You do raise valid points, but I have to disagree. The following text is just my opinion, I don't claim it to be opinion of anyone else but me.
I'm sure someone will rush to say, "No! No! They'll exist, they just won't be disabled, that's all! They'll be cured in the future, isn't that great?" Let's actually imagine the universe as you introduced it. An universe without disabilities and without disabled people in it. So an universe like this doesn't have disabled people therefore they are not born. Just a preamble.
First, because we are not in the future, thus when you say such statements, you're impacting actual people in here and now. You're saying, "Wow, won't it be great when you're not like that anymore. When you're different?" Which is saying, "The way you are now is not okay." I disagree. Some people may mean it this way, but I highly doubt that majority does. They are speaking about future and advancement in medicine and health care not about the situation now. Sure, sci-fi was mostly a mirror of our own age, but some debates and philosophizing is about future, such as the development in science and technologies. They are saying that future world may be able to cure what we are not able to do now. It's a point of view full of hope and joy which you're basically saying is wrong. Why is it? Why should be advancement in technology and science wrong?
Second, because your idea of "great" is finding ways to make disabled people "normal". I think you're misinterpreting. It is not about making anyone "normal" as you say. It's about curing them, preventing the disabilities to happen. You say normal as if it's something offensive. Normal is something that is the norm. The norm can be wrong, like in our times, where anything that is different is wrong. But the norm in the future or in the sci-fi books can be different. "Different" people may not be mentioned because they may not be considered different. Such as skincolor. In many works I've read it's not mentioned. A lot of times even the skincolor of the main character is not mentioned nor is the race. They could be of any race, it's just not mentioned, thus not considered important. It could be the same deal with disabilities that are not actually impairing the character or influencing the story. The occam's razor is an important thing to use for a writer, you need to cut down to the important to keep the reader alert. In many works I've read the disabilities are also easier to deal with because of the development in science and technologies. Just think about Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. He got his hand chopped off, but because of advanced technology he got a robotic replacement.
This future is not one in which we have better definitions, just better medicine. In those worlds, our science evolves, our compassion and tolerance and understanding do not. How can you say so? If people had no compassion they would kill disabled people like Spartans did. If people had no compassion they would not strive to find cure for diseases and ways to make the lives of disabled people easier.
I do not like this future. It scares me and it erases so, so many people. I do not agree with this statement. It does not erase so many people. They would be different. They would not be born blind or they would not have malformed arm, but they would live. Are you saying that you do not agree with trying to find cures for this? That's how it seems to me.
Lose a limb? We'll regrow it! Get paralyzed in a space accident? We'll fix that, hop in a medical pod/chamber/box o' insta-healing! Blind? Here, have some nanobots. Deaf? Oh, there's a pill for that. You, too, can be made Normal.
Again, you're saying this. I feel like you want people to suffer instead of helping them. What's wrong with imagining a world where people who get hurt and suffer can get help? What's wrong with imagining that when I get hurt so badly there will be a way for me to be fully functional again? It is not about being normal. It's about being healthy. It's about having the possibility. It's about decision.
Never you mind that you don't see a lot of mental disabilities/disorders. I can't remember the last time I read about main characters who have, say, ADHD or autism spectrum disorder or Down syndrome or an eating disorder. Again, I remember seeing and reading some books where characters evidently had some form of a disorder but it never was explicitly stated. Like it isn't in our current world. I don't go around advertising I have bipolar disorder, it's noone's business.
Up to last five paragraphs it seemed like you were arguing against curing, but in those last ones it seems like you're arguing against the possibility of eugenics and that I can agree with. The debate is starting now, I've just yesterday watched a discussion with one expert on genetics (I can't remember his name). What is ethic? How can and should we even tamper with human genome? Should we take it to ourselves to decide what gene is right and what is wrong? What outcome is acceptable and what isn't? I feel that these are the questions you're actually asking.
I recommend you read a book by Elizabeth Moon named Speed of Dark. It deals with this issue perfectly. The main character of the book is an autistic man who faces a decision whether to take a cure for his autism or not. This book formed my opinion on this issue.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-13 10:40 am (UTC)I'm sure someone will rush to say, "No! No! They'll exist, they just won't be disabled, that's all! They'll be cured in the future, isn't that great?"
