It should be noted that the rate of incestuous unions should however be kept under control. If brother marries sister generation after generation then it is no good. It should be something that happens occasionally to rarely.

>>16472673
What if you compared you and your sisters genes, if both of you have a gene that's defective, replace it with a non-defective copy from someone else. Repeat for entirety of your genomes.

Your offspring will now be very strongly related to you both, without the defects that would give rise to problems.

>>16472673
Yuck.
>smoking

>>16472673
>But now imagine yourself fucking your cute sister. If the healthy genes combine then the broken gene has been eliminated! Success! If the broken genes are combined and the child has issues, then the child will be less able to pass the broken gene on! Partial success! However it may still happen that a child gets one broken and one healthy gene. This means that although the bad gene is selected against, it still has some chance of slipping through.
>This is why fucking your sister leads to better genes in the long term!
I understand now. A eugenics program by quantum bogosort: The only child that survives is the with miraculously perfect genes.
Now Pakistan makes sense, an entire country of inbred cousin-fuckers trying to make the Overman.

>>16473316
this would hold water if the pakistan example was imposing selection for positive traits

>>16473316
10 steps ahead

I don't know about inbreeding but continued outbreeding seems to lead to catastrophic population collapses

>>16472673
You're not wrong. Inbreeding simply converts recessive defects into dominant ones. Natural selection in such a situation will indeed select out recessive defects and purify the gene pool, resulting in a population that can far more safely engage in inbreeding. This is why there are so many species with incredibly small populations, yet they avoid extinction.

>>16473438
The issue with too small populations is that the population can get unlucky and completely lose all copies of the healthy gene. My pet hypothesis is that guarding against this is why some plants are polyploidal.

>>16473446
how would polyploidy help there?
entire duplicated chromosomes creating more redundancy?

Also I think the sister fucking angle is a bit too risky you're relying heavily on drift and luck, if you wanted to see actual selection against deleterious mutations it might be better to think in terms of larger closed communities or breeding pools that allow enough diversity to be adaptive but are also throwing up recessives often enough probability wise that they can be purged out.

Alternatively there are studies where populations thought to be carrying high mutational load are mated to siblings every couple of generations I used to have a couple papers saved about zoo animals.

File: 22027.jpg (2.41 MB, 1681x2048)

2.41 MB JPG

>>16473316
>A eugenics program by quantum bogosort
>Now pakistan makes sense
>cousin-fuckers trying to make an overman
holy kek my sides

>>16472673
tf no Ashley Graves sisterfu

If they dont have children there is really no moral argument against it

>>16472673
it's more like
>don't fuck your sister, it will ruin the fenotype
and it's true, you owned yourself here:
>If the broken genes are combined and the child has issues, then the child will be less able to pass the broken gene on
of course, because the child is doomed with a congenital ailment i.e. ruined fenotype

OP is a fag, as always, and probably gets pegged by his sister.

>>16474204
>fenotype
is that a cat thing?
I thought op's point was that by not exposing the bad genes regularly through iautozygosity they can spread through the population undetected?
the idea is to make them visible and eliminate them which improves the fitness of the genepool because the deleterious mutational is much reduced.
This principal is used effectively in animal breeding.

File: 1731282733632313.png (1.89 MB, 2048x1364)

1.89 MB PNG

>>16472673
Ok genius expirement with your sister and post the results.

Incest is disgusting unless it's between identical twins. Then it's based and hot.

>>16472673
>sci
>science and math

>>16473316
pakistanis, jeets and arabs do incest because it leads to family harmony, like your mother in law is already your aunty, that sort of thing. They have many retards, they would do fine if they just let them stay single but they all get arranged marriages for them. Retards marrying retards. It continues until they get so damaged they die in the womb due to absurd genetics
Incest+Abortion+Killing dumb kids=Win

>>16474204
Go back to plebbit nigger. The chance of your child having defect is almost the same with a stranger.

>>16475800
You don't exactly have to abort or kill all you need is to prevent them from reproducing.
not easy in a culture where you expect all women to breed

thread pinned

>>16473316
>quantum bogosort
What the "OP's sister" is that supposed to mean?

Let me give you the skinny here.

What you are talking about is a legitimate goal for many biologists who are interested in learning how genes work in a particular species. For diploids like us this is a messy process because there's two different versions of every gene. Messing around there often yields unpredictable results. Everything is much easier if one was somehow able to remove all that variation and make both chromosome copies identical. Repeated inbreeding effectively accomplishes this. The end result is called an inbred line, a rare prise in genetics and a big stepping stone for establishing a new model organism.

Of course you already described the problem here. The genomes are full of recessive lethal mutations. By inbreeding you roll the dice and often combine rare mutations together leading to death of the offspring. But sure, you do it once and some get lucky and others don't, selection removes the bad mutations and we're all good, right?

The problem is that establishing an inbred line requires total homogenization of the entire genome. Even if you got lucky in the first generation, continuing this process unavoidably combines the rest of the rare mutants that didn't combine in the previous rounds of reproduction. What this means is that inbreeding depression gets even stronger in subsequent generations, washing over your population like a great wave.

I worked for a PI with a keystone project to establish an inbred line for his favorite bugs. It was very sad to watch him repeatedly try to inbreed a small population only to see it crash completely by the eighth generation. They're bugs, doesn't take much time to breed them. Yet go after go the rare mutants won, and he left the program a couple of years later, and still didn't have an inbred line.

Inbreeding is substantially more work than it's worth, and this is why every diploid organism you find in nature, including humans, naturally evolved mechanisms to prevent it.

File: 1508212176564.gif (1.26 MB, 284x247)

1.26 MB GIF

>>16472673
>OP trying to explain why he's molesting his 5 year old sister after getting caught

>>16476130
The goal of inbreeding is to create new spicies

If I fuck my sister a baby rhino is born because my sister is a rhino

>>16476130
>try to inbreed a small population
see that's the problem you either need extreme luck or huge numbers

Boinking your sister doesn't really extrend to a long term genetic strategy.

However there is the other side of this that evidence points to naturally being attracted to those who are related to us at the equivalent of the 3rd or 4th cousin level which points to a sort of genetic sweet spot where we don't have much of the inbreeding depression effects or the problem of outbreeding breaking up compatible gene complexes.

