Aspies For Freedom

I came across this issue of a scientific journal that is full of papers about ethics and assisted human reproduction. There are some pretty controversial arguments presented in many of these papers, judging by a look at the abstracts. One paper argues that parents should be able to choose the sexual orientation of their child, should this choice become scientifically possible. Another paper says we have a moral obligation to "enhance human beings" genetically and in other ways. Adolph would have liked that idea I'm sure. We could all be blondes without the need for dyes and peroxide!

Every one of the paper abstracts that I have browsed in this issue has a pro-eugenics conclusion, but in general the advocacy for the right of parents to make eugenic choices does not allow for parents' choice to choose genes that are seen as disabling or inferior. It's what I would call one-way eugenics, parents having the choice to choose what society favours, but not having the right to choose otherwise. This isn't really any different to the old style of eugenics as practiced by the Nazis or western governments in decades past, in which society's values were imposed on individuals' reproductive lives. I'm sure this is the kind of eugenics that we will get if genetic screening for autism becomes available, parents will only be given the right to choose NT.

When some crowd can hold a conference on such important moral issues and not allow for a genuine diversity of opinions, I think that's a worry.

Broken link
http ://www.rbmonline.com/4DCGI/Article/Detail?38%091%09=%201634%09

Anyone see the movie, 'Gattaca'?

I never saw the movie. Was it about eugenics?

No. But it was about genetic predetermining.  The natural borns (Invalids) can only get manual labor jobs while the genetically enhanced (Valids) can get the good jobs and the good places in society. The main character, a natural born, fakes being a Valid in order to pursue his dream--being an astronaut.  I thought it was a great movie.

It sounds like the Indian caste system, with psuedo-science used to justify it.

I personally don't believe good, genuine science would lead to that kind of scenario. At the moment there are a number of areas of science that are showing that commonly-held notions of race are scientifically meaningless. I believe that if it ever becomes commonplace for people to have their individual genomes analysed for "defects" or disease risks, a lot of people who thought that they were superior specimens of humanity will get a lot of big shocks. I can imagine a lot of snobs and high achievers being counselled not to have kids, and not enjoying receiving that unexpected advice. Genome analysis for individuals will lead to social chaos. I'm almost looking forward to it.

I can see it now--proud couple showing off their 'perfect' children only to have the children turn on them when they get older for being genetically deficient.  Unless they wait until they're about to die of old age before procreating perfect progeny (sorry, the alphabet game has gotten to me).

Here's a wonderful bit of irony to savour. The conference that I have written about, which included so many papers that seem to advocate eugenics, was held at the famous Royal Society in London.

One of the most famous past members and presidents of the Royal Society was Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a funny old thing, a loner all his life, bullied as a child, family relationships were cold and distant, few friends if any, never married, lead a reclusive lifestyle for substantial periods of his life, and many found him to be difficult or hard to understand as a person. Social stuff was definitely one of Newton's weakest points. Newton's participation in social life, as distinct from scientific life, can fairly be judged to have been unsuccessful by conventional standards, in fact a number of autism experts believe Newton was on the autistic spectrum.

Here is a quote from the abstract of one of the papers that was presented at the Royal Society in 2004:

So I can only conclude that this paper is arguing that if whatever it is that made Newton such a recluse and a loner was a genetically-based condition, like autism/AS, then it would not be a legitimate reproductive choice to deliberately choose an embryo that has the gene for it. So the author of this paper, presented at the Royal Society, is arguing that choosing a child like Newton through genetic selection is not a legitimate choice. He is arguing for the elimination of people like one of the most illustrious contributors to the society in which he presented his paper. Sounds like a huge case of ignorance or hypocrisy to me!

I myself wouldn't want to do without Mozart (especially!), I NEED Beethoven's 9th and his sonatas, Vincent Van Gogh, Charles Rennie MacIntosh, James Taylor, Neil Young, Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, Henry Thoreau, or Vincent Van Gogh and how many writers I've loved. And how about all the NTs that love or have benefited from Steven Spielburg, Jane Austen, Alexander Graham Bell, Einstein, Charles Schultz, Garrison Keillor, Bill Gates, Dan Ackroyd, Jim Henson, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie and other scientists, mathmeticians, various and sundry creative folks and who knows how many more?

Say, does the much beloved Dr. Seuss fit in here?

I don't know about Dr Seuss. What is his real name?

Neil Young and James Taylor I personally don't need the services of, but I couldn't get by without the music of that sour soul Morrissey, and I bet he's an aspie. When I discovered that Garrison Keillor and Orwell are thought by some to be aspies I was stunned, because they are two of only a handful of fiction authors that I have ever bothered to read.

If anyone is wondering what the world would be like now if Newton hadn't existed, they should read an article in the August 20 New Scientist magazine that answers the question of what would have happened if Newton had never gone back to publishing his science after leaving the world of science for 6 years in his early 30s. Here are some quotes from that article.

"Wouldn't others have made the same discoveries?" "My answer is no. There was something unique about Newton and the period in which he lived that made a huge difference."

"Newton's style of thinking was also unique. Only by abandoning familiarity and common sense could he invent abstract laws that covered myriad, seemingly unconnected phenomena and imagine forces, such as gravity, without any conceivable physical cause."

"We need another Newton like never before."

Orwell...of course!  I always thought the main theme of 1984 was not the person's loss of individuality in a Big Brother-type society but the main character's (i.e., George Orwell himself's) feeling of alienation. I got the sense that Mr. Orwell really felt alone.

Garrison Keillor has an audio tape of poems he's picked and reads.  I love it (and his soothing voice), have you seen it?  I play it on long car trips.

Dr. Seuss' real name is Theodor Seuss Geisel.  I love him, I learned to read with him. You don't have his books in Australia? I thought he'd be known worldwide.  He's known for his wonderful imaginative illustrations and children's books.  It's written that he was actually terrified of children, it was a supreme effort for him to write verse, he was a quiet but exhuberant man with a keen wit and biting (but never mean-spirited) sense of humor. (Maybe you could call his book Horton Hears a Who: Horton Hears the Autistic world)

Is the 'we need another Newton' idea presented to the cure people, as in: If we abort autistics or cure them, we may be obliterating the next Newton?

I've been wondering about the burst of talent during the Italian Renassaince.  I always thought it was strange that all of a sudden these artistic geniuses pop up and then disappear. Were Michalangelo or Da Vinci autistic?

We do have Dr Seuss books in Australia. If only I had a dollar for every time that I have been made to read a Dr Seuss book by the kids ... I know one of his books backwards.

The article about Newton that I cited the quotes from only mentioned the possibility that he was autistic in a little side comment "Isaac the Terrible.
Newton was notoriously cantankerous. Some historians now think he may have been autistic". I know a few people who could be described a cantankerous. I wonder if Newton gave ill-tempered monologues about the stupidity and bad character of his enemies? I can just imagine it!

I think I read a popular article in which there was speculation that Da Vinci might have been an aspie, based on his evident obsessiveness. We'll never know for sure.