I too was taken aback by 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."

Perhaps this is down to my interpretation of the term 'disability', but to me it seems that proposing a future where disability can be treated / cured / undone / avoided is very different to saying that people in the present with disabilities are 'not okay'.

- disability is not a choice.
- the person is not the disability. The disability is not the person.
- saying that a disability is not okay, that it could or should be negated in the future, is a statement about that disability -- not about the people affected by it.

I hope I'm making sense! (This is an especially frustrating comment to write with a barely-functional 'b' key: apologies for typos.)

Also, good point above re the rise of new disabilities in the future. I'm trying to think of examples of things that weren't classed as 'disability' in the past but are now, because of changes in modern life: I'm only coming up with examples like travel-sickness and food intolerances.