Why the Autism Spectrum is Not the next evolutionary step.

Post Reply New Topic

It has been said before on many a thread about evolutionary next steps:

Evolution is a an ongoing process in response to competitive and environmental pressures. There is no "trying to unfold". There are no aims. No goals. There is no end point, preferred path or lofty summit.

Everything in a sense is evolutionary, the problem is we don't know whether the genes that help to create autistic individuals are becoming more prevelant, or just more prominent. If it is the latter, then we certainly can't talk about autism in any evolutionary sense. if it is the former, then an increase in the number of autistic individuals is part of an evolutionary process.

However to refer to autism as an evolutionary "step", I think is misguided since it implies that there is some definite goal that evolution is "stepping" to which involves autistic people becoming more numerous and more powerful within the world. Obviously no-one can no whether or not this will be the case.

Autism is just one variant within human genetic diversity.

Mother Nature tends to puke out "variants" because "genetic diversity" leads to greater adaptability as a species, and the more adaptable a species is the better its chances for survival. It's not a coincidence that panda bears are quickly going extinct while rats are thriving; pandas are entirely too specialized and inflexible to adapt t changing conditions.

Humans are one of the most adaptable species on the planet, partially due to our wide range of individual traits and abilities that have allowed us to survive in just about every climate on Earth. That said, not every "variant" carries some grand evolutionary advantage. Being a Little Person doesn't convey any immediate advantages, nor is it likely to convey "advantages" over average people unless there is some massive change in our environment that favors the survival and breeding of Little People and is unfavorable to the rest of us. Ditto for autism.

This is also one of the reasons why "Social Darwinism" is a load of horseplop. One should never cross science with politics lest one wishes a seriously ugly baby.

aspies are of course the offspring of a alien cuckoo race who deposit their kids upon poor humans, aspies are of course parasitic in nature and when we use up the resources of planet earth will migrate to another world using our superior technical abilities and will manage the isolation of living in a closed world of a spaceship without friends extremely well, I for one will be happy when my parents return and take me back to the right planet!

This is a quote which is the signiature of the author of another thread -

"We are cups, constantly and quietly being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and let the beautiful stuff out."
— Ray Bradbury

This is very interesting and very much in line with my own thinking. I have done a quick Google search and it appears that RB was not referring to ASDs when he wrote it. Well it WAS 90 years ago.

It has quite an interesting meaning to those of us on the spectrum don't you think? (Apologies if it has already been discussed on this thread; I am not inclined to read the whole thing).

I mean as long as my eyes are open and there is noise around me, it is almost as if I cease to exist. I'm sure this must be exactly what true Austistic people experience. The only time I am really in touch with my body is when I am in bed, naked, with my eyes closed and ideally with ear plugs in. Even then I am more inclined to just be much more in my head unless I make a concerted effort to ensure that skin is touching skin. (I only just realised that I typically rest in bed with minimal skin contact between limbs).

It also recently ocurred to me that when I shower I typically look straight ahead and am thinking constantly. I rarely look at the body part I am washing. Similarly when I massage my feet; I am still very much in my head.

This would explain the sensations of being so sensitive to external stimuli. Being an "empty cup" one feels less a sense of "me", "I", the ego, "self" etc and is thus more vulnerable to being "filled" by input from ones immediate environment.

Spiritual aspirants pay thousands for this kind've experience! It makes me think that NTs typically experience (a gross generalisation I know) duality and people on the spectrum experience a greater sense of oneness. That is, feeling like one is less the self and more a part of the whole - everything.

How does this relate to evolution? Well you may think I have some pretty wacky ideas. They are not unique though. It all makes me think that perhaps ASDs are a step in evolution towards pure oneness, a la "The Celestine Prophecy".

Furthermore, feeling like we are already in relationship to our surrounds and content and complete, an expectation for direct engagement is over-filling the cup. It is not necessary and in fact way to much stimilation. (I recently went for a walk in the bush here in Western Australia and came across a young femal kangaroo. Unusually, it did not immediately hop away. Instead it watched me until I dediced to rest where I was. Then it relaxed and continued to forage as if I was not even there. (If it looked at me and I met its eyes it stood erect and its body language was ready for self defense. I experimented with looking at the ground again and it relaxed again). I pretended to forage and it gradually, over about half an hour, worked it's way over to me. Within an hour of this it was ahhhhhhhhhhhahahaha...licking the salt off my legs!

