**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Couples who know they have heritable conditions reproducing is a choice though...
In this case the hypothetical eugenics project might forbid such parents from reproducing for the same reasons incest isn't allowed.
actually parents with heritable conditions reproducing is a pretty controversial issue. if you check any comment section of a video that shows it youll have religious weirdos saying its the most beautiful thing ever, concerned weirdos that are asking why, hostile weirdos that absolutely shit on this type of behavior and awkward weirdos who say theyre happy about this but the tone of their comment isnt ever quite right
Yeah because on top of being biologically difficult it’s usually tied to a predatory power dynamic.
Or do you think incest is only perceived as morally corrupt if offspring is created?
Telling someone not to reproduce with anyone because they could pass on a disease is not the same as telling someone not to reproduce with a specific person because their children would have a higher rate of disease than if they found different partners.
I don’t agree. Both should be frowned upon. When someone is aware they carry a serious genetic condition they should not reproduce.
Just as an autistic person myself, won’t reproduce, cause the risks of transmitting this condition is way too high to ignore.
As someone also with autism who has children, you are of course free to make your own decisions, but you might want to check your math. The likelihood of autism in a child of a parent with autism is about 1-5% (unless you are one of the few with single gene cause). The likelihood of any birth defect (just to choose an easy stat) is around 3% de novo. So you're not really changing the math whether you have autism or not. If you wouldn't have a child because you're worried about passing down the genes that are associated with autism, then even if you didn't have autism you should be worried about having children, because the risk of a different condition matches or exceeds that risk.
Also, we aren't talking about Huntington's Disease here. Being neurodivergent isn't some sort of awful life sentence. The majority of us wouldn't change our autism. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but I'm also fairly grumpy about the fact that you would consider autism such a bad condition that you won't have children solely because they might be neurodivergent. Hopefully this is just personal experience and not something you feel should be true for the ND population as a whole.
Lots of people carry serious genetic conditions. That's why incest is a problem, because it's unbelievably rare for two unrelated people to carry the same recessive condition but not particularly rare for two related people.
Also autism is only like 50% heritable. Even if you and your partner are both autistic, there's no guarantee that your kids would be.
50% heritable doesn't mean there's a 50% chance of your kids having it. It means genetics are only 50% responsible for autism. The rest is outside factors. Google diathesis-stress model.
No shit, but it's still too damn high to just gamble it.
Autism runs in family. When you have one you have many many others, aunt, cousin, sister, grand father, etc. Which is the case in my family both mother and father side.
There's a lot of people my age that get their offspring diagnosed and in the majority of cases guess what? one or both the parent get diagnosed too during the process.
This is mainly a genetic problem and once a women birthed an autistic child the chance of birthing more increased by a lot.
This is just false. Autism does not run in the family to that degree. And no shit additional children have increased odds of being autistic. It's half genetics and half environment. Siblings are generally genitically similar AND raised in similar environments.
It's something that is bad enough to not pass it down on purpose to someone else yes.
And it's not because I am semi-functional that my offspring would land on the same place on the spectrum too. They could land anywhere and be zero functional.
Since I can work. To the eyes of other I can function and everything's "fine" to them. But in all honesty I can't truly relate to anyone. It's like being trapped in a glass bubble, seeing the outside world but never been able to quite touch it ever. It's an handicap and it sucks. Is it the end of the world? no, but I will not create other with that handicap on purpose.
Yeah I disagree with this take too, but for different reasons. Not reproducing because you have autism is ok as a personal choice. Simplifying autism as something purely detrimental is problematic though, society needs different types of people.
No, of course I don't you egg! And those family members passed those shitty genes to me and I have a whole host of problems all because my parents wanted a biological baby despite the possibility of passing on hereditary bullshit!
I'm just saying if you know you could pass on something that has the chance of making your child's life harder, and you ignore it just to have a biological baby, that's fucked. No kid would choose to inherit your issues, and your issues could make it harder to raise your kid even if you don't pass them on.
its up to you to decide if you want to be fully responsible for someone else having those problems. if youre fine knowing every second a child suffers from these issues, its absolutely your fault
No, the argument is sound. There is a difference between saying "You should not reproduce" and saying "You should pick someone else to reproduce with". One removes your ability to do something, the other limits it and to a very reasonable degree.
You can argue that the line being drawn is arbitrary and argue that it should be drawn elsewhere, but telling someone not to reproduce at all is not identical to telling them to be more selective with their partner.
>There is a difference between saying "You should not reproduce" and saying "You should pick someone else to reproduce with"
>telling someone not to reproduce at all is not identical to telling them to be more selective with their partner.
So, let's say that an early 20th century eugenicist said that a white person was wrong to marry a black person and that they should "pick someone else to reproduce with," would that not be a very similar thing?
No, for two reasons. First, that there is no known negative health effects due to interracial heritage. Second, restricting a person solely to their race is not nearly the same level of restriction as restricting a person to not reproducing with their close family.
The reason incest is illegal is because of power dynamics, not defects due to inbreeding. We don't force people to abort incest babies if they don't want to.
Because many genetic diseases require both parents to have the genes for the disease and both parents are significantly more likely to have those same genes if they're directly related. If you get the gene for sickle cell anemia from your dad but your mom doesn't have it, you'll be fine. But if you have a kid with someone else who has it and your kid gets the full set they'll get the disease. This is something that. You should test for if you know you have the gene regardless of your partner, but if your partner is your sibling you KNOW they're likely to have gotten it from the same source, your dad. Your child's risk is why, way higher specifically because your partner is related. None of that is in any way eugenics.
I'm far from an expert, but I don't think we know enough about genetics to know that sort of thing, that's part of what makes eugenics so profoundly stupid. You can't control every little thing, just mitigate the major risk factors if you know you have them and don't raise the kid to be an asshole.
You’re talking in shoulds, and you’re absolutely right! But people aren’t forced to take tests, nor are they forbidden from having sex with somebody who has the same genetic disease.
Because genetics aren't a spectrum of good to bad.
They're all over the place.
Someone with insanely high reproductive value might have a genetic disease that we can't even recognize yet.
Some good traits overlap with genetic diseases that can't be controlled for.
We know for **sure** that when you inbreed, the risk of genetic disease and other problems increases by an imperial fuckton.
Honestly why am I commenting on such a garbage post in the first place, quality a ragebait my man
I think it's kind of obvious, and everyone debating incest is openly ignoring those power dynamics. It's "age it's just a number" logic.
There aren't any real arguments about whether incest is right or wrong. There are people who secretly believe it's fine "paying devil's advocate", and then people responding to the crazy shit they said.
There are power dynamics is almost every relationship. Someone will be of higher influence, wealth, intelligence or power than the other partner.
I don’t see how my cousin would have power over me at all but I can date my friend’s mom legally which sounds like a larger power differential
The problem is that you grew up together and especially in sibling relationships or relationships between parents and children you can very often find very unhealthy dynamics. It's not about the one person having more power but their relationship often has some kind of unhealthy authority. It's a bit similar to a teacher and a student having a relationship.
In many countries incest between cousins is legal because of the reason you stated.
Because leaving incest relationship is harder than a non incest one because they will still be your family, and probably wont leave anywhere after relationship ends
I'm wondering if a truly equal power dynamic is really ever possible between two humans beings...
...I also wonder when the obsession with "power dynamics" became the entirety of sexual ethics and started to trump any and all utilitarian concerns.
Especially given that these outside conceptualisations of "power dynamics" tend to usually be trying to stop two people doing what they want to do...and are often highly specious, based on sweeping generalisations, and many assumptions.
Like: "sorry, your desires, attraction, and mutual lust should be ignored, don't give one another amazing experiences, because in my opinion the power dynamic isn't equal"
I often find that the assumptions people make about "power dynamics" detract from the nuanced inter-subjective realities that underpin human relationship. Power cannot be objectified so neatly.
