Daryl wrote:As anyone familiar with genetics can attest to, broadening the genetic pool is generally good for the species. Most humans up to 200 years ago never traveled more than 20 kilometres from where they were born, so there was a tendency to inbreed. One of the few good things to come out of a war was the infusion of new genes into populations.
Well said. Your example is particularly valid for neolithic, agrarian cultures. The only mitigating factor was a relatively high population density that enlarged the potential gene pool.
The risk of inbreeding is also very problematic for Paleolithic cultures where the population density is much lower. The increased mobility of hunter gatherers only partially offset the disadvantage of low population density. Intermarriage between clans helped some. Many primitives such as the Inuits employed other cultural adaptations including an encouragment of limited promiscuity to mix the gene pool. Unfortunately; this also encouraged a high homicide rate.
Both paleolithic and neolithic cultures had a habit of granting enhanced breeding priveledges to lone males who could survive on their own to tracel great distances. They were perceived to be better adapted than more sedentary males.
Hence the genetic, cultural and social precedent for TFLYTSNBN European insemination tour.