[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Autoptic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Google "tubal ligation", "vasectomy", and "homosexuality".

I'll give you homosexuality.

The other two are very effective, but not 100%. Stuff grows back.

I suppose hysterectomy works, too, but that's usually a corrective medical procedure.

[Chopstinky]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Um... Sex leads to pregnancy. It's the evolutionary function of sex. While people engage in sex for reasons other than procreation, it is those other reasons that evolution has developed in us so that it will result in procreation. Even with our advanced science, we cannot prevent pregnancy completely when two people engage in sex. And the reason it is immoral is because our DNA needs to be mixed diversely when procreating to keep a healthy pool.

Our DNA is already mixed diversely. Humans are the ultimate in what's called scatter breeding. Our DNA can't be mixed anymore diversely. Keeping a healthy pool requires getting rid of unhealthy, weak individuals. That is how a pool is kept healthy, strong, and viable regardless of the type of breeding being done.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Chopstinky To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our DNA is already mixed diversely. Humans are the ultimate in what's called scatter breeding. Our DNA can't be mixed anymore diversely. Keeping a healthy pool requires getting rid of unhealthy, weak individuals. That is how a pool is kept healthy, strong, and viable regardless of the type of breeding being done.

And the reason we are mixed diversely is that, generally, we don't engage in incestual relationships.

And, given the number of genetic defect that are recessive out there, relationships of incest tend to produce children with these defects far more often.

[24601]

I had a really good conversation with my dad about regarding incest and cousins marrying; in our world today, many of us don't know our cousins at all. I wouldn't recognize most of mine if I met them on the street. There's only a slightly higher risk of children having genetic problems if first cousins marry, and in my opinion, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

When we're talking about parents who raised their children being in romantic relationships, or siblings who were raised together, whether we're talking about biological, adoptive, or step families, it's wrong. I rarely outright say something is wrong, but it's absolutely immoral, wrong, and disgusting. I'm a broad-minded person, but that's screwed up and just grosses me out.

However, in the case of siblings who were raised in different homes (like in the case of adoption, meet as adults, fall in love, and want to get married, I have no issue with that. Or, say that a thirteen year old girl has a son, places him for a closed adoption, and then twenty years later, that young man falls in love with the hottest cougar he's ever seen. I would advise against the couple having biological kids, not only for the genetic reasons, but also for how hard that would be on a kid mentally, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a relationship like that in and of itself.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And the reason it is immoral is because our DNA needs to be mixed diversely when procreating to keep a healthy pool.

Is it more moral to make a baby with a foreigner than with a guy who comes from the same village as you and with whom you probably have a few grand-grand-grand parents in common?

[Chopstinky]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And the reason we are mixed diversely is that, generally, we don't engage in incestual relationships. And, given the number of genetic defect that are recessive out there, relationships of incest tend to produce children with these defects far more often.

And given our diversity, that's exactly why the recessive defects wouldn't show up near as often as people are lead to believe. Defects show up all the time in the birth of infants, that's not something new. The number of defects wouldn't skyrocket due to some family members having kids together. That would only show up with any regularity in a concerted effort to lock in individual traits from the main DNA donor, whether it's mother or father. Inbreeding works the same in ALL animals regardless of human, dog, cow, etc.

Given that, you would have some people who are more apt to produce defects due to their own makeup, and you would have others that may not ever produce any defects. That is solely dependent on the genetic makeup of the individual not due to any incest.

I would also be willing to bet if you were to actually research actual children of incest as opposed to others, there wouldn't be any significant showing of defects from one group or the other. We would do well to remember that incest isn't specific to father/daughter or mother/son. Incest would be the breeding of any closely related humans by our human definition.

[Shadizar]

Given the premise of consent and contraceptives, there is nothing morally wrong with incest.

[curiousgeorge01]

As other people have mentioned here, the distaste is b/c of mutation possibility with offspring, and I believe studies have shown even with primates that when raised together, they don't mate. So there seems to be this innate sense NOT to do it and going against that seems unnatural/wrong.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As other people have mentioned here, the distaste is b/c of mutation possibility with offspring, and I believe studies have shown even with primates that when raised together, they don't mate. So there seems to be this innate sense NOT to do it and going against that seems unnatural/wrong.

Incest doesn't produce mutations, it just exposes potentially-otherwise-recessive genetic traits already present, which doesn't even require incest, and we are primates.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As other people have mentioned here, the distaste is b/c of mutation possibility with offspring, and I believe studies have shown even with primates that when raised together, they don't mate. So there seems to be this innate sense NOT to do it and going against that seems unnatural/wrong.

There are people who willingly engage in "incest", yet you point to nonhuman primates, "proving" the innateness of an instinct clearly not present in every human.

So: not all humans possess this sense. Some nonhuman primates do. Hence, it is innate in humans.

I almost choked on a Cheeto just now. You think this is a game?

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Autoptic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Incest doesn't produce mutations, it just exposes potentially-otherwise-recessive genetic traits already present, which doesn't even require incest, and we are primates.

