Don't know if there's any way for this to fit into a Utopian parable, but I was reading the other day about a species of bird, I think it was--or it may have been fish--that have been found to inbreed almost exclusively. This is highly unusual, since inbreeding tends to bring out recessive genes for traits that are not favorable to species survival.
Scientists believe this species, for whatever reason, has very few such genes, so that inbreeding has not weakened it. I thought it would be interesting to envision a fully sentient species, with a highly developed civilization, that also has very few negative genes, whose family structure is based on inbreeding among siblings. What would be the social consequences, both within and between families, of an absence of the incest taboo? Would it promote greater harmony throughout the society, or make it necessary for families to insulate themselves from others to avoid deadly conflict? Avoidance of inbreeding is such a basic fact of human society it's a real stretch to imagine what a civilization might be like in which incest were the norm. Certainly many sources of conflict would be nonexistent if people bred only with their siblings, but would there be other types of conflict that would be at least as bad? Or are the sources of conflict that would be eliminated the underlying reason that Utopia seems always to be out of reach for human civilization? I haven't taken the idea any further than to ask the question, but I think it may have intriguing possibilities. ================================================= --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > You are both correct and I apologize. Part of it > is having not posted here for a couple of days > and logging on to find people still trashing me > *anyway*. Part of it is, in one case, having had > to endure this shit for TWELVE FUCKING YEARS. Absolutely the most stunningly hypocritical statement we've ever seen from Barry, and that's saying something. For TWELVE FUCKING YEARS Barry has been the provocateur extraordinaire. He can't possibly be unaware of this; and the record couldn't possibly be clearer, both here and on alt.m.t. It is others who have had to endure *his* shit. Yet here he is, actually *pretending to be the victim*. It's just breathtaking. > I think I've said almost anything that can be > said about the disdain I have for such people, > and for how essentially worthless I find them. > From now on, I'll try more to "walk my talk" > and just ignore anything they have to say, even > when it's about me. Especially when it's about > me. And of course he's made this same vow over and over and over and OVER again, both here and on alt.m.t, and has never been able to keep it for more than a week or so at a time. Then he goes back to trashing, and has the unmitigated gall to complain about people fighting back? And he's outraged at being called a phony?? And mark my words...no matter how long I > do this, a lot of the nasty things they say will > *continue* to be about me. As Sal pointed out a > few days ago, it's an obsession on their parts. It *is* a matter of how long you can do it, Barry. As I said in the other post, you have to figure in some lag time considering how often and for how long you've been the one to say nasty things about others. You're going to have to *stick with it* for an extended period, refrain from trashing others directly to their faces *and* indirectly, before you're going to see results. You have to actually mean what you say, and then *do* it. I'm not holding my breath.
