In the play “Lucy,” an emotionally distant anthropologist (Lisa Emery) decides that her severely autistic daughter Lucy (Lucy DeVito) is not sick. Instead, says the hermit scientist, she is the future: Lucy’s lack of connection to other human beings is actually an evolutionary leap forward. The rest of us? Obsolete—mental health fossils.
Our anthropologist supposes that hypersociality has created a poisonous overgrowth of society curable only by turning inward, and that autism (the diagnosis of which has increased tenfold) arose to accomplish that.
Thanks for the science, but she’s wrong.
Even if the assumptions are correct, her evolutionary hypothesis doesn’t work: Mutations don’t have a purpose; natural selection works on individuals and not whole species; the rise in autism, if it’s even real, has happened in just the last 20 years. Unlike the evolutionary “leaps” the anthropologist cites, autism involves many genes, and would take even more generations to spread if it were advantageous. And most of all, there’s the sex. As one character actually points out, it’s only an adaptation if it makes you have more kids, so a literal human connection is essential.
While science-based theater is potentially more profound and illuminating than, say, science-based cosmetics, Damien Atkins’s “Lucy” doesn’t get much past putting on scienceface. Even so, the basic idea is great. It IS possible that autism could be the next stage in evolution. As long as there is variation, it’s heritable, and it leads to differential reproductive success—that is to say, if slightly-autistic geeks get more play—then natural selection may increase the frequency of autism in the future.
And I’m not only saying this because DISCOVER is a prop on the scientist’s coffee table.
Lucy, the current offering from the E.S.T. and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s Science & Technology Project, is showing through November 18 at the Ensemble Studio Theatre in Manhattan.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Perhaps in the middle to far future, technology will have such a great influence on society and in such a way that turning inward would in fact be the most beneficial thing for a human to do. It’s also concievable that technology could handle the reproductive aspect to some degree so that humans don’t actually have to form connections anymore. Just look at online dating!
November 7th, 2007 at 10:27 am
When I read the tag-line of this article I got shivers up my spine, as I’ve had this theory… Look at the telescoping nature of evolution, it took billions of years for life to emerge as single celled organisms. Then hundreds of millions of years to the first sea-life, then tens of millions of years for life to emerge onto land then millions of years through amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and on up to hominids which have become “modern” through tens of thousands of years. It seems only natural to me that evolution will continue to occur in shorter periods until there’s a crescendo, possibly within a few generations or possibly it’s already upon us. But I fully believe this will mean evolution on individual basis’, which isn’t even evolution in the classic sense but I have no doubt that that is how it will occur. Evolution will no longer be the mechanism of the persistence of life, but the fulfillment of life, or rather the realization of the potential of life, which in my mind would be transendence of the masses and actualization of the individual which will transcend life and reality as we know it, and at the same time be something far more wonderful and uncomprehensible to those who don’t evolve.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I find the comment questioning the rise in the number of autism cases to be quite offensive. The author needs to do more research. My son is autistic and believe me, I wish more than anything in this world that he did not have it. We need more people in the scientific community (researchers, doctors, and writers who specialize in science) to get their heads out of the sand before it’s too late. We need answers. Why is this happening to our kids? What can be done about stopping it?
November 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
this theory reminds me somewhat of the book childhood’s end. It does spin it in a more sinister fashion, though.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:21 am
This causes me to entertain an amusing notion. Maybe “reproductive success” will no longer be the defining factor of the survival of the human species. The effects of overpopulation could possibly destroy the earth and the existence of humans altogether. Therefore, what if there are gene mutations occurring, such as one that causes autism, that would help to control the population by making relationships/reproduction LESS likely? I’m no scientist, but it certainly begs the question to me. Just brainstorming.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
No one questions the current prevalence of autism - it’s all around. The uncertain part (maybe necessarily uncertain) is to what extent it has gone undiagnosed in the past. Luckily, tracking down the history is not the only way to track down the cause.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Are we so sure that that this rise in autism isn’t a triggering of already-dormant genes, rather than mutations? suppose the development of autism is triggered by the presence of various enviromental chemicals characteristic of dense populations of organisms, which are absorbed by the fetus in utero,affecting the development of the human mind. The presence of the compound has but to reach a threshhold, and the brain develops in such a way as to limit the organisms reproduction while still allowing it to be fairly survivable.
