WI: Beastiality is an accepted pratice...

Status
Not open for further replies.
deathgod said:
I think a much more interesting question would be "WI Incest would be an accepted practice in our society" (which it should be).

In my eyes, it shouldn't. And for at least one reason : the bad effects of consanguinity. Genetics are a lottery, but the more consanguinity in a bloodline, the higher the risks of physical or mental health problem showing up. I know History showed several counter-examples of people who, despite being the results of high consanguinity, weren't mad or difformed (most notably several Pharaohs of Egypts) but in the late years we have heard more of bad effects of consanguinity than good ones.

The Animal World can also show the bad effects of consanguinity : there are species that are disappearing because of consanguinity. The reason is that their numbers and genetic pool have been reduced so much that they are degenerating.

Incest also pose me a problem morally and phylosophically... Humans belong to the Animal World, where Incest has no meaning. However, Humans have always been (and are in my eyes) a "special kind" in the way we developped complex societies, complex spoken languages and complex concepts that Animals didn't. Incest is one of such concepts, but how would getting rid of it would make us different from other animals?

I have nothing against Animals, but I always regarded Natural Law as something cruel since it's a world where the strong eats the weak. We live in societies where such things appear unjust. However, Animals apply Natural Law because they know no other, while we do.

Lastly, I think authorising Incest would destroy the concept of family and possibily society. If brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons could marry and mate (things that happen in the Animal World), then this would lead people to be completely autonomous individuals. Thus, familial links would have absolutely no meaning, as would society.

I hope I have been clear when expressing my opinion, because I'm still finding part of my explanation a bit abstract...
 

Their was a scientific study a few years back that showed that the truth was actually somewhere in the middle.

While a child born between siblings or parent and child does have a significantly higher chance of defects and all the negative biological stuff we associate with Incest overall it actually more or less stops their.

A child born out of the result of sex between cousins was found to be no more at risk for problems than that born to a completely unrelated couple, however it would take fewer generations of children born between cousins continually to start to see problems than it would an unrelated population suffering a population bottleneck.
 
A child born out of the result of sex between cousins was found to be no more at risk for problems than that born to a completely unrelated couple, however it would take fewer generations of children born between cousins continually to start to see problems than it would an unrelated population suffering a population bottleneck.
Roughly the same risk as a woman over 40 having a child, as I recall.
 
First of all, I have to say that I'm impressed that this thread (on such a taboo subject) has only recieved a warning about name calling.

Kudos to everyone.:)




In my eyes, it shouldn't. And for at least one reason : the bad effects of consanguinity. Genetics are a lottery, but the more consanguinity in a bloodline, the higher the risks of physical or mental health problem showing up. I know History showed several counter-examples of people who, despite being the results of high consanguinity, weren't mad or difformed (most notably several Pharaohs of Egypts) but in the late years we have heard more of bad effects of consanguinity than good ones.

The Animal World can also show the bad effects of consanguinity : there are species that are disappearing because of consanguinity. The reason is that their numbers and genetic pool have been reduced so much that they are degenerating.

Incest also pose me a problem morally and phylosophically... Humans belong to the Animal World, where Incest has no meaning. However, Humans have always been (and are in my eyes) a "special kind" in the way we developped complex societies, complex spoken languages and complex concepts that Animals didn't. Incest is one of such concepts, but how would getting rid of it would make us different from other animals?

I have nothing against Animals, but I always regarded Natural Law as something cruel since it's a world where the strong eats the weak. We live in societies where such things appear unjust. However, Animals apply Natural Law because they know no other, while we do.

Lastly, I think authorising Incest would destroy the concept of family and possibily society. If brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons could marry and mate (things that happen in the Animal World), then this would lead people to be completely autonomous individuals. Thus, familial links would have absolutely no meaning, as would society.

I hope I have been clear when expressing my opinion, because I'm still finding part of my explanation a bit abstract...


From what little I know of incest, (which unfortunately includes a case between a cousin and her father) I actually don't think that would be the case. It would harm them a lot, but I think that they would still exist, but just be less heathly.


Now bestiality? I agree that such a TL would be so affected by butterflies as to be unrecognizable to us.

Might be more interesting to speculate if we were suddenly exposed to such a culture, how would we react?

Either discovering that some culture has hidden this practice for a long time , or introduced through ISOT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top