> so your "theory" is that the best way to improve a population's genetic health is to create individuals so riddled with genetic disorders that they can't reproduce? inbreeding doesn't cause genetic disorders. nor does outbreeding stop genetic disorders. > charles ii is a well-documented case of the devastating effects of generations of inbreeding. his health problems were numerous and severe, and they're consistent with what we know about the consequences of prolonged inbreeding no one knows what genetic disease charles ii had. thus, no one can actually prove it was caused by inbreeding. but even if it was, he is effectively the only example across literally thousands of years of monarchy inbreeding. had he not been a monarch, his "bad genes" would have simply died off and no one would be whining for hundreds of years about "muh inbreeding".   > using baldness as an example of a "shitty gene" that needs to be "cleansed" from the gene pool is peak /pol/ retardation. i was using it as an example of how "genetic dead-ends" remove negative traits. it's the only way to remove them.   > libertarianism is anti white and jewish i agree. but hans-hermann hoppe is a big defender of monarchy as well.   any effect from inbreeding is gone the first outbreeding. you are conflating "inbreeding" with "shitty genes".
United States