Early humans knew about the dangers of inbreeding and 'married' outside their families 34,000 years ago

If the population is big enough, even in a island it's gonna be okay.
With my big (one google search, click on second results) knowledge of the subject, I got around 100 peoples, so even if you take something like 5k people, you're good to go.
So for England, the inbreeding is not caused by their population but by an active search for retardness (\o/)

Japan and England have really diverse genetic lineages. England was invaded many times, and Japan has a surprising number of ethnic groups from prior migrations and invasions in addition to trade with Korea and China.

...

Ehhh, that brings in the entire argument on if full sized societies are beneficial and evolution resultant. But I guess that's where group selection theory comes from.

Because they realized "Hey, if enough generations of people fuck their sisters, they eventually make some fucked up and unhealthy babies"

Most people are gay

i dont know if there is any truth to this, but on the other hand, it's not that hard to niotice, all it takes is a few ibreed idiot kids to know not to fuck your sister/wife

>t weakens ruling families allowing for social churn and occasional elite ascendancy.
Because social structers arnt really a biological thing, at least not ones where you can advance up it

Really weird, considering some tribes still exist that haven't figured out the connection between sex and pregnancy.

>weakens ruling families
Weakening successful members of a species is the opposite of evolution.
>social churn
A random collection of genes just knew that society would turn out this way?
>elite ascendancy
Which it will then weaken, as per point 1.
>Can we really call it a defect
Yes. It produces imperfections.

Better question: In a world where reliable contraception exists, why does it matter who you stick your pecker in as long as both/all parties are okay with it?

Breeding is easy to understand intuitively: watch this - the breeder's equation.

R = (h^2)S
where
R = the response to selection (ie the change in the mean of the trait in a population after selection)
h = heritability (from 0 to 1, the percent that's inherited instead of environmental)
S = the selection coefficient (the difference in the means of the trait for the full original population and the population of individuals that are bred)

So eugenics is not BS at all - it's so easy cavemen can do it. Consider that IQ is .75 heredity...

>Which it will then weaken
It allows for cyclic regeneration.

>A random collection of genes just knew that society would turn out this way?
I don't claim to understand it, but things have a way of aiming at the good.

because something something it was better in the old days so now im going to ruin the fun for everyone

> IQ is .75 heredity
You better have a source for that nigga

>why does it matter who you stick your pecker in

Society is made up of social bonds between individuals and groups of individuals.

Indiscriminate carnal liaisons stresses these links.

>How certain of this are we?
I'm not a geneticist so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea is that a lot of us may be carriers of highly unsavory diseases (meaning that we have one chromosome pair for the disease (recessive [b]) and one for not having that disease (dominant [B])), and that it's in our interests to not have a recessive pair pop up [bb]. If we reproduce with someone from our family, it's likely that we're both carriers [Bb x Bb], meaning there's a 25% chance that our offspring will have the horrible disease. On the other hand, marrying outside the family reduces the chances of reproducing with a carrier [Bb x BB] and reduces the chances of offspring having that disease to 0% and the chances of that offspring being a carrier to 50%.

This is also why Pakistanis in Britain are over-represented among those suffering from rare, hereditary diseases. Because among Pakistanis, about 50% of marriages are between first cousins. If you want to go full /pol/, it's also worth mentioning that incest often leads to lower IQs in offspring, explaining what happened to the cradle of civilization and why it's now shit.

Aside from what you siad, it just makes it so we are less versityle. The whole idea behind creating gender and binding the mixing of genomes to making babies was made so that we can better face randome shit that nature throws at us, once you make the gene pool smaller by being a typical american from the south, the people in your group are less likley to survive in the comming generations than the ones that fucked outside of their familly

Because in nature there is no hereditary rulership. If you are an alpha but your offspring is weak your genetic lineage will die out.
Humans are simple the first species to do it differently, and only for the past few thousand years compared to millions of years of evolution

>34000 years ago

The world is only 4000 years old so thats impossible.

