Monday, September 23, 2013

Inbreeding — How much is too much?

It's fairly widely accepted that incest is a bad thing, hence there are taboos against it in most human cultures. And incest is all about excessive inbreeding. In the West, the generally accepted rule is that no two people should interbreed who have more than a 1/8 overlap, genetically.  That is, first cousins should not marry, nor, of course, anybody more closely related. I believe the Catholic Church will give permission for first cousins to marry in certain instances, but that's the exception, not the rule, which is why special permission must be obtained.
I don't think there's much dispute about the genetic dangers of incest. It's a popular joke to talk about "inbred hillbillies" and how retarded they are.  (It's NOT a popular joke to talk about inbred Jews or Muslims, BTW, so be careful.)
But beyond the genetic danger, there's also an apparent cultural danger to inbreeding. Here's a correlation that Bob Wallace found, reprinted from his blog HERE:

The Balance Between Inbreeding and Outbreeding

By Bob Wallace

I cannot remember where I got this map from, [actually, you probably found it 
HERE — Ex-Army] but the light areas show outbreeding and the darkest ones 
show the most inbreeding.
I find it very interesting because of this map:

This map is from Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment, in which he found 98% of all the discoveries in the world came from Europe and its descendents in the rest of the world. When I saw the top map the lower map immediately sprang to mind.
Even more interesting, Murray found that those accomplishments were concentrated in certain areas of Europe. If you compare those two maps, you'll see some intriguing things.
Where there was the most outbreeding there was the most accomplishment. Look specifically at northern Italy, England, and central Europe.
I find this astonishing.
It didn't occur to me until recently that in those days most people couldn't travel that much. I recently got on a plane and flew over 1000 miles in about four hours. In the past, you couldn't travel any faster than the fastest horse.
None of this, of course, means indiscriminate outbreeding. Africa, for example, has produced nothing. India, Asia, South America and the Middle East put together contributed only contributed about two percent.
I've read several times that about 50% of what we are is inherited. The rest is environmental. If this is true (and I think it is) then we should be very careful about whom we have children with. 


  1. The Egyptian pharaohs married their sisters, and they achieved quite a bit, to put it mildly.

    1. Would you have sex with your sister? I don't think the pharaohs made Egypt great. As always, it's the people.

  2. The regime wants you to think the heredity factor is zero so 50% is probably conservative. I'd guess closer to 90%.

    I'll look around but if anyone locates more on the first map (the rest of the world)please post it.

  3. How long were the Hapsburgs around, as opposed to Jeffersonian liberalism i.e. libertarianism?

  4. Murray uses western encyclopedias to gather his data which means they have a bias towards western figures. That alone makes his argument and the argument for eurocentrism, fall apart. His "findings" are fodder for thinktanks and nothing more. Egypt has been a major contributor to human accomplishment, any middle schooler could tell you as much. So to say Africa, which includes Egypt has contributed nothing is proveably false. The same can be said about the Mesopotamian civilizations. Only a fool could look at all other cultures have done and say it is only 2% of everything important done in the world.

    1. You name "Eager Young Liberal" says it all. And Murray did not use just "western encyclopedias." You made that up, as liberals make almost everything up and then believe it's the truth.

      Egypt - settled by ancient Europeans. Sub-Saharan Africa - nothing.

    2. Thats the name someone on here used for me once, so since I was tired of just being an Anon, I used that. And unless he was translating and reading every encyclopedia, from every discipline than no he cannot get a proper understanding of importance. How many does he look at? Is it 34? Many people are not included in encyclopedias or they are underrepresented but that is no way to judge their historical and cultural importance. Especially in a time that was very western centered, as the 50's was. Finally self identity is important, he includes Greeks, which while they have had an effect on western culture, would they consider themselves western? And since the idea of western did not exist at the time, can that idea actually be applied to them? And even for those in the west, would some not first consider themselves German, or Italian, not western?

      As for making things up, your Egypt settled by Europeans is downright laughable. What about the University of Timbuktu? Just because people did not have a clear and immediate impact on western culture does not make them irrelevant.

      Finally, people naturally migrate and it is hard to make a case for inbreeding being a significant factor. The people of any place are the product of trade, invasion (either being invaded or invading another). The Turks had an enormous empire, and because of that genetic material would have traveled, lessening the inbreeding. The map also does not point specifically to a length of time so it is impossible to make that claim that it shows anything, without a time frame the map is pointless.

    3. Again, your name says it all. You make things up, which to a leftist means it's true. Ancient Egypt was settled by Europeans...which is why some of the Pharoahs had red hair. And Cleopatra was Macedonian.

      Live in your fantasies all you want. You're the one who's laughable.

    4. More of that fake scientific racism at work. The 19th century is over =, move on. No one is disputing Cleopatra, everyone knows she was of the line of Alexander the Great's general. That in no way proves that the ancient Egyptians, who built the pyramids were europeans.Tell me what is made up, because if you are going to make a claim that something I said is false than you need to back that up with...really anything. But time and time again you fail to do that you just say "made up" or liberals are "mentally ill" so unless you can actually contribute anything worth while I am not going to continue this conversation.

    5. Murray specifically limited his study to the period post 800 BC, so the considerable accomplishments of the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not included. This was done because he was considering individuals who were cited by later people as having a major influence upon them. Individual names from that earlier period are generally unknown.

  5. @Eager Young Liberal: I would say that this blog post is an exaggeration, but still mostly true. Most of modern civilization is a product of western innovation. It should not be ignored that the achievements of Egypt and Asia are precursors to to western civilization, at least technologically, however if out-breeding in Europe does in fact correlate with societal advancement, then Wallac's basic conclusion is irrefutable.

  6. Eager Young Liberal, a word of advice: eurocentric civilizations have eurocentric standards that only europeans are capable of meeting. Trying to modify the system to accomodate non-europeans is like trying to run Windows 10 on a typewriter.