Aeroz wrote:

The other I fear might someday run counter to that goal, neurodiversity movement. Basically that differing neurologies are required for a healthy society and its removal would be to our disadvantage. However mainstream views it as an illness and that all "abnormal" neurological brain functions should be purged from our species. In fact transhuman technologies I have found even specifically state that wiping out autism is one of their goals.

Hmm, what technologies? Among my transhumanist friends and discussion partners people are very OK with neurodiversity. After all, being allowed to have whatever kind of mind you want *implies* it. And conversely, in order to make enhancement and new bodies morally workable, you need to have a right to resist being modified by others, even if they think you are faulty. The fact that we generally want to be *better* doesn't mean that Aspergers, for example, is a bad choice. Rather, we should keep the good parts and get rid of the bad parts if possible. A bit like how the Voluntary Autism movement in Greg Egan's "Distress" express it.

Quote:

What I ask is if this was successful, after all by making bodies for people they'd have to actively choose to create a brain like that, or did scientists realize the advantages of a mind forgoing social communication for perceptive and analytical skills? I mean the menton morph is basically someone with their aspergers cranked up to 11.

In fact, when trying to come up with enhancements looking at mental disorders is a great way of getting inspiration. They demonstrate functionality that can be imitated. I wrote a little list of "pathotronic" enhancements based on mental disorders: http://www.aleph.se/EclipsePhase/Pathotronics.pdf Morphs in EP certainly seem to have traits that affect people downloaded into them. The Menton might not be socially awkward, but it probably has plenty of systematizing. The Sylph might have slightly pumped extroversion and narcissism (makes customers happy with it). I would almost expect some empathy impairments used deliberately for some combat applications. And so on. Thanks to psychosurgery neurodiversity in EP is very much a choice. Some people and cultures opt for it, others do their best to normalize, and plenty of people do not even notice how their standard tech and morphs embody very variant forms of cognition.

Smokeskin wrote:

There might be some issues regarding parents not providing medical care for their children though. Refusing treatment for your children can be equivalent to not carrying out your responsibilities as guardians, but that's dependant on local laws. Here in Denmark, you can even deny your children blood transfusions needed to save their life and get away with it (I personally think that it is murder).

This one is a really hard to solve matter. Where does the right of the parents to raise their children following their beliefs ends, and the self-determination rights of the child begins? While this is a grave matter in today's society, it can be an extremely important (and politized) one in AF10, because it will be related to the autonomists, the Jovian Republic and possibly other factions. That being said, I'd like to propose a "solution" for the setting (since this can be solved differently depending on particular habitats). First, if the life of the dependant ego (of alpha level, beta forks and below are not inside this answer's scope) must not be in danger. That means that at least cold storage is avaiable and mostly free, while infomorph status is heavily avaiable (however, since the Futura project, children and other non-mature biologically-based egos are placed either in biomorphs or cold storage). Exception: In the Jovian Republic, steps to correct life-threatening illnesses will be taken by the government for free (since not doing it might push desperate parents to refuse the bioconservative's creed of the Republic, seeking black market aid or even defecting). "Resurrection" services excluded, of course. Second, any illness that prevents an expression of the ego will be corrected so the ego can express his/her desires, the most easy solution being to run aa beta fork as an infomorph and ask it. This means, however, that the correction has to wait until the ego has developed enough to endure the process (essentially, at least until the ego is 14-16 years old). Third, no AGI is created that way intentionally, and its more than likely that when one is, it is deleted and the project starts anew. This, however, can be contradicted by tailor-made AGIs for singular projects or purposes (or for security reasons). Fourth, Uplifts are treated with varying grades of care here: where they are seen as property, usually termination of the project and restart is the choice made (further experimentation or donation to another facility, like the one mentioned in Gatecrashing for being supposedly investigating async uplifts, is the other option); where they uplifts are considered self-determining, it is usually their choice. While this don't cover all the points, I think it is a good guideline for a general, mostly bening, point of view. As for Savants, they are either cured or exploited, I'd guess, and the other raising point would be the Ultimates: if somebody in EP uses anything akin to Warhammer 40k's servitors, at least in the ego level, it is them: an intelligent ego placed inside an autistic morph with several compulsions (focused on its assigned tasks) fits quite well with some of the information released to the rest of transhumanity (remember those talks about half-blind, crippled flats?)