What I find really fascinating is the evidence pointing to average relatedness of a population correlating to a subsequent average fertility rate with populations below this range having higher relatedness and higher fertility while populations below having lower fertililty and contracting the population.
this effect seems to span from both plants to various animals including humans, I've seen it theorised to be due the zygotic compatibility

>>16476165
Don't believe anything human that hasn't already been clearly shown to work in non-human studies where real effects can be tested experimentally.

This shit makes me really down about our future as a species. All the possibilities before us but what does OP fixate on?

I can feel the tension of this conversation like a simmering background heat haze. Shit sucks, no one's getting any and it's not getting better anytime soon. People out there really looking out at the world and deciding their kink is the solution.

>>16476130
If the population keeps crashing at gen8 then do a small amount of outbreeding at gen7, then inbreed for a few more generations. Repeat as needed.

>>16476868
On second thought, maybe don't wait until the last possible moment. gen5 or so might better.

>>16472673
>mathematical proof
>doesn't include any math

>>16477513
>thinks logic isn't math

>>16472673
Inbreeding is 100% safe if you have good genetics. If you have flawed genetics, then knocking up your sister is 98.75% safe.

Only a small minority of recessive traits are harmful, which means you and your sister could have recessive alleles for 9000 IQ babies, and the only way to bring about these superhumans is to fuck your sister.

>>16478517
Does anyone actually have real data to back this up?

I'll take animal or human, whatever you have to hand as long as it's good

>>16472673
is this your thesis dissertations for Alabama university?

>>16479557
the alabama meme is a college football thing not based on much

>>16472673
That seems like an asinine way of going about eugenics considering there are far more effective methods of gene selection now. You'd essentially waste several generations suffering from deleterious gene effects, plus, not all the negative conditions brought to the surface by inbreeding will be fatal. This is a very stupid way of justifying your fetish. But I'm sure having anyone entertain it is good enough for you.
P.S: I happen to associate this image with a ridiculous political manifesto.

>>16476130
To be fair, inbreeding was a relatively common* occurrence around pre-modern societies.
*Almost exclusively used by the ruling class to distance themselves from the plebs. Rarely went on for too lomg. Although Hawaii did practice widespread noble incest. But the royal house of Hawaii also went extinct because it's members where largely infertile.This may have happened twice.

>>16481361
>Almost exclusively used by the ruling class
Wrong. Everyone descends from a cousin marriage in the past 5 generations. In every pre-Abrahamic society sibling marriage was permitted and pretty common (most Zoroastrian and Yazidi marriages were between siblings, in fact)

>>16481376
Given that OP exclusively focuses on sibling incest I thought we were excluding cousin marriages.
Secondly, the commoness of Xwedodah between siblings among the common people is disputed. It could very well have been a practice near exclusive to nobles and priests, in fact, most evidence points to this.

>>16481361
>P.S: I happen to associate this image with a ridiculous political manifesto.
Not OP, but what manifesto?

>>16481454
Has nothing to do with incest. Guy makes insane policy proposals in the context of the UK, like replacing lawyers with ChatGPT. It's on archive . ph.

>that game
Biggest tease ever

>>16481391
Every Yazidi married their sibling before the Ottomans outlawed it And furthermore, 10% of marriages in Ancient Rome were between siblings

If both consent I literally just do not care one way or the other.

I feel like a lot of human culture is just “no you can’t do that noooooo” because they missed out and subconsciously hate it for reasons they don’t want to admit, or they just don’t like seeing people consent to a thing they wouldn’t personally consent to.

It’s the same with gays. It’s literally just a pair of flesh bodies smacking against the other, no different from a woman and a man. Why the fuck does it bother people?

Eighty percent of giraffes are gay.

>>16481783
I cannot find much stating anything either way, can you provide your source on the yazidis?
As for the Rome things I believe you may be generalizing a study about egypt.

>>16473333
source?

>>16481908
>why does bother other people
They fucking bother me because they are disgusting, they promote their degeneracy on the media, school and public, they grooms children to be genetic defects like them, they create new antibiotics virus strain from the misuse of antibiotics, they carry deathly disease like AIDS and full of parasites. How could one not bothered by them? You are just another godless midwit reddit freak and should be hanged publicly.

>>16482082
This is more a eugenics thing. If two prime genetic males made love they'd probably be more clean than your average uggo.

>>16472673
Literally diagnosed(or, identified I suppose) with recessive Wilson's disease today.

You fundamentally misunderstand a core component of genetics.
Disease genes are not inherently recessive.

>>16481376
>cousin marruage
>incest
/a/ is 4chan's leading authority on the incest topic and they will tell you that cousins are almost on the level of nbr

>>16481391
What do you make of the egyptian census records where around 20% of marriages are recorded between siblings?

>>16481783
>And furthermore, 10% of marriages in Ancient Rome were between siblings
as far as I am aware greece and rome only permitted marriage between half siblings but they bost defined opposing types of half sibs with one accepting shared mother the other shared father, it was something about inheritance laws, however I've never seen figures for how comon it was.

>>16482087
they can't make love because that would involve reproductive capability which las time I checked two males were not capable of.
unless you meant exchanging tapeworms and other parasites?

>>16482185
So you match two and two together and can't accept someone making the decision to match itself with who it wants. And you demonize this type of person. Even when it's a matter of injury or genetics. Yet you continue to be submissive to the people that ruin the world and take part in the collapsed system? You obviously don't know anything about minds, what they can and cannot do, and what is truthfully the problem with society. You'd rather bash innocents based on their sexual behaviour rather than their attitude. Which could mean you target two innocent perfectly clean, perfectly straight acting males having sex because their minds don't allow them to find the opposite sex attractive due to reality abstraction due to the system you help operate.

>>16482185
You're not justified in this action. If you had to justify yourself by the nature of the problem you'd find yourself more guilty than a simple sex act between the same sex that's caused by societal abstraction preventing them from being able to think hetero thoughts. If they can't find females attractive, they aren't wrong for being gay, to call that a problem isn't justice. So you are not just in your belief.

>>16482201
Your "INNOCENTS" are currently the protected class of the globohomo fnancial dystopia we currently live within.

>>16482212
You can't say one group is the face all of people of the same sexuality. I don't like these flamboyant feminine acting people who thrust their pelvis on floats. This ain't what I'm talking about. You should refer to these types as these types and logically work out what's gay and what's personality.

>>16482201
>innocents
>molested who become molesters
>groomers who brainwash and mutilate children
interdasting

Some gay people accept they're injured and just can't find the opposite sex attractive. Don't act feminine or aggravated and don't promote sexuality of that kind. What you're looking at is a societally induced abomination that is accepted as more an effect of indoctrination and false education than it is sexuality. You can be completely normal and gay too.

