Autism A Risk To National Security?

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sse0CXDuv64[/youtube]

The politics of autism are riddled with adversity, special interest and within context to mainstream politics subject to interpretation(s). Autism as a concept and not a person to me is a puzzle. Despite being diagnosed with autism and reading some generalized material about what it is I cannot really say ultimately what it is. I am not a scientist but am avidly interested in social psychology and the construct of human thoughts. It was made aware to me the idea of autism being a national security concern due to costations.

I cannot ultimately determine when their is high functioning autism especially who has autism and not ultimately. Especially when people say they have autism, had autism or are autism and goto college and are able to carry on a career. What about those who cannot and what % of people diagnosed with autism spectrum continue on from childhood and become self-sufficient.

In autism politics two issues go together and can be confused with one another quite easily. The autism abortion issue and the portrayal of autism for reasons of self-esteem. Should it be for the reason solely of quality of life it is my belief those able to comprehend, speak for themselves and function in the real-world to the point of self-sufficiency would not complain so much about autism and positivity. However these two issues of abortion and self-worth cannot be easily separated and special interest in mainstream politics has already used the issue to advocate against quality of life funding.

I do not like false fact and lack patients when ultimately analysis requires a conclusion. I get frustrated with other self-advocates, media and disability organizations quite easily with social issues. In the sense of the word autism is a disability. However from an atypical point of view autism is a difference that has yet to be embraced, appreciated, accepted and helped to adapt in so called normalcy. As a disability autism acceptance might be obliged should what defines disability as a disability and within certain influential social circles this also is for quality of life and in the best interest of governmental fiscal stabilities. Without a societal acceptance of not only autism but other non-pain inducing developmental differences (said disabilities) like seizure disorders and other conditions of pain and a societal change for inclusion the national security risk is not just indifference but perhaps an unwillingness to societally be more evolutionarily intelligent as a species.

Nathan Young

If autism can be a risk to national security, then the term "risk to national security" has lost all definite meaning within its context.

I mean seriously, what the hell? What, you think some autistic person's gonna strap on a few pounds of C4 and some wires and blow him/herself up in the middle of D.C.? I think we're the last demographic that needs to be considered with this so-called "profiling."

I'll tell you right now, the real risk to national security is gonna be my foot up the ass of the first politician stupid enough to suggest this.

Another Nazi politician who wants to eliminate autism. Oh, yay...NOT!

Risks to national security are sometimes explained as obviously "costs" and not bombs.The rise of oil prices are considered potential risks to national security.

I don't see any Nazi's. You should watch the movie Shutter Island.

It probably does cost society money, but probably less than smoking, obesity, drug addiction, and other behavior related problems. It is no more a threat to national security than the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, global communism, or the Soviet Union.

So despite the trillions others say autism will cost which can be debated because their is a lack of embraced diversity which would lower such projected cost it is still yet like many other things a national security risk?

I don't know what you mean a national security risk. Like terrorism, espionage, and weapons dealing?

I do think the Soviet Union was a thing to be afraid of. Hindsight is always 20/20, and they were more than willing to sacrifice their own for whatever cause was driving them. I mean, read about the Ukranian Holocaust. However, the Red Scare was total BS and hurt way more people than it helped. That's fear mongering for you.

Autism epidemic debate. Autism as a difference or a disability. Hmm.... there are a-holes that would advocate for abortion, like what happened to Down Syndrome babies and the pre-birth test. However, there's a lot out about autism now that hopefully it won't be such a big issue if a pre-birth test does occur, thanks to advocates for those with autism. However, there's still a lot unknown about autism and even about those on the spectrum. Some aspects of autism are indeed debilitating, such as sensory issues and/or working through social situations. Autism varies from person to person. But, it's how the person passes through the world. Along with the diagnosis of autism, there can be epilepsy, as well as intellectual disability. But, without autism, there are still people with those conditions. But, even though a person has this thing called autism doesn't mean they are completely useless. So, finding a way to communicate and be taught independence is essential. Since autism affects development, there are areas of a person that needs help. It's finding how to help that has been challenging.

