Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

A religion with high standards for members is effectively doing evolutionary selection for its group based on these standards. Most religions encourage in-group breeding. Good religions encourage monogamy which is eugenic and discourage promiscuity which is dysgenic. Monogamy selects for responsible parenting while promiscuity selects for immoral behavior through Fisherian selection. I wrote a long post about these ideas here:

http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html

Religion is the only practical solution. Political solutions are simply not practical. But a small group of people could form a eugenic religion.

A religion with high standards for members is effectively doing evolutionary selection for its group based on these standards. Most religions encourage in-group breeding. Good religions encourage monogamy which is eugenic and discourage promiscuity which is dysgenic. Monogamy selects for responsible parenting while promiscuity selects for immoral behavior through Fisherian selection. I wrote a long post about these ideas here: http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html Religion is the only practical solution. Political solutions are simply not practical. But a small group of people could form a eugenic religion.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (28).
[–] • 0 pt

Marriage between first cousins has no long-term dysgenic effect. It only has a short-term effect by exposing recessive genes. I don't care about this because this has no negative effect on the overall gene pool.

[–] • 3 pts

Many people have a built in disgust for this and are intuitively repulsed by the idea, I'm one. This just goes to show that there is a 'cultural instinct' at the root of much of our behavior and that this instinct differs across cultures.

These differences must be preserved for the sake of human biodiversity and we absolutely must separate on cultural lines and shut the borders dividing those cultures, then defend them by force of war.

[–] • -1 pt

This sub is supposed to be about eugenics. My suggestion doesn't require you to marry your cousin, but doesn't prevent it either. So if it disgusts you then just don't do it. But a eugenic religion should focus on what is eugenic, not on what disgusts people.

My suggestion would certainly contribute to human biodiversity by breeding a new group.

[–] • 1 pt

Is it not likely that the stock most needed for your program will not assimilate into an environment where the overall 'culture' disgusts them. Family-shagging is a contributor to the IQ deficiency in certain groups, why would anyone want to join that group?

Is it not probable that your suggestion could add another mutt to feed, house and protect, which also has the tendency to turn on its carer?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Marriage between first cousins ... has no negative effect on the overall gene pool.

Citation needed.

Take a look at this article from PJMedia (pjmedia.com). It seems like the problems extend to the community at large where inbreeding occurs -- not just the inbred children.

Even if you say all of the problems in this community are 100% the children of first cousin marriages and those problems all go away in the second generation, it still has a negative effect on the genepool.

So I would say not every religion is necessarily eugenic.

[–] • -1 pt

I give up. If someone asks for a citation to support the statement "1 + 1 = 2" then I just need to end the conversation.

[–] • 0 pt

"1+1=2" is fairly obvious. But here, just for fun. (mathforum.org)

"Marriage between first cousins ... has no negative effect on the overall gene pool" is pretty dubious on its face, which makes it different from your 1+1=2 example.

You should really be able to back a claim like that up if you're going to make it in the first place.