Interesting incest question...

[Atlas14]

If someone is gonna have birth defects, then they're gonna be born with them, irrespective whether or not the parents are brother and sister.

So you deny the power of genetics alltogether?

Genetics wouldn't play a factor until at least second generation.

Even if so, the chance for mutations/defects after the initial "inbreeding", i.e. the second generation and so-forth drastically increases. And yes, there still is chance for defects in first offspring due to inbreeding causes such as mutations and such. Might be smaller, but the next generation it will sharply increase.

 

[Sophie 378]

Hope I don't get flamed for butting in like this ...
IIRC, from various New Scientist articles, ignoring mutations that occur while breeding, just the ones you're starting with: inbreeding for the first very few generations statistically will be no worse for accumilating and expressing strongly adverse mutations. Then it starts to get bad: the accumilating "bad genes" will make many of the offspring effectively unable to breed: but the ones that do, by the genetics of breeding (meiosis and cross-overs etc: shuffling and redealing the deck), will be more fit than normal as they accumilate good genes. So, after many many generations, you start improving again as the bad genes self-destruct by overaccumilating: you get a group of scarily similar but very genetically healthy creatures. Of course, with so little diversity they'd be an absolute pushover for an outside influence like a new disease; some "fresh blood" can help with that. Genetics is complicated ...

A few references (sorry if anyone gets the "subscribe to read the full article" page):
Positive effects of inbreeding:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18424744.600
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18725122.000
http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_11510,312,p1.html

Adverse effects of inbreeding:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn6920
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6581
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18024175.100
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18024224.800

 

[Perfection]

I really say that the genetics arguement doesn't cut it for me. It's the social trust within families that I feel are breached in cases of incest. That why I view scenario one as worse.

 

[Pikachu]

If it is, it is done ignorantly because the breeder obviously knows nothing about the genetic consequences of his actions. Do you have an example for your inbreeding for better animals argument? Id like to take a look.

After a quick search I found these links:
http://www.messybeast.com/inbreed.htm
http://www.pedigreepost.com/archives/WhyInbreedingAnnePeters.html
http://www.sloughi-international.com/linebreeding.htm

By the way, breeding with siblings are for the impatient breeders who only think a generation or two ahead. In the long run full-blood siblings are not ideal for breeding. Mating siblings makes it necessary to mix in a different line relatively quickly, and that severely puts the purification process back. Half siblings, uncle-niece or cousins etc. are more effective in the long run.

I would be willing to bet my house that it says small populations of organisms are not favorable for surviving due to constant inbreeding. The "not favorable" refers to constant breeding of the same genetic defects and mutations.

Inbreeding for generation after generation usually doesn’t work. They tend to become infertile after about ten generations or so and die out unless some fresh blood is added to the line. The inbreeding has to be done carefully to get the perfect mix between inbreeding and outcrossing.

Agreed. But if you allow it in the first, you legally have to allow it in the 2nd and 3rd and etc. generations. Then comes the inevitability, which is of primary concern.

Inevitable? Children of siblings are extremely unlikely to fall in love with each other and have children together, and even in the extremely unlikely case if they do, the chances of their children wanting to have children with each other is extremely small. Eventually the inevitable will happen: The chain will be broken!

The negative genetic influence of incest on society as a whole is diminishingly small, so I see no reason why it should be a primary concern for the society.

Not true. Down's Syndrome is inherited by Trisomy 21, where instead of a pair of chromosomes you'd have 3. A mutation could cause this disease, causing the presence of the abnormal third chromosome. This could indeed be passed on regardless if your mate is related to you or not.

I thought people with Down Syndrome usually don’t have children? Aren’t most of them infertile?

And isn’t the chances of having children with Downs Syndrome more closely related to the mother’s age than anything else? Do pregnant old women disgust you as much as incest?

 

[Narz]

Stick it to the man Pickacu!

 

[Fifty]

One thing that is perhaps worth noting is that incest is one of Brown's Human Universals. That is to say, every society in the world (from tribal to advanced) has a taboo against incest of some form or another. Mother-son incest seems to be the most universally despised, although general incest prevention/avoidence is evident in pretty much every culture.

I'm not sure if that is worth much as an argument against incest though, since rape (the existence of rape, not the avoidence of rape) is another of Brown's universals... but it is interesting nonetheless.

 

[Kyriakos]

That is reasonable, as has been said the prehistoric people had no clue as to what the science behind the weaker generations of people who were incestious was, and so naturally would despise it holistically and would associate it with all sorts of imaginary forces.
The mother-son incest fear is also called the Oedipal complex, when it refers to the son.

I agree totally with Pikatchu about the very small possibility of sustained incest through the generations; where it has happened it seems that it was forced and not voluntary. Two immunal systems which are very close can manifest the low worth of combining them in natural ways too: even the scent of the other person can be extremely repulsive, for no reason that can be associated with hygene.

