Post by SummerWolf on Apr 8, 2004 9:46:47 GMT -5
It's quite different from disease. Disease lowers your health by causing your immune system to break and target specific organs to malfunction. Inbreeding depression....hard to say here, it's kinda like you're the wimp kid next door. (That is, until it's around F6, and TEH mental effects starts kicking in, because gene pool is drastically fixed). Just.....check the word for 'vigor'. I just can't explain it better than that.
Lowered health is bad, but remember, lowered health comes from a vast variety of sources. You can marry random strangers together and based on conditions, get children with lowered health.
That wasn't my logic. The whole idea is whether it's avoidable or not. A carrier really has no choice other than to not reproduce at all. She can choose whoever she wants because it just won't matter one bit. A sister can simply choose anyone other than her brother and still reproduce.
As if the act of choosing a lover is like going into a supermarket. (And before you get ideas, I'm not marrying my brother within the forseeable future)
Why does avoidable or not factor into the equation is something I'll never understand. A sister can choose her brother and reproduce and it won't matter one bit, because the results are the same. If she doesn't mind the results the same way the carrier doesn't mind, then it's obviously within the same boundaries. If the sister is no carrier, no effect then. If the sister is a carrier, it's about the same risks they'd take if she marry out, perhaps raised a bit higher. There's no difference. At. All. In F1-F2. And since it'd take around 60 years to get to the F3 generation assuming they have kids in their twenties....you seriously think a family would have successive incests for 60 years?
No, society has accepted carriers having children because genetics and hereditary traits wasn't accepted until the 20th century, and by then, old ways are set. We simply had NO IDEA. Ignorance is golden, verily. (Mendel's observations were only confirmed in the early 1900's) Some basic concepts did exist, but they're really base and not really concerned with genetics, like how cripples are not supposed to marry in some cultures. Society's disgust with incest has pretty much little to do with vigor in the beginning. It was disgust because, like homosexuality, it wasn't 'right'.
And I say individuality is a virtue. It doesn't have to be avoided. In a normal population, the risks of three successive incests in a row is decidedly insignificant. We're talking millions of people and millions of choices here. If a mother marries her brother, what are the chances of her children marrying each other? Rather low, unless it's a family rule. And in this day and age, family rules are as rare as a free gold mine.
If some sisters can have children with her brother, the others can. By the same logic that allows people with lethal disease to mate. They have a choice, not to reproduce, not to pass on the death gene, which is much more dangerous as they can wipe out all that goes with it. They do. And it would be fair enough. We are currently educated enough to know the risks involved, and if someone decide to take them, it's their choice and not society's. I am not saying some sisters can't marry their brother. If some can, the rest should. The risks are theirs to take, the same as a carrier would take. It's their choice. (I know I sound like I'm going on in circles here, but I'm somewhat at a loss in finding more ways to express my thoughts out)
There is harm from inbreeding, but it's greatly overexaggerated by society. It's mostly society and its idea that gives incest its name. Reminds me of how society gave the several ideas a bad name in the past.
I know you'll remain disgusted. I never intended to change your opinions, but to state genetic facts that highschool most graciously skipped over. I know there's one form of incest that I'll perpetually remain disgusted with as well.....Parent x Child.
(I've seen it practiced. Next door of my mother's old house. The mental results of the child-spouse....aren't pretty)
Lowered health is bad, but remember, lowered health comes from a vast variety of sources. You can marry random strangers together and based on conditions, get children with lowered health.
That wasn't my logic. The whole idea is whether it's avoidable or not. A carrier really has no choice other than to not reproduce at all. She can choose whoever she wants because it just won't matter one bit. A sister can simply choose anyone other than her brother and still reproduce.
As if the act of choosing a lover is like going into a supermarket. (And before you get ideas, I'm not marrying my brother within the forseeable future)
Why does avoidable or not factor into the equation is something I'll never understand. A sister can choose her brother and reproduce and it won't matter one bit, because the results are the same. If she doesn't mind the results the same way the carrier doesn't mind, then it's obviously within the same boundaries. If the sister is no carrier, no effect then. If the sister is a carrier, it's about the same risks they'd take if she marry out, perhaps raised a bit higher. There's no difference. At. All. In F1-F2. And since it'd take around 60 years to get to the F3 generation assuming they have kids in their twenties....you seriously think a family would have successive incests for 60 years?
No, society has accepted carriers having children because genetics and hereditary traits wasn't accepted until the 20th century, and by then, old ways are set. We simply had NO IDEA. Ignorance is golden, verily. (Mendel's observations were only confirmed in the early 1900's) Some basic concepts did exist, but they're really base and not really concerned with genetics, like how cripples are not supposed to marry in some cultures. Society's disgust with incest has pretty much little to do with vigor in the beginning. It was disgust because, like homosexuality, it wasn't 'right'.
And I say individuality is a virtue. It doesn't have to be avoided. In a normal population, the risks of three successive incests in a row is decidedly insignificant. We're talking millions of people and millions of choices here. If a mother marries her brother, what are the chances of her children marrying each other? Rather low, unless it's a family rule. And in this day and age, family rules are as rare as a free gold mine.
If some sisters can have children with her brother, the others can. By the same logic that allows people with lethal disease to mate. They have a choice, not to reproduce, not to pass on the death gene, which is much more dangerous as they can wipe out all that goes with it. They do. And it would be fair enough. We are currently educated enough to know the risks involved, and if someone decide to take them, it's their choice and not society's. I am not saying some sisters can't marry their brother. If some can, the rest should. The risks are theirs to take, the same as a carrier would take. It's their choice. (I know I sound like I'm going on in circles here, but I'm somewhat at a loss in finding more ways to express my thoughts out)
There is harm from inbreeding, but it's greatly overexaggerated by society. It's mostly society and its idea that gives incest its name. Reminds me of how society gave the several ideas a bad name in the past.
I know you'll remain disgusted. I never intended to change your opinions, but to state genetic facts that highschool most graciously skipped over. I know there's one form of incest that I'll perpetually remain disgusted with as well.....Parent x Child.
(I've seen it practiced. Next door of my mother's old house. The mental results of the child-spouse....aren't pretty)