Because of the other problems of the world gay people shouldn't worry about what these anti gay people are saying because likely the cause of them being gay is a societal thing induced by said anti gay people. You created this problem by worshipping a false government and ruining the natural face of the world.

>>16482247
it's fascinating that when faced with the basic bbiological fact that two men can't produce a child it seemed highly provoked

File: 1727376810010.jpg (128 KB, 1116x837)

128 KB JPG

>>16482201
Die now kike rat. You can hide your flag but you can't hide your agenda.

>>16482256
You don't even have the good faith to accept the injury in minds you produced through weak faith in the world and man.

>>16482209
It's wrong because i said so faggot. We don't care how think you fucking faggot, the rationale behind it is because you faggots are disgusting and we want to skin you freak alive.

>>16482258
Look someone will punish you when you die because you were so weak and stupid for all the world, including animals through your stupid cannibalistic farming routines, your lack of care for the health of the planet air, flora and fauna, your delusion half assed attempt at cleaning up gayness while this other stuff goes on and your cover up that it was all good faith. You are lucky you're not dead for when you do die, you'll be punished, much more than any man who is injured by you and your system who can't find the opposite sex attractive and who finds solstice in same sex activity.

>>16482259
What the hell are you even talking about, anyway this is a thread about mathematical arguments around inbreeding not two guys ejaculating into each others' anus

File: 1713674824843.png (47 KB, 698x658)

47 KB PNG

>>16482264
>weak
Said the faggot xim/xer kike that has 45% chance of necking themselves. Your kike corporations are responsible for the destruction of nature and morality, not us. We will take back what's rightfully ours and give you kikes the most painful death.

>>16482265
That's a bpd schizo kike mossad. They hate incest because it's create a strong bond between the couples and the kid will be pure blood Aryan.

>>16482273
Incest seems like a very k like strategy, it would create like a 75% or more relatedness which really incentivises both parents to carefor their young instead of pump and dumping, or divorceraping their partmer into impoverishment.

File: 1729822877826.webm (1.55 MB, 1280x720)

1.55 MB WEBM

>>16482279
Yup, it's an unbreakable bond.

>>16482283
At least for a couple of generations it would probably outweigh the inbreeding depression, I suppose this is how clans form.
Tight high trust family bonds in a closeknit homogeneous community surrounded by hostiles.

File: 1698861914726429.jpg (396 KB, 798x1200)

396 KB JPG

>>16482270

>>16482288
Yup and strong clan will seek power and contest the establishment so it's in kike interest to stifle any chance of new clan forming in the modern world.

>>16472673
I suspect this is the source of le rich people incest yucky. They're akshully just very intelligently selectively breeding the best traits of their forefathers into their bloodline like a farmer would with his crops or livestock, improving the whole genetic line.

>>16482273
Save some of those chickens force into cannibalism from your eating routine instead, or maybe prevent a few more trees being cut down. Or maybe tare down the propaganda perverting society. I dunno. Fix some of the world before suggesting that people should be in perfect order sex wise. You are likely the root of all disorder in people, and you know what they want you to know. You're not really good you're just indoctrinated bliss.

>>16482288
And once the clan expands enough the risk of inbreeding depression greatly diminishes although the founder effect will still leave an impact.

>>16476130
you don't need to have an organism breed true for its entire genome for inbreeding to be useful. Ideally you're fixing one trait at a time into the line, permanently.

>>16482258
>>16482270
I find your behaviour very strange but I suppose this is a strange place. I don't feel as strongly as you towards the things you feel them towards but I don't completely disagree with you. However posting christian shit is pathetic. Please if you espouse something approaching right wing authoritarian views understand that the man you likely idolize most utterly despised the Christian faith and for sane reason.
If you truly hate the kikes then spare some hatred for their perverse puppet cults as well. Times haven't changed or altered this in any way, ideas are pure and unaffected by the ravages of time or the changing of a political landscape. The pedophile institution in the big building preaching compassion on their terms is your enemy just as much as any grotesque social justice advocate with obnoxiously dyed hair.

File: 1721887907194.gif (689 KB, 500x375)

689 KB GIF

>>16482311
>no u
Typical kike rat gaslighting. Here are some cyanide pills.

>>16482311
>call out fag degeneracy
>NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! THINK OF THE FEW NON DEGENERATE FAGS

this reminds me of how the debate around abortion is always over edge cases like incestuous rape while the vast majority is just women slutting around and having second thoughts.

File: 1712483302825.png (291 KB, 626x289)

291 KB PNG

>>16482315
>acksually hitler was an antichrist and jewish
Where do you think you are, kike? Good luck using any dirty tricks on autist because we are immune to it. We are the supers, anyone listening to Hitler or reading his book can tell he is a Christian.

>>16482323
World problems cause sex problems. All I'm saying. You can't fix the world. Don't expect orderly sexual behaviour.

>>16482337
Yes, we can fix the world. Death is very much a real concept, if degeneracy isn't fixed it must be because we haven't kill enough people.

>>16482169
Tactic to prevent wealth from flowing out of the family, mostly.In my opinion at least. Basically an adaptation against inheritance practices that tend to partition wealth. A side effect of this was consanginious breeding.
Most motivations of incest follow a reasoning like this. A minority takes incest up for social/political/economical reasons, not any biological advantage.

>>16482054
List all mutt countries that have shown achievement comparable to a “pure” race like Europeans.

Ill wait.

And thats only the empirical proof. Genetic proof is in the selection of complex traits during the evolution of a race.

>>16482339
Make sure you get those farmers and those lumberjacks and those others that are completely redundant of morality.

>>16482185
kek.

Needed to be said.

File: 1714939818447.jpg (219 KB, 1588x1233)

219 KB JPG

>>16482358
Obviously we will start from killing kikes first, then niggers and shitskins.

>>16482362
That's not very good targeting. I would consider you a degenerate and you would be amongst the victims. Why can't you target more of the problem, too afraid or too socially comfortable? Like to see you try the moral test to see if your targeting was at all in good faith, and whether you took bonus points for acting as if it were. It seems stupid you make all this commotion over someone who is gay, however graphic that is to you, and then your solution to the problem is to start hurting Color and creed, when there are actual people with names who need to be addressed more specifically. Such as the rogue evil farmers over breeding, torturing and eating animals. Or the lumberjacks chaotically cutting down trees without limit. Or the leadership throwing profiteering propaganda in the form of paid media and repaid media for the full effect. The low quality producers. The educational institutes teaching crap and supporting the farmers, lumberjacks, shills and shit producers. This comes to mind. You're just stupid. One day you will be punished and I agree with that I won't pay you any attention or mercy in that state.

