Being a trumpet of my own virtues...
Aug. 18th, 2013 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniAround the time I found that video from the PBS Idea Channel, on how the Internet is Cats, I found this one on the philosophy of Transhumanism:
And I posted the following reply:
CapriUni
Quote:
As someone who was born with a physical disability, I find the transhumanists' "ideal" of eradicating the experience of disability disturbing ... to put it mildly. As if there were only one kind of human life capable, or worthy, of happiness -- especially since many modern technology breakthroughs (touchtone phones, voice recognition, computer track balls), all started out as adaptive tech for people with disabilities.
Unquote.
I got a few "thumbs up" clicks, and a few replies (to which I replied in turn). I went back this evening to check on the threads (and reply to a couple of days-old ableist comments, once I figured out how), and was chuffed to see my reply had gone to the top of the "Top Comments" section, with 20 thumbs-up, while the next runner-up had 2.
Anyway, I'm posting this here because it's one of the main topics I've been thinking and writing about this week, and I think those who disagree with me are as interesting and illuminating as those who agree, so therefore:
Discussion begins:
Conor Sexton
That's an interesting idea. They do say, after all, that necessity is the mother of invention. If there is no necessity, will we as a species be driven to invent or develop any further?
CapriUni
When I'm feeling particularly bold, I entertain the notion that ALL tech is "adaptive" tech -- that sometime in our distant past, an ancestor of our homo genus had arthritis in her hands, and had trouble holding on to a large hammer stone, so she figured out how to lash a stick to it for a handle... And then, other members of her clan kept finding reason to borrow it.
Conor Sexton
That idea certainly has the merit of being plausible. I think more modern examples imply that ~any~ physical limitation, be it a "disability" or otherwise, seems to be the seed of some sort of progress. Can't psychic-ly send cat photos to your friends? Bam, internet. Can't fly to the moon? Bam, rockets. Can't murder people at a far enough distance? Bam, firearms.
JakesFavorites
I also think I have something to add to this, being born with a mental disability; well actually, it's more of a social disability than anything, but it is hard-wired with my biology. What others have done to try and help us -namely by eradicating our kind through eugenics- has been deemed less than helpful. It starts to feel rather disturbing when someone sees you as a burden when you have a certain brain chemistry. Technology has helped me greatly: I can speak here.
Autism is not a disease.
Kitana Kazama
It is less about coalescing into the one human experience, and more about eliminating involuntary suffering. As someone who was born with abysmal eyesight, I can say that life would probably be more comfortable were I minus the eye problems. As someone who has been crippled by an accident, I would be able to do so much more if I could just replace the broken pieces. It isn't about limiting people to one track. It is about giving people unspoken opportunities.
CapriUni
Well, except that at 0:45, Mike explicitly says the goal of the Transhumanists is to erase all mental and physical disabilities.
In a story, you can have a world where cures are truly voluntary. But in the real world, resources put toward one goal are diverted from others. If the value of a society is: "Disability is bad" instead of "Diversity is good," we're more likely to get a world where "treatment" is mandatory, and those who can't be cured, or can't afford it, are euthanized.
ImSkating97
What if you'd be born in the far future, and that your disabilities would have been "corrected" before you would have come of an age where you would have been able to express your own thoughts, and made your own choice. What if your parents would have chosen for you?
I know you said you find the idea disgusting, so I just want to point out that I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just curious.
CapriUni
Well, I'd still find that highly offensive -- just because I wouldn't be able to to express my wishes doesn't mean I don't have them. And indeed that was done to me: as a child, I was given several corrective surgeries. When I was 12, doctors cut my heel cords, to make my walking a bit more normal. But it has made crawling (which is natural for my body and brain) harder, and has made getting up from falls downright injurious, and I still curse those doctors, nearly 40 years later.
katharine fitzgerald
ditto. i have several metal disabilities and the idea of "just take a pill and you'll be normal" is kind of offensive. I mean i have to take some medication or my life would be a 24/7 panic attack but i'm not broken and i don't need to be fixed and i don't want to be forced into the status quo either
vnhcoltridge
I think you got it wrong. What they are saying is that we should strive to be the very best, and only then we will be closer to social equality.
And your opinion is extremely subjective since you said you were already born with your disability, so you didn't experience life without it. It's your status quo, your identity - I understand why it would bother you.
But IMO making people physically equal would allow us to focus on other domains - spiritual, philosophical, social, intellectual etc.
