Evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

The social thing is very culturally influenced. Americans in general are becoming less social, we don't value living in large communities the way we used to, and the way it's done by many other cultures. In a way this is very bad, because there is no one around to help take care of the people who need caring for anymore. We're all so focused on our own selves and our own things that no one is there for each other like before. This is why people end up in nursing homes, alienated from relatives that live far away, quitting their jobs to take care of special needs children. We need to hire strangers to watch our kids because there's no one around who can help out. We're social creatures and in a way becoming less social is causing more problems than it's solving. I think the old social rules were probably better than what we have now. Just my opinion.

I can't tell if you want to discuss this, or not, so I will simply say that your perspective is noted. Thank you.

I'm always open to discussions! Wouldn't share my opinion if I wasn't.

Well...I've detected a flaw at the very basis of your perspective. Please tell me how I can address it without offending you?



That's not a question - I edited and forgot to fix the punctuation. At any rate, it is a request.

Perhaps a better word would be "paradox". I detect a "paradox" in what you're saying.

I love paradoxes!

Feel free to point it out. I won't be offended.

Aspergers/autism is likely genetic. This is known (or at least strongly suspected) in the scientific community. It's a gene mutation that expresses itself with increased introspection, extreme introversion, disinterest outside of focus areas, and poor executive function.

Some of us are successful at finding mates because that extreme focus sometimes makes us good at our jobs, which sometimes makes us financially successful, which sometimes increases our appeal to the opposite gender, sometimes enough to make up for our other, severe, shortcomings.

It doesn't make us a new species. There is no "Homo Aspergerus". We are Homo Sapiens, and that's an indisputable fact. Aspergers is just a genetic trait, like skin color, hair/eye color, or hemophilia. It's also a near impossibility that Aspergers will ever overtake NT in the gene pool when the world by and large still favors alpha male NT types. Further, the human gene pool is too homogeneous and the human genome is too self-correcting to ever expect an abrupt transition into a "new species" in human evolution. The most likely outcome is that the human genome will drift over time (this is known as "population drift"), but as a whole, not with an "emergent species".

In case of a cataclysmic event where a majority of humans are wiped out, then and ONLY then will we see a rapid shift in human evolution with new emergent sub-species, and then only if the remanining humans are capable enough not to be driven extinct in the new "post-apocalyptic" world.

The idea that everyone should abandon their own course and take the course you want them to take...well...do you see the problem?

The subject matter doesn't change the basis of your argument - whether you are talking about putting elders in nursing homes or one's elbows on the table, it is not "selfless" to want another to be selfless so that you can have what you want. Hence, the paradox.

Well I don't really feel everyone should take the course I want. I'm just one individual, with one opinion. I think I was coming more from the point of view that becoming less and less involved with those around us might be satisfying for someone, but as a whole it makes us weaker if everyone is left to fend for themselves. I also was thinking that by being more selective about who we communicate and interact with, like online with communities based around an interest, we shut ourselves off from all the other opinions and experiences people who don't think like us have to offer. It becomes easier to just shut out any aspect of the world we don't want to deal with. This is why I don't completely agree with the idea that present day socializing is more natural than more traditional ones. I don't think my opinions are selfless or anything, I don't think it's possible to be selfless actually, even when we do good things we do them because they feel good. Everything we ever do is motivated by some type of personal reward. And of course my opinion is biased by my own life experiences.

We could all just watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ (a movie called "Idiocracy" from 2006), and call it a day.

The morons(Moron is a term once used in psychology to denote mild mental retardation, in 1910) will populate the world, and the many will survive, not the strong nor the smart. Even though this is a comedy of a futuristic world gone wrong, this has been backed up by research. It is the path we are on today, the less educated procreate more, the uneducated procreate less or even postpone it for so long they are unable to when they finally get "time".

The modern humans with personality traits and lifestyle most desirable for mass reproduction will succed in bringing their genes to the next species. I guess that rules out the well educated atleast, unless some scientist invents a biological weapon in the future that only kills those with certain genetic markers indicating low intelligence, or a government intervenes somehow.

I love that movie, I had also read that the average IQ has been steadily decreasing and found it fascinating. Humans are too smart for our own good, lol.

