Electroconvulsive therapy right into your brain - Elon claims BCI can solve Autism

[LAwLz]

16 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i not for genetically altering iq because that will greatly increase the gap between rich and poor and shut down social mobility. and the way of thinking that people that are different eg have autism, are minorities, etc are inferior is very much dangerous and caused much more problems than the people who are different

So you do not want technological and human progress because you're afraid only the rich will have access to it?
Damn, we better stop developing computers too. We should stop developing faster CPUs because only the rich can have access to them!

We should stop researching cancer treatment because in the US only the rich might have access to it!

 

"Only the rich might have access to it" is a terrible argument for why we should not strive for technological improvements.

 

 

15 hours ago, Sauron said:

You answered positively to the idea of aborting babies because they have Down syndrome, that's not "changing a few things about yourself" my dude. You're contradicting yourself. Not to mention the things you're advocating for don't include a choice - you don't get to choose what gets "cured" out of you.

No, I answered positively to a very serious disease almost being wiped out.

I am not exactly thrilled that it is being solved by abortions and would rather see it solved by a "magic pill" like I've described several times in this thread. But abortions are the best we got right now, and at the end of the day providing information to the mother so that she can make an informed decision whether or not she wants to keep the baby is a good thing.

 

If you are against what's happening in island then you are for keeping information from parents which could cause them to want an abortion. We should provide future parents with all the info they want and that's possible, so they can make an informed decision about if they want to keep the baby or not.

Stop advocating for not letting parents abort children they do not want.

 

 

15 hours ago, Sauron said:

Oh yes it does, you might want to read up on mad houses, lobotomies, nazis killing disabled people, babies being abandoned... this style of thinking has caused immeasurable suffering and I can prove it.

You're confusing "think this way" and "act a certain way". They are not the same thing.

 

 

15 hours ago, Sauron said:

https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/people-with-disabilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#Prevalence

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-tragic-tale-of-chinas-orphanages-98-of-abandoned-children-have-disabilities/article17625887/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_asylum#Eugenics_movement

 

Do you have any statistics showing people with Down syndrome tortured and/or killed hundreds of thousands of people?

Again, you're moving the goalpost. First you said "thinking this way has a negative impact" and then you link to articles about ACTIONS from people who may think in similar ways. However, you are missing the crucial part where these things would not happen if there were cures for the disabilities.

Stop lumping me, who says "I would like a curse for these diseases, and I want future parents to be able to make informed decisions if they want to keep a child or abort it" with horrible people who throw away their children to die because they are not satisfied with them.

No wonder you disagree with me when you have completely misinterpreted my points so horribly badly.

 

 

15 hours ago, Sauron said:

Same idea, different method.

Yes, which makes all the difference.

Holy crap are you for real right now? The method of achieving something can dramatically change how "right" an action is.

Giving someone a pain killer and killing someone both "helps relief pain" but, but in your eyes they should be the same because "yeah sure, the method is different but they achieve the same thing so therefore they are the same!".

The method of achieving something is VERY VERY IMPORTANT.

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 and at the end of the day providing information to the mother so that she can make an informed decision whether or not she wants to keep the baby is a good thing.

 

 

 

That informed decision would be:

 

"Maddam, your child is going to be autistic.  That means they could be needing full time care the rest of their life or they could seem normal with no outward signs or they could be mildly anxious or they could be severely anxious or they could be the next CEO of apple or MS or they could be an Einstein or Newton or they could be less than academic but really good at piano or even a variation of any or all of those things.  Would you like to abort"? 

 

How helpful.

 

 

 

 

[Sauron]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But abortions are the best we got right now

No, they are not. The best we have is letting them live their life.

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you are against what's happening in island then you are for keeping information from parents which could cause them to want an abortion. We should provide future parents with all the info they want and that's possible, so they can make an informed decision about if they want to keep the baby or not.

NOPE, you don't get to frame it as simple information to the parents when they're being encouraged to abort. Also if the only reason they want to abort is that they can't be arsed to care for the baby just because it has Down syndrome then the solution is for the state to provide support and if necessary take care of the baby directly, not to get rid of the baby. Abortion rights exist to protect women, not to pick and choose which babies get to be born according to some made up standard.

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

That informed decision would be:

 

"Maddam, your child is going to be autistic.  That means they could be needing full time care the rest of their life or they could seem normal with no outward signs or they could be mildly anxious or they could be severely anxious or they could be the next CEO of apple or MS or they could be an Einstein or Newton or they could be less than academic but really good at piano or even a variation of any or all of those things.  Would you like to abort"? 

 

How helpful.

Also, imagine this in another context:

"Madam, your child will be gay. Would you like to abort?"

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You're confusing "think this way" and "act a certain way". They are not the same thing.

Thinking leads to acting, or are you saying you're for this but wouldn't act in a way that would make it happen if you could?