File: 1717973157410.gif (839 KB, 823x770)

839 KB GIF

>>16482380
>paragraph of kike seething

File: 1726966491736959.jpg (75 KB, 770x600)

75 KB JPG

>>16482387
At least I agree the world needs 'fixing'. You smell of poo anyway

>>16482391
I suggest you get in the oven, kike. Your bpd low IQ rambling can only cured by death. You are a seething low IQ AIDS riddled faggot that inject your homo shit in a topic about incest then get BTFO by basic biology. We gonna skin you alive to make lamp and soap for real this time you fucking dysgenic freak.

>>16482400
You are under the forces and elements and chemicals which contain you. We'll see one day about who gets in the oven, until then, may we all rest in peace at the fact you took a quote on your intelligence online and think you're high and mighty.

so what I learnt from this thread is that the deep state doesn't want you banging your sister, right?

so what I learned from this thread is that incestfags don't know a thing about contraception or whatever is stopping them from just doing it in secrecy without telling us about it

>>16486257
>incestfags don't know a thing about contraception
based
i am pro-life only in the case of incest

>>16472673
When I was in middle school I wanted to fuck my mom so badly
Luckily I grew out of it but I still love incest. Would have sex with some of my cousins if I could 100% keep it secret

>>16472673
incest is only illegal because banks don't want you to retain your generational wealth. They want you to start from scratch every time you fall in love.

>>16488852
This is likely true
The catholic church implemented laws that forbade cousin marriage to I think the 6th degree in the middle ages which broke the ability of clans and other groups to build a solid powerbase removing its hegemonic rivals.

This happened in japan too, I think they banned marriages between certain cousins from brothers, "father's brother's daughter marriages"
because this created too strong a reinforcement effect between a young man and his uncles it's is thought to have contributed to ending the warring states period.

>>16472673
>>16488852

Indeed. At the very least the demonstrable physical resilience of the elites correlates with their incest.

>>16472673
I’m actually sexually attracted to my sister and have been since we were kids. I just never had the switch turned off in my head that is supposed to turn off siblings and she’s very hot. Would never do anything or tell anyone this irl but yeah it’s probably more common than people will admit.

>>16489416
they wouldn't ban it if not one wanted to do it

>>16472673
I would rape both of them instead.

>>16481908
>I feel like a lot of human culture is just “no you can’t do that noooooo” because they missed out and subconsciously hate it for reasons they don’t want to admit, or they just don’t like seeing people consent to a thing they wouldn’t personally consent to.
This is something that I've recently been wondering about. Like, is it ACTUALLY the natural state to consider your sibling- someone who is extremely genetically similar to yourself- as being an undesirable mate? Or is the reason we consider them to be "eww no", because of societal kinks of wanting to mate with people who aren't genetically similar?
What if the reason we develop an aversion to our siblings is because we continuously push them away, thus removing any chance of 'bonding', and increasing the likelihood of arguments, which develop into a strong desire to NOT want to have sexual relations/mate with them, thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy of "siblings aren't attracted to each other"?

I see anons on here say "that's just you fetishizing wanting to bang your sibling", and I used to have similar thoughts, but the more I thought about from a rational point of view, the more I wonder if that's just because of our current social/legal expectations. I'll save /sci/ my musings of all the possible reasons why they decided to create LAWS restricting such relationships, but ultimately there really isn't a "scientific" reason why it should be considered taboo or gross to have sexual attraction to those genetically similar to you, unless you see yourself as a genetically sexual undesirable.

>because they missed out and subconsciously hate it for reasons they don’t want to admit
That really is a good way to put it. I think a lot of people(at least, I personally) who grew up with a sibling, probably had a neutral-good relationship with their sibling(s), but then, for reasons completely unknown, became mysteriously estranged from one another, around puberty.

>>16489039
can we stop misuing incest here
consanguineity would fit better in this discussion

>>16482306
>Yup and strong clan will seek power and contest the establishment so it's in kike interest to stifle any chance of new clan forming in the modern world.
I didn't want to go into ""conspiracy theories"" as to why there are such strong legal doctrines regarding the subject, but there's one reason on my list of many reasons...

>>16482318
>this reminds me of how the debate around abortion is always over edge cases like incestuous rape while the vast majority is just women slutting around and having second thoughts.
So women should be forced to bring a child into this world just because some stupid horny slut wanted some dick? What if the child was genetically disposed to having homosexual tendencies? Wouldn't it make sense to just abort it early before it was even born, anon? Surely that would be a righteous act with the full blessing of God, right?

>>16490304
The incest taboo is a cultural invention courtesy of Abrahamic religions, as every cradle of civilisation revolved around sibling incest.

Banging your sister is natural for the same reason most people are instinctively averse to racemixing: if you want to pass on YOUR genetics, then it is counterproductive to mate with somebody who shares fewer genes with you.

When you reproduce, you only DIRECTLY pass on a random 50% of your genes. But if your mate shares a given gene with you, they can pass this on to your offspring even when you haven't. For the purposes of self-replication, outbreeding is failing at life.

>>16490312
how did women on mas throughout history manage to avoid bringing unwanted children into the world before the option of killing it after a night out became an option.

go back to red dit

>>16482355
>Tactic to prevent wealth from flowing out of the family, mostly
Oh my, it seems we are delving into the "conspiracy theory" territory for inecstuous legal regulation.....

>>16486202
>so what I learnt from this thread is that the deep state doesn't want you banging your sister, right?
Complete shot in the dark here, but I think the lesson is that (((they))) don't want YOU banging your sister. Which, in their defense, judging by some of the posters in this thread, I could understand why they may frown upon ""certain"" individuals reproducing genetic clones of themselves.
But who knows? Perhaps if it was the societal norm to exclusively fuck your sibling, these posters would then have violent fantasies against anyone who suggests sleeping with people outside of their genetically related family.
Not long ago I too used to consider calling someone "inbred" a genuine zinger. Until I took a moment to pause and think --who are the people telling us that it's bad to mate with your genetic relatives--.

>>16486614
>When I was in middle school I wanted to fuck my mom so badly
That's cute. I did not have that kind of relationship towards the females in my family(I am male btw), and perhaps that is why my relationship with them now could hardly be considered to be a 'positive' one.


