Incest wasn't necessarily a taboo, like in ancient Egypt where a king could marry his sister and his daughter, but that was tied with their religion.

But when it comes to morality and evolution the problem is that what has evolved was during the times when people were hunter-gatherers, so when they switched to agriculture and civilization they were faced with numerous new questions for which people didn't necessarily evolve to. Like the creation of billionaires, retarded people (who usually died quickly in food scarce hunter-gatherers society), gay marriage, trans people, slaves, etc.

These were hard questions with which people battled for centuries. And what usually is behind these decisions is the ideology of the society itself. West stands on humanist-capitalist foundations where human feelings are at the center, so billionaires and gays are allowed if they don't seem to step on other people's feelings, but slaves are not allowed because it is considered that they suffer too much.

Other societies don't understand that. Communists could not understand the toleration of billionaires, so they would call these societies decadent. And this is why societies don't understand each other. Or a theocratic society could not understand democracy where all people have a right to vote because they consider people to be sinful and wicked, and as such in a need to be guided by a few people who were supposedly chosen by God. And so on.

Taboo is utilitarian, the incest taboo produces hybrid genetics in a diverse population affording us vigor. It also prevents the rapid accumulation of defects common to any specific line.

Now, if you don’t understand genetics, don’t fuck your siblings makes for a good heuristic . However, just as we sometimes inbreed livestock lines we inbreed our own - and..generally, for the same reasons in both cases. We’ve commonly believed that breeding royalty with peasants is similar to breeding a heritage or purebred animal with a mutt.

This may or may not be an item of moral import…but…as always, referring to people that -do- fuck their siblings is not a refutation of any fact of the matter in practice or in principle.

It may…in fact, be better (either morally or practically or both) to hybridize. That some people don’t has no bearing on that. It could conceivably be better to inbreed, as well- but just as before listing off that people do won’t establish that either.

It is human well-being, and not human feelings, that humanism is premised on, since we’re talking about facts. How might we respond to the prince who will only marry his sister? By pointing out that he was….in fact…. wrong. That inbreeding emphatically does not produce a suitable ruling class. As every ruling class eventually learned through hard experience. As they could have known in their own times by reference to their well mixed combatants, upon which they all relied. As they could have realized (and did)…in their f1 crops.

It is hard for people to learn if they don't understand the problem/ what is going on. We today see inbreeding as immoral because we understand why it is wrong. In the past, people could only rely on taboos, some of which were built on wisdom but most on superstition.

But still, you have people who ignore the knowledge and go with their tradition of incest. Incest is still very much alive in Muslim societies which is why they have problems, but ignore them because they are theocratic and not humanistic.

I agree. If there are facts…moral facts or biological facts…it stands to reason that we can get them wrong. That we could get them right and still not give a shit, too.

I also think that human beings are much better at solving the kinds of problems we’re adapted to. It’s more difficult , and we often require command of an improved set of facts, in order to solve complex problems.

Societies that -can’t- understand each other are in that state because they can’t agree to any shared facts…or flatly refuse to defer to such facts when they’re possessed.

Yeah, for us it is natural to take facts for granted and go against incest because it will lead to suffering, and that is a humanistic mentality.

But many Muslims care more about religious traditions of marrying your close cousin than the fact of human suffering that will result from it because they are more theocratic and not humanistic.

(May 28, 2022 at 1:22 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(May 28, 2022 at 1:08 pm)brewer Wrote: Yeah, you still don't get it. Too much trying to shoe horn god into the discussion.

Bold: Did you just state that organisms evolve, or are you saying that god made them more evolved?

Life does not require morality, look at plants, bacteria, insects, reptiles,............... You don't seem to grasp the big picture. Social animals develop/make social morals. Of course there will be aberrant individuals, there are in all social groups. But I challenge you to prove that the aberrant individuals/groups  are completely genetic and not environmental.

If you don't think so then tell me why there are/were head hunter tribes, human sacrifice tribes?

It's genetic (not environmental) because you can have two kids raised in the same kind of environment, going to the same school, eating the same food, watching the same television, etc. and one kid will develop into a pro-social sort of person and the other kid will turn out to be more anti-social.

Evidence please.

The idea, both in our case and in the case of some real or hypothetical inbreeding society when it comes to deference to tradition- is that these traditions produce ideal or improved societies. In that, a thing being morally wrong might be irrelevant . Many of us think that war is immoral ( not co-signing or asserting, just as an example)…but insomuch as we believe that a military and military operations are necessary to the function of a good state( or tribe…or even family) we’re going to build them and wage war.

That’s why a systems view offers more insight than a content view. We can see that two groups engaging in very different and often antithetical behaviors are both pursuing the same goals. That they agree in principle, but not in fact.

(May 28, 2022 at 5:16 pm)brewer Wrote:

(May 28, 2022 at 1:22 pm)Ahriman Wrote: It's genetic (not environmental) because you can have two kids raised in the same kind of environment, going to the same school, eating the same food, watching the same television, etc. and one kid will develop into a pro-social sort of person and the other kid will turn out to be more anti-social.

Evidence please.

There are pro-social and anti-social people who grew up in the same basic environment. Their environment did not make them pro-social or anti-social, the cause of those conditions is more fundamental than environmental influence.

Socialization is hugely environmental- though not exclusively. It’s a very weird example if the intent is to assert that a thing is wholly genetic.

Only extreme environments will change a person. Basic environments are not very influential, pretty much not at all.