This is a stupid take as well. There is also evidence that the federation does practice the correction of birth defects and disabilities when appropriate.
And why would they not? Allowing such impairments to exist when the medical technology to prevent it is available seems insanely unethical to me.
Like breeding pugs because if people stopped doing that the breed would cease to exist, ignoring the fact that being a pug is a miserable existence for the animal.
I believe the most sensible policy for the federation (and us in real life) would be to correct any and all birth defects, disabilities and impairments wherever possible, while accommodating and fostering compassion and acceptance for the cases where it is not possible.
Disabled people are not lesser than anyone else and should have the same capacity to participate in society, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try everything to prevent people from being disabled.
Plus in Geordie’s case, his visor gives him better than normal sight. He can look at parts of the electromagnetic spectrum other than the visible wavelengths, so restoring his natural sight would have been giving him a handicap rather than removing one.
Also the whole “that disability is a part of who they are” sounds a lot like reducing people to their disabilities. Like it’s one thing if there’s nothing that can be done or if the best we can do isn’t enough to cause it to no longer be a disability, then they should be accepted disability and all. But it’s another thing if the disability could be corrected or made redundant (like Geordie’s visor giving him better than normal vision).
I don’t think the timing will work out for me, but if cybernetics get going during my lifetime, I’d consider getting augmentations. A coprocessor and memory expansions would be great, though I’d probably need tin foil hats or a magneto helmet to protect from solar flares and EMPs.
It’s crazy to me that some people think improving people’s capabilities, disabled or not, is unethical. No one bats an eye if someone gets a broken arm set properly to avoid it becoming a disability.
Allowing such impairments to exist when the medical technology to prevent it is available seems insanely unethical to me.
There’s a not insignificant minority of the deaf population who believes that there should be no “cure” to deafness researched or put into practice because they believe it will destroy their community to have children receive this cure at birth. They literally want to deny children the ability to hear, even though we might be able to cure deafness with genetic engineering or other tech
I am aware of that sentiment and consequently find it selfish and ethically objectionable.
While I understand that a special bond is formed this way, that happens anyway between halfway decent parents and their offspring because they love each other.
That is not a good enough reason to deny your child one of its senses.
Ok, but I think speaking people need to understand the Deaf perspective as more than just “community” but as also being informed by speaking people, especially experts and medical professionals routinely disregarding the needs and wants of Deaf people to force us into their society. After all CODAs are Deaf too.
For context, I’m a hard of hearing woman who was, at the suggestion of experts, “mainstreamed” (ie my parents were told not to learn sign language or teach it to me because I might prefer it to spoken language), my mother and grandmother also had that experience. I feel cheated out of community, culture, and communication. I learned some sign as an adult but it should’ve been a native language because it’s a language I don’t need assistive devices for
Cochlear implants are great! They’re also uncomfortable to learn to use and painful at first even for adults. But when the question comes up as to whether young children should get them we’re treated as crazy for saying that the child should be taught sign language and given a choice. But instead hearing parents of deaf children usually don’t bother learning sign language.
We might start trusting y’all when you start demonstrating that you care more about what’s best for us than what makes us easier to deal with for y’all.
As another comment in the thread said, this situation is fairly different from a cochlear implant for a number of reasons. This situation is most similar to child being born to deaf parents with normal hearing. Not the same as a cochlear implant at all. The choice in this situation is being deaf or having normal hearing, no inbetweens.
Me personally, I wouldn’t want to pass on any of my genetic gunk to my kids in the name of culture, communication, or community. That’s just cruel and unusual. I would not be surprised if my kids resented me for it if they knew it could have been prevented. Even more so if cellular reconstruction technology is available to repair stuff later in life. And it’s not like they can’t participate, they’re still your kids, they’re just different from you in a small way. Humans are adaptable.
Culture should not always be preserved. My family has had to learn that the hard way.
It’s a matter of quality of life. If someone without conventional hearing can have the same quality of life through other means, then there is no need to “fix” them, unless that’s what they want.
Obviously debilitating illnesses and pain are still dealt with, but stuff like missing limbs or other traits that we might call handicaps are not the same impediment in the future as they are to us, because there are so many possible paths for every individual to choose, and many of those might even be better suited to someone with a unique physiology.