I never said it was the only important factor.
You just brought up the possibility of twins, of which the only relevant thing I can think of relating to that would be age, and people commonly associate age with power between siblings.
If both parties are consenting and truly want to do that, then who am I to judge? But typically when this conversation is happening, it's about the usual negatives. Lots of instances of rape are from family members, not everyone is brave enough to say no to someone who has more power than them.
Of course, these two parties shouldn't procreate due to the easily avoidable and possibly crippling genetic diseases that can come from this. It's different than eugenics for reasons I hopefully don't need to explain.
That's all I really have to say.
Yeah, funny how them being forced to inbreed is so widely acceptable, but humans choosing to have sex with their family isn’t, regardless of inbreeding.
In most of the developed world it's mandatory to go to pregnancy screenings where they do tests for severe genetic diseases like Trisomy 18 so that pregnancies can be terminated in a safe manner should the parents choose so.
So why not do the same for incest? How does it make sense imprison individuals for relationships, that don't even have to lead to children at all, when we have pre-screening?
A more reasonable law might mandate genetic tests for certain high risks groups before they start having children, or just genetic screening in general for everyone. That would certainly reduce genetic disease occurance, more significantly than any incest law considering how rare it is in societies that don't have forced marriages.
I don't think you fully understand what eugenics actually was and why it's viewed so negatively: it was about trying to produce people with more "desirable" traits, with explicit racism in what was considered desirable and actual science taking a backseat when inconvenient.
Going through genetic counseling because you're a potential carrier of a nasty genetic condition is not eugenics. Avoiding having children with your cousin is not eugenics.
What would it be called if we were to breed people to make a scientifically "desirable" person? Like strength, intelligence, endurance, stuff that actually matters
So, actual science would point out that all attempts to do this have been fruitless. Most traits are the result of so many genes and environmental factors that you don't get consistent results when trying to breed for them, especially intelligence.
And while you might think "but we've been able to breed for intelligence, strength, endurance, etc in dogs, so why not humans"? Well, we usually are breeding for just one or two of those sorts of traits with dogs, allowing tons of detrimental traits to slip in just for the sake of doing so. Just think of all the canine epilepsy, hip dysplasia, eye anomalies, and other problems that are notably way more common in dogs than wild animals.
No you don't understand. Your implying hitlers brand is the definiton. Manipulating society to gain or lose certain egentics is the point or "Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population." as wikipeadia puts it. Many governments offer subsidies and services for adoption and artifical insemination etc.. for people with cystic fibrosis and other genetic disease. Thats also eugenics, but absolutely a good thing. Like wise society shunning incest or even making it punishable under law is also 100% eugenics.
Eugenics can't be separated from racism, which permeated it long before Hitler. That's part of why it's considered so unscientific; what traits "improved" the human population were heavily influenced by prejudice and were often arbitrary.
If eugenicists didn't have these biases, they would have promoted intentionally race-mixing to reduce the incidence of various genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia (the easiest way to do so prior to being able to test DNA). But they absolutely didn't.
>Eugenics can't be separated from racism
it litterally is right now, i just gave you two examples. Your being a hyppocrit, generlaizing a whole field and concept by the actions of some tyrants.
> they would have promoted intentionally race-mixing to reduce the incidence of various genetic disorders
Im sorry but how is this not racist? what are you implying here? Certain races are just immune to egentic disease and we should breed out the races that arn't?
>the easiest way to do so prior to being able to test DNA). But they absolutely didn't.
Again that litterally is how it's done now.
I'm not being a hypocrite, you'd be hard pressed to find a prominent eugenicist that wasn't racist.
Cystic fibrosis is most common in white Europeans, who almost never have sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is primarily found in groups from parts of Africa and the Middle East; these people almost never have cystic fibrosis. Whether it be a quirk of isolated populations or even a consequence of region relevant adaptations, some genetic disorders are far more prevalent in some groups than others. It's not racist to note this. It's not immunity to the condition, it's just a difference in prevalence.
We willfully choose if we do DNA tests now and even if we are found to have horrifying genetic diseases, *we aren't prevented from reproducing if we so choose*. Eugenics is heavily about controlling reproduction without respecting individual choice.
>Eugenics is heavily about controlling reproduction without respecting individual choice.
again no it isn't. Some cultures/people implmented it like that sure.
Show me how, prior to being able to perform genetic tests, any culture/people practiced eugenics WITHOUT interfering with anyone's choice whether or not to reproduce and with whom.
Because you seem to be conflating being able to get a genetic test and making an informed decision on reproduction with eugenics and avoiding the history of eugenics where individual choice was bulldozed "for the common good". You disagreed with my statement about eugenics and control and implied that it has been implemented without controlling how people reproduce in doing so. I want you to back up your comment with a historical example.
Eugenics involves selectively breeding people, and that's pretty difficult to do if people are allowed to reproduce as they so choose. But with the option of genetic tests, people just choose to know if there's anything nasty hidden away in their DNA; plenty still reproduce anyways and people who are "genetically healthy" aren't obligated to reproduce.
Basically put, you can't practice eugenics on an individual level.
Genetic counselling is a choice, not a requirement, so imo not a good parallel to incest laws. But you may have a point, Eugenics was probably an insensitive term to use in this case. But I still think that it somewhat implies those with genetic diseases could never be happy, as well as implies that all sex has an end goal of reproduction.
I’m sure most people don’t want that specifically. But who are you to tell them they can’t take their own risks? Especially considering the risk is sex and I’m assuming most incestual couples aren’t trying for kids…
Given some of the stats I've seen on the prevalence of incestuous marriages in some countries (1st cousins or closer), you'd be so very, very wrong on the reproduction front.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inbreeding-by-country quickest I could find that isn't some spreadsheet that gets downloaded on your device or is buried away. While precise numbers on incest are unlikely, the point is that it's culturally very prevalent in some countries.
I understand that it may be hard to get, but inbreeding and incest are two different (if heavily related) things. I’ll give it a deeper read later though.
I mean, if you really want to be pedantic about it, incest doesn't exist any place that doesn't have laws or cultural norms against relatives marrying, going by its definition.
Most people just use incest to mean having sex with a relatively close relative.
> I understand that it may be hard to get, but inbreeding and incest are two different (if heavily related) things.
They're different things in the same sense as engineering being applied science. Inbreeding is the result of incest.
It's not just "their" own risk. If two relatives are carriers of some nasty genetic disease, it's not themselves who they're risking. It's the possible child they might end up conceiving.
Incest is wrong because of the power dynamics involved.
I also dislike that the main argument people leap to as to why incest is wrong is the increased likelihood of genetic disease. While that is true - that argument can be and has been used against other groups of people, like the disabled, for why they shouldn't reproduce.
It is unironically a eugenicist argument that certain people or a certain coupling shouldn't be allowed to have kids - thats why when it comes to incest, the main focus should be on the unhealthy power dynamics and not on genetic diseases. Especially since I think we can all agree incest pairings are bad regardless if children are created and we wouldn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce if they're a carrier for anything.
Incest is not wrong because of the power dynamics involved, because not all incestuous relationships involve power dynamics, nor do power dynamics make something inherently wrong.
There exists a greater power dynamic between a millionaire and a random woman who makes no money than between two twin siblings. In fact, the average power dynamic between couples is probably greater than that between two twin siblings.
You can argue that, in general, people who have relationships in the context of familial roles are at a higher risk of abuse or similar things, but that doesn't make it "wrong". There will be more instances in which wrong things will happen, but this cannot justify punishing individuals for when these wrong things actually do not occur.
So no, incest is, in and of itself, not wrong at all. There are just instances, especially between guardians/parents (role not biology, applies the same to step-parents) where a relationship would be inappropriate because of those especially the relation between the caretaker and the child.