I'm sure the violently-obsessed anti-incestuous anon(s) here are undoubtedly anti "race-mixing", yet they have some fetishized fixation on drawing an arbitrary line on "familial relations".

Another anon already said it, I do feel cheated out of a natural, God given love that I was denied throughout my childhood which arguably does greater psychological damage than simply accepting the natural love between family.
If you truly despise the thought of incestuous bonds, then go fuck a chimpanzee, or an opossum- the further genetic distance, the better, right?

>>16490316
>Banging your sister is natural for the same reason most people are instinctively averse to racemixing
That's the conclusion I've come to after giving it some rational thought. I don't mean to cast aspersions to anons who do fetishize their race-mixing fantasies, I just don't quite think the reasoning behind creating social taboos and wild legal punishments for those who happen to find sexual attraction to their genetic familiars exists with their personal best interests in mind.

>>16490318
>how did women on mas throughout history manage to avoid bringing unwanted children into the world before the option of killing it after a night out became an option.
From my understanding, delivering a child was by no means a guarantee of a fulfilling life, as ""infanticide"" was not exactly some radical, unheard of phenomenon...
And apparently, going back thousands of years, there were known herbs, that a woman who showed the earliest indicators of pregnancy, could consume and would promptly result in a clean miscarriage.
So again, you are advocating that women should birth homosexual children, anon? That's fine, I can respect that, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

Anon, I understand it's comforting to "go with the herd" on deciding what is considered socially acceptable vs taboo, but maybe this is a subject that should be re-evaluated on its own merit, and not whatever we are indoctrinated through legal institutions and societal expectations? I understand why you might believe that there's something "wrong" with such a fringe subject, I personally hold such reservations with my own blood sibling. But the more thought I've given it, the more I've come to realize that it's quite possible that such relation-barriers developed due to environments we grew up in. That bond between my sister and I was burned long ago(it was never actually built desu), but I welcome a society that doesn't glorify destroying such relationships.

I think inbreeding and outbreeding (such as race mixing) are both bad for us although in different ways.
the effects of close inbreeding are just more acutely visible. while outbreeding leads to disturbing disconnects and ,maladaptations and eventual infertility or proneness to disease.

I favour the intermediate level which seems to reflect a sort of tribe level relatedness and leads to optimal relatedness and fitness

>>16490335
no you utter clown
creating new lives was intenirionally limited to marriage

>>16490391
>creating new lives was intenirionally limited to marriage
Does that mean abortion was reserved for non-marital pregnancy?

>>16490318
they had many herbs and drinks and options to induce miscarriage, one of which is (IIRC) in the fucking bible.

>>16490391
delusional retardation. bastards were a very common thing among the nobility of europe and these sorts of things among commoners just weren't reported.

I get it's nice to look back and see think about how great the ancestors were but you're just denying reality.

File: 1722817465901806.jpg (32 KB, 700x394)

32 KB JPG

>>16472673
man i wish i had an older sister to pin me down and force me to do probability with her

>>16490322
>Oh my, it seems we are delving into the "conspiracy theory" territory for inecstuous legal regulation.....
Quite the opposite. I am arguing that in this case incest arose in response to legal regulation. Rather than the inverse. This beyond my point, however. I was just stating that incest is not Eugenic and was never used chiefly as a tool of Eugenics.

>>16490483
>I was just stating that incest is not Eugenic
It is though. Inbreeding is only risky today because we STOPPED doing it, and have thus allowed deleterious recessive alleles to evade natural selection.

>>16490490
> Inbreeding is only risky today because we STOPPED doing it,
I have seen no evidence it has ever been a normative or majority practice in any society. If you disagree I am open to see the evidence you draw your conclusions from.

>>16490554
This fact is very important because the spectrum of human society has an incredibly wide range of accepted practices. Including stuff we'd consider absolutely unthinkable.

>>16490554
>ever been a normative or majority practice in any society
The majority of marriages around the world were cousin marriages until recently, lmao

>>16490628
Yes (I would contest this, but a review of the data would take too long). My apologies for forgetting that exists again. But this curiously never seems to extend to first degree incest, which is what is being argued usually.
OP starts out talking about fucking your sister. Most pro-incest posts here are about having sex with your sister.
The invocation of cousin marriage feels like Motte and Bailey, honestly.
Also, cousin (this meaning first cousins) marriage is unlikely to be very Eugenic given that the regions that most practice it (Africa, the Middle east, India) don't seem to have experienced any positive effects from this.

>>16490666
>don't seem to have experienced any positive effects from this
Idk anything about African inbreeding but Middle Eastern and Indian inbreeding is institutionalised thanks to arranged marriages, which prevents natural selection from taking place.

>>16490457
go be a male feminist and women defender somewhere else.

>>16490483
>incest is not eugenic

the number of livestock breeders I can point to earning millions from linebred bloodstock sales is quite considerable and utterly disproves your attempted argument.

>>16490554
>I have seen no evidence it has ever been a normative or majority practice in any society
Well you could look up the roman era census records of egypt?

>>16490698
It is disingenous to compare linebreeding to human incest. Of course inbreeding when used within an eugenic process is eugenic. Humans do not have expertly tracked pedigrees/genomes nor do they have handlers that set up their pairings. It's also not a thing you can apply to humans in a scale larger than individuals. It's only useful if you want your country to earn a lot of olympic gold medals.
>>16490700
A fifth is not a majority.

>>16490554
>I have seen no evidence it has ever been a normative or majority practice in any society.
I honestly have no reason to believe that it was the typical 'standard' in the past few thousand years. But I just wonder if that's because it's been a long going cultural meme that you're only supposed to sleep around with people outside your family. It would be interesting to see an environment where it is not arbitrarily discouraged. And maybe that is the 'natural way' for siblings to drift part, idk, but it is something to consider.

I think something else that makes the question extend beyond what is considered "eugenic" or "dysgenic", is the fact that non-blood-related step siblings, or even adopted siblings, are also typically treated as "immediate family", and that their incestuous activity is frowned upon, even if they are different races.

So while you could claim that it's "eugenic" to mate around with people genetically distant from you(which I'm not so sure that should be considered the rule rather than the exception), I think that's not even relevant as to the reason some people want to taboo it.