 

[Atlas14]

After a quick search I found these links:
http://www.messybeast.com/inbreed.htm
http://www.pedigreepost.com/archives...nnePeters.html
http://www.sloughi-international.com/linebreeding.htm

By the way, breeding with siblings are for the impatient breeders who only think a generation or two ahead. In the long run full-blood siblings are not ideal for breeding. Mating siblings makes it necessary to mix in a different line relatively quickly, and that severely puts the purification process back. Half siblings, uncle-niece or cousins etc. are more effective in the long run.

Nice finds Pikachu . I see your (and your articles') point about the pros of inbreeding, that on an animal (non-human) level inbreeding I can certainly see why inbreeding might be beneficial, profitable, and useful. So yes, inbreeding is safe if done for one generation.

Inbreeding for generation after generation usually doesn’t work. They tend to become infertile after about ten generations or so and die out unless some fresh blood is added to the line. The inbreeding has to be done carefully to get the perfect mix between inbreeding and outcrossing.

Inevitable? Children of siblings are extremely unlikely to fall in love with each other and have children together, and even in the extremely unlikely case if they do, the chances of their children wanting to have children with each other is extremely small. Eventually the inevitable will happen: The chain will be broken!

The negative genetic influence of incest on society as a whole is diminishingly small, so I see no reason why it should be a primary concern for the society.

Great points! Im impressed with your research into this and your persistance. You've convinced me.

I thought people with Down Syndrome usually don’t have children? Aren’t most of them infertile?

Im not sure about infertility, but I don't think that most are infertile. Some just don't have children due to having lack of pyschosexual development, but some do have exhibit sexual behaviors but then have their sexual behaviors carefully repressed by parents/guardians to prevent sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, STDs, and other dangers.

And isn’t the chances of having children with Downs Syndrome more closely related to the mother’s age than anything else? Do pregnant old women disgust you as much as incest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Syndrome

Down syndrome is a term used to encompass a number of genetic disorders of which trisomy 21 is the most frequent (95% of cases). Discovered by the Parisian physician Jerome Lejeune in 1959, Trisomy 21 is the existence of the third copy of the chromosome 21 in cells throughout the body of the affected person. Other Down syndrome disorders are based on the duplication of the same subset of genes (e.g., various translocations of chromosome 21). Depending on the actual etiology, the degree of impairment may range from mild to severe.

Yes, typically it is most closely related to mother's age. However there aren't enough inbreeding families that exhibit Down Syndrome for it to be directly linked to anything else. But obviously Downs Syndrome is caused by a mutation in the DNA, so Im assumng inbreeding could have the same effect as women's age to producing mutated genes.

Nice work Pikachu! Told ya I keep an open mind about these things (or I told someone). Im just stubborn like everyone else.

 

[china444]

2.

Once there is a blood relation is when it becomes incest.

 

[Narz]

One thing that is perhaps worth noting is that incest is one of Brown's Human Universals. That is to say, every society in the world (from tribal to advanced) has a taboo against incest of some form or another. Mother-son incest seems to be the most universally despised, although general incest prevention/avoidence is evident in pretty much every culture.

I'm not sure if that is worth much as an argument against incest though, since rape (the existence of rape, not the avoidence of rape) is another of Brown's universals... but it is interesting nonetheless.

I find it hard to believe that there has never been a human culture where rape did not exist.

Did Brown study every culture thruout the globe?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I find it hard to believe that there has never been a human culture where rape did not exist.

Almost every culture approves of the rape of its ememies women. And apparently some tribal muslims approve of it as an internal control mechanism. I'm not sure western culture always disapproves of husbands raping wives.

 

[Kyriakos]

Im not sure about infertility, but I don't think that most are infertile. Some just don't have children due to having lack of pyschosexual development, but some do have exhibit sexual behaviors but then have their sexual behaviors carefully repressed by parents/guardians to prevent sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, STDs, and other dangers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Syndrome

The article you posted a link to reads: "DS men are usually infertile"

I gather you dont mean repressed, but guided. Repressing their sexuality wont really help them, they just will feel even worse, which they do not need since due to their mental defect they already feel strong negative emotions most of the time. There exist special programs in schools in many europenan countries specifically aimed at educating sexually people with down syndrome. Repressing their sexuality would not make anything go away; sexuality is not like the will to go to university.

Yes, typically it is most closely related to mother's age. However there aren't enough inbreeding families that exhibit Down Syndrome for it to be directly linked to anything else.

There arent enough inbreeding families that exhibit down syndrome, yet you go on to say that there must be some connection between DS and incest.

But obviously Downs Syndrome is caused by a mutation in the DNA, so Im assumng inbreeding could have the same effect as women's age to producing mutated genes.

