163
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
163 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54702 readers
385 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd argue it's also the fact that because of the low genetic diversity of the parents children born from incest have a higher chance of developing genetical diseases.
The chance is lower than most people presume but at the same time: why gamble?
Yes but that is also a rationalization after the fact. First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
Well, actually, it's the other way around. Evolutionary speaking, there was a disavantage to inbreeding, so the "ew" evolved because of that. We think inbreeding is wrong because evolution taught us that it lowers the chance of survival for our offspring.
i don't know how you could possibly prove this, but i would love to see you try.
You can't really definitively prove a theory like that I think. I'm no biologist so I'm not an expert by any means, but we can't go back in time to see why evolution did what it did. We can only guess from what we have right now.
That said, such an "ew" response to incest surely is not just coincidence. It must have arose for a reason, just like all of our emotions evolved for a reason. For example, we also experience disgust when smelling or tasting rotten milk, because drinking rotten stuff is bad for survival too, so evolution made us have that response, because it would lower the chance of us drinking spoiled milk. There's nothing "inherently disgusting" about incest or spoiled milk. We only find those things disgusting because they are bad, evolutionarily speaking.
And btw this isn't restricted to humans obviously, all animals avoid having offspring with their close family, so this is a very deep-rooted behavior.
This seems like a strange argument, because "the primate social adaptation system" is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don't think that's what you're saying).
Also, I don't see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I'd say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can't directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that's good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that's what evolution went with.
I'm sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don't like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn't only about preference, it's also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don't think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.
Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn't have forethought, but it doesn't need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.
What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you've presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.
It's been the norm in many countries for centuries, so can't have been seen as EW as you claim
Those laws and customs predates knowledge of genetics significantly.
Humans may not have consciously known that incest was bad, but evolution made us think so before we were even humans. ~~All~~ Some animals avoid incest, it's not just humans. We only created those laws and customs because evolution already made us believe that incest is bad. It's pre-programmed in us, so to speak.
That isn't even remotely true.
Fair - but humans are definitely not the only animals that do.
What about same sex incest, or where one or both partners are sterile, or between adopted siblings who aren't related genetically? That would still be considered wrong, right? Even though there wouldn't be genetic consequences
Personally? IDGF about what two consenting adults do in bed. My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
Don't know where you from but AFAIK that's perfectly legal in Germany.
But that's still not a 100% consistent argument and it leans into another morally complex topic: eugenics.
Because, if you argue that way, you'd have to clarify your stance towards people with genetic diseases/disabilities in general.
And if you follow the logic, we would also have to shun/abolish sexual relations between people with genetic disease or who carry the respective alleles, so that their offspring have a higher chance of inheriting a disease (in some cases way higher than with random siblings).
It might be the root cause, why there seem to be marriage rules in most human societies, that exclude intermarrying of siblings (especially considering that the risks increase drastically if you keep procreating that way for generations), but the current taboo is not entirely rational and seems more based on cultural tradition than current understanding.
Again, personally: As I have one confirmed genetically transmitted condition and one suspected genetically transmitted condition this is a dilemma close to my heart and TBF I haven't reached a final conclusion for myself yet. On one hand I think it is unethical to conceive a child knowing full well, that they have a considerable higher risk of disease, and yet I don't think GATTACA was meant as an instruction manual. As so often in life the answer is somewhere in the middle.
That's a great justification for the EW