CapriUni
But isn't your opinion equally subjective, since you (I'm assuming, based on how you've worded this), were born without a disability? If so, doesn't that mean you're more likely to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the mainstream, since it's your identity?
IMO, making people "physically equal" would be an ever-shifting goalpost, and making that a prerequisite would delay advancements in other domains (and "equality" can occur without "sameness").
phyrath5
There was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation with a significant reference to that subject. The Enterprise is trying to stop a chunk of the core of a star because it is going to pass close to a habited planet. The inhabitants won't leave because their colony was suppose to be a Perfect Society or something. Selective breeding, assigned careers, less advanced technology then the Federation. In the end it was Jordie's visor that saved them. Artificial sight for a blind man.
Sir Labreck
Did you get through you own argument? Because adaptive tech is a small scale application of the ideal of transhumanism. Transhumanism doesn't say that there is one ideal "human", it just say, we can improve beyond our actual state through technology. And adaptive tech is a first step in this direction.
Also, if you have a solution without a problem, you don't have a solution at all.
CapriUni
okay... But I'd argue there's a big difference between designing a better wheelchair and implanting computer chips in the brain to fit a paralyzed person with a robotic exoskeleton.
TheByzantineDragon
Well that depends really. Is a physical disability a thing that ruins your life? From your experience probably not. You probably enjoy life as it is. Sure it can be annoying but it isn't something that makes your life shit. That's why I like to think of transhumanists who want to eradicate all disabilities are the extreme-transhumanists.
Transhumanism's main goal is to get rid of suffering and physical/mental disabilities are not necessary things that make you suffer.
CapriUni
Well, this is tangential to the main discussion at hand, but I'm one of those people who believe (in the main; there are no absolutes) that "Disability" is a social construct more than it is a medical or psychiatric one. The fact that I lack the balance, coordination, and dampened startle response means that I am ill-suited to driving a car. But it's the fact that my city has few sidewalks and fewer public transportation options that makes my life frustrating.
TheByzantineDragon
I know that's the point. A 'disability' isn't necessarily something that ruins your life. Better and more public transportation and a friendlier environment for people who walk, in your case, counteracts the disability. Getting rid of the disability might be fun, but it doesn't necessarily make your life all that better. That's why I think that 100% getting rid of disabilities isn't really a part of transhumanism, because a lot of times it's not needed.
Discussion (As of August 18, 2013) Ends.
And I posted the following reply:
CapriUni
Quote:
As someone who was born with a physical disability, I find the transhumanists' "ideal" of eradicating the experience of disability disturbing ... to put it mildly. As if there were only one kind of human life capable, or worthy, of happiness -- especially since many modern technology breakthroughs (touchtone phones, voice recognition, computer track balls), all started out as adaptive tech for people with disabilities.
Unquote.
I got a few "thumbs up" clicks, and a few replies (to which I replied in turn). I went back this evening to check on the threads (and reply to a couple of days-old ableist comments, once I figured out how), and was chuffed to see my reply had gone to the top of the "Top Comments" section, with 20 thumbs-up, while the next runner-up had 2.
Anyway, I'm posting this here because it's one of the main topics I've been thinking and writing about this week, and I think those who disagree with me are as interesting and illuminating as those who agree, so therefore:
Discussion begins:
Conor Sexton
That's an interesting idea. They do say, after all, that necessity is the mother of invention. If there is no necessity, will we as a species be driven to invent or develop any further?
CapriUni
When I'm feeling particularly bold, I entertain the notion that ALL tech is "adaptive" tech -- that sometime in our distant past, an ancestor of our homo genus had arthritis in her hands, and had trouble holding on to a large hammer stone, so she figured out how to lash a stick to it for a handle... And then, other members of her clan kept finding reason to borrow it.
Conor Sexton
That idea certainly has the merit of being plausible. I think more modern examples imply that ~any~ physical limitation, be it a "disability" or otherwise, seems to be the seed of some sort of progress. Can't psychic-ly send cat photos to your friends? Bam, internet. Can't fly to the moon? Bam, rockets. Can't murder people at a far enough distance? Bam, firearms.
JakesFavorites
I also think I have something to add to this, being born with a mental disability; well actually, it's more of a social disability than anything, but it is hard-wired with my biology. What others have done to try and help us -namely by eradicating our kind through eugenics- has been deemed less than helpful. It starts to feel rather disturbing when someone sees you as a burden when you have a certain brain chemistry. Technology has helped me greatly: I can speak here.
Autism is not a disease.
