“Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, whereas being deaf does.
Cultural norms is an interesting comparison. Despite there being no actual difference in capacity, cultural views forced many left-handed people to be right-handed, making those people miserable in the process for no good reason.
Gay people can obviously procreate, nothing about your body stops functioning when you are gay.
What you mean is that they don't have sexual attraction towards people of an opposite gender, where if they had a relationship with them, that relationship would encourage procreation.
To me that just doesn't seem like a "difference in capacity".
I personally don't want children, and will probably seek out a partner who likewise does not want children. If I encounter somebody who wants lots of children, I will see that we have different life goals, and I probably won't be very keen on being in a relationship with them. Do you consider me "damaged" or of "diminished capacity" because of it?
Interestingly enough it was still common to train left handed kids in right handed writing up until maybe 40 years ago as it was seen as some kind of defect obviously.
> “Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world,
As a leftie, this is only true in the current world — I live in a culture with a left-to-right writing system, and yet technology means I don't ever need to use a fountain or quill pen.
I did have one teacher who insisted on "no biro" when I was a kid, but they were also my first introduction to "not everyone is actually nice".
Being deaf is surely different from not being deaf but you can't objectively say it's a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage in a world built for not deaf people, like being left-handed is a disadvantage in a world built for right-handed people.
I can and did say that. The world is easier for non-deaf people. I can’t imagine even many deaf people would argue against that statement.
The correct way to argue against this isn’t to say that “objectively” the world is the same for deaf and non-deaf people; it’s that there’s a culture and language bound up in deafness that don’t deserve to die thanks to medical advances. That is true, and makes treatments like these and what they mean to the deaf community much more complicated and difficult.
If dolphins could communicate with us they would surely tell how much easier it is when you have ultrasonic hearing. All humans are therefore disabled and in need of fixing.
Or maybe not, if dolphins turn to be wiser than an average human.
If all humans could echo-locate except a subset who couldn't, I would say that group is at a small disadvantage, yes, because the set of things the main group can do is 'objectively' greater. I don't know how relevant it would be for us especially in the daytime, but hey.
I agree. However, whether all kids should receive gene therapy to develop the echo-location once the science allows for that is a more nuanced question.
> It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability.
That's what most people normally do, yes. Then many people out there define an "ability to enjoy hetero sex" as a "normal human experience" and therefore see gayness as a disability that needs a cure.
I'm not arguing about the conclusion here, but about the method and the basis for deriving this conclusion.
The initial comment in this thread declared deafness to be an "actual defect" while gayness "is just people being inherently gay". Such division is completely arbitrary and doesn't follow from any law of nature. Only from current societal views which change a lot with time.
Right, and it also gave us a strong desire for the opposite sex. So if you draw the line based on this principle then gayness and deafness will fall on the same side of this line, whichever side it is.
Hence I write that the initial comment making the distinction between gayness being obviously OK and deafness being obviously not OK, look arbitrary to me. This division is cultural.
It’s a disadvantage in the “built” world, but it’s also a disadvantage in the natural world. If you drop a deaf person in the middle of the forest with no one around, they will not be able hear rivers for water, they will not be able to hear animals approaching, etc.
Being deaf is objectively a disadvantage because 4 senses is objectively worse than 5 senses.
Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution. Apparently 6 is not always better than 5 from the nature's point of view. Moles went further to loose sight as well.
I don't think that's quite right, evolution makes trade offs and allocates scarce resources, it's not necessarily because such things would not be beneficial.
It's not clear what "beneficial" means if you consider it separately from the resources required to achieve it.
E.g. it's beneficial to be stronger I guess, and gorillas are always strong whether they use their muscles or not. However for humans nature chose a different path where only the muscles you actively use are strong. This approach seem to work great so far, even though it results in many individual muscles of the body being weak. For each and every of these muscles you can argue that making it stronger would be "beneficial" but as a whole it doesn't seem to work out.
> Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution.
Human ancestors are not human. Also, the ancestor you are referring to was a fish, and could only sense electric fields under water. Why would the ability to sense electric fields under water be an evolutionary advantage for humans who don't live in water? If it's not an evolutionary advantage, then there is no reason it would propagate.