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, you're moving the goalpost. First you said "thinking this way has a negative impact" and then you link to articles about ACTIONS from people who may think in similar ways. However, you are missing the crucial part where these things would not happen if there were cures for the disabilities.

There are no cures for things like autism because they are part of who that person is. What you're proposing is akin to "curing" someone from their personality. I'm not moving any goal posts, you're the one who is gradually retreating from obviously untenable positions into something that seems more acceptable but actually isn't.

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No wonder you disagree with me when you have completely misinterpreted my points so horribly badly.

I don't know dude, your points seem pretty clear to me and it seems I'm not the only one who sees it this way. Perhaps you haven't made yourself clear and what you actually believe isn't what you've communicated but I can only answer your posts for what they are, not what they might be.

38 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Giving someone a pain killer and killing someone both "helps relief pain" but, but in your eyes they should be the same because "yeah sure, the method is different but they achieve the same thing so therefore they are the same!".

Except the analogy here would be you advocating for completely removing pain from the human experience, which would be both unnecessary and an actual problem. The goal of painkillers is to alleviate the pain when it becomes unbearable, not to get rid of pain as a concept. In much the same way, taking appropriate care of disabled people is great and necessary; completely getting rid of people with personality defining "syndromes" is cruel, unnecessary and inhumane.

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The method of achieving something is VERY VERY IMPORTANT.

Not if the thing you want to achieve is the problem in the first place.

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

"Only the rich might have access to it" is a terrible argument for why we should not strive for technological improvements.

I thought you were the one striving for as little suffering as possible, no matter the cost...? I'm pretty sure a future where the upper class gets to be both vastly richer and also genetically tweaked while people deemed genetically "inferior" are treated like cattle isn't exactly suffering free. You know how racists like to argue that people with different skin colors are genetically inferior? Imagine making it true, except this time it's not just people of different skin colors but anyone who isn't filthy rich. Technological progress is important insofar as it improves the human experience, not for its own sake.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

So you do not want technological and human progress because you're afraid only the rich will have access to it?
Damn, we better stop developing computers too. We should stop developing faster CPUs because only the rich can have access to them!

We should stop researching cancer treatment because in the US only the rich might have access to it!

 

"Only the rich might have access to it" is a terrible argument for why we should not strive for technological improvements.

 

 

No, I answered positively to a very serious disease almost being wiped out.

I am not exactly thrilled that it is being solved by abortions and would rather see it solved by a "magic pill" like I've described several times in this thread. But abortions are the best we got right now, and at the end of the day providing information to the mother so that she can make an informed decision whether or not she wants to keep the baby is a good thing.

 

If you are against what's happening in island then you are for keeping information from parents which could cause them to want an abortion. We should provide future parents with all the info they want and that's possible, so they can make an informed decision about if they want to keep the baby or not.

Stop advocating for not letting parents abort children they do not want.

 

 

You're confusing "think this way" and "act a certain way". They are not the same thing.

 

 

Again, you're moving the goalpost. First you said "thinking this way has a negative impact" and then you link to articles about ACTIONS from people who may think in similar ways. However, you are missing the crucial part where these things would not happen if there were cures for the disabilities.

Stop lumping me, who says "I would like a curse for these diseases, and I want future parents to be able to make informed decisions if they want to keep a child or abort it" with horrible people who throw away their children to die because they are not satisfied with them.

No wonder you disagree with me when you have completely misinterpreted my points so horribly badly.

 

 

Yes, which makes all the difference.

Holy crap are you for real right now? The method of achieving something can dramatically change how "right" an action is.

Giving someone a pain killer and killing someone both "helps relief pain" but, but in your eyes they should be the same because "yeah sure, the method is different but they achieve the same thing so therefore they are the same!".

The method of achieving something is VERY VERY IMPORTANT.

Re: the rich:

A not worthless point.  The whole unequal access argument is a classic.  It’s a problem no one has been able to solve.

 

re: Down’s syndrome is a “disease”

it’s not a disease and it can’t be “wiped out”. It’s a genetic mutation. A pretty serious one that happens when gametes don’t combine or split right. It’s endemic to the way reproduction happens.  It will always exist. This seems to be an argument in support if rather than against abortion.

 

re: more magic pills

Still pushing your magic pills I see.  Won’t be any magic pills for this one either.  Seriously. Dump the whole magic pill concept.  It’s a path to ugly.... and I see you’re already getting rid of it. “Abortions are the best way we got right now”. The magic pill is already gone to exactly the place it’s detractors and ignorers said it would.  Magic pill theory is now simplified to a problem already solved.

informed parents:

goes to original purpose of abortion: protecting women’s rights not creating boutique babies.  This method has caused a serious problem in China and India already because it was being used to abort less “valuable” girl babies.  There was a Sci-fi book about this concept in the 50’s. “1984?” Or was it the other one?  I forget.

 

re: thinking vs acting

a good point though a narrow one.  You then ruin it by conflating diseases and disabilities again.

 

Re: misinterpreting points and euthanasia.