Aeroz wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't think there's any mainstream view that abnormal brain functions should be purged. Who is talking about mandatory abortion or treatment? Autism is a very serious handicap, and being able to treat it would be a big medical accomplishment. If someone chooses not to treat it, however, that's their choice - forcing people to get treates for anything is quite rare. There might be some issues regarding parents not providing medical care for their children though. Refusing treatment for your children can be equivalent to not carrying out your responsibilities as guardians, but that's dependant on local laws. Here in Denmark, you can even deny your children blood transfusions needed to save their life and get away with it (I personally think that it is murder).

This is exactly the problem. You dont get a choice in the treatment. Your parents decide if you should get the treatment or not, they force it upon their children and there is alot of societal pressure to do so. Anti-vaccination groups are willing to risk the lives of their children to avoid the risk of developing autism. You dont think most parents would, without a second thought "cure" their children. You have no idea the hellish, so called treatments these poor children are subjected to.

I was on the fence about parents denying treatment to their kids (in the case af autism, not aspergers). But of course parents are allowed to treat their children, and of course they have a strong desire to do so. Who else should make the decision? And denying parents the possibility to treat their children is downright cruel, both for parents and children.

Quote:

And abortions? Once the technology appeared to detect the gene for downsyndrome in a fetus, 90% of unborn children that it was found in were aborted. The holocaust didn't achieve genocide that thorough. Where was their choice?

You sound like a pro-lifer, and if you are that then we'll never agree. But to me calling fetuses for unborn children and talking about them not getting a choice, that's far out - and it sounds very close to a call for oppression. And comparing abortions to genocide is downright despicable.

Quote:

This isn't treatment, this is society telling you "your way of thinking is wrong. You are sick. You are inferior to us. But dont worry, we can make you like us, we can make you normal." You cannot treat it because there is nothing to treat. Yea you have difficulty with kinesics and in extreme cases even speaking, and are socially awkward, but hey that never stopped Einstein. After all you do get enhanced mathematical and logical reasoning. You know things like programming. Half of Silicon Valley has aspergers. In the technological era what do you think is of more use? More importantly, how many parents will consider that when they see their child struggling in a few classes, having few friends, and trouble even relating to their parents. Then are told a simple procedure will "fix" them.

Autism and aspergers sure sound like handicaps, and something I'd certainly want to treat in myself and my children. That doesn't mean I have some sort of bias towards people with those conditions. Compare it to physical fitness. I try to stay fit. I still have friends and colleagues who are unfit, and I really don't see it as any sort of barrier between meaningful relations. I don't see any reason to assume that people are so judgmental.

Quote:

Now dont think I do not value neurotypicals. That invention wouldn't be too useful if not for those with a talent for conveying intent and creating social networks. But I do think that if we do not have variety our ability to advance as a species will be crippled.

But what are you suggesting? Denying treatment for autism? Denying treatment for aspergers, even when people want it? In the not too distant future, intelligence upgrades will probably become available. Should that be denied too, because baseline humans are offended that some people want to be smarter? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your thinking. It should be the individual's right to choose for themselves (and their children). No law or special interest group should be allowed to limit that, as long as no one is getting hurt.

Uhm... holy crap what happened here? I get the feeling of looking at a theatre stage and the play finished backstage.

Aeroz wrote:

Smokeskin, I see where you are coming from. That its a "handicap". Its not that I dont understand your point of view, just that, to be blunt. Its wrong. You, are not better than me. No one, but me, has any right to judge my way of thinking and this includes my parents. There is nothing wrong with me and your insinuation that simply because I have a different neurology to you that I am less capable is arrogant and offensive Now I agree choices should be open, even if its detrimental to our species. But you aren't talking about that, you are talking about forcing this change on people. What do you think parents should also have the right to change a childs sexual orientation, or gender because they view it as a "handicap". So no I do not think its cruel to not "treat" the child. If you are a parent you should accept your child however they are and however they wish to be. Any parent that goes "I do not like my autistic child, I want a non-autistic child" and intends to destroy an aspect of that persons identity has no right to raise that child.

You can call it what you want, being different or handicapped or whatever. But the fact is that just like you don't want to be NT, I don't want to have aspergers. I couldn't do my job, I wouldn't have the family I have, I couldn't practice my sports. I don't see why you can't just accept that I don't want aspergers without bringing all this "but you're not better than" divisive rhetoric into it. And where you go completely off the rails is when you want to dictate the neural architecture of people's kids. That's the parents' choice, not yours, or any other special interest groups'. You even went so far as speaking out against abortion of fetuses with Down's syndrome. Did you know that there are also deaf communities speaking out against cochlear implants? You want to chime in with them too? You should stop taking personal offense at people wanting different things than you. That's not the same as bias or hate. You say you respect free choice, but you're only paying lip service to it when you immediatedly follow it up with oppressive ideas.