Why is incest bad?

A couple's personal freedoms don't trump the rights of their kids, I would class inbreeding a form of genetic child abuse myself.

edited 11th Jun '11 4:45:16 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

You know, to begin with, my point that I could track down someone with an even greater rate of genetic risk factors for disease than anyone who was related to me, and still have a kid with them wasn't really ever addressed.

And you can actually have a relative with whom there is no greater statistical risk of passing on genetic diseases than plenty of people who are totally unrelated to you.

Genetic variation and inheritance is extremely complex, and deciding that the issue should come down strictly to a difference of "relative versus non-relative" does not do a very good job of taking it into account.

"If it was evolutionarily selected for, it means that individuals who weren't the product of incest were more likely to survive than those who were. That would seem to imply that incest is bad, I think."

"It does decide what is good or bad for us, though."

And, by that logic, rape is fuckin' awesome.

Teleological evolution theories are just ways to sneak Intelligent Design through the back door, folks!

edited 11th Jun '11 5:02:23 PM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

We would of put a stop to that sort of thing a long time ago if it was up to me.

Perhaps it is a good thing that it is not.

hashtagsarestupid

@Toodle

Because you can't. Most people haven't actually tracked their genetics and you probably won't either. Plus, people who do that are planning for a child, therefore unavailable.

@MRDA

We're allowed to jump to conclusions now? In that case, why not legalize bestiality? There's absolutely no chance of a baby there and they are in love.

edited 11th Jun '11 5:21:56 PM by Loid

"Dr. Strangeloid, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Cleanlink" - thespacephantom

Since so many of you like to spin your wheels and not present any useful information. Have some links.

Wikipedia

Study from 2003 on long term effects of human inbreeding on late adult life health Specifically Human Hypertension

A nice article from thetech.org

Inbreeding effects on human fertility

Commando when the offspring of such a union can threaten to spread a genetic disorder to the greater population the safety and health of the greater population trumps the rights of the individuals.

Who watches the watchmen?

I didn't think bestiality was illegal

hashtagsarestupid

What? But the genes for the disorder are already in the gene pool. That doesn't change at all with or without incest, so the risk for the general population remains the same.

Depends on the jurisdiction. It's illegal in practically all US states, I think, but legal in many European countries.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Actually it does not remain the same. It increases. There is more randomization in the general population that you risk of picking a partner with the right set of genes is significantly less then pairing up with a family member with the same genetic traits. It possible to breed out or reduce the genetic likely hood of genetic disorders through general genetic selection.

Who watches the watchmen?

No it's not! The entire reason why incest has increased risk of deformations is that with two relatives getting offspring the same recessive alleles will be passed on to it, which might result in... bad things. However, those recessive genes are spread on regardless, it's just that if they're not paired off with genes of the same sort they remain dormant. For the general population the risk remains absolutely, utterly the same.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

There is an increase of occurrence for more recessive traits if two family members share them, although once again, genes are a big mixed bag, and genetic variation and recombination still means that even if you do have a genetic disorder, it is usually an entirely statistical guess as to whether or not you'll pass it on.

Interestingly, the studies on the issue can barely ever relate a higher mortality rate of even a few percentage points between the offspring of most kinds of consanguineous couples, which are difficult to attribute directly to human inbreeding, due to all sorts of other socioeconomic factors surrounding those who practice it most often.

This study is a halfway decent summary on the entire issue, even if it's not very recent.

Now I never argued that there isn't a decreased rate of fitness that applies to the entire population if genetic diversity drops below a certain point. I'm also not arguing that diseases aren't inheritable either. What I'm saying is that the matter has more to do with a lack of genetic diversity that usually requires generations of continual inbreeding before your cousin becomes a much greater genetic liability than anyone else.

While enforced inbreeding through the whole family's line is just asking for disaster, there's not much reason to believe that most first-generation instances are provably worse than just grabbing someone randomly off the street. In either case, genetic testing for both participants would always give us a clearer picture of their genetic risk for certain inheritable diseases.

