Incest doesn’t make genes for those conditions more common, so no.
Recessive traits manifest themselves, though, so they could be selected
against, so small communities with little genetic diversity suffering
from those in the past probably decreased frequency of recessive genetic
disorders.
I.e. doing incest to weed out recessive alleles would be eugenics.
Hot take: incest is eugenics.
I think it would still be detrimental due to recent mutations, though (even in an equilibrium condition). Consider a loss of function mutation. Having one copy of it could be slightly detrimental, and having 2 copies would be extremely detrimental. If there is no incest such mutations can disappear without anyone having to suffer 2 copies, albeit not quickly.
Basically the more incest there is the less of the overall advantage of having chromosomal pairs you can get.
According to their bio, the ‘rat’ in their name stands for rationalist.
i think this is a joke
And look at their bio lol, I don’t think this matches up with this sub’s usual targets.
These people get more boring by the day
To be fair to the face: “Because the baby might have a disability.” Is not the reason you oppose incest. You oppose incest because it’s abuse.
Incest doesn’t make genes for those conditions more common, so no. Recessive traits manifest themselves, though, so they could be selected against, so small communities with little genetic diversity suffering from those in the past probably decreased frequency of recessive genetic disorders.
I.e. doing incest to weed out recessive alleles would be eugenics. Hot take: incest is eugenics.