It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ethical Incest

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Today my partner and I were talking about designer babies. She then posed a question. My first reaction was to laugh, but a few seconds later I realized how thought provoking it actually is. I will now ask this question to you. Please keep in mind I am not interested in a religious discussion about morality or any legal implications. Solely the opinions, ethics and scientific reasoning.

Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup. If they were to breed, would this be incestuous?

I'm aware it would still be considered as such, but would it actually be?
As far as out conversation took us, we found that it would not be unethical for them to pair off as their offspring would have no biological fallout.
What are your thoughts on it. Is it unethical? Why?

Also, we are well aware of the Westermarck effect- but that is of little concern.




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 





Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup.


Hypothetically, how could this happen?


If they were to breed, would this be incestuous?


Of course it would.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Isn't "ethical incest" something of an oxymoron, given the cultures that frequent this site?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I am not following what is being asked here.

Are you suggesting taking genetic material from a brother and sister and creating a designer test tube baby, or we talking about simple old school procreation?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

windword
Hypothetically, how could this happen?


SaturnFX
Are you suggesting taking genetic material from a brother and sister and creating a designer test tube baby, or we talking about simple old school procreation?

It's a hypothetical. We were on the topic of designer babies should you require additional information. To hypothetically have entire sequences switched on/off for one child and while the other child has a different genetic mix- the shared genes are switched vice versa.


windword
Of course it would.

Windword, Oh thanks, I never thought of it like that. That really clears things up...
You failed to mention why.


AfterInfinity
Isn't "ethical incest" something of an oxymoron, given the cultures that frequent this site?

I don't follow...?
edit on 4-4-2014 by Gear because: Clarity



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 


IF two siblings are adopted from two separate parents, society still looks down on it as incest so I think that answers your question.

Interesting thought though, albeit slightly perverted.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
he's saying the brother and sister were designer to begin with and in some cases would probably only share a very little amount of DNA makeup. i know its rather common for stepbrother/sisters to go on to have long and happy relationships. this happened a few times that I've heard of personally and even tho an eyebrow gets raised in the end there are worse things to worry about.

in the case of the brother and sister. idk really. very very thought provoking.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 


With genetic design you could design dna where the two kids in fact where perfectly different from each other and biological genetically perfect mates and still let the same woman carry both kids and be their mother. Just because they are biological genetically perfect mates do not make them a good fit since it is only the container that they are driving that you are designing not their mind/soul.

That do not say that culturally people would probably be very judgmental against them.
edit on 4-4-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

PsychoEmperor
IF two siblings are adopted from two separate parents, society still looks down on it as incest



mindseye1609
i know its rather common for stepbrother/sisters to go on to have long and happy relationships. this happened a few times that I've heard of personally and even tho an eyebrow gets raised in the end there are worse things to worry about.

Hrmm... We discussed a lot of ethics and scientific viability- Aware that incest is a secretive fact of life for those involved, we didn't we didn't actually consider any social implications. It just didn't cross our minds.

While we also had the thought experiment of human cloning with a (non related) surrogate mother and a mother/child/partner relationship- we did not consider the more realistic probabilities of adoption/step-sibling relations and it's ethics.

Thanks for the food for thought!



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

LittleByLittle
...
That does not say that culturally people would probably be very judgmental against them.

Likewise as per mentioned.

We overlooked the (now obvious) social implications of this behavior.
Thanks for the input!