Yes I know, just that mutations are more likely to occur with mating family members and that if primates are our closest biological relatives then it would be likely that that sense passes over to us.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are people who willingly engage in "incest". Yet you cite nonhuman primates, "proving" the innateness of an instinct clearly not present in every human.

We also have a big neo cortex and can will/rationalize away certain things. Not to mention humans seem to be more prone to various types of psychological disorders that pertains to the neo cortex.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes I know, just that mutations are more likely to occur with mating family members and that if primates are our closest biological relatives then it would be likely that that sense passes over to us.

No...

1) Breeding doesn't produce mutations. Incest has no effect on mutation rates. The genitals of relatives not a mutagenic agent.
2) Primates are anything in the order primates ("prahy-mey-teez"). The homo sapiens specie is in the order primates. We literally are primtes.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Autoptic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No... 1) Breeding doesn't produce mutations. Incest has no effect on mutation rates. The genitals of relatives not a mutagenic agent. 2) Primates are anything in the order primates ("prahy-mey-teez"). The homo sapiens specie is in the order primates. We literally are primtes.

Yes but don't those recessive genes produce those mutations?

Sorry, I used that word 'primates' generically to mean other primates outside of humans.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes but don't those recessive genes produce those mutations?

No, the genes are mutations. All genes are. Any good or bad genes were already present in the parents' reproductive organs prior to their mixing during conception. Recessive genes just need two copies: 1)to be expressed at all, 2)to increase the probability of expression, or 3)even just to increase the severity of expression. Incest just increases the chances of multiple copies of such genes. This actually includes positive or neutral genetically-recessive traits too. Just as there's "inbreeding depression", their's also something called
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
since certain packages of different genes might work better together. Mixing certain types of big cats, for instance, can produce incompatible physical and mental traits, so liger (lion-tiger hybrids) females get stuck with both strong social (lionesses) and isolationist (tigresses) psychological traits, which kinda fucks them up. Even populations of humans have been demonstrated to have useful groups of genes that outbreeding can scatter, ruining the effect. Also, Chopstinky's earlier point was the preexisting bad genes are simply revealed by incest, which might decrease their chances of spreading. It'd take forced inbreeding to reduce human genetic plurality/diversity. Massive forced inbreeding to affect the gene pool of any notable human population.

[Oros Ull]

Inbreeding just brings out the recessive genes, Good and bad. Claiming that you are automatically going to get a mutated offspring from inbreeding is no more valid then claiming you would get super powers.

All you’re doing on a genetic basis when inbreeding is reducing the diversity of genes that goes into the offspring. If there are bad genes in the source then the offspring will have a higher chance of obtaining them. But if you use a good pallet then you can just as easily improve the progeny. It’s entirely subjective to the genetic source (parents).

The only reason inbreeding is associated with degraded offspring is because the only people who reproduce this way outside of aristocracy are back woods rejects who are already the worst genetic stock. Otherwise it’s all royalty.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
/
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I wouldn’t be surprised if the Nobel families socially manipulate us into not doing it so we can’t produce superior offspring that can topple their regimes. It's a conspiracy!!!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Seriously though with today’s knowledge of genetics and the diversity of the whole world at ones finger tips I bet using inbreeding you could strain a whole new superior race of humans in just a few generations.

I realize how entirely unethical that seems. But it’s still fascinating in my opinion. And in the right light could be hugely beneficial to mankind in the long run.

Although I imagine if we were going to try that we would be doing it in a lab removing the taboo of incestuous sex. If that were the case is it still immoral?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I suppose we fall into the realm of ethics concerning human genetic manipulation blah blah blah… People are no fun…
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Oros Ull]

(Scientific Progress / Human Evolution) takes yet another right hook to its nerdy glass jaw from (Human Rights, Morals & Ethics / Fear of the Unknown).

Ho hum…
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 08-08-2012 at 04:35 PM ----------

7 Steps to Human Evolution
1. Devise system to breed them by
2. Collect genetic stock
3. Compete and test for genetic superiority
4. Strain for desirable DNA
5. Create superior genetic stock
6. Inseminate multiple segregate mothers
7. Produce 1st generation of the next evolution of man

And the quality of offspring would escalate depending on how much initial stock you use and how good you are at straining it.

It would be so easy given the advanced nature of our current resources; it’s painful.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And who knows how long that's going to last...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Autoptic]

8. Behold Gattica/Brave New World/etc.

[Oros Ull]

LOL!

It wouldn’t have to have anything to do with the current population though. It could just be the collection and straining of superior stock in a lab. Then the birth and eventual addition of new superior material to the gene pool. It wouldn’t even have to be invasive. Just a slow introduction of refined genetics into the source populace.

[teraczy]

I think that evolution and inbreeding aside, that incest is morally wrong because of the attachment styles and love relationships that are special for brothers and sisters. I think without this very specific sort of kinship bonding system between mother + children, father + children, and sibling + sibling, that something specific about the way we function as a species would become corrupt (more so than it already is, and is obviously digging itself even deeper as proof by this thread). Thus what I believe is that it is conscientiously and morally wrong to damage our mental health and ability to form relationships in this very distinguished style of human love bonding.