>This is also why Pakistanis in Britain are over-represented among those suffering from rare, hereditary diseases. Because among Pakistanis, about 50% of marriages are between first cousins
Which is also why they don't integrate. When you arranged marry your cousin from the homeland every generation might as well be the first.

>You better have a source for that nigga
He put ellipses after it, what else do you want?

>This is also why Pakistanis in Britain are over-represented among those suffering from rare, hereditary diseases.

>Which is also why they don't integrate. When you arranged marry your cousin from the homeland every generation might as well be the first.

In the US, the Amish have similar problems.

from what i can see that equation is wrong too, he missed a varieble

So, in an effort to make this Veeky Forums, how would different races view inbreeding?

Cyclic regeneration?

And no they don't aim at anything, that is how evolution works, random changes followed by the successful traits carrying on and the failing traits dying off. That's how evolution works at a basic level more or less, which also means it can work negatively based on random factors.

I mostly meant "he added ellipses to imply that there was no point in contesting his statement".

Literally the first thing on wikipedia's IQ article m8t.

>but muh wiki ain't real sauce

...since I know you have neither the motivation or intelligence to read a real study. If you had, you would not have been surprised by the professional consensus of the entire biological field for the last ~2 decades.

Some tribes are more inbred than others.

>carriers of highly unsavory diseases

Yes, but maybe these diseases serve some higher good?

Think of the forest fires. At first glance, they seem like some horrible thing, but in truth they accomplish much good.

Nigga im checking wiki and dont see anything about your 0,75 claim, so unless you give me a papaer proving your point i call bullshit.

Nice try, it's actually about 400 years.
That's when the simulation got turned on.

>So eugenics is not BS at all - it's so easy cavemen can do it.
Basically.
You don't need to be Archemedes to wonder why the guy who keeps fucking his sister has kids that are retarded.

Dwarf lifestyle would possibly have issues with it depending on how large their population centers are, since they aren't really a race known for moving around much. I think drow nobility fuck each other a lot. Otherwise I don't think most would generally be all that different from humans

They wouldn't be considered diseases of they were beneficial.

Meh. If you look at prospectively, it looks like immanent teleology.

Fairly eloquent way of saying "I'm offended by thing".

Explain the higher good of being born both deaf and blind.

They don't benefit individuals, but maybe they benefit something else?

The bottleneck occurs whenever few men have multiple women. After a few generations cousin fucking is inevitable and any genetic disorders in the breeding males will become prominent in the population.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
>The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults

Well, you're certainly living down to my guesses. To be fair, I was mistaken: it's the 2nd paragraph, not the first, so I see how a slow or erratic reader could be confused.

>without access to fresh genetic stock (see japan, england)

>britain has had 50+ different native languages.

>the term melting pot literally made to describe the british isles and the ridiculous amount of migration it recieved over 2 millenia

>american education

Genetically you're actually pretty close, I'm studying some Biotech currently, and its actually a bit weird, in that your genes randomize from your parents,and they give you a copy of each. One good example is how men have more genetic diseases than women, this is because we lack a second X chromosome which leaves men vulnerable to any slight mutations in the X chromosome because we don't have a second copy to pull from

It's part of a mutational system that allows beneficial adaption to occur. Simply calling these things 'bad' is shortsighted. It's part of a package deal that works in humanity's favour.

From what I gather, it was mostly about politics and money. Marrying inside the family won't expand the family's political connections or expand access to other family's productivity. It only makes sense if you're already at the top of the universe, like if you're a god-king.

Similarly, I wonder if incest is part of some 'package deal' that helps humanity somehow.

Glad to know you won't be offended when I NTR your wife. You're above such primitive constructs and probably have a shed for the thinking man's fetish.

Elves don't move around much either. Most elven civilizations have few communities (the one ancestral city, the one sacred forest, or what have you), and they live long lives.
That, plus the High-elf sense of nobility, could lead to a lot of keeping it in the family.

Trial and error. Saw what happened

actually, most people are biologically repelled at the thought of fucking someone they were raised with. most of the time it's your biological sibling, but it work with step brother or sister too (if you were raised together long enough).

