alt Hacker NewsI agree up until this point:
> The idea of attempting to engineer the removal of a class of people from society-- people with unique strengths which are necessary for the functioning of that society-- has consequences that are significantly less well-understood than proponents of this idea make it out to be.
I'll be the first to pick up my pitchforks at anyone who suggests non-consensual treatments. My point is that trying to find a cure for something is different from trying to eradicate people from a gene pool.
In fact, I would assume that having an effective treatment/cure for autism would make it more widespread, not less. People who were cured of their ASD-related deficits would be far more likely to find a partner and have kids, and those kids would inherit genes which are responsible for ASD.
You don't need a big bad government or other outside entity to have non-consensual treatments. Just make it available to parents, who can make decisions for their children regardless of their wishes or any nuances of the situation. They won't allow kids to grow up and choose for themselves.
Does being autistic decrease your chances of finding a partner? That feels like something that should be substantiated, because although it feels logical that a deficiency in communication would lead to this, in reality I just see autistic people seeking each other explicitly or even subconsciously by being inclined toward their own traits.
I think a stronger argument is that there are more severe instances of autism that are disabling while providing few benefits of 'mild' or 'normal' autism.