Inscest was only morally forbid for a good reason, by nature.
The only reason was, to prevent the weakness and stupidity of genetic defects arising from imbreeding.
If someone were to have sex with a fool, a weak, sick or stupid person, it would perhaps be even worse than inscest, depending on the context, for it would be an active reproduction towards the production of foolishness, weakness and sickness in the species.
I frown upon foolish women whom destroy the race, upon those whom Will to spawn a breed of weak and dumb individuals which then eventually spoil all of the blood and make it rott. I have seen many women whom went over to become intimate with a defective man, to tolerate and accept weakness, or also a man whom tolerated and accepted a weak, unintelligent wife. The result has often been a crappy relationship, full of strife and foolish behavior, as one or both are defective and too filled with genetic flaw. It is they whom make the race sick, making a sickness which could perhaps destroy eventually the whole species or the much life on earth.
I have seen so many women whom say that they have had trouble and problems due to their abusive partner. But whom was it that forced them to love the poisonous man other than their own body? To take a bad and crappy mate is the same as taking alchohol, smoking or anything else poisonous. This is a very common human practice, to destroy one’s self and then pretend one is a victim, instead of ever revealing that one is in-fact a disease and a cause of trouble.
Anything that makes the race weaker, is bad. Therefor all things harmful are also weakening.
One cannot be free if one has no strength to act. An old person in a hospital, bed-ridden and completely disabled, is not free at all. He can intend, but he cannot accomplish or reach any capacity. Therefor strength makes freedom, and to be free one must be strong. That would also be how humanity could become free at last, if only they could become strong and healthy.
This thread reeks of eugenic bullshit. Seriously, whenever someone begins ranting about the “ideal race”, the mute button in my mind instantly clicks on…
Have you taken a stroll through your local trailer park recently?
I suggest going at midnight; enjoy yourself–peek in through some windows! See some lazy slobs stuffing their faces on their fat asses, see some spousal/child abuse, see some incest, see some teenage pregnancy, and walk away with a smile on your face while not forgetting your undying devotion to faith in the human race!
So, are all the supporters of the OP utilitarians who want what’s best for society? Sure sounds like it…
If we are to take this seriously, what objective data would be used to segregate “fools” from intellectuals? Flawed IQ tests? Some other tests? In this case, I would agree with Joker that such tests imprison the individual into a “label” or group.
The whole theoretical mechanism to implement such a eugenic ideology is also unsettling. Who would control human breeding? The government?
The OP treats this issue as some looming, unprecedented problem facing humanity. Hardly! Literacy rates are much higher than ~150-200 years ago, when millions of people whom Dan~ would label “fools” were fucking like jack rabbits, often producing half a dozen or more children and immensely out numbering the “civil” educated population.
Smart people know not to have too many kids because that will make them poor. Poor people don’t know any better. Medical advances already make us weak. We’re spending tons of money keeping people alive that would have died just a few years ago.
I don’t know why those in third world countries are churning out countless kids when their energy would be better spent on nurturing/brining-up one or two, three max! No, they have 10 instead!
no matter what context you choose to see it in actual incest is not equivalent to reproducing with a fool…
the reason family memebrs cannot reproduce with eachother is because between the 2 of them they do not have enough unique genes to produce the 22 chromosomes it takes to make a fully functional baby…
though mating with a fool can be seen as stupid or in a baase sense "incestuous" the fact remains that no matter how stupid 2 people may be their baby will not reflect that.
stupidity is not hereditary…
it is encourageable given that the child’s environment was created by a stupid person, but genetically you could take a baby from 20 000 years ago (presumably that’s when we were most stupid),and he or she would have no problem in keeping up with the children of today…
i would in fact assert that he or she would be smarter than us… because odds are that somewhere along the line we are all decended from incest… unless about 70 humans hopped out of holes in the ground all at the same time we ARE all decended from incest…
so sex with a fool is not incest, it’s just desperation…
ONE If you go back to the basic equations of population genetics of Fisher and the likes from 1914 on
(a bit of a eugenicist himself - tho’ recanted a bit when his own maths began to get the better of his rotten political beliefs)
you very quickly find that it is almost impossible to “wipe out” particular traits even in absolutely controlled breeding experiments with domestic animals - its just bad science before we get near any idea of right and wrong…
Referring to an older post of mine (slightly edited!)
[i]Selective breeding can bring out certain positive trait after many generations - dogs being the classic example (at the expense of reducing the variation . But “weeding out” bad traits is actually extremely difficult.
In fact we did an exercise on the survival of “deleterious” traits in population genetics many years ago and via very simple math you find out that it would take literally thousands of generation times to reduce something to zero or even statistically close to zero.
(And that’s just for one “bad” gene - so not even counting things were “bad” alleles are often inked to good ones and so on)
You don’t need actual breeding experiments you can do it via a few simple population equations which actually have been around in the 1930s and 1940s.
[/i]
Very good intro to population genetics here (specially simplified for great philosophers like us noble types!!)
TWO Women are obviously vastly superior to men - so I would reverse the whole way you’ve constructed yer post Dan~
Even if such tings were possible (they patently and obviously aren’t) It is stronger women we must aim for - Men need to bow out while they still can - maybe write philosophy or something equally harmless …
It is these “stupid people” who are reproducing at a much faster rate than philosophers, scientists, or any other type of intellectual individuals. We do not tend to get pregnant at 18 years of age, rather, we choose to wait until marriage, or until it’s too late.
So, is it safe to assume that the future holds a state of idiocracy to the average joe, or worse, a country ruled by “stupid people.”
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
