Depends on what they're conforming with. If it's the laws of the country and they don't conform with them, they're in big trouble. But then again, what if the laws are unjust? It is a difficult area at times.

It it's something that they aren't even aware of, like unwritten social rules, what then?

For one, yes, people tried to forcibly "cure" homosexuality. There were therapists for it, and drugs too, and if you were a kid your parents could put you in therapy, and adults faced similar pressures. There are still some people who've been convinced that being gay is sinful and a mental illness that needs curing/saving them from.

Other people's thoughts can and do have significant consequences on us. It was because of other peers' thoughts that I was attacked on a regular basis in junior high and to a lesser degree in elementary school. It is because of what other people think about autistics that I have faced consistent harassment from school staff the last few years despite the overwhelmingly accepting nature of my fellow high school students.

As for genocide, there are a few points.

First, you don't have to eradicate EVERY single member of a group for it to be genocide - just the intent and the actual eradication of a portion, usually large, of that group.

It also does not have to originate from overt hatred, or for the perpetrating individuals and organizations to be malicious in intent. The threat of genocide to autistics is the melding of generocity and evil.

Also, anyone who thinks that a pre-natal test would be used only to help prepare parents and inform them early on, either has not seen the figures that 80-90% of babies pre-natally diagnosed with Down Syndrom are aborted, or they are hopelessly optimistic. Like I said, you don't need to get rid of every single member of a group, or line them up and shoot them, for it to be a genocide.

And there is no doubting the loads of negative imagery and descriptions afforded to autistics by the media. The more enlightened ones may have seen Rain Man or read an article in Newsweek that still leaves them with the dichotomous impression of autism as being either one or both of two things: a hopeless, tragic condition worse than death, or an eccentricity possessed largely by computer programmers and physicists.

My primary concern about relating the diagnoses of confirmed or likely autistic people such as Einstein, Dan Aykrod, or Bill Gates, is that people will then glom onto the latter stereotype. My best defense against this is to preface such a remark with "Of course, we're not all Einstein - who is?" (ignore the obvious literal answer that only Einstein is Einstein).

Another good way to counter and to balance this is through the increasing fame of autistic individuals who do need services, people who are disabled and proud, such as Amanda Baggs and Daniel Tammet. I think she's the most famous autistic person today living - probably a lot more famous than Vernon Smith, and an activist to boot (especially since the activism was what made people take notice). That way people understand that we're not a group of eccentric, Nobel Prize winners going on online forums and blogging about our self-evident right to existence (which really should be self-evident regardless of intelligence or material success, but some people have a hard time grasping this).

There seems to be some value in it, but the one circumstance I find it abhorrent is when someone says something along the lines of, "Autistic people shouldn't be eliminated because X was/is autistic, and they're a genius/celebrity." That argument is so worthless, not only because it's bull****, but also because it's so easily shot down ("Well, my kid is no Einstein, Gates...we're not talking about getting rid of your kind of people, just those kind.")

Basically, as long as it doesn't degenerate into that kind of scenario I put above, and as long as it doesn't divert useful time/energy from actual important causes, then it's not especially harmful. I don't see any use for further speculation, though, since we already know Dan Akroyd and Vernon Smith are official, and Gates and Einstein are highly likely (I relate to almost every single thing about his development and what he wrote of his perspectives on stuff, except that I started talking at an earlier age than he did). Incidentally, I always have found it odd when people equate the age you learn to talk with intelligence or something.

Considering Einstein's concern for social justice, I Somethings wonder what it'd be like if he were alive today, and an activist. Maybe more people would be aptention.

*[b]pay attnetion,]b[

I see there's someone sensible here at last

Earthmonkey, I mostly agree with you. The one thing I take issue with is your assertion that it's highly likely Einstein was an aspie--we've had at least one, possibly several long discussions on this (you can probably find them if you search), so I won't repeat myself too much, but suffice it to say that 1) I'm skeptical of diagnosis of people long dead, often people who died before the person making the diagnosis was even born, and 2) there's accounts of Einstein being pretty social.

And also, it's not clear from what you write about genocide whether you think there's an actual genocide towards autistics going on--if you think so, I'd take issue with that too.

Oh, and one more thing about Einstein: even if you have some example of eccentric behavior or weird social interaction, you must account for the fact that he's the archetypical genius. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk it up to AS when you're talking about a man widely regarded as one of the most intelligent people in the history of mankind. I'd be surprised if some strange behavior *didn't* result from that.

The interesting question to ask is not "Was Einstein eccentric because of AS OR high IQ?"

The interesting question to ask is "Was Einstein extremely intelligent and, more importantly, an original thinker, because he had AS or the broader autistic phenotype?"

I think the answer is probably "Yes". It's no coincidence that sensory hypersensitivity and other autistic traits are often listed as traits of intellectually gifted people in the popular and professional literature about intellectual giftedness. I think if you asked most AS experts whether they think there is a link between AS and high IQ, they would agree. One small study of the cognitive profiles of a group of people diagnosed with AS supports this. I heard one Australian autism clinician say on TV that his patients diagnosed with autism often have brilliant siblings. I believe Norman Geschwind's testosterone theory that has been cited as an explanation for autism and lefthandedness and other traits also included exceptional talents as "testosterone traits".

One does not need to prove that ALL autistic people are brilliant or capable to show that humanity cannot afford to eradicate autism genes. One only needs to demonstrate that most or many of the most important geniuses and leaders in the intellectual, literary, scientific and technological worlds are autistic to show that the NT world cannot get by without autism genes remaining in healthy numbers in the human gene pool.

So far in my list of "famous aspergians" (or whatever you may wish to call it), I have been able to include the cream of the greatest minds in physics, mathematics, classical music, many of the central players in formulating modern evolutionary theory and genetic biology (Darwin, Mendel, Rosalind Franklin), major pioneers of computer technology (Babbage, Shockley, Turing, Gates, Bram Cohen), some very substantial contributors to the world of literature, most of the most influential philosophers, many important politicians and some kick-arse kings and military leaders. No one could imagine how different the world would be today if these people had not been born.

The way I see it, the practice of identifying autistic traits in important and famous people is not as much about promoting the image of individual people, the real importance of this project is to make a point about the value and function of genes and syndromes and talents and behaviours. If anyone needs to look toward a list of famous people to justify their own existence to themselves or to others, they should seek the services of a counsellor. It goes without saying that all human beings should be valued as individuals. It is also an obvious fact that most people live and die without individually altering the course of history in a positive way, but a rare few people do, and we need to grow and value this kind of exceptional person.

The bottom line is; if the curebie evil empire succeeds in decimating the autistic gene pool, humanity will be a stagnant pool of mediocrity and cheap amusement. It will be like the way Cambodia now is after the Pol Pot regime has killed off most of the members of the thinking classes (a fragile dystopia).

whoa...member number 95....

back on topic;

I feel that, in time, even if a cure where to be found, they would come to realise this.

we are currently on target for Technological Singularity (2020); start taking aspies out of the equation, however, and you are looking at prolonging that duration.