I think that those things are bad, but not in a "All mutation is bad" way, but in a "We are intentionally keeping and spreading negative traits because we can support them" kind of way, mind you I doubt the actual traits we will pass on will matter for much longer, we're pretty damn advanced in gene editing, and both china and the US have shown they can remove genetic disease based traits in zygotes if they want to but we still have the whole ethics of "Lets keep the Germ-line natural".

Let's fucking not because 'sacred' is a made-up word and results are what counts.

Just CRISPR my shit up famalam.

Oh I agree it should be used, especially since the Brits already broke it by making some kids with the DNA of 3 people (Mitochondrial) because the mothers had shitty eggs

The general idea you're getting at is valid but you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about with any of the specifics.
Autism and some other disorders may arguably have some situational benefits, blindness is just loss of sense and information.

>How did they know!?
the ones that didn't created retarded sterile offspring and their bloodlines died of leaving only the ones who didn't like incest

>getting married
Why on earth would I want to ruin my life?

>most people are biologically repelled at the thought of fuccing with their close family
It's called Westermark Effect and is actually WAAAAAAaaayyy simpler than a genetic or pheremonal repellent.

It's a simple psychological repellent to breeding those whom you were raised with. As far as I've read, you're actually pretty strongly attracted to people who resemble you (gene reinforcement+ tribal group cohesion) buuuut, to counteract that, you avoid fucking your parents or siblings because of imprinting occurring in early childhood. If you don't get properly imprinted... well..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating

The best experimental example were 'children's creches' founded by Israel kibbutz jews of the 50s in which entire generations of small towns or communities were raised in a communal environment with only 3-4 hours spent with family a day, the rest of the time spent in a socialist boarding school. In a study 3000 marriages between kibbutz children were examined and found only 14 cases of marriage within the same kibbutz class... and none of those children were together in the critical first six years of life (they didn't mutually imprint). Ironically this phenomenon probably helped kill the kibbutz societies twenty years after they were founded because the children all wanted to move away to find mates.

TLDR: Westermarck Effect (if raised together for first 6 years of life one undergoes reverse sexual imprinting, you don't even need to be related.)

I actually meant evoltionarily and not biologically
my bad

There's literally nothing wrong with eugenics, it's just that the Krauts ruined it for everyone.

Shut your face. Birth defects serve no evolutionary purpose, it is the (de)formation of human physiology to the point of pathological effect. There is no known emergent property this corresponds to in biological systems.

Arguably physiological deformity has expanded the breadth of our medical techniques and knowledge, but only inasmuch as understanding and mitigating the symptoms of such defects and providing varied counter examples to proper human growth to learn from. So there is a benefit as medical case studies, but by definition birth defects absolutely aren't a physiological or evolutionary benefit.

>There's literally nothing wrong with eugenics
The main problem is that we don't know yet what everything does so we might create bigger problems than we solve

Yeah, it's only really the basic principle necessary to continue existing that's intuitive to us, the rest is pretty arcane by its very nature

Dogs are the finest creation of humanity and we all know how many health issues the different breeds have. It' better to stay away from eugenics until we know better.

I actually know this one. Modern anthropologists have been to isolated, primitive cultures and the answer to why they don't practice incest is usually along the lines of "sometimes the babies come out wrong"

>We're fundamentally attracted to genes different from our own

Then why don't people fuck animals more?
In fact you're more attracted to people with similar genes. Men will typically be most attracted to women who look like their mother.

>the first humans were just the incest babies of elves

6000. 4000 before Jesus, 2000 after

>It' better to stay away from eugenics until we know better.

Alternatively, we let every state pursue it's own unique eugenic program. Many will create human abominations, but some states will surely succeed.

Typical elven propaganda. Meanwhile, the elves actually believe they're the incest babies of gods, but it's not incest, it's purity, r-right?

Genetic inheritance doesn't give a hot shit about anything besides the individual.

>Burger

>humans are elven incest babies
>elves refuse to start fugging each other, just throw the babies out
>gods uplift humans as punishment for the elves' degeneracy
>humans now rule a widespread and powerful empire
>tfw subjugated by your own son-nephew

because humans had been around for 160+ millenia by that point and it's the kind of thing that sub200 member clans notice.

