Pure
-
MovieChatLegend — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 07:14 PM)
With inbreeding, the chance of mental retardation increases, but not by very much. IQ is more likely to be affected, but in the times when inbreeding was practiced by royalty the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Being academically smart wasn't the leader's concern. You had a court of wise men for that. You bred for dominant traits, like we do with livestock and pets. Inbreeding also meant that power was kept within your bloodline.
You were looking to maximise the chance of your child developing the kinds of traits that brought your family to power in the first place, and you culled your offspring or banished them if the effects on their intellect were problematic.
I'm thinking there's a few victims of inbreeding around these parts, and many of them should have been culled. -
Lilith — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 07:29 PM)
I don't think royals "inbred" for "traits," but rather, as you also mentioned, to "keep the bloodlines pure." Even Queen Elizabeth II is married to a cousin. This is, as Gameboy said, nothing new, and has been done for ages, across many cultures.
Primarily it was to establish and maintain the ruling classes. The women were nothing more than a uterus on legs, judged by their child-bearing abilities. Dynastic marriages were made not based on love or affection, but on what can be accomplished for the realm and to keep the power "in check" within the same ruling families. One simply did not marry a commoner. (Then we get into the whole "divorced" aspect as well).
Quality "traits" were bloodlines and heritage, and not necessarily physical attributes. One example would be Catherine the Great and Peter III. Little Sophie's mother reminds me of the Queen Mother actually.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:01 PM)
I think some of that has to do with survival. Men who are tall and strong generally are equated with safety and provision. Women with wide hips and large breasts also generally denote child bearing capabilities and a capacity to feed a brood.
This is more of evolutionary biology in nature.
Certain tribes or ethnicities are just naturally drawn to their own similarities, and ascribing a morality to it is more an aspect of a political culture rather than our innate desire to keep our own "group" longevity.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:13 PM)
In terms of behavioural evolution, absolutely, yes. I think that due to procreation and survival, each sex looks for traits in the other that will guarantee (or up the chances) of successful breeding and the extension of the bloodlines, and that's more of a base instinct, some of which may even be subconscious.
However, applying psychological evolution and societal relevance and expectations, (along with things like ego and an extension of self), we extend beyond the base, and things like families, traits, similar bloodlines and pairing of "houses" and "families" dominate the biological aspects, or at least become an adjunct.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
MovieChatLegend — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:21 PM)
We're still mostly in agreement.
But are you saying that traits never factored? You mention ego and extension of the self. How would we do that unless we were to breed with 'ourself', such as a sibling or other close blood relative?
It's inherited traits that are the extention of the parent, not the crown or aristocratic title. And the logic was that with those 'winning' traits the title would be passed on to somebody who would be strong enough to retain it. -
Lilith — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:29 PM)
Yes, we're mostly in agreement. What I'm stating is that if we go back far enough, people bred according to viability, and consciously or subconsciously, we were attracted to partners who we felt could best provide for our needs and ensure the succession of our "selves" into subsequent generations.
As time passed and the ego and civilization became more pronounced, some "thinking" or "ego" came into this, when we began marrying dynasties, not just individuals. Men and women were paired based on family lineage, countries of origins, and what would result in expanding the leverage of power. This exceeds physical attributes, in anthropomorphic means, and into the larger realm of acquisition.
"Winning" at one point meant survival and not dying at the hands of more brutal tribes. As we evolved, "winning" meant things like money, power, control, manipulation of large masses of people in a political and royal realm and lording that power over those not born into your station.
Retention is assured by marrying royals with royals and keeping the households with power together, even if they're countries apart.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
MovieChatLegend — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:39 PM)
Yes, we're mostly in agreement.
What I'm stating is that if we go back far enough, people bred according to viability, and consciously or
subconsciously
, we were attracted to partners who we felt could best provide for our needs and ensure the succession of our "selves" into subsequent generations.
That's still happening today.
As time passed and the ego and civilization became more pronounced, some "thinking" or "ego" came into this, when we began marrying dynasties, not just individuals. Men and women were paired based on family lineage, countries of origins, and what would result in expanding the leverage of power. This exceeds physical attributes, in anthropomorphic means, and into the larger realm of acquisition.
When we're talking a prince marrying a princess, yes, but that was less about inbreeding and more about 'outbreeding'. I thought we were specifically talking about the nature of inbreeding?
"Winning" at one point meant survival and not dying at the hands of more brutal tribes. As we evolved, "winning" meant things like money, power, control, manipulation of large masses of people in a political and royal realm and lording that power over those not born into your station.
Agreed.
Inbreeding helps retain traits - physical and mental - that you value as a lord and believe your offspring will need to remain firmly in power. What better way to prepare them for being as effective a leader as you than making them just like you?
Retention is assured by marrying royals with royals and keeping the households with power together, even if they're countries apart.
Again, I don't disagree, but that's not inbreeding. -
hungryinconway — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:44 PM)
Inbreeding has a huge inherent advantage that i'm not sure a lot of people have thought about, but if the female becomes pregnant via cheating with an outsider, and you know this has happened, the bloodline is still preserved. Somewhat diluted from it's former purity, but that does allow a little genetic diversity to creep in, which could be considered a good thing if it's happening infrequently.
The Lion does not give a fuck. Bring. More. Sheep. -
MovieChatLegend — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:51 PM)
Interesting. So you're saying I should start dating my sister so that should my woman cheat on me, the kid that inherits my microwave and lawn chairs is at least 50% me? But since my sister would never cheat on me, the reality is, the kid who's going to inherit my priceless collection of Grease memorabilia will be 100% me.
Life's looking up for me, mayne. I've worked out how to become immortal.
But seriously, great point. See, these in breeders weren't so stupid after all. Only a retard would call them retarded. -
Lilith — 6 years ago(April 28, 2019 09:48 PM)
Yes, agreed. That is not inbreeding.
I had shifted back and forth without properly separating my trains of thought. (I need a new engineer).
In talking about the expansion of royal boundaries, even Elizabeth II in England is related to Philip from Greece, so countries apart, still related. Queen Vic did a lot to help spread that, which allowed for royals to breed with other country's royals while still, inevitably, staying within the same bloodline.
England is rife with marriages to relatives (however far removed). But once again, we can go back far enough, and somehow we're all somewhat "related" somewhere down the road.
So in that regard there's a little bit "expansion of the ruling class royalty" along with "inbreeding" by marrying your 5th cousin. Do this often enough, and well, you get the picture.
Go to Egypt, and brother and sister made the most famous pair of all.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith