|
|
Re: INCEST TABOOS
John Wilkins (wilkins@wehi.edu.au)
Mon, 22 May 1995 10:04:08 +1000
In article <863@landmark.iinet.net.au>, gil@landmark.iinet.net.au (Gil
Hardwick) wrote:
:
: In article <9505151844.0QBVJ00@sstar.com>, ann.nunn@sstar.com
(ann.nunn@sstar.com) writes:
: >No doubt, but incestuous and close cousin fertilization also greatly
: >increases the chances of the zygote's getting two copies of some
: >catastrophic recessive gene.
:
: For this "incest taboo" theory of yours to hold, you have to explain
: why so many isolated and otherwise culturally diverse people who know
: nothing whatsoever about either zygotes or recessive genes, hold so
: consistently nevertheless to the idea of incest being a crime.
I'm not entirely sure about the "recession" theory of incest, but a
plausible scenario is that irrespective of whatever underlying knowledge
or mythology a society may have, the *results* of close inbreeding will
tend to select culturally against the practice, so that the practice of
prohibiting inbreeding and encouraging outbreeding will be passed on to
future generations. However, this is a pretty weak selection pressure, so
I'm not sure [cf, Egyptian Pharonic sibling marriage to avoid pollution of
the royal blood]. I rather think that agricultural societies could *learn*
from observation that animals and people closely bred had unacceptable
frequencies of undesirable traits, and that this was rationalised in any
number of ways.
--
John "Chris" Wilkins, Assoc. Prof. of Recent Runes, Uni of Ediacara
Also: Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
Home Page: http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/www.html
"When everything seems planned out | When everything seems nicely planned
out | Well the human race is going to smack your face" - Crash Test Dummies
|