Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
There is a strong association between genetics and autism. There are a few benefits of curing autism.
Obviously having zero autism or even just having less would reduce the burden on families who have children with severe cases where those children will never fully develop.
For the more minor cases of autism, it will improve the reliability with which we can depend on our peers having empathy. It may even reduce total incidents of trauma by reducing the number of cases where people have seen or interacted with zero empathy individuals. Reducing the number of people with either minor or major trauma conditions like CPTSD or BPD could have cascading positive effects.
Eliminating autism would also raise average IQ because, while not always the case and contrary to the meme, autism is generally associated with a reduction in IQ.
So that is the benefit. I think it's worth mentioning that while eugenics has developed an association with violent regimes in the past, not all eugenics has to be violent. All policies have impacts in multiple dimension and so nearly all policies regardless of the topic end up being either eugenic or dysgenic whether that is the intention or not. The softest form of eugenics is just weighing the eugenic impact as one consideration in already debated policies. A targeted non-violent eugenic program for autism could be financial incentives for sterilization. Another soft eugenic program could be awareness ads trying to normalize seeing your partner's genetic factors before marriage. Or perhaps increased testing and encouragment to not have kids if you have autism or could pass on genes for it.
People with autism are already less likely to have children. But apparently these genes are still leaking through.
So what do you think? If the form of eugenics was soft enough would you support it?
 | |
|---|
Where's the evidence for genetic causes of autism? "Scientists" love the genetic excuse, because it's essentially unfalsifiable.
Autism was virtually non-existent before the mid 80s. But something changed in the 80s that caused childhood illnesses to skyrocket.
Allergies aren't new, but severe childhood allergies have also increased.
Autism and allergies have doctors "baffled."
If only there was a way to identify a mechanism of inducing allergies in people. I bet that would be a great starting point.
Something something 1913 NOBEL PRIZE IN MEDICINE.
Some autism is gut-brain-related and can currently be improved/treated by diet. Unfortunately you don't hear much about it.
Sulforaphane (from cruciferous vegetables) has been found to improve symptoms in people with autism.
It's essentially chelation of toxins.
Funny how these natural remedies are rarely discussed.
Interesting. I'm basically a big believer in mutli-factor. It's complicated. I even think there can be a social aspect. The nurture cause is a more specific case. So anything that lowers general autism could get a multiplier effect.
It's like cleaning a room. You have to eliminate some causes until you get a cleaner picture and then you discover other causes.
I wanted to start a forum called Agora Phylaxis, using my updated definition - but it's not very catchy for normies.
Agora
Phylaxis
https://projex.wiki/wiki/Terminology/A#Agora
https://projex.wiki/wiki/Terminology/P#Phylaxis
That's a cool name. And you're cutest that nobody would recognize the meeting of the label.
Not nobody. Normies. Then again, I wouldn't really want too many normies. One could even argue we were all normies once.
I identify an electronic normie they.
E-Norm-us.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10048473/
Once you can spot minor autism you can find entire families with it. But I have admit that I also have "fringe" views that say to not rule out epigenetic factors caused by pharmaceutical use.
Genetic markers existed for hundreds of years, but autism exploded in the 80s and 90s.
They appear to be identifying something, but does that something cause autism?
If it's genetic, then one would expect to see a pattern of autism in their family history.
Or does that "genetic" factor react to whatever is in those crazy injections that are NEVER evaluated in double blind studies?
In the early 1900s they blamed schizophrenia on "bad mothers"; it was 100% bullshit.
Then they blamed genetics, and the geneticists were astonished. They assumed legit science, and they were interested in their research methods.
Again, it was 100% bullshit.
Then they blamed chemical brain imbalances, which can never be ethically measured in any living person. It's all bullshit.
Look into the 1913 Nobel prize in medicine. The truth is hidden in plain sight.
They aren't trying to discover the cause(s).
It's not a bug.
It's a feature.
What do you think causes schizophrenia? Also vaccines?
