Slashdot Mirror
MIT Prof Predicts the End of Disabilities In Next 50 Years
judgecorp writes "MIT professor Hugh Herr describes how technology can end disability in 50 years — with a big incentive from the need to support injured war veterans. A champion climber, Herr lost both legs below the knee, returned to climbing and designed improved climbing prostheses. From the article: 'Herr believes the work he is doing won’t just have humanitarian benefits. There’s money to be made too. And if there’s a market here, it means more people will receive help. Despite all the horrors and injustices the Iraq and Afghanistan wars spawned, they have helped make the biomechatronics industry a lot more viable. Back in 2007, Herr gave Garth Stewart, a 24-year-old Army veteran who lost his left leg below the knee during the conflict in Iraq, a bionic ankle. It used tendon-like springs and an electric motor to provide support for Stewart.'"
I predict that 50 years from now, we'll realize that all long-term predictions made in 2012 turned out to be wrong.
As for the bionic limb prediction specifically, I've been hearing that my whole life. We always seem to be right on the edge of every amputee having bionic limbs. And yet decade after decade passes and, with the exception of a few prototypes here and there along the way, they all still seem to be wearing the same basic hooks and passive limbs that they've had forever (albeit much improved and lighter versions). Steve Austin, with his bionic limbs, is like a mirage that's always just up ahead--but never seems to actually get any closer.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I don't see any indication that spinal cord or brain injuries or birth defects will be gone in fifty years.
Free Martian Whores!
Anyone here ever read "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman? I think the ability to regrow limbs is a longtime coming, if ever...certainly longer than 50 years. Without that, I don't think we can do away with disabilities. Sure, prosthesis potentially can improve quality of life but its not the same as having a real limb.
Does this mean there will be more parking spaces open close to the stores? Walmart seems to be the only place that ever fills them all up anyway.
I'm inclined to wonder whether the roboticists will manage to crack their problem before team "you grew the leg once, now grow it again" manages to get their pet stem cells from turning into hideous doom cancer all the time...
I'm also inclined to wonder what the outcome will be if we manage to crack the (highly complex; but comparatively simple) mechanical problem of replacing the function of limbs; but still have a load of people running around with neural problems, whether inborn or caused by concussive damage and the like. Robotics is hard; but it appears to be very nearly a toy problem compared to neurology.
... and to say that all disabilities will be solved by tech in the next 50 years seems to be an overly broad statement. We may be able to eliminate physical disability due to lost or missing limbs within 50 years, and possibly even many spinal core injuries, but there are many other forms of disability, especially traumatic brain injury and disabilities due to genetic anomalies that are still not well understood, and likely will never have a "cure". In many of the genetic cases, even if diagnosed in utero, there really isn't anything that can be done.
So long as people insist on being paid for the care they administer (including building expensive prosthetic), there will be no such thing as "the end of disabilities". Especially mental disabilities. There is already a treatment available for a great many conditions today: A full time aide, it's just that few people can afford such an extravagance.
I read the internet for the articles.
If you can make robotic legs, arms, eyes, hands, etc., why not put all that together and send the drones to do the fighting? Then you have no more veterans to fix up when they come back missing a limb.
From TFA:“But what if you were doing it for athletic purposes?” Doctorow responds. Herr says if the need is there, then why not? He has some controversial opinions. A future devoid of disability? Many would agree that’s an amazing prospect. But a future where people can upgrade themselves as if they were DIY machines themselves? Is that something people want?"
Interesting, this guys seems pretty extreme but I'm of the opinion that if technology is starting to play such major roles in almost all sports why shouldn't cyborgs be allowed to compete in track and field?
Sports is all about "cheating" or if you prefer gaining the upper hand with technology anyway these days (Golf, Swimming, Archery, Sports Medicine etc.)
I am so sick of these professors and technophiles claiming that this tech will solve X problem around the world.
I've got news for you. The world extends beyond affluent USA. There are still people worried about where there next meal will come from, and trying to stay at peace with their machine gun carrying overlords.
The ultra poor in many portions of the world do not care that rich bastards in the USA can strap robotic legs to themselves to "cure" disabilities. The people who could benefit from this the most will never be able to afford it.
...in the future those disabilities which have a marketable solution will be cured, while the rest will be declared not to exist. This is called "disability denial" and has been a trend since the '90s when private insurers wanted to eliminate certain classes of unfortunates from their books in the US and then move to Europe to take over their welfare systems.
Funnily enough, the average disabled person in the UK is now - despite advances in technology - receiving less support than even 5 years ago, because either he has fewer resources to help himself or the state refuses to help him. Therefore he's left in a long term state of non-productivity until he dies off - whereas before he'd have a chance of making a contribution in spite of his health problems.
So let me get this straight... First you doubt a condition's existence, then make assumptions about its cause?
It's quite possible to eliminate HIV (if in fact it really does exist) via distribution of clean needles to drug users.
It's quite possible to eliminate osteoporosis (if in fact it really does exist) via enforcing a maximum age.
It's quite possible to eliminate gravity (if in fact it really does exist) via forgetting to fall.
