4 ms·

Objectively, it's possible to be "too broken" to be fixed (e.g. acute blunt force trauma, malignant tumor, etc.) where the only "fix" is palliative care. Althou

Objectively, it's possible to be "too broken" to be fixed (e.g. acute blunt force trauma, malignant tumor, etc.) where the only "fix" is palliative care. Although, I think technically we would say: "too broken to fix based on our CURRENT tools, knowledge and resources". It's an interesting thought experiment to think about how advanced can we become where anything is fixable?

NikolaNovak 5y ago
In addition, this gets complicated VERY quickly; it's relatively easy to say "This leg is broken; it is not right; it needs to be fixed and changed for better". With mental illnesses though, it's difficult to comprehensively, objectively, universally define "right/correct/well" and "broken/incorrect". We all perceive the external world through a faulty set of sensors and interpretations which trigger some mental processes and reactions. It's difficult to mark some such perception/processing as "broken, not worth living". My gut feel is that it's more about finding appropriate environment. Additionally, non-living items are frequently judged based on their utility; "too broken to fix" is related to "cheaper to replace than to fix". With human beings and mental care - not only is it hard to define "Broken" let alone "too broken", it's far harder to define "not feasible to repair" - though of course, when it comes to public policy, such choices are made daily, by necessity. Only so much money to be invested into so many programs. And while I'm rambling, note that myself, and many others, there is an inherent double-standard: my threshold for myself being too broken to fix is far far lower (and I'm a massive proponent of voluntary euthanasia, for myself) than for others (I don't want anybody in my life to leave ever)
- akiselev 5y ago
  There's a decent Stargate Atlantis episode along these lines called Miller's Crossing. The chief scientist McKay gets kidnapped along with his sister (herself a brilliant scientist) by a billionaire trying to use alien nanite technology to cure his daughter of leukemia. In order to incentivize McKay to cooperate and fix the nanite coding, the guy injects McKay's sister with the nanites. McKay figures it out but the daughter ends up dying because, although the nanites cure her leukemia, they also cure an undiagnosed heart murmur by stopping her heart and repairing it thus depriving her brain of oxygen and leaving her braindead. They didn't have much time to explore the philosophical implications (sadly far too common for these scifi shows) but the rest of the episode is a race to disable the nanites before they try to "fix" the sister's epilepsy, including breaking her bones to create work for the nanites. The only type of nanites in the SG universe that could repair a human being without causing crippling unintended consequences were hyper-intelligent replicator nanites that were hell bent on destroying humanity because they had abandonment issues.
monkeybutton 5y ago
Mental illness is not contagious and it is not entirely learned either. By fixing it, you are changing the physical substrate of the mind. Did you fix anything at all? Or did you destroy one mind and create a new one in its place.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Ignorance is not contagious and it is not entirely learned either. By teaching anyone anything, you are changing the physical substrate of the mind. Did you fix anything at all? Or did you destroy one mind and create a new one in its place.

NikolaNovak 5y ago

In addition, this gets complicated VERY quickly; it's relatively easy to say "This leg is broken; it is not right; it needs to be fixed and changed for better". With mental illnesses though, it's difficult to comprehensively, objectively, universally define "right/correct/well" and "broken/incorrect". We all perceive the external world through a faulty set of sensors and interpretations which trigger some mental processes and reactions. It's difficult to mark some such perception/processing as "broken, not worth living". My gut feel is that it's more about finding appropriate environment. Additionally, non-living items are frequently judged based on their utility; "too broken to fix" is related to "cheaper to replace than to fix". With human beings and mental care - not only is it hard to define "Broken" let alone "too broken", it's far harder to define "not feasible to repair" - though of course, when it comes to public policy, such choices are made daily, by necessity. Only so much money to be invested into so many programs. And while I'm rambling, note that myself, and many others, there is an inherent double-standard: my threshold for myself being too broken to fix is far far lower (and I'm a massive proponent of voluntary euthanasia, for myself) than for others (I don't want anybody in my life to leave ever)

akiselev 5y ago
There's a decent Stargate Atlantis episode along these lines called Miller's Crossing. The chief scientist McKay gets kidnapped along with his sister (herself a brilliant scientist) by a billionaire trying to use alien nanite technology to cure his daughter of leukemia. In order to incentivize McKay to cooperate and fix the nanite coding, the guy injects McKay's sister with the nanites. McKay figures it out but the daughter ends up dying because, although the nanites cure her leukemia, they also cure an undiagnosed heart murmur by stopping her heart and repairing it thus depriving her brain of oxygen and leaving her braindead. They didn't have much time to explore the philosophical implications (sadly far too common for these scifi shows) but the rest of the episode is a race to disable the nanites before they try to "fix" the sister's epilepsy, including breaking her bones to create work for the nanites. The only type of nanites in the SG universe that could repair a human being without causing crippling unintended consequences were hyper-intelligent replicator nanites that were hell bent on destroying humanity because they had abandonment issues.

monkeybutton 5y ago

Mental illness is not contagious and it is not entirely learned either. By fixing it, you are changing the physical substrate of the mind. Did you fix anything at all? Or did you destroy one mind and create a new one in its place.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Ignorance is not contagious and it is not entirely learned either. By teaching anyone anything, you are changing the physical substrate of the mind. Did you fix anything at all? Or did you destroy one mind and create a new one in its place.