This could be a long present adaptation meant to allow a population to self-limit. any higher animal could benefit from some of its individuals becoming “unresponsive” to others in a closed environment for a generation or two(say an island or an oasis or whatever), until the population dwindles to sustainable levels for that area, thereby lowering the levels of the environmental factors that initially caused the autism explosion. Obviously there would have to be some individuals born with enough social capability to reproduce, hence the “degrees” of autism such as aspergers, high-functioning, etc. The conclusion would be that the rise in autism is the result of more pregnant women living in densely populated areas, orthat the presence of that environmental factor has reached that threshhold by some other cause.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
No, I am not sure. It was simply another theory. Thank you for doing me the honor of entertaining my little idea intelligently, though, unlike some people. I am part of the “spectrum” I mentioned above and as such have a less than impartial interest in the subject, and you’re right, it does feel good to rationalize why one would be this way. As a teen I entertained the fantastical idea that autism was a manifestation of ancestral neanderthal traits, (autism is most commonly found in Europeans) an idea almost as drama-worthy as the one in ‘Lucy’, but again, more ’science-face’ than science.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Yes, but what would that strange, as-yet unidentified chemical BE? Before we search for hypotheses that support the claim made in this loosely-based-on-fact play, we need to find out more about autism itself. And - is it really viable that there would be a special chemical that triggered it based on population density?
I know it feels good to tell yourself that autism happens for a reason, and that it’s really something more than some kind of mutation. But, if we are to do so, we need to first look at all the other, inglorious, theories that are much more realistic.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Now that you mention it, it does resemble Childhood’s End… That book used to give me nightmares as a child, and the fact that real life is looking more similar to it is doing nothing for my peace of mind. Then again, I suppose that’s just what I get for reading so many science fiction books. And being mildy paranoid.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:11 am
We live in an increasingly knowledge based society, it no longer matters if you are an asocial 98 pound weakling instead of a caveman when it comes to daily survival. Look at Bill Gates. Poster child for Aspergers Syndrome (autism lite) he’s got the money, the beautiful wife and the mansion, and he did it using his brains. ‘Success’ hasn’t been redefined, ‘power’ has.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Some leading doctors have shown evidences that 60 to 70 percent of autist children were the result of immunizations/vaccinations. The rapid increase in their numbers coincide with more parents taking their babies to be vaccinated, especially in 3rd world nations where vaccinations are made compulsory in some countries. As more families reach middle and upper-income status, they can now afford more ‘modern’ medical care and thus the rise of fully vaccinated children… and thus the rise of hyperactive children and autism. The best way to keep our children healthy is cleanliness. Research has indicated that the decrease of major diseases around the world are the results of better sanitation and hygiene.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:54 am
It’s not the vacines that are the problem it’s the mercury they use as a perservative within it. A heavy metal Mercury can effect the brain even in small doses and has diffrent effects on diffrent people. Some people just are less effected by it.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:01 am
It is not out of any biological necessity that evolution will favor autism (there are certainly other more logic less vulnerable means of evoliving into a more demographically controlled society). it is, like one reader said, A CALL for evolution on individual basis. Nowadays we are seeing increasing sensibilities among children, yes, tremendous vunerability to the environment. That to me is not evolution. But considering how those sensitive genes turned on, then there is a short term evolutionary response: humans need a more sensible brain to the environmental, nutritional, emotional irritants that past generations could withstand but that after mutations and mutations DNA damage, bad genetic signaling, deficiencies in parents, the only thing that could result from that were brains that carried the message: I WANT OUT! So yes, it is not a call for evolution, it is a call for consciousness. Hoping to get back to the basics of nutrition and clean air, which to me is pretty much the basis of later stages of fulfillment of life, or like this other guy said, the realization of the potential of life. And yes, this trascends the masses and catapults the individual to a much higher level of intelligence. Society is transforming.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
What an enormous load of crap.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The premise of the piece above is that natural selection is the only selective process. Darwin offered three theories of evolution. Natural selection was only his first, and least subtle.
What drives autistic evolution is sexual selection operating through a matrifocal social structure additionally influenced by the environment through Lamarckian principles.
Please consider visiting http://www.neoteny.org/?cat=7 to review a unique and unorthodox theory for the cause of autism.