12 ms·
> the tiranny of the majority had flaws (but to me is mostly unavoidable due to the natural economies of scale it grants). In a different context, this is a so
by mwcampbell 5y ago
> the tiranny of the majority had flaws (but to me is mostly unavoidable due to the natural economies of scale it grants).
In a different context, this is a source of frustration for me as a (partially) blind person advocating accessibility for blind people. The world is designed around the assumption, correct for most people, that people have the high-bandwidth, low-latency sense of sight. And that does lead to the most effective interface for most people. That assumption is so thoroughly baked into everything that I sometimes think it might have been better if, through some kind of eugenics, I and people like me (blind from birth) had never been born at all, so the world could go on with that assumption (as it mostly does anyway) without leaving us out. I know eugenics is a taboo idea though, and it has its own problems.
- necovek 5y agoOne thing to keep in mind is that eyesight is a continuum between better than 20/20 to completely blind like you. That means that without going the only-the-perfect-survive route, there are always going to be issues with how the world operates. For any given human problem, it's probably rare that it's optimized for even half the population. Doesn't help you, being on the extreme of the eyesight problem, but the fact that we need to accommodate blind people also helps a bunch for people with vision issues and (commonly imperfect) correction. So while you can consider yourself to be in the small percentage of completely blind people, you can also consider yourself to be in the majority of people with vision issues. Should we have avoided all of them in this world? And that's wherein lies the issue with eugenics or any sort of artifical selection of our descendants: where is that line? And just judging by this single comment, you are at least capable of eloquent, reasonable discussion, which is probably untrue for at least half the population.
- scandox 5y agoI think parent poster is actually only partially blind
- mwcampbell 5y agoCorrect. Legally blind, meaning, for example, that I can't drive, but with enough sight to read text up close if it's large enough. Edit to add: I do increasingly depend on a screen reader, though not yet for my actual programming work. ETA 2: Sorry for the confusion in the original comment. I've become wary of terms like "visually impaired", because they wreak of over-sensitivity and political correctness. But there's also something to be said for accurately and clearly communicating the actual condition.
- scandox 5y agoFirst of all I think Eugenics would/will quickly lead to something akin to runaway selection: people will make increasingly absurd decisions mainly driven by status markers / perceptual drift and the human race will breed itself into some mad corner. So I don't believe Eugenics is ever going to do what even its most ardent supporters imagine. Second of all the human race does not have some over-arching goals we need to meet like a business. It is or should be like a club run for the benefit of the members: let's create good conditions for people. We can tolerate a bit of complexity and diversity.
- hoseja 5y agoThe main problem I see is breeding better citizens for totalitarian states.
- pas 5y agoare worker bees or ants happy?
- SnowHill9902 5y agoIs the goal of your life to be happy?
- kesslern 5y agoYes, what's yours?
- SnowHill9902 5y agoI would rather be happy than unhappy but it’s not one’s goal.
- pas 5y agoWhat's your goal?
- dotancohen 5y agoMy first experience with someone in your position was Geordi LaForge. I found it so inspiring how he overcame - though technology - his blindness and how his innovation became central to fulfilling his craft's mission and often securing the safety of its crew. I often wondered what would have become of him had he been born in an earlier age, without the technology to provide him with an alternative high-bandwidth, low-latency sense. I am blessed that I have all my senses and so do my children, but I absolutely believe that the 9999 other traits that you have to share should not be lost just because of a single non-optimal trait.
- mwcampbell 5y ago> My first experience with someone in your position was Geordi LaForge. I found it so inspiring [...] To be clear, that's a fictional character in a fictional future that may or may not ever come. Sure, we can use assistive technology, e.g. screen readers, to enable us to work. But with our current technology, that requires cooperation from developers of platforms, applications, websites, etc., and as I said in another comment, advocating for that sometimes seems futile. We do sometimes make progress though. > I absolutely believe that the 9999 other traits that you have to share should not be lost just because of a single non-optimal trait. Of course you're right; thanks for that reminder.
- dotancohen 5y agoYes, Roddenberry used his fictional future to show us what our future could be. That was the point that I was trying to make without being too explicit - that could in fact be our future. If we choose it.
- mwcampbell 5y agoMaybe I'm succumbing to the cynical zeitgeist, but I figure the future will be primarily whatever the wealthy minority wants. If that's so, then maybe the best hope for people like me is a future like the one portrayed in the opening of Ready Player Two (generally not a very good book), where a VR-obsessed multi-billionaire funds work on neural interfaces, starting with implants for disabled people and culminating in the OASIS Neural Interface headset. Yes, it would feel wrong to be used as a means to an end, but it would answer the question of how a world-dominating VR as depicted in those books could be made accessible.
- andrepd 5y agoNot only is that impractical (how can you reliably filter blindness before birth? I suppose you could test babies eyesight at birth and kill them if they're blind?), but what about the people who get blind during their lives? They are the vast majority of cases of blindness! It seems very odd to propose that the solution to a problem is to liquidate all people who suffer from that problem.
- mwcampbell 5y agoFair points. Sometimes it just seems like it's futile to advocate for accommodations everywhere. I should be thoroughly used to it by now, though.
- nitrogen 5y agoEverywhere? Probably not. Enough to live a fulfilling life? Absolutely. Everyone deserves that much.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pabs3 5y agoThere a lot of different biases in the world of tech, sightedness is just one of them. Are there any operating systems written from or computers built from a blind perspective, or are the blind just using the accessibility features of sighted operating systems?
- mwcampbell 5y ago> Are there any operating systems written from or computers built from a blind perspective Yes, but they struggle to keep up with the mainstream, especially considering the runaway complexity of the web. The one notable open-source example is Emacspeak [1]. The rest, as far as I know, have been proprietary and often overpriced products. [1]: http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/ http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/
- tannhaeuser 5y ago> considering the runaway complexity of the web Just want to encourage you to keep pointing to accessibility problems loud and clear. While CSS complexity was mostly driven by ads, ecommerce, and porn, there are people who tried hard to do the right thing on the web (Paciello Group, W3C's WCAG, etc.), thereby also contributing to unwarranted complexity, who could benefit from feedback. And I don't have to tell you, but if you think you're not affected because you're young, sight/focussing problems kick in at about the age of 50.
- scns 5y agoThe nazis tried it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn?wprov=sfla1