Another save the world from autism website

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks, dalurker and Kangoogle

You have a good heart Alba!

Thanks Chuck, I appreciate that.

de nada!

Best wishes to you in your life, dalurker.
Chuck

I am pro cure. There is a lot about humans that should be fixed at any cost.

The only problem is those who are trying to do it with words, or letters, DNA, Stem Cells, Cold Fusion, Zero Point Energy.

Take DNA, there is no way to reprogram every cell, and if there was, it would most likely cause death.

It could be used to thin out the gene pool, but ours is the result of apes having sex with their sisters and we are very thin already. According to The Human Genome Project, most Europeans come from one small group, less than 100, who were very closely related, line bred for many generations.

This line is so thin that any loss could lead to a total future failure of the species.

It has produced some art and science of note. It has also dumped it's most worthless scum on the shores of America, which grew into the largest and most advanced economy on the planet.

While Europe was sure they were improving things by getting rid of the worst and keeping the best, Science, Technology, and Invention soon were American lead.

It also seems that England that lead the world in books, Science, knowledge, turned stagnant. They kept the best and still, Made in England, stands for the best in coachwhips and sealing wax. They have become a beer museum.

America kept moving everyone who did not fit in west, and they came up with skateboards and home computers.

While there were studies of autism, The Inquision kept records, the type case in America, the first modern outbreak that was then studied, was at a place called Silcone Valley. Later centers were found in Redmond Washington, Round Rock Texas, and then around Universities.

Later studies found Autism everywhere they looked. 25% of the population shows some traits.

If a prenatal test was possible, if we could read DNA, it would most likely say that University professors should not have children.

Stem Cells have not produced anything except being used to upset the religious right and the Pope.

The idea might be sound, if you started a cell culture line from the placenta at every birth, and kept it going for the life of the person, and someone figures out how to make it do something useful.

A cure is simple, first you identify the condition, not in words and letters, but in Biology.

What is Autism?

Then you identify the cause, it's genetic?

Then you look at the role it plays in the Human Genome. Can the species survive without it?

That we will not know till after we eradicate 1/4 of people. 100 years of prenatal testing.

What we can be sure of is that any change to the DNA pool will change the entire future.

It may well end it, but that is better than Autism.

If anyone would like to fund my research, I think the answer lies in English beer museums, and I will go and make a study.

It's interesting to see that we're now speculating on the lives of dogs as well as autistics so I imagine that the discussion is making headway.

I realize there are many individuals on the autism spectrum who are more challenged than others, but I personally perceive autism as a "neurological difference" rather than a disorder. Whether we have Asperger's, PDD-NOS, or Classis Autism---it is still autism. I have autism (AS) and I see myself as different rather than having a disorder. I have just embarked on a music ministry on my hammered and mountain dulcimers. I am working on a five minute slide show which I accompany with my music. I am showing pictures of my childhood with text slides dealing with autism awareness (not on treating autism as a "monster" that must be cured).

Not everyone here seems to have the same level of reading comprehension skills, that's pretty obvious. Amazingly so. The educational levels also seem to be disparate. Given that, this post may or may not be pointless.

To take this all in a wildly different, but parallel track for introductory purposes: I have spent many decades associating closely with animals, by preference, over humans. I primarily have spent time with cats, dogs, rats, and birds. While I'm new to interacting with birds, and am only learning the basics of communication now with finches (including the complex wing displays, body posturing, vocalizations, and other components of their language), I can say with some certainty that I'm more of an expert communicating with cats and, to a lesser extent, dogs, than I am with humans. From what I've observed, these other creatures have "feelings", emotions... they dream (I watched a rat make the motions of holding and eating a seed this evening, with delight evident from the body posturing and whisker display, and I've watched cats and birds grieve after the death of a companion). Given all, I find communicating with animals preferable to communicating with people.

Still, every now and then I'll make the effort....

As to changing/curing/fixing: First, to subscribe to the that mindset one must think there's something inherently wrong with a person whose condition, whatever it is, leaves those wanting the "fix" is uncomfortable. That would be in the mind of the person holding the "fix 'em" viewpoint - they're the one making the judgment call in that argument. They obviously would have some deep need to believe this way or they wouldn't subscribe to such a strong position. Given that, it's highly unlikely that reasoned argument will lead them to believe otherwise. The thought process seems to be much like I've seen when people discuss "religion" - each is sure that they know what is "right," what is "truth." The same goes for those who are "anti-cure", as far as the "need" part goes.

