Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on April 24, 2013 at 10:49am

The shortest answer, is that my sister's so ugly, that when she was a kid, Mom had to hang a pork chop around her neck, just to get our dog to play with her - the poor kid had to sneak up on a glass, just to get a drink of water!

Genetically speaking, and face it, pregnancy is almost always an issue, no matter how much care is exercised, the likelihood increases in such instances, of two recessive genes combining to pass on a negative trait, than with two unrelated people. But the truth is, that many positive traits can be reinforced and passed on that way as well, as has been evidenced in horse-, dog-, and cattle-breeding programs.

In ancient times, such unions were far more common among royalty, in order to preserve a familial blood line. Bottom line - again, never completely eliminating the pregnancy factor - civilizations are simply stronger and more disease-resistant, that have more genetic diversity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on April 24, 2013 at 2:42pm

It certainly puts a whole new slant on the phrase, "Oh, Brother!"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carnun Marcus-Page on April 24, 2013 at 3:16pm

It may have been posted already, but have you seen Lawrence Krauss' take on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCfFQlDvetg

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 24, 2013 at 6:24pm

Very interesting. And pleasantly brief as well. (I hate it when people don't present arguments on their own but instead want me to watch a 45 minute video. If you understand the argument, present it yourself.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carnun Marcus-Page on April 25, 2013 at 12:47pm

Oh, me too.

I wouldn't have done that, don't worry ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan C on April 25, 2013 at 7:01pm

At risk of having your ire directed at me, you might want to read these two articles (They are not long and they present the research so much more eloquently than I could):

http://www.livescience.com/4363-kinship-detectors-prevent-incest-ca...

http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

Interesting discussion by the way, you definitely poked the nest with a stick on that one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 25, 2013 at 7:11pm

Those studies divide into two aspects. 

1) the genetic part

2) the psychosocial (taboo) part

We know that it's a taboo. No news there. And while the genetic aspect is well-known and accepted, it's still a fact that the original post was based on "suppose the couple didn't produce offspring," this eliminating the genetic factor as a consideration.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan C on April 27, 2013 at 9:51am

My argument is, as per a previous post, that if one pair of siblings form a relationship and it becomes seen as normal by their peers, then it is natural that others will will copy them and eventually, somewhere down the line, offspring will be produced, by accident or design, then that will be seen as normal, etc.

It is human nature and therefore, I think, should be discouraged, as it is now.  As per the two articles, it is probably genetically inbuilt into most of us to not procreate with our siblings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 27, 2013 at 10:15am

As an ingrained (and thus nonrational) taboo, there's little risk of it becoming commonplace or "normal."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope Beanie on April 27, 2013 at 3:19pm

I like this rational, non-spinned statement.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page