 Seems at least to me @Sauron (or was it @mr moose? It’s getting confusing) may have interpreted your points better than you did.

its never pleasant to have that happen to one.  Your righteous anger maybe isn’t particularly righteous though.

 

 

 

 

[Sauron]

43 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There was a Sci-fi book about this concept in the 50’s. “1984?” Or was it the other one?  I forget.

More to the point, there's a movie called "Gattaca" specifically about designer babies

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

More to the point, there's a movie called "Gattaca" specifically about designer babies

Yeah, they do a lot of remakes of books in Hollywood.  Still can’t remember the other book name.

[The1Dickens]

So, wild thought: what if 'solve' doesn't mean 'cure'? Re-reading the excerpt, and Elon says he hopes to 'solve' autism, schizophrenia, etc. What if he meant 'solve' in the sense of, like a puzzle, we obtain a complete vision or understanding? I mean, we have 'solved' plenty of human puzzles, such as how does food get digested, how does the eyeball work, etc., so it's not too far-fetched to see it from that angle, to me, anyways.

[dalekphalm]

I can understand the argument against administering a treatment (regardless of type) against a person's will - but the idea that we shouldn't even try and prevent autism is... well kind of insane.

 

Sure, those of you who have it and are well adjusted? That's cool.

 

What about the 45 year old adult who has severe autism, and needs full time care by a professional? He can't be left unsupervised for long periods, can't work, can't do a lot of things by himself.

 

That person, if we could develop some kind of treatment to either alleviate their symptoms (effectively "curing" them, for lack of a better term) - or perhaps preventing those symptoms in the first place?

 

Yes. That merits further research, 100%.

 

Autism IS a spectrum. And not everyone on it can function in society, let alone without a full time carer. Especially if diagnosis could be improved to the point where we could get a fairly accurate guess as to how severe a person might be affected by autism.

 

I get that this is a touchy subject for those who have autism, or those that have close family or friends affected by it.

 

Which is why we need to think about this calmly, and logically. Emotions run strong, but they also cloud judgement.

 

I don't support forcing a "cure" on people that don't want it - especially if there's no way to tell whether the person will end up with severe autism, or if they will end up fairly well adjusted. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore the possibility that autism could indeed be prevented or highly mitigated, for those who have a severe form of it.

 

Edit: Also I saw someone mention the whole "X-Men cure" thing as some kind of argument against "curing autism" - yeah, Storm, who is a person who can literally control the weather, doesn't want the cure. Sure. She doesn't think there's anything wrong with her (why would she?).

 

But Rogue - especially as she is depicted in the movies? Where she literally kills anyone she makes physical contact with for too long? She might fucking disagree with Storm (and in the Movie, she did disagree).

 

I get the whole love thyself principle. And that's important - especially for things we can't change. But if I'm affected by some mutation (call it a disease, call it a mutation, whatever) that means I can't hold hands with my fiancee or can't kiss someone without them fucking dropping dead? And science invents a way for me to stop that? I wouldn't even hesitate (assuming I had full knowledge of all possible side effects, risk levels, etc - any kind of "cure" needs to be well researched before it becomes a publicly available treatment).

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

So, wild thought: what if 'solve' doesn't mean 'cure'? Re-reading the excerpt, and Elon says he hopes to 'solve' autism, schizophrenia, etc. What if he meant 'solve' in the sense of, like a puzzle, we obtain a complete vision or understanding? I mean, we have 'solved' plenty of human puzzles, such as how does food get digested, how does the eyeball work, etc., so it's not too far-fetched to see it from that angle, to me, anyways.

You're giving him way too much credit

 

@dalekphalm the problem is that things like autism are effectively a part of a person's personality. Sure, treatment to alleviate the downsides are always welcome, but ultimately if it changes the person radically then it's going too far. The fact that they can't have a full time career is only a problem because we see it as such - who says you need that to be happy? Since when does a person's value depend on how much money they can make for someone else?

 

As for the X-Men, that's the cool thing about it - there's nuance to the topic but ultimately it's not the X-Men who should have to change, it's the society that shuns them for who they are. But of course, having the possibility of doing something about it wouldn't be a problem, it's the forcing part I have the biggest problems with; and heavily autistic people would probably be unable to give informed consent.

[dalekphalm]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You're giving him way too much credit

 

@dalekphalm the problem is that things like autism are effectively a part of a person's personality.

That's fair enough, but I also don't see the inherent problem. If we discover a treatment that can make all the bad parts of autism go away, even if it changes the persons personality, that person should have the right to try the treatment if they so desire.

Quote

Sure, treatment to alleviate the downsides are always welcome, but ultimately if it changes the person radically then it's going too far.

Why? If it's their choice, why do you get to say it's too far?

Quote

The fact that they can't have a full time career is only a problem because we see it as such - who says you need that to be happy? Since when does a person's value depend on how much money they can make for someone else?

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the kind of person with Autism that has no job, and literally needs another human being to follow them around all day, make their food, help them dress and clean, etc.

