I've never liked the talk of "next step" evolution. Calling aspergers a new species seems to say it is not human, and there are many who would interpret that as meaning "not deserving of human rights."
Or that we're better than other people, because they "aren't as evolved", which is just as bad objectively--but worse for us, because it'll lead us to do unjust things.
I believe all sentient beings have rights according to their own nature and needs. That homo sapiens believes only humans have rights and other beings don't is not of my philosophical concern
Yeah, you see if it'll become "of your philosophical concern" once the rest of humanity decides, since we're not actually human, they're free to just remove us from life, for being a "potential threat" or a "competitor".
Sorry, but we're human. Might be variant, but still within the species H. sapiens. I can handle the most technical biological jargon. So go ahead and show me the science to dispute it. But a bunch of rhetorical hand-waving won't cut it.
As for your explication of "rights", it is fundamentally flawed, from its very premises. You say that we must have some special rights, such as "more clarity" or "less social contacts at work" or "less stress". "Rights" that apply exclusively to a minority are not rights at all, they are priviliges. Stand the question on its head.
Is there a "right" to "more clarity" to be reserved only for some, or is it a right to "the clarity that fits an individual best", which applies to everyone? Is there a right to "less social contacts at work" that only applies to some or is it a right to "the contact that each individual is comfortable with", that applies to everyone?
We can all still be human and have a right to "that which fits an individual best" without having to puff up and demand a special set of priviliges, all predicated on some sophistry of rejecting membership in the human species.
Why should humanity tolerate the "neurodiverse" at all, if they aren't even the same species? They can just be exterminated and exploited with the same moral rationalizations that work for every other species.
PS: Do plants have the right not to be eaten?
Excellent article from the Spring 06 edition of _Locus_ magazine
It's amusing, but it seems a bit, well, puerile. Promulgating ones existence as a member of the new "Master Race" just doesn't appeal to me.
Why should humanity tolerate the "neurodiverse" at all, if they aren't even the same species? They can just be exterminated and exploited with the same moral rationalizations that work for every other species.
This is why I said it is practically hard to accomplish at this time, but I'm working on it, and others are fighting too, not some lunacy of the few, but many many people (of whatever variant) are fed up with this anthropocentric attitude H. Sapiens has :wink:
PS: Do plants have the right not to be eaten
Plants aren't proven to be sentient/with feelings, many animals are. I do however oppose all forms of disrespect towards nature. Nature made us, she sustains us, without her we would not be, we should honour her and all which are part of creation. IMHO
Why should humanity tolerate the "neurodiverse" at all, if they aren't even the same species? They can just be exterminated and exploited with the same moral rationalizations that work for every other species.
This is why I said it is practically hard to accomplish at this time, but I'm working on it, and others are fighting too, not some lunacy of the few, but many many people (of whatever variant) are fed up with this anthropocentric attitude H. Sapiens has
We are all H. sapiens, whether we want to admit it or not. By every rational and logical criterion of species, there is insufficient grounds to insist upon a separation.
We are all H. sapiens, whether we want to admit it or not.
Even if so, not all are anthropocentric :wink:
geez, I think I read this very differently :roll: more neutral actually, as if he was describing everything 'others say' also because he mentions "labeled as" so I felt he was refering to how others describe aspergers and autism, that is in medical terminology, which he also mentions lateron "as a matter of medical definition".
he makes the statement that autism is a "Severe detachment from the world"
I thought he meant 'scientists say autism is...' that's how I read the first sentences at least. I don't think he clearly states anywhere in this article that he considers aspergers as something which doesn't have anything to do with autism (maybe I overlooked?) I even think he mentions some 'deficits' he has himself and then concludes that despite those he still feels it is ok to have aspergers. That's how I understood it (I could be wrong ofcourse). Plus the entire tone of the article is funny, he also contradicts himself at the end etc.
Then, I don't mind it anymore now when someone says I am 'detached from the world' - why unfair? Being attached to the world, only means being a materialist (seeking only money, food, status, sex), devoid of spirituality or inner depth, sensitivity etc. I think being detached from THIS world, is a compliment nowadays!
Calling it a subspecies, which is just another word for race, should have a lot fewer issues
exactly yeah, that was my point. tnx!
but naming it after asperger syndrome just leaves too many people out.
