Now for the stuff I can say with cirtainty:

 

Please be careful of the traits you bring into this debate.

 

Sickle cell in Africa is actually a beneficial if you are a carrier (ie one good allele and one sickle allele) as it gives resistance to malaria. When you have two sickle cell alleles you suffer from the disease and die.

 

Also Cystic fibrosis carriers were thought to have a resistance to the black death, but again two bad copies gives disease.

 

The sort of things that occur through insect are the diseases that have no benefit to carry the gene, and they occur because as mutations ac!@#$%^&*ulate in a population they are not being diluted by the input other populations who have good copies of the same gene.

 

It is well worth noteing that one round of insest probably will not cause horribale mutations to surface, it usually takes multiple generations for the effects to be seen.

[Hate The Fake]

i see your

 

Here's an interesting related read from Digg a while ago: I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty.

 

and raise you http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.ph...ight=sex+sister

[Aceflyer]

i see your

 

Here's an interesting related read from Digg a while ago: I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty.

 

and raise you http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.ph...ight=sex+sister

 

Jesus. That was a long read.

[CRe]

I would never do any of my siblings or relatives.

[Hate The Fake]

i see your

 

Here's an interesting related read from Digg a while ago: I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty.

 

and raise you http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.ph...ight=sex+sister

 

Jesus. That was a long read.

 

yea it was one of the greatest threads, along with the bjs and tongue rings thread