Neurodiversity: a politically incorrect view on it / Нейроразнообразие: неполиткорректный взгляд
Rather recently neurodiversity movement came to Russia. It considers autism not as a disorder but as a part of a personality that deserves acceptance and respect. Although it has a lot of positive aspects such as propaganda of self-acceptance, rejection of a norm cult, struggle against discrimination of autistic people it turned out that in its modern form it contains a lot of ideas that make it incompatible with rational understanding of an essence of autism and development of medicine and biotechnologies for management of genetics of offsprings. In a lot of aspects ethics of this movement is similar to Christians and so-called bioconservators. But is it possible to imagine neurodiversity movement that is compatible with the technologies mentioned above, ideas of transhumanism and utilitarian ethics? An author of the article thinks that such possibility exists.
Сравнительно недавно в Россию пришло движение за нейроразнообразие, рассматривающее аутизм не как расстройство, а как часть личности, заслуживающей принятия и уважения. При ряде положительных моментов в виде пропаганды самопринятия, отказа от культа нормы, борьбы с дискриминацией аутичных людей, оказалось, что в нынешнем виде оно содержит ряд идей, делающих его несовместимым с рациональным осмыслением сути аутизма и развитием медицины и биотехнологий, направленных на управление наследственностью потомства. В ряде вопросов этика этого движения сходна с христианами и так называемыми биоконсерваторами. Но возможно ли движение за нейроразнообразие, совместимое с упомянутыми выше технологиями, трансгуманистическими идеями и утилитарной этикой? Автор статьи считает, что такая возможность существует.
Русская версия текста доступна по ссылке: http://aspergers.ru/node/303
English version of the text is given below:
About one year ago (in 2015) neurodiversity movement came into Russia in a form of the "Neurodiversity in Russia" web-site. A key idea of this movement is consideration of autism not as disorder but as a part of personality that deserves acceptance and respect. As autistic person that is actively interested in the autistic spectrum disorder topic since 2008 and since 2011 taking a part in leading of a support group for adults with Asperger's syndrome and administering of Russian forum of autistic people I was immediately interested in it.
At the first time I saw mainly positive things in the neurodiversity movement: propaganda of self-acceptance, stressing that autistics are persons/subjects, rejection of rigid and not flexible ideals of norm, protection of self-advocacy ideas and right for accommodations at workplace, fight against discrimination. But rather quick I began to feel that something is wrong (especially after their protests against researches of cure for autism and development of prenatal screening technologies) but it was hard exactly formulate the nature of these feelings. Such epithets as "idealism", "why so politically correct?", "bioconservators", "luddites" was coming into my mind. And their connection with LGBT and politics definitely putted me on guard because its possibility to be potentially harmful for autistic society.
After detailed and close studying ideas and ideals of neurodiversity movement and discussions with its representatives I came to conclusion that it has two corner stones: depathologization of all forms of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and social model of disability. And in this article I want to show their not realistic and irrational nature and the possibility not to use them during protection of either neurodiversity ideas or rights of autistic people.
Depathologization
One of the main ideas of neurodiversity movement is depatholization of all forms of autistic spectrum disorders using so-called social model of disability (
Nick Walker: Throw Away the Master’s Tools: Liberating Ourselves from the Pathology Paradigm). This models tells that disability is not objective property of an organism but a result of not matching social standards (typical example: in a society of telepathics non-telepathics would be considered as disabled). Of course it is perfectly applicable for a lot of ASD behaviours and signs: e.g. for bad understanding of non-verbal cues, atypical sensory perception and motor skills, stimming, special interests and specific cognitive style etc. But in a lot of situations connected mainly with destruction of human as sentient being or danger for health it is not working, e.g.:
Similar arguments are given in articles of autistic people that are against of neurodiversity movement (Thomas McKean: A Danger in Speaking and
Jonathan Mitchell: Neurodiversity: Just Say No). Usually when neurodiversity ideas followers are dealing with such criticism they are blaming a person in "ableism" and "sticking functionality labels". This will be considered in details in the "Ableism, Biotechnologies and Eugenics" section.