I hope you're as sarcastic as I am.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
There’s money to be made too. And if there’s a market here, it means more people will receive help.
Which would be better worded as
Unless there’s money to be made, and unless there’s a market here, it means no people will receive help.
Thus is the reason I feel capitalism (in its current form) has outlived its usefulness: Societal advancement now takes a back seat to making money, and I for one refuse to believe that making the world a better place for all should take a back seat to the unfettered greed of a few.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
... of disability. Pretty soon, having an all-natural, non-augmented body WILL be a disability.
I think the definition he is using it too narrow -- and quite likely egocentric. How will his prostheses assist people with Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, CADASIL, and other neurological conditions which tend to be disabling?
First, there are spinal cord injuries. Sure, you can make a bionic part that can do the physical labor of the part you're swapping out, but what about sensations? Are you going to be able to feel hot, cold, wet, dry, slimy, soft, etc.?
Second, there are a whole raft of disabilities you can't just swap a part out for. What about the mentally disabled? What about mental illnesses like schizophrenia? What about traumatic brain injuryy? (Surely we won't be able to swap out an entire brain in 50 years, and even if we could, would that be the same person?
I really think that this person is seeing "disability" through the lens of his own personal disability, rather than seeing the big picture.
This is the one breakthrough that will allow 99% of all physical disabilities to be resolved in a clear cut consistent mannner.
Born with a sever geentic defect that mangles your lims? Prosthetic Body.
Get burned horribly in a fire and lower half of your body burned to a crisp? Prostetic Body.
All you have to do is keep a brain alive and functional inside of either a lab grown "genetically engineered, universal donor" biologicial body or a "purely mechanical body supported by nanomachines" or a combination of the two.
Once this breakthrough is acheived, the quality of life for humanity will go up immensely.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
50 to 90 years until the technology is available.
But in the US you won't get the technology unless you are uber rich or have a killer health-insurance plan.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
FTFY
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Down syndrome is known to be completely a genetic disorder, though. Autism's full cause is not known. It's suspected to have a strong genetic component, but the correlation isn't strong enough to claim it's the only cause, and certainly not enough to justify genetic screening. Real Asperger's syndrome (as opposed to the far more common "I'm a little different so it must be a medical thing" syndrome) is also connected to certain genetic characteristics, but the connection is even weaker.
Autism's causes are complex and not fully known. Unfortunately, it's spent some time as the "disorder du jour", so it's commonly assumed that with so much publicity, it must be well understood. Sadly, that's simply not the case.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
50 years is far enough that you can predict confidently that anything will be available then, because by that time noone will remember it anyway.
And flying is throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
I think you've got it!
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Yes. Abort everybody who might ever be in a car accident. That would take care of the vast majority of America's problems.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Health care is not free.
Who pays for the medicine?
Who pays the doctors?
Who pays for the DME?
Who pays for the MRI machines, the X-ray machines, the operating rooms?
Who pays for the physical therapy?
All these things cost money, no matter where you are, thus health care is not free.
In those more "advanced" countries you refer to the taxpayers all pay into a pool, and that is dived up to pay for everyone's health care. To call it free is disingenuous. Now, there is a valid debate as to whether or not the US system, the socialist system, or some hybrid of the two is best, all have their advantages and disadvantages. But to quote Heinlein: TANSTAAFL.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Autism researcher here. (Well, I'm not actually an autism researcher, but I do their computer stuff.) It's now generally believed that, whatever the genetic component of autism actually looks like (and it's now believed that there are many, many subtle mutations working in concert), a significant portion cases are triggered by environmental conditions. Like cancer, the incidence rate of autism is pretty much correlated with how horribly contaminated our world is. Here's an opinion piece by David Suzuki (PDF; scroll to page 8) on the matter. It's possible that the data set for people with autism will never be large enough for us to actually do statistically useful genetic screening.
Also: try not to be too hard on people with Asperger's. Certainly there are people out there who are just socially maladaptive and use it as a label to hide behind, but just from a short conversation with someone suffering from AS, you simply can't tell. There's a lot going on behind the scenes, however, in how they think, plan, feel, and perceive, and the apparently-normal facade is more of a testament to determination to fit in than anything.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius
I have always been able to hear frequencies that 99% of my same-aged peers cannot... does that make them all disabled (partially deaf)?
My color perception is somewhat less sensitive than my wife's, does that make me disabled (partially color blind)?
My grandmother's short term memory is operating at about 10% of its former capacity, is she disabled?
I injured my ACL in high-school and never had it repaired, I can't play basketball at a competitive level, am I disabled?
In bicycling, I can out hill-climb 90% of my same aged peers, does that make them disabled?
Get over the labels and the idea that everybody is the same, we're not.
I think if I were in the field and developed a way to cure all vision ailments I wouldn't release my data until the year 2020, just for the ironic value.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Once this breakthrough is perfected, the quality of life for humanity will go up immensely.
