So- I find this funny even if it may be offensive. I want to say that.
That said:
Inbreeding has a stigma and that stigma isn’t entirely undeserved- but it also is sort of… overblown..? I’m not advocating inbreeding, and there are a host of ethical and social issues such as how breeding within a family can bring up questions of abuse and issues with power and trust or coercion and other factors.
Genetically speaking though- inbreeding simply increases the odds of recessive genes. Recessive doesn’t always mean “bad,” things that are often considered to be desirable like blue eyes are recessive genes. Many genetic “diseases” are recessive traits too as are certain health problems- so it is generally true the child of inbreeding, especially close inbreeding, will have higher risk for these, but only where those genes are present in the parents to begin with. So those who are inbred are not inherently “mutants” or sickly or mentally deficient etc. that said as well…
.. on a larger societal level it becomes a problem. The recessive gene issue tends to magnify with subsequent inbreeding. While a single pairing of close cousins or even siblings MAY produce an overall healthy offspring and not carry any serious long term effects to that family line, if that child breeds with a close relative the odds and severity of defect increase greatly and so on. As a species, if inbreeding were more widely acceptable, it could seriously threaten genetic diversity and lead to long term and widespread issues with overall genetic suitability and survivability. It’s important to note that inbred populations tend to be at much greater risk from things like vital and bacterial threat because of genetic similarity. A single pathogen which is highly infectious and effective in one person becomes an instant epidemic without the need to mutate to infect a wide range of hosts. That’s only one of many examples.
Humans have used inbreeding with animals for thousands of years to mixed effect. Inbreeding of dogs helps us produce breeds of dog with specific and desirable traits- but over breeding had led to may breeds of dogs having common and near or completely universal health issues.
Inbreeding farm animals has helped us produce animals that provide superior yields and or have the desired temperaments and habits in livestock.
So inbreeding to get specific results can work- or it can have unintended or inescapable negative consequences.
The thing is that when we inbreed animals, we do so deliberately and as technology has improved we tend to employ more stringent programs. Humans generally do not use such stringent means of genetic selection in choosing mates. It is possible that we could select humans with specific genetic profiles and inbreed them to achieve healthy or even beneficial results- this has been tried to varying degrees of science or pseudo science in the past but largely..
.. has been unethical or even monstrous and largely unsuccessful. That said it MAYBE could work- but most people would find the idea of seeking a mate based primarily on genetic profiling to be at the least… unpalatable. Even more so if we are taking genetic profiles of close relatives to figure out which ones we are ok to get down with. So… as I said, I’m not advocating inbreeding or saying it is ok. It is like many things though a fascinating topic with lots to explore that is often oversimplified or prone to superstition and urban legend. It is generally true that inbreeding, especially close inbreeding, isn’t a good idea generically. As far as morals go- morals are individual but there are SO MANY ethical issues generally
Surrounding inbreeding that as a general practice it isn’t something to justify.
Just to continue the joke, cuz I wanna make this clear i'm not being serious about this.. "You want a cyclops? Cuz that's how you get a cyclops.
edit: ending ", forgot it.. still a bit tipsy from last night.
That said:
Inbreeding has a stigma and that stigma isn’t entirely undeserved- but it also is sort of… overblown..? I’m not advocating inbreeding, and there are a host of ethical and social issues such as how breeding within a family can bring up questions of abuse and issues with power and trust or coercion and other factors.
Genetically speaking though- inbreeding simply increases the odds of recessive genes. Recessive doesn’t always mean “bad,” things that are often considered to be desirable like blue eyes are recessive genes. Many genetic “diseases” are recessive traits too as are certain health problems- so it is generally true the child of inbreeding, especially close inbreeding, will have higher risk for these, but only where those genes are present in the parents to begin with. So those who are inbred are not inherently “mutants” or sickly or mentally deficient etc. that said as well…
Inbreeding farm animals has helped us produce animals that provide superior yields and or have the desired temperaments and habits in livestock.
So inbreeding to get specific results can work- or it can have unintended or inescapable negative consequences.
The thing is that when we inbreed animals, we do so deliberately and as technology has improved we tend to employ more stringent programs. Humans generally do not use such stringent means of genetic selection in choosing mates. It is possible that we could select humans with specific genetic profiles and inbreed them to achieve healthy or even beneficial results- this has been tried to varying degrees of science or pseudo science in the past but largely..
Surrounding inbreeding that as a general practice it isn’t something to justify.
edit: ending ", forgot it.. still a bit tipsy from last night.