This is where I would have to get "philosophical" with regards to "shutting out" and "shutting off". Obviously, I do both. But the question is, "Why?", and I have never successfully explained my perspective on this particular subject but the way you worded your views gives me an idea -

No one is open to all of the opinions and aspects of the world. Everyone, whether NT or non-NT, is open to aspects and opinions in which they have interest and "shut themselves off" from those in which they have no interest. They cannot do otherwise but most can - and do - pretend. Which is man's chosen form of "socializing". It is taught to people as children, and maintained by increasingly convoluted and desperate measures.

You are not alone in your opinions but I don't think change is a - or "the" - problem. Nature doesn't stand still and she doesn't travel backward. The laws and forces at work in this society are the same laws and forces that eat stars and s**t planets. It seems pretty obvious to me that the very desire to control what cannot be controlled is going to result in some discomfort. Personally, I prefer to trust in the forces of nature. They're bigger, they've been doing it longer PLUS they don't call me "defective". ROFL!!

I don't mean to make light of your opinion. As I said, you are not alone. If "the truth" - whatever that is - were elected, democratically, you would win. Hands down. I am a minority of one. No worries.

It is all kind of in the eye of the beholder. It depends what each person perceives to be better or not I guess. But obviously the universe was here before us and will be here after us, and in the end our species isn't as important as we like to think it is. It doesn't really get better or worse, it just keeps existing.

Evolution isn't about choosing mates

Not in its entirety, no. But this is a huge part. Mates are chosen on multiple levels, all of which are intended to ensure our offspring are fit (have high probability of surviving and reproducing themselves). We like ATTRACTIVE mates, because generally, the traits we find attractive mean "healthy." Nice skin, hair, bright eyes, good teeth, strong body...these all reflect a healthy individual. Subconsciously, animals also choose mates from pheromones. There is a link between pheromones and MHC alleles (immunity), and animals tend to choose mates whose immune system compliments their own, so that their offspring can have stronger immune systems under different conditions. And, assuming mating does take place, even gametes undergo a level of selection. Sperm competition occurs when the female's reproductive tract (immunologically driven) selects the "best" sperm. Eggs are fertilized by sperm that can penetrate their zona pellucida. If there are not complementary receptors on both gametes, fertilization will not occur.

So, while evolution ultimately acts on populations, individuals that comprise a population can not be entirely discounted.

The original post is pure nonsense.



Every variation of every trait of every organism is "the result of evolution".

Every organism has a range of variation.
Humans have ranges in variations in every trait including the way that our nervous systems are wired-and the varied kinds of behavior that results from that varied wiring.

So saying "autism is the result of evolution" is a meaningless tautalogy. Its true, but so what? Dandruff and alcholism are also the results of evolution.

But if your contention is that the whole human race is evolving towards autism- that is different, and is meaningful statement.

So (a) where is your evidence for this?
Are autistic people reproducing at higher rate than neurotypicals

Have autistic people been growing in proportion to the whole human population over these past few thousand years?


And (b) even in theory why WOULD that happen? Under what circumstances would the whole human race become more autistic?
What possible advantage would autism have?

Also: why do you frame the question "what are the objections to the idea that [the human race is evolving towards autism]"

Thats like asking "what are the objections to the idea that the Moon is made of green cheese?"

Since there is no scintilla of evidence for your contention that the human race is evolving toward autism its up to you argue FOR the theory, not for us readers to argue against it.

Why would it happen - that's a good question. I can think of a couple of reasons but there is one empirical fact that people don't like much and that is that thought and emotion exist within the same universe as matter and must, therefore, be subject to the fundamental laws that govern this universe.

People are not happy. They haven't been happy, on a large scale, for going on 3 generations - and each new generation is less and less willing to put up with that - they don't like not being happy and they don't want to watch others being unhappy. Whether the part of the brain that handles emotion and behavior is causing that or the unhappiness and unwillingness to continue with it is affecting that part of the brain - it doesn't matter. It could be both. Wouldn't a sort of "merry-go-round effect" be necessary to keep the process from grinding to a halt? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

An autistic meltdown isn't the same as an NT meltdown. An NT meltdown comes after an extended period of seething and boiling under the surface and new generations are becoming less and less willing to participate in extended periods of that kind of misery. Is it because their brains are changing? I don't know. Are their brains changing because of it? I don't know. All I know is that there must be an effect because neither exists in a vacuum.

At any rate, evolution wouldn't produce one from the other. The change would take place over time. My father is dead but it is obvious, in hindsight, that he would have fallen on the spectrum, as would his father AND mother. But, until science shifts gears and looks at it without the assumption that "autism" is a "defect", there is no way of knowing.