Is autism nature's way of slowing human reproduction?

Post Reply New Topic

This, but even if nature had a plan, so to speak, how do you translate autism into slowing reproduction? As far as I know autistic people do reproduce. If it runs in families, as seems pretty well supported by evidence, then how do you figure it's going to have an affect on reproduction? It's reproducing all the time.

If you asked, is infertility nature's way of slowing human reproduction, that would make more sense to me. If nature has a plan, that is.

No. As someone else mentioned the 'increase' in autism is more likely due to changing definitions and more people being diagnosed. Even if there was an increase, the increased number of autistic people would mean non-autistic people will encounter autistics more frequently, increasing the likelihood of them understanding each other. Additionally, autistics would have more opportunity to marry and have kids with other autistics. So I don't think an increase in autism will necessarily reduce the reproduction rate.

Don't know about you however I see alot of NT/NT couples with severe autistic children, my case is very much like that only with more or less ND/NT=AS. Its quite the mystery isn't it.

Well... looking at most of the NTs around me, they generally socialize more, flirt more, date more, and have more relationships, with more people -- but most of them have fewer kids than I do.

No.
The sciences of ecology, biology, and archeology show us that in natural systems
the population of a species is determined by factors such as predators, abundance of resources, etc.
Perhaps some species procreate less frequently or lay fewer eggs during drought or shortage,
but none can intentionally manipulate the genomes of their offspring to prevent those offspring from procreating.

That being said, humans do not follow the same patterns of population growth/shrinkage
that we see in natural systems. We take care of those born with physical defects for ex,
so instead of natural selection we have artificial selection
(which I personally see as inconvenient for the human genome, but absolutely essential for social justice).
The resources expended caring for the mentally and/or physically handicapped
is absolutely minuscule, compared with the expense of industries like, for ex, the global arms trade,
or the prison industrial complex in the USA, or the "war on drugs",
or the wealth hoarded by only a few of the top bankers and CEOs.

Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians can find better correlation
between other factors (besides autism) and population size.
For example: education, literacy, access to contraception and birth control, etc.
That's why the population is exploding in 3rd world countries.
For all we know, autism may be just as high there, but may not get diagnosed as often.

Besides, the population is declining in some 1st world countries for many other reasons besides autism.
Smart couples who are aware of high unemployment or overcrowding may decide to only have one child,
a decision that couple without education or attentiveness to news might not make.
Also, with more well-educated women pursuing full-time work, fewer tend to become mothers
(which I see as a good thing, even though many traditionalists/conservatives disagree).

Good point!

Well last I checked we're not sterile, does that answer the question.

There is an optimum balance of autistic traits that a person can have and when they have the right balance the traits give them a good advantage eg scientific/systematic/mathematical/logical etc type of mind

they do well in life get good status etc and likely to reproduce and continue their genetic line

when a person has an overload of the autsitc traits though they disadvantage them hence they are less likely to get success in life, less likely to reproduce

so the autistic traits are beneficial but not too many of them

I have too many hence Aspergers but my brother has right amount hence he's got a phD in geology and has done well
for himself - he's married, two children and has won medals for his work and been published in Nature magazine

hence the benefits of the autistic trait are seen in him and the non benefits of having too many/an excess of them are seen in me

I wouldn't want to swap places with him though as his life is constant pressure!

No, I think nature's way of slowing reproduction in today's world is bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

This.

Well said. I thought of that point too, but couldn't have articulated it as nicely.

But if this IS a natural means of population control, how does our collective species know that there are too many of us? Do we all release pheromones and when the world's atmosphere becomes too saturated, our genes alter and start producing un-desirables?

If only nature were that efficient.

I think on a similar point, perhaps environmental factors as a result of an increased population (different lifestyles) could affect the incidence of certain genes. But still the primary method nature controls population is by the amount of natural resources available. If nature did want a secondary method of controlling population through genes, there's always more serious conditions such as ones that literally make people unable to reproduce, or conditions that have people being likely to die young before being able to reproduce etc. I see AS as more of a difference in personality, behaviour, way the brain thinks etc than a way to reduce reproducibility. And as I mentioned before more people having AS would probably mean each AS individual becomes better off (in terms of reproducibility), negating the effect of an overall loss of reproduction caused by an increased incidence of AS.

As I said before, if you have the optimum degree of/presentation of autistic traits you can make better use of resources and get on better in life, too many though and you won't thrive. So autistic traits are a genetic advantage in the right degree but the opposite if in excess. Hence the disadvantageous degree of autism is genetically selected against to keep the population in check as regards genetics that differ too much from the norm.

I get fed up of making valid points and having them overlooked on here.

I don't think this is accurate but a good way to bring up the issue that is human population. If anything will decrease the population then it will be some new incurable (for some years anyway) illness or most likely, less funding for people who want to push out there oqn football team. Ok i'm not going to sit on the fence for this next bit anyone who has children to sit on their butts and watch the rest of us pay for them need to be shown the bills sometimes. I really hope that lack of support from hard workers reduces the population as people will have children that they can support. My grandad used to say to me " it's alright to go swimming in the deep end as long as you can swim back". The issue with the last couple of decades is that they went swimming with stolen armbands.
Please let lack of financial support be the cause of the reduction in our population. Time to think before you act.

Sorry for the rant......i feel much better now

Last edited by Morph on 03 Mar 2013, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.