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!
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.
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.)
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
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!
So, let's start complaining about this after unemployment is below 2%.
Are you one of those people who believes that shades of grey make the extremely obvious black-and-white cases not exist?
You get both legs and arms blown off by a landmine. Does that make you disabled?
Yes. It most certainly does.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.