>>7262273Not sure that flies. Most morality isn't genetic based but rather religion based. Most religions came up with the idea that it is wrong to kill for the sake of killing, and cannibalism would fall under that. There many other cultures where they found reasons for cannibalism, but it never made sense as a regular food supply and was largely ceremonial. Incest is the same. Most religions, such as the Abrahamic ones, based a lot of their morality around what they saw. Pigs and Shrimp weren't randomly deemed to be sinful, despite simply being listed as against the rules to eat in Leviticus. Instead people noticed it killed you but they had no scientific rationale for it. Of course we now know that they had to be properly cooked, and when roasting something over an open fire you tend to get the outside burnt and the middle still entirely raw, thus you'd get sick.
Likewise they probably saw the mutant children that came about from a few generations of incest and decided that was 'sinful' as well. It is akin to telling your child if they masturbate they will go blind. It was the only way to really stop people from doing things back in the day.
Its really stupid to assume that as a species we somehow have this in our nature but universally reject it. We don't hate these things because we are ashamed of our ancestors, and back when those things started to become 'immoral' they didn't have much of a sense of history, especially among the mass uneducated. Plus, like I Said before it varied from culture to culture. In chuuk it is tradition that a mans first daughter must bare him two more children through her before being married off to another man. There is another island in the pacific where feeding a boy sperm through his mouth or anus is considered a normal part of growing up, as with every load of sperm he gets he grows to be more of a man, and with every load of sperm you give you get closer to old age.
