Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Technology a Panacea for the Disabled?

Posted by Cliff on from the careful-with-your-cure-alls dept.

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."

5 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Philosophical Questions by pyrrhonist · · Score: 3, Funny
    This raises an important philosophical question for me. Is technology the ultimate panacea or does it, as Hamlet suggest, only seem to be so?

    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.
    1. Re:Philosophical Questions by 77Punker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, KDE has such a great accessibility package that somebody who's been using Windows 3.1 and is blind could learn how to use it in just about 15 minutes.

      All he would need to do is type "apt-get install kdebase" after he finishes installing the special blind-unstable branch. Then run the config scripts for all the random stuff that goes into using a computer when you're blind...and bingo! If it doesn't work quite right, he can just edit the source code since it's GPL and he's got a computer doing EXACTLY what he wants!

  2. Pretty darn close by TheCamper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Pretty darn close-Body Talk. by TheCamper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:stephen? by ngdbsdmn · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.