Intellectual Hypothesis

Post Reply New Topic

I was wondering if somehow having AS is considered a genetic defect that nature doesn't want to be reproduced. Hence, most Aspies are reclusive and in general, don't have many opportunities to breed. The supposed defect will then eventually weed itself out and cease to exist which to me makes sense. Nature is logical and survival of the fittest is perpetuated. Does anyone else have any thoughts or opinions on this subject?

I predict dissenting opinions.

The logical side of me agrees that your hypothesis is logical and I do believe that nature is self-regulating. But the emotional side of me would say that it is really depressing to think that nature doesn't want me to reproduce This kind of thinking definitely wouldn't help me build my self-esteem and confidence

I think its an easy conclusion to draw but life and evolution are much more complicated than that. Many aspies are capable of love and capable of having term relationships. If "Nature" really really did not mean for you to be able to reproduce how did so many aspies even come to be in the first place? Without it being a recent mutation or something like that I would assume that the genes would have long ago been removed from the pool.

I would argue that diversity and organisation is Nature's only agenda and is the reason that we have been able to come as far as we have.

Personally I would worry more about whether or not other people wanted me to be able to procreate than whether or not Nature wished me to. It's easy to paint a person with a brush and label them inferior but there may be an evolutionary advantage to many of your traits that just do not seem very appreciated in today's society at the present moment.

What evolution does not take into consideration is the willpower of humans.

An autistic individual can work hard enough to gain the necessary skills to be able to reproduce.

I would in turn ask this question: Why hasn't that happened yet? If this were the case, considering that all signs indicate autism isn't some newfangled thing they invented in a lab in the 50s along with microwave diners and the remote control... why, simply put, aren't we extinct yet? If we were so genetically and socially unfit wouldn't it make sense we'd died out before they ever discovered what autism was?

Or back in the past were societies and the environment so different in their demands and needs that those higher functioning perhaps possess traits that might have had good enough survival aspects that potential mates could overlook the social difficulties? There's a tendency in modern western society to equate the two because of how highly value social skills are to us, yet I've noticed that the people both in my family's past and just of friends and family today those who's basic survival skills seem highest in general aren't necessarily very socially capable - or inclined.

Maybe it does this, but not to wipe us out, but to keep our numbers low so we don't destabilise things too much with our brilliant aspieness.

Nature doesn't have conscious "wants".

The ability to successfully reproduce is determined by hundreds of factors-
the right mutation could be quite advantageous for the species as a whole,
but if it produces traits in an individual that that society in that time doesn't consider desirable in mates,
it will: remain at a constant prevalence until a factor of the environment changes
become less-prevalent
disappear altogether.

Autistic kids are born all over the world, every day.
It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Also, Aspergians and high-functioning Autistics are not "unfit", period-
they simply have trouble interacting in a predominantly-NT world, and NT's with them, as well.

Add in positive assortative mating (the tendency to mate with those like ourselves) and AS will probably be around for a while.