@zenvelo*Your question has an assumption that is not necessarily true. Who says it is 50/50 pro or con?* It is an estimate seeing that those who would allude to the fact it is more than 50% risky considering many places on the globe in which it was done like the ancient Egyptians, which full sibling marriages accounted for 15 to 21 percent of all unions. Evidence found strongly suggests that sibling marriages were not only common but the preferred norm. Brother/sister unions were observed by Edward E. Evans-Pritchard ”[W]hen a boy reaches puberty he may take his sister and with her build their little hut near his mother’s home and go into it with his sister and lay her down and get on top of her—and they copulate” (1974, p. 107). Middleton (1962, p. 603) Father/daughter unions were common in Tonga. Many combinations of inbred unions have gone on and not nearly half were studied. To look at the disasters that had happened with the Amish and the British Royals and say that is indicative of all inbreeding would be to say because of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl man should refrain from all use of nuclear power.
@optimisticpessimist “inbreeding causes too many genetic defects to be emphasized.” Really? Overall or in selective cases? As pointed out above there are many couplings that have not been studied and in some cases it was actually beneficial, in Arab populations reduction of overall cancer risk was associated with increased coefficient of inbreeding (Ulysses Ronquillo? You can look at the problems Charles II of Spain had but he was the product of about 6 centuries of inbreeding, hardly a case you’d see today. Hardly any of what the Amish and the Royals gone through you’d seen today because where it might happen in one maybe 2 generations, it has very little chances to go beyond that. Relaying back on science solely modern genetic and metabolic test can catch around 100 of these negative or arrant genes. Inbreeding has been used by breeders and ranchers for centuries to develop desired traits, more muscle to fat ratio in bulls and swine, more milk production, larger calves, etc. if it were that horrendous they would not risk having a herd of “retarded cows” for the sake of maybe having 30% more cows that could produce 15gal a day more milk than the rest?
@marinelife Besides that, we humans have a built-in taboo against it just to protect us from those genetic defects. Those who are regular sized decide to couple with Little People and have children are overlooking this “built-in” taboo against genetic defects? The possible outcome is there to see clearly in the height their mate don’t have. Second, this “built-in” protection device stops at coupling with family but not at diminishing one’s capacity with chemicals; not keeping ones mine sharp and un-inebriated?
@WillWorkForChocolate It’s not genetically safe to make babies with your cousins because it typically produces children that are “retarded” in some form or fashion, or have birth defects. In some cases it has been so but also sticking to just the science it has been happening all over the world, in Africa, Asia, Tonga, etc and those populations are not vastly more “retarded” than those places that haven’t done it routinely. The same way as certain genetic malformations can be doubled others can be erased. It is not safe for women past menopause to be giving birth but fertility clinics have not barred them, and there is no law preventing them.
At best it can be seen as a two-edged sword, with modern technology it can be used to correct certain family diseases or if used incorrect expand them. Basically it is the “ick” factor which isn’t scientific but since for the sake of this question it can’t exist inbreeding is like the movie Titanic; it is what it is, you either see a disaster film or a “chic flick” depending on what story line you want to follow.