Natural selection is only a small part of evolution, random chance is also an enormous factor. We have no way of telling which traits emerged under the pressures of selection and which didn't.

Natural selection also fails, frequently, with the sheer prevalence of hereditary cancer in humans being the glaring example. Most people survive to reproductive age before cancer kills them, thus millions and millions of people in the world have been left with genes that are explicitly destructive.

edited 11th Jun '11 6:06:28 PM by Explodia

@Octo

The family member has a higher chance for the disorder being passed on to the child. Not the child being a carrier, but the child having the disorder.

"Dr. Strangeloid, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Cleanlink" - thespacephantom

True, but that just wasn't Tuefel's argument. He said: "when the offspring of such a union can threaten to spread a genetic disorder to the greater population " - and well, that just is not so.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but, evidence for the existence of the Westermarck effect is shaky at best.

It can not be reliably replicated or tested out without unplanned factors screwing it up. It can not be tested without being unethical. And we have little to no proof of it's existence. Yes, many animals instinctively choose mates outside of their family, but many other animals hump their sisters the moment they get hard as well.

This is completely wrong. As long as you mate, then you can pass on a gene whether it kills you or not.

In fact, asides from genetic diseases, there are examples of suicidal behaviours being passed on from generations to generations because it's what's good for the organism.

There are many conditions where it is common knowledge that it would be passed on to either the children or grandchildren of the individual. Do we prevent individuals with those conditions from mating even though the chances of passing on the condition is far higher than mutations being passed through incest?

---

PS-are we only talking about incest in terms of genetics? Or morally/socially etc. as well? Or did we resolve the moral/social controversy of incest by agreeing it's just like homosexuality?

edited 11th Jun '11 8:27:05 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Morally as long as it consenting siblings, cousins, or grown adults I don't give a fuck as long as they don't reproduce. I am sorry folks but the increased genetic risk the greater population is not worth "breeding rights"

And yes it can spread a genetic problem to the greater populace. Any idiot who can work a punnet square can demonstrate it.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:10:13 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

The increased risks is not too big a problem. Detect whether the child will have problem while it's still developing and choose to keep it or not.

Higher chance of recessive features being expressed does not mean it will be 100%.

And as I said before, there are many people who have conditions that they know will be passed on to their children/grand children. Those people have full rights of breeding and spreading their bad genes. So if they, who have a much higher chance of spreading their bad genes, are allowed to have kids, why not incestuous couples as well?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

If we could prevent genetic muck ups I would simply not care as a whole.

I really wish people with known nasty genetic disorders would avoid doing that.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:34:58 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

If they did I wouldn't exist...Hmm.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I would also in general prefer to push genetic treatment of a large variety of inherited disorders. It would save a lot of human suffering in the long run.

I am surprised no one really read the wikipedia page it had an interesting fact I am surprised none of you picked up on.

It mentions in studies the most common form of consensual incest is same sex sibling incest followed by different sex sibling incest. I am ok with this.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:41:15 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

That goes completely against an organism's natural desire to reproduce, not just humans, not just humans, organism, every living being in existence lives to reproduce. Reproduction is the purpose in life.

The existence of the "pleasure center", the production of dopamine, genitals, male/female scents, ability to discriminate against those that are different, all ultimately exists to aid in our reproduction.

Science is not very popular with some people. Not to mention, bloody difficult to pull off even if lots of money are thrown at it.

There is a huge luck factor in this as well.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:46:30 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

If they did I wouldn't exist...Hmm

The world would be sadder place, Aondeug without you. A much sadder place.

hashtagsarestupid

...that made me cry.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

aww...

*goes in for a stealth hug*...>:3

edited 11th Jun '11 9:57:37 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I know the urge to reproduce bit is the really tricky bugger.

Who watches the watchmen?