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

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Neurodiversity

#41

Post by WhitneyLand »

throwaway87293 wrote: post #33
WhitneyLand wrote: post #21

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…

On the other hand I have heard more than once people who do sometimes very secretly confess they wish their cousin/brother/etc with Down's had been aborted. They always talk about all the love and joy and positive things too. But at the end of the day, they say, they think they would have preferred it the other way. But this is not pretty, and it's not something people like to talk about. So if you just take what peo…

Sure, there will always be people who don't make the connection. Just like there are people who scale approval of their children based on accomplishments in sports, academics, or whatever.

I'm pretty sure that's a minority though. I'm involved in an organization where I interact with lots of ASD families and anecdotally at least there are not many regrets.

The best way I know to explain it is this: http://www.our-kids.org/Archives/Holland.html

Re: Neurodiversity

#42

Post by drdeca »

krapp wrote: post #36
yummyfajitas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bear in mind that many people consider abortion to be murder even when the people it "kills" only exist in the theoretical future. It's not a rational way of thinking, but it is common.

I believe the usual argument is that the person already is a person, not that they could become one.

Re: Neurodiversity

#43

Post by nabla9 »

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?)

An illustrated transcript of a talk presented at the First Biennial Conference on Induc ed Humanoid Subspecies Peter Watts, Ph.D. FizerPharm Evoconsumables

http://rifters.com/blindsight/vampires.htm

http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/VampireDomestication.pdf

Re: Neurodiversity

#44

Post by philwelch »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15
rntz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Having spent a week in Cabo I agree with you, but having spent the entire rest of the year in Seattle I need all the Vitamin D I can get.

Re: Neurodiversity

#45

Post by drdeca »

harryh wrote: post #25
rntz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

, but we can already do that I think?

Like, I think taking some hormones can make one's skin produce more melanin .

Idk if one has to keep taking it or not to keep it up, but from the pictures it looked fairly thorough.

Re: Neurodiversity

#46

Post by duckingtest »

I don't think it's possible to edit autism out until it's actually understood on a mechanical level. It's likely that's what's now called 'autism' in reality are several completely different things with vaguely similar symptoms.

Once it's understood, I don't think it's going to disappear: positive forms of it (ie. milder Asperger's) are going to become a niche option for parents, along with high iq edits of course. The 'little Einstein' option on a menu.

Re: Neurodiversity

#47

Post by cb18 »

jessriedel wrote: post #38
Tycho wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying pale skin is a "hacked together" solution but modern vitamin supplements are not?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

No, what you're saying is that "hey look at me! I'm joining in and parroting the modern destructive and discursive forces and saying that nature in her infinite wisdom made my skin pale, but pale skin is bad, bad, bad, oh the noble savage, oh to not be so pale, oh and race doesn't exist, but hey let's disparage whites, and promote inflated and romantic notions of all other races. "

Oh, and also in this ridiculousness I was quickly caught up in a logical fallacy, but no, no "that's not what I'm saying."

crude adaptation

Who are to you to say what adaption is and isn't crude?

It is reasonable to think that there the significant drawbacks associated with that hacked-together solution

Uh yeah, highly doubtful

https://i.redd.it/iwhuv6wyklgx.png

And once again, how is pale skin a "hack-together solution" in some way all the other countless biological adaptations aren't?

Re: Neurodiversity

#48

Post by cb18 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15
rntz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Is this like reductio ad absurdum of PC signalling? Where do you spend the other 362 days of the year? In an environment that fair skin provides advantages for things like vitamin D production perhaps?

Re: Neurodiversity

#49

Post by duckingtest »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15
rntz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

What does it have with skin color? Just limit the sun for two or three days until you tan, no sunburns after that. It's not like Thais are black. Compare:

https://pixabay.com/p-199674/?no_redirect

https://tonycavanagh.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/5005.jpg

Hardly a big difference. For genetic modification, the best solution is to increase range of tanning rather than changing the constant. It's already possible to get black skin [0] with eg. melanotan-2, so it's not that big of a change.

[0] http://imgur.com/a/I428E

Re: Neurodiversity

#50

Post by cb18 »

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…

Skin color is a relatively minor component of race, race describes the clustering of a whole host of traits and characteristics in a group of individuals.

Yellow-skinned Africans would still be Africans, purple-skinned Asians would still be Asians, and green-skinned Europeans would still be Europeans.

Post reply on HN