Kitana Kazama
It is less about coalescing into the one human experience, and more about eliminating involuntary suffering. As someone who was born with abysmal eyesight, I can say that life would probably be more comfortable were I minus the eye problems. As someone who has been crippled by an accident, I would be able to do so much more if I could just replace the broken pieces. It isn't about limiting people to one track. It is about giving people unspoken opportunities.
CapriUni
Well, except that at 0:45, Mike explicitly says the goal of the Transhumanists is to erase all mental and physical disabilities.
In a story, you can have a world where cures are truly voluntary. But in the real world, resources put toward one goal are diverted from others. If the value of a society is: "Disability is bad" instead of "Diversity is good," we're more likely to get a world where "treatment" is mandatory, and those who can't be cured, or can't afford it, are euthanized.
ImSkating97
What if you'd be born in the far future, and that your disabilities would have been "corrected" before you would have come of an age where you would have been able to express your own thoughts, and made your own choice. What if your parents would have chosen for you?
I know you said you find the idea disgusting, so I just want to point out that I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just curious.
CapriUni
Well, I'd still find that highly offensive -- just because I wouldn't be able to to express my wishes doesn't mean I don't have them. And indeed that was done to me: as a child, I was given several corrective surgeries. When I was 12, doctors cut my heel cords, to make my walking a bit more normal. But it has made crawling (which is natural for my body and brain) harder, and has made getting up from falls downright injurious, and I still curse those doctors, nearly 40 years later.
katharine fitzgerald
ditto. i have several metal disabilities and the idea of "just take a pill and you'll be normal" is kind of offensive. I mean i have to take some medication or my life would be a 24/7 panic attack but i'm not broken and i don't need to be fixed and i don't want to be forced into the status quo either
vnhcoltridge
I think you got it wrong. What they are saying is that we should strive to be the very best, and only then we will be closer to social equality.
And your opinion is extremely subjective since you said you were already born with your disability, so you didn't experience life without it. It's your status quo, your identity - I understand why it would bother you.
But IMO making people physically equal would allow us to focus on other domains - spiritual, philosophical, social, intellectual etc.
CapriUni
But isn't your opinion equally subjective, since you (I'm assuming, based on how you've worded this), were born without a disability? If so, doesn't that mean you're more likely to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the mainstream, since it's your identity?
IMO, making people "physically equal" would be an ever-shifting goalpost, and making that a prerequisite would delay advancements in other domains (and "equality" can occur without "sameness").
phyrath5
There was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation with a significant reference to that subject. The Enterprise is trying to stop a chunk of the core of a star because it is going to pass close to a habited planet. The inhabitants won't leave because their colony was suppose to be a Perfect Society or something. Selective breeding, assigned careers, less advanced technology then the Federation. In the end it was Jordie's visor that saved them. Artificial sight for a blind man.
Sir Labreck
Did you get through you own argument? Because adaptive tech is a small scale application of the ideal of transhumanism. Transhumanism doesn't say that there is one ideal "human", it just say, we can improve beyond our actual state through technology. And adaptive tech is a first step in this direction.
Also, if you have a solution without a problem, you don't have a solution at all.
CapriUni
okay... But I'd argue there's a big difference between designing a better wheelchair and implanting computer chips in the brain to fit a paralyzed person with a robotic exoskeleton.
TheByzantineDragon
Well that depends really. Is a physical disability a thing that ruins your life? From your experience probably not. You probably enjoy life as it is. Sure it can be annoying but it isn't something that makes your life shit. That's why I like to think of transhumanists who want to eradicate all disabilities are the extreme-transhumanists.
Transhumanism's main goal is to get rid of suffering and physical/mental disabilities are not necessary things that make you suffer.
CapriUni
Well, this is tangential to the main discussion at hand, but I'm one of those people who believe (in the main; there are no absolutes) that "Disability" is a social construct more than it is a medical or psychiatric one. The fact that I lack the balance, coordination, and dampened startle response means that I am ill-suited to driving a car. But it's the fact that my city has few sidewalks and fewer public transportation options that makes my life frustrating.
TheByzantineDragon
I know that's the point. A 'disability' isn't necessarily something that ruins your life. Better and more public transportation and a friendlier environment for people who walk, in your case, counteracts the disability. Getting rid of the disability might be fun, but it doesn't necessarily make your life all that better. That's why I think that 100% getting rid of disabilities isn't really a part of transhumanism, because a lot of times it's not needed.
Discussion (As of August 18, 2013) Ends.
