3 ms·

In today's culture wouldn't this be considered "ableist"? Aren't we internalizing the idea of being "disabled" to this kid and thus dehumanizing him by building

In today's culture wouldn't this be considered "ableist"? Aren't we internalizing the idea of being "disabled" to this kid and thus dehumanizing him by building a machine that "corrects" his inability to walk? I've seen similar arguments from the deaf community about hearing restoration as "correcting" something when nothing is "wrong". FWIW I think this invention is awesome.

MitPitt 5y ago
By this logic, any medicine is ableist. Are we dehumanizing people with flesh wounds by sewing them up and stopping the bleeding?
- nemo44x 5y ago
  I don't think so, and I think that's sort of a different thing. I believe the original ideas around this go back to when a child is born with ambiguous sex organs. Parents and doctors would then choose to "correct" the issue to ensure the baby is either a boy or a girl, when in actuality it may have chromosome's that are not XX or XY. So then this (which is actually a really interesting debate) has cascaded into the greater world of disabilities. So there are currently critical theorists in the universities "theorizing" that looking at disabilities as something that needs to be corrected and not something that is normal puts people with them on the margins of society. So there is well regarded (by some) literature that fixing deafness is wrong and that society shouldn't see it as a disability - that society should adapt to be seamlessly inclusive for deaf people. And this goes on and on. In essence, science is racist and it has been white men who have classified what is normal and what is not and who is to say that everyone is normal and "correcting" these things is actually, well, "ableist". It can get pretty crazy (whoops, that's a naughty word) out there.
  - MitPitt 5y ago
    If by adapting (for example) blind people into society they mean writing in braille everywhere and so on, then it's the same as if correcting their disability. An exo-exo-skeleton, extended to the whole society. So it's just demagoguery.
    - nemo44x 5y ago
      I think the analogy would be if they could make them see again.
CTmystery 5y ago
Are you genuinely curious or do you have an axe to grind? Have you seen anyone accuse such an invention as ableist? This is exactly what new technology is supposed to do: make things possible that were previously difficult or impossible. I don't see how any of the culture wars in vogue have anything to do with it.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-and-philosophy/202008/controversy-surrounding-the-drive-cure-deafness https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-and-philosop...
  - zuminator 5y ago
    1) Anyone can take a controversial position. But I'd want to read something more than a rather minimal Psychology Today article to conclude that this is indicative of "today's culture" and not just an opinion of a fringe minority. 2) In any event the deaf community is rather unique compared with other disabled groups in general. A substantial number of deaf/hearing impaired people are born that way and grow up in a community with its own language and culture, a community that would be for better or worse disrupted by a "cure." Other disabled groups tend not to have a separate strong cultural identity as such. It is true that there are instances of individual blind people who were "cured" of blindness and found the experience so disorienting that they fell into a deep depression [0], but as far as I know, they didn't advocate for an end to blindness research. [0] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/10382528 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/10382528
a_conservative 5y ago
I think these kinds of questions are very personal. I had a close family member who couldn't walk. She didn't make her inability to walk a part of her identity, it was just something annoying she had to put up with. I doubt she would have been upset about gaining the ability to walk. The only time I've heard these types of questions are around people who are deaf. I suspect that the issue is a complex one of language and community. My understanding is that (some?) deaf people consider sign language their primary language, not the native tongue of their country. It's too bad that the hn downvoters are hitting your post so hard, this could be a useful, informative discussion. It's hard to talk about this kind of thing without crossing political correctness boundaries though.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  > It's too bad that the hn downvoters are hitting your post so hard, It's OK, I don't mind - plenty of karma. I agree it's worth discussing because it's a bigger topic than a lot of people might realize. There's a lot of these types of ideas making a lot of progress in the university right now and they don't intend on being confined to them as theoretical. And in some cases they may have good points and in others maybe not.

MitPitt 5y ago

By this logic, any medicine is ableist. Are we dehumanizing people with flesh wounds by sewing them up and stopping the bleeding?

nemo44x 5y ago
I don't think so, and I think that's sort of a different thing. I believe the original ideas around this go back to when a child is born with ambiguous sex organs. Parents and doctors would then choose to "correct" the issue to ensure the baby is either a boy or a girl, when in actuality it may have chromosome's that are not XX or XY. So then this (which is actually a really interesting debate) has cascaded into the greater world of disabilities. So there are currently critical theorists in the universities "theorizing" that looking at disabilities as something that needs to be corrected and not something that is normal puts people with them on the margins of society. So there is well regarded (by some) literature that fixing deafness is wrong and that society shouldn't see it as a disability - that society should adapt to be seamlessly inclusive for deaf people. And this goes on and on. In essence, science is racist and it has been white men who have classified what is normal and what is not and who is to say that everyone is normal and "correcting" these things is actually, well, "ableist". It can get pretty crazy (whoops, that's a naughty word) out there.
- MitPitt 5y ago
  If by adapting (for example) blind people into society they mean writing in braille everywhere and so on, then it's the same as if correcting their disability. An exo-exo-skeleton, extended to the whole society. So it's just demagoguery.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    I think the analogy would be if they could make them see again.

CTmystery 5y ago

Are you genuinely curious or do you have an axe to grind? Have you seen anyone accuse such an invention as ableist? This is exactly what new technology is supposed to do: make things possible that were previously difficult or impossible. I don't see how any of the culture wars in vogue have anything to do with it.

nemo44x 5y ago
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-and-philosophy/202008/controversy-surrounding-the-drive-cure-deafness https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-and-philosop...
- zuminator 5y ago
  1) Anyone can take a controversial position. But I'd want to read something more than a rather minimal Psychology Today article to conclude that this is indicative of "today's culture" and not just an opinion of a fringe minority. 2) In any event the deaf community is rather unique compared with other disabled groups in general. A substantial number of deaf/hearing impaired people are born that way and grow up in a community with its own language and culture, a community that would be for better or worse disrupted by a "cure." Other disabled groups tend not to have a separate strong cultural identity as such. It is true that there are instances of individual blind people who were "cured" of blindness and found the experience so disorienting that they fell into a deep depression [0], but as far as I know, they didn't advocate for an end to blindness research. [0] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/10382528 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/10382528

a_conservative 5y ago

I think these kinds of questions are very personal. I had a close family member who couldn't walk. She didn't make her inability to walk a part of her identity, it was just something annoying she had to put up with. I doubt she would have been upset about gaining the ability to walk. The only time I've heard these types of questions are around people who are deaf. I suspect that the issue is a complex one of language and community. My understanding is that (some?) deaf people consider sign language their primary language, not the native tongue of their country. It's too bad that the hn downvoters are hitting your post so hard, this could be a useful, informative discussion. It's hard to talk about this kind of thing without crossing political correctness boundaries though.

nemo44x 5y ago
> It's too bad that the hn downvoters are hitting your post so hard, It's OK, I don't mind - plenty of karma. I agree it's worth discussing because it's a bigger topic than a lot of people might realize. There's a lot of these types of ideas making a lot of progress in the university right now and they don't intend on being confined to them as theoretical. And in some cases they may have good points and in others maybe not.