XPost: alt.fan.heinlein
From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid
On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 05:51:35 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DŽOliveiro
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 03:07:57 +0000, danny burstein wrote:
>
>> Heinlein's character is initially disapproving, but then works out
>> the actual math (at least as he figures it) and regards to
>> inbreeding of genetic issues, determines it's pretty small, and has
>> them go for it.
>
>The Egyptian Royals had brother marrying sister, because royal blood
>was considered too precious to dilute with that from commoners.
They were "gods". The commoners were not.
>At least, this was true of the Ptolemaic Dynasty (the one with all the
>Cleopatras). What would that kind of thing do to the gene pool after a
>few generations straight?
Ever wonder why they had all those dynasties lasting several
generations and then being replaced?
>Also, I was contemplating the contrast between the Westermarck Effect
>and Genetic Sexual Attraction; the one says that individuals brought
>up together, whether related or not, tend not to be sexually attracted
>to each other, yet the other says that individuals who are very
>closely related (e.g. siblings) who are brought up separately *do*
>often end up sexually attracted to each other.
When I was in College, a Professor reported that, at one time, the
Male Dorms and the Female Dorms were paired in the sense that they ate
a meal together once a week.
Very few college romances occurred being the residents of the dorms
that were paired.
He suggested that eating together as a group discouraged romantic
entanglements.
>Can you discern any coherent evolutionary pattern in any of that?
Avoidance of inbreeding.
The children of those who don't inbreed survive. The children of those
who do do not.
There you go: a nice just-so story to "explain" the phenomenon.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
