Is autism nature's way of slowing human reproduction?

Post Reply New Topic

I sometimes wonder about, is the drastic increase in autism, from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 80, nature's way of trying to slow human reproduction rates, and thus stop human overpopulation? Nobody denies that there are too many people on the planet, and that humans have so far defeated the usual mechanisms for defeating overpopulation that Mother Nature has devised. Wars are no longer that destructive. Disease and famine have largely been conquered. Mother Nature therefore has to make a certain percentage of humans unable to reproduce. Autistics are less likely to have relationships, get married, and ultimately have kids. When we DO have kids those kids are usually more severe than we are, and are thus pitched out of the gene pool. So autism would indeed be evolution in action, and the benefit would accrue to all humanity in lower population levels, but not to the individual. So an individual autistic would be forever lonely, but that would mean that he is out of the gene pool, thus helping the species as a whole. And natural selection indeed does what is best on a species-wide level, NOT on an individual level. Also, since the resources of human civilization are tied up caring for millions of autistics, humans are less able to further devise ways to increase population levels.

Firstly, there is no increase, only changing definitions. Read 1960s case studies of childhood psychosis if you don't believe me.

Secondly, nature does not work that way. A trait that is not advantageous to those who carry it will be weeded out, regardless of its impact on the larger population.

Possibly true, but the drastic increase is probably because of increased awareness and diagnosis.

Some say the same thing about homosexuality since homosexual partners cannot reproduce in the conventional way.

Very interesting discussion.

But I don't think the purpose of autism is to regulate the population size. From nature's point of view the more humans the better. In the end, an overpopulation would be resolved from the natural selection mechanism stating that the strongest/most fit individuals survive, while the weakest don't.

From nature's point of view the purpose of autism is to ensure having individuals so selfless that these individuals prioritize their interests over reproduction, which makes technological progress and inventions more likely (or even possible) to occur - these could benefit the human species as a whole making survival for the rest of the population even more probable.

Is this true? Do people in general agree on this?

Just wondering. It's a sad fact if it's true, because it makes survival for autistic people even harder.

My guess, for both AS and homosexuality, is that the same genes that cause those traits can also have a beneficial effect. I've heard a theory that there's a genetic trait that causes male homosexuality and increases female fertility, for example. Regarding AS, I think a good argument could be made that BAP (subclinical autistic traits) is being genetically selected for, because they often have some of the talents of AS without the disadvantages. BAPers tend to have more autistic kids, especially if two BAPs marry each other.



Nature does not have a point of view. Nature does not have intentions. It has no plan. It's not trying to save humanity, or trying to get rid of us, or trying to do anything at all. Nature is a system, that can be explained by bottom-up rules with no top-down intentionality needed.

All your theorizing has a basic flaw - you are treating nature as if it has a mind and a plan. It does not.

+1

Nature is not a sentient being. Gaia is just a human myth. The term "Mother Nature" makes it so easy to anthropomorphize but that doesn't make it accurate.

No.

I don't think nature has a whole lot to do with slowing human reproduction rates aside from balancing food/resource supplies with population. I think Monsanto, Banksters, & others are a whole lot more responsible for decreasing human fertility rates - whether intentionally or as an unintended byproduct of what they do.

Rates are higher as our quirky traits are becoming more and more socially acceptable, even portrayed in popular culture on TV (Big Bang Theory, Criminal Minds, Bones, & several other shows with Aspie main characters.) & thus, IMO, AS people are more likely than ever to have a mate and reproduce... as is evidenced by the increasing rate of ASD.

Although, rates are also higher as more people learn of it, including doctors. Hans Asperger's work wasn't even translated to English and made available in North America until the early 1980's, so there are plenty of us adults being diagnosed now who were otherwise labelled with something else or no proper diagnosis at all. Surely that's increasing rates as well.

Never been studied, as far as I know.

Given the predominant theory that autism is polygenetic, an AS/NT marriage would more often result in milder, rather than more severe, autism in the children. (Just like a child of a black parent and white parent will usually be an intermediate skin tone.) AS/AS couples may have a greater likelihood of more severe autism in children, however. Although this would depend quite a bit on individual variation and chance.

Well, actually you are right, I was mostly following the trace of the OP.

On a non-atomic level one might argue that the living is trying to survive, which would be nature's "plan".

I don't see how Autism could possibly be a mechanism devised by mother nature to curb our growth.

To come to that conclusion, you would first need answer these questions: What is Mother nature? A sentient being somewhere somehow dictating nature? If it's not that then how could 'Mother nature' know there are far too many humans on this planet? How is this kill switch enabled? Why are some people Autistic, yet not others?

Those are just a few questions on what I'm sure is a very long list, the only thing I see Autism as, is a genetic difference, a possibility in the evolution of the human mind.

I tried looking for an answer. Google gave me many speculative articles on assortative mating but it looks like the rigorous statistics have not yet been collected. I say "not yet" because it does seem like an obvious thing to collect statistics on. At some point those statistics will be collected and analyzed. But it looks like now things are just in the speculation stage with people noticing broad trends and writing "maybe we should look into this" articles.

I don't subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis or Intelligent Design at all. But if I did, I'd wonder why simple infertility wasn't the "chosen" defense.

Wouldn't it make more sense if nature made more of us infertile?

I guess according to what people who work in evolution tell us, we evolved to make as many relationships as humans tend to make, in-order to reproduce many times.

Last edited by JellyCat on 02 Mar 2013, 3:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Nature, being an environment and not a sentient being, has no "way" or intent.

I think mother nature refers to the complex system/mechanism in/by which many things in nature are/seem to be controlled. It doesn't have to be an actual being with intentions like human beings.

For example the way a lemon tree sends signals to some predators of caterpillars (flies or something) when the tree has an overpopulation of caterpillars can be considered as mother nature's way of regulating the caterpillar population, hence pretecting the lemon tree. There is no being here apart from the lemon tree, caterpillars and the predators.

I think there are many such things happening in nature, even in human beings, not that I can provide any evidence for that right now. And the mechanism (mother nature) can contribute to evolution, too. So I don't think I can just flatly deny what the OP is trying to say though I can't simply say it's true.

A bit off the topic, but I just wanted to point it out.