 

Sure they might be happy, but a person with severe mental retardation might also live a super happy life - that doesn't mean we should stop work to prevent severe mental retardation.

 

Note: Just to nip this in the bud, I'm not comparing autism of any form to severe mental retardation. It's just an analogy.

Quote

As for the X-Men, that's the cool thing about it - there's nuance to the topic but ultimately it's not the X-Men who should have to change, it's the society that shuns them for who they are. But of course, having the possibility of doing something about it wouldn't be a problem, it's the forcing part I have the biggest problems with; and heavily autistic people would probably be unable to give informed consent.

If we could develop methods that can accurately diagnose autism and the severity of it from either pregnancy or near after birth, I would 100% be okay with parents making that choice for their child. They make every other choice for the child already.

 

Though regulations would need to be put in place surrounding how and when intervention might be considered ethical. Anyone who is an adult would have to consent, for sure.

 

But I don't support government forcing parents of autistic children to take this mythical kind of hypothetical cure - though I imagine many would anyway, if it were available.

 

And that's ultimately my point. Autism, especially in the more severe forms, can have a lot of negatives. That can sometimes outweigh any positives. If we can potentially develop some kind of treatment to make the negatives go away, we must further research it.

 

If it ends up being snake oil? So be it. Nobody is talking about forcing unproven "treatments" with unknown outcomes on autistic people.

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

the danger is that it could increase stigma of autism. rn most reasonable people would tolerate people with autism since they cant help it but if theres something that can remove autism then attitudes will shift and people would do more to discriminate against people with autism. and what if it doesnt stop at autism when are we going to start talking about making people who are introverts into extroverts because thats going to be "better for society" and people stop tolerating people who are socially awkward since it can be "cured". 

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the kind of person with Autism that has no job, and literally needs another human being to follow them around all day, make their food, help them dress and clean, etc.

 

Sure they might be happy, but a person with severe mental retardation might also live a super happy life - that doesn't mean we should stop work to prevent severe mental retardation.

 

Note: Just to nip this in the bud, I'm not comparing autism of any form to severe mental retardation. It's just an analogy.

I know what you mean, I just... disagree. Small children aren't autonomous, that doesn't mean they need to be "cured". A severely retarded person may have the cognitive functions of a small child but they'd still be a person. Obviously these conditions often come with some pretty severe side effects that don't have much to do with who they are as a person and if you could cure those aspects that would probably be great - but acting upon people's brains to this extent seems unethical to me. After all, lobotomy already fulfills some of the criteria you mentioned: it reduces the "negative" side effects, the patient doesn't directly suffer and it makes it easier for carers, at the small cost of that person's identity.

 

Also, where do you draw the line? When does autism become too severe and according to what criteria? How do you make that call on a fetus? Environmental factors play a huge role on people's mental development, it's not just genetics.

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

If we could develop methods that can accurately diagnose autism and the severity of it from either pregnancy or near after birth, I would 100% be okay with parents making that choice for their child. They make every other choice for the child already.

Radically changing their children's identity is a little beyond what I'd allow of parents. Yes, they make a lot of choices for their children, but there are still boundaries.

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's fair enough, but I also don't see the inherent problem. If we discover a treatment that can make all the bad parts of autism go away, even if it changes the persons personality, that person should have the right to try the treatment if they so desire.

Which I said I agree with. I don't agree with forcing it on anyone, including children and fetuses - and if the person is unable to give informed consent then I wouldn't want anyone else to make that call for them.

[Bombastinator]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I know what you mean, I just... disagree. Small children aren't autonomous, that doesn't mean they need to be "cured". A severely retarded person may have the cognitive functions of a small child but they'd still be a person. Obviously these conditions often come with some pretty severe side effects that don't have much to do with who they are as a person and if you could cure those aspects that would probably be great - but acting upon people's brains to this extent seems unethical to me. After all, lobotomy already fulfills some of the criteria you mentioned: it reduces the "negative" side effects, the patient doesn't directly suffer and it makes it easier for carers, at the small cost of that person's identity.

 

Also, where do you draw the line? When does autism become too severe and according to what criteria? How do you make that call on a fetus? Environmental factors play a huge role on people's mental development, it's not just genetics.

Radically changing their children's identity is a little beyond what I'd allow of parents. Yes, they make a lot of choices for their children, but there are still boundaries.

Which I said I agree with. I don't agree with forcing it on anyone, including children and fetuses - and if the person is unable to give informed consent then I wouldn't want anyone else to make that call for them.

Re: ethics.

 It is ethically difficult anyway.  Luckily there are medical ethicists weighing this stuff.

 

My only point I guess bout this whole thread is that medical ethics specialists should be involved.  There appear to be differing views on what the best course is. 