Pathologization of ASD has not only drawbacks (elevated risk of autistic people to become victims of psychophobia) but also advantages in the form of making early intervention and beginning of special education (aiming at development of autistic children not their normalization) easier. Without replacement of this mechanism to some kind of alternative depathologization of autism can be harmful because of absence of adequate attention to early development of autistic children.
Analogies with homosexuality that some activists like don't work here because homosexual don't need such kind of special education in childhood. And such education is required for living full life in adulthood. Another difference is that autism spectrum disorder cause disability in some cases even in the most favourable conditions that is acknowledged even by neurodiversity supporters. But nowadays official disability and having some support from governmental services requires having a medical diagnosis. And neurodiversity followers don't suggest mechanisms alternative to medical diagnosis.
Ableism, Biotechnologies and Eugenics
Neurodiversity ideas followers often talk about so-called ableism. Due to a wide interpretation of this term by them (and not only by them) I came to conclusion that two principally different things are mixed together, i.e.:
From my viewpoint the first meaning is a real ableism that must be eradicated. But the second meaning is an attempt to substitute equal rights with equality and to struggle against natural desire of people to be healthy and rich and also against their desire to have clever and healthy offsprings (mainly for a gain of offsprings). Pronounced cases of such understanding of ableism are:
And I was really surprised that ideas of neurodiversity appeared so connected with such kind of views. Although at first glance they are looking as product of Western (European) political correctness, activism of social justice warriors and, probably, psychological trauma, it appears that a lot of things have been taken from Christianity:
Although similar views are not rare in developed countries with a large fraction of Christians from my viewpoint in the case of neurodiversity ideas followers it is more widespread than usual. It is probably connected to that fact that some people with disability (including autism) perceive a desire to prevent births of new disabled people as hidden message "you are not deserving life", "we are ready to kill you" that is erroneous. Let's consider an analogy: if an intellect and lifespan of future generation would be radically improved e.g. by means of genetic engineering it doesn't mean that we, that are living today, are not deserving life. Also as an objection to a bioconservative argumentation of some representatives of disability rights movement I will show the next picture:
DNA double spiral that resembles prison bars. Two hands hold the bars from inside.
And what is wrong in this situation from my viewpoint?
At first, borrowing non-trivial values either from Christianity or from social justice warriors and political correctors even without explicit declaration of it can cause misunderstanding and artificial narrowing of an auditory.
At second, ideas about inadmissibility of voluntary eugenic abortions are not popular in real life in developed countries. A majority of pregnancies (more than 90 %) with Down's syndrome in Europe are terminated. Although Down's syndrome is not autism spectrum disorder an example with it shows that majority of people are not perceiving ideas of voluntary eugenics as something alien and they are ready to follow them when they have safe and humane technologies for it.
Usage of not clearly declared and exotic values can cause not serious perception of neurodiversity ideas and as consequence lead to full eradication of all forms of autism without selectivity just after appearing of biotechnologies required for it. Such things are not desirable due to a lot of reasons that will be considered in the "rational arguments for neurodiversity" section). Because of it I suppose that protection of neurodiversity requires not only "politically correct" or emotional arguments but rational arguments too.
Rational arguments for neurodiversity
As it was said above society appears to have positive attitude to technologies directed to prevention of births of disabled offsprings. And it cannot be excepted that due to a rapid development of biotechologies "designed babies", i.e. babies with "pre-ordered" genetic features, can appear in 30-40 years. And in such situation neurodiversity ideas will either have to go with neurodiversity itself or adapt to the new conditions.
From my viewpoint the most rational and promising thing in neurodiversity ideas is a critical attitude to the category of norm and ideas of normalization of "different" people. But for protection of "not norm" in the form of ASD from an attack of biomedical technologies not conservatism in the form of fear of "cure for autism" and "eugenics" is required. But readiness to accept them for modification of people in general not depending on their health and "neurotype", i.e. look at the situation from a viewpoint of transhumanism is required. Transhumanistic view at the problem effectively eliminates ethical difficulties perceived as "ableism" because in this case in the role of "people with limited abilities" even people that considered healthy nowadays can finally appear. So in this case there is no division of people into different "sorts" and desire to help a person to improve their body and mind is not connected with a category of norm.