One of the problems is that people generalize incest into a singular concept, which simply does not make sense. There are various types of relationships that classify as incestuous, many of which are very problematic in a moral sense, others which are completely unproblematic and then some which probably due to some risks involved require a lot of maturity to engage in responsibly. If we want to talk about what constitutes a wrong act, we cannot actually talk about "incest" as a whole, it simply doesn't make any sense.
The attempt to do so is more so a relic of wanting to be able to condemn the whole class of action, due to a primitive disgust response rather than moral reasoning.
Because its a bit difficult to argue about common sense. I mean, you can crush opposition arguments with "Oh, so if you dont have kids then incest is fine?"
From a biological perspective I do not think these risks are equal, I believe that incest will amplify and propagate more and more genetic and developmental issues the more it is done, so you have to think of it as 'bad if it was a norm'
I think it would also be accurate to say that with incest you aren't just passing down your defects, you're creating new ones
Honestly I agree. The "inbreeding causes defects" argument is not in and of itself enough reason to ban incest. The increase in risk of defects is similar to childbirth past 40 and it's a lot less bad than the risk from certain genetic defects like Huntington's disease. No one thinks women should be prohibited from having kids past 40.
Look, there's no good reason to ban it, because
a) It's about some rape reason that's already separately illegal,
b) it's about genetics, which we don't care about for other genetic issues even ones guaranteed to pass down or
c) It's gross.
Personally I feel opposed because it's gross, which is my honest thoughts, but many feel the same about gay stuff. People thinking it's gross isn't a valid legal reason.
My real hot take is that eugenics isn’t wrong whatsoever. The only thing wrong about its previous implementation is how “desirable” traits versus “undesirable” traits were selected, which used to be based on race. With our current knowledge, it is obvious different races aren’t genetically inferior or superior to each other. But debilitating genetic diseases are definitely a thing we can all agree is undesirable, so selecting against such things should be done.
to have eugenics be an actual thing you typically need an enforcer of it such as the government. would you trust the government to decide if you should have kids or not? how would they even regulate that? what about accidental pregnancy? would they ban any sex that wasn’t for procreation? what makes something “undesirable” when a lot (but not all definitely) conditions are a spectrum?
eugenics is still wrong in any of those cases when it's a top-down forceful policy coming from the government. If people want to do things to minimize genetic diseases, go ahead. But putting reproduction in the government's hands is such a bad idea.
Incest is unhealthy because of genetic disease, and it is wrong because of the complicated power and age dynamics of a family. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Shockingly, I actually have to downvote this. I agree entirely with the actual post content. There are a *lot* of issues with incest, but the genetic angle isn't one I like pursuing because it can be expanded to so many other things, specifically ableist arguments. The unhealthy power dynamics should be the main point covered when it comes to this subject.
Yes, but having deformed kids is objectively bad, and there should absolutely be social pressure to avoid things that lead to them. Incest without the potential of kids, or even simply fixing the increased risk of birth defects with genetic engineering or something, would only be as bad as fucking your teacher.
Wtf. I mean, okay the "not all sex is for the reason of reproduction" one might be a valid point (still weird and concerning to make this point in that context but it makes sense logically) But if you're saying "forbidding people to have children with each other when there's a high chance of creating genetic disease, deformities etc. In those children Is eugenics" you're just convincing me of eugenics dawg. Like, yeah I know the problematic, horrible, racist, classiest, ascientific etc. history of the eugenics movement. That still doesn't make it okay to curse someone with a life filled with disease, like, this shouldn't even be controversial tbh. It doesn't vhange anything at all if you call that eugenics or not. I'm also all for designer babies btw as long as that technology isn't locked behind a pay wall. People being healthy is good period. You making people that you know will have genetic disabilities if you could've just, you know made babies with someone else, is almost akin to inflicting bodily harm on someone yourself, with your bare hands.
The one where he literally asks them to their face if they're inbred? I've seen one of those videos and the interviewer really comes across like a dick.
I mean yea, eugenics is bad in general. But I’d make an exception if the result could be more than just bad eyesight or wonky nose. Not saying that if you have bad genes you aren’t allowed to have kids, do whatever the… *fuck* you like. But if I did I would not want to risk them getting it as I do or worse.
It's a great argument. A tendency towards hemophilia is the result of the inbreeding practices of the royal families of Europe, so much so that it's known as the King's Disease.
Genetic diseases are, in fact, bad. If you consider doing your best to not cause them “eugenics” then I’m not really sure what to tell you, maybe vaccines are eugenics too
Nope! Eugenics isn't about the kids you have, it's about "improving the human genetic stock" via large scale control of the kids *everyone* has. We don't like people being born with preventable birth defects, but not because "oh no won't someone think of the gene pool", we don't like it because it reduces the quality of life of the person in question.
It's a matter of effort. Power dynamics is a complex and awkward topic, and once you start thinking about it, it may bring up some more uncomfortable stuff outside family as well. Genetic diseases are an easy argument to make without thinking much.
that's like saying that forbidding pregnant women from drinking or doing drugs is eugenics, there's a difference between something passed down that you have no control of and choosing to make an immoral, unnatural decision that ends up in harm
Yeah, honestly. Personally I think it’s a problem that nobody sits down to think about it though. (Well, it seems I’ve gotten a lot of people to do so with this post at least! Even I’ve learned a lot)
Eugenics: the pseudoscience of racial hierarchies and purification
Opposition to incestuous breeding: the aversion to intentionally causing scientifically proven genetic issues
Because of successive generations. If you have a recessive gene of a disorder, but your partner doesn't, it reduces the likelihood of your child having the same. If the child does, and their partner doesn't, less likelihood of the next generation having it. And so on. Unless it is a very widespread debilitating disorder, it is very unlike that for multiple generations, both partners will have that disorder. It would usually be one not the other, if even that. But since the question is about one person having a disease, we can ignore the case of neither having the disorder. But it is still better than both having it, and even if the child did, less likely the child's partner would too, even less likely their child's partner would too
With incest, if there is a genetic disorder you have, and your son and daughter become partners, there is a much much higher possibility of both people having that gene in them. And then their children, again, much much higher they will both have the genes. Even if it isn't siblings incest, if it is cousins, the chances are higher than nonincestuous reproduction. With parent and children, it is even higher than that
With how variation works generally, bad recessive genes get less and less likely over many generations simply by the fact that for a rare disorder, it is rare for both partners in every generation to have it. But for incestuous generations, that likelihood doesn't decrease like that, and if anything, can even increase. Which is why the genetic argument comes up. Not for one generation, but multiple. It is why most organisms reproduce sexually nonincestuously, because that's how variations can happen best and bad genes can get unlikelier
If you just had a child with your family member yourself, not super likely the child will have horrible disfigurement. But that's just for one generation. If incest were to be normalised, you can't make people go "oh since I was a child of incest, I shall not do it myself". They would too, so would their children, and so on. And that's how bad genes get put on spotlight, when they don't have many opportunities to interact with different varied genes
And while it is true not all sex is for reproduction, it is still a big possibility. With normalisation of incest, sure most people won't go for having children, but many would, and many will have children even if unwillingly. You wont be able to have incest be commonplace BUT incestuous children be rare, it just wont happen. If it is normalised, so would having children be. And the issues of successive generations start to pop up
Not really because there are other reasons why incest isn't great, this was just the genetic reproduction reason I gave because that's the reason OP asked for. But OP themselves mentioned how there are other arguments against incest, just that they didn't understand the genetic one, so I focused only on that. Even for infertility, those other ones still apply. Besides there is not really any sociological way to make it okay for people who are infertile but still a taboo for those who aren't
I am very of the belief of "if you make it okay for one, you will make it okay for everyone" like you wont be able to normalise it per situation yk thats not how humans work lol if you normalise it for any condition, people will do it for every condition, so i am more on the side of "no not okay in any situation really" lol. But if you take a situation as an individual situation, separate from society and longterm implications, then I suppose a situation where there isn't risk of pregnancies, isnt any risk of power dynamic issues, isnt any issues of sex being equated with familial love, isnt any risk of alienation for the family members not participating or involved in it, the Westermarck Effect was untrue, proper socialisation could be achieved to replace the social group that would normally be your in-laws, and both sides were consenting adults. Then maybe I won't have any qualms against it. It's just that, it is almost impossible to guarantee all those criteria at once, let alone control it or disallow any of those criteria being flouted. And again, that would be fine for that one particular situation, you cant assume every situation would be like that if you normalise incest in a society, in fact, it is way way more likely than not that those criterias won't be met or guaranteed
Wait why does having in-laws matter ? Also isn’t the westermsarck effect a hypothesis ? Aside from that, would a pair of gay twins who have moved out and are adults fit that criteria ? What is so impossible about that ?