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 


In essence it is. However we would not have modern agriculture/animal husbandry without "incest".
I consider the term "incest" rather an issue of moral/legal means. To get the best results in an offspring you need to pair the best partners, be it brothers and sisters or any relations combination. A show-dog breeder once explained me the sequence in which it is done. His sequence chart looked like the key to a cypher. And it went around a lot of relatives, not just bro/sis. it went back to grand parents and then jump back down again to bro sis and so on. Quite a complex thing. And for sure NOT something one would be easily be discussing with a group setting moral or ethical standards for society.
Incest as such was practiced a lot by ancient royalties to keep the blood line clean. Also to be noted is that 65,000 years ago after the Toba super volcano, the entire human race was reduced to a mere 1,000 some breeding couples. And now we count 7 billion and counting. The entire incest situation is in my opinion a rather moral phenomena as it is a natural thing. Because nature simply breeds with the best and most compatible ones.
Man uses "controlled incest" to breed specific animals for best performance in their field.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Gear
Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup. If they were to breed, would this be incestuous?.

Um ... YES. Of course. There is no question.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Guenter
In essence it is. However we would not have modern agriculture/animal husbandry without "incest".
I consider the term "incest" rather an issue of moral/legal means. To get the best results in an offspring you need to pair the best partners, be it brothers and sisters or any relations combination. A show-dog breeder once explained me the sequence in which it is done. His sequence chart looked like the key to a cypher. And it went around a lot of relatives, not just bro/sis. it went back to grand parents and then jump back down again to bro sis and so on. Quite a complex thing. And for sure NOT something one would be easily be discussing with a group setting moral or ethical standards for society.
Incest as such was practiced a lot by ancient royalties to keep the blood line clean. Also to be noted is that 65,000 years ago after the Toba super volcano, the entire human race was reduced to a mere 1,000 some breeding couples. And now we count 7 billion and counting. The entire incest situation is in my opinion a rather moral phenomena as it is a natural thing. Because nature simply breeds with the best and most compatible ones.
Man uses "controlled incest" to breed specific animals for best performance in their field.

We discussed the viable sustainability of incest over the course of time through necessity (to avoid extinction etc)
Interesting about the selective breeding, however. As it currently stands with normal in-breeding, would that damage the quality of the dog's offspring? Sure you can breed certain desirable qualities- but done so continuously over a long period of time would surely also allow for the continuation of lower quality genetics... not to mention mutations that would increase exponentially.
Interesting thought of it's necessity in nature. Without the social implications I see no reason why it cannot be unethical to do so if no harm can come from it.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

FlyersFan

Gear
Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup. If they were to breed, would this be incestuous?.

Um ... YES. Of course. There is no question.

There is question. It was asked. It cannot be unasked.
What are your validations for your opinion?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 




Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup. If they were to breed, would this be incestuous?


I'm not sure what you mean by this but in general inbreeding is bad because homozygosity leads to an increased risk of creating offspring with autosomal recessive genetic diseases like Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell and Cystic Fibrosis. Assuming this wasn't an issue, and the resulting offspring wasn't afflicted with a genetic disease, there's still the issue of the cultural taboo which cannot simply be dismissed when considering the ethical implications of such an undertaking because the child, as a member of society, would still be subject to its consequences.

As there is no known benefit conferred from such a union, it's probably not reasonable to believe that it would ever become an issue of much debate. I think I understand what you're driving at though — genes are genes — so in essence if you remove taboo as a factor, it would be no different than a union of two individuals who are not siblings but by chance are as genetically similar as if they were.

In some ways, it's similar to the idea of synthesizing a chemical that in nature is found in something typically considered abhorrent — like urea, a component of mammalian urine which has numerous industrial uses including dish soap and cigarettes.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Gear
We discussed the viable sustainability of incest over the course of time through necessity (to avoid extinction etc)
Interesting about the selective breeding, however. As it currently stands with normal in-breeding, would that damage the quality of the dog's offspring? Sure you can breed certain desirable qualities- but done so continuously over a long period of time would surely also allow for the continuation of lower quality genetics... not to mention mutations that would increase exponentially.
Interesting thought of it's necessity in nature. Without the social implications I see no reason why it cannot be unethical to do so if no harm can come from it.