>If you disagree I am open to see the evidence you draw your conclusions from.
Greek mythology seem to have quite the family gatherings. Looks like it was kind of a thing everywhere until Abrahamic religions took over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coupled_siblings

>>16490671
>but Middle Eastern and Indian inbreeding is institutionalised
It's not though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_incest

>>16491136
>It's not though
Cousin marriage isn't considering incest I never middle east. And they all have arranged marriages with their cousins.

>>16490666
>Eugenic given that the regions that most practice it (Africa, the Middle east, India) don't seem to have experienced any positive effects from this.
In your opinion, do you think it's more eugenic for healthy siblings to mate, or is it better to mate with someone as genetically apart from you as possible?

>>16490696
>women exclusively breed with eugenically favorable partners, so why should there be an option for them(or someone to convince them) to reverse any bad decisions
Most abortions happen within like the first month of pregnancy. They just take a couple pills, and then basically dispel a 'really heavy period'. But 'pro-life' seems mostly concerned about physically birthing a child, and typically indifferent-competitive towards people who are already alive. If you just consider that the potential child could grow up and be gay, it's probably for the best, right?

I mean, I can respect the aversion to the ordeal because it does have that edge of 'callous horror' if you're disemboweling a fetus that just looks like a small baby. But I think there should be discussion for allowing early term pregnancies at the very least.

>>16490834
>Humans do not have expertly tracked pedigrees/genomes
I think the church tries to keep pretty good records of that sort of stuff.

>>16491139
Sorry, I meant sibling inbreeding is not institutionalized, it's illegal.

>>16490834
you flatly denied the utility of incest/inbreeding

We can make a disdtinction to incest as the taboo but none the less inbreeding is inbreeding. and it is clear that the thread is discussing inbreeding.

>>16490316
Sibling animals know not to fuck each other so you probably should too

>>16492724
But animals will preferentially breed with 3rd-4th cousins if they can
There's an old paper on quail about it

>>16472673
> Mathematical proof
>no logical operation or logic symbols
>no mathematics
>no Q.E.D at the end
.......

>>16492743
did the /v/ image raise you expectations too high?

>>16492743
But there is one thing clear that is the deep state doesn't want you to breed your sister, which means incest is good and it will destroy them in the long run.

>>16492736
Someone you are related to three to four generations back is hardly inbreeding.
>>16492759
Thank you, fetishist. Go get your cummies somewhere else.

>>16492934
Well that very much depends on your interpretation of the data.

As I have stated a few times I see the push for race mixing and extreme incest through media and other forms as both quite destructive.to the group. it weakens the family connection to the tribe.

>>16490463
I wish subhumans like you were castrated and sterilized.

>>16472673
No thanks I'll stick to cousins

>>16493228
how things are going you might get your wish

>>16492934
>hardly inbreeding
To use Robin Fox's terminology it is "mediogamy" the optimum range between endogamy and exogamy.
He was an english anthropologist who wrote a lot on the subject of incest taboos and endogamy in various human populations..

mandatory marriage for opposite sex twins

>>16495008
Have you read the history of I think Bali? They assumed mixed sex twins were married from the previous life or something.

OP talks about siblings but there are a lot of women out there obsessed enough with their fathers and a subsection of these who have actually done something and within that grouping we have those who have taken it as far as having children together.
acording to the uk bioban data the figure for that is higher than you think at like one in a I think 4000

File: 1700670998467.png (8 KB, 1887x40)

8 KB PNG

>>16495046
That's a common myth across cultures
>>16495070
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11724-6
The only comprehensive study about frequency of close-kin inbreeding in a population of a developed country (UK) that does not rely on extremely unreliable methods such as anonymous surveys and criminal proceedings found that approximately 1 out of 15,000 pregnancies carried to term are the result of a full brother and sister mating. For parent-offspring matings, it's about 1 in 18,000. Multiple caveats:
>The study involved only individuals of European (meaning white) ancestry, almost certainly for the purpose of excluding ethnic minorities where inbreeding is common such as the Pakistanis, as those minorities would just taint the results.
>The study is based on a genetic analysis of 450,000 people in the UK biobank who fit the above profile (white), in order to search for individuals whose genetic markers and homozygosity correspond with brother-sister or parent-offspring mating. This method only reveals incest that resulted in live offspring. Any incest that doesn't didn't produce children remains invisible.
>All of the individuals in the study were born in the 2nd half of the previous century, meaning any change in the frequency of inbreeding in the 21st century, whether an increase or decrease, is unaccounted for.
>The authors of the study—in their own admission—state that their estimates are "conservative", and that the real frequency of inbreeding was likely "higher" as the average UK biobank participant isn't wholly representative of the average UK citizen.
Another fact from the study that is interesting is that it found no correlation between EI ("extreme" meaning 1st or 2nd degree inbreeding) and health-deprived/low education families, which is a proxy for the proles. That indicates close-kin inbreeding is as likely to be found among the affluent as it is among the poor.

>>16496010
I don't quite follow your analysis?
The biobank figures list 1/~4000 for all instances of 1st or 2nd degree.
What line is suggested to 1/15,000 and 1/18,000 for births? I thought biobank was looking for homozygosity in adults?

File: Fat controller.jpg (29 KB, 458x458)

29 KB JPG

>>16481391
>the commoness of Xwedodah between siblings among the common people is disputed. It could very well have been a practice near exclusive to nobles and priests, in fact, most evidence points to this.
What evidence is this?
We know from the evidence:
>that 1st degree incest was *allowed* among commoners.
>that 1st degree incest was considered equally holy in Zoroastrian belief regardless of whether it was the King of Kings or a peasant doing it
This doesn't tell us about frequency, but it shows that it would have been practiced beyond the elite to some degree.

Now, take into account the following:
>Graeco-Roman Egypt proved that high rates of 1st degree incest can develop and be sustained in the general populace for a prolonged period while maintaining a functioning society. In that case, it persisted for at least 3 centuries, and very likely longer.
>Accounts varying from Arabs to Roman pagans to Roman Christians and even a Korean traveler remarked upon the practice, *without* mentioning any class-based limitations.
>Romans struggled to stamp out the practice within their own eastern territories, as evidenced by repeated imperial edicts against incestuous marriages (295, 535/6, and 566). Which proves that: it was common enough for the imperial center to catch wind of it, and that it was common and rooted enough to prevent multiple attempts at cracking down on it.
>There is incontestable evidence of the Greek population in Parthian territory (specifically Dura Europos) engaging in full-sibling marriages. The influence is obvious here unless you believe that they just happened to develop it on their own while neighbors and subjects to a culture famous for close-kin incest.