 

[dalekphalm]

31 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

the danger is that it could increase stigma of autism. rn most reasonable people would tolerate people with autism since they cant help it but if theres something that can remove autism then attitudes will shift and people would do more to discriminate against people with autism. and what if it doesnt stop at autism when are we going to start talking about making people who are introverts into extroverts because thats going to be "better for society" and people stop tolerating people who are socially awkward since it can be "cured". 

Indeed, and that's a consideration to keep in mind while research continues. It does not, however, constitute reasoning to stop research.

 

There's a difference between an introvert and someone who literally can't function on their own without outside aid and full time intensive care.

 

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I know what you mean, I just... disagree. Small children aren't autonomous, that doesn't mean they need to be "cured". A severely retarded person may have the cognitive functions of a small child but they'd still be a person.

Are you saying that if tomorrow, a researcher came out with some treatment that would "cure" severe mental retardation, and give that person the possibility of restoring their cognitive function to human standard (100 IQ, for lack of a better term), you wouldn't support that? Yes, it would severely change that person's personality. For the better, I'd argue.

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Obviously these conditions often come with some pretty severe side effects that don't have much to do with who they are as a person and if you could cure those aspects that would probably be great - but acting upon people's brains to this extent seems unethical to me.

Why does it seem unethical to you? Obviously the ideal is to treat all of the negatives without any side effects. However, given that research into this is in it's infancy at best, we won't know the outcomes for probably decades.

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

After all, lobotomy already fulfills some of the criteria you mentioned: it reduces the "negative" side effects, the patient doesn't directly suffer and it makes it easier for carers, at the small cost of that person's identity.

Some of the criteria is a key point. Does a lobotomy improve the life of the person? It certainly wouldn't make them more intelligent, and likely wouldn't make them better integrated into society. It would essentially keep them as a full time cared person, but without some of the quirks of autism. That's not a treatment, and no one is advocating for that.

 

"Curing" autism in a severely affected individual would cognitively allow that person to experience live in a much more full manner.

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Also, where do you draw the line? When does autism become too severe and according to what criteria? How do you make that call on a fetus? Environmental factors play a huge role on people's mental development, it's not just genetics.

All true facts. But, those questions are asked every day with all kinds of treatments. And there's no one clear cut answer, in most cases. We can only make the best judgements we can, and we can only take those ethics into consideration before making recommendations on whether a treatment should be provided.

 

You weigh the pros and cons.

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Radically changing their children's identity is a little beyond what I'd allow of parents.

In limited cases, I would disagree. If my child were severely mentally disabled, such to the point where they were essentially a vegetable in a wheel chair, unable to talk, comprehending reality at an infant's level of intelligence, etc - and some treatment came along that could restore their cognition to full levels (or even just the possibility of such), as long as the risks with the treatment were acceptable, I would take it. And I wouldn't care that I'm changing their identity, since I would believe it was in their best interest.

 

Obviously that kind of thing needs to be carefully considered though. Just because it's okay in one circumstance, doesn't make it okay in all circumstances. Just like all kinds of treatments.

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, they make a lot of choices for their children, but there are still boundaries.

There are - but I suppose I feel that the boundaries are more liquid than you do.

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Which I said I agree with. I don't agree with forcing it on anyone, including children and fetuses - and if the person is unable to give informed consent then I wouldn't want anyone else to make that call for them.

A fetus isn't a person yet, so I support the parent making an informed decision based on all available evidence, assuming treatment is well researched with all known side effects listed. For a child? It would have to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: ethics.

 It is ethically difficult anyway.  Luckily there are medical ethicists weighing this stuff.

Ethics have always been difficult in science. It's a major consideration for any ethical scientist though - but just because there's a difficult question, doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to answer it. We need to weigh and consider the possible ethical considerations carefully.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I can understand the argument against administering a treatment (regardless of type) against a person's will - but the idea that we shouldn't even try and prevent autism is... well kind of insane.

 

Sure, those of you who have it and are well adjusted? That's cool.

 

What about the 45 year old adult who has severe autism, and needs full time care by a professional? He can't be left unsupervised for long periods, can't work, can't do a lot of things by himself.

 

That person, if we could develop some kind of treatment to either alleviate their symptoms (effectively "curing" them, for lack of a better term) - or perhaps preventing those symptoms in the first place?

 

Yes. That merits further research, 100%.

 

Autism IS a spectrum. And not everyone on it can function in society, let alone without a full time carer. Especially if diagnosis could be improved to the point where we could get a fairly accurate guess as to how severe a person might be affected by autism.

 

I get that this is a touchy subject for those who have autism, or those that have close family or friends affected by it.

 

Which is why we need to think about this calmly, and logically. Emotions run strong, but they also cloud judgement.

 

I don't support forcing a "cure" on people that don't want it - especially if there's no way to tell whether the person will end up with severe autism, or if they will end up fairly well adjusted. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore the possibility that autism could indeed be prevented or highly mitigated, for those who have a severe form of it.

