I was watching a PBS program titled A Thousand Invisible Cords tonight; it described and discussed the concepts of community and ecosystem genetics.  It was mildly interesting until this particular segment caught my attention: two different pinyon pine species' genetic differences were described and compared.  One species was highly susceptible to a species of moth whose larvae burrowed into new growth and maimed or destroyed it.  The other species appeared to be virtually immune to the moths.  Now you'd think there was a eugenic slam-dunk here, right?  Get rid of the moth-prone species and keep the other!  Nope, not so fast....

It turned out that this "dysfunctional" or "disabled" species had a special talent under the hood: it was far more resistant to drought than its moth-deterring cousin.  So when times were good and adequate water was around, the first species suffered continual harassment while the other sat back and laughed; when times were bad the critters harassing the first species died off and let its ability to better conserve water shine through.

The parallel to debate about prenatal selection against autism, etc. should be obvious.  Autistic genes almost certainly lead to some of these hidden traits under the hood that would allow people possessing them to weather some adversity better than their genotypical peers.  Save this nugget under your hat for those arguments.

This post was last modified: 09-19-2012 06:20 AM by VulcanTourist.

Brilliant!

They gave me quite a hard time over prenatal testing.  I told them I had no interest in ending a pregnancy even if there were genetic problems.  I asked what the benefit would be in knowing other than for selective abortion, and they did not have a good answer.  I hope not, but I fear that it will be the same for autism one day.  Sad

Of course it will happen.  Psychologically, as a social and tribalistic species especially, we select for those who are most similar to ourselves; we do not value much diversity.  Too far off the statistical mean and it's got to go.  Homogeneity is the instinctive rule of the day.  Fortunately our ancestors never succeeded; if they had it would have been the end of us.  As a civilization we've learned enough scientifically to know that some off-the-mean traits like "gifted" intelligence are of great value, but ONLY as a civilization: the schoolyard peers of that gifted child care nothing for that and will still instinctively try to eliminate the one that doesn't fit the mold.  Bullies are the atavistic enforcers of that homogeneity.  In the very near future, though, with technology like prenatal genetic testing and manipulation of embryonic genes as a technologic bully, we might fully succeed in weeding out those who break the mold.  We'd better hope then that whatever historic adversity those pruned genes were able to resist is just historic and never again a threat to us.

I like this example. Unfortunately our culture is very aggressive against outsiders. Its actually the case that some other cultures do not view outsiders-behavior or personality instinctively as a threat. Some cultures may even see aberrant qualities as gifts, or magical or something. Our culture has had it driven into our minds that bullying is somehow instinctual, but don't believe it for a minute.

For example (to show you how cultural superstition and bias infect the sciences), it was also taught that homosexuality was somehow a gross aberration of human behavior, and thus any zoologicial studies of animal behavior had to be screened for mention of homosexual behavior, because it was not supposed to be natural after all. In a more recent example, there was a pair of penguins in a Canadian zoo who were homosexual. Zoo keepers decided it was somehow not natural and must have only occurred because they were in captivity.  On the other hand, another gay penguin couple in China started trying to steal eggs from hetero couples so they could become fathers (they obviously knew they couldn't make babies).

It is only recently that animal behaviorists are properly noting homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom. Scientists have noticed them for a long time, but like I mentioned they were no allowed to publish such "abhorrent" findings.

ANyways, be careful about what you read about human behavior...a lot of it is molded to fit cultural superstitions and fancies.

Regarding bullying, I wasn't describing what I had read; I was describing what I observed and experienced myself.  And STILL experience.  Your counter-argument against it being instinctive is too ambiguous and non-specific to make me reconsider, so my story is still the same and I'm stickin' to it: it's a descriptive instinctive behavior that SOME cultural ethics seek to prescriptively override... to a degree.  Have you been listening to "Everything Is Beautiful" a bit too much?

Never heard of "Everything is Beautiful". I'm just pointing out the limits of describing something as 'instinctive'. I've seen enough in my (short) lifetime to be convinced that a lot of "instinct" is fabricated by cultural norms. I've experienced it. And so, I currently remain skeptical when something is labeled as 'instinct'. In fact, I don't even use the term to denote something genetically inevitable anymore...I now use the term to denote something learned.

That is beautifully argued!  Particularly the part about the bullies.  I couldn't agree more, or said it better.
Alison

Thanks.  I've always known there's a bit of the bard in me... just don't ask me to try rhyming!

The best way to argue against autism eugenics is simple but unpopular, even on here.

The right to life.

Autistics cannot say its OK to kill a foetus because its inconvienient for the mother to have the child or for some other reason but she can't kill it because its one of us.

We can't have it both ways without sounding hypocritical.

You're wrong.

I would like that to be so.

It sounds hypocritical, but it actually isn't, we aren't saying that it's ok to have an abortion for any reason at all except for the foetus being autistic, in fact overall the views on abortion on AFF are probably quite mixed.

For myself, my view is rather simple - if there's neural tissue there then abortion should not be allowed unless there is a clear danger to the mother.

Even before that though, I do not believe it's a good thing to use abortions as contraceptive, but neither does anyone reasonably mature. I still would not propose banning abortion for those who use it this way though, and that's the key point - you can be against something without calling for a law against it.

I'd be opposed to any abortion where the sole reason was not that the pregnancy was not intended, or for the mother's health, but where the foetus is screened and found positive for autism - but it'd be pretty much impossible to ban this without also banning regular abortions.

This is why instead the focus should be on working against genetic research into autism - don't let the genes be identified in the first place. On top of that we need to spread social awareness of the issue and try to make people see it as a bad thing to abort due to autism.

Likes and wishes have nothing to do with it.  Anti-abortion and anti-eugenics are two fundamentally different issues.  The only basis I can possibly imagine for the two getting confused is extremists shouting at each other and invoking Godwin's rule.

We've banned firing people from jobs for the same basis, without banning firing people in general.  What's different about abortion?

The 'parallel' should be 'obvious'? Um, no. I just don't see it. What exactly are the 'hidden traits' you speak of? Comparing humans to trees doesn't exactly help your case either.