I tried to connect with it like one would connect with a fellow human or dog but it was not interested. It was content to simply forage near me. This is how I prefer to connect with my loved ones. I am inherently connected to them just by being in existence. I am human so do enjoy being in the same room as another human. That is perhaps my greatest weakness being an "evolved" Homo Sapien. As I am further along the spectrum I do feel some sense of seperation and so do desire a little intimacy with others of my species.

So perhaps it is our collective journey in evolution to remember that we are connected. We do not need to be "filled up". It will take time because we have so much conditioning. It may not take too long though. It only took me one year, this year, to let go of thinking I needed something outside of myself to make me happy and content.

Does this all make sense?

science concludes that...

(findings)
a.) ...the female type was the original lifeform.
b.) ...the male type had derived from the (cognitive) female type.
c.) ...the autistic brain is a more distinct male brain type.
d.) ...the autistic brain characteristics make a female more male and a male even more male.
e.) ...welfare has increased enormously quite recently.
f.) ...autism seems to have spread quite recently.

(conclusion and hypothesis)
g.) ...the male brain is an evolutionary success story and autism will most likely prevail, thus the human species will shift to an intellectual (body-distant, brain-centered) lifeform ./?


(remark: mechanisms of evolution do not involve teleological implications, but the coincidence in terms of successful heredity. However, the figurative use of the mechanisms of evolution often allows for a better comprehension.)

Wuht....? I don't know where you're getting these ideas from, but they're incorrect.

What's to say cultural isolation won't play a major role? Certainly, since we live in a world that is far more interconnected, one could make the case that evolution will speed up, since people with rare genetic quirks will actually be able to find someone to reproduce with. Even if only 1 in a million people have it... there are, what, 2 billion on the internet? With 2000 people on the internet, it's not beyond the realm of probability that several couples may start families who will carry their traits. Not quite enough genetic diversity to go it alone completely, but enough for a couple more generations of intra-breeding. If several hundred people from around the world compose your starting population, they could form a stable subspecies.

Perzactly.

Which is precisely why it wouldn't be the next step in evolution.

Evolution is a result of a natural process.

We COULD achieve it through technology but it wasn't intended.

Forced "evolution" is jst genetic engineering.

I'm not autistic; my son is and he is a savant so I have spent a great deal of time observing him and reading about the behaviors, etc associated with autism. I personally believe that autism is an attempt at evolution and whether it is a successful attempt or an attempt that will requires more refinement remains to be seen. I find evidence in the rate of occurence; even other genetic "disorders" that are thought to be fairly common such as down syndrome only occurs once in every 800 births. Today autism occurs once in every 88 children and the ratio has been growing larger. Autistics are known to be able to handle much larger amounts of data which I see as an adaptation for living in the information age; not only can they store more data but they can analyze and make sense of it faster than neuro typicals. My son creates patterns and data models at a remarkable rate although he is not able to articulate all of the data sources for each model his models are amazingly accurate in their results. Savant capabilities occur at the rate of 1 in 10 autistics as compared to less than 1 in 100 neurotypicals. If you look at the general population of engineers and scientists you will find poor social skills and yet many of them manage to marry and have children although I'm sure the divorce rate is higher (I don't have any data to support this idea though; just personal observation as an engineer). It has been hypothesized that many well known scientists and engineers, such as Bill Gates have aspergers and most of them seem to marry later. There are tradeoffs in genetics. If you think of the most obvious; you can't have brown eyes and blue eyes at the same time then you can understand less obvious ones. For example high egg producing chickens are not also good meat producing chickens. High milk producting cows are not high meat producing cows. This is why we have variety in these populations which have largely been genetically engineered for this reason. Perhaps there is a trade off of being good at abstract thinking and pattern building vs social abilities. While social cues require a perceptual capability, social skills can be learned that may overcome much of the shortcoming and perhaps it is this learning that enables autistics to eventually marry, although later in life. Maybe the selection pendulum swung too far with autism and it will come back a bit to enable autism to be a successful evolution of human capabilities. Obviously I don't have a research project underway or anything like that, but it seems that there is a possibility that autism is a evolutionary attempt to deal with an environment with too many inputs and too much sensory stimulation.

That's a teleology.