Besides permissibility of modification of people rational neurodiversity also requires look at autistic traits that is free from political correctness, i.e. acceptance of possibility to compare different type of minds including their advantages and drawbacks. Of course such comparison is not always possible because strong sides can be a logical continuation of a weak ones. And society may require very different "neurotypes" including not known ones (especially after leaving a cult of norm, natural origin and traditions). But even taking into account the entire complexity and multicomponent character of the comparison problem of different minds utilitarian approach is preferable to based on emotions and political correctness because it is more opened to critical reason and scepticism.
Temple Grandin formulated ideas about necessity of autistic people for a society and simultaneously noted that excess of autistic traits is not desirable and leads to formation of low-functioning autism (a citation from the book by Temple Grandin "Thinking in Pictures"):
A little bit of the autism trait provides advantages but too much creates a low-functioning individual who can not live independently. The paradox is that milder forms of autism and Asperger's are part of human diversity but severe autism is a great disability. There is no black-and-white dividing line between an eccentric brilliant scientist and Asperger's.
In an ideal world the scientist should find a method to prevent the most severe forms of autism but allow the milder forms to survive. After all, the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the camp-fire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves.
Nowadays new data including scientific ones that confirm a connection between autistic traits and some forms of abilities and even talents are appearing:
Nevertheless such viewpoints are actively criticized by neurodiversity movement activists as ableist and amoral (Autistic Hoya: Critiquing Temple Grandin). Acting such way they are trying to block rational understanding of autism nature, its advantages and drawbacks and significant differences between its different forms. That makes them looking marginal in the eyes of society and increases vulnerability of autism spectrum disorders and existing neurodiversity to rapidly developing technologies for management of genetic information.
Of course after beginning of active usage of biotechnologies for control of offsprings genetics and also for active intervention into neural system of already living autistics, autistic spectrum never will be the same. And finally humankind will go to somebody that may be called "post-autistics" or "post-aspergerians" (the terms were invented by a user of asdforum.ru) and that will use strong sides of autistic intelligence and have significantly weakened or absent drawbacks. But to make biotechnologies cause not eradication of neurodiversity but its transition to qualitatively new level it is necessary to spread neurodiversity ideas in a form that can live without political correctness and be compatible with scientific progress in the sphere of biotechnologies.
Neurodiversity ideas followers often tell that humankind is not ready for such technologies and will apply it for a triumph of a cult of norm, i.e. for eradication of neurodiversity. (Veronika Belenkaya: Why You Are Againist Finding What Causes Autism [in Russian], Amy Sequenzia: To The Corporate Supporters of Autism Speaks). I share that fears in many aspects but I'm not agree with their methods of counteraction and think that their fertility of thought is limited by some cultural stereotypes. I'll give a citation from the article Cas Faulds: Don’t you want to know what causes autism? that shows an essence of such stereotypes rather good:
Imagine if everyone started questioning what caused people to be neurotypical. Imagine if everyone started talking about how we could prevent people from being neurotypical. Imagine if everyone decided that neurotypical children should be subjected to 30-40 hours of therapy per week in order to ensure the "best outcome." It's not really a great thing to imagine. It really is a bit nightmarish.
When I saw it a question "and why not?" appeared in my mind because I don't see something unethical in an improvement either neurotypicals or autistics if methods and medical treatments used for development are ecological (i.e. not allow, e.g. usage of tortures as in Judge Rotenberg Center or not trying to break minds trying to fit it into some cultural standards etc.). I suppose that such way of thinking (based on transhumanism) can be blocked by a doctrine from abrahamic religions about "crown of creation", "image of God" or its version from secular humanism about "king of Earth" or "the top of evolution". Attempts to make peace between neurodiversity and transhumanism existed earlier (On Cyborgs, Cures, and Choices) but they were isolated instances that were not well developed.