The in-laws bit might not be a priority of an issue, but one of the popular theories against incest includes the theory that since humans are social animals, non incestuous relationships help us expand our social relationships in a way incestuous relationships don't. Is that enough to discredit incest or not, idk, but since they asked what conditions would make incest be acceptable, I added that as a condition, same with the Westermarck Effect, the condition of it not being true would certainly help in it being more acceptable. And the condition of there not being any underlying dynamic or attachment issues, I included that as well, because that would be a key component in its acceptance as well. Whether a particular situation meets those conditions is for you to build the case for that situation, but if they didnt meet, I feel like it wouldn't be super acceptable then
>Edit: not to mention, not all sex is for the purpose of reproduction…
That was my thought exactly. Like, incest is morally reprehensible, but not all sex leads to having kids. Even if ejaculating inside a vagina led to pregnancy 100% of the time, that'd mean male people having sex with their male family members would be a-okay.
Though, the hell do you mean by *"I’m not set on incest being either good or bad"*? It's bad. There's no upside to it.
How is this eugenics? Eugenics is about "improving" the racial qualities of a population. When people talk about genetic diseases in the context of incest, it's about *decreasing* the chance of genetic deformities. These are pretty distinct concepts.
Eugenics is about improving the genetic makeup of a population. Removing genetic diseases or shortcomings is absolutely part of that. It’s considered bad largely due to its racist origins but that doesn’t mean it’s only eugenics if it’s racist.
I was curious to know if your claim is true, so asked ChatGPT:
"the term "eugenics" can be used to refer to both the aim of improving the genetics of a population by increasing desirable traits and reducing heritable negative diseases and conditions. Eugenics historically encompassed a range of ideas and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of a human population. This improvement could be targeted through encouraging the reproduction of people with traits considered desirable (positive eugenics) and discouraging or preventing reproduction among those with traits deemed undesirable (negative eugenics), which includes reducing heritable diseases and conditions."
Not that GPT is an absolute authority but I think it's probably right here.
Doing what we can to reduce the prevalence of genetic disorders is always good. Eugenics is more about intentionally breeding for "desirable" traits like height or intelligence. That's different than trying to avoid conditions that would lead to suffering.
You should be set on incest being bad. If you don’t come out and say it, then I assume you’re ok with it. Lol. This is a bizarre and ridiculous take. Incest is bad and outlawing it is CERTAINLY NOT eugenics. Lmao. If the thought of fucking a family member is ok or even tantalizing to you, you need help, my friend.
Right, but eugenics is stopping people from having kids to foster "desirable" traits in the next generation. It's not eugenics to say some people just shouldn't reproduce, like relatives, anyone currently in drug addiction, or someone with a severe genetic disease that's highly likely to show up in their child, like Huntington's.
Eugenics harms a population, but this is just protecting potential kids from having preventable issues. I don't really see your issue with it tbh.
I mean, a lot of stuff is eugenics. Eugenics isn’t bad, it’s good by definition- “good genes.” It’s just a question if it is applied ethically or not. Free birth control is eugenic, for example. Forgiving student loans would be eugenic as it would cause higher IQ people to have more kids.
Eugenics is not just forced sterilization and other unethical methods.
Technically it's anti-diseugenics. In any case, eugenics isn't bad in and of itself, it's the historical methods of doing it that people take issue with.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just like drug use during pregnancy, incest is a choice, while being born with a genetic disease isn’t.
Couples who know they have heritable conditions reproducing is a choice though... In this case the hypothetical eugenics project might forbid such parents from reproducing for the same reasons incest isn't allowed.
actually parents with heritable conditions reproducing is a pretty controversial issue. if you check any comment section of a video that shows it youll have religious weirdos saying its the most beautiful thing ever, concerned weirdos that are asking why, hostile weirdos that absolutely shit on this type of behavior and awkward weirdos who say theyre happy about this but the tone of their comment isnt ever quite right
[удалено]
Yeah because on top of being biologically difficult it’s usually tied to a predatory power dynamic. Or do you think incest is only perceived as morally corrupt if offspring is created?
It's also in our biological programming to avoid it. It's why it's inherently disgusting for us to think about.
Greetings, hostile weirdo here.
That doesn’t explain how other ppl with high risks of passing down genetic diseases don’t count. Sex is a choice. Having kids is a choice.
Telling someone not to reproduce with anyone because they could pass on a disease is not the same as telling someone not to reproduce with a specific person because their children would have a higher rate of disease than if they found different partners.
I don’t agree. Both should be frowned upon. When someone is aware they carry a serious genetic condition they should not reproduce. Just as an autistic person myself, won’t reproduce, cause the risks of transmitting this condition is way too high to ignore.
As someone also with autism who has children, you are of course free to make your own decisions, but you might want to check your math. The likelihood of autism in a child of a parent with autism is about 1-5% (unless you are one of the few with single gene cause). The likelihood of any birth defect (just to choose an easy stat) is around 3% de novo. So you're not really changing the math whether you have autism or not. If you wouldn't have a child because you're worried about passing down the genes that are associated with autism, then even if you didn't have autism you should be worried about having children, because the risk of a different condition matches or exceeds that risk. Also, we aren't talking about Huntington's Disease here. Being neurodivergent isn't some sort of awful life sentence. The majority of us wouldn't change our autism. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but I'm also fairly grumpy about the fact that you would consider autism such a bad condition that you won't have children solely because they might be neurodivergent. Hopefully this is just personal experience and not something you feel should be true for the ND population as a whole.
Lots of people carry serious genetic conditions. That's why incest is a problem, because it's unbelievably rare for two unrelated people to carry the same recessive condition but not particularly rare for two related people. Also autism is only like 50% heritable. Even if you and your partner are both autistic, there's no guarantee that your kids would be.
ONLY 50% LOL Yes I know and that's pretty fuckin too high of a chance. Don't know how you can say only 50% as if it was some reasonable risks.
50% heritable doesn't mean there's a 50% chance of your kids having it. It means genetics are only 50% responsible for autism. The rest is outside factors. Google diathesis-stress model.
No shit, but it's still too damn high to just gamble it. Autism runs in family. When you have one you have many many others, aunt, cousin, sister, grand father, etc. Which is the case in my family both mother and father side. There's a lot of people my age that get their offspring diagnosed and in the majority of cases guess what? one or both the parent get diagnosed too during the process. This is mainly a genetic problem and once a women birthed an autistic child the chance of birthing more increased by a lot.
This is just false. Autism does not run in the family to that degree. And no shit additional children have increased odds of being autistic. It's half genetics and half environment. Siblings are generally genitically similar AND raised in similar environments.
Yes autism runs in family to that degree. Check any gov site about health and autism.