Wonderfully, adaptive skill-teaching to those with intellectual disabilities have helped them become more independent. As a result, after time, they don't need as many services. Costs are cut, and these people go off to lead freer lives. It's way cheaper and 1000% healthier than institutionalization. No one's "changing" anybody, they're just learning new skills. The same can be done for those who are less adaptive. As in, those who have more difficulty coping for whatever reason. I work in a school where those functional skills are taught, as well as a bunch of other fun stuff, like art and music. It's all part of the spectrum. Sensory issues are helped as best as possible -- fidget toys, ear muffs, vests, etc. But the arts are taught so that the kids can express themselves and the result has been phenomenal. The art is really beautiful, and some are really talented. One has even become a community artist and did a mural, as well as many other things. So, differences are embraced, no one is being "changed."

The people who are predicting rising costs are possibly predicting based on the increase in ASDs. I don't know if they are accounting for the variety of differences on the spectrum. Also, there's a whole lot more out there, like Speech, OT, various types of therapies and interventions, aides of all sorts, equipment, etc. I wonder how much will actually be taken into account, as there is the friction between the advocate and the school system. School district won't want to pay so much, but the parent will advocate for as much as possible. Hopefully the most cost-effective methods will result. So, I'm wondering how much this will actually cost. I doubt people with less issues will really sum to $50,000 or whatever they're estimating now-a-days. Supporters of ABA advocate for 40 hours a week, but that's not the only method out there. Not everyone will go for 40 hours a week, though.

I'm not really sure how this connects to National Security. What did you mean by "evolutionarily intelligent?"

National security is a vague terminology. If for reasons of quality of life for instance a disease, disorder and or difference manifests adaption problems with the reduced ability to be so called productive it is a national security risks due to costs. If a strain of the flue virus was created in a laboratory or manifest naturally that decreased national productivity with the length of symptoms it is considered a national security concern as well as public health concern. Autism being a national security risk is not a result of people with autism strapping on bombs over the abortion issue and blowing up abortion clinics. However from a strictly costation point of view and as well as a societies unwillingness to include those with these differences to create productivity thus reduce national costs this is a national security concern. The national security concern of course is not strictly autism itself as a concern but a lack of societal and cultural adherence to the principles of diversity.

No - Autism is not a difference that costs society money.

55% [ 5 ]


Right now the people or people that may understand why people vote this way need to explain themselves in order to figure bias.

1. Self-esteem, self-image and dignity is a bias to fact as it is purely emotion.

2. Special interest will refrain from this point of view due to direct costations of inclusion with perceived reduced potential profitability with bias to externalize the costs to tax-payers. I.E kind of like walmart on healthcare. IE competability in a cultural standardization toward diversity inclusion with competitors of similar business models which one would include more and perceive a reduction in potential competability thus survivability in evolutionary social psychological terms.

3. Typological competitiveness between groups of people. I.E those of certain functionable classifications which are typically more present in these types of online and offline conversations. If a job placement can happen that on average meets the skills and adaptive tolerability of a cognative sub-type and a more capable person refused to goto college he or she is in competition with a general societal macro adaption considered a diversity and as well as national security issue.

Alright so I waited over 24hrs for some replies. The other side of the issue is that of dignity. Also blaming children for being a risk to national security likely is not a good idea. As a whole take for instance the cost of running the government when the nation is going broke. It's a risk to the stability of the nation thus the ability to defend the nation. All the things required to run the nation including social services which commonly is the first to be cut over that of let's say fruit fly research collectively are technically a risk to national security as a whole. Compared to all of the other things the cost of autism is very small. However that does not mean it is unpatriotic to help include people with autism and other developmental disabilities into job placements that end up becoming partial to full self-sufficiency for that individual.

It's common sense. Yes autism like many other things is a risk to national security but more so is the greed, intolerance at times and lack of knowledge resulting in discrimination that would reduce collective budgetary risks. A person with autism for instance innately is not themselves a risk to national security like a terrorist is. It is not ethical to think a person with autism themselves is the risk but the condition and as well as a lack of subscribed diversity and outreach culturally is resulting in reduced sufficiencies or said efficiencies.