FTFY, the best prosthetic of any kind today still sucks horribly compared to actual, grown along with your brain, body parts.
technology can end disability in 50 years
"technology can end disability, for those who can afford it, in 50 years"
There, fixed that.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Thanks for saying that. I used to think that I had such lousy aim, but when you put that way, I feel a lot more positive.
testing out my trending skills
The Down population in most of Europe, for instance, is dwindling because screening is widespread and upon detection, the vast majority of women elect for abortion. Since Down are rarely able to reproduce and their life expectancy is about 50, in about half a century they will be gone throughout the EU (apart from some fanatical Catholic states but they're seeing the light as well).
Except for the part where Down Syndrome is not a hereditary condition and rather the result of random genetic mutation. That means that you're not going to "breed it out". The fact that there are less Down Syndrome children in Europe is due to changing social mores regarding terminating unhealthy pregnancies there.
Even if abortion were to suddenly be universally accepted overnight, there would still be Down Syndrome children being born because some parents will choose to give birth to their child even if they are going to be disabled. Short of state mandated eugenics programs, there will always be children born with these conditions, unless we come up with some way to cure Down Syndrome in vitro. IANAD obviously but it seems to me that Down Syndrome would be almost impossible to "cure", due to being the result of an extra chromosome due to random genetic mutation. How would they "erase" that chromosome throughout all of the DNA without killing the fetus?
The irony is that we'll have no (unfixable) disabilities, but we'll all be suffering with *asthma * diabetes * obesity * food allergies (esp. gluten)
Oh, you mean like we could already feed, clothe and shelter every single being on this planet.... we just don't.
Don't you think that "profit" and "keeping people in line" will have ceased to exist in 50 years? Why professor, that's just fucking stupid, and what you get paid for -- to overlook these crucial details and derp around. SSDD.
You can't fix crazy. With meds, you can beat it into a silent droolfest, until the person is worthless, but it will never be gone.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
the key to truly bionic prosthetics is sustainable nuclear fusion, so 50 years is about right.
which could be seen as a sort of disability. Anything for that one? How's that virtualization of the human brain coming?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"claiming that this tech will solve X problem around the world"
Indeed. Since tech won't ever do anything, we should invest in interpretive dance that will explore the realities of our limblessness and lead to true healing at a cost all can afford.(/sarcasm)
I really fail to get this idea that since something technical won't help everyone instantly it's not worth doing.
You might want to take a look at the history of smallpox for an example of tech that did help greatly worldwide. Granted, the vaccine is not currently "high tech", but it took a lot of tech to get it produced and distributed worldwide in large amounts. 50 years before the eradication effort began, it would have been difficult to do.
It took a massive effort, largely funded by the wealthier countries and organzations, but it had an effect even in very poor regions.
Just as you don't get the rosey-eyed predictions of some, I don't get the unmitigated skepticism and pessimism that is often fashionable.
Today, something like 300 children die every hour due to malnutrition. Feeding the world's current population is well within our technical abilities, but the rich sections of the world (I'd guess that's most people on this website) are in general only prepared to make very minor sacrifices to help the poorer sections of the world.
By the year 2060 the world population will have probably more than doubled. I find it unlikely we'll even have worked out how to feed everyone by then, let alone cure them of their disabilities.
Nope, but the key is to keep your chin up and take everything life throws at you.
It's hard, but a positive outlook is all there is. (I feel your pain)
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Read on for a less rose tinted view of the state of prosthetic art and the challenges that are holding it back A True Bionic Limb Remains Far Out Of Reach. Interesting stuff.
Now, there is a valid debate as to whether or not the US system, the socialist system, or some hybrid of the two is best, all have their advantages and disadvantages.
The US system has vastly higher costs for worse outcomes.
The rest of the western world has gone with socialized medicine since it is obviously the better system, while the US suffers under heavy-handed lobbying from the corporate interests that are on the receiving end of said vastly higher costs.
What more is there to discuss?
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
I constantly hear stories of long queues for common things like MRIs in the socialized medicine structure. Longest I've ever had to wait in the US is 7 days and that was for a non-critical scan.
I know our system is broken in the US, no doubt, but I also think that going to a socialized system the way our government would implement it is far worse.
We have a sorta halfway system available in the US (HMO's) that appears to work very well, that's what I use and no problems, and it's relatively affordable (this comparison is really complex as I pay vastly less taxes than my brother, living in Germany pays).
I really don't know the right answer (and I am skeptical of any one who claims to), but both what we currently have and what we are doing about it both feel wrong.
Maybe a basic level of health care that is provided by government subsidy, while employers can fund a better plan as part of a benefit package? I really don't know.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Lets ask who will be able to afford it? Or, who will fit the insurance requirements. If we aren't dead by then I think that kind of stuff will be elite only.
biomechatronics
i'm sure hasbro produced this line of action figures in the 80's
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Any prediction of 50 years exceeds the career lifetime of the predictor. Therefore, the failure of the prediction can not have negative consequences.
You failed to include mental disabilities. Or can we no longer include this as something that would benefit from an end... due to politically correct conversation.
Also, there is a well known solution to alcholism and it does not require any funding. I mean you can not just stop doing something to solve blindness.