Metabolism of autism reveals developmental origins

Because pathologizing and aiming to "treat" behavioral characteristics that are not only not harmful, but actively beneficial in many cases, is completely and utterly absurd. It'd be akin to something like, 'Oh you seem to be oddly content with your life. Have you gotten yourself screened for stoicitis? I hear there's some treatments available.' It's just nonsensical.

The reason behavioral characteristics are pathologized is because they near invariably result in "meaningful" harm to an individual or to others. And "meaningful" isn't a guy saying mean things because he doesn't care about your emotions, but rather a schizophrenic deciding to go start killing people because the voices in his head told him to.

> you have to report mileage for insurance and registration

You don't necessarily have to report mileage for insurance, it only happens for registration when the vehicle changes ownership, and in either case that is the mileage on the vehicle rather than the driver. Someone who drives 100,000 miles a year might very well be doing it in multiple different vehicles.

> Even if you drive 100k miles in 5 years, you should not have 5 accidents that were your fault. That's just insanely unsafe.

It's not a large statistical sample. A large proportion of the people it happens to will be drivers of average skill operating under conditions with above-average risk. Being an unsafe driver isn't the same thing as driving in an area with unsafe intersections.

> The cause isn't determined by luck or number - it's determined by the facts that show you or the other person was at fault (or that nobody was at fault).

Most of these investigations are cursory unless someone dies, and under those conditions they're basically impossible to get right except by chance. One car rear-ended the other, the driver in front says the other one was following too closely, the one in back says the other cut them off and then slammed on the brakes, there were no unbiased witnesses. Whatever goes into that report is going to have the accuracy of a coin flip if the accident isn't one that warrants a thorough investigation -- and even then there may be no way to ever know what really happened.

It’s one thing to prevent being born with hardship and preventing being born at all. Which is the case with Down’s screening.

But it’s not that I’m against it or wanting to forbid it. It’s that these are very tricky subjects with a lot of very hard moral issues that need careful consideration. In the end I believe it should be about letting people have a choice and to remember that people are human even if they are different. To not take away someone’s agency.

Depends. Cool cyborg eyes, better glasses, cataract surgery, retinal detachment surgery, etc. are not eugenics, so they're fine to advocate for. Heritable genetic modification, embryo selection, sterilisation campaigns etc. are eugenics, and advocating for them will do more harm than good.

Visual impairment isn't, afaik, something the eugenics bad guys are focusing on at the moment – though it was in the past – so they're not likely to twist research into the sorts of things that get bowdlerised out of history textbooks. (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5225285/ exists, but there's no organisation seeking legal permission to electrocute non-compliant blind children.*) So even if you keep it vague, advocating for "curing" blindness is unlikely to be seen as, or act as, advocating for eugenics; likewise, research into the developmental origins of (say) congenital cataracts is mostly safe.

Eugenics is when you take measures that improve the overall fitness of the human population. In other words, eugenics is when you decide which kinds of people should and shouldn't exist.

There are people with skin so fair that it burns in even moderate sunlight – even through clothing –, leading to an increased incidence of melanoma. This is associated with the Asp294His polymorphism in the MC1R gene. This would be very easy to "cure"… and I really wish, as a species, we had the capacity to say "hey, option's available to anyone who wants it, but we won't force it on anyone". But if we had that technology today, you know it would be used in some tired plan for ethnic cleansing, where the cruelty is the point and the costs don't matter. Every time we have some scientific (or cultural) advance that can be construed as legitimising such actions, people attempt it.

And maybe we'll grow past that.

---

*: since they've come up in the thread before, I feel obliged to note: Autism Speaks' PR machine is, surprisingly enough, on the right side of this particular child torture issue.

> Even if it's not accurate for everyone, it's accurate enough for vast majority of people.

It has to be accurate for everyone. You're talking about imposing a restriction that amounts to house arrest for anyone who can't afford a city apartment or a chauffeur.

> Even if you talk about someone cutting you off, that doesn't happen often.

I see that you have not experienced the wonders of New York traffic.

> You aren't going to get 5 "coin flip" accidents in 5 years.

If you flip a coin 5 times in a row, the chances of it coming up tails every time is 1 in 32. Against a hundred million drivers that's a lot of people.

And that's assuming it's fully random and not e.g. you have the first two falsely attributed to you at random, at which point investigating officers see your record and become biased to finding you at fault in any case going forward.

> If you really think that fault will be attributed to you incorrectly that often, then your insurance will surely go up, so you already have a dash cam to protect yourself from this existing reality you are peddling?

People don't think it will happen ahead of time, they realize it can happen after it already has.

US motor vehicle laws are also (presumably intentionally) designed to let the police come to any conclusion they want as a pretext for searches or revenue-generating citations. For example, hardly anybody follows the speed limit, so if you drive below the speed limit then you're impeding the normal flow of traffic (nominally a violation), and causing a (real) hazard because other cars will bunch up and perform lane change maneuvers to go around you. It's also "suspicious"; the people who do it are disproportionately drunk or in possession of contraband. But if you drive with the flow of traffic then you're speeding which is also a violation.

A dash cam might then help you if an accident is caused by the other driver doing something egregious, but if it's caused by e.g. bad road design and the officer is nonetheless expected to assign fault to somebody, now you're handing them a pile of evidence from which to identify common violations. It's not obvious that it helps you.