 

Edit: Also I saw someone mention the whole "X-Men cure" thing as some kind of argument against "curing autism" - yeah, Storm, who is a person who can literally control the weather, doesn't want the cure. Sure. She doesn't think there's anything wrong with her (why would she?).

 

But Rogue - especially as she is depicted in the movies? Where she literally kills anyone she makes physical contact with for too long? She might fucking disagree with Storm (and in the Movie, she did disagree).

 

I get the whole love thyself principle. And that's important - especially for things we can't change. But if I'm affected by some mutation (call it a disease, call it a mutation, whatever) that means I can't hold hands with my fiancee or can't kiss someone without them fucking dropping dead? And science invents a way for me to stop that? I wouldn't even hesitate (assuming I had full knowledge of all possible side effects, risk levels, etc - any kind of "cure" needs to be well researched before it becomes a publicly available treatment).

This is what I have been saying too, but people have been strawmanning it, calling me a fascist, comparing me to Hitler, etc. Apparently curing someone with autism is the same as gassing a jew during WW2. And yes, I am not exaggerating, that's what people have said in this thread (I even had to ask if that person was serious, several times).

 

But I took it a step further and said that the 45 year old adult who need full time care by a professional should probably be forced to be cursed, because I don't think they can make that decision themselves. I see it as the whole vaccination debate again. Vaccines are forced by law because people who are scared make decisions which are bad for everyone.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

If we could develop methods that can accurately diagnose autism and the severity of it from either pregnancy or near after birth, I would 100% be okay with parents making that choice for their child. They make every other choice for the child already.

 

Though regulations would need to be put in place surrounding how and when intervention might be considered ethical. Anyone who is an adult would have to consent, for sure.

I've already taken this stance in this thread. The counter argument is that abortion shouldn't be used so parents can "pick and choose which child to keep" and instead we should keep such information a secret from the parents, and they should live with whatever child they get.

I think that argument is a load of bollocks but I don't think either side of this debate will change side.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

58 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I know what you mean, I just... disagree. Small children aren't autonomous, that doesn't mean they need to be "cured". A severely retarded person may have the cognitive functions of a small child but they'd still be a person. Obviously these conditions often come with some pretty severe side effects that don't have much to do with who they are as a person and if you could cure those aspects that would probably be great - but acting upon people's brains to this extent seems unethical to me. After all, lobotomy already fulfills some of the criteria you mentioned: it reduces the "negative" side effects, the patient doesn't directly suffer and it makes it easier for carers, at the small cost of that person's identity.

 

Also, where do you draw the line? When does autism become too severe and according to what criteria? How do you make that call on a fetus? Environmental factors play a huge role on people's mental development, it's not just genetics.

Radically changing their children's identity is a little beyond what I'd allow of parents. Yes, they make a lot of choices for their children, but there are still boundaries.

Which I said I agree with. I don't agree with forcing it on anyone, including children and fetuses - and if the person is unable to give informed consent then I wouldn't want anyone else to make that call for them.

Re: ethics.

 It is ethically difficult anyway.  Luckily there are medical ethicists weighing this stuff.

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

This is what I have been saying too, but people have been strawmanning it, calling me a fascist, comparing me to Hitler, etc. Apparently curing someone with autism is the same as gassing a jew during WW2. And yes, I am not exaggerating, that's what people have said in this thread (I even had to ask if that person was serious, several times).

 

But I took it a step further and said that the 45 year old adult who need full time care by a professional should probably be forced to be cursed, because I don't think they can make that decision themselves. I see it as the whole vaccination debate again. Vaccines are forced by law because people who are scared make decisions which are bad for everyone.

No, you haven’t.

 You’ve been advocating forcible surgery on college graduates who receive an autism diagnosis.  The facism points are generally about the reasoning you use.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

No, you haven’t.

 You’ve been advocating forcible surgery on college graduates who receive an autism diagnosis.  The facism points are generally about the reasoning you use.

You really need to tone down the fascism accusations, if you want to have a reasoned discussion here. I get that emotions are running rampant, but please, tone it down a little.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

No, you haven’t.

 You’ve been advocating forcible surgery on college graduates who receive an autism diagnosis.  The facism points are generally about the reasoning you use.

Again with the stramwan argument... It feels like you've already made up your mind that I am wrong and you have to disagree with me regardless of what I say.

What I said was that the people who suffer from autism so greatly that they can't even work should be cured.

 

Here is one of the many quotes where I advocate for treatment of only ones who are on the far end of the spectrum, to the point where they can barely function in society:

Quote

Like I said before,  the 80% statistic is only for adults of today who were only diagnosed because they were severe enough to get a diagnosis back when they were children, There are a lot more autistic adults out there that are undiagnosed, so that figure largely means nothing.   And that is before you even consider the large and over represented positives that autism has had on society.

On 11/26/2019 at 11:46 AM, LAwLz said:

So how about treatment for those who only suffer from it greatly like the 85% statistic I am quoting?

 

And I didn't even talk about "forced surgery". I specifically said:

On 11/26/2019 at 10:23 AM, LAwLz said:

Assuming we had a magical pill that removed it without any negative side-effects, of course. I am not saying that we should force experimental stuff on people (this is like the 5th time I am repeating that line in this thread).

Can you please stop putting words in my mouth when I have repeatedly said the exact opposite of what you claim I am saying?

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again with the stramwan argument... It feels like you've already made up your mind that I am wrong and you have to disagree with me regardless of what I say.

What I said was that the people who suffer from autism so greatly that they can't even work should be cured.

 

Here is one of the many quotes where I advocate for treatment of only ones who are on the far end of the spectrum, to the point where they can barely function in society:

 

Re: straw man

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
you seem to complain that there is a straw man argument because no one paid attention to the concept of the “magic pill”.  I explained why that was being done.  It was itself a different kind of fallacy.  You even showed why later yourself when you abandoned it for the abortion and boutique babies thing.

Are you speaking of a different one?

 

re: your quotation

that appears to be a quotation of someone else replying to you.  I am assuming you are referring to the sub quote attributed to you.

Your quote within that quote in which you refer to another quote, if I recall amounted to that you felt that 85% of autistic people who graduate from college fall into that category of being so damaged that they should receive a compulsory “magic pill” that even you yourself admitted later in the boutique babies section amounted to compulsory brain surgery “because it’s all we’ve got”

 

You’re making an argument entirely dependent on a 100% perfect situation that can never actually occur, and you are using it to make a point about reality in which that situation cannot exist.  So people ignored it.

 

For what it’s worth this isn’t about you.  I also don’t always disagree with you.  You keep on trying to pull out this magic pill theory though or refer back to it and I am going to keep disagreeing with that.  Do I think the abortion option being offered for Down’s syndrome children is defensible I think I do, but only very very narrowly, and it’s specific to the particular gross genetic and incurable nature of that issue.  It has big problems associated with the boutique babies issue.  There are arguments on  both sides.  You attempted though to use it to resurrect your magic pill argument.  The magic pill argument will never fly.  It’s flawed from the start.

[Guest]

For those of you that may not understand ASD please watch this documentary. Apologies it is the audio description version but it is the only copy I can find online.

 

It also contains some thoughts and details of the very type of treatment being discussed in this thread, namely electrocuting the brain.

Part 1

 Part 2

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You really need to tone down the fascism accusations, if you want to have a reasoned discussion here. I get that emotions are running rampant, but please, tone it down a little.

 

Not really, not when the person he is taking to has said this:

 

On 11/26/2019 at 8:23 PM, LAwLz said:

 

What I am about will sound condescending but, people with autism are behind when it comes to their mental age and reasoning skills. To me, asking an autistic people if they want to be cured is kind of like asking a child if they want to go to school. Of course they will say no, because they don't understand why it's important. I mean, not being able to understand other people is also part of being autism so I don't even think you can explain why and how autism affects other people to someone with autism.

 

 

He also said people should be forcibly treated :

 

Quote

Personally, I would be okay with forced treatment of the ones heavily affected by it. If your disability makes you violent, unable to contribute to society and heavily negatively affect the life quality of your family then no, you shouldn't have a choice in being treated or not.*

 

Let's forget the fact that there is zero evidence they are more violent and plenty of evidence to show they are over represented as victims of violence.

 

I don't like random accusations of fascism as much as the next, but some people are genuinely being fascist in their approach to this.

 

 

 

Also re: offering a cure to those who need it,  remember what happened with people in the 50's and 60's who couldn't concentrate,  they were given lobotomies because it was considered good practice and fixed their "problems".   All it did was make them more of a weight on society and kill any hope they had of success.  Many of them just need a different environment to learn in, some needed Ritalin for their developing years.    Having seem many of these kids (the ones that would have got a lobotomy had they been an issue in the 60's) go on to professional careers in the army, panel beating and construction, I can assure you a lobotomy would not have helped them.  It is exactly the same gamble when you talk about anything that changes the traits in autism, we might think we are giving them a better life by taking away the negative side,  but until we actually have anything that can do precisely and knowingly of the psyche outcome for that person, Then blanket solutions may indeed have the opposite effect, taking someone who thinks they are 6 and giving them the realization of being 40 but still only able to function as if they were 6,  would that be better or worse for them?

 

 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Not really, not when the person he is taking to has said this:

 

 

 

He also said people should be forcibly treated :

 

 

Let's forget the fact that there is zero evidence they are more violent and plenty of evidence to show they are over represented as victims of violence.

 

I don't like random accusations of fascism as much as the next, but some people are genuinely being fascist in their approach to this.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also re: offering a cure to those who need it,  remember what happened with people in the 50's and 60's who couldn't concentrate,  they were given lobotomies because it was considered good practice and fixed their "problems".

This is not an argument that supports your position. This is an argument for "more research before allowing a treatment to be publicly available".

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 All it did was make them more of a weight on society and kill any hope they had of success.

