Why is the world so eugenics-happy? (rant)

Post Reply New Topic

Autism is by definition a disorder. However, just because something is a disorder doesn't mean it's inherently bad, and it can actually be of huge advantage to the society. Also, the question needs to come is the disorder inherent to the neurology of the person, or is it the result of the way it interacts with society? Disability is ultimately a social construct because evolution doesn't give a damn. There is no right or wrong, only what survives and what doesn't. But just because something ends up dying out doesn't mean it was inferior either, it just means it couldn't survive in the enviroment it was in. The question of whether someone with autism could live in ancient times is completely irrevelant, as we don't live in ancient times. We are a part of nature, and it changes as we change. The question we actually need to ask is 1. can autistic people survive if society supports them and 2. are autistic people valuable for being autistic? For at least some people on the spectrum, the clear answer is "yes" to both points.

If it's not something that's inheritable, it's not covered by eugenics. Eugenics is only considered with bringing about desirable genes. Anyway, there is NO evidence that autism is the result of toxins. What we actually have is evidence that autism isn't entirely genetic (which does NOT mean it's caused by a toxin), and some sketchy correlational studies which have connected autism to just about everything. Further analysis shows what is most likely going on is that toxins can cause mental retardation, and when mental retardation is comorbid with autism an actual diagnosis of autism is signficantly more likely.

Your last point makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of someone who actually understands how mental disorders work.

there are individuals in society who can't sleep a night without somehow plotting the downfall or utter extermination of those who oppose the notion of conformity all the while they lie to humanity by arguing that such lack of regard for life is for the greater good of the gene pool.

in other words they want to do what the NWO is already doing by enslaving humanity into a perilous orgy of blind obedience along with rigid conformity on steroids.

If autism is supposedly 100% genetic, then why are there identical twin pairs where one isn't autistic? The epigenome which is susceptible to environmental influence is responsible according to the best science.

The triple hit hypothesis is looking to be a theory.

Who said autism is 100% genetic? I specifically stated that we have "evidence that autism isn't entirely genetic". The problem is you don't understand what not being 100% genetic actually implies, thinking it means that there must be toxin involved or something.

The epigenome can be affected by outside factors. What factors do you think they are?

First, the epigenome doesn't even need to get involved to explain it. Second, I actually think they're mainly social factors, not biological ones. When it is biologically, it's probably not that it causes autism, but that it causes mental retardation which in turn makes the autism more likely to be diagnosed.

Such as stress or anxiety during pregnancy?

No, I mean social factors after birth. Stress and anxiety during pregnancy results in biological factors.

I agree rats_and_cats. I have an alternative argument for why eugenics is BS (at this point in human history) but I am a bit too exhausted to have people argue at me.

Why is there a 50/50 chance of autism from Fragile X? It is obviously increased in chances from a syndrome.

Fragile X is a genetic disorder, so I don't see what your point is.

So what are the enviromental factors that cause one twin to be neurotypical but another to be autistic?

You aren't replying?

May I remind you that you are supposed to look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. This means coming to the conclusion that autism is not a disease therefore the causes cannot have any environmental role and is 100% genetic is not correct, that comorbidities only increase the chances of getting diagnosed and are not resulting from autism, the environmental factors, or the genes is incorrect, that there has been no slight increase in diagnosis since it must be entirely genetic is incorrect.

The non-autistic twin often has a disorder or learning disability. The gene(s) cause them but the result is different due to an absence or presence of dna methylation factors. What factors could affect dna methylation to the very core? Do you honestly think it is random pure chance? Not even people say these things for schizophrenia or bipolar.

If a genetic disorder that causes suffering increases the chance of autism, doesn't that make autism a disease?
Why isn't autism, which is supposedly so good and not a disorder, not caused by healthy eating or exercise then?

There are too many different factors to pinpoint specific one, but as I said before, a lot of the factors are probably actually social.

No. That's straight idiot logic. That's like saying because albinism causes white hair and it causes suffering (due to light sensitivity impairing vision), having white hair is inherently a disease. Many people though have white hair and aren't suffering at all. The next sentence is even stupider, so I'll just link this: