Slashdot Mirror
Is Technology a Panacea for the Disabled?
osssmkatz asks: "I have lived all of my life with a physical disability, and have recently been beset by the typical claims that I am too obsessed by computers etc. This raises an important philosophical question for me. Throughout my life, technology has seemed a way around my limitations, but recently, I have become aware that it may not be. Is technology the ultimate panacea or does it, as Hamlet suggest, only seem to be so? I hope this question isn't too broad for Slashdot which has covered disability, technology and sociology issues in the past."
stephen hawking? is that you?
Also don't forget:
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
It's often escape/illusion of normal life. :(
One that hath name thou can not otter
Those people are wrong. Dead wrong. It might not be the ultimate panacea, but its the closest thing we've got right now.
When you're chatting on AIM with a blind person, or a deaf person, or someone with no legs, or a speech impediment, irritable bowel syndrome, in a germ free bubble, etc, there's no way to know. It is the great equalizer.
There is nothing inherently more 'psychologically healthy' about talking to someone face to face than over the wire, or playing basketball over Halflife 2. These are lies perpetrated by ignorant people who have always 'fit in' with society's views on what is normal.
I doubt anyone with a disability has ever told you, "You are too obsessed with computers." And if he has, it is only because he has never extensively experienced the world through a computer.
Just ignore them and keep doing what you're doing. And perhaps one day you will be making a higher salary than them, while they keep your pizza delivered in 30 minutes or less.
Technology can help extend human abilities, surmount human limitation, but its no panacea.
I have no way to tell if your are "obsessed" except to ponder the relationship between the incremental time spent on technology versus the incremental benefit. If you spent an hour less on technology per week, would your quality of life be diminished? If you, instead, spent that hour on something else (a non technological hobby, interacting with friends, etc.), would your quality of life by increased? How do those balance for you?
Of course, technology may be a means for you (or other disabled people) to accomplish what others do without non-technological assistance. Then the only issue is in making sure that technology stays in the realm of means rather than becoming an end unto itself.
That is why I say technology is no panacea. It is merely a tool. As with all tools, its value is indirect -- valuable only for the things that it enables, not valuable unto itself.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Since well before Shakesphere's time we have used technology to overcome our physical shortcomings. First it was our inability to kill a dog, then our inability to stay warm in the winter, and so and so forth until our inability to count the census in a week caused us to create the computer.
Today, there is no doubt in my mind that technological solutions are the only way to overcome individual disabilities, be they malfunctioning limbs or poor eyesight or even paralysis. However, there is only so much that an automatic ledger-book can do, and computers are only part of the solution.
Without knowing more about your disability it's hard to say, but philisophically, I'd suggest you simply remember that Shakesphere never lived in a world where a small old man could stand up from church and kill a huge menacing man; he never thought that men would fly, machines would be more than curiosities for the rich, voices could ever be recorded and played back, or that it would ever be possible to disguise the fact that one cannot stand up straight or hold a pen.
You don't need to be disabled to become obsessed with computing. It happens to many people from many walks of life - many of which will be represented by the Slashdot readership.
Computing is something useful, educational and fun. If you can overcome physical limitations using technology, this is an excellent thing.
It may not be a panacea if physical health, emotional health, family relationships and/or friendships deteriorate as a result of the passion for computing.
Some people have found a balance, and even use technology to improve these areas of their lives.
I for one welcome our new... ah forget it, it wouldn't be PC (politically correct).
Obviously technology is not the "ultimate panacea," so what is the question you really wanted to ask? It helps you enjoy your life, so let it. It seems mostly like you wanted to say "Let's talk about this for a while," but you didn't really nail down the topic.
You have to define exactly what a panacea is. That's a job for at the pub after a couple of pints of Irish ale.
You are an extention of your environment. Your environment is an extention of you. Technology extends your reach. In a very real sense, the technology becomes you. Does the technology help you be the person you want to be? Don't worry about becoming somebody else. Who do you want to be? How do you intend to get there? Don't look for some kind of cure. Just worry about the possibilities in front of you.
I also have physical disabilities, and I also get people thinking I am way obsessed with computers. I am not obsessed with technologies since I do tend to use old school stuff like VCR, dial-up modems, don't have PDAs and cellphones, etc.
I am always on the computers every single day at work and at home. It is basically with me to enhance my life. I have speech and hearing impediments so I use them as tools like IM/IRC. They are also used for entertainments like gaming.
It is just another stereotype. And yes, I am a geek as well who obsessed with computers.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Those people raising objections entirely fail to realize the role of technology in the evolution of Mankind. Perhaps they should try reading Ray Kurzweil's insightful book "The Age of Spiritual Machines", or hang around on some of the power-thinking future engineering forums for a bit, to see where things are heading.
I can paraphrase it all for them very simply but rather bluntly: we are ALL disabled, because protein is a really crap technology.
It's not only that we will be able to do better than nature has done in due course. No, it's much more dramatic than that. We will ***HAVE*** to progress beyond what nature has given us, and become one with our post-protein technologies, because if we don't do that then in time we will no longer be the dominent intelligence on the planet --- our machines will be that instead, and we will be no more than very dumb pets.
This isn't the Matrix scenario at all --- this is the hopeful positive scenario where the machines are on our side, but with IQs in the thousands or millions.
Well, maybe a section of humanity will want to stay dumb and looked after by their benevolent machine masters in a comfortable zoo of their own making, but the signs are clear that they will be a very small minority, because each new generation is more comfortable with technology than the last, and pretty much nobody is happy with the concept of no longer being the dominant species here. Yet everyone wants more and more technology, the trend is irreversible.
Blind nature did what it did over millions of years very admirably, but its goals and mechanisms for the proliferation of species started to lose their relevance to Man quite a long time ago, and now natural evolution is simply out of its depth in a world where machines are becoming dramatically more powerful by the decade.
You don't need to extrapolate for very long to come to a future where the effective intelligence of machines (by simple brute force, not clever AI software) matches ours and then exceeds it by many orders of magnitude. And when that happens, there will be only two choices for Mankind: to either continue to be the masters by integrating with the technology, or to get left behind as lower-grade natural primates.
Perhaps the species will split into two at that point, who knows. All I can do is speak for myself --- I'm not interested in regressing back into the metaphorical treetops, and I'm perfectly happy with and even eager for machine converge. And I know I'm not alone.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
"There is nothing inherently more 'psychologically healthy' about talking to someone face to face than over the wire, or playing basketball over Halflife 2."
Body Language.
Throughout my life, technology has seemed a way around my limitations, but recently, I have become aware that it may not be.
A man's reach should exceed his grasp. Technology is an extension of ourself to the degree that we use it to further our progress, individually and collectively.
Is technology the ultimate panacea or does it, as Hamlet suggest, only seem to be so?
Panacea: A remedy claimed to be curative of all problems or disorders; a cure-all.
Technology is not a panacea, nevermind the ultimate panacea. With every technological solution comes a broad range of new problems. Just as each drug has its side effects one has to weigh the gain against the loss.
However, if no one pursued the goal of making technology the "Ultimate Panacea" then we wouldn't be where we are today. Depending on your perspective this may be good or bad.
I have lived all of my life with a physical disability, and have recently been beset by the typical claims that I am too obsessed by computers etc. This raises an important philosophical question for me.
It would be convenient, I suppose, to have a nice answer to the "Technology is/is not the ultimate panacea" question. But my suspicion is that the answer won't actually give you anything other than a good response to claims that you are obsessed by computers.
If you are using technology to make progress toward goals you desire to achieve, then the technology is likely as good as the goals you have set for yourself.
Technology, however, can also be used as a crutch or screen to hide behind when real progress may be better made using alternate methods.
This goes towards a whole discussion on goals, comfort zones, and what progress really means. Something which I suspect you've covered before.
Consider a person involved in a car accident who has to choose whether to go through physical rehabilitation to regain use of their legs, or simply become expert at wheelchair use. There are those who choose to go the wheechair route. If one becomes enchanted by and involved in wheelchair sports, to the point of competing professionally in wheelchair sports then one's goals may be achieved through the use of one technology (wheelchair) as an alternative to another technology (rehabilitation) and they may indeed become more "able" than if they had chosen otherwise.
If others continue to worry about your increasing involvement in computers then consider that they may merely be desiring more of your attention. If you have already identified your goals and made plans to achieve them, then discuss these with the concerned individuals to allay their fears that you may be pulling away from them. Of course, if you are pulling away intentionally then you may not care to explain, but it should prevent them from bothering you if you find their concern irritating.
-Adam
Why shouldn't technology be considered a panacea? With all the medical advances we have seen over the past couple decades, I feel that technology has affected everyone in a positive way, and to millions has been a panacea of sorts. Yes, those in need of technology may be alienated by ignorant members of society, but thats how new trends have been since, well, the very first new trend.
Some of our brightest minds are extremely dependent on technology. Look at Stephen Hawking. I wonder how he'd be doing without the panacea that is technology. It is my belief that 90% or more of slashdot readers suffer from no physical disability whatsoever, but imagine if you did. Perhaps you went blind. Personally, I have no idea how I would live without my vision. Not being able to read, game, and having to learn brail might just push me over the edge. But think of what technology can do for people like that. There are several text-to-speech applications that will read off entire documents (even slashdot). Also, imagine being able to see again thanks to special glasses that transfer signals to the optic nerve. Technology has no greater use than aiding those in need.