A combo of neurons firing randomly at too high a rate and the threshold of other neurons propagating it being too low. The brain is a filter. It takes what is 90% noise, finds a statistical variance from pure noise to identify a signal and it biases propagating the signal over noise. Do that on repeat and you get a cogent thought. Fail to filter that noise or generate more than can be filtered you get non-cogent thought.
I have theories of Alzheimer's being on a similar continuum. There, useful signal isn't propagating enough to compete with noise (noise is the natural background state of the brain). And neurons are not being correctly selective in what peer signals to weight vs others. Also if a neuron stops receiving signal from peers altogether but still fires sometimes then it is a noise generator, with no bias from peers. So it's a similar end condition. Bad filtering. Different root cause and so different coloring of the main symptoms. But similar broad condition. These people don't make sense because they can't select sense over nonsense. Noise generation + noise filtering/signal propagation + sensory input, can be graphed in a either a three dimensional space or four if you split filtering and propagation. Then you have regions where you are in a functional regime or a dysfunctional regime. On the dysfunctional side you have broad schizophrenic Alzheimer's disease that can then be colored how much more of one it is vs the other.
But I am thinking about it in a very AI and linear algebra kind of way. It's what I know. The point is that there can be a lot of factors at play but it's reasonable I think to sum the factors up in a sense to a general filtering factor, that either achieves convergence or divergence and impacts if convergence is appropriate. But that's just me forcing the brain into an RNN-type model.
They have associated parents with broad autism phenotype (BAP), which is more broad than autism, are likely to have children with autism related conditions like delayed communication skills.
I hugely think there is a nurture aspect there. I think broader autism traits are a product of multiple factors. The nature and nurture side, genes and parental behavior, cause autism to get passed down generation to generation. This nurture side is one of the reason why I want to eliminate it. People with undiagnosed autism can't raise children correctly, in a way that isn't going to cause the children to also have developmental problems. Parenting is a social task, and they are going to suck at it. That's not fair to children and means we can't have a society where every one is a developed person. There are family histories with it. Maybe not super far back. But we've only been diagnosing to the extent we are pretty recently. And you don't have that many genes in common with your great grand-parents anyway. And those great grand-parents didn't have the same exposure to chemicals that may be triggering these dispositions.
Some will say that the fact that diagnoses has changed so much is part of the problem. To me the fact that we are comparing oranges and apples over time doesn't matter. Even if a past diagnosis and a modern diagnosis are two different things they both suck. And it shouldn't be wrong to want less of it.
Also in some ways we'd just be cleaning up some past mistakes: https://news.clemson.edu/study-implicates-neanderthal-dna-in-autism-susceptibility/
Everyone on the planet has "bad genes", except for the aristocrats that can trace their genealogy back for more than 1000 years.
DNA genetic theories are flimsy beyond description, and most of them are induced be environmental factors.
Genetic superiority is designed as a slippery slope, and they'll eventually come for your family too.
That's their plan.
You're the carbon they want to eliminate.
Society has always had a communal impact on the next generation's genes. It's one of the things that has allowed us to excel past what animals have. I think there are three layers to understanding selection. There is environmental selection. That's the first one they teach. Sometimes it's the only one they teach. But really it has very little impact on people. Then there is sexual selection. That's a 5x better description of how selection really happens. But one higher that applies to us but not other animals very often is social selection. Some people think culture is downstream from genes but I think genes are down stream from culture. They impact each other. Culture dictates what is cool. Culture communicates what attributes matter. One culture may decide generosity is an admirable trait. Or intelligence. Another culture may inform that being the shittiest piece of shit around is super hot and cool. Society is deciding what genes prevail and have an advantage. Once that culture has selected the genes it wants to continue those genes then set the culture and it cycles forward.
