ruveyn wrote:
Krychek wrote:
...Just an aspie like one of us? He was the original/ultimate "loner".
Autism evolution is coming.
Evolution is driven by reproductive success. Those who reproduce pass whatever characteristics they have to the next generation. Those who do not reproduce do not pass on their characteristics.
Does Autism promote reproductive success? Auties form a very small proportion of the population. NTs are in the vast majority.
ruveyn
You seem to have jumped schools of thought again. You were going with "survival of the fittest", and here you are in "survival by reproductive success".
The match with the environment is very important, as, soon as the industrial revolution sputters to a complete halt, what was much of a genetic benefit, is going to become a drawback. Also, much of what is a genetic drawback under industrialism, is likely to return to being a benefit sans industrialism. Malaria versus sickle cell anemia "is" one of the best known examples, and diabetes is a lesser known example of the inverse.
The notion of the "individual" has also been confounded with the "group" (maybe all the way to the "species"), with the un-reproducing members of the extended family benefiting the reproducing members, which benefits the "whole". "Menopause" has been noted for evolutionary survival value under such considerations too:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/0 ... .menopause
With frequently fatal diseases being more opportunistic with social interactions, any inherent minimizing of needless social interaction may very well gain a tremendous survival value of "less than gregarious" groups of reproductive members. The collapse of industrialism making lone hunting for food and sparse gathering of plants more valuable for survival, will shift the benefit to the small proportion the most suited for such also.
Tadzio