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."
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.
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.
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
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
There are many people who's brains are either unable or are not very good at decyphering body language. People who are borderline autistic, and Jungian types such as INTJ (I'm one of them) fall into this category. For these people, talking over the internet is a relief from the daily embarrasing situations in real life. In text, you don't have to use the emotional processing parts of your brain to deduce if someone is happy by their facial expression. All you have to do is see, ":)". Simple.
Body language is a good thing for most people, but not all. The problem is that these 'most' people feel that the way they work applies to the rest of the human population. Body language is good, except when you can't interpret it correctly.
Please accept my apologies. It makes me feel sad when someone confirms that I still have a long way to mastering English grammar. I'm better in romanian and worse, much worse, in french.
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/