Kasz216 said:
Reasonable said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Reasonable said:
Kasz216 said:
Reasonable said:
Morally I couldn't care less - genetically it's bad news so I'd actually object on those grounds: bad for the species.
|
Doesn't it take like... dozens of generations of inbreeding to show effects?
The only real issue is genetic diseases becuase your basically guranteeing it will strike
|
Yeah but so what? It's still going to happen. It's not like people will say "well, we'll just have a couple of generations of incest then stop'. The risk will be there. Also, a lot of evolution theory indicates that changes can be pretty quick. Certainly if we're talking people with genetic diseases you're going to see very quick effects, as you say.
Note I'm not talking about sex that's protected but reproduction. You're basically increasing the odds per generation of weaker, more disease prone children. I know I wouldn't feel too happy if I was a tenth generation incest child with a lot of physical issues.
It's just not a good idea from any genetic perspective.
|
Why not, if your extended family or whatever has *good* genes, lacking any particular recessive traits, though that veers dangerously close to the old arguments for eugenics (which then bound into racism, state racism, holocaust, etc etc)
|
Does it veer anymore near eugentics then banning incest because of fear of inferior genes?
Plus it's a lopsided law since it ignores the fact that there are a lot of people with negative recessive genes who marry each other that doesn't qualify as incest.
The real "logical" version of a law that prevents incest on genetic means would be...
"Before reporoducing (or I guess having sex in general) you must be tested for genetic diseases, and if you have these you can not have sex with anyone else who has one of those recessive genes."
Would such a law be benefical to the human race? I could see it being so, but it's awfully damn restrictive.
You see it happen all the time with non-related families, people who keep having kids they know are gentically likely to have mental disorders. You can't just tell them to NOT have kids. Then again, you may be for such a thing, what with the afore mentioned authortarian liberal stance and in such a thing does cost the state. (Much like the healthcare arguement for the personal mandate.)
|
Ah Gattaca...
It's an interesting debate, because, removing religious/moral views, it's really about where a society draws the line in terms of the species wellfare vs desired freedoms.
My view is simple enough - allowing direct incest probably stands to raise the probability of long term genetic disorders too high, hence why it should be avoided. Telling people not to have children is always iffy, even though sometimes technically it would make more sense.
As the ability to test for disorders and genetic traits increases this is sure to become more and more of a hot topic - I mean in general, not specific to incest!
I don't actually know but would presume that current laws stem more from religious roots, which themselves, in a common sense fashion, probably stem from smaller settlements and tribes seeking to curb incest to enrich the gene pool - not that it would have been understood in quite those terms historically.
|
That tends to be how most religious based laws are made... at first anyway. I mean, hypothetically speaking, it doesn't take a genius to see why Jewish dietary laws might of been made, mixed fibers may have had to do with trade disputes etc.
As you can guess, I'm of the belief that personal freedoms should reign supreme. Hence why I am less bullish on social welfare. People should be able to make any stupid decision they want, but the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for it.
Some sort of economic incentive against incest and other genetic breeding issues I can see... but I can't see outright laws banning it.
|
Well, that's the tough bit, isn't it? I mean I believe absolutely in personal freedoms, but because one person's freedom can encroach upon another's you need some sort of check otherwise there is some form of conflict.
Being in Europe, with a lot of medical/social support, I feel that there has to be something to check people overly burdening the system - and by extension me - due to their own stupidity.
This particular angle interestes me because I find it interesting to consider how we will adapt as we discover more about ourselves as a species, as evolution becomes better understood - because TBH most people don't have the faintest clue about it really - and the question of personal freedom in the now vs the long term interests of the species arise.
Incest clearly falls into that bracket, in terms of currently we know it's a bad idea genetically, therefore while it may not directly affect two consenting adults who are siblings, it does stand to affect their decendants and not in a good way. It also potenially crosses the boundary into placing burdens on welfare if it increases the number of children with disabilities needing care. If you extend the point, it also crosses into the parent/child personal freedom boundary which is also a tough one - should a child have to tolerate higher chance of illness, etc. or potentially be seen as a bit of a social outcast because of poor decisions by its parents?
It's interesting in Switzerland as well as the country is fairly introverted and has a relatively small population - not the best scenario for allowing incest. If you were going to allow incest ideally you want a big, travelling population that is much more likely to balance any incest with other couplings.
No easy answers - there never are in reality.