3 ms·

Why do you assume that the problem of a second-class existence for some is avoidable given the current state of the art in science, technology and medicine? Yo

Why do you assume that the problem of a second-class existence for some is avoidable given the current state of the art in science, technology and medicine? You can put wheelchair ramps on every building and have zero impact on the number of people that can walk that will date someone in a wheelchair, or the number of non-hearing-impaired people that will even be friends with a deaf person. This is because people often meet and relate to one another through their experiences and shared interests. Frankly, the only way those situations can change is through technology. As we come up with ways of repairing spinal cord injuries, restoring hearing and sight, etc., many people will have ways of breaking through the very real barriers I'm speaking of here. Wouldn't it be better to spend more of the money that goes into ramps and the like on research instead? If people are left free to decide what to do with their own resources, I argue that ultimately more resources will go into advancing science and technology, with the ultimate effect of creating a society where fewer people suffer a second-class existence. Take the existence of Neuralink as a practical example of this: it's a private company whose first users will be paraplegic people, and people suffering from strokes and Parkinson's disease.

orf 6y ago
You're conflating a number of different points and mixing it together with a dash of futurism rubbish. Handicapped people need access to goods and services right now. Services like banks, restaurants, public buildings. Laws and regulations that ensure they have access to those goods and services is not holding back "science and technology". In some vague future where we've cured all disabilities then sure, I agree these laws are probably not needed anymore. However, until then...
- maxharris 6y ago
  I don't think you understand the impact that government controls have on the development of science and technology. (Just look at the decades of failure in the public space program and compare it against the progress made by private companies in the last decade!) Nor are you acknowledging the fact that resources are finite for any a single instant in time. Every dollar you take from someone in taxes is a dollar they are not free to put toward their own values. Even more importantly, they are no longer free to guide that money with the information they uniquely have. If you want meaningful change, you have to think about this at an individual level. After all, it is individuals who think, make scientific discoveries, and make business decisions. Groups don't think.
  - orf 6y ago
    Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensuring disabled access to a store will somehow end up funding ground-breaking disability research. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what we are doing now. Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources" are being somehow diverted away from disability research because private businesses need to accomodate disabled people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing that these unthinking groups (shall we call them companies?) would invest any of the money they would save by not ensuring equal access in anything related to disability research. When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a group level then focusing on the individual is not a great tactic. You can spend an hour individually explaining to every person in a country why smoking is bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.
  - neom 6y ago
    I'm genuinely curious; is your position that there should be zero societal consideration for those less able than others?
    - maxharris 6y ago
      No. Wherever the property in question is publicly owned, such as a courtroom or public road, reasonable accommodations must be made. The views I have shared apply only in the case of private property. On my view, if something is yours, it is yours alone to manage or dispose of so long as you do not interfere with the individual rights of others.

orf 6y ago

You're conflating a number of different points and mixing it together with a dash of futurism rubbish. Handicapped people need access to goods and services right now. Services like banks, restaurants, public buildings. Laws and regulations that ensure they have access to those goods and services is not holding back "science and technology". In some vague future where we've cured all disabilities then sure, I agree these laws are probably not needed anymore. However, until then...

maxharris 6y ago
I don't think you understand the impact that government controls have on the development of science and technology. (Just look at the decades of failure in the public space program and compare it against the progress made by private companies in the last decade!) Nor are you acknowledging the fact that resources are finite for any a single instant in time. Every dollar you take from someone in taxes is a dollar they are not free to put toward their own values. Even more importantly, they are no longer free to guide that money with the information they uniquely have. If you want meaningful change, you have to think about this at an individual level. After all, it is individuals who think, make scientific discoveries, and make business decisions. Groups don't think.
- orf 6y ago
  Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensuring disabled access to a store will somehow end up funding ground-breaking disability research. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what we are doing now. Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources" are being somehow diverted away from disability research because private businesses need to accomodate disabled people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing that these unthinking groups (shall we call them companies?) would invest any of the money they would save by not ensuring equal access in anything related to disability research. When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a group level then focusing on the individual is not a great tactic. You can spend an hour individually explaining to every person in a country why smoking is bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.
- neom 6y ago
  I'm genuinely curious; is your position that there should be zero societal consideration for those less able than others?
  - maxharris 6y ago
    No. Wherever the property in question is publicly owned, such as a courtroom or public road, reasonable accommodations must be made. The views I have shared apply only in the case of private property. On my view, if something is yours, it is yours alone to manage or dispose of so long as you do not interfere with the individual rights of others.