The "implications" of inbreeding are becoming less and less severe with the advent of true genetic editing. Mainly the reason people find it disgusting is due to the genetic damage it causes in the offspring.
But if that damage can be repaired at a base level to the degree that the very dna is changed meaning even that offspring's offspring won't have any kind of issues then I ask:

What really are the implications of inbreeding?

And also, if you dislike incest and inbreeding then you are practicing eugenics. Eugenics being the act of preserving favorable/desirable genetics through selective breeding. And gene damage isn't a generally a desirable genetics trait you would want passed on to future generations....
Knowledge! "The more you know."

Eugenics:
the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

Eugenics:
Not nazi specific ideology unless your just really set on slapping generalist biggoted labeles on things.

Some people would argue about pure royal bloodlines back in the day. Do you honestly think if those literally ignorant people had known that inbreeding causes genetic damage that would actually hurt their bloodline; they would have been doing it?
That was not a fault of eugenics, that was a fault out of ignorance because people did not know better back then.

Some people would argue about pure royal bloodlines back in the day. Do you honestly think if those literally ignorant people had known that inbreeding causes genetic damage that would actually hurt their bloodline; they would have been doing it?

"His body did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

lenkagetsu said:
"His body did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

Ok.... Sooo that is all gene damage/mutations. Now if they had gene edited those traits out of his body with knowledge and sciences they did not have available back then do you think he would have any of those problems? Any at all whatsoever?

Edit: Keep in mind we are talking about people who thought maggots spontaneously generated from the mixture of Air and meat....

Here I thought this was going to be a thread suggesting inbred related tagging and and their implication to existing/new tags.

zypher0s said:
Ok.... Sooo that is all gene damage/mutations. Now if they had gene edited those traits out of his body with knowledge and sciences they did not have available back then do you think he would have any of those problems? Any at all whatsoever?

Edit: Keep in mind we are talking about people who thought maggots spontaneously generated from the mixture of Air and meat....

Big reason they stuck to inbreeding was to avoid "tainting the bloodline." On one hand, they'd be able to avoid "peasant blood," but on the other hand if they knew about genetics they should also realize that there's no such thing as "peasant blood". Better to just pick somebody who you don't need to waste time and effort gene modifying the kids of, somebody who happens to have the better genes.

versperus said:
Here I thought this was going to be a thread suggesting inbred related tagging and and their implication to existing/new tags.

Haha! This guy gets it!!

Mostly I'm doing this as an exercise of open mindedness... I'm a gay male, so I don't produce offspring of any kind, inbred or otherwise. And I have no brothers.

The thought here is two pronged.... The first being the actual base reason for cultural rejection of incest. It leads to genetic damage and mutations. Makes sense, no?

What about a pair of gay brothers? How is that in any way wrong?!? Logically or morally?
(Tip, in some countries and cultures, it isn't.)

So if you remove the genetic damage and mutations from inbreeding, what exactly is wrong with it?!? Logically and morally.

The second prong is to expose hypocritical thinking that many people suffer from.
"Eugenics is bad"
No, most everyone including animals practice it to some degree.

I'm asking these questions with genuine interest in discussion, to one the most open minded subcultures on the internet. Furries.
Let's go balls deep here. Deeper the discussion the better!

zypher0s said:
Haha! This guy gets it!!

Mostly I'm doing this as an exercise of open mindedness... I'm a gay male, so I don't produce offspring of any kind, inbred or otherwise. And I have no brothers.

The thought here is two pronged.... The first being the actual base reason for cultural rejection of incest. It leads to genetic damage and mutations. Makes sense, no?

What about a pair of gay brothers? How is that in any way wrong?!? Logically or morally?
(Tip, in some countries and cultures, it isn't.)

So if you remove the genetic damage and mutations from inbreeding, what exactly is wrong with it?!? Logically and morally.

The second prong is to expose hypocritical thinking that many people suffer from.
"Eugenics is bad"
No, most everyone including animals practice it to some degree.

I'm asking these questions with genuine interest in discussion, to one the most open minded subcultures on the internet. Furries.
Let's go balls deep here. Deeper the discussion the better!