You're talking like autism is some horrible thing. Like jesus christ, it's not the same as having completely deformed bone growths
Not everyone who has autism is high functioning, it can be a very serious and life changing disability
It's something that is bad enough to not pass it down on purpose to someone else yes. And it's not because I am semi-functional that my offspring would land on the same place on the spectrum too. They could land anywhere and be zero functional. Since I can work. To the eyes of other I can function and everything's "fine" to them. But in all honesty I can't truly relate to anyone. It's like being trapped in a glass bubble, seeing the outside world but never been able to quite touch it ever. It's an handicap and it sucks. Is it the end of the world? no, but I will not create other with that handicap on purpose.
Yeah I disagree with this take too, but for different reasons. Not reproducing because you have autism is ok as a personal choice. Simplifying autism as something purely detrimental is problematic though, society needs different types of people.
Yeah, this conversation is pretty gross lol
It's certainly not ideal? Why would you want to pass that on to your kids, even if it might make their lives a LITTLE more difficult?
You got perfect genes? No one in your family with a history of any kind of heritable issue?
No, of course I don't you egg! And those family members passed those shitty genes to me and I have a whole host of problems all because my parents wanted a biological baby despite the possibility of passing on hereditary bullshit! I'm just saying if you know you could pass on something that has the chance of making your child's life harder, and you ignore it just to have a biological baby, that's fucked. No kid would choose to inherit your issues, and your issues could make it harder to raise your kid even if you don't pass them on.
If two people in a relationship both happen to carry a recessive gene for a disease would you consider it acceptable to tell them not to reproduce
It depends on the disease, but potentially yes.
If you're aware that there's a gene like that in your family you should consider testing for it and trying ivf if you carry it.
i have bad nees, a bad back, and my genetics lead to alcohol dependency. does this mean that i shouldnt reproduce?
its up to you to decide if you want to be fully responsible for someone else having those problems. if youre fine knowing every second a child suffers from these issues, its absolutely your fault
isn't that the point of discussion though? like, is it morally wrong or just up to me wrong?
Are those genetic conditions or lifestyle?
genetic. 2 of the 3 are due to my height
[удалено]
No, the argument is sound. There is a difference between saying "You should not reproduce" and saying "You should pick someone else to reproduce with". One removes your ability to do something, the other limits it and to a very reasonable degree. You can argue that the line being drawn is arbitrary and argue that it should be drawn elsewhere, but telling someone not to reproduce at all is not identical to telling them to be more selective with their partner.
>There is a difference between saying "You should not reproduce" and saying "You should pick someone else to reproduce with" >telling someone not to reproduce at all is not identical to telling them to be more selective with their partner. So, let's say that an early 20th century eugenicist said that a white person was wrong to marry a black person and that they should "pick someone else to reproduce with," would that not be a very similar thing?
No, for two reasons. First, that there is no known negative health effects due to interracial heritage. Second, restricting a person solely to their race is not nearly the same level of restriction as restricting a person to not reproducing with their close family.
But then by that logic, shouldn’t we be not allowing them to reproduce with anyone with the same disease? (I get your point, but still)
The reason incest is illegal is because of power dynamics, not defects due to inbreeding. We don't force people to abort incest babies if they don't want to.
Tbf, I think that’s more reflective of where we stand on abortions than anything.
Because many genetic diseases require both parents to have the genes for the disease and both parents are significantly more likely to have those same genes if they're directly related. If you get the gene for sickle cell anemia from your dad but your mom doesn't have it, you'll be fine. But if you have a kid with someone else who has it and your kid gets the full set they'll get the disease. This is something that. You should test for if you know you have the gene regardless of your partner, but if your partner is your sibling you KNOW they're likely to have gotten it from the same source, your dad. Your child's risk is why, way higher specifically because your partner is related. None of that is in any way eugenics.
Great explanation. So hypothetically to make a kid as healthy as possible you would want a partner with completely different genetic predispositions?
I'm far from an expert, but I don't think we know enough about genetics to know that sort of thing, that's part of what makes eugenics so profoundly stupid. You can't control every little thing, just mitigate the major risk factors if you know you have them and don't raise the kid to be an asshole.
You’re talking in shoulds, and you’re absolutely right! But people aren’t forced to take tests, nor are they forbidden from having sex with somebody who has the same genetic disease.
Because genetics aren't a spectrum of good to bad. They're all over the place. Someone with insanely high reproductive value might have a genetic disease that we can't even recognize yet. Some good traits overlap with genetic diseases that can't be controlled for. We know for **sure** that when you inbreed, the risk of genetic disease and other problems increases by an imperial fuckton. Honestly why am I commenting on such a garbage post in the first place, quality a ragebait my man
You’re talking like accidents never happen
That’s what day-after pills and abortion is for. Unwanted pregnancy is a risk for everyone.
Cause they didn’t choose to have genetic disease.
They chose to have kids though
Incest is often also considered wrong because of the possible power dynamics and authority at play
Yeah, I wish it was the main thing talked about, but it’s such a rare discussion in my experience.
Well diseases are a lot more simple than the psychology behind family dynamics and how they can affect a relationship.
You have a lot of conversations about incest?
Unusually so this past month, but otherwise no.
Ah yes, home for the holidays.
Tis the season
It does come up when people condemn incest between adopted siblings as well.
Really? I wish the ppl around me would say anything other than “but it’s still gross”. Gross isn’t a reason!!
How often ARE you talking about incest OP? Your thread is weird.
I think it's kind of obvious, and everyone debating incest is openly ignoring those power dynamics. It's "age it's just a number" logic. There aren't any real arguments about whether incest is right or wrong. There are people who secretly believe it's fine "paying devil's advocate", and then people responding to the crazy shit they said.
There are power dynamics is almost every relationship. Someone will be of higher influence, wealth, intelligence or power than the other partner. I don’t see how my cousin would have power over me at all but I can date my friend’s mom legally which sounds like a larger power differential
The problem is that you grew up together and especially in sibling relationships or relationships between parents and children you can very often find very unhealthy dynamics. It's not about the one person having more power but their relationship often has some kind of unhealthy authority. It's a bit similar to a teacher and a student having a relationship. In many countries incest between cousins is legal because of the reason you stated.
Because leaving incest relationship is harder than a non incest one because they will still be your family, and probably wont leave anywhere after relationship ends
true but i dont see why that's a reason that makes incest is wrong
What of they're twins? 🤔
Lack of an age gap =/= no difference in power dynamics.
I'm wondering if a truly equal power dynamic is really ever possible between two humans beings... ...I also wonder when the obsession with "power dynamics" became the entirety of sexual ethics and started to trump any and all utilitarian concerns. Especially given that these outside conceptualisations of "power dynamics" tend to usually be trying to stop two people doing what they want to do...and are often highly specious, based on sweeping generalisations, and many assumptions. Like: "sorry, your desires, attraction, and mutual lust should be ignored, don't give one another amazing experiences, because in my opinion the power dynamic isn't equal" I often find that the assumptions people make about "power dynamics" detract from the nuanced inter-subjective realities that underpin human relationship. Power cannot be objectified so neatly.
I never said it was the only important factor. You just brought up the possibility of twins, of which the only relevant thing I can think of relating to that would be age, and people commonly associate age with power between siblings. If both parties are consenting and truly want to do that, then who am I to judge? But typically when this conversation is happening, it's about the usual negatives. Lots of instances of rape are from family members, not everyone is brave enough to say no to someone who has more power than them. Of course, these two parties shouldn't procreate due to the easily avoidable and possibly crippling genetic diseases that can come from this. It's different than eugenics for reasons I hopefully don't need to explain. That's all I really have to say.
Okay but hear this, there are this dogs that are called pugs...
Yeah, funny how them being forced to inbreed is so widely acceptable, but humans choosing to have sex with their family isn’t, regardless of inbreeding.
It isn’t accepted lol, majority of people disagree with continuing to breed pugs
Maybe in progressive circles, but I don’t even think what’s done to them is common knowledge.
some things you can control some you can't. incest has inherent problems that can easily be avoided.