I dont know what made you arrive at the conclusion that inbreading produces a 'mutation' that has anything to do with down-syndrome. You just say that both produce 'mutations' (a bit vague) so they are similar due to that. With that logic you may as well say that inbreading is similar to doing hard drugs; they too cause 'mutations' in the brain cells. DS is an acute mental defect; there is nothing similar in offspring of incestious parents, unless ofcourse their parents too had DS, so there is no scientific reason why the two have to be linked. There is a world of difference between a person who has a weaker immunal system that he/she could have had, and a person who is mentally ********; immunal systems prevent you from being infected/falling ill etc, whereas retardation cripples one's intellectual capacity.

 

[Atlas14]

The article you posted a link to reads: "DS men are usually infertile"

Technically it reads :

DS men are usually infertile, but some DS women have become mothers. An estimated 50% of their children also have DS. Due to this, DS women are suggested to get genetic counseling if they plan on having children.

But yes, the majority of those affected with DS are infertile.

I gather you dont mean repressed, but guided.

Precicely. Poor choice of words on my part.

I dont know what made you arrive at the conclusion that inbreading produces a 'mutation' that has anything to do with down-syndrome. You just say that both produce 'mutations' (a bit vague) so they are similar due to that. With that logic you may as well say that inbreading is similar to doing hard drugs; they too cause 'mutations' in the brain cells. DS is an acute mental defect; there is nothing similar in offspring of incestious parents, unless ofcourse their parents too had DS, so there is no scientific reason why the two have to be linked. There is a world of difference between a person who has a weaker immunal system that he/she could have had, and a person who is mentally ********; immunal systems prevent you from being infected/falling ill etc, whereas retardation cripples one's intellectual capacity.

No. I was basing the mutation thing off of the article sentence:

Other Down syndrome disorders are based on the duplication of the same subset of genes (e.g., various translocations of chromosome 21).

I might be wrong, but I was merely assuming that since inbreeding does cause mutations, a duplication of the set of genes for chromosome 21 could occur.

You just say that both produce 'mutations' (a bit vague) so they are similar due to that.

I was suggesting inbreeding could eventually lead to direct causes of Down Syndrome. I wasn't really trying to imply a similarity.

 

[Fifty]

I find it hard to believe that there has never been a human culture where rape did not exist.

Did Brown study every culture thruout the globe?

As far as I've read, he has. Obviously I would doubt that he is an expert on every culture world-wide, but I've never heard any scrutiny of any item on his list as being incorrect. It's published in MIT's Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences if you are interested in looking at all fo the universals.

some interesting universals besides those with regard to incest:

jokes
rape
male coalitional violence
jealosy
poetic lines characterized by repetition and variation
rites of passage
sexual regulation
weariness around snakes
tabooed foods
pretend play in young
tickling
toys
sucking wounds



@varwnos, I was always under the impression that the oedipus complex was specifically a father's fear of his son and his wife (the son's mom) hooking up. Maybe it does reply to the general case though? Interesting nonetheless.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is the son's incestious thoughts, and their (possible) repression later on, that is called 'oedipal complex'. If the father is afraid that his wife will have sex with their son then the father is seriously **** up!

 

[Elta]

There both wiered heres why

Westermarck effect

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction and bonding. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was discovered by anthropologist Edvard Westermarck. The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Shim-pua marriage customs of Taiwan, as well as in biological-related families.

But in the case of the Israeli kibbutz farms, these children grew up in a common children's house, away from their parents. They spent the entire day and night together. This did result in a generation that was not interested in the opposite sex within their class, and the program was dropped. It is an extreme example of grouping since the adults were also removed from the environment.

When this does not occur, for example where a brother and sister are brought up not knowing about one another, they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults: a phenomenon known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation is consistent with the theory that the Westermarck effect evolved to suppress inbreeding.

yea genetic attraction happens but it's still wrong (for the kids sake at least)
if your say one and your mom adopts a girl the same age as you you will never feel attraction when puberty hits unless your which would result in the same thing if you are genticly related

.....
hell
my best friend's sister (since 6th grade ...his sister is a year older)
I liked here when I first met her ...she keep getting cute as she got older I was still really overwieght ....but after a while I stoped liking here at all
then when I turned 16 I had surgery and lost a bunch of wieght ..and she likes me ....I find it very wiered and gross

 

[cgannon64]

Rampant generalization. Not that it might not be untrue, but first cousins and such have been known to fall in love and i see nothing wrong with it. While genuine romantic love between siblings may be rare, I see no fundamental flaw that makes it impossible.

Siblings, if raised together from birth, have a relationship that appears to sexual as a rule. Obviously an incestual relationship is going to be a perversion of the normal. The numbers point to this, since the number of people practicing incest is minute.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I voted #2, but only because of the potential genetics issues for the kids. If in #2 they don't have kids, then I seeing nothing immoral with either scenario.

 

[numidian]

there's nothing immoral about incest. as long as you don't have kids, i think it's fine. if you and your sis have the hots for one another, go ahead and do it.

 

[Narz]

there's nothing immoral about incest. as long as you don't have kids, i think it's fine. if you and your sis have the hots for one another, go ahead and do it.

And call numidian if you want to make a website with photos and streaming video of your exploits.