Is living a life in an institution worse than living life "on one's own"? That would depend. Only if one holds the belief that one must live a life that meets a set of standards that includes the "on one's own" criteria, and if life in an institution or a dependent life is not up to those standards could one say that it was worse. If one does not hold those beliefs, such a life would not necessarily be unpleasant or undesirable. If one is not capable of discerning the difference, the scales tip toward not undesirable. (Similar logic to the "if you've never seen in color, you don't miss color.")

I don't expect everyone who reads this to be able to make the jump, but I'll give it a go anyway, just in case. This will require some extrapolation. For a very small but more tangible example of the line of thought: I've met people who are just horrified at the thought that two siblings would have to share a bedroom. When I've pointed out that I shared a bedroom, and, indeed during particularly cold spells when we were without heat, a bed with my sister as a child, they react as though I've just confessed to having lived in a situation seriously close to child abuse/neglect. It's all relative - what they think is horrible leaves me shaking my head at them, wondering what kind of bizarre construct they have of what life "should" be.... To them, poverty was something horrific. For us, it was simply a lack of money. We thought their sterile lives of sleeping in separate, impersonal rooms was pathetically sad. It all depends on where your points of reference are. Work it out.

Were my uncles unhappy in their institutional placement? No, actually, from what I've been able to find out one was happier there and the other didn't know the difference. For the first, his world was more ordered, he was not expected to try to fit into a larger world that would not tolerate his differences. For the second, his placement kept him safe from those who behaved much more like the term "animals" towards him than any animals I've known act towards each other.

Would I have wanted the hypothetical magic shot for my uncles? I'm not a terribly religious person, but let me say that they were who they were, and it was not for me to say that either was "insufficient" and that I thought who they were needed fixing. God chose to create my uncles as they were. The first was not unhappy. That's good enough for me. The second one's unhappiness didn't come from within him, it came from "society" and the intolerance he found in it. To me, that doesn't indicate my uncle needed "fixing." I'd say it was the other party in the equation who needed reordering.

Would I have been happier having been institutionalized? At various times in my life, I think the answer would probably have been "yes." I would have welcomed the shelter from having to deal with people who were not familiar with my behaviours and needs and who discounted my abilities. Do I want to change, would I take the "magic shot"? No. I'm not unhappy with myself. Looking back over my 50+ years, I can honestly say there was never a time when I would have wanted it. What I wanted was for other people to accept me as I am. Always. My unhappiness did not, from what I can remember, ever really come from my limitations in themselves. It came from the reactions of and interactions with the people around me. Everyone has strengths, everyone has limitations. It's rather amazing how some are socially acceptable and some are not. Would my uncles have wanted the shot? There's no way to know.

I see nothing wrong with trying to change society towards being more accepting of neurodiversity. I believe someone called someone else here, a few pages back, something akin to an idiot for thinking change possible. I disagree. But I do acknowledge that these things come slowly.

There was a time when women had no vote, no rights, and were considered property in this country (USA). They were assumed to be inherently weaker - there were "scientific" papers published that "proved" that they were mentally incapable of intense intellectual pursuits, for example. Today we have Sally Ride and a whole generation of young women who don't even comprehend that such a society ever existed.

There was a time when persons of color were considered to be inferior to caucasians. They were thought to be, by their genetic nature, shiftless, mentally deficient, untrustworthy, prone to alcohol abuse. There were "scientific" papers published that "proved" these facts. There were laws on the books to keep the races apart, for "our" safety. Please feel free to bring that up to President Obama at any point here folks - and then tell me societies can't change.

The only reason there is a President Obama, the only reason Sally Ride is the head of a highly technical research center (and has been to space and back) is through the constant pressure, the incremental changes made by a society that has been constantly pushed, needled, and cajoled into allowing these changes....

Did it happen overnight? No. My grandmother could not vote until well after she had her own children. When I was young I was denied admission to the only university in my state that offered the career that I was hoping to follow because I was a women, and the school was "men only". Yet I voted this year, as did my daughter. She would easily be admitted into that same school as had once turned me down, if she had an interest in that career. Her best friend is a brilliant young woman who happens to have ancestors who came from Africa. Things can change.

There are still people alive who don't believe women should vote, that blacks are inferior, that some segment of society isn't capable of [fill in whatever component you'd like]. There always will be. I refuse to allow them to control my mind - they may make it difficult for me to survive in their world, but I'm perfectly fine avoiding it as much as is humanly possible and am happy in my own. I have learned over the years how to function in that other place just as much as is necessary to get the financial resources to avoid it. It works for me.

And with that, the cat needs attention and my tea is ready. Take the above for whatever you can use, as it's all I have to say regarding this thread.