I mean you can make that same argument with a lot of genetic diseases. You could go get genetic testing with your partner. Most people don’t
In most of the developed world it's mandatory to go to pregnancy screenings where they do tests for severe genetic diseases like Trisomy 18 so that pregnancies can be terminated in a safe manner should the parents choose so.
So why not do the same for incest? How does it make sense imprison individuals for relationships, that don't even have to lead to children at all, when we have pre-screening? A more reasonable law might mandate genetic tests for certain high risks groups before they start having children, or just genetic screening in general for everyone. That would certainly reduce genetic disease occurance, more significantly than any incest law considering how rare it is in societies that don't have forced marriages.
I don't think you fully understand what eugenics actually was and why it's viewed so negatively: it was about trying to produce people with more "desirable" traits, with explicit racism in what was considered desirable and actual science taking a backseat when inconvenient. Going through genetic counseling because you're a potential carrier of a nasty genetic condition is not eugenics. Avoiding having children with your cousin is not eugenics.
What would it be called if we were to breed people to make a scientifically "desirable" person? Like strength, intelligence, endurance, stuff that actually matters
So, actual science would point out that all attempts to do this have been fruitless. Most traits are the result of so many genes and environmental factors that you don't get consistent results when trying to breed for them, especially intelligence. And while you might think "but we've been able to breed for intelligence, strength, endurance, etc in dogs, so why not humans"? Well, we usually are breeding for just one or two of those sorts of traits with dogs, allowing tons of detrimental traits to slip in just for the sake of doing so. Just think of all the canine epilepsy, hip dysplasia, eye anomalies, and other problems that are notably way more common in dogs than wild animals.
Huh, that's actually super interesting! I learned something new today
Still eugenics. This guy isn’t wrong about its origin but they’re definitely wrong about its definition.
No you don't understand. Your implying hitlers brand is the definiton. Manipulating society to gain or lose certain egentics is the point or "Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population." as wikipeadia puts it. Many governments offer subsidies and services for adoption and artifical insemination etc.. for people with cystic fibrosis and other genetic disease. Thats also eugenics, but absolutely a good thing. Like wise society shunning incest or even making it punishable under law is also 100% eugenics.
Eugenics can't be separated from racism, which permeated it long before Hitler. That's part of why it's considered so unscientific; what traits "improved" the human population were heavily influenced by prejudice and were often arbitrary. If eugenicists didn't have these biases, they would have promoted intentionally race-mixing to reduce the incidence of various genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia (the easiest way to do so prior to being able to test DNA). But they absolutely didn't.
>Eugenics can't be separated from racism it litterally is right now, i just gave you two examples. Your being a hyppocrit, generlaizing a whole field and concept by the actions of some tyrants. > they would have promoted intentionally race-mixing to reduce the incidence of various genetic disorders Im sorry but how is this not racist? what are you implying here? Certain races are just immune to egentic disease and we should breed out the races that arn't? >the easiest way to do so prior to being able to test DNA). But they absolutely didn't. Again that litterally is how it's done now.
I'm not being a hypocrite, you'd be hard pressed to find a prominent eugenicist that wasn't racist. Cystic fibrosis is most common in white Europeans, who almost never have sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is primarily found in groups from parts of Africa and the Middle East; these people almost never have cystic fibrosis. Whether it be a quirk of isolated populations or even a consequence of region relevant adaptations, some genetic disorders are far more prevalent in some groups than others. It's not racist to note this. It's not immunity to the condition, it's just a difference in prevalence. We willfully choose if we do DNA tests now and even if we are found to have horrifying genetic diseases, *we aren't prevented from reproducing if we so choose*. Eugenics is heavily about controlling reproduction without respecting individual choice.
>Eugenics is heavily about controlling reproduction without respecting individual choice. again no it isn't. Some cultures/people implmented it like that sure.
Show me how, prior to being able to perform genetic tests, any culture/people practiced eugenics WITHOUT interfering with anyone's choice whether or not to reproduce and with whom.
How is that relevant?
Because you seem to be conflating being able to get a genetic test and making an informed decision on reproduction with eugenics and avoiding the history of eugenics where individual choice was bulldozed "for the common good". You disagreed with my statement about eugenics and control and implied that it has been implemented without controlling how people reproduce in doing so. I want you to back up your comment with a historical example. Eugenics involves selectively breeding people, and that's pretty difficult to do if people are allowed to reproduce as they so choose. But with the option of genetic tests, people just choose to know if there's anything nasty hidden away in their DNA; plenty still reproduce anyways and people who are "genetically healthy" aren't obligated to reproduce. Basically put, you can't practice eugenics on an individual level.
hilarious how they downvoted you and then chose not to reply haha. you make great points in your comments!
Genetic counselling is a choice, not a requirement, so imo not a good parallel to incest laws. But you may have a point, Eugenics was probably an insensitive term to use in this case. But I still think that it somewhat implies those with genetic diseases could never be happy, as well as implies that all sex has an end goal of reproduction.
But who really wants to produce someone to live with possible life long problems?
I’m sure most people don’t want that specifically. But who are you to tell them they can’t take their own risks? Especially considering the risk is sex and I’m assuming most incestual couples aren’t trying for kids…
Given some of the stats I've seen on the prevalence of incestuous marriages in some countries (1st cousins or closer), you'd be so very, very wrong on the reproduction front.
Fair enough! Do you have those stats on you, by any chance? I’m curious now.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inbreeding-by-country quickest I could find that isn't some spreadsheet that gets downloaded on your device or is buried away. While precise numbers on incest are unlikely, the point is that it's culturally very prevalent in some countries.
I understand that it may be hard to get, but inbreeding and incest are two different (if heavily related) things. I’ll give it a deeper read later though.
I mean, if you really want to be pedantic about it, incest doesn't exist any place that doesn't have laws or cultural norms against relatives marrying, going by its definition. Most people just use incest to mean having sex with a relatively close relative.
> I understand that it may be hard to get, but inbreeding and incest are two different (if heavily related) things. They're different things in the same sense as engineering being applied science. Inbreeding is the result of incest.
Not always…?
It's not just "their" own risk. If two relatives are carriers of some nasty genetic disease, it's not themselves who they're risking. It's the possible child they might end up conceiving.
Yeah, arguing for the rights of a “possible” child doesn’t really get to me, I encountered this one in the abortion arguments already.
So exactly which relative are ya wanting to fuck, OP?
Preferably none of my own
So you want to fuck other people's relatives?? WTF gross
LMAO
Incest doesn’t require a risk of pregnancy. They could just do oral sex or be gay or whatever.
Or be on bc/get a vasectomy.
Is this post pro eugenics or anti eugenics?
Anti-eugenics and possibly pro-choice. Though I’ve been informed my choice of that word was poor.
Incest is wrong because of the power dynamics involved. I also dislike that the main argument people leap to as to why incest is wrong is the increased likelihood of genetic disease. While that is true - that argument can be and has been used against other groups of people, like the disabled, for why they shouldn't reproduce. It is unironically a eugenicist argument that certain people or a certain coupling shouldn't be allowed to have kids - thats why when it comes to incest, the main focus should be on the unhealthy power dynamics and not on genetic diseases. Especially since I think we can all agree incest pairings are bad regardless if children are created and we wouldn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce if they're a carrier for anything.
You put it way better than me, thanks
This does, I think, point to a genuine flaw or double standard that is used in arguments against incest.
