Re: Incest taboos
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Thu, 27 Apr 1995 04:17:05 GMT
In article <D7K0pp.M4L@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Robert C. Craighurst (rcc6p@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU) writes:
> I apologize if this has already been discussed. I'm in computer
>science studying a field called genetic algorithms. I've incorporated
>the notion of incest into my computer programs.
You've incorporated the notion of incest into your computer programs?
Really?
Unbelievable! The totally bizarre incessently appearing suddenly from
the very farthest reaches of this here cybervoid will never cease to
astonish in its persisent inventiveness.
Ah, Robert, are you trying to say to us that using your software I
will not be allowed to connect my electronic condom to any machine I
think of as my own mother, or what?
> How universal is the notion of prohibiting incest (by any
>recognizable definition)? For example, do ALL human cultures prohibit
>incest in some way? Are there ANY that don't care. If so, how rare are they
>(roughly)? Any references in the literature?
Tasmanians and Appalacian hill-billies are reputed not to care about
rooting their own sisters, if that is of any use to you. Although I
don't know that they have much of an interest in computers anyway,
much less to avoid using your software.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|