Incest

[Entitled]

Really?
Admittedly I have only skimmed through the responses but I am surprised by the general positive attitude to incest.

If I was dating my sister you guys would really have no problem?

I just find it a little strange. Is it ok then?

Yep. Though admittedly, I mostly see that kind of attitude on gamer and related nerd forums, where people's view of sexuality tends to be extremely liberal in every sense, to the point of treating all tradition-based sexual morals as some sort of incomprehensible alien rituals.

http://xkcd.com/592/

Disclaimer:
I should probably point out that a discussion of incest is absolutely not related in any way to a discussion of sexuality.

Don't you mean "sexual orientation" here? Because incest is absolutely an isue of sexuality.

 

[Lawnmooer]

We also have several examples of human bloodlines (particularly royal bloodlines) going 'thin' in later generations due to incest, leading to insanity and genetic defects. Granted, it likely won't be a problem until after a few generations, but frankly humanity's got very narrow genetic variance to begin with.

Yeah, there is some risk caused by incest, but stuff like the royal bloodlines (Where they try and keep their blood "Pure" for as long as possible) are just extreme cases, I don't think that if incest was legal that everyone would start having children with only people in their immediate families for multiple generations. It'd probably be a rare occurance that would most likely (I don't know the actual numbers) be less chance of causing defects than what some people can get for various problems like cancer risk or other things.

1) I don't want to be like a lab mouse and I don't know a single human being that does. =P Even the ones who go through medical experiments at least want to get paid.

It was just an example of long term forced incest that still yields genetically identical offspring, to show how the risk isn't going to be as high as "Every instance of incest will yield freaky babies with webbed feet" or something crazy. That said, if someone was to try and breed their family over 100 years, they may encounter at least some problems.

2) The human species is already very genetically similar. I can't find exact data on mouse genetics but I doubt that a species that has been reproducing like rodents (for obvious reasons) for millenia if not longer is going to have the same sort of bottleneck humans have had.

True, humans are at higher risk of genetic mutation when committing incest (If I recall correctly I believe it's something to do with how the embryo forms for humans) while animals are usually less likely to encounter such problems, it still would most likely require multiple generations of incest to cause most/any problems.

So the only reason I would find incest creepy would be if i was a mindless socialite and don't develop morals on my own? Nice to know.

... Okay, that was harsh and a little stupid of me. Look, I agree society places too many tabboos on things that don't make sense, but that doesn't mean everything society tells us is wrong isn't.

Sure, but societies morals are full of double standards and things that don't make sense. For example; it's socially acceptable for men to sleep around with many women and can often be congratulated for it yet if a woman goes around sleeping with many men she gets labled as a "Slut" which is a complete double standard.

That's not to say that everything society tells us is misleading, or incomprehensible though the stuff that makes sense tends to be the common sense stuff. In the end you do have to draw from many different areas to provide yourself with your morality.

 

[Arakasi]

I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.

Two things you have to understand about Orwell, one, he's was a communist until Stalin went bonkers, two he saw the same warning signs in western culture. That was the point of 1984.

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

We never did talk about Blade Runner but I think this is sort of important for you to understand why I feel this way. Thankfully there's a guy on You Tube that thinks almost exactly the way I do

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

Perhaps I've just grown up with cyberpunk in my face and have been indoctrinated to think this way, but perhaps these are valid questions everyone should ask themselves.

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.

How can you not believe in Free Will? A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.

... You see a problem with that I hope...

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.

The only thing it couldn't solve is brain related issues, and even then we don't know for certain.

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble.

... How the fuck, no just think about this for a second, how the fuck can you "Own land".
No just think about it for a second, who initially has the rights too it? Who has the rights to sell it? If the answer is the government then how did they acquire it? Because if the government owns it now they acquired it via murder.

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

I think you can lease land, I think you can operate it for a long time, I think you can

Cut off mid-sentence?

As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments; encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).

This is pretty much what happens at the moment and its not working. You have thousands of illegals killed every year by machinery, doing unskilled work. Because they do this, and I want to point out that I'm not against illegals, I'm against the system that they are exploited in, the value of labour is determined only by the employer.

See, a wise person would tell you that it was an inequality to begin with that caused the problem, the concept of 'illegals' not the system of capitalism.

You mention skill, skill is given by education. Who owns the lobby groups that petition the state and federal governments for lower taxes? what do taxes pay for? Why do middle class have to pay tax when the big businesses don't? Especially when the wage gap is so high?

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

Your ideal is what's happening in America and it's not working.