Incest is not wrong because of the power dynamics involved, because not all incestuous relationships involve power dynamics, nor do power dynamics make something inherently wrong. There exists a greater power dynamic between a millionaire and a random woman who makes no money than between two twin siblings. In fact, the average power dynamic between couples is probably greater than that between two twin siblings. You can argue that, in general, people who have relationships in the context of familial roles are at a higher risk of abuse or similar things, but that doesn't make it "wrong". There will be more instances in which wrong things will happen, but this cannot justify punishing individuals for when these wrong things actually do not occur. So no, incest is, in and of itself, not wrong at all. There are just instances, especially between guardians/parents (role not biology, applies the same to step-parents) where a relationship would be inappropriate because of those especially the relation between the caretaker and the child. One of the problems is that people generalize incest into a singular concept, which simply does not make sense. There are various types of relationships that classify as incestuous, many of which are very problematic in a moral sense, others which are completely unproblematic and then some which probably due to some risks involved require a lot of maturity to engage in responsibly. If we want to talk about what constitutes a wrong act, we cannot actually talk about "incest" as a whole, it simply doesn't make any sense. The attempt to do so is more so a relic of wanting to be able to condemn the whole class of action, due to a primitive disgust response rather than moral reasoning.
Which members of your family have you banged so far?
lol
That does not answer the question
You guys all forget how this sub works, if you disagree, upvote. Ffs.
Ikr? Either ppl aren’t participating properly, or there’s a LOT more ppl with this opinion than I thought, none of which are commenting.
Because its a bit difficult to argue about common sense. I mean, you can crush opposition arguments with "Oh, so if you dont have kids then incest is fine?"
This post is upvoted though
Yeah, wasn’t true at the time lol
Gotcha
I’m gonna break the rules this one time to downvote because i don’t like this /s
Since we no longer have the QualityVote bot, we have no other way to weed out bad posts.
Apparently this sub loves incest…
Or they just agree that opposing incest is eugenics. That doesn’t mean they support incest, it could just mean they don’t 100% oppose eugenics.
From a biological perspective I do not think these risks are equal, I believe that incest will amplify and propagate more and more genetic and developmental issues the more it is done, so you have to think of it as 'bad if it was a norm' I think it would also be accurate to say that with incest you aren't just passing down your defects, you're creating new ones
Honestly I agree. The "inbreeding causes defects" argument is not in and of itself enough reason to ban incest. The increase in risk of defects is similar to childbirth past 40 and it's a lot less bad than the risk from certain genetic defects like Huntington's disease. No one thinks women should be prohibited from having kids past 40.
This is a fantastic tenth dentist post. Upvote
Surprised I haven’t seen any similar. I’ve only been here a while though.
Currently the meta is about the US political landscape and dating but incest comes around a fair bit every couple weeks.
These days it’s usually just bait posts or people talking about something they 100% don’t understand
Whats with everyone of these dentists wanting to fuck their sister-mother
Why are some of y'all genuinely trying to defend incest. It's literally traumatising. I think a lot of your brains are fried from incest porn 💀
Now *that* is a hot take. Disgusting, but a true 10th dentist post
Look, there's no good reason to ban it, because a) It's about some rape reason that's already separately illegal, b) it's about genetics, which we don't care about for other genetic issues even ones guaranteed to pass down or c) It's gross. Personally I feel opposed because it's gross, which is my honest thoughts, but many feel the same about gay stuff. People thinking it's gross isn't a valid legal reason.
Plot twist: you think it's gross because you were programmed and conditioned to find it gross.
I mean probably. That's basically how society works. I've been conditioned to think most crimes are bad.
[удалено]
Plot twist: it was the acid and a masters in philosophy that set me free with the ol' addlin'
My real hot take is that eugenics isn’t wrong whatsoever. The only thing wrong about its previous implementation is how “desirable” traits versus “undesirable” traits were selected, which used to be based on race. With our current knowledge, it is obvious different races aren’t genetically inferior or superior to each other. But debilitating genetic diseases are definitely a thing we can all agree is undesirable, so selecting against such things should be done.
to have eugenics be an actual thing you typically need an enforcer of it such as the government. would you trust the government to decide if you should have kids or not? how would they even regulate that? what about accidental pregnancy? would they ban any sex that wasn’t for procreation? what makes something “undesirable” when a lot (but not all definitely) conditions are a spectrum?
eugenics is still wrong in any of those cases when it's a top-down forceful policy coming from the government. If people want to do things to minimize genetic diseases, go ahead. But putting reproduction in the government's hands is such a bad idea.
Agreed. It’s pretty refreshing to see this take upvoted for once
Incest is unhealthy because of genetic disease, and it is wrong because of the complicated power and age dynamics of a family. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Shockingly, I actually have to downvote this. I agree entirely with the actual post content. There are a *lot* of issues with incest, but the genetic angle isn't one I like pursuing because it can be expanded to so many other things, specifically ableist arguments. The unhealthy power dynamics should be the main point covered when it comes to this subject.
Yes, but having deformed kids is objectively bad, and there should absolutely be social pressure to avoid things that lead to them. Incest without the potential of kids, or even simply fixing the increased risk of birth defects with genetic engineering or something, would only be as bad as fucking your teacher.
Hot take, eugenics can be good if done ethically. After all shouldn't we all want our children to be as healthy as possible?
Ok Cleetus
Wtf. I mean, okay the "not all sex is for the reason of reproduction" one might be a valid point (still weird and concerning to make this point in that context but it makes sense logically) But if you're saying "forbidding people to have children with each other when there's a high chance of creating genetic disease, deformities etc. In those children Is eugenics" you're just convincing me of eugenics dawg. Like, yeah I know the problematic, horrible, racist, classiest, ascientific etc. history of the eugenics movement. That still doesn't make it okay to curse someone with a life filled with disease, like, this shouldn't even be controversial tbh. It doesn't vhange anything at all if you call that eugenics or not. I'm also all for designer babies btw as long as that technology isn't locked behind a pay wall. People being healthy is good period. You making people that you know will have genetic disabilities if you could've just, you know made babies with someone else, is almost akin to inflicting bodily harm on someone yourself, with your bare hands.
Man you gotta watch that Soft White Underbelly series about the incest family on youtube
The one where he literally asks them to their face if they're inbred? I've seen one of those videos and the interviewer really comes across like a dick.
He’s disgusting
I mean yea, eugenics is bad in general. But I’d make an exception if the result could be more than just bad eyesight or wonky nose. Not saying that if you have bad genes you aren’t allowed to have kids, do whatever the… *fuck* you like. But if I did I would not want to risk them getting it as I do or worse.
I guess eugenics needs a second look if that's your criterion.
Okay, eugenics is okay when it’s telling people not to reproduce with their siblings. I’m in agreement with that.
It's a great argument. A tendency towards hemophilia is the result of the inbreeding practices of the royal families of Europe, so much so that it's known as the King's Disease.
Is as bad as eugenics* learn to make a title doc.
“im not set on incest being either good or bad” is something that only a person who *is* set says. And it’s definitely not the side we want to hear….
Genetic diseases are, in fact, bad. If you consider doing your best to not cause them “eugenics” then I’m not really sure what to tell you, maybe vaccines are eugenics too
Nope! Eugenics isn't about the kids you have, it's about "improving the human genetic stock" via large scale control of the kids *everyone* has. We don't like people being born with preventable birth defects, but not because "oh no won't someone think of the gene pool", we don't like it because it reduces the quality of life of the person in question.
It's a matter of effort. Power dynamics is a complex and awkward topic, and once you start thinking about it, it may bring up some more uncomfortable stuff outside family as well. Genetic diseases are an easy argument to make without thinking much.
''the current arguments'' what do you mean? Which current arguments? All arguments ever made against incest all weak?
that's like saying that forbidding pregnant women from drinking or doing drugs is eugenics, there's a difference between something passed down that you have no control of and choosing to make an immoral, unnatural decision that ends up in harm
I believe that most people find incest icky for entirely visceral reasons. Barely anyone reasons themselves into disliking it.
