On 9/4/00, at 8:51 PM, xgl wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, J. R. Molloy wrote:
>
>> One more advantage to cloning:
>> The parent who is not contributing biologically could have sex with the
>> partner's clone without committing incest.
> however, the major objection most people have to incest has
>nothing to do with conscious calculation of genetics ... incest taboo is
>an evolved adaptation rationalized as a moral axiom. even though the
>ultimate reason for this adaptation is genetic, it doesn't really matter
>because we are what we are ... and until we change what we are it's still
>going to be really difficult to change what we do.
Again, somewhere I have a paper on the subject, from AAAS a few years ago.
What follows is mostly from memory.
Curiously, while a social incest taboo is universal, biological incest is
also widespread and accepted throughout large chunks of the world.
Particularly in a swath from Africa to East Asia, roughly matching the
Moslem world. In some countries (I'm remembering Pakistan), biological
incest accounts for as many as 70% of all marriages.
Each culture defines some relations as acceptable, or even preferred, and
some as taboo, without regard to the actual degree of genetic relatedness.
For example, a girl might routinely marry her mother's brother, but not her
father's brother.
It seems to be much more about social and family structures in each
society, and avoiding psychological consequences. So, in Israel, there's
a de facto taboo against dating between unrelated kids raised together on a
kibbutz.
Incest shows up in US popular entertainment occasionally. "Sin of Innocence"
(1986) attempted to shock the audience with social incest. Widower and
divorcee get married, and their unrelated teenage kids fall in love.
<Gasp! What will the neighbours say!>
For 2000, that's too tame. There's a new teen show, Young Americans, that
started this summer. One of the plot lines is that a teenage boy and girl
fall in love, and then discover that they may be half-siblings. So they
struggle to not care for each other. The audience is teased with the
question of whether they really are related or not.
As I see it, the two issues are psychological harm and making deformed
babies. I don't think the former applies in this situation, and there are
obvious ways for a couple to avoid the latter. Neither of which a broadcast
tv show is likely to mention.... I imagine the show will cop out after
milking the story line as long as they can.
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:49 MDT