4 ms·

It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign language is a complete and distinct langu

by retrac 4y ago

It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign language is a complete and distinct language, there are norms and practices unique to the culture. Acquiring the ability to hear is also the ability to, in effect, leave that culture and acquire the mainstream culture. Many Deaf people do not, in fact, view themselves as disabled or impaired. Particularly those who grew up mostly around Deaf people and who have an entirely Deaf experience in life. Everyone around them seems fine, they have their own distinct culture, etc. As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social status and identity and politics within the Deaf community. It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign language as their native language, the chain of cultural transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken. It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser. You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior, mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different culture. I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully dismissed easily. There is a point there.

Gartent 4y ago
>Pushing cochlear implants is like genocide on deaf people. If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat veterans have their own culture and community. We don't consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans. Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide' is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as people being born with functional hearing.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  Article from 2020: https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-oppose-using-gene-editing-to-cure-deafness https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-oppo... Article from 2017: https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-curing-the-deaf-lead-to-cultural-genocide/ https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-curing-the-deaf-lead-to...
- retrac 4y ago
  It is serious. I think it's an argument that has enough internal sense and structure that it can't just be called a stupid argument and tossed out. I'm here to explore the ideas around this, not trash nor proselytize any particular idea for the sake of it. You won't get very far by starting with comparing deafness to having been raped or having your leg blown off. Rape survivors are not a distinct cultural group. Take deafness and ability entirely out of the equation for now. People who speak sign language as a native language are a distinct cultural group with a long and separate heritage from the hearing world. For example, American Sign Language is related to French Sign Language and the speakers of each can understand each other somewhat. While British Sign Language is totally different and American and British deaf people can't even easily speak to each other in sign, only in writing. There's a whole cultural world there, as vibrant and functional as hearing ones. They get along fairly well. People born deaf and raised in a deaf community generally have better outcomes socially and economically compared to deaf people raised in isolation in hearing culture. Yes, they cannot hear, but they don't feel they're missing anything and, functionally speaking, they'd survive on their own just fine without hearing. I was born quite hard of hearing, and I am going deaf as I get older. I was raised hearing. Bitterly ironically, I'm musically talented and it is one of my great pleasures. I am also linguistically talented, particularly with phonetics. (Taught myself in my teens to improve my speech and it became a fascination.) And yet I am losing the capacity to sense those things. Trust me. I get it. I get it very well. The deaf have no idea what they're missing. And yet Deaf culture is a precious thing that also deserves to exist. It is an impasse and a seeming paradox and I don't have an answer. Raise every child hearing and allowing sign and the culture to die out is undesirable just as people who could hear music and speech being unable to hear them is.
  - 4y ago
josephcsible 4y ago
> What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. By this logic, would a cure for cancer be a bad thing too, since then cancer patients would be extinct?
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  Unlike deafness, cancer tends to be fatal. More appropriate comparisons (though not entirely comparable) would be gender dysphoria, autism, or, if the "gay gene" hypothesis is to be believed, homosexuality.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Quadriplegia also isn't fatal. Should we reject a miracle cure for it too?
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      I don't think we should reject the creation of a medical cure at all. I'm completely of the view that if an procedure exists to treat/cure a problem (however that's defined to exist) the procedure should be available to the extent the creator is interested in providing it. However, GP expanded upon a sociological dimension to disabilities and chronic illnesses that isn't usually discussed and considered. When asking "How do they cure it", an important question to consider is "Do they/ Would they ever want a cure and under what corcumstances?" It's quite the coincidence that deafness was the example used, because the scenario GP describes actually happened once before: https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-community-a-culture-and-history-rich-in-tradition https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-communit...

by retrac 4y ago

Gartent 4y ago

>Pushing cochlear implants is like genocide on deaf people. If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat veterans have their own culture and community. We don't consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans. Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide' is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as people being born with functional hearing.

tbrownaw 4y ago
Article from 2020: https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-oppose-using-gene-editing-to-cure-deafness https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-oppo... Article from 2017: https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-curing-the-deaf-lead-to-cultural-genocide/ https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-curing-the-deaf-lead-to...
retrac 4y ago
It is serious. I think it's an argument that has enough internal sense and structure that it can't just be called a stupid argument and tossed out. I'm here to explore the ideas around this, not trash nor proselytize any particular idea for the sake of it. You won't get very far by starting with comparing deafness to having been raped or having your leg blown off. Rape survivors are not a distinct cultural group. Take deafness and ability entirely out of the equation for now. People who speak sign language as a native language are a distinct cultural group with a long and separate heritage from the hearing world. For example, American Sign Language is related to French Sign Language and the speakers of each can understand each other somewhat. While British Sign Language is totally different and American and British deaf people can't even easily speak to each other in sign, only in writing. There's a whole cultural world there, as vibrant and functional as hearing ones. They get along fairly well. People born deaf and raised in a deaf community generally have better outcomes socially and economically compared to deaf people raised in isolation in hearing culture. Yes, they cannot hear, but they don't feel they're missing anything and, functionally speaking, they'd survive on their own just fine without hearing. I was born quite hard of hearing, and I am going deaf as I get older. I was raised hearing. Bitterly ironically, I'm musically talented and it is one of my great pleasures. I am also linguistically talented, particularly with phonetics. (Taught myself in my teens to improve my speech and it became a fascination.) And yet I am losing the capacity to sense those things. Trust me. I get it. I get it very well. The deaf have no idea what they're missing. And yet Deaf culture is a precious thing that also deserves to exist. It is an impasse and a seeming paradox and I don't have an answer. Raise every child hearing and allowing sign and the culture to die out is undesirable just as people who could hear music and speech being unable to hear them is.
- 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. By this logic, would a cure for cancer be a bad thing too, since then cancer patients would be extinct?

Dracophoenix 4y ago
Unlike deafness, cancer tends to be fatal. More appropriate comparisons (though not entirely comparable) would be gender dysphoria, autism, or, if the "gay gene" hypothesis is to be believed, homosexuality.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Quadriplegia also isn't fatal. Should we reject a miracle cure for it too?
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    I don't think we should reject the creation of a medical cure at all. I'm completely of the view that if an procedure exists to treat/cure a problem (however that's defined to exist) the procedure should be available to the extent the creator is interested in providing it. However, GP expanded upon a sociological dimension to disabilities and chronic illnesses that isn't usually discussed and considered. When asking "How do they cure it", an important question to consider is "Do they/ Would they ever want a cure and under what corcumstances?" It's quite the coincidence that deafness was the example used, because the scenario GP describes actually happened once before: https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-community-a-culture-and-history-rich-in-tradition https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-communit...