Let's actually imagine the universe as you introduced it. An universe without disabilities and without disabled people in it. So an universe like this doesn't have disabled people therefore they are not born. Just a preamble.
First, because we are not in the future, thus when you say such statements, you're impacting actual people in here and now. You're saying, "Wow, won't it be great when you're not like that anymore. When you're different?" Which is saying, "The way you are now is not okay."
I disagree. Some people may mean it this way, but I highly doubt that majority does. They are speaking about future and advancement in medicine and health care not about the situation now. Sure, sci-fi was mostly a mirror of our own age, but some debates and philosophizing is about future, such as the development in science and technologies. They are saying that future world may be able to cure what we are not able to do now. It's a point of view full of hope and joy which you're basically saying is wrong. Why is it? Why should be advancement in technology and science wrong?
Second, because your idea of "great" is finding ways to make disabled people "normal".
I think you're misinterpreting. It is not about making anyone "normal" as you say. It's about curing them, preventing the disabilities to happen. You say normal as if it's something offensive. Normal is something that is the norm. The norm can be wrong, like in our times, where anything that is different is wrong. But the norm in the future or in the sci-fi books can be different. "Different" people may not be mentioned because they may not be considered different. Such as skincolor. In many works I've read it's not mentioned. A lot of times even the skincolor of the main character is not mentioned nor is the race. They could be of any race, it's just not mentioned, thus not considered important. It could be the same deal with disabilities that are not actually impairing the character or influencing the story. The occam's razor is an important thing to use for a writer, you need to cut down to the important to keep the reader alert. In many works I've read the disabilities are also easier to deal with because of the development in science and technologies. Just think about Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. He got his hand chopped off, but because of advanced technology he got a robotic replacement.
This future is not one in which we have better definitions, just better medicine. In those worlds, our science evolves, our compassion and tolerance and understanding do not.
How can you say so? If people had no compassion they would kill disabled people like Spartans did. If people had no compassion they would not strive to find cure for diseases and ways to make the lives of disabled people easier.
I do not like this future. It scares me and it erases so, so many people.
I do not agree with this statement. It does not erase so many people. They would be different. They would not be born blind or they would not have malformed arm, but they would live. Are you saying that you do not agree with trying to find cures for this? That's how it seems to me.
Lose a limb? We'll regrow it! Get paralyzed in a space accident? We'll fix that, hop in a medical pod/chamber/box o' insta-healing! Blind? Here, have some nanobots. Deaf? Oh, there's a pill for that. You, too, can be made Normal.
Again, you're saying this. I feel like you want people to suffer instead of helping them. What's wrong with imagining a world where people who get hurt and suffer can get help? What's wrong with imagining that when I get hurt so badly there will be a way for me to be fully functional again? It is not about being normal. It's about being healthy. It's about having the possibility. It's about decision.
Never you mind that you don't see a lot of mental disabilities/disorders. I can't remember the last time I read about main characters who have, say, ADHD or autism spectrum disorder or Down syndrome or an eating disorder.
Again, I remember seeing and reading some books where characters evidently had some form of a disorder but it never was explicitly stated. Like it isn't in our current world. I don't go around advertising I have bipolar disorder, it's noone's business.
Up to last five paragraphs it seemed like you were arguing against curing, but in those last ones it seems like you're arguing against the possibility of eugenics and that I can agree with. The debate is starting now, I've just yesterday watched a discussion with one expert on genetics (I can't remember his name). What is ethic? How can and should we even tamper with human genome? Should we take it to ourselves to decide what gene is right and what is wrong? What outcome is acceptable and what isn't? I feel that these are the questions you're actually asking.
I recommend you read a book by Elizabeth Moon named Speed of Dark. It deals with this issue perfectly. The main character of the book is an autistic man who faces a decision whether to take a cure for his autism or not. This book formed my opinion on this issue.
a/n: I've replied to this as I've read it