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.

You know this is what the Japanese do? The owner of Suzuki hasn't been of the same blood line as the previous owner for three generations.

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.

Though even in a book of lies there is some truth to be had

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Ah what a tricky issue, well done OP for giving us something refreshing to discuss.

Well my view on it can be summed up as 'Whatever floats your boat mate, if your both up for it who am I to tell you what to do.'

As for the possibility of deformed children in heterosexual relationships then the incidence of defects is actually fairly small in the first few generations, like so small that it's almost no different to the incidence of genetic defects in offspring of regular non-related parents. It's the cumulative effect over multiple generations where it gets a bit messy.

Why is it such a taboo then?

Well that's partly human nature, partly religion, and partly societal bias.
See we as humans have a natural aversion to procreation with close relatives, it's sort of in built by nature to increase diversity in the DNA pool of our species. However not all people have such an aversion, that's just the way sexually reproductive populations work, not all individuals have the same traits, sure the majority do but the majority isn't everyone.

Religious bias against it more than likely steams from a time when communities were smaller and there was a higher incidence of deformity because of inbreeding over multiple generations. What better way to curtail it than to make it a sin? Making stuff a sin against God/Whoever was basically what we did before we came up with the idea of laws.

Societal bias against it is actually a fairly new thing. If you look back in history then you'll notice an awful lot of royalty are the products of incests...and people actually worshipped some of them as gods.

Sometimes I wonder though if my opinion is based on the fact that I'm an only child, maybe I would view the issue diffidently if I had a sibling. Who knows.

 

[Arakasi]

How long have you been reading it? 2 1/2 years? Joking, lol.

That's pretty fair, I have been taking a really long time reading it.

 

[Trivun]

Provided it's between consenting adults I see no problem with it. Anything like kids being abused by their parents would come under child abuse anyway, or sexual abuse laws if the 'kid' is also an adult, so we have laws in place already to cover those cases. As far as consenting relationships (casual or otherwise) go, I see no problems here. I actually have a story in my head that includes two characters, a pair of twin sisters, who are in an incestuous relationship (well, until one of them is murdered) - the surviving twin is one of the main characters, and the relationship is only ever shown as being loving and normal compared to the other characters' relationships. That should tell you all you need to know about my view on incest. I.e. it's perfectly fine by me.

 

[knight steel]

I'm perfectly fine with incest-

Morally: There is no such thing as a universal correct morality,Morality is man made as it is a belief and is not a tangible/measurable occurrence in nature and as such it is completely subjective with no one moral belief system being any more correct than the other and as such making laws based purely on morals is incorrect.

Offspring: With all the way's we can prevent childbirth this is non-issue,if the idea of a defective child scares you so much simply enforce the use of condoms/abortions. We allow "normal" couples to give birth to defective children so why is it different for incest couples,"oh they have a higher chance" so what! Or couples have a chance but we don't regulate them giving birth or not same thing with this.

Personally: It doesn't effect therefore I do not care if incest is practised or not. So really we are bannning something just because people find it gross which if we are going to have laws is a horrible way to go about it as what people find gross is so subjective that it allows anything to be banned because of the personal belief of a few people. Instead what should be banned is thing that directly harm the running of society as that is the purpose of the law-to make sure that the community runs smoothly.

 

[dmase]

It's weird but to each his own and if there are offspring just make sure they are not the horribly mutated kind that go on massacres with chainsaws.

 

[The Ubermensch]

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

He was disillusioned by Communism at the time. But the point of 1984 is that dehumanising the population isn't inherent to the type of government you have.

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

Eyes... I loved literary deconstruction, that's what I do. We got to do Star ship troopers and Enders Game in high school; that teacher was edgy as fuck

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

22, Gardevoir is the shit. I EV train ************ come at me.

But my mum was really into scifi.

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

If you're talking about how experience, genetics, the temperature in the centre of the earth, the amount of radiation produced by the sun, your interactions with other people, the time the pope took a crap on 28/6/1641, the lines of flux emanating from the Andromeda galaxy and every single other variable in the universe are all part of the equation that determines your next decision then yes, I can see that.

It doesn't diminish your choices though.

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

But why would they? they make more profit off of a depressed labour market that will work for chips.

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

Depends on what the issue is; if it was a visual issue like colour blindness you could replace the occipital lobe. They are actually mapping the brain pathways at the moment and have found that there is a lot more order to the synapse pathways that they expected.

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

Dude, just chillax and smoke a dubie.

