Could autism be a thing of the past?

longman said:

I think the decision is being made for us. Autism has moved very quickly from being a 1 in a 1000 frequency to 1 in a 100, and still rising.

Perhaps because we've moved from the survival of the fittest mode of gene development to one that tolerates a very wide range of fitness, we are seeing increases in the proportions of humans who find their environment difficult, and who wouldn't have survived in the past.

This is a harsh way of looking at things, but as more people survive to adulthood despite having characteristics less favourable for survival, they interbreed and produce yet more weaker strains.

Another indicator is the rise in allergies. One explanation is simply the increase in synthetic and gene modified foods and materials. However a few hundred years ago there were few mixed farming economies, most being either predominantly pastoral (raising animals or hunting) or agrarian (staying in one place several years and planting grains and roots). In pastoral economies you had to eat meat and drink milk to survive. In cultivator economies you had to eat cereals, roots and pulses.

The ability to acquire knowledge, which needs different thinkers, is how we stay ahead of extinction, though we already seem to be running out of time as regards antibiotics. But then we are also running out of fossil fuels, hence the fracking debate and whether to continue nuclear or have wind farms, and we are running short of key minerals. Diverse thinkers may be a luxury, as we could soon be back to basics.

Basics means that most of the population have to be engaged in food supply. Until about 1950 more than 50% of the populations of Spain and Portugal were engaged in agriculture, whereas in Britain it was down to 3%; Spain and Portugal are catching up. But this is unsustainable, and there is increasing pressure on our ability to support large numbers of "thinkers".

Certainly we need to think seriously about giving as many people as possible on the spectrum the means to live independent lives. Because if we don't confront this there will be consequences down the line. We talk about the increasing elderly population, but for the most part they contributed to their pensions and health schemes and have earned support in retirement. There is a limit to how many people we take on who have to be supported throughout their lives.

That's a clinical view that will horrify many. But its part of reality. The professionals have to start taking autism seriously if we are to avoid tragic outcomes sooner or later.

I concur Longman.  To me it doesn't sound harsh or clinical, but then I am using my logical Aspie brain.

I have often wondered whether autism is an evolutionary thing, as we know, nature experiments until she gets it right.  If we take emotions out of it entirely, (and I am aware this is considered very un-PC, I do not mean to offend) we know that in the past nature created species and versions of species that became extinct due to not being successful.  Along the way, evolution of characteristics and traits of species were modified for the environment.  Perhaps autism is the same thing, the most likely cause of which is of course, environmental.  We live in an unnatural environment, people live and work in boxes so the group mentality is required less and less.  We communicate long-distance and remotely.

Perhaps the reason autism is a spectrum is that nature is trying to fine-tune the adaptation.  Nature has never been kind, it's always been eat or get eaten.  We have complex human emotions but this doesn't mean we are not still animals and will not get treated the same as all other animal by the natural forces on this planet.

I wouldn't want to be "cured" I don't think.  If everyone was as open and honest as an Aspie and said what they actually meant our difficulties in that area would dissolve.  If people didn't play games, as we don't, we wouldn't get confused.  If everyone concentrated and applied themselves as we do, a lot more would get done. If unnecessary crap was got rid of (or Aspies/auties came up with solutions) and people behaved a lot more logically, a lot of our sensory issues would be under control.  In an optimum environment people with ASCs would react very differently.  Currently, our environment is controlled entirely by NTs.  If autism is an evolutionary adaptation, our numbers will grow and grow as Longman says, perhaps one day we will be treated like something to envy rather than defective.

longman said:

I think the decision is being made for us. Autism has moved very quickly from being a 1 in a 1000 frequency to 1 in a 100, and still rising.

Perhaps because we've moved from the survival of the fittest mode of gene development to one that tolerates a very wide range of fitness, we are seeing increases in the proportions of humans who find their environment difficult, and who wouldn't have survived in the past.

This is a harsh way of looking at things, but as more people survive to adulthood despite having characteristics less favourable for survival, they interbreed and produce yet more weaker strains.

Another indicator is the rise in allergies. One explanation is simply the increase in synthetic and gene modified foods and materials. However a few hundred years ago there were few mixed farming economies, most being either predominantly pastoral (raising animals or hunting) or agrarian (staying in one place several years and planting grains and roots). In pastoral economies you had to eat meat and drink milk to survive. In cultivator economies you had to eat cereals, roots and pulses.

The ability to acquire knowledge, which needs different thinkers, is how we stay ahead of extinction, though we already seem to be running out of time as regards antibiotics. But then we are also running out of fossil fuels, hence the fracking debate and whether to continue nuclear or have wind farms, and we are running short of key minerals. Diverse thinkers may be a luxury, as we could soon be back to basics.

Basics means that most of the population have to be engaged in food supply. Until about 1950 more than 50% of the populations of Spain and Portugal were engaged in agriculture, whereas in Britain it was down to 3%; Spain and Portugal are catching up. But this is unsustainable, and there is increasing pressure on our ability to support large numbers of "thinkers".

Certainly we need to think seriously about giving as many people as possible on the spectrum the means to live independent lives. Because if we don't confront this there will be consequences down the line. We talk about the increasing elderly population, but for the most part they contributed to their pensions and health schemes and have earned support in retirement. There is a limit to how many people we take on who have to be supported throughout their lives.

That's a clinical view that will horrify many. But its part of reality. The professionals have to start taking autism seriously if we are to avoid tragic outcomes sooner or later.

I concur Longman.  To me it doesn't sound harsh or clinical, but then I am using my logical Aspie brain.

I have often wondered whether autism is an evolutionary thing, as we know, nature experiments until she gets it right.  If we take emotions out of it entirely, (and I am aware this is considered very un-PC, I do not mean to offend) we know that in the past nature created species and versions of species that became extinct due to not being successful.  Along the way, evolution of characteristics and traits of species were modified for the environment.  Perhaps autism is the same thing, the most likely cause of which is of course, environmental.  We live in an unnatural environment, people live and work in boxes so the group mentality is required less and less.  We communicate long-distance and remotely.

Perhaps the reason autism is a spectrum is that nature is trying to fine-tune the adaptation.  Nature has never been kind, it's always been eat or get eaten.  We have complex human emotions but this doesn't mean we are not still animals and will not get treated the same as all other animal by the natural forces on this planet.

I wouldn't want to be "cured" I don't think.  If everyone was as open and honest as an Aspie and said what they actually meant our difficulties in that area would dissolve.  If people didn't play games, as we don't, we wouldn't get confused.  If everyone concentrated and applied themselves as we do, a lot more would get done. If unnecessary crap was got rid of (or Aspies/auties came up with solutions) and people behaved a lot more logically, a lot of our sensory issues would be under control.  In an optimum environment people with ASCs would react very differently.  Currently, our environment is controlled entirely by NTs.  If autism is an evolutionary adaptation, our numbers will grow and grow as Longman says, perhaps one day we will be treated like something to envy rather than defective.