>I can't help but wonder that the future might not actually belong to neurotypicals. That, perhaps, the Aspie mutation might be better adapted to a world that is becoming more and more computerized and less and less hospitable to neurotypicals.
This will ENTIRELY depend on who out-reproduces the other.
>Neurotypicals seem to think Aspies have "anti-social" lives, but those I've met seem pretty happy.
But not necessarily reproductively successful.
>When will a critical mass of Aspies exist, or the world become hospitable to them despite not having to pretend to be neurotypicals?
Quite probably the opposite will happen (has happened, and is happening).
In a very ironic/paradoxical sense, it is the "Aspies" (people who have historically "obsessed" over machinery, technology and the physical world -- to the detriment of their own sexual reproduction) who have enabled the technophobes to successfully increase in numbers far beyond what they were capable of before. When human reproductive choices were far more limited (because travel was limited, total number of human interactions were limited, technology spread/scaling was limited, etc) then the anti-social (a-social? under-social?) Aspie types still had a chance to reproduce in sufficient numbers such as to pass on their genes. In addition, at previous levels of technology access to information/tools essentially required interaction with other human beings (to a far larger degree than with current technology).
The modern world -- with everything from antibiotics to automobiles & jet airplanes -- has led to humans having wider circles, to the greater marginalization of Aspie types; and recent technology (especially the internet) has facilitated a self-withdrawal of more and more Aspies; such that more and more of them are likely to be genetic dead-ends.
Ergo the chances of Aspies reaching some "critical mass" is not only highly unlikely, it is improbable.
>Basically, my impression of Asperger's sufferers is that they lack the social insight and intuition to succeed in the real world.
Or, phrased a different way, they seem to be incapable (or uninterested in) tricking and manipulating their fellow man simply for their own benefit, regardless of the detriment to others.
>They do okay in carefully-constructed bubbles with interesting non-human toys and machines to play with.
Or phrased a different way, they help mankind progress by focusing on the physical world, solving problems and creating tools... rather than attempting to gain benefits for themselves by manipulating and suckering other humans in a series of "con artist" games.
>But they can't cope with normal human beings.
Or, again viewed from a different angle -- they have difficulty dealing with (to them) unpredictable,lying, manipulative, socio-parasitic people.
>Additionally, your characterisation of normal human beings as too dumb and clueless to resist mindless games is... rather crude I think. You sound bitter.
Or there is the possibility of the opposite view -- that it is YOU who are more than a bit 'bitter' -- technology is largely a black-box puzzle to you, so you allow others to deal with it, and instead concentrate on parasitic (people manipulation) means of satisfying your needs and wants.
And then you justify this by denigrating those who deal with (and advance) technology in ways that you cannot.
This will ENTIRELY depend on who out-reproduces the other.
>Neurotypicals seem to think Aspies have "anti-social" lives, but those I've met seem pretty happy.
But not necessarily reproductively successful.
>When will a critical mass of Aspies exist, or the world become hospitable to them despite not having to pretend to be neurotypicals?
Quite probably the opposite will happen (has happened, and is happening).
In a very ironic/paradoxical sense, it is the "Aspies" (people who have historically "obsessed" over machinery, technology and the physical world -- to the detriment of their own sexual reproduction) who have enabled the technophobes to successfully increase in numbers far beyond what they were capable of before. When human reproductive choices were far more limited (because travel was limited, total number of human interactions were limited, technology spread/scaling was limited, etc) then the anti-social (a-social? under-social?) Aspie types still had a chance to reproduce in sufficient numbers such as to pass on their genes. In addition, at previous levels of technology access to information/tools essentially required interaction with other human beings (to a far larger degree than with current technology).
The modern world -- with everything from antibiotics to automobiles & jet airplanes -- has led to humans having wider circles, to the greater marginalization of Aspie types; and recent technology (especially the internet) has facilitated a self-withdrawal of more and more Aspies; such that more and more of them are likely to be genetic dead-ends.
Ergo the chances of Aspies reaching some "critical mass" is not only highly unlikely, it is improbable.