There is no strong case whatsoever to make for Xwedodah being strictly elite or mostly so. It *is* true is that it's unclear how exactly common it was, but everything point to it being visibly practiced among all classes.

>>16496021
>What line is suggested to 1/15,000 and 1/18,000 for births
NTA, but it's in the paper:
>Using this threshold, we therefore identified 54/125 (i.e., ~43.2%) EI UKB cases whose parents are most likely first-degree relatives.
>We further attempted to quantify the proportion of MT1 born from PO vs. FS mating.
>Using that threshold we predict that 24/54 (i.e., πPO/FS ~44.4%; CI95%: [31.2–57.7%]) EI cases with FROH>0.17 are likely offspring of parent–offspring mating.
If 24 out of 125 of offspring are parent-child intercourse, that leaves 30 who are full siblings to get a total of 54 offspring of first-degree relatives.
30 births out of 450,000 is 1 in 15,000

>>16472673
Irrespective of whether this is good for your own genes proliferation or not, by continual incest you miss out on potentially emerging (or preexisting) beneficial genes. In after some time you would most be primitive compared to the rest of humanity. Evolution continues, especially so for humans. You would miss out

>>16492724
>Sibling animals know not to fuck each other so you probably should too

1. I'm open for considering that sibling f'ing is genuinely some universal animal instinct

2. I'm open for considering decisions that are beyond the norms for lesser evolved animals

3. I'm open for considering that the studies making these "sibling animals don't sleep with each other" claims to being:
--- 'Essentially' True, in that any observations of sibling hand-holding occurred so infrequently, they should be treated as an anomaly.
--- 'Technically' True, in that the only important part is the resulting claims made by the study and it's perfectly valid to ignore any other aspect of the study, even if researchers engaged in creating conditions that discouraged incestuous dating and created incentive to encourage siblings to pants-play with a nons(short for Non-Sibling- phonetically pronounced as if you're combining the words "NOt oNCE"); thereby effectively creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
--- 'Tentatively' True, in that there was no efforts in place to manipulate for/against sibling pairing, the studies only made use of limited data:
..........Intentionally by finding a few instances that supported their claims, and then quit while ahead-
..........Unintentionally, where there is little to no sibling incest, not necessarily due to some inherent aversion to sibling fun, but because their typical life cycle creates situations where:
__________ one of them dies before reaching mating age,
__________ they adventure on their own individual path before mating age, and then proceed to mate with a nons, simply because of a statistically higher probability for them to encounter someone else once they are ready to mate.

>>16497040
>continued: part two-ga-loo, your sibling and you-ga-loo
I can't think of any specific references off the top of my head, but when I grow up (I was born '95), it was not uncommon to find entertainment that would have mentions of stuff like "familial relationships is how you get kids with flippers instead of feet", and that kind of nonsense(or maybe it is 'accurate', but I personally don't know any trustworthy studies that make such claims).

It's a topic that has heavy implications that span from a small personal level, to having large, extreme societal impacts.
And because the connotations that surround this subject does have potential to profoundly change society(for the good or better, depending on what your values and goals are), you have to keep in mind that having the discussion with 'scientific evidence' to backup your claims of being for/against sibling-loving, is probably going to be a fool's game in many situations. Not because it's some big ask. It's not an impossible scientific endeavor to be able to determine the objective positive and negative effects,-though to be fair, there could be effects that are only observable when viewed over a long time frame-, but as I mentioned in #3 >>16497040
And also importantly, it's clear the current prohibition against family as mentioned in >>16491136 :
>I think something else that makes the question extend beyond what is considered "eugenic" or "dysgenic", is the fact that non-blood-related step siblings, or even adopted siblings, are also typically treated as "immediate family", and that their incestuous activity is frowned upon, even if they are different races.
does not inadvertently concedes the ""incest = dysgenic"" card should be b& from tournament play.
>>16492934
>Thank you, fetishist. Go get your cummies somewhere else.
Which fetish? The familial relationships, or the unrelated, race-mixing diversity fetishes?
Not trying to kink-shame here, just looking for clarification.

>>16497055
>And also importantly, it's clear the current prohibition against family as mentioned in: >>16491136 ...
>...does not inadvertently concedes the
**does seem to inadvertently concede the...

>>16493169
>I see the push for race mixing and extreme incest through media and other forms as both quite destructive.to the group. it weakens the family connection to the tribe.
I think in some sense, that's a reasonable take.
But also, if incest and race mixing are instinctually seen as 'ickk' without any societal influences, if they only occur as infrequent anomalies, will the 'tribe' possibly suffer more by enforcing harsh penalties upon their own tribesmen, or does the tribe stand to gain if a cost:benefit analysis indicates the benefits outweigh the negatives?
And if it turns out that the natural order of life is to have offspring with those who are genetically similar to you- then I think it could be said that there is more psychological/genetic damage being done on a personal/societal level through a system that heavily punishes the activity.

Can you elaborate a little more on your thought process for your belief? I know the topic is more 'art' than 'science' so-to-speak, so I'm not fishing for a mathematical proof, just a little more descriptive insight on your thoughts.


>>16495070
>acording to the uk bioban data
Is that what all that "ukraine biolabs" ruckus was about?


>>16493904
>Robin Fox
>Fox published The Imperial Animal, with Lionel Tiger in 1971
Isn't that weird how that always seems to happen? His name is "Robin Fox", and he worked with someone named "Lionel Tiger", who both happened to work with socio dynamics found in animals. Like, do you think they felt some form of obligation towards that kind of career, where they would have been a chef if their last name was "Cooke"? Or was it just pure destiny?
So mystifyingly intriguing.
>the optimum range between endogamy and exogamy.
Ahh yes, the classic debate for determining whether to use 'fusion' or 'fission' in the 'nuclear breeders' turquoise vestigial toaster pillow fence blade string

>>16497094
>Ahh yes, the classic debate for determining whether to use 'fusion' or 'fission' in the 'nuclear breeders' turquoise vestigial toaster pillow fence blade string
haha whoops, I'm not sure why I typed all that gibberish about nuclear pillow toasters.

>>16497094
>So mystifyingly intriguing.
What do you think of the legendary physics paper by I think it was aleph, beth and gamow?

>>16497094
>Is that what all that "ukraine biolabs" ruckus was about?
>UK Biobank
It's a large database of the genetic profiles and health status of like half a million brits gathered by the nhs and contributing volunteers as far as I'm aware.
There's a group of researchers mining for health outcome data.