See, a wise person would tell you that it was an inequality to begin with that caused the problem, the concept of 'illegals' not the system of capitalism.

I just said that dehumanisation of a person isn't inherited by a type of system.

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

I'm actually from Australia, here we do pay car registration which pays for the roads... I really don't want to get into taxation as I think money is actually becoming obsolete as we approach the Type One Epoch. I see Technocopianism, basically true Marxist communism (which has never existed in reality) with a decentralised government, made possible through technology and lasers.

I could go into why I think this but I pretty much already have.

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

I didn't say it was objectivist, I was saying the "Ideal" you proposed already exists in America. As you said, this isn't objectivism. There is something about Rand's philosophy which is very Darwinian. Darwin's philosophy of survival of the fittest has actually been disproved; many creatures act socially, help each other survive. I mean in many way's humans do this and we are the most successful species on the planet. War's are won by cooperation, advancement is made through finding new ways of healing the sick. We are at our best when we bind together, normally against another group of us but hey? It sorta works.

That's my issue with objectivism. In truth you have to let some people suffer or else they will never learn, but most of the time it's okay to give the hobo on the side of the street your spare change.

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

Please, verify what people say.

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

Yeah probably, we all actually agree with most of what she says, but the levels she thinks we need to go are a bit to extreme for most of us

and to be honest:

 

[Arakasi]

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

He was disillusioned by Communism at the time. But the point of 1984 is that dehumanising the population isn't inherent to the type of government you have.]

Ahh, right. I don't exactly know what is meant by 'dehumanisation' though.

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

Eyes... I loved literary deconstruction, that's what I do. We got to do Star ship troopers and Enders Game in high school; that teacher was edgy as fuck

Oh, I love it now but making a child do it as a part of class, it'll ruin anything.

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

22, Gardevoir is the shit. I EV train ************ come at me.

Nice. More of a 1-2 gen man myself, but I don't mind gen 3.

But my mum was really into scifi.

Mine was more into say, Star Trek than specific movies. I still like Next Generation.

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

If you're talking about how experience, genetics, the temperature in the centre of the earth, the amount of radiation produced by the sun, your interactions with other people, the time the pope took a crap on 28/6/1641, the lines of flux emanating from the Andromeda galaxy and every single other variable in the universe are all part of the equation that determines your next decision then yes, I can see that.

It doesn't diminish your choices though.

Well there are 4 camps, the one which says you can have free will even with determinism (compatibalism), one that says you can't (hard determinism, one that says the universe isn't deterministic and there is free will (libertarianism) and one that says there isn't free will in an indeterministic universe (hard incompatibalism).

I generally fall under 'hard determinist', but I will admit that most modern physicists don't think determinism is true, so I'm willing to accept hard indeterminism.

I agree though, it doesn't diminish choice, it just diminishes the way most people think about choice, i.e. 'Free Will'.

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

But why would they? they make more profit off of a depressed labour market that will work for chips.

Because in an environment where no one sells, the sperm is greater than gold. You can rely on selfishness to fix that one.

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

Depends on what the issue is; if it was a visual issue like colour blindness you could replace the occipital lobe. They are actually mapping the brain pathways at the moment and have found that there is a lot more order to the synapse pathways that they expected.

Sure, but can you imagine getting anything in the brain without damaging it? I mean, who knows what the future will hold, but remember that prevention is almost exclusively better than the cure.

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

Dude, just chillax and smoke a dubie.

The day I smoke a dubie is the day I will allow someone to decapitate me.

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

I'm actually from Australia, here we do pay car registration which pays for the roads...

Interesting coincidence, so am I.

I really don't want to get into taxation as I think money is actually becoming obsolete as we approach the Type One Epoch. I see Technocopianism, basically true Marxist communism (which has never existed in reality) with a decentralised government, made possible through technology and lasers.

You should visit my thread about the Experience Machine, if you haven't already. Anyhow, I think something like that, if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, is more far away then we think.

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

I didn't say it was objectivist, I was saying the "Ideal" you proposed already exists in America. As you said, this isn't objectivism. There is something about Rand's philosophy which is very Darwinian. Darwin's philosophy of survival of the fittest has actually been disproved; many creatures act socially, help each other survive.

Ever read The Selfish Gene? If not, do it now. It is amazing, and it explains how creatures help each other socially from a selfish place and how that results in apparent altruism.

I mean in many way's humans do this and we are the most successful species on the planet. War's are won by cooperation, advancement is made through finding new ways of healing the sick. We are at our best when we bind together, normally against another group of us but hey? It sorta works.

