I really don’t think the genetic argument holds for the increase in autism. The numbers we have been told are too much, too fast to be a genetic change. Unless there’s a fairly major cataclysm, genetic changes in a population will happen gradually over several generations, which would mean at least a century or two for humans.
Think for example of type 1 or juvenile diabetes — people with this disease used to die most often before they could have children; only in the last eighty years are they likely to pass on the gene. Yes, there has been some increase in incidence, but it has been gradual and small.
Increased diagnosis also doesn’t seem likely for the huge increases we have been told about. I mean, even if it were diagnosed as something else in previous generations, there would still have been all those non-verbal non-responsive people *somewhere* — has there been a concomitant *decrease* in diagnoses of MR or schizophrenia? (Dad, this is a question you should know about — is there?) If not, these cases are coming from somewhere new.
Unfortunately, in past times over a hundred years ago, most people with severe autism probably died young. Think of all the dangers in factories and farms of the bad old days; a person not responsive to the environment frequently was killed. Remember also that infant mortality was well over 50% in general.
On the other hand, people with Asperger’s, at least in the middle and upper classes, probably did quite well. Education was more home-based and less lockstep. There was often room in business and sciences and even universities for the eccentric. We read of people in the past who were just considered characters, but who now would be diagnosed with all sorts of things.
For example one English nobleman arranged his life so he never had to meet anybody — his servants never entered the room he was in, his carriage was blacked out, and he had a tunnel dug from his house to the train station, and then his carriage was loaded onto a flatcar with him in it. What would he be diagnosed with today?
Re: numbers games
>I really don’t think the genetic argument holds for the increase in autism. The numbers we have been told are too much, too fast to be a genetic change. Unless there’s a fairly major cataclysm, genetic changes in a population will happen gradually over several generations, which would mean at least a century or two for humans.
Ok, but let’s just say for the sake of argument, that high functioning people are reproducing at a much higher rate in the last 20 years. *If* they were, which we don’t really know (there has been speculation here and there), but *if* they were their offspring could be autistic in a higher no. It would not take several generations, it would take one (or less than one if we think of a generation as 40 years). This presupposes that that is the case
though, and since we don’t know for sure… It would also assume that AS parents have a higher increase in Kanner type autistic children. I have read somewhre or other that this is true but I am not sure that everyone even believes that AS and Kanners are really on a spectrum from each other.(There are also kids that look identical to Kanners when young but then grow up and become higher functioning around the age of 5 or so. I don’t know if these kids would be quite as successful as AS people as they have more severe behavior problems — these are referred to as high functioning autistic. I do know cases where they look like AS about at 14 or so, though.) Anyway, *if* AS adults now reproduce at quite a high rate, then it could make a big difference in the stats. I still think it would be interesting to see if there are stats of the difference in autistic BIRTHS in areas like Silicon Valley (not people who move there as that would possibly mean they have better school programs, etc.).
>Think for example of type 1 or juvenile diabetes — people with this disease used to die most often before they could have children; only in the last eighty years are they likely to pass on the gene. Yes, there has been some increase in incidence, but it has been gradual and small.
Yes, but this is a different situation. In the case of juvenile diabetes the increase would likely be smaller and at a more steady rate. It still is a deadly disease, in the case of Aspergers it is not deadly and it is adults who are doing the possible passing along of genes and not children who are not ready to pass them on.
>Increased diagnosis also doesn’t seem likely for the huge increases we have been told about. I mean, even if it were diagnosed as something else in previous generations, there would still have been all those non-verbal non-responsive people *somewhere* — has there been a concomitant *decrease* in diagnoses of MR or schizophrenia? (Dad, this is a question you should know about — is there?)
Yes, this would be an interesting question to explore. I have never even seen it proposed. IF it is all dx then the dx needs to come from somewhere! At least the nonverbal part of the autistic population.
Even in AS, some of those kids would have been dxed something. Perhaps the records would be in some psychiatrist office though, not in any database anywhere. The typical dx for AS people were things like “schizoid personality” or “borderline”, etc.
>Unfortunately, in past times over a hundred years ago, most people with severe autism probably died young.
It is likely. Some of them were no doubt killed by their parents as well.
>On the other hand, people with Asperger’s, at least in the middle and upper classes, probably did quite well. Education was more home-based and less lockstep.
Some of them might have. There are various colorful characters in hx who sound like Aspergers folk. However, I’m done with listing any of these. :-)
—des
…