Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ worik 13 hours ago

That seems far fetched, I hope it is

But given that autism seems largely genetic in origin, and RFK has promised a cure, then eugenics is not far fetched

▲viraptor 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every week a far fetched thing happens for the last few months. Somehow people keep saying the far fetched things will not continue to get too evil...

▲cjbgkagh 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have autism and in my case it’s clearly genetic given that I also have hEDS which is a common comorbidity that is autosomal dominant. The RCCX genetic theory of giftedness does appear to explain what I’ve been about to observe in myself and others. I’m less familiar with the more extreme levels of dysfunctional autism.

On one had the poor health sucks, on the other hand being gifted is pretty fun.

With the less severe cases that I’m more familiar with I think it is largely treatable, I’m on a long list of meds that have been pretty effective for me. It would be great the end result of this initiative would be the spreading of existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge.

With modern understanding of medicine and genetics people can be helped in ways they could not have been before - which would obviate the need for eugenics.

▲cratermoon 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> That seems far fetched

"It can't happen here"

▲voidspark 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲Vortigaunt 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If we were back in the 1930's would you be worrying about the rate[0] of people being diagnosed with left-handedness?[1]

[0]https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image...

[1]https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...

▲voidspark 13 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲viraptor 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The rate of autism DIAGNOSIS has increased

Before we had lots of people who everyone knew were "a bit weird".

▲voidspark 13 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a meme, not based in reality or scientific data.

If that was true, then 70 year olds would have the same increase in autism diagnosis, but they have not.

Nonverbal autism has increased significantly, by at least one order of magnitude. There is no way anyone could have missed that.

▲kadoban 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

~Nobody is diagnosing 70 year olds. Children get looked at _far_ more than anyone else, anyone older that would have been diagnosed has learned to cope, died or been written off by society in one way or another.

▲o11c 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And let's not underestimate the influence of "died" on statistics. People with autism tend to die either before age 40 or before age 60 (it is strongly bimodal, depending on comorbidities).

▲voidspark 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am talking about severe cases where they need full time care for their entire life. Nonverbal. Obvious. Impossible to miss.

Autism ranges from mild to extremely severe.

▲saxonww 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the answer to your question is that most people impacted to the severe degree you're imagining don't live till 70.

I don't know what the condition was, but I had an aunt who was affected by 'something' and was disabled in many of the same ways you imagine; she was nonverbal and needed full time care from a young age. She lived to 43, and towards the end they had to put in a feeding tube for her.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Have you ever personally seen a 'severe case' of autism where someone needs full time care for their entire life? Where are you getting your information about the degree and prevalence of this?

2. Putting "cases are clearly on the rise" alongside "where are the 70 year old severely autistic people" implies that you (via RFK Jr.) think that the number of severe cases is on the rise, not just that more people are being diagnosed with some level of autism. Do you know severe cases are on the rise, or are you (or RFK Jr.) just making some assumptions?

The reason I ask #2 is that the 'severe autism' we're imagining in this narrative would be, as you point out, obvious. But what if our understanding of symptoms has gotten better, and we're diagnosing more not-obvious cases, i.e. not severe cases.

Please keep in mind that the first person officially diagnosed with autism only died a couple of years ago. Donald Triplett. He lived to be 89, by the way.

▲voidspark 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Have you ever personally seen a 'severe case' of autism where someone needs full time care for their entire life?

Yes I have seen it in person. Search on YouTube to see what "profound autism" looks like.

https://youtu.be/9Wx5cdjJ0Cg?t=1435

▲ 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲ 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲viraptor 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Post those statistics then, that account for all the changes in the criteria, tested population, extended reach/understanding, starting to include women, and still show the 100x increase. If couldn't be missed, someone showed that with proper data, right?