For what it’s worth, as a diagnosed autist and a (adult-)lifelong self-identified transhumanist, I can tell you that I never encounter disagreement with the notion of neurodiversity being the ultimate goal of transhumanism, as opposed to forced arbitrary definitions of what is ‘superior’. After all; ultimately there is very little difference in the expected utility of providing hearing to the deaf as opposed to finding means of translating sound into other senses they already possess, or even granting senses they do not yet possess in order to process auditory input.
That we are currently limited from doing so does not mean that these things are impossible. Consider as a thought experiment the introduction of ampullae of Lorenzini (electroreceptors as found in sharks) to an adult deaf person with an external device that translated auditory input into local electrical fields those ampullae could then pick up.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread; as a diagnosed autist I find that my patterns of thought are significantly different from those around me. And while I would certainly cheer the development of a cure for the low-functioning part of low-functioning autism, I would find myself apalled at the notion of a cure for autism itself. While I from time to time toy with the notion of wondering what it would be like to be like “the rest of you”—I treasure my difference and the distinctive insights it has clearly offered me.
So as I espouse transhumanism to others, I do so by couching it in terms of providing a wider array of available outcomes, rather than thinking I have the right—let alone the qualifications—to decide what forms of ‘being’ are superior to others, all relevant expected utilities being equal. (Case in point: I would not do away with the ability to ‘suffer’ unhappiness. I find that, at least for myself, there is no more powerful motivator towards dissatisfaction with my current condition. If a means could be found to prevent profound depression, however, I believe making it an option would be a highly positive moral outcome. I just wouldn’t force it on anyone.)
For what it’s worth, as a diagnosed autist and a (adult-)lifelong self-identified transhumanist, I can tell you that I never encounter disagreement with the notion of neurodiversity being the ultimate goal of transhumanism, as opposed to forced arbitrary definitions of what is ‘superior’. After all; ultimately there is very little difference in the expected utility of providing hearing to the deaf as opposed to finding means of translating sound into other senses they already possess, or even granting senses they do not yet possess in order to process auditory input.
That we are currently limited from doing so does not mean that these things are impossible. Consider as a thought experiment the introduction of ampullae of Lorenzini (electroreceptors as found in sharks) to an adult deaf person with an external device that translated auditory input into local electrical fields those ampullae could then pick up.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread; as a diagnosed autist I find that my patterns of thought are significantly different from those around me. And while I would certainly cheer the development of a cure for the low-functioning part of low-functioning autism, I would find myself apalled at the notion of a cure for autism itself. While I from time to time toy with the notion of wondering what it would be like to be like “the rest of you”—I treasure my difference and the distinctive insights it has clearly offered me.
So as I espouse transhumanism to others, I do so by couching it in terms of providing a wider array of available outcomes, rather than thinking I have the right—let alone the qualifications—to decide what forms of ‘being’ are superior to others, all relevant expected utilities being equal. (Case in point: I would not do away with the ability to ‘suffer’ unhappiness. I find that, at least for myself, there is no more powerful motivator towards dissatisfaction with my current condition. If a means could be found to prevent profound depression, however, I believe making it an option would be a highly positive moral outcome. I just wouldn’t force it on anyone.)