Omatistic Spectrum Disorder

...To confess, I am not sure why this Thread has gone off at the (long post) tangent which it has, discussing "evolution" and all... but this next is something which I recently posted upon another Thread which has as yet gained no reactions. Perhaps it might do so here. (Upon yet another unrelated Thread?)

" ...This is my main attempt at a reply. Nature indeed wires brains to be different. The problem is that most of us are not living in "Nature", but that we are (likely) forced to live in an Un-natural environment. This means Cities, cement, tarmacadam, carbonizing-radiation... all of that.

Yet although cities pretend that they are self-sufficient, they do get thier food and air and water from Nature. Thus Nature carries on, while "Civilisation" ignores Nature but actually cannot thrive without it. I hope this makes sense so far.

Back to Autism and Brains being wired differently... this - to Me anyway - explains a lot of different "autistic traits", such as sensitivity to excessive noise, smells, tastes, touches, and so forth. It is too much to detail in this already long Post. And, most of all, I can only wait to recieve understanding as to what I try to say here. "

End of my previous Post. AGAIN.   (...)

So are you suggesting that the 'psychological sensitivity' to 'civilisation' is very much in the same sort of ballpark as the increase in 'physical sensitivities' such as asthma, food allergies etc.?

It's 'human nature' signalling it's disapproval at having to exist in the 'inhumane' modern 'civilized' world?

To "Neekby", Thanks for a Reply. (Finally I get to try to discuss this at another living person? Ho Boy...)

With regards to your first paragraph, then Yes, mostly, YET everyone is different and so that is not so clear a SignPost as it may be. I Myself have Asthma and certain Food Allergies, so I am not unsympathetic to those conditions... I use them as Compasses to guide Me through what is good or bad for Myself in this City... but as I say, it is different for everyone.

Your second paragraph is the Main matter, here.

Original Prankster said:

It's 'human nature' signalling it's disapproval at having to exist in the 'inhumane' modern 'civilized' world?

...Alas..."Human nature" can include Humans who want Nature, and others who want a certain type of "Progress" - i.e. more Humans rather than more of anything else anywhere ever. (e.g. bigger Cities.) Deforestation and Cities are seen as Progress, in some "Human Nature", so I Myself would not put these two terms together.
..."Inhumane Modern Civilized World" is also fraught with misinterpretation. "Inhumane" can mean cruel or in favour of Humans over anything else. "Modern" can just seen as "progress". "Civilisation" can exist even inside a Jungle, but nowadays usually means Cities and Humans in the majority.

Original Prankster said:

It's 'human nature' signalling it's disapproval at having to exist in the 'inhumane' modern 'civilized' world?

In short, I identify with the idea behind this, yet I would never express it grouping those particular words/terms. (!) In short, I rather meant 'Nature disapproving of existing in a City' (Plastics and Cement, mostly.)... This is already evident and I should not need to give reasons to prove it. (E.g. - Jungles and Cities cannot not exist upon the *exact* same spot.)

Thank You Kindly for giving Me the invitation to attempt discussion so far, certainly.  

Most names for things or conditions are first coined by an authority-whether that be in terms of numbers of those using it or by the professional standing of the person who put it forward-obviously this is not always the case but I cannot see society as a whole accepting a label invented by a person who is most definitely in a minority-it would only invite derision. I do not choose to be judgmental over this but I can't help feeling that it's rather silly and frankly-irritating.

Most names for things or conditions are first coined by an authority-whether that be in terms of numbers of those using it or by the professional standing of the person who put it forward-obviously this is not always the case but I cannot see society as a whole accepting a label invented by a person who is most definitely in a minority-it would only invite derision. I do not choose to be judgmental over this but I can't help feeling that it's rather silly and frankly-irritating.