Just as people are a product of environmental factors, is the evolution of human technology going to affect the children of those who develop and utilize our new technology? Will we have an evolution of the human brain along the lines of a guild, where the children’s brains are specifically constructed for the occupations and education of their parents? And, are the low functioning, severely impaired offspring just a way for the genetic factors to work themselves out into a more perfected process?
While the hypotheses of this are certainly something of great interest, autism and other related syndromes are not caused by a single gene: "but by some orchestration of multiple genes that may make the developing child more susceptible to a trigger in the environment. One consequence of increased reproduction of people carrying some of these genes might be to boost ‘genetic loading’ in successive generations — leaving them more vulnerable to threats posed by toxins in vaccines, candida, or any number of agents lurking in the industrialized world."
A related topic to this is dyslexia. "Like autism, dyslexia seems to move down genetic pathways." The director of the neurogenetics laboratory at UCLA, Dan Geschwind, is fascinated by the idea that in relation to dyslexia and autism, certain types of achievements might need not just different approaches to thinking, but different kinds of brains.
"…Silicone Valley is the only place on Earth with enough critical mass of supercomputing resources, bio-imformatics expertise, genomics savvy, pharmaceutical muscle, and VC dollars to boost autism research to the next phase."
One voice of caution in this is human tampering with the reproductive genetic process. Should we intervene at a genetic level and possibly destroy our own evolution or create a human disaster? Do we possess enough wisdom to make a determination? UCSF neurologist Kirk Wilhelmsen says: "If we could eliminate the genes for things like autism, I think it would be disastrous… The healthiest state for a gene pool is maximum diversity of things that might be good."
Question: What if we create something we can’t get rid of OR we get rid of something we need but can’t bring back? (I personally think this strikes at the heart of the abortion question as well: Do we really have the wisdom?)
The search for a common thread in all of this continues, as do the myriad of speculations. It was once difficult to find treatment instead of the custodial type of care usually reserved for the mentally retarded. The intellectual, political, and monetary powers of many well-salaried parents who face this have motivated a lot of action to find answers. (Microsoft has become the first major U.S. corporation to offer health benefits that cover therapy for autistic dependants.)
With the intense focus on the source(s) of a cause, what about remedies? In our rush to eliminate the causation, are we ignoring effective treatment for the afflicted?
There are many approaches to treating autism. All of the research materials and credible expert opinions seem to support an accurate and early diagnosis. (As with many aspects of human health, it is my opinion that all too often the established hierarchy of the medical profession has to be prodded or dragged kicking and screaming towards any meaningful action. Some resist even making a diagnosis until the age of five. To me, this represents valuable time lost and an unnecessary ego trip at the expense of other people’s misery.)
See post #24 for the sources of my information.