What argument would you use/support then to explain the taboo on incest?

Exactly, I think that naturally if there were no mutations or deviations (and I do not mean this in an offensive way) then things would stagnate and the gene pool would bog down. In my mind, homosexuality is just a natural deviation or mutation. I won't really say that incest is a useful mutation or deviation, or one that will lead the gene pool to further advancement, but in my mind its simply a deviation from the norm.

To be honest, I always saw this as something that developed primarily out of the economics of marriage and dowry. Societies where these institutions didn't/don't exist don't seem to have the same prohibitions on incest, which does point to something going on beyond just biology. At the same time, no human or animal population is known to have been 'killed off' by incest alone, while many have survived in part because of it. Usually the loss of genetic diversity has other antecedents.

There is a lot of academic material pointing to a fact that incestuous behavior is damaging genetically.
Its not just about "unnaturalness" but it became as such due to observation and conclusions as well... hence ....social norm back up currently by science.
Observation and drawing conclusion is what derives us from other primates.

Hmm, Social Pressures (dowrys, marriage, etc) isn't something that I'd considered before :hmmm: Thanks for opening my eyes to this :up:

Also no human/animal population is known to have been killed off solely by incest, but where does a species cross the line of committing incest to preserve itself and hamstringing itself genetically for generations to come?

Edit: Rather, where does society and science draw the line?

I think my point here is purely one of fairness. Yes, the biological problem is still there. But the economic motivation is not really relevant anymore. My whole point is that incest, as such, is really not terribly damaging to other people and the society as a whole. What did the German state achieve here? They broke up a family that, as difficult and dysfunctional as they might have been, are probably more functional than millions of other families out there who are probably even less qualified to raise children, and yet not only do but even get all sorts of government and tax incentives for it. Then why is this guy going to jail, while other "normal" families with unhealthy kids and poor living practices out there encouraged? Why is consensual sexual behaviour between adults, and the risks to the genetics of their children, the business of government and courts, anyway?

Consider this: eating high-fat processed foods, smoking tobacco, or driving SUVs is SUBSTANTIALLY more damaging to the health of people and their children and to the economy (including cost to the taxpayer) than incest will ever be. Not to mention even more unnatural, and the result of (in the big scope of things) far more recent inventions than tolerance of incest. Then why are those things protected as rights of conscious, consenting adults while the provably lower-risk incestuous relationships aren't? Something's fishy here. Which is exactly what I'm getting at here - except in a warped "the sky is falling!" world that social conservatives seem to live in when it comes to changing social rules to reflect material reality, this sort of thing really makes no sense.

Now...what this has to do with the issue?
Oh... i see you look at this from the conservative vs uhh...progressive point.
....in that case i probably would have to be a TEA party voter because one must be against it all for it all.:haha:

The German court avoided setting an unhealthy precedent which would add to all the fat food and SUV issues....products of modern lifestyle?

Hell, that couple would fit right in in the south. They'd make great southerners. After all, a southerner's family tree goes straight up, with no branch's. :O:

Children born to parents who are first degree relatives have a 50% higher risk of suffering from a dominant genetic defect or disease. With second or third degree relatives as parents, the value is lower, but still significantly higher than with parents who are unrelated to each other.

And again, the latent genetic deficit, the risk, is carried over and mounts from one ioncestous generation to the next. The tribes/people'S whole gen-pool gets weakened.

Farmers know this, too. That's why they sometimes try to "inject fresh blood" into their herd. Stirr the gen-pool, that is, revitalise the diversity. Diverse gens guarantee a higher chance for strength and immunity and physical resistence than genetic monocultures. Dog breeders know this, too. Crossbreeds almost always have a higher resistence than poure dog races, also are more inspired in character and intelligence, many dog owners and breeders swear. My God, what should I talk this long - this is long held folk wisdom, since long time!

Small populations, on islands for example, also see higher genetic anomality rates, but evolutionary selection here sometimes has sorted out these deficiencies again. The focus here has to be on the fact that this works only in special circumstances, and very small populations. And only maybe. Note that what worked on some isolated exotic isalnds, did not work that well with culturally self-isolated social communities of slightly bigger sizes, namely Arab tribes and African tribes. Random chance as well as specific limits within which a community size must fluctuate seem to be inevitable preconditions for evolutionary selection having a chance to compensate for inbred defects. In the majority of cultural examples it seems to have worked NOT.

Man had to set a line that marks the limit that close family relations may go in order to breed offsprings from an incestous relation. This is what has been done, and it was done to reduce the risk. I do not know right now where the line is, but it seems to work until today. That first degree relatives always disqualify for breeding, should go without much talking I think, and second degree and I think third degree as well. Beyond that it is being legal and socially not sanctione anyway, so...

Another aspect is that incstous relationsd in the majority of cases include psychologiical dpeendencies, and abuse, either sexually or else-wise. We also kolnow that incerstous relations espoecially between close relatives cause psychological changes in at least one of the two persons involved, usually the weaker, dependent one. I think this also is worth to be noted and taken into account.

But we live in a time where people really argue that anythign goes, and any kind of order, structure, hierarchical classification needs to be destroyed or endlessly relativised. No wonder that the Western culture is falling apart and is in free fall.

If keeping it in the family was good enough for the crowned heads of europe then why can't those two get friendly?:03:



Doesn't that actually counter your "logic" completely as it is an example of an occasional partial break from the practice of inbreeding?:yep:
Come to think of it doesn't several examples by you in this topic completely contradict what you have claimed in other topics on breeding and society.
Doublethink at work:know:

Has it been demonstrated that the handicaps of the children were directly caused by the incestuous relationship?

Just because they came from an incestuous relationship does not mean they were caused by it.