#and then expect that to be true generations down the line

[fatal-blow]

when the old argument for autism about how "why are so many more people diagnosed with autism" comes up the usual rebukes are that no, we just have different words for it, or no, the modern day is more stressful to autistics which makes them more obvious

but no one wants to wonder if autism, which we know has a genetic component, HAS actually spread through the population. no one seems to want to consider that maybe in the mess of things that makes an autistic person autistic, that somewhere in there is a trait that has been beneficial to humans and as a result proliferated the gene pool

because like that's usually how genes work. generally there are no "good" or "bad" genes (which is why i kinda think eugenics will be impossible). there are so many things that affect how genes are expressed and their impact on the individual, and it's so much more convoluted than we ever imagined when we first started learning about them

plus, the nature of evolution is that genes that benefit the population may not benefit the individual, and vice versa. evolution only cares about genes that make it to the next generation. it doesn't care about how comfy the vessel is as long as it doesn't interfere with that single goal. evolution doesn't care about the disabling effects of autism, it only cares if the genetics involved with autism make it to the next generation. and they have, over and over, so it wouldn't be outlandish to think that it's become more common in the human gene pool, that in fact it's been beneficial to it