>>16497179
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher%E2%80%93Bethe%E2%80%93Gamow_paper

>>16496010
most disturbing information from that paper is the gradual reduction in average inbreeding cooefficients of the population.
> although mean inbreeding coefficients have significantly decreased over the years (correlation between year of birth and FROH: r=−0.01%; Pearson’s correlation test p=5.5×10−14)

>>16496605
>by continual incest you miss out on potentially emerging (or preexisting) beneficial genes
Wrong. By continual outbreeding, you miss out on potentially emerging (or preexisting) beneficial recessive genes.

>>16497736
It's not just the beneficial recessives the bigger factor is gene complexes.

A simplification and may not be how these specific genes work but think of teeth, genes for tooth and jaw size, if you outbreed the genes for small teeth end up in huge jaws or huge teeth in small jaws while a inbreeding population would naturally allow selection to take place and genes that lead to optimal jaw dental structure can develop instead of being thrown into chaos every generation

>>16472673
>fucking your sister is fine because... it helps the genetic disease proliferate
Are you inbred?

Question, why is inbreeding more common in the upper echelons and the lowest groups in society but less in the middle?

>tfw no Andrew Graves brotherfu

>>16498107
>yfw femanons actually want a brother like Andrew

>>16498100
>... it helps the genetic disease proliferate
Wrong. Recessive genes can be bad, but they can be good as well. Inbreeding allows these traits to undergo natural selection.

>>16498105
Lower groups: less inhibited and rule-following
Upper echelons: marriage politics
But at least for the upper groups it's specific to particular contexts or types of elite, e.g. rule of a landowning aristocracy, and even then can be counteracted by other factors. In medieval Europe, cousin marriages were below the historical norm for the most part due to the Catholic Church's opposition to them, and they only made a notable return in the early modern period as its influence weakened and provided much less of a check on royals and nobles. It's not inherent for the upper class to be incestuous in and of itself, as evidenced by looking at those in power today. Likewise, it's not at all hard to imagine hypothetical cultural contexts where the middle class is a major participant in incest, like should it somehow transform into a status symbol.

File: 1712676332070.png (130 KB, 849x672)

130 KB PNG

>>16473316
Genetic purging doesn't really make sense outside of sibling and parent child incest. You want the odds of deleterious mutations surfacing being as high as possible while the odds of them being passed around as low as possible. As the degree of kinship decreases, the surfacing goes down while the bad genes continue to proliferate more effectively. The opposite of what you want.
This probably helped Egyptians cope with their rampant sister fucking back in the day, but Pakis aren't going to reap a lot of benefits from it as cousin fuckers.

>>16472673
if one of you think this is anything other than a troll post

your actually retarded, even more so if you believe it

>>16497094
>Isn't that weird how that always seems to happen? His name is "Robin Fox", and he worked with someone named "Lionel Tiger", who both happened to work with socio dynamics found in animals.
It's called nominative determinism.

>>16472673
you're swiss nebulazar whatever X guy aren't you

>Breed retards and abort them
waste of energy therefore dysgenic, populations who dont do that will genocide you. Thats why its important to understand the world perfectly if we stop all war and have long term peace, because we ll have to replace war ourselves to keep efficiency amongst the species (which is ideal but more difficult). That includes calling people like OP a total fucking retard (probably inbred himself)

>>16499796
miscarriages and failed embryos do a lot of the work in reducing the burden.
Also if as with the egypt case the population is subject to high infant mortality as everywhere was prior to modern sanitary practices and medicine with approx only 50% making it to adulthood, then the slight increase in risk from inbreeding will likely be a marginal burden.

>>16499796
>populations who dont do that will genocide you
that would be ist and phobic so they won't do shit

Before medicine was widespread people with shit genetics would die within a year of being born anyway, inbred or not. Everybody used to marry their cousins and we did just fine because the retarded genes got purged anyway

File: Bali.png (46 KB, 593x255)

46 KB PNG

>>16495046
Actually, they believe mixed-sex twins have sex in the womb. For that, the family gets a temporary banishment from the village. After it expires, all's good and the twins can fuck each other as much as they want without any further punishment.

>>16501111
That's somehow weirder than I expected it to be.

>>16501120
>If an unfortunate woman gives birth to twins, a boy & a girl, the entire village falls under the curse of a child spell, manak salah, as this terrible calamity is called. The incestuous union of brother & sister in their mother's womb is a fault that can only be annihilated by the most complete & problematic exorcisms.

>As soon as the event occurs, the alarm drum sounds to signify that the village is "polluted" (sebel); the doors of the temple are closed and tied with pandanus leaves, prohibiting access, a sign of taboo (sawén), so that no one can enter. No celebration of any kind can be performed & the whole social life of the village is paralyzed until the ensuing crisis is over.

>The guilty parents & the twins are hastily transported to a non-sacred place, generally the cemetery or more rarely to a crossroads, at the same time as the house where the twins were born, which is dismantled & rebuilt immediately .

>The couple & the twins are condemned to live in exile for forty-two days, watched over by several guards who stay with them until the end of the banishment. Then, the house is ceremoniously burned, before their return to the village to participate in the mecaru, the great purification ceremony.

>Another problem will cause trouble for the unfortunate father of the twins. He must pay all the expenses of the costly offerings & purification ceremonies, even if he has to sell his property if he lacks the cash. And if the amount obtained is not enough, the villagers must gather the rest. But if the man is completely destitute, the village will advance him the money.

>In the old days, a man would become a slave to the village until he could buy his freedom through work, but today in many places he is allowed to beg from house to house with a permit issued by the village officials. Since the purpose of this begging is for the good of the community, no one has the right to refuse him these alms, no matter how much they may be.
Superstition, man.

>>16497179
>What do you think of the legendary physics paper by I think it was aleph, beth and gamow?
I'm going to assume you're referring to the coincidence that pertains to the publishing names attached to the paper, and not the content of the paper itself? I hope so anyways, because I don't really have an opinion on the paper itself at the moment, but yeah, that is quite a strange perception, in regards to the wild coincidences surrounding naming conventions.

>>16497185
i c

>>16499404
>It's called nominative determinism.
Not saying that doesn't exist to some degree, but the amount of non-trivial works attributed to people with wildly coincidentally accurate names, seems to stretch beyond the "nominative determinism" phenomena.

>>16501895
nah the the cmb paper was one of the guys realising there was a fun game to be had with he and his colleague's names so he found someone to complete the joke

>>16501895
God is good and the Devil is evil