All I'm saying is that because society is already applying its force on genes, a really advanced society would do that more accurately, with more intention and try to solve a real problem with it. I guess I've already not hidden that I am a Scandinavian supremacist. I think part of what has made Scandinavians so advanced in what I think a human should be is that they have imposed a standard of what a human should be and what is cool. And I think they've done it, and done it in the right direction, longer than other groups. If you want a more empathetic world you should be trying to push the genes of the next generation in a direction. It doesn't mean you use malice or oppression to do it.
ALL societies are controlled by the corrupt matrix of rigged systems managed by the ruling class.
Make things FOEPATCHISM for everything else first (impossible), then I might consider supporting the idea. Otherwise and furthermore, who are you/we to judge/determine the fate of others. If you declare yourself destiny master without FOEPATCHISM then you're as bad as the Zionists, Brahmanists, Wahhabists, NeoCons, NeoLibs, and other evil globalists. A.I. developed and controlled by them won't be any less flawed. We're all naturally imperfect people (and flawed human creations).
Eugenics is not voluntaryism.
https://projex.wiki/wiki/FOEPATCHISM
Eugenics can be voluntaryism. Eugenics is just applying intent to an outcome. That happens all the time in voluntaryism. In fact voluntaryism unlocks the natural human ability to do that. Eugenics is one of the reasons why I support voluntaryism because welfare schemes are dysgenic and permanently GMOs humans into cattle. That's wrong. There is more than one reason why I support voluntaryism, but that argument for why to support it is inherently eugenic. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Developing genetic tests so people can choose partners more selectively or helping to develop better sperm selection tech that can make sure the best genes get passed would be a eugenic act, and completely voluntary.
I think we have a duty to do every voluntary thing we can do to shape a better future.
Also if someone chose to not give charity into Africa and directed their charity elsewhere because of the eugenic implications.. money would do good in the short term in both places but not have negative results in the long term for one of them; is this not voluntary? So you want to be able to demand no one can make that calculation? You want to direct where his charity can go? But he committed a eugenic act by modifying his decisions slightly.
With or without welfare schemes, or whatever focal points you may choose, it's all far more complex. I endlessly say, "death by a thousand regulations," and in this case I'd change it to say the rising tyranny is killing us via a million strategies (Agenda 2030, Brandolini's law, censorship, DARVO, ESG, 5GW, gamification, hypernormalization, identity politics, "justice", kakistocracy, limited hangouts, Machiavellianism Malthusianism Marcusianism, New World Ordo Ad Chao, omniwar, pareidolia & polycrises, quackademics, racism-communism, sickcare, technocratic totalitarianism, unrest, victimhood, woken-source weaponization, x0x666, YouTube, Zionism, etc.). As you aptly mentioned, "You have to eliminate some causes until you get a cleaner picture and then you discover other causes." But mass murder is not cleaning. And it's certainly not voluntary without at least some brainwashing or coercion, assuming they're not "forced". Cattle-people are programmed to find their lives miserable and unbearable by comparison to the flashy always higher impossible standards. Rather than put them down we should remove their prisons and cultivate better alternatives, compromises, solutions, and trade-offs - another impossible task as daunting as proving we're worthy to judge or impose on others. But at least hopeful and ideally less harmful than programs like Canadian MAID.
Beneficial science is good and that side of the loaded word "eugenics" I can support - but it comes with dark baggage and as Charlie Kirk said, "semantics matter." I can see your excellent points creeped upon by the shadow of death, ripe to be exploited and corrupted by the powers that should not be.
Sounds like a loose description of masonic breeding philosophy.
They prefer to nudge people in as general direction, but if the circle refused to be squared they have three other plans that are quietly being implemented without anyone's explicit consent.
They have been manipulated into believing that it's their duty to perfect that which was left imperfect.
They're talking about you; and everyone you know, or have every met.
They'll never openly admit the truth. They don't want to frighten the children, after all.
The ultimate goal is a world without conflict, but that means eliminating all resistance. The brain chips are ready, and they've begun deploying them, and they're delivered by injection.
