Editing Incest taboo (section)

==Origin==
Debate about the origin of the incest taboo has often been framed as a question of whether it is based in [[nature or nurture]].

One explanation sees the incest taboo as a cultural implementation of a biologically evolved preference for sexual partners with whom one is unlikely to share genes, since [[inbreeding]] may have detrimental outcomes. The most widely held hypothesis proposes that the so-called [[Westermarck effect]] discourages adults from engaging in sexual relations with individuals with whom they grew up. The existence of the Westermarck effect has achieved some empirical support.<ref name=WolfDurham2005>''Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century'', Arthur P. Wolf and William H. Durham (Editors),  Stanford University Press, 2004, {{ISBN|978-0804751414}}. Introduction</ref>

Another school argues that the incest prohibition is a cultural construct which arises as a side effect of a general human preference for group [[exogamy]], which arises because intermarriage between groups construct valuable [[Alliance theory|alliances]] that improve the ability for both groups to thrive. According to this view, the incest taboo is not necessarily universal, but is likely to arise and become more strict under cultural circumstances that favour exogamy over [[endogamy]], and likely to become more lax under circumstances that favor endogamy. This hypothesis has also achieved some empirical support.{{Citation needed|date=February 2012}}

===Limits to biological evolution of taboo===
While it is theoretically possible that [[natural selection]] may, under certain [[genetics|genetic]] circumstances, select for individuals that [[instinct]]ively avoid mating with (close) relatives, incest will still exist in the gene pool because even genetically weakened, [[inbreeding|inbred]] individuals are better watchposts against [[predator]]s than none at all, and weak individuals are useful for the stronger individuals in the group as looking out for predators without being able to seriously compete with the stronger individuals.<ref>E. O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, New York, Knopf, 1998</ref><ref>The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Richard Dawkins, 1986</ref>{{Dubious|date=April 2020}} Additionally, protecting the health of closer relatives and their inbred offspring is more evolutionarily advantageous than punishing said relative, especially in a context where predation and [[starvation]] are significant factors, as opposed to a rich [[welfare state]].<ref>Gorrell J.C., McAdam A.G., Coltman D.W., Humphries M.M., Boutin S., Jamieson C.; McAdam, Andrew G.; Coltman, David W.; Humphries, Murray M.; Boutin, Stan (June 2010). "Adopting kin enhances inclusive fitness in asocial red squirrels". Nature Communications 1</ref><ref>Wright, Sewall (1922). "Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship". American Naturalist 56</ref>