I have a feeling the day will come, when artificial organs are commonplace, that many people will be living several hundreds of years with only a natural brain, and even then it will probably not be long before brains can be backed up on a computer, which will lead to entirely mechanical humans, or cyborgs. Imagine what we might now know if geniuses such as Albert Einstein had been mechanically preserved, and were still living today.
I, for one, welcome our everlasting, once-disabled cyborg overlords.
The answer is: No.
Sad but true.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
The only answer I have is a question for you:
Do you feel your quality of life is better or worse with the technology?
What I think doesn't matter. It is your own answer to that question that matters. Everyone else can take a flying leap.
Autistic people use internet forums and irc to have contact with each other.
It helps to see other people have the same issues, and to learn how they solve things.
This depends on your disability. Some are such that you can't go outside, while others should be worked around.
For a normal person[1], there needs to be a balance. I spend 8 hours a day at a computer - nothing strange, I'm a programmer by trade. I go home and I tend my garden and things like that, but I still check my personal email. If you spend a lot of time on the computer, but have activities that you do without the machine, then you are fine. If you spend all your waking hours on the computer there is something wrong.
If you are completely unable to function in public without help, then technology is great. If you control your wheel chair by blowing into a tube because you can't use your arms at all, then technology is all the allows you to live, and computers may be your only way to get things done. I don't think you are in this position - people who are need a lot of help in their daily life, and those helpers would be glad to see you spend more time not needing them.
If your are spending all your time indoors, despite just missing a leg, then perhaps you are using the computer too much. Maybe you need a wheelchair, but you can get involved in a wheelchair basketball league or something. In this case, your balance should not be much different from anyone else's, despite lacking some abilities.
Give your life an honest evaluation. Are you in good physical shape? If not, correct that. Examine the rest of your life. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the computer, but it is not everything in life.
[1]I don't think there is even one person in the world that is completely without a disability. For most people they are minor things, and you can know that person for years without knowing. (For that matter you can go years without knowing - I was in my 20s before I found out I'm color blind) I'm assuming your disability is something more serious, where it does affect your way of life.
I always wondered why people always insist that I should spend more time on stuff I don't care nor like instead on the things I like doing. Why should I waste my spare time doing things they like?
One of my best friends uses a fair amount of technology to compensate for his cerebral-palsy-induced inability to walk, most notably a rather expensive motorised chair. But he didn't always. When he and I were in college together, he used crutches and a traditional hand-pushed chair. But he stopped, and got a motorised chair that he now spends nearly all of his time in (and it's not because his condition is degenerating; CP doesn't do that). I disapproved, because I thought he was giving up and using tech as a (no better word for it) crutch. But I was wrong: He still pushes to get out, to do things, to see people, to go places. And the quality of his life is better this way.
My own situation is different. I have one of those brains that's not very well adapted to face-to-face social interaction, and it'd be really appealing to stick to online communication. But as difficult as I sometimes find dealing with people face to face, I have to admit that I tend to be happier when I've been doing that. So I do need to put the tech away sometimes.
Technology has never solved anything. But when used appropriately, it makes it possible for people to solve things.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Because you want to have friends? I do things with one of my friends that I don't really enjoy, and he does things with me that I don't really enjoy... because we enjoy spending time together. My dad loves to travel; my mom... not really. She goes places with him so he can go and not be lonely without her. I think she calls it "love" or something like that.
Also, some things you don't like doing are good for you, regardless. I don't like going to the dentist, but I recognise that it's still worth "wasting" my time getting my teeth cleaned. And it just might be true that getting out of the house and playing with the other kids - even when I would have prefered to watch TV - was good for me too.
I have to agree with the parent (yes, I've also read Kurzweil) and grandparent on this perspective.
In particular, think about from another way: Consider a social situation in person. Where you are talking to someone who has a remarkable ability to read body language and other factors like reading eyes. The average person will practically be disabled talking to such a person. Do we look at it this way, generally no. But I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we are simply outclassed by someone more intuitive than ourselves.
I know in my case, I can read eyes pretty well. So I start to get disoriented when a person has sunglasses on (or my glasses are off meaning I can't see their eyes). It makes me feel disabled, even though the playing field has been leveled.
But as for technology being the ultimate pancacea, I don't think so. If a person can express themselves more elegantly than average, or if they have more wit, then they will have an advantage in not just the current text-based medium, but in all places. (in particular, I'd bet writers are given the greatest advantage by it).
An interesting point would be a place like
This would place "disabled" as a relative term, because nobody's perfect.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Technology may be a "panacea" for some disabled and may not be for others. Fact is is that as with all other tools there are tymes when it is helpful and tymes when it isn't, it's just another tool.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sounds like someone is really getting the short end of the stick.