Conclusions
Neurodiversity movement propagates a lot of constructive ideas: rejection of norm cult, rejection of looking at autism as on the problem only, self-acceptance, struggle against discrimination of disabled people. However in their aspiration to protect autistics from discrimination it came to politically correct taboo on rational understanding of autistic traits, their advantages and disadvantages in comparison to neurotypical (i.e. non-autistic) mind and also on comparison of different forms of autism with each other. It is also typical for them not to accept biotechnologies designed for cure and prevention of autism that makes them similar in some aspects with Christians and so-called bioconservator (the term invented by transhumanists and means people that are against changing of human nature by means of engineering methods). Such kind of irrationalism impedes development of ideas of rational neurodiversity that is compatible with development of medicine an biotechnologies and also with mainstream moral of society in that prevention of birth of ill offsprings is acceptable.
Also there are scientific data about connection between autistic traits and some kinds of abilities and event talents. And full eradication of all forms of autistic spectrum disorders can negatively influence on birth of new scientists, engineers, programmers, mathematicians etc. that is bad from a rational viewpoint.
I hope that in this article I was successful in showing that it is possible to combine ideas of neurodiversity with rapid development of medicine and biotechnoligies using transhumanistic approach and secular utilitarian ethics. I also want to note that such combination in no way implies discrimination of autistics and disabled people in general: taking into account special need of people with disability and improvement of both body and mind of either living people or their offsprings are complementing each other but definitely are not contradicting each other.
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge participants of Russian forum of autistic people for a productive discussion about neurodiversity and also creators of "Neurodiversity in Russia" web-site for attention attraction to the problem and for interesting discussion.
Сравнительно недавно в Россию пришло движение за нейроразнообразие, рассматривающее аутизм не как расстройство, а как часть личности, заслуживающей принятия и уважения. При ряде положительных моментов в виде пропаганды самопринятия, отказа от культа нормы, борьбы с дискриминацией аутичных людей, оказалось, что в нынешнем виде оно содержит ряд идей, делающих его несовместимым с рациональным осмыслением сути аутизма и развитием медицины и биотехнологий, направленных на управление наследственностью потомства. В ряде вопросов этика этого движения сходна с христианами и так называемыми биоконсерваторами. Но возможно ли движение за нейроразнообразие, совместимое с упомянутыми выше технологиями, трансгуманистическими идеями и утилитарной этикой? Автор статьи считает, что такая возможность существует.
Русская версия текста доступна по ссылке: http://aspergers.ru/node/303
English version of the text is given below:
About one year ago (in 2015) neurodiversity movement came into Russia in a form of the "Neurodiversity in Russia" web-site. A key idea of this movement is consideration of autism not as disorder but as a part of personality that deserves acceptance and respect. As autistic person that is actively interested in the autistic spectrum disorder topic since 2008 and since 2011 taking a part in leading of a support group for adults with Asperger's syndrome and administering of Russian forum of autistic people I was immediately interested in it.
At the first time I saw mainly positive things in the neurodiversity movement: propaganda of self-acceptance, stressing that autistics are persons/subjects, rejection of rigid and not flexible ideals of norm, protection of self-advocacy ideas and right for accommodations at workplace, fight against discrimination. But rather quick I began to feel that something is wrong (especially after their protests against researches of cure for autism and development of prenatal screening technologies) but it was hard exactly formulate the nature of these feelings. Such epithets as "idealism", "why so politically correct?", "bioconservators", "luddites" was coming into my mind. And their connection with LGBT and politics definitely putted me on guard because its possibility to be potentially harmful for autistic society.
After detailed and close studying ideas and ideals of neurodiversity movement and discussions with its representatives I came to conclusion that it has two corner stones: depathologization of all forms of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and social model of disability. And in this article I want to show their not realistic and irrational nature and the possibility not to use them during protection of either neurodiversity ideas or rights of autistic people.
Depathologization
One of the main ideas of neurodiversity movement is depatholization of all forms of autistic spectrum disorders using so-called social model of disability (
Nick Walker: Throw Away the Master’s Tools: Liberating Ourselves from the Pathology Paradigm). This models tells that disability is not objective property of an organism but a result of not matching social standards (typical example: in a society of telepathics non-telepathics would be considered as disabled). Of course it is perfectly applicable for a lot of ASD behaviours and signs: e.g. for bad understanding of non-verbal cues, atypical sensory perception and motor skills, stimming, special interests and specific cognitive style etc. But in a lot of situations connected mainly with destruction of human as sentient being or danger for health it is not working, e.g.:
- Absence of any speech: oral, written, cards, another symbols
- Expressed isolation from the world that causes mental retardation
- Dangerous atypical sensory perception such as being not sensitive to some kinds of pain
- Self-injurious stimming, auto-aggression
Similar arguments are given in articles of autistic people that are against of neurodiversity movement (Thomas McKean: A Danger in Speaking and
Jonathan Mitchell: Neurodiversity: Just Say No). Usually when neurodiversity ideas followers are dealing with such criticism they are blaming a person in "ableism" and "sticking functionality labels". This will be considered in details in the "Ableism, Biotechnologies and Eugenics" section.