See above. Read The Selfish Gene.

That's my issue with objectivism. In truth you have to let some people suffer or else they will never learn, but most of the time it's okay to give the hobo on the side of the street your spare change.

I disagree. It is never okay to give the hobo on the street your spare change. If you are going to help him, do it right, do not give him the means to buy move of whatever his/her vice is.

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

Please, verify what people say.

You want me to go into what the Stoics think about family relations?

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

Yeah probably, we all actually agree with most of what she says, but the levels she thinks we need to go are a bit to extreme for most of us

Then you have the people who judge based on speculation without actually having read it. Sigh.

and to be honest:

Depressing.

 

[Ieyke]

-Is incest morally wrong?
No.

-In the case of no possible offspring?
No.

-With offspring?
No. It's a calculated (slight) risk.

-Should incest be legally banned?
No.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?
No.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Is it morally wrong? Brother - sister, aunt - nephew, uncle - niece; all perfectly cool in my book so long as babies are not being made and everyone is legal and consenting because, hey, they ain't hurting anyone. Mother - son, father - daughter however is a bit less so, not that it's truly awful it's just not quite as morally grey...

Should it be banned? Maybe not outright, but it should be frowned upon and doing it without protection should be very illegal.

Does it disgust me? No, not really, so long as there's no offspring and it's... Clean. If I found out a friend was fucking his sister I'd be fine with it. Hell, if I had a sister that was attractive, legal age and consenting I wouldn't be totally against it...

 

[HalfTangible]

Yeah, there is some risk caused by incest, but stuff like the royal bloodlines (Where they try and keep their blood "Pure" for as long as possible) are just extreme cases, I don't think that if incest was legal that everyone would start having children with only people in their immediate families for multiple generations. It'd probably be a rare occurance that would most likely (I don't know the actual numbers) be less chance of causing defects than what some people can get for various problems like cancer risk or other things.

I'm saying it's wrong, not that it should be illegal. There is a difference.

It was just an example of long term forced incest that still yields genetically identical offspring, to show how the risk isn't going to be as high as "Every instance of incest will yield freaky babies with webbed feet" or something crazy. That said, if someone was to try and breed their family over 100 years, they may encounter at least some problems.

True, humans are at higher risk of genetic mutation when committing incest (If I recall correctly I believe it's something to do with how the embryo forms for humans) while animals are usually less likely to encounter such problems, it still would most likely require multiple generations of incest to cause most/any problems.

It's still a risk, and frankly saying "it's only bad if you do it in two/three generations in a row" strikes me as rather hypocritical for the first generation to try and tell their kids.

Sure, but societies morals are full of double standards and things that don't make sense. For example; it's socially acceptable for men to sleep around with many women and can often be congratulated for it yet if a woman goes around sleeping with many men she gets labled as a "Slut" which is a complete double standard.

You've heard of a 'manwhore', right? And how women who have dates that sleep around DON'T take kindly to their men sleeping around?

Even considering that though, this one admittedly IS a dumb double standard. But I think it comes from the fact that men can fertilize as many women as they can fuck, while a woman can only be fertilized by one person at a time. So there's at least a logical chain behind it. Unless there's no one outside of your family available (unlikely in a world where you can circumnavigate the world in a day, more or less) why would you screw your family?

That's not to say that everything society tells us is misleading, or incomprehensible though the stuff that makes sense tends to be the common sense stuff. In the end you do have to draw from many different areas to provide yourself with your morality.

Yes. What's your point?

 

[Something Amyss]

Of course, I have been trained to aid in giving genetic counselling for many different kinds of patients. From people with specific genetic conditions to those above a certain age (such as the case you mention) to those with a family history of genetic conditions to other risky cases, there is actually a significant number of couples who ought to be given genetic counselling. It's just not a very widespread practice.

This is one time I didn't read the rest of the thread, and it turns out I should have, as you mention this stuff later on. Cheers.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

OP: Yes, it is morally wrong, even without offspring. Yes incest should be outlawed and yes I find it disgusting espicially if its a granparent having sex with their grandson or granddaughter.

Well, it seems to me that "old people and sex, especially sex with young people" translates into "ewwwwww" in the minds of most people anyway, whether the couple in question is related or not...

While not incest, I have yet to hear people say "ewww" about Patrick Stewart(72) dating Sunny Ozell(34), or Al Pacino(72) dating Lucila Sola(33), which leads me to think that most people are not grossed out if the older person is popular enough.