Well there comes the problem! If incest is continued over a certain period of times then it has negative qualities. I.Ex. German Shepard dogs are now prone to premature hip problems. And similar high end breeds as Rottwheiler or so also have this problem. The proverbial "village idiot" is the result of isolated communities who - as in most cases did NOT practice incest - but you can only breed so long among 5 families till the the egg is again back in your own nest. The "Village Idiot" syndrome was foremost noted in the European isolated alpine valleys with little outside connections; at least it is from these sources I was made aware of the entire incest thing.
I believe that so little is known about it, or so little talked about it - on the HUMAN side, is because of social and moral restrictions. Also any farmer or breeder of the animal world knows exactly how it works. We hear constantly that an endangered species has been bred in captivity and now released back into the wild; - yet 20 years later we see from these handful of animals no species with 7 legs and 2 tails running around. Needless to say, Show-dog and other "Show" animal breeders breed purely for the looks. Farmers instead breed selectively for best performance, and in this case Performance = Healthy and natural or as close to the original. Just look how rapidly the appearance of your "bred for best beacon" farm hog changes if he manages to escape into the wild. In the TV series "Life after people" it is repeatedly said that the ones least to survive are our so beloved "show dog/lap dog" pets.
So sure it would work nice for humans as well. It's just a "moral" issue that most would feel not very comfortable with to even contemplate.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   


Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup. If they were to breed, would this be incestuous? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
reply to post by Gear
 


I've seen some strange posts on this site, but when I saw the title of your thread...I knew that we had truly crossed some kind of line into the surreal. Makes me wonder about you and your "girlfriend".

In answer to your question...yes, by definition it would be incestuous.

If you are brother and sister then you share much more than rudimentary genetics.




What are your thoughts on it. Is it unethical? Why? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


It would be unethical because it is;

1) dangerous for any offspring. It greatly increases the chance of genetic abnormalities and mutations. Look at the European royal families for a prime example of where this inbreeding leads. If it continues for a few generations, the offspring will be genetically weaker and will invariable show signs of any number of malformations, mental instability...ect. It is a fact you cannot ignore.

2) It is not only not societally acceptable, but also a criminal offense which could lead to significant time in prison for some of the reasons listed above.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
OH! I get it now. You mean like Chromes from "Almost Human". Excellent series, very much worth checking out. Stars Karl Urban as a cop who comes back from an extended leave following a failed raid that he made a very bad call on. Gets partnered with an outdated android who turns out to be pretty badass. An android with feelings and intuitive capabilities, hence the name of the show. Anyway, there's these people called "Chromes" who are genetically engineered according to customer specifications.

The problem we run into with "designer baby" incest is that if they share too many of the same characteristics, it's likely they share too much of the same genetic material as well. Obviously, every given genetic expression will have its "go-to" source, which means two people sharing a lot of the same expressions probably share a lot of the same genetic sources. Hell, if they come from the same factory, same problem.

HOWEVER! If genetic engineering gets to that point, then it's likely that they have some form of advanced gene therapy which allows them to skirt those issues as well. And if genetic manipulation has advanced to such a well-honed science (hypothetically), a little thing like incest wouldn't matter anyway.
edit on 4-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 





Hypothetically- a brother and sister happen to share only a minuscule and rudimentary genetic makeup. If they were to breed, would this be incestuous? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


It's a dumb question. Humans in general share a miniscule and rudimentary genetic make up, siblings share much more of the same genetic make up.

The whole notion fails as soon as you mention siblings because they have a close genetic make up by definition.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gear
 


I believe it would be unethical especially if said siblings were raised together because the high majority of this world, in all its wondrous culture, frowns upon incest. Therefor, regardless of how much DNA is actually shared among siblings, it would vastly be considered immoral thereby making it unethical. One cannot discuss ethics without discussing morality, and most morals in the world are shaped by religion. So despite your request to leave religious morals out of the equation, it must be mentioned.

Most religions are adamant about family purity. If they were raised together as brother and sister under the same parents it wouldn't matter how much DNA they share. It would still be considered taboo, i.e., it's unethical.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join