Pathologization of ASD has not only drawbacks (elevated risk of autistic people to become victims of psychophobia) but also advantages in the form of making early intervention and beginning of special education (aiming at development of autistic children not their normalization) easier. Without replacement of this mechanism to some kind of alternative depathologization of autism can be harmful because of absence of adequate attention to early development of autistic children.
Analogies with homosexuality that some activists like don't work here because homosexual don't need such kind of special education in childhood. And such education is required for living full life in adulthood. Another difference is that autism spectrum disorder cause disability in some cases even in the most favourable conditions that is acknowledged even by neurodiversity supporters. But nowadays official disability and having some support from governmental services requires having a medical diagnosis. And neurodiversity followers don't suggest mechanisms alternative to medical diagnosis.
Ableism, Biotechnologies and Eugenics
Neurodiversity ideas followers often talk about so-called ableism. Due to a wide interpretation of this term by them (and not only by them) I came to conclusion that two principally different things are mixed together, i.e.:
- Ableism as discrimination of disabled: not giving accommodations for living full life and employment (such as ramps for wheelchair users, sensory friendly environment at workplace for autistics), attitude as to subhumans.
- Ableism as perception of disability as a state that is less comfortable and desirable in comparison to health (but not perception of disabled as subhumans). In this interpretation development of tools for prevention of disabled child birth is considered as ableism, and in some cases even development of cure for some forms of disabilities (e.g. non-verbal autism) can be considered as ableism.
From my viewpoint the first meaning is a real ableism that must be eradicated. But the second meaning is an attempt to substitute equal rights with equality and to struggle against natural desire of people to be healthy and rich and also against their desire to have clever and healthy offsprings (mainly for a gain of offsprings). Pronounced cases of such understanding of ableism are:
- Attempts to protest against a cure for autism for everyone not personal desire not to be cured from autism (Nora: Why I Don’t Want A Cure).
- Struggle for saving Down syndrome and for ban of new generation of prenatal tests for voluntary application (Down's syndrome test causes ethical dilemma), negative attitude to prenatal screening even in the case of people that are not against abortions.
- Perception of exoskeletons for wheelchair users as demonstration of ableism (Progress versus ableism: The case of Ekso).
And I was really surprised that ideas of neurodiversity appeared so connected with such kind of views. Although at first glance they are looking as product of Western (European) political correctness, activism of social justice warriors and, probably, psychological trauma, it appears that a lot of things have been taken from Christianity:
- Negative attitude to abortions including consideration of abortions of embryos with disabilities as a genocide.
- Negative attitude to comparison of people by abilities and talents (there is some similarity to ideas about an immortal soul and equality of all people in God's sight).
- Fear of open thinking about possibility of taking by humans under control their own biological nature and in some cases - active struggle against biotechnologies and transhumanism ("Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" (Genesis 1:26), "how inscrutable His ways" (Romans 11:33), sin of pride etc.).
- Not serious enough attitude to intellectual disability ("poor in spirit", "foolishness for Christ") and to suffering as of people with disability as their relatives (God's will as a plan).
Although similar views are not rare in developed countries with a large fraction of Christians from my viewpoint in the case of neurodiversity ideas followers it is more widespread than usual. It is probably connected to that fact that some people with disability (including autism) perceive a desire to prevent births of new disabled people as hidden message "you are not deserving life", "we are ready to kill you" that is erroneous. Let's consider an analogy: if an intellect and lifespan of future generation would be radically improved e.g. by means of genetic engineering it doesn't mean that we, that are living today, are not deserving life. Also as an objection to a bioconservative argumentation of some representatives of disability rights movement I will show the next picture:
DNA double spiral that resembles prison bars. Two hands hold the bars from inside.