Agreed - which is why more research on lobotomies was needed. That's a failure of, in part, regulatory bodies for allowing the practice before research well understood it's consequences.

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Many of them just need a different environment to learn in, some needed Ritalin for their developing years.

And for ones that fall under this category, they likely wouldn't require (and may not even necessarily benefit from) an autism "cure".

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Having seem many of these kids (the ones that would have got a lobotomy had they been an issue in the 60's) go on to professional careers in the army, panel beating and construction, I can assure you a lobotomy would not have helped them.

All agreement there. Of course, no one is suggesting to give them lobotomies, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is exactly the same gamble when you talk about anything that changes the traits in autism, we might think we are giving them a better life by taking away the negative side,  but until we actually have anything that can do precisely and knowingly of the psyche outcome for that person, Then blanket solutions may indeed have the opposite effect, taking someone who thinks they are 6 and giving them the realization of being 40 but still only able to function as if they were 6,  would that be better or worse for them?

It seems like the vast majority of your concerns will be alleviated by further research and testing of any such hypothetical autism "cure".

 

Let's be clear, a cure doesn't exist. But if there's promising research that could make one? Damn fucking well we should research it. If that research proves to be a dead end (risks outweigh the benefits, etc), then so be it.

 

But we won't know if we just say the research shouldn't even happen. We're all talking about a hypothetical treatment that's not even vaguely real (more of just a vague possibility of the tech). Keep that in mind. Even if this could be real, we won't know for decades anyway.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

 

This is not an argument that supports your position. This is an argument for "more research before allowing a treatment to be publicly available".

 

What's my position?  As I said earlier in the thread, I would never begrudge a treatment being made available to those who are informed. 

 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - which is why more research on lobotomies was needed. That's a failure of, in part, regulatory bodies for allowing the practice before research well understood it's consequences.

And for ones that fall under this category, they likely wouldn't require (and may not even necessarily benefit from) an autism "cure".

 

Which is why people talking about forced treatment and arguing all sorts of irrelevant (and often very wrong) edge cases as reasoning to do so need to chill,  because they are effectively making the exact same mistake the doctors did thinking lobotomies was the way to go.

 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

All agreement there. Of course, no one is suggesting to give them lobotomies, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

Keep bringing it up?  I made one post referring to it because it is a classic example of what some people are calling for here.

 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

It seems like the vast majority of your concerns will be alleviated by further research and testing of any such hypothetical autism "cure".

Not just research, but the social conditions that also are effected by such a "cure"  My points of contention are to those who want to force a blanket cure and do not understand the implication of such.

 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Let's be clear, a cure doesn't exist. But if there's promising research that could make one? Damn fucking well we should research it. If that research proves to be a dead end (risks outweigh the benefits, etc), then so be it.

 

But we won't know if we just say the research shouldn't even happen. We're all talking about a hypothetical treatment that's not even vaguely real (more of just a vague possibility of the tech). Keep that in mind. Even if this could be real, we won't know for decades anyway.

No one is saying the research shouldn't happen.  Who said anything like that?  we are arguing that any treatment should not be forced, treatment should be highly guarded so as not to cause more problems for those informed who don;t want it.

 

 

The biggest problem here is that many people do not understand Autism.  It's nothing like any other condition that it has been compared to.  A lot of the reasoning and logic people are using in this thread is so far off the mark in it's applicability to autism it is simply astounding.   

 

Until this thread I would have assumed I was close to the most educated on the subject (I not only live it, but am a career for two autistic boys, and have been part of many working groups in education for autistics), but I would easily concede to @Bombastinator being more educated or at least equally educated at this point.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

What's my position?  As I said earlier in the thread, I would never begrudge a treatment being made available to those who are informed. 

 

 

Which is why people talking about forced treatment and arguing all sorts of irrelevant (and often very wrong) edge cases as reasoning to do so need to chill,  because they are effectively making the exact same mistake the doctors did thinking lobotomies was the way to go.

 

Keep bringing it up?  I made one post referring to it because it is a classic example of what some people are calling for here.

 

Not just research, but the social conditions that also are effected by such a "cure"  My points of contention are to those who want to force a blanket cure and do not understand the implication of such.

 

No one is saying the research shouldn't happen.  Who said anything like that?  we are arguing that any treatment should not be forced, treatment should be highly guarded so as not to cause more problems for those informed who don;t want it.

 

 

The biggest problem here is that many people do not understand Autism.  It's nothing like any other condition that it has been compared to.  A lot of the reasoning and logic people are using in this thread is so far off the mark in it's applicability to autism it is simply astounding.   

 

Until this thread I would have assumed I was close to the most educated on the subject (I not only live it, but am a career for two autistic boys, and have been part of many working groups in education for autistics), but I would easily concede to @Bombastinator being more educated or at least equally educated at this point.

 

 

This is a computer hardware site.  I suspect there are a lot of high functioning autistic people here.  I am one, but there were clearly others that posted.