It's the 21st century, what's wrong with incest?

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

If it's subjective, then why is it still illegal?

Law isn't ethical.

Big head boi

you keep making the same fucking thread once in while. could you legitimately get off Veeky Forums and go to /b/ or any similar board to /b/. you'd fit there more with your disgusting fetishs. you killed a potential thread in Veeky Forums that would've had more worth.

high chance of having handicapped children, there.

Are you trying to say moral philosophy is relative?

So much intolerance.

You're clearly not from around here, please go back.

just cause it's subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The people making it illegal still very much believe in their opinion.

>incestsexual
I mean, I get if you happen to catch feelings you don't want to have, but this bitch just straight up only fucks siblings?

Nah user, you are the newfag. Though that forced meme is annoying.

We have been calling eachother fags for fucking forever

Go and stay go

>Is the genetic argument even valid anymore?
It was never valid, as every animal breeder knows.
Look up "livestock inbreeding" you lazy pseudos.

Idk I fuck my sister all the time I'm sure lotsof people do and just don't say

Not entirely true. As said, inbreeding increases the probability of the offspring having alleles in both homozygous-dominant and homozygous-recessive state, while decreasing the probability of alleles in heterozygous state. This can be both a good and a bad thing, there are both congenital disorders and benefitial gene variations that take effect only when in homozygous state.

Generally speaking though, having higher ratio of homozygous gene is disadvantageous for most populations, since it decreases the variability of gene pool and therefore lowers the ability to adapt to changing conditions over generations.

With that being said, I have to admit that fucking my cousin back when we were teenagers was one of the hottest things I've ever experienced.

Fair. Their opinion is wrong, though.

imagine being this new

>the ability to adapt to changing conditions
...is not a problem for civilised humans, who
modify their living conditions in response to
changing conditions, rather than wait many
generations to adapt via selection. The genetic
argument is dead as fried chicken.

Do people actually think that CRISPR will just be free and on the market? Governments are going to regulate the fuck out of it. Otherwise you would just end up with Eugenics.

CRISPR will take off for genetic conditions but not like creating Chads.

Again, not entirely true. Not everything in the environment can be changed and selection doesn't only happen over many generations, but also due to bottleneck situations, like a rapid outbreak of a deadly disease, sudden rapid shift in climate, etc.

Sure, we can modify and adapt to these conditions to some extent, but not entirely. We still need genetic diversity to make sure at least a small portion of population survives such events.

Also, in a case of civilisation collapse of even minor extent, lot of these environment modifications may no longer be available, which, combined with genetically unfit population dependent on such measures, could lead to extinction event that wouldn't otherwise happen in diverse population.

>incest is bad because of these cascading outcomes I will now list

Just stop posting. You are too dumb to understand what the question is really asking.

Pretty much this.

To give a good example, we have things colloquially called "Jump genes", which are transposons. They're retroviral-like elements that essentially are just DNA sequences that have 2 functions

1) Codes for replicating its DNA sequence
2) Codes for cutting DNA at a random point and placing the product of 1 into it

which, when this happens in the sperm/egg, will end up changing the genome of the offspring permanently. Research estimates that a staggering amount of our genome, upwards of 50% are these SINES (Short versions) and LINES (long versions) or broken/ancient copies of them over the course of the history of life. That's pretty nuts in and of itself, but when you consider the random-cutting mechanism of the transposon, incest becomes a bit tricky.

When a gene jumps into another gene, it pretty much permanently breaks it. But that's usually fine- we have 2 viable copies, and usually 1 is enough to perform the function, the second is a backup in case the first craps out. So let's say a person gets a transposon which hops into a gene that codes for proper facial formation. That's okay, because there'll be little to no change in their children- but their children may have one broken copy, and one working. Normally they would never run in to a person with a broken copy in the exact same place, as the chances of a transposon hopping into the same region independently, considering
1) The genome is fuckhuge with over 3 billion bases
2) Transposon hops are fairly rare individually, but common in many generations with billions of humans
are very very tiny.

But, if you have children each with 1 broken and 1 working copy, and they have kids, it's possible then to get kids that have 2 broken copies.

All things considered, then, I think that the genetic argument is very favorably. Looking at it from a population level has its flaws, but on individual risk level, it's huuuugely risky.

this

For better or worse, life is pay2win. By the time non-therapeutic human genome editing becomes a thing, I'll hopefully be rich enough to just tell the regulators that they can go fuck themselves with a cactus.

Nothing. Everything wrong with incest is due to something else that's wrong on it's own.

Gene pool deficit.
A single instance of incest leading to a baby probably isn't goint to result in a genetic sport, but if it becomes generational you increase the odds of the offspring becoming non viable genetic cespools.

Why is it so many people overlook the worse result? That the offspring *aren't* non-viable?

Incest is a far stronger taboo than butt banditry, which is as reproductively futile if we're framing it that way.

The worse aspect is mutation. That's why people crap themselves, with good reason if the offspring is also reproductively viable.

It's bad for the species if we make a subspecies that might oust us. Save that avenue for mutation for crisis times, when one family might have to repopulate the world.

yeah in principle there's nothing inherently wrong with incest but personally, my family physically repulses me, and I thought it was that way for everyone
but hey if you're turned on by your relatives go right ahead

Thought I said there was something inherently wrong with it, on anything other than a crisis level.

Yes the taboo's strong, and I'm not saying it's a purely external taboo. Thought repulses me too.

But taboos get broken in extreme situations - cannibalism one offers most examples, probably. Strong, but if there's a corpse and no food... It happens.

Situation where you can't find a mate, or any living person at all bar family for decades..? Genes might just reconsider things for you.

yeah but the apocalypse isn't happening any time soon...........or is it?
better start fucking our siblings, parents and cousins just in case

Wouldn't prohibiting incest for genetic reasons just be a form of eugenics?