And what is wrong in this situation from my viewpoint?
At first, borrowing non-trivial values either from Christianity or from social justice warriors and political correctors even without explicit declaration of it can cause misunderstanding and artificial narrowing of an auditory.
At second, ideas about inadmissibility of voluntary eugenic abortions are not popular in real life in developed countries. A majority of pregnancies (more than 90 %) with Down's syndrome in Europe are terminated. Although Down's syndrome is not autism spectrum disorder an example with it shows that majority of people are not perceiving ideas of voluntary eugenics as something alien and they are ready to follow them when they have safe and humane technologies for it.
Usage of not clearly declared and exotic values can cause not serious perception of neurodiversity ideas and as consequence lead to full eradication of all forms of autism without selectivity just after appearing of biotechnologies required for it. Such things are not desirable due to a lot of reasons that will be considered in the "rational arguments for neurodiversity" section). Because of it I suppose that protection of neurodiversity requires not only "politically correct" or emotional arguments but rational arguments too.
Rational arguments for neurodiversity
As it was said above society appears to have positive attitude to technologies directed to prevention of births of disabled offsprings. And it cannot be excepted that due to a rapid development of biotechologies "designed babies", i.e. babies with "pre-ordered" genetic features, can appear in 30-40 years. And in such situation neurodiversity ideas will either have to go with neurodiversity itself or adapt to the new conditions.
From my viewpoint the most rational and promising thing in neurodiversity ideas is a critical attitude to the category of norm and ideas of normalization of "different" people. But for protection of "not norm" in the form of ASD from an attack of biomedical technologies not conservatism in the form of fear of "cure for autism" and "eugenics" is required. But readiness to accept them for modification of people in general not depending on their health and "neurotype", i.e. look at the situation from a viewpoint of transhumanism is required. Transhumanistic view at the problem effectively eliminates ethical difficulties perceived as "ableism" because in this case in the role of "people with limited abilities" even people that considered healthy nowadays can finally appear. So in this case there is no division of people into different "sorts" and desire to help a person to improve their body and mind is not connected with a category of norm.
Besides permissibility of modification of people rational neurodiversity also requires look at autistic traits that is free from political correctness, i.e. acceptance of possibility to compare different type of minds including their advantages and drawbacks. Of course such comparison is not always possible because strong sides can be a logical continuation of a weak ones. And society may require very different "neurotypes" including not known ones (especially after leaving a cult of norm, natural origin and traditions). But even taking into account the entire complexity and multicomponent character of the comparison problem of different minds utilitarian approach is preferable to based on emotions and political correctness because it is more opened to critical reason and scepticism.
Temple Grandin formulated ideas about necessity of autistic people for a society and simultaneously noted that excess of autistic traits is not desirable and leads to formation of low-functioning autism (a citation from the book by Temple Grandin "Thinking in Pictures"):
A little bit of the autism trait provides advantages but too much creates a low-functioning individual who can not live independently. The paradox is that milder forms of autism and Asperger's are part of human diversity but severe autism is a great disability. There is no black-and-white dividing line between an eccentric brilliant scientist and Asperger's.
In an ideal world the scientist should find a method to prevent the most severe forms of autism but allow the milder forms to survive. After all, the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the camp-fire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves.
Nowadays new data including scientific ones that confirm a connection between autistic traits and some forms of abilities and even talents are appearing:
- Elevated level of autistic traits among gifted children including high rations of ASD (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.06.002).
- Probable connection between autism and mathematical abilities (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096374).
- AQ, science students and math students (https://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1005653411471).
- Consideration of autism as specific congnitive style that gives not only problems but also valuable qualities such as savantism or attention to details (Francesca Happé: Autism: cognitive deficit or cognitive style?; David Wolman: The advantages of autism; Temple Gradin and Richard Panek: The Autistic Brain: Exploring the Strength of a Different Kind of Mind).
- A very high fraction of autistics among savants and elevated fraction of savant among autistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome).
- An example of usage of strong sides of perception and cognition of autistics in Israel army for analysis of maps from satellites (Israeli military utilizing talents of young people with autism).