Nathan Young

People capable of independent thought are a risk to national security. You should all be assimilated, it's for your own good.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Before I wrote the reply I was thinking about if somehow a broken nail on a toe could somehow be a risk to national security. Then perhaps a fly. It's just one of those things. After 9/11 risks for national security were assessed in lots of little things. I can remember how those in national security were suffering from anxiety at times.

Really independent thought in of itself is a liberty less it results in a risk but should someone not be able to think harmfully? However thinking for oneself is not an actual risk. As for Benjamin Franklin it could be said that the actual risks are a result of a lack of embracing equality for those with disabilities and not the differences in of themselves. Do people have the freedom to not include? You did state independent thought is a risk to national security but yet used the quote of the past president. If those who think for themselves at times do not deserve liberty or safety then there is no freedom to think freely to begin with.

In order to be politically correct it would seem people have to vote against fact or redefine national security. However calling a disorder a national security concern in which people want to view the label as a gift and whom do not see the entire truth for reasons of bias, do not wish to see the science, want to prevent prenatal testing and desire to see it only as a personality will not derive productive debate. The fact is like many other things but not like a broken toe nail or flatulence Autism is a national security issue but not simply because of autism itself.

The national security and public health issue is multi-diverse. Firstly from a purely cultural circumstance it is not polite to call it in of itself a national security concern but in a cultural context a lack diversity of inclusion is the central national security concern from a purely fiscal point of view in which society is not optimally adapting evolutionarily. Secondly the idea of calling autism a national security concern collectively despite the other times people are traditionally defined extremely beneficial to society and whom have it is a risk to the emotional security of the autism group. The idea of being referred to as a national security risk may create depression with perhaps a potential suicidal result in some as a result of a lack of subjectivity due to pride but not the sole fault of the condition but a lack of a societal adaption.

Thirdly look at the facts. Autism costs society money collectively as a condition on average and when it does not there is a lack of needed services and support on average. As a national security risk it greatly differs from Osama Bin Laden for instance which is a hardened physical risk with malicious intent. People with autism can be such wonderful people in spite of a disability as defined by the law. It is not the fault of people with autism.

Compromise: Autism is a risk to national security just the same as the government is a risk for wasting money.

What is the meaning of this? Those saying autism is not a national security risk are in denial of basic causal principles. However a lack of adaptive societal diversity is either the root of the problem, part of the problem or the entire problem. Ethically the existence of diversity cannot be blamed for it's exclusion and said risks.

Nathan Young

No one in America uses the term national security that way. National security is for issues of either international threats to the country or to internal issues with terrorism. You cannot redefine a well established concept and then berate people for being 'wrong' according to your redefinition when they use the accepted definition and then disagree with you. I've noticed that you do this frequently. Also, your example of oil as to why costs = national security is invalid, because we get oil from countries with whom we have issues of terrorism, that is why an increase in oil prices are a threat to national security. An increase in the price of corn or soybeans (both heavily sourced domestically) would not be, and neither is the cost of assistance for people with ASDs.

National security has meanings outside of terrorism such as with diseases or whatever may impair the public. It's not the traditional usage because like the toe nail remark it would be overused. But in the sense of fiscal security the issue of autism and inclusion is a national stability issue fiscally. More so considered in the realm of first public health but the costs of things related to autism is quite high and is a stability issue and public health issue having to do with quality of life. I cost somewhere around $60,000 - $70,000 a year and I believe the stability issue could be corrected with appropriate public discourse, embracing inclusion and increasing a constructive awareness of autism along with it's diversity concerns respectfully.

With the recession people are worried about social services which keep on getting cut. I think it would be a win win situation in the long-term if we found ways to prevent such instabilities and quality of life concerns if the issues are addressed. Ultimately all social services and assistance mandates could be cut leaving hundreds of thousands deprived. It is something I worry about on a daily basis and would not be fair to myself or others to not take it seriously to correct the problem in its many facets in the long-term. Yes indirectly a national security concern only in some contexts though not politically correct but ultimately a duh for those disagreeing.