If you want to tear away all the morals and taboo of it, Leaving a relationship with someone you don't get along with who isn't related to you would be a lot easier then someone who is. The dramatics of a bad breakup would be that much worse because your whole damn family would be involved judging one of you and picking sides with the other. It would be like dating someone you were friends with since you were a child and have all the same associates with, but worse because even your family would be apart of that group.

zypher0s said:
The "implications" of inbreeding are becoming less and less severe with the advent of true genetic editing.

Are you from the future? This editing isn't being done yet, at least not out in the open.

zypher0s said:
Mainly the reason people find it disgusting is due to the genetic damage it causes in the offspring.

It's not a solved problem. CRISPR may be totally inept at editing without causing massive off-target errors. On the other hand, He Jiankui produced 2 or 3 apparently healthy babies without even using the latest refinements to CRISPR.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is being done, or abortion after screening. I suppose screening could be used by incestual couples to cut down on potential "implications". The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld a law that bans abortion in the case of fetal Down syndrome, so this issue could reach the Supreme Court soon.

lance_armstrong said:
Are you from the future? This editing isn't being done yet, at least not out in the open.

It's not a solved problem. CRISPR may be totally inept at editing without causing massive off-target errors. On the other hand, He Jiankui produced 2 or 3 apparently healthy babies without even using the latest refinements to CRISPR.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is being done, or abortion after screening. I suppose screening could be used by incestual couples to cut down on potential "implications". The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld a law that bans abortion in the case of fetal Down syndrome, so this issue could reach the Supreme Court soon.

You are correct! And I was indeed talking about crispr over in China. The Ubermensch cometh, just not gonna be german.
I used the word "advent" and carefully said "are becoming" instead of "has become" for that very reason. As it's not fully here yet, especially not publicly. Though it does seem to be right around the corner.

But as a species we are gonna have to get these moral discrepancies sorted out. Once full on gene editing is a thing, it's gonna open a whole new can of worms.
For example: If you have adhd, low lvl autism, poor memory, or are just low IQ unintelligent, and get that problem *fixed* via gene edits.... Are you the same person? Or have you replaced the entity that was you with another, simply because you changed the architecture and programming of the system. Similar to a lobotomy.
Unfortunately people are still hung up on cultural programming.

zypher0s said:
For example: If you have adhd, low lvl autism, poor memory, or are just low IQ unintelligent, and get that problem *fixed* via gene edits.... Are you the same person? Or have you replaced the entity that was you with another, simply because you changed the architecture and programming of the system. Similar to a lobotomy.
Unfortunately people are still hung up on cultural programming.

Why bother with inaccurate editing at all if you can create an embryo with any DNA sequence from scratch? Design the baby on a computer. Synthesize the DNA, put it into the nucleus of an embryo, or create one of those too.

That's likely how it will go down. Several cans of worms opened.

Gene therapy will be used on people with the misfortune of having been born the old fashioned way, or when a severe mutation happened soon after the embryonic stage.

lance_armstrong said:
Why bother with inaccurate editing at all if you can create an embryo with any DNA sequence from scratch? Design the baby on a computer. Synthesize the DNA, put it into the nucleus of an embryo, or create one of those too.

That's likely how it will go down. Several cans of worms opened.

Gene therapy will be used on people with the misfortune of having been born the old fashioned way, or when a severe mutation happened soon after the embryonic stage.

Not if western thinking has anything to do with it, which honestly it shouldn't, but for some reason western thinking also has a powerful army and allot of nukes.... Be hard pressed to synthesize a nuke proof baby.

It's gonna be dreadfully slow I imagine. Gradual... Else risk ww3/new holocaust.

Though I do wanna hear from others and thier ideas on just why incest and eugenics are considered "bad" to allot of people. Quite interested in hearing exactly what they think. Gotta listen to and weigh both sides.

That's all, folks. Try the fish.

How did this get from inbreeding to nuke proof babies?

nottheknown said:
How did this get from inbreeding to nuke proof babies?

Nutjobs who think the Morlocks are something to aspire to be.