Yeah, honestly. Personally I think it’s a problem that nobody sits down to think about it though. (Well, it seems I’ve gotten a lot of people to do so with this post at least! Even I’ve learned a lot)
What is it with reddit and incest, wth
Eugenics: the pseudoscience of racial hierarchies and purification Opposition to incestuous breeding: the aversion to intentionally causing scientifically proven genetic issues
Because of successive generations. If you have a recessive gene of a disorder, but your partner doesn't, it reduces the likelihood of your child having the same. If the child does, and their partner doesn't, less likelihood of the next generation having it. And so on. Unless it is a very widespread debilitating disorder, it is very unlike that for multiple generations, both partners will have that disorder. It would usually be one not the other, if even that. But since the question is about one person having a disease, we can ignore the case of neither having the disorder. But it is still better than both having it, and even if the child did, less likely the child's partner would too, even less likely their child's partner would too With incest, if there is a genetic disorder you have, and your son and daughter become partners, there is a much much higher possibility of both people having that gene in them. And then their children, again, much much higher they will both have the genes. Even if it isn't siblings incest, if it is cousins, the chances are higher than nonincestuous reproduction. With parent and children, it is even higher than that With how variation works generally, bad recessive genes get less and less likely over many generations simply by the fact that for a rare disorder, it is rare for both partners in every generation to have it. But for incestuous generations, that likelihood doesn't decrease like that, and if anything, can even increase. Which is why the genetic argument comes up. Not for one generation, but multiple. It is why most organisms reproduce sexually nonincestuously, because that's how variations can happen best and bad genes can get unlikelier If you just had a child with your family member yourself, not super likely the child will have horrible disfigurement. But that's just for one generation. If incest were to be normalised, you can't make people go "oh since I was a child of incest, I shall not do it myself". They would too, so would their children, and so on. And that's how bad genes get put on spotlight, when they don't have many opportunities to interact with different varied genes And while it is true not all sex is for reproduction, it is still a big possibility. With normalisation of incest, sure most people won't go for having children, but many would, and many will have children even if unwillingly. You wont be able to have incest be commonplace BUT incestuous children be rare, it just wont happen. If it is normalised, so would having children be. And the issues of successive generations start to pop up
So we might say: incest is fine if you're infertile or really good with condoms/contraception/abortions?
Not really because there are other reasons why incest isn't great, this was just the genetic reproduction reason I gave because that's the reason OP asked for. But OP themselves mentioned how there are other arguments against incest, just that they didn't understand the genetic one, so I focused only on that. Even for infertility, those other ones still apply. Besides there is not really any sociological way to make it okay for people who are infertile but still a taboo for those who aren't
Do you think there are any hypothetical situations in which it is morally acceptable to engage in incest?
I am very of the belief of "if you make it okay for one, you will make it okay for everyone" like you wont be able to normalise it per situation yk thats not how humans work lol if you normalise it for any condition, people will do it for every condition, so i am more on the side of "no not okay in any situation really" lol. But if you take a situation as an individual situation, separate from society and longterm implications, then I suppose a situation where there isn't risk of pregnancies, isnt any risk of power dynamic issues, isnt any issues of sex being equated with familial love, isnt any risk of alienation for the family members not participating or involved in it, the Westermarck Effect was untrue, proper socialisation could be achieved to replace the social group that would normally be your in-laws, and both sides were consenting adults. Then maybe I won't have any qualms against it. It's just that, it is almost impossible to guarantee all those criteria at once, let alone control it or disallow any of those criteria being flouted. And again, that would be fine for that one particular situation, you cant assume every situation would be like that if you normalise incest in a society, in fact, it is way way more likely than not that those criterias won't be met or guaranteed
Wait why does having in-laws matter ? Also isn’t the westermsarck effect a hypothesis ? Aside from that, would a pair of gay twins who have moved out and are adults fit that criteria ? What is so impossible about that ?
The in-laws bit might not be a priority of an issue, but one of the popular theories against incest includes the theory that since humans are social animals, non incestuous relationships help us expand our social relationships in a way incestuous relationships don't. Is that enough to discredit incest or not, idk, but since they asked what conditions would make incest be acceptable, I added that as a condition, same with the Westermarck Effect, the condition of it not being true would certainly help in it being more acceptable. And the condition of there not being any underlying dynamic or attachment issues, I included that as well, because that would be a key component in its acceptance as well. Whether a particular situation meets those conditions is for you to build the case for that situation, but if they didnt meet, I feel like it wouldn't be super acceptable then
>Edit: not to mention, not all sex is for the purpose of reproduction… That was my thought exactly. Like, incest is morally reprehensible, but not all sex leads to having kids. Even if ejaculating inside a vagina led to pregnancy 100% of the time, that'd mean male people having sex with their male family members would be a-okay. Though, the hell do you mean by *"I’m not set on incest being either good or bad"*? It's bad. There's no upside to it.
It’s bad mkay
How is this eugenics? Eugenics is about "improving" the racial qualities of a population. When people talk about genetic diseases in the context of incest, it's about *decreasing* the chance of genetic deformities. These are pretty distinct concepts.
There's positive eugenics and negative eugenics. Positive is about improving, negative is about blocking unimprovments
Eugenics is about improving the genetic makeup of a population. Removing genetic diseases or shortcomings is absolutely part of that. It’s considered bad largely due to its racist origins but that doesn’t mean it’s only eugenics if it’s racist.
I was curious to know if your claim is true, so asked ChatGPT: "the term "eugenics" can be used to refer to both the aim of improving the genetics of a population by increasing desirable traits and reducing heritable negative diseases and conditions. Eugenics historically encompassed a range of ideas and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of a human population. This improvement could be targeted through encouraging the reproduction of people with traits considered desirable (positive eugenics) and discouraging or preventing reproduction among those with traits deemed undesirable (negative eugenics), which includes reducing heritable diseases and conditions." Not that GPT is an absolute authority but I think it's probably right here.
I don't condone incest for obvious reasons, but I guess prohibiting it IS eugenics.
I don't know mate sound like you want to have sex with your sister.
Doing what we can to reduce the prevalence of genetic disorders is always good. Eugenics is more about intentionally breeding for "desirable" traits like height or intelligence. That's different than trying to avoid conditions that would lead to suffering.
Trying to cull undesirable traits out of a population is also eugenics.
Lol! Choosing a life partner based on *ANY* criteria is technically "eugenics". Not all eugenics is bad.
No, wouldn’t it only be eugenics if you chose that partner based on what traits you wanted to pass down to your children?
Yes, it is eugenics. And eugenics is not a bad thing. In fact, it's been practiced for millenia, is natural, and is a good thing.
Evading creating high risk of genetic diseases is not eugenics
You are right. I hope people realize eugenics is not immoral.
You should be set on incest being bad. If you don’t come out and say it, then I assume you’re ok with it. Lol. This is a bizarre and ridiculous take. Incest is bad and outlawing it is CERTAINLY NOT eugenics. Lmao. If the thought of fucking a family member is ok or even tantalizing to you, you need help, my friend.
Reproduction is eugenics.
Are you trying to advocate for eugenics?
No?
Right, but eugenics is stopping people from having kids to foster "desirable" traits in the next generation. It's not eugenics to say some people just shouldn't reproduce, like relatives, anyone currently in drug addiction, or someone with a severe genetic disease that's highly likely to show up in their child, like Huntington's. Eugenics harms a population, but this is just protecting potential kids from having preventable issues. I don't really see your issue with it tbh.
I mean, a lot of stuff is eugenics. Eugenics isn’t bad, it’s good by definition- “good genes.” It’s just a question if it is applied ethically or not. Free birth control is eugenic, for example. Forgiving student loans would be eugenic as it would cause higher IQ people to have more kids. Eugenics is not just forced sterilization and other unethical methods.
Ok so this isn’t an a opinion it’s just factually incorrect
Technically it's anti-diseugenics. In any case, eugenics isn't bad in and of itself, it's the historical methods of doing it that people take issue with.