Autism and Evolution (2nd Installment)

Edit: I commented on Tariq’s first installment and Iman’s second installment
         Installment 1

In my previous post, I gave a brief explanation of what I consider the Aspie Effect: Due to social comparison, we have created a standard that determines success and productivity by the output of the neurodiverse, in particular, those with Asperger’s syndrome. Now I’ll delve into what I think may be the consequences.

I think the use of stimulant medications is on the rise so that people may be able to reach the expectations they believe are normal (for the record, belief doesn’t always equate to truth). A lot of the conversation surrounding the abuse of drugs like Adderall and Ritalin focuses on teenagers or the over-prescription of them to children. I don’t think that there is enough focus on the abuse of these drugs in the professional setting. Roughly one-third of medical students in France abuse psychostimulants in order to meet the demands of their studies. It is not reasonable to assume that this misuse of prescription drugs stops once they graduate. An anonymous study of 1200 “German-speaking surgeons” found that 19.9% admitted to abusing prescription stimulant medication. That’s an incredibly small sample size, and it's logical to conclude that some probably lied out of fear of repercussion. Another independent study focusing on those just in the scientific community found that 62% of the respondents admitted to using Ritalin as a cognitive enhancer, which I think is probably a more realistic portrayal. It’s debatable whether or not the abuse of psychostimulants have the effect that those who are abusing them are looking for longterm,  but the ability to work longer and on task the individual finds uninteresting remains a reason for people to continue to turn to the drugs. Either way, a change needs to happen: We must accept the use of stimulant drugs like the use of coffee, or we must reevaluate our standards.

What would be the consequence of allowing legal, non-prescribed access to drugs like Adderall, truly respecting the autonomy of the individual? Stimulant drugs are Schedule II controlled substances due to their “risk of abuse and dependence.” Everyone doesn’t have the same vulnerability to addiction, which is supported by the diathesis-stress model. This is why some heavy drinkers become alcoholics and some do not. We can also argue against regulations on drugs based on the addiction argument by the legality and pervasive use of known addictive substances such as sugar that adhere to a substantial profit margin for the manufacturers. If the public is permitted to use addictive substances such as tobacco, sugar, and caffeine at their own discretion, shouldn’t we also have the choice to use pharmaceutical stimulants without a doctor’s recommendation? 

The legalization of stimulant drugs is highly unlikely given America’s sordid history with drugs, as evidenced by the term marijuana and this statement by John Ehrlichman when asked about former President Nixon’s war on drugs:

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did."

This means that the only viable solution is to acknowledge where our standards come from, recognize they are unrealistic, and then change them. The existence of the circadian rhythm (and how much of our bodily functions are tied to it) is all we need to state with certainty that surgeons shouldn’t be required to work 36 hours shifts. The concept of the brilliant scientist frantically working in his lab for days on end seems to have become an image of what dedication to one’s work looks like, but that just isn’t reasonable. In fact, most people are more productive when they work shorter work weeks. It’s speculated that Henry Cavendish, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, and even Ludwig Wittgenstein were all on the autistic spectrum, meaning that these role models for all of humanity have a completely different biological/neurological makeup than the majority of the population. Instead of turning to drugs in order to emulate the obsessive behavior that these individuals were consumed by, we should spend more time accepting the variations in humanity, not trying to make everyone adapt to one unachievable and unhealthy standard. 

We still don’t fully understand the origin of autism spectrum disorders. Is it fair to theorize that it was potentially man-made? Some theories postulate that stress has a teratogenic effect, inducing genetic mutations that cause autism. Could the stress of trying to adhere to society’s expectation be the cause of autism? If we continue to exist in such a high-stress environment, will autism become the default of the future human? Are we forcing our species to evolve into an autistic society?