Need I remind you that you would be breeding with an individual that has 50 % of the same gene composition as yourself if you were to breed with your brother, sister, father, or mother.

[Luet]

Incest is not "wrong" except in the sense that, since the two parties have similar genetics, genetic variability is reduced, and the resulting child has a higher risk of certain diseases and genetic mutations, which are apparent in that family's blood-line. A prime example of this is Hemophilia in European Royalty, which was increased by incest. It makes sense that we are naturally repelled by it, since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

---------- Post added 08-09-2012 at 02:53 AM ----------

[kingfish]

Aside from the genetics (which could have just as increased a likelihood of producing desirable outcomes than undesirable) there are social aspects that once would have, and may still, come in to play.

Let us imagine that at some point in the past there were three tribal groups. One remains 'closed shop' and breeds within itself. The other two interbreed. With this would come an exchange of knowledge and positive connections between the two. Advancements can be made with the greater knowledge. Let us say that the closed shop tribe decide that they will attack either of the other two. The alliances formed between the other two tribes may well mean that they would fight together. Mothers would feel kinship with the other tribe who now has her daughter living with them. It is to their advantage to have forged these alliances. In times of hardship it is more likely that there will be greater care and co-operation between the tribes who mix as well, meaning that survival may well be more likely. You have greater human resources and knowledge upon which to draw when the alliances exist.

I suspect that there are still elements of this today that are socially advantageous and provide a reason as to why it is better to look beyond Aunty Jane or Brother Bill.

[Selene]

Originally Posted by teraczy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that evolution and inbreeding aside, that incest is morally wrong because of the attachment styles and love relationships that are special for brothers and sisters. I think without this very specific sort of kinship bonding system between mother + children, father + children, and sibling + sibling, that something specific about the way we function as a species would become corrupt (more so than it already is, and is obviously digging itself even deeper as proof by this thread). Thus what I believe is that it is conscientiously and morally wrong to damage our mental health and ability to form relationships in this very distinguished style of human love bonding. Need I remind you that you would be breeding with an individual that has 50 % of the same gene composition as yourself if you were to breed with your brother, sister, father, or mother.

OP’s question is one of sex between two consenting adults, it is as simple as that. OP is asking whether committing the sexual act itself is morally condemnable or acceptable. IMO the fact that outsiders want to bulldoze their way into value judging a private choice made between two independent, consenting, and functioning adults reeks of a failure to differentiate between cultural standards and moral standards.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Selene To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OP’s question is one of sex between two consenting adults, it is as simple as that. OP is asking whether committing the sexual act itself is morally condemnable or acceptable. IMO the fact that outsiders want to bulldoze their way into value judging a private choice made between two independent, consenting, and functioning adults reeks of a failure to differentiate between cultural standards and moral standards.

Life's not that simple, in the single situation that warrants this a conscionable action.

Once your family become fair game for sexual interest, there will be some unfavourable results to this shift in social perception. Consider how many men have ephebophilia.

[Selene]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Life's not that simple, in the single situation that warrants this a conscionable action. Once your family become fair game for sexual interest, there will be some unfavourable results to this shift in social perception. Consider how many men have ephebophilia.

Attributions are good and attributions are important because perceived causes of behaviour (e.g. the failure to morally condemn adult consensual incest paves the way for widespread
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) influence judgements, reactions, and actions? Got it.

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Life's not that simple, in the single situation that warrants this a conscionable action. Once your family become fair game for sexual interest, there will be some unfavourable results to this shift in social perception. Consider how many men have ephebophilia.

Men who would not otherwise rape their daughters would not rape them whether or not sex between two consenting related adults is made legal. We do not fuck our family members because most of us are not sexually attracted to them, law or not. Of course, the taboo makes a difference so it may stop two siblings from copulating if they were attracted to each other, but the plain truth is that they are usually not and legalizing incestuous, consenting sex will not make them attracted to each other. Those who are already attracted will copulate so yes, there will be more incestuous sex, but those who aren't, won't. We will only be making it possible for people who want to fuck, to fuck.

If a father fucks his underage daughter, "consent" or not, it is still statutory rape. If a father rapes his grown daughter, it is still rape. Nothing changes. If a fifteen year old boy has sex with his fifteen year old twin sister, that's their business, too, unless we were to start outlawing teen sex. As I said before, the punishment for incestuous sex, as it stands, is far lighter than punishment for rape. If a pedophile father rapes his daughter, he is clearly not deterred by the incestuous aspect of it, nor will the jail time for incestuous sex stop him. A person with no conscience does not develop one because incest is outlawed.

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As other people have mentioned here, the distaste is b/c of mutation possibility with offspring, and I believe studies have shown even with primates that when raised together, they don't mate. So there seems to be this innate sense NOT to do it and going against that seems unnatural/wrong.

But apparently if you meet your long lost close family member, chemistry will skyrocket. It's said that people often are attracted to people who look like them. Maybe there's something to it. Supposedly studies show people are most attracted to people with more similar genes. What can be more similar than a long lost twin.