I do think that there probably won't be a lot of genetic disability in the future, because we will know how to prevent them from happening, and that in many cases, this will be a good thing, because some of the genetic problems I am thinking of cause people to die young and often painfully. There are no assistive devices that can grant you a functional life with Tay-Sachs disease. I do think research into the genetic causes of various disabilities will go on, and that not all the disabilities which exist today will still exist.
If I were writing about the far, far future, I would probably not include characters with Down's syndrome or cystic fibrosis, because I do not believe society as a whole is going to choose to preserve those things in the name of genetic diversity. Down's syndrome severely limits learning ability in enough people that very few people will actively choose that for their children and cystic fibrosis is painful. I am blanking on the name of what Stephen Hawking has, but I think that they will want to prevent that one, too, because even with the best assistive devices, functionality is severely limited, and the condition is progressive--it gets worse and eventually kills most people. People are not going to want things for their children that will shorten their lives or involve a lot of pain, even if there are ways to improve function. Real assistive technology for a lot of these diseases amounts to curing them.
A lot of things that cause disabilities are the result of prenatal insults to the fetus--chemical exposures, unnecessary stresses, things we don't know about yet. I believe people in the future will not choose to continue allowing those things to happen, because not all of the suffering these problems cause can be alleviated by assistive technology.
I don't personally believe this is a judgement on anyone currently living's fitness to live or moral worth. We don't think that people who were born with the shortened limbs characteristic of prenatal thalidomide exposure are morally unworthy of life, but we have stopped prescribing pregnant women thalidomide.
On the other hand, we may find that autism spectrum neurology and mood disorders are linked genetically with certain kinds of intelligence, and in a world where we do understand brain chemistry and anatomy better and can provide the right kind of teaching and assistance, these are things we might very well choose to preserve, because individual parents will want to have children who are very creative or highly technically skilled, and be more able and willing to accept the non-neurotypical nature of some kinds of giftedness. There is some evidence that attention deficit disorder was an evolutionary advantage in the distant past, and there is a case for autism spectrum disorders and mood disorders as being an evolutionary advantage in the future, particularly when one considers their increasing prevalence in technologically sophisticated societies--people often decry that as evidence that technological societies are bad, but maybe this is just how our brains are evolving.
FWIW, I have a mood disorder and a chronic pain disorder. The chronic pain disorder I would like to be cured of and would never wish on anyone. And it isn't even that bad. I also feel that way about my arthritis, which sometimes limits my mobility. I would not choose to use assistive technology if I could get rid of it. But if my choice was getting rid of the mood disorder AND my creativity and some of my intelligence, or keeping it, I'd keep it thanks.
There probably are also going to be new disabilities, particularly as we find new ways to injure ourselves. Most people would probably prefer to have their leg or arm regrown than get a prosthesis or do without, but some people will choose prosthetics that give them greater or different kinds of functionality (because some people will; they would today, if they could; some currently able-bodied people would like to be cyborgs) and some people may, due to radiation or other exposures, not be able to have their limbs regrown--what grows back is cancerous, or simply nonfunctional.
This is the kind of stuff I have considered in my own writing; I have had several characters in fantasy worlds who had been disabled by use or abuse of various sorts of magic, for that matter.
tl;dr -- I think we will not choose to preserve genetic disabilities that cause pain, eventual death, or seriously limit overall learning ability in a sizable number of people who get them. I think differences that are accompanied by different talents, even when those talents are accompanied by deficits in other areas, such as social skills or stability of mood, will probably be preserved. I also agree that new ways of becoming disabled will exist in the future.
no subject
If I were writing about the far, far future, I would probably not include characters with Down's syndrome or cystic fibrosis, because I do not believe society as a whole is going to choose to preserve those things in the name of genetic diversity. Down's syndrome severely limits learning ability in enough people that very few people will actively choose that for their children and cystic fibrosis is painful. I am blanking on the name of what Stephen Hawking has, but I think that they will want to prevent that one, too, because even with the best assistive devices, functionality is severely limited, and the condition is progressive--it gets worse and eventually kills most people. People are not going to want things for their children that will shorten their lives or involve a lot of pain, even if there are ways to improve function. Real assistive technology for a lot of these diseases amounts to curing them.
A lot of things that cause disabilities are the result of prenatal insults to the fetus--chemical exposures, unnecessary stresses, things we don't know about yet. I believe people in the future will not choose to continue allowing those things to happen, because not all of the suffering these problems cause can be alleviated by assistive technology.
I don't personally believe this is a judgement on anyone currently living's fitness to live or moral worth. We don't think that people who were born with the shortened limbs characteristic of prenatal thalidomide exposure are morally unworthy of life, but we have stopped prescribing pregnant women thalidomide.
On the other hand, we may find that autism spectrum neurology and mood disorders are linked genetically with certain kinds of intelligence, and in a world where we do understand brain chemistry and anatomy better and can provide the right kind of teaching and assistance, these are things we might very well choose to preserve, because individual parents will want to have children who are very creative or highly technically skilled, and be more able and willing to accept the non-neurotypical nature of some kinds of giftedness. There is some evidence that attention deficit disorder was an evolutionary advantage in the distant past, and there is a case for autism spectrum disorders and mood disorders as being an evolutionary advantage in the future, particularly when one considers their increasing prevalence in technologically sophisticated societies--people often decry that as evidence that technological societies are bad, but maybe this is just how our brains are evolving.
FWIW, I have a mood disorder and a chronic pain disorder. The chronic pain disorder I would like to be cured of and would never wish on anyone. And it isn't even that bad. I also feel that way about my arthritis, which sometimes limits my mobility. I would not choose to use assistive technology if I could get rid of it. But if my choice was getting rid of the mood disorder AND my creativity and some of my intelligence, or keeping it, I'd keep it thanks.
There probably are also going to be new disabilities, particularly as we find new ways to injure ourselves. Most people would probably prefer to have their leg or arm regrown than get a prosthesis or do without, but some people will choose prosthetics that give them greater or different kinds of functionality (because some people will; they would today, if they could; some currently able-bodied people would like to be cyborgs) and some people may, due to radiation or other exposures, not be able to have their limbs regrown--what grows back is cancerous, or simply nonfunctional.
This is the kind of stuff I have considered in my own writing; I have had several characters in fantasy worlds who had been disabled by use or abuse of various sorts of magic, for that matter.
tl;dr -- I think we will not choose to preserve genetic disabilities that cause pain, eventual death, or seriously limit overall learning ability in a sizable number of people who get them. I think differences that are accompanied by different talents, even when those talents are accompanied by deficits in other areas, such as social skills or stability of mood, will probably be preserved. I also agree that new ways of becoming disabled will exist in the future.