Nevertheless such viewpoints are actively criticized by neurodiversity movement activists as ableist and amoral (Autistic Hoya: Critiquing Temple Grandin). Acting such way they are trying to block rational understanding of autism nature, its advantages and drawbacks and significant differences between its different forms. That makes them looking marginal in the eyes of society and increases vulnerability of autism spectrum disorders and existing neurodiversity to rapidly developing technologies for management of genetic information.
Of course after beginning of active usage of biotechnologies for control of offsprings genetics and also for active intervention into neural system of already living autistics, autistic spectrum never will be the same. And finally humankind will go to somebody that may be called "post-autistics" or "post-aspergerians" (the terms were invented by a user of asdforum.ru) and that will use strong sides of autistic intelligence and have significantly weakened or absent drawbacks. But to make biotechnologies cause not eradication of neurodiversity but its transition to qualitatively new level it is necessary to spread neurodiversity ideas in a form that can live without political correctness and be compatible with scientific progress in the sphere of biotechnologies.
Neurodiversity ideas followers often tell that humankind is not ready for such technologies and will apply it for a triumph of a cult of norm, i.e. for eradication of neurodiversity. (Veronika Belenkaya: Why You Are Againist Finding What Causes Autism [in Russian], Amy Sequenzia: To The Corporate Supporters of Autism Speaks). I share that fears in many aspects but I'm not agree with their methods of counteraction and think that their fertility of thought is limited by some cultural stereotypes. I'll give a citation from the article Cas Faulds: Don’t you want to know what causes autism? that shows an essence of such stereotypes rather good:
Imagine if everyone started questioning what caused people to be neurotypical. Imagine if everyone started talking about how we could prevent people from being neurotypical. Imagine if everyone decided that neurotypical children should be subjected to 30-40 hours of therapy per week in order to ensure the "best outcome." It's not really a great thing to imagine. It really is a bit nightmarish.
When I saw it a question "and why not?" appeared in my mind because I don't see something unethical in an improvement either neurotypicals or autistics if methods and medical treatments used for development are ecological (i.e. not allow, e.g. usage of tortures as in Judge Rotenberg Center or not trying to break minds trying to fit it into some cultural standards etc.). I suppose that such way of thinking (based on transhumanism) can be blocked by a doctrine from abrahamic religions about "crown of creation", "image of God" or its version from secular humanism about "king of Earth" or "the top of evolution". Attempts to make peace between neurodiversity and transhumanism existed earlier (On Cyborgs, Cures, and Choices) but they were isolated instances that were not well developed.
Conclusions
Neurodiversity movement propagates a lot of constructive ideas: rejection of norm cult, rejection of looking at autism as on the problem only, self-acceptance, struggle against discrimination of disabled people. However in their aspiration to protect autistics from discrimination it came to politically correct taboo on rational understanding of autistic traits, their advantages and disadvantages in comparison to neurotypical (i.e. non-autistic) mind and also on comparison of different forms of autism with each other. It is also typical for them not to accept biotechnologies designed for cure and prevention of autism that makes them similar in some aspects with Christians and so-called bioconservator (the term invented by transhumanists and means people that are against changing of human nature by means of engineering methods). Such kind of irrationalism impedes development of ideas of rational neurodiversity that is compatible with development of medicine an biotechnologies and also with mainstream moral of society in that prevention of birth of ill offsprings is acceptable.
Also there are scientific data about connection between autistic traits and some kinds of abilities and event talents. And full eradication of all forms of autistic spectrum disorders can negatively influence on birth of new scientists, engineers, programmers, mathematicians etc. that is bad from a rational viewpoint.
I hope that in this article I was successful in showing that it is possible to combine ideas of neurodiversity with rapid development of medicine and biotechnoligies using transhumanistic approach and secular utilitarian ethics. I also want to note that such combination in no way implies discrimination of autistics and disabled people in general: taking into account special need of people with disability and improvement of both body and mind of either living people or their offsprings are complementing each other but definitely are not contradicting each other.
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge participants of Russian forum of autistic people for a productive discussion about neurodiversity and also creators of "Neurodiversity in Russia" web-site for attention attraction to the problem and for interesting discussion.