I agree. I also prefer the label 'autistic', but "Homo Autisticus" just doesn't sound too well... maybe we should drop the entire terminology others use and invent something completely new which we feel defines us much better? You also have the term Homo Novus (by Osho), which is more spiritual, but I don't know if we fully match his criteria. Better to invent our own!
But they are all arrays of autistic traits, and are all capable of worthwhile lives.
What do you mean with the word 'worthwhile' - how an individual experiences his/her own life (level of happiness), or how others value your life? (eg if you're productive/useful enough according to them)?
Then I have seen these spelling mistakes/options of asperger as well: Asburger and Asberger (as a person from/living in Asberg is called an Asberger, we might call our future community-town Asburg or Asberg, although Asberg already exists in both Germany and Austria. German Berg = mountain and Burg = castle)
...working on my thesis, I just discovered something cool!!
Actually, in Italian the name Asburgo means Habsburg!!! Heeeeey. There are our roots :lol:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asburgo
My bad. I was replying to a thread in another window. :oops:
I agree. I also prefer the label 'autistic', but "Homo Autisticus" just doesn't sound too well... maybe we should drop the entire terminology others use and invent something completely new which we feel defines us much better?
Insufficient grounds exists to deem us a distinct species. Likewise, the biological norms for subspecies are not met in our case. "Race" has no valid biological definition when applied to humans.
I don't know where the dividing line would be but I consider there to be one and as such will never refer to myself as Autistic but as an Aspie. This is not done to dengrate anyone who use or is 'Autie' but a simple social preference of mine.
Yeah, I would go with the idea that we are a variant within the human species rather than a separate species.
That's my opinion, too. I think of aspies /auties as homo sapiens sapiensis aspergerii/autistensis (I think that's the right biosystematic definition...). Well, actually it was just a joke for me and some aspie friends but at the moment I'm thinking seriously about this idea. Maybe one day science will know different human variants. Only a daydream? Let's talk about it in a few ten years... ;-)
"Next step in evolution"? I don't think so. We're just as advanced as the rest of humanity.
But there's no denying that we're different.
Aspies are a more specialized form of human. We're nowhere near as far away from generic humanity to say we're a different species, though. We still interbreed; we still share a common language; we still love and live with and enjoy the company of NTs.
It's kind of like dog breeds. You breed a dog to herd sheep; he isn't any better or worse than one you bred to retrieve ducks. And neither of those specialized breeds is any better or worse than a generic mutt with genetics from all over the place, no specialized natural talent, and a lot more flexibility.
We're like the purebred dogs of humanity... We're specialized. We gave up the versatility and toughness of the generic human, in exchange for high level of natural talent in isolated areas. There are more specialized "human breeds" than just Aspie--ADHD, dyslexia, and many forms of learning disability and inborn personality disorders confer both weaknesses and strengths onto the human possessing those genetics.
Like a purebred dog, we're prone to problems based on our specialization. Many dog breeds are associated with medical problems, with temperamental vulnerabilities, or with special needs when it comes to feeding and grooming. We Aspies are like that, too. We have vulnerabilities and medical problems and special needs.
And yet, people still breed dogs; and people who use working dogs use dogs bred for those purposes. Why? Specialization. If you buy a beagle, you can be pretty sure it will have a good nose and a talent for tracking. No such guarantee with a mutt. You just put up with the baying and the difficulty of obedience-training; because you want a beagle, and the benefits don't come without drawbacks.
The world is growing ever more specialized as we grow ever more interconnected. A hundred years ago, people made a lot of the things they needed themselves, and things you ordered from across the country were special. A thousand years ago, self-sufficient communities were the norm. And ten thousand years ago, we were entirely self-sufficient, living in family groups. Today, people are insanely specialized. One person is a part of a global community, providing services to thousands of people and receiving services from just as many.
This specialization is essentially creating "human breeds"--just the way that dog breeds are created. People gravitate towards what they're skilled with; and they meet other people skilled with the same things. They marry; they have children; and over the generations, "breed traits" are created and intensified. Aspies are just one such breed, introverted, intellectual, obsessive, logical; we fill the niches that require those traits.
If the world becomes ever more interconnected and the trends in commerce and production which now exist continue to exist, NTs--the adaptable, hardy "mutts" of humankind--may become just one of many breeds, no longer the majority.