Is the case for an Autistic country really that implausible?

Post Reply New Topic

Well... I did bash my own country too!

Okay- Im sorry if I offended.

in terms of alcohol consumption, I have heard anecdotal evidence that the Finnish are legendary...

Anyway, to digress back to the original topic I don't really see why it's a silly idea. The point about mutuality and equality cuts both ways; no, we are not superior to NT's but conversely NT's are not superior to us so why must they have mastery over every nation on Earth? Moreover, there have been much worse precedences for starting a country. Autism is a disabling condition primarilly for reasons relating to inter neurological communication and I am confident that us aspies and higher functioning autistics are more than capable, if not better equipped at taking care of our lower functioning friends. At least it is worth investigating, even if only on a macro scale as a experiment.

Go out with the average Moldovan and if you make it out alive, get back to me.

This.

Actually it is caused by genetics, how one experiances it can be influenced by social and environmental factors, but its not like if I didn't interact with NTs I'd lose all the issues that can come with being on the autism spectrum. I mean there are a lot of difficulties I have that have nothing to do with NT interaction like the sensory issues.........even in an autistic society I'd still have those, I'd still be slower at processing things, I would still be easily overwhelmed and have difficulties handling stress due to too much stimulation. I'd also still have the same difficulties with interaction like not being able to initiate interactions with new people.

I am sure a lot of NT interaction(though I doubt everyone who's ever caused me pain was nessisarily neurotypical) contributed to my co-morbid disorders but not the autism itself. Also what do you mean autistic culture? what would that even consist of....all most people of AS have in common is the same disorder and maybe some similar life experiences but its not like we have universal 'cultural' norms really.

I think what needs to happen is for our countries to educate young people/children about social interaction. If we had lessons in school all about social interaction just like we have maths or English then everyone would grow up with a good foundation of how to interact with others and would be able to recognize the difficulties some people have. This would bring about greater tolerance.

So it would be better to make our current countries a better place for those with differences to live rather than section ourselves off from everyone else.

They have mastery over every nation on Earth because they make up the the majority of the population on every nation on Earth.

Besides, a good amount of countries elect their leaders now. In theory, an autistic person could get enough voter support and get a position in the government.

"Running" a country is not like running a business. To have a viable country one needs a critical mass for population and a workable mix of skill and temperments. Establishing Nerdtopia as a legal and diplomatic entity is not sufficient. It has to be able to support itself.

ruveyn

There is a village in Britain called Botton that is basically a community for people with cognitive disabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botton,_North_Yorkshire

Ok, I know that is not quite the same idea.

Out of interest, here is a question for those who would support the idea of an autistic nation: what would you do if it turned out that most of the autistic couples in that nation gave birth to neurotypical children?

Great!

A secessionist movement.

Then maybe we could have autistic terroristists too!

This just gets better and better.

If you have any proof of that assertion, then you're a lock for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

We suppose that there is a genetic link to ASDs, but there is nothing beyond anecdotal evidence, and some trend data that suggests a genetic link. However, there is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate a genetic cause of ASDs.

the idea is that the NT world would keep producing more autistics who would migrate to 'Aspergia' keeping the proportion in check. I also think that in a genetic melting pot consistently so predominantly of autistic DNA, neurotypicalism would be as rare to the autistic society as autism is the neurotypical.

How would such a population sustain itself, and more specifically, how would it sustain itself as purely autistic? I'm not sure that if two autistic people have kids they're all going to be autistic too - is the gene dominant? Can recessive genes for NT skip generations?

The question is "is aspergers nature, or is it nurture?".

Saying its "not proven to be genetic" is irrelevent because the alternative ( thats its from upbringning) is even more absurdly untenable than the notion that its inherited.

So by default it is perfectly reasonable to state that "aspergers is genetic" because in the light of current knowledge thats the best explanation going.

But since we are on the subject- sweatleaf herself I think kinda misunderstand the post she was responding to.

The guy she was responding to wasnt really talking about the source of aspergers but its effect. He was saying that aspergers wouldnt be a noticeable condition- or that it wouldnt be a problem - if we all only had other aspies around to talk to. Not that the stress of talking to NTs causes you to catch aspergers.

Even that is hightly debatable. We dont necessarily communicate with each other any better than we do with nt's. And even if we did all communicate better with fellow aspies and did live in geektopia we still might not be able to create a functioning society. And if it did function would it really serve our interests any better than current society? I dont see any obvious reasons why it would.

That's sloppy thinking.

First, you are implying that nature and nurture are mutually exclusive; whereas there are, in fact, very few heritable conditions where genetic causation can be demonstrated independent of environmental factors. Haemophilia is the exception, rather than the rule.

Second, just because a condition is heritable (as ASD's certainly appear to be) does not mean that genetics is causitive. If that were the case, we would expect 100% concordance of ASD's among monozygotic twins. But, in fact, the number is lower--so there are cases of monozygotic twins in which one twin presents an ASD and the other does not.

Third, high heritability demonstrated through twin studies does not rule out spontaneous mutation as a causitive factor--and the anecdotal evidence suggests that there are a significant number of sporadic cases--people with ASD's who have no other family members who present an ASD. Mathematical models have suggested that perhaps as many as 25% with ASDs have inhereted a copy number variation.

So, realistically, a nation composed of people with ASDs would not be a closed population. The population would continue to produce neurotypical children; and neurotypical parents elsewhere would continue to produce autistic children.

Thanks for agreeing with my main points that (a) that they dont know what causes it, but (b) its basically inherited biologically (rather than a product of bad upbringing or whatever) so that saying its 'caused genetically' is acceptable.

you're sputtering with anger at SOMETHING I said, but you seemed to agree with me in the main.

But to change the subject slightly -that is one of the many problems with an autistic country. What would happen to NT children born in this country? Would they have to be deported?