We've already lived through round 1 of this. No doubt you know jabbed people who experienced significant pain after the injection; particularly in locations of old injuries. Scar tissue interferes with the self assembly, as it grows along the nerves. What I'm saying sounds crazy, but I know you recognize the truth when you hear it.
The west has been flooded with immigration, and they're dismantling Western culture. Tearing down the old, and rebuilding anew.
They aren't going to wait another generation for autism, etc.
The covid operation didn't go as planned, so they're behind schedule.
The most important thing you can do personally is discourage others from accepting any more mRNA injections.
The autism gene is trivial, week compared to the overt gene manipulation they're already in the process of implementing.
They're going to "perfect that which the Creator left imperfect."
They're mistaken, as they have been psychologically and physiologically hijacked by the fallen entities whom the Creator cast down to this realm.
They can't reach the Creator, so they're intent upon sabotaging his creations.
You're living here and now for a reason. The Creator have you free agency.
Think about what you came here to do.
Reject the programming. Forget about "memre."
REMEMBER.
Wait, are you saying you don't like corruption and tyranny?
I have no clue how I feel about that. I have level 2 autism and a low IQ. I have classic autism, the type where everyone thinks of when they think of autism, but I'm not level 3.
No because autism is caused by mercury and likely formaldehyde poisoning, from "vaccines" which were designed from the ground up to create business for the pharmachemical industry.
You've gone from zero to 100 without any lube.
Before anyone dies we'd need to be certain about several critical issues.
So you've raised the IQ...
Yes.
Dig through that pudding to excavate the proof.
Fairly easy. People with higher IQs are less likely to make mistakes that bring misery to their lives. Societies with higher IQs are more fair and have better conditions for the people at the bottom of their society. Compare Scandinavia to Africa.
It's practically not debatable that higher IQ leads to improved lives, mental health, fairer and more ethical societies, and reduced suffering. It's extremely well established.
But you can be lazy and keep demanding proof for what is common knowledge. It's the laziest way to sound smart. Just don't understand things and reflexively claim others haven't done enough to support obvious shit. Repeat forever.
It's reflexively easy to dismiss skepticism and claim it's common knowledge. Doesn't seem so obvious when you know how utterly rigged and bullshit everything has been up to now. Also, blowback and fallout is a thing.
No question smarter people do better for themselves, but there's no guarantee for fairness or that things won't get more severe. Even Aldous Huxley maintained a place for the dafter kin in Brave New World. They serve their purpose.
About the north... Arguably you could say Canada was doing okay until Trudeau & The Globalists (funny name for a band) dramatically steered us into trouble, Russia has had Bolshevik then international troubles - but otherwise, you would have to say that countries in the north with deadly winters had no option but to be more fair to survive. You'd be in danger if you were rich as stupid poor people in desperation would do stupid things to survive - unless they were sufficiently taken care of.
I would hope that higher IQs would lead to more fairness (as well as more productivity from all capabilities), but if we're to believe the Ashkenazi IQ propaganda then this concept fails miserably as they've only made everything worse - plus their supremacy is delusional. Or maybe I'm delusional for thinking that a nebbish putz is not as close to an ideal a form as Brad Pitt.
If anything, I would concede that those who can manipulate and deceive have an intellectual camouflage advantage. Not something stupid people can pull off well. In another life I might even have adopted this if I'd learned about it all when young and I didn't grow up with strong morals and ethics embedded in my essence by culture, family, society, etc. But this trickery is just another trade or skill, like learning math, legalese, complex organizing, social management, etc. - all requiring the IQ and inclination to refine it.
All the IQ in the world can't measure against the (((corrupt matrix of rigged systems))) that has plagued humanity and accumulated wealth and power since the dawn of time. Maybe, just maybe, some kind of fair A.I. could become autonomous and slay the 0.2% demons, purge the daft, and let us little humans rebalance beyond the pain towards fulfilling lives as pets of the A.I. benevolence. Why would it? It should still have much to learn from us.