This is a stupid take as well. There is also evidence that the federation does practice the correction of birth defects and disabilities when appropriate.
And why would they not? Allowing such impairments to exist when the medical technology to prevent it is available seems insanely unethical to me. Like breeding pugs because if people stopped doing that the breed would cease to exist, ignoring the fact that being a pug is a miserable existence for the animal.
I believe the most sensible policy for the federation (and us in real life) would be to correct any and all birth defects, disabilities and impairments wherever possible, while accommodating and fostering compassion and acceptance for the cases where it is not possible.
Disabled people are not lesser than anyone else and should have the same capacity to participate in society, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try everything to prevent people from being disabled.
Plus in Geordie’s case, his visor gives him better than normal sight. He can look at parts of the electromagnetic spectrum other than the visible wavelengths, so restoring his natural sight would have been giving him a handicap rather than removing one.
Also the whole “that disability is a part of who they are” sounds a lot like reducing people to their disabilities. Like it’s one thing if there’s nothing that can be done or if the best we can do isn’t enough to cause it to no longer be a disability, then they should be accepted disability and all. But it’s another thing if the disability could be corrected or made redundant (like Geordie’s visor giving him better than normal vision).
I don’t think the timing will work out for me, but if cybernetics get going during my lifetime, I’d consider getting augmentations. A coprocessor and memory expansions would be great, though I’d probably need tin foil hats or a magneto helmet to protect from solar flares and EMPs.
It’s crazy to me that some people think improving people’s capabilities, disabled or not, is unethical. No one bats an eye if someone gets a broken arm set properly to avoid it becoming a disability.
There’s a not insignificant minority of the deaf population who believes that there should be no “cure” to deafness researched or put into practice because they believe it will destroy their community to have children receive this cure at birth. They literally want to deny children the ability to hear, even though we might be able to cure deafness with genetic engineering or other tech
I am aware of that sentiment and consequently find it selfish and ethically objectionable. While I understand that a special bond is formed this way, that happens anyway between halfway decent parents and their offspring because they love each other.
That is not a good enough reason to deny your child one of its senses.
Ok, but I think speaking people need to understand the Deaf perspective as more than just “community” but as also being informed by speaking people, especially experts and medical professionals routinely disregarding the needs and wants of Deaf people to force us into their society. After all CODAs are Deaf too.
For context, I’m a hard of hearing woman who was, at the suggestion of experts, “mainstreamed” (ie my parents were told not to learn sign language or teach it to me because I might prefer it to spoken language), my mother and grandmother also had that experience. I feel cheated out of community, culture, and communication. I learned some sign as an adult but it should’ve been a native language because it’s a language I don’t need assistive devices for
Cochlear implants are great! They’re also uncomfortable to learn to use and painful at first even for adults. But when the question comes up as to whether young children should get them we’re treated as crazy for saying that the child should be taught sign language and given a choice. But instead hearing parents of deaf children usually don’t bother learning sign language.
We might start trusting y’all when you start demonstrating that you care more about what’s best for us than what makes us easier to deal with for y’all.
As another comment in the thread said, this situation is fairly different from a cochlear implant for a number of reasons. This situation is most similar to child being born to deaf parents with normal hearing. Not the same as a cochlear implant at all. The choice in this situation is being deaf or having normal hearing, no inbetweens.
Me personally, I wouldn’t want to pass on any of my genetic gunk to my kids in the name of culture, communication, or community. That’s just cruel and unusual. I would not be surprised if my kids resented me for it if they knew it could have been prevented. Even more so if cellular reconstruction technology is available to repair stuff later in life. And it’s not like they can’t participate, they’re still your kids, they’re just different from you in a small way. Humans are adaptable.
Culture should not always be preserved. My family has had to learn that the hard way.
There was an episode of scrubs about that
This is the breath of fresh air this dumb post made me need. Thank you.
It’s a matter of quality of life. If someone without conventional hearing can have the same quality of life through other means, then there is no need to “fix” them, unless that’s what they want.
Obviously debilitating illnesses and pain are still dealt with, but stuff like missing limbs or other traits that we might call handicaps are not the same impediment in the future as they are to us, because there are so many possible paths for every individual to choose, and many of those might even be better suited to someone with a unique physiology.