Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neurodiversity

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Neurodiversity

#21

Post by WhitneyLand »

Like it or not Autistic people will be weeded out of society through fetal genetic testing or other interventions. It will be a net loss for humanity, but I don't think there's anyway to stop it.

It's a paradox in that it's nearly impossible to appreciate the value of neurodiversity until you build a close relationship with such a person.

My cousin Tony with Downs's would have most likely been aborted decades ago if a test were available. What no one knew is that he would become so kind, good natured, and socialable it would bring incredible joy and love to literally hundreds of family members and friends. There won't be too many like him from now on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/downs-syndrome-pe...

The paradox is that most families with Autistic or Down's children would tell you their lives have been greatly enriched. To outsiders it sounds like parents are in denial and blinded to their child's predicament. But it's not denial or sympathy, the value is beautiful, but invisible until you experience it.

Re: Neurodiversity

#22

Post by cmrdporcupine »

I once used the term "neurodiversity" in a meeting with the vice principal and a resource teacher in the context of the behaviour of one of my children. The knife-eyes and suspicious looks were amazing.

Lots of _talk_ in the school system about acceptance and anti-bullying, but I think our society has never been so intolerant of the diversity it claims to covet.

(We switched schools and things are much better now.)

Re: Neurodiversity

#23

Post by walshemj »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #22

I once used the term "neurodiversity" in a meeting with the vice principal and a resource teacher in the context of the behaviour of one of my children. The knife-eyes and suspicious looks were amazing. Lots of _talk_ in the school system about acceptance and anti-bullying, but I think our society has never been so intolerant of the diversity it claims to covet. (We switched schools and things are much better now.)

was that recently? I thought "neurodiversity" was the preferred term for conditions like dyslexia dyspraxia and so on

Re: Neurodiversity

#24

Post by jessriedel »

up_so_floating wrote: post #16
yummyfajitas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people uncomfortable with this? While it's not important enough for genetic engineering on it's own, I'd probably edit my children to be darker. Having spent a few days on the beach in Thailand, the genetic inferiority of my own fair skin is quite visible and painful.

Your body evolved skin to suit an environment other than a Thai beach. I would not consider that genetic inferiority.

Pale skin is thought to have evolved as a rapid (last ~5k years) and crude adaptation to avoid vitamin D deficiency shortly after farming was developed and allowed non-animal-based diets at the very high latitudes of northern Europe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved...

It is reasonable to think that there the significant drawbacks associated with that hacked-together solution are no longer necessary because modern diets easily give adequate vitamin D.

Re: Neurodiversity

#25

Post by harryh »

rntz wrote: post #9
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

This isn't as inconsistent as it seems. People would probably also be equally uncomfortable with both the idea of "editing" an embryo's genome to make it light-skinned, and the inverse idea of editing it to make it dark-skinned.

There is an Arthur C. Clarke short story called Reunion in which Aliens send a message indicating that humans are actually descendants of alien colonists and that the aliens have finally found a cure for white skin.

Re: Neurodiversity

#26

Post by yummyfajitas »

krapp wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people uncomfortable with this? While it's not important enough for genetic engineering on it's own, I'd probably edit my children to be darker. Having spent a few days on the beach in Thailand, the genetic inferiority of my own fair skin is quite visible and painful.

> Why are people uncomfortable with this? Some aspects of cultural, ethnic and religious identity are associated with and expressed by genetic factors like skin color. For African Americans, just to give an example, the premise of "editing" children to be "whiter" might appear to enable racial genocide. It doesn't apply only to skin color - some deaf people would consider genetically engineering away deafness an atta…

Normally "genocide" is considered bad because it results in living people being killed. I think we can all agree that killing a living person against their will is bad.

But with what you describe as "genocide," not a single person is harmed. To me, an African American person has the same intrinsic value as a white person or anyone else. Therefore, I can't see any particular reason why I should care if we have more or fewer African Americans in the world.

I'm familiar with the argument made by deaf people. But those advocates never seem to address the reversal argument; why shouldn't we also produce new deaf people (e.g. by sedating some children and painlessly puncturing their eardrums) in pursuit of this goal?

Re: Neurodiversity

#27

Post by internaut »

scalio wrote: post #4

The author has a point. As long as we don't understand how we're built and functioning, modifying our code is a bad idea. Learning by doing is only applicable when the thing in question is expendable, which is definitely not the case with the human genome.

Surely we have devised experiments for which the use of the human genome is indeed expendable? e.g. tissue cultures.

Re: Neurodiversity

#28

Post by jessriedel »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

Aren't those functionally the same thing? It reminds me of a debugging technique I sometimes use, to prove to myself I understand a complex issue I try to make it worse. If I can then I almost certainly understand how to fix it too.

GP comment is drawing out an ethical tension, not a technical one.

Re: Neurodiversity

#29

Post by musesum »

TL;DR CRISPR will lead to fewer people on autism/spectrum?

A friend mentioned his son is a bit "Aspy" - he said it with a bit of pride in his voice. Both father and son are brilliant coders.

Meanwhile, there's Modafinil. Originally intended as a treatment for narcolepsy, others use it to improve concentration.

I wonder if neuro-configurability will lead to less or more diversity?

Re: Neurodiversity

#30

Post by scandox »

I think we will start to limit our capability for diversity soon. Population control, anti-aging and direct genetic control will limit the opportunities for change. A case of our short term culture conflicting with our long term biology.

It's a pity because we will be less likely to ever become something we can't already imagine.

Post reply on HN