Strange wrote:
seebert wrote:
While I *suspect* that AS is actually an evolutionary response to new media forms in the past century with many potential causes, and I suspect that in the long run AS will be seen as "normal", I do have a tendency to agree with you. We can't gain recognition without being a part of the ADA, without disrespecting other "invisible mental disabilities".
Interesting idea. It's true that what is considered normal vary with time and culture.
I observe that in science-fiction litterature, characters with AS traits seems more and more common. Maybe because writer recognise that aspies are a significative part of their readers.
Okay, if you want to go the "evolutionary step" route, but remember that "evolution" is not a process of becoming "better". It's a process of becoming more adapted. Look at the different races. Up north and down south on the globe, you have people with long noses and white skin, so the air gets warmed before it hits their lungs and the sun can help them make as much Vitamin D as possible. Near the equator, you get people with short noses and dark skin, to protect it from getting damaged by the the brighter sunlight. In the regions where malaria is common, you get lots of sickle-cell trait, which gives natural resistance to malaria. People who drank milk--the groups which herded sheep, cows, and goats--tended to select for those who had genetics that let them process lactose.
That's natural selection. None of those groups of people are superior to any other. They're simply more adapted to their environments. If you think that in the future we will select for autistic genetics because autistic minds are more compatible with technology, then you will have to take into account that "better adaptation" has nothing to do with "superior". Actually, look on that list again: Sickle-cell trait, doubled up, becomes sickle-cell anemia, which is a life-long disability and can be deadly. Autism isn't nearly Mendelian like that, but the same thing can apply. If in exchange for being resistant to malaria, a population can afford to lose people to sickle-cell anemia, then a similar situation with autism might be that a population benefits from autistic individuals at the expense of the lower probability of reproduction among autistic people, and the inability of some autistic people to work. Some organism replacing some other organism is not a good thing, nor a bad thing. The "next step" in evolution is neutral. It just is. You might as well ask whether gravity is a good thing, and whether objects that have come to rest are better than objects still falling through the air.
Incidentally, I do not think that in the future we will select for autism, specifically. I do think we will select for neurodiversity as the world becomes increasingly specialized. The new eugenics movement sparked by genetic testing and abortion may interfere with this trend, though eventually I think even that would be overwhelmed; if a certain trait was beneficial, and 100% of those people weren't prevented from reproducing, it would eventually become widespread despite attempts to stop it.
10 Jul 2009, 12:24 pm
