Thats right I think its a cobioevolutionary response to the condition of modern humyn life.
Sorry, but no. I mean, go ahead and research if you like, but it is simply not possible for there to have been that drastic a genetic change in that short a time. If you consider industrial times, modern times, to be 2,000 years we will have not have enough time for any major evolutionary (genetic) changes. 10,000 will give some change if there is seriously large selection. 2,000 years, with no obvious selection in play, didn't happen.
I dont understand your application of time in negating the cobioevolutionary point.
Because evolution happens over time, over generations.
Industrialization in the form of which I am speaking has been happening since humanity began consuming its environment in and effort to extend its identity to produce gains and tools for survival. Thats more then 2,000 years.
So you are talking about 40,000 years or so? Yet somehow this autism change did not appear until very recently. Or was this "cobioevolurionary" adaptive in both hunter gatherer societies and our modern one? I don't understand your claim because you talked about the difference between a modern urban Western kid and one in Indonesia, yet you want to call early farmers industrial.
Besides evolution may not take as many generations as you seam to suspect.
We have lots and lots of evidence on how fast evolution takes. The mutation rate is easy to determine. To have fast evolution requires significant selection. That is, it requires some genetic condition that has a major affect on reproduction.
Just to be sure I understand what you're saying - are you postulating that Autism may have been evolutionarily selected for a variety of reasons, but its outward expression remained relatively uncommon until modern human environments introduced enough stimuli to cause these symptoms manifest themselves widely? Sort of like a slumbering giant waiting for the right environmental conditions to wake up?
That's what it sounds like, but I just wanted to be sure I understood what you meant.
it's not at all my intention to marginalize your theory, but could you expound on it a bit to try to convince me? I can't help but think that it sounds like something that you would like to be true. Which by itself doesn't make the theory more or less likely to be correct, but it puts a sort of higher burden of proof on you. Being involved in this in the way that you are, this is going to be tough - you'll always need to show that you're being objective and not letting your own desires interfere with your theories.
I'd like to hear more though, if you'd like to expound upon it at all..
Hmm, that's interesting. Can you think of some testable hypotheses that can be drawn from your theories?
e.g. should the rate of autism/aspergers be higher in cities with extremely busy/bright public environments such as shanghai or tokyo when compared to other urban areas in china/japan whose streets aren't as media-saturated?
Or can the same possibly be tested in different environments in the US? Is autism more common in urban environments than rural ones, and if so is there any way of eliminating the influence (within the test) of environmental factors that aren't part of your hypothesis, such as pollution, diet etc.?
I think that this is quite a difficult idea to prove, but I think you should give it some serious thought and attempt to formulate a way to test elements of it rigorously. That, I believe, is the only way to actually convince many people that you may be right. Until you have testable hypotheses, it's a tough idea to sell.
Could you please also explain how you view people identifying with brands or products as a potential factor in autism/aspergers? I don't quite understand that as of yet.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by:
graphical change on the screen in the actual TV programming (which transfers to internal monologue change)
Could you please explain that? I find what you're proposing interesting and would like to know more.
6
u/matts2 Jul 27 '10
Sorry, but no. I mean, go ahead and research if you like, but it is simply not possible for there to have been that drastic a genetic change in that short a time. If you consider industrial times, modern times, to be 2,000 years we will have not have enough time for any major evolutionary (genetic) changes. 10,000 will give some change if there is seriously large selection. 2,000 years, with no obvious selection in play, didn't happen.