The Westermarck effect is bullshit. Modern research shows that people from kibbutzim do become sexually attracted to those they grew up with, and rarely develop a sexual aversion - the opposite of what Westermarck claimed. Drawing conclusions from merely the rate of marriage is dubious at best. To summarize, there's little evidence for negative imprinting in childhood, and a boatload of evidence for incest being a cultural taboo.

Inbreeding depression, causing increased mortality, is easily noticeable. A number of genetic cues also affect outbreeding.

Forest fires and genetic defects from popping out your brother or 1st cousins kid can't even remotely be compared

Yes, but we 'can' commit 'genocide' on dog breeds, it's a bit messier to do so on humans, particularly when, as you're suggesting, it's divided along national lines (hooray eugenics wars.)

Remember, 'most fit' does not mean 'most attractive to human ethics, society, aesthetics or even the capacity for civalization it just means, 'most effective reproductive survivors.' Way to make TerraForMars Roach People the most legit strategy.

Is this really a Veeky Forums topic? I mean, I don't want it removed, but I really feel the need to ask.

Also, we already apply human forces beyond Darwinian pressures reproduction. And even beyond that, more direct interventions in human physiology are pointedly cheaper, easier, more controlled, less likely to fail catastrophicly, and have higher maximum potential benefits. Eugenics is like trying to get funding for the next generation of hydrogen derigibles in the jet age. It has a bad track record and there are better alternatives.

How will we know how to treat incest in our games unless we ask these questions?

Well, in longer-lived races, inbreeding may not be seen as so bad - so long as it's handled carefully.

I can sort of see dwarves and elves being cautiously okay with things like uncle/aunt with niece/nephew or grandparent with grandchild - that's about the same level of consanguinity as cousin/cousin, after all. It's a side-effect of living so long; because multiple generations spend so much time together, sometimes, bonds form.

You could easily apply similar logic to gnomes - there was this one setting, Wicked Fantasy, where an *average* gnome mother would give birth to between 30 and 50 kids in her lifetime. That makes inbreeding to some degree pretty hard to avoid...

Drow probably have a lot of incest going on, since hedonism and female dominance is one of their things - if a female drow thinks her brother, son or father is hot, it's her legal right to bang them and they can't refuse.

"Savage" or "degenerate" humanoids like orcs, goblins and gnolls also probably do a lot of inbreeding, because they don't care.

With the communal approach to reproduction they gained in 3e, kobolds may accidentally engage in incest and simply not recognize it.

When you're talking fantasy it gets silly because genetics aren't really playing a part in how the setting works at all.

Like what? Severe birth defects basically eliminate any chance of passing on an individuals genes, which means that they are completely pointless from an evolutionary perspective.

I like my orcs sauronically industrialist and degraded. Think it would lead more to apathetic incest or active 'malgenics'!

In a sense, don't we already practice eugenics?

My wife is pregnant right now. We've had non-invasive prenatal testing to check for down's, edward's and patau syndrome.

We'd have aborted the pregnancy and tried again if the results had been positive.

Isn't this very option a form of eugenics?

Eugenics are already here and fairly normal, in most first world countries a test can be done to determine probability of certain genetic defects and the parents can abort or keep the baby with infomation given. Now there are small clinics taking it even further and studying several fertilized eggs from a couple, determine certain characteristics and let the couple choose which egg to allow to become a human being.

The future is now and a hundreds years from we will all be products of eugenics.

Yes, and what separates it from unethical eugenics is that it's neither compulsory nor socially motivated (it was medically motivated)

Some people don't consider Downs a serious enough disability to warrant something as drastic as an abortion. Many Downies lead relatively full lives, I guess.

Isn't the question whether Downies are undesirable or not a social one?

Its instinctual, especially in females. That goes back to apes and really most of the higher mammals.

Actually they are attracted to those who are the most similar to their fathers without actually being the same. Its meant to select for success while avoiding genetic inbreeding.

>That's when the first simulation got turned on.
FTFY, we were just started yesterday from an old backup.