When I said 5 senses are better than 4, I was clearly referring to senses that are useful in our environment. Answer this question: is a deaf person, all else equal, more likely or less likely to survive and procreate relative to a hearing person?
> Moles went further to loose sight as well.
Moles have eyes and can see. Their vision is just not as detailed as humans. Highly detailed sight isn't an advantage for creatures that live in the dark. However, hearing is a huge advantage for people who live in an environment where sound waves exist.
You're clearly wrong here. Stop reaching so hard and just move on.
No, I'm not wrong, I just don't like relying on "obvious" statements like "5 senses are better than 4". We can't know for sure what was "better" until the human race experiment is finished (and then we won't know either obviously).
Consider this: hereditary autoimmune diseases are usually seen as a disadvantage. However they were a huge advantage during the bubonic plague in Europe, increasing the chances of survival by estimated 40% [1]
If we manage to eradicate these disadvantageous genes we may not survive the next pandemic. I don't have the knowledge to predict whether deafness genes or some other property entangled with them will be advantageous 10000 years from now and neither do you. That's all. Now you can enjoy listening to music all you like, it's just beyond the point.
Hereditary autoimmune diseases are not a sense, and are irrelevant to this discussion about whether hearing is an objective advantage or not.
I’ll ask again, since you must have missed this question: is a deaf person, all else equal, more likely or less likely to survive and procreate relative to a hearing person?
> I’ll ask again, since you must have missed this question: is a deaf person, all else equal, more likely or less likely to survive and procreate relative to a hearing person?
You know the answer: it can be both ways depending on circumstances.
* In the prehistoric world I think he was less likely to survive. The difference doesn't seem to be dramatic though since these genes were not eradicated from the population.
* In the modern world the difference is close to zero with an unknown sign. Given that in developed countries probability to procreate seem to be limited by a desire to procreate, I can't rule out that e.g. deaf people for some reason have 0.1% more desire to have kids, or any other side-effect. So answer to your question is unknown, requires a study to figure this out.
* In the future hearing can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how the circumstances evolve. We see that species gain and loose senses depending on the environment.
EDIT: I would also like to clarify this part:
> Hereditary autoimmune diseases are not a sense, and are irrelevant to this discussion about whether hearing is an objective advantage or not.
It's a human trait which was "obviously good" in the past and is "obviously bad" now. Hence I don't trust statements that other human traits like deafness are obviously good or bad. It's interesting to discuss but it's not granted.
I think building a completely level playing field is a dangerous utopia. Essentially it's the same idea as fixing people to make them equal, just addressed from the opposite end.
Well thank you, but the question is why one needs "fixing" and the other doesn't. Parent comment made an argument that being gay is like being left-handed so it doesn't need "fixing". That's fine with me, but I don't see how the same logic doesn't apply to deafness.
Many deaf people enjoy their life as it is and don't welcome your attempts to "fix" them.
> What about the deaf people that don’t enjoy their life as it is and do welcome the opportunity to hear?
I would be happy if they had such an opportunity.
The question, once again, was different: should the hereditary deafness be eradicated in childhood by gene therapy once advances of medicine allow that?
I think you changed the question and escalated the severity of the proposal so it became easier to knock down as a straw man.
Originally this was about the desirability and capability of enabling deaf people to hear writ large. But now you are framing it as full scale eradication carried out in a way that bypasses consent.
The root of this thread referenced the cochlear implant which produces best results when implanted at a very young age (staring from 9 months) obviously without consent of the patient.
Other author replied that:
> The weird thing that we should not strive to fix human defects when they are truly defects is astounding.
All my comments are essentially stating the disagreement (or rather lack of agreement) with this point of view.
It declares being deaf as a "true defect" that we should "strive to fix". In the context of the gene therapy now available, I understand this means that a deaf-born children should be "fixed" to remove this "defect". This vision is not crazy, but it doesn't strike me as universally true either.
I read it multiple times and the unresponsiveness of this comment serves to further confirm my assessment, that you were unique in introducing the notion of full-scale eradication without qualification into this conversation. The participant you quoted noted a preferability, but you engaged in an original creative act in equating this to eradication.
> The question, once again, was different: should the hereditary deafness be eradicated in childhood by gene therapy once advances of medicine allow that?
Sure, because it's reversible. If they don't like hearing they can always become deaf again.
