Being autistic myself, I feel conflicted about trying to "cure autism"
Every day is challenging because I have to manage my energy, mask in social situations and at work, etc
On the other hand, I like who I am and I'm also very good at what I do because my brain is structured the way it is. I can imagine a society that is structured in a way, where I don't need the accommodations I'm currently dependent on
If the negative impacts I'm experiencing are a consequence of the how we've structured our society, then I don't think it's autistic people who need to change to fit in
Of course there are much more severe cases than me where autistic people need much more support and have severe learning disabilities, where it could be a huge improvement to quality of life
If it was possible to fully trust that a hypothetical "cure" would only be used in these severe cases, I might be excited about a potential breakthrough, but historically this unfortunately haven't been the case
I see this sentiment often, but only when it comes to autism. How is this different from other disorders, disabilities, illnesses?
You could make the exact same arguments for blindness. Every day is challenging, difficulties are mostly a consequence of how we've structured society, it's other people who should accommodate those who have different needs, etc.
This narrative seems to originate from, and is perpetuated within online autism communities. I think it's great that people feel content with the way they are but I don't understand the animosity towards a mere suggestion that a cure should exist.
I'm familiar with the history behind it and I'm on high alert when someone ventures into eugenics, however I firmly believe that we should be looking for a cure, just like we do for every other illness and disorder.
i liken it to ADHD medicine. if you give it early in life then people often end up using it and benefitting from it. Later life diagnoses see people not take the medicine because their condition has become their person and changing that feels like it changes them too much from themselves.
Ultimately its all about being able to manage your life. If you run into troubles due to some condition it can cause to want a drug for it, but if you can manage often it can feels wrong to take it.
> Later life diagnoses see people not take the medicine because their condition has become their person and changing that feels like it changes them too much from themselves.
I also see this sentiment frequently but as someone who was diagnosed later in life I couldn't relate to it less. The scattered brain has lead me down some interesting (and fruitful) paths I wouldn't have explored otherwise, but 95% of the time it just distracts me from goals that are actually meaningful to me in the long term, and adds social friction and conflict.
I'd like to see someone study why there's such a stark difference in how people perceive it. Stimulant medication, good sleep, physical activity all help somewhat but they just take it down a notch. There are some aspects where they help a lot and others where they barely make a difference.
They have a valid concern. Unlike obesity, people with anything regarded as an intellectual disability are liable to have other people attempting to make decisions on their behalf, denying them agency over their own treatment, and legal systems will often enforce this denial of agency.
> The effects of rapamycin are temporary, and repeated dosing loses efficacy, making rapamycin, itself, an unlikely candidate as a broadly-used treatment.
Bryan Johnson took it for 5 years in an attempt to slow aging. He eventually discontinued because it was causing an increase in skin infections (as you'd expect from an immune system suppressant), but cycling could mitigate that.
This is interesting, it may be a type of thing I'd be curious about at some point. I don't think it's possible to undo the general way my brain is organized (badly), but I'd be curious to see if I'd get any benefit anyway.
(I seem to be a rare type of autistic, because while I can reliably find all three other major types, it has been very difficult for me to find more of my own :/)
Being autistic myself, I feel conflicted about trying to "cure autism"
Every day is challenging because I have to manage my energy, mask in social situations and at work, etc
On the other hand, I like who I am and I'm also very good at what I do because my brain is structured the way it is. I can imagine a society that is structured in a way, where I don't need the accommodations I'm currently dependent on
If the negative impacts I'm experiencing are a consequence of the how we've structured our society, then I don't think it's autistic people who need to change to fit in
Of course there are much more severe cases than me where autistic people need much more support and have severe learning disabilities, where it could be a huge improvement to quality of life
If it was possible to fully trust that a hypothetical "cure" would only be used in these severe cases, I might be excited about a potential breakthrough, but historically this unfortunately haven't been the case
I see this sentiment often, but only when it comes to autism. How is this different from other disorders, disabilities, illnesses?
You could make the exact same arguments for blindness. Every day is challenging, difficulties are mostly a consequence of how we've structured society, it's other people who should accommodate those who have different needs, etc.
This narrative seems to originate from, and is perpetuated within online autism communities. I think it's great that people feel content with the way they are but I don't understand the animosity towards a mere suggestion that a cure should exist.
I'm familiar with the history behind it and I'm on high alert when someone ventures into eugenics, however I firmly believe that we should be looking for a cure, just like we do for every other illness and disorder.
Because many autistic people have superpowers in some areas, like systems thinking, thinking outside the box and maybe suprisingly reading people.
If you had a superpower, but it came with a curse, that you couldn't always get to work on time, would you trade it in for a normal life?
On the other hand, i don't see why a company wouldn't accommodate someone's minor quirks to get access to a superpower.
> I see this sentiment often, but only when it comes to autism. How is this different from other disorders, disabilities, illnesses?
These are not equivalent, synonymous terms. I think that your premise might need some work.
There's plenty of people in the world who are healthy, autistic, and not disabled at all.
i liken it to ADHD medicine. if you give it early in life then people often end up using it and benefitting from it. Later life diagnoses see people not take the medicine because their condition has become their person and changing that feels like it changes them too much from themselves.
Ultimately its all about being able to manage your life. If you run into troubles due to some condition it can cause to want a drug for it, but if you can manage often it can feels wrong to take it.
> Later life diagnoses see people not take the medicine because their condition has become their person and changing that feels like it changes them too much from themselves.
I also see this sentiment frequently but as someone who was diagnosed later in life I couldn't relate to it less. The scattered brain has lead me down some interesting (and fruitful) paths I wouldn't have explored otherwise, but 95% of the time it just distracts me from goals that are actually meaningful to me in the long term, and adds social friction and conflict.
I'd like to see someone study why there's such a stark difference in how people perceive it. Stimulant medication, good sleep, physical activity all help somewhat but they just take it down a notch. There are some aspects where they help a lot and others where they barely make a difference.
> If it was possible to fully trust that a hypothetical "cure" would only be used in these severe cases
Isn’t it like the Ozempic? Some take it, some don’t.
They have a valid concern. Unlike obesity, people with anything regarded as an intellectual disability are liable to have other people attempting to make decisions on their behalf, denying them agency over their own treatment, and legal systems will often enforce this denial of agency.
> The effects of rapamycin are temporary, and repeated dosing loses efficacy, making rapamycin, itself, an unlikely candidate as a broadly-used treatment.
Cycling is possible
Doesn't the "potential for toxicity from repeated doses" make this sort of doubtful?
Possibly, possibly not.
Bryan Johnson took it for 5 years in an attempt to slow aging. He eventually discontinued because it was causing an increase in skin infections (as you'd expect from an immune system suppressant), but cycling could mitigate that.
so, like a vacine against autism, rather than the impossibility of it bieng caused by one? instantly?
This is interesting, it may be a type of thing I'd be curious about at some point. I don't think it's possible to undo the general way my brain is organized (badly), but I'd be curious to see if I'd get any benefit anyway.
(I seem to be a rare type of autistic, because while I can reliably find all three other major types, it has been very difficult for me to find more of my own :/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon
More like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_and_Civilization