Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064?

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the sweet-robot-arm dept.

Medicine 121

the_newsbeagle (2532562) writes "As part of a 50th anniversary celebration, IEEE Spectrum magazine tries to peer into the technological future 50 years out. Its biomedical article foresees the integration of electronic parts into our human bodies, making up for physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities. The article spotlights the visionaries Hugh Herr, an MIT professor (and double amputee) who wants to build prosthetic limbs that are wired directly into the nervous system; Helen Mayberg, who has developed brain pacemakers to cure depression; and Ted Berger, who's working on neural implants that can restore memory function."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (2, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47110437)

No.

Next question?

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110445)

Actually, it can. By ending all human life.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (5, Insightful)

Arith (708986) | about 3 months ago | (#47110465)

I think a better question is: Can the general populace AFFORD cybernetic fixes for their particular problem.
The answers are the same.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47110515)

Can the general populace AFFORD to have a device that's a calendar and a phone and a music player and a camera and a game machine?

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110577)

Yes, but only if you're willing to have it subsidized by installing nano-cameras in your anus.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3370#comic

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110621)

And a communication device! I'm going to cum!

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#47110685)

Can the general populace AFFORD to have a device that's a calendar and a phone and a music player and a camera and a game machine?

Those items come bog standard off an assembly line by the millions if not billions, with no individual tuning necessary. Just looking at the basic "augments" like prescription glasses and hearing aids there's tons of personal adjustment. I very much doubt you'll be able to find "one size fits all" cybernetics.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47111369)

Just looking at the basic "augments" like prescription glasses and hearing aids there's tons of personal adjustment. I very much doubt you'll be able to find "one size fits all" cybernetics.

True. But consider the revolutions in 3D printing and CAD/CAM technologies. What was once an arduous and expensive process (a well manufactured one-off part) is no longer a pricey pipe dream. Prescription lenses are a good example. They are no longer simply off the shelf "one size fits all" lenses, but are custom ground. As manufacturing gets better, we'll begin to see adaptive augments. Hearing aids, for example, already can be customer tuned. We'll not see "one size fits all" cybernetics, but individual and highly customizable cybernetics.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47111433)

prescription glasses and hearing aids there's tons of personal adjustment.

30 years ago, I paid nearly $100 for a decent pair of prescription glasses. Now I buy them online for $6/pair. A generation ago, a crappy hearing aid cost thousands. Today, you can buy a far better device for $39. I bought one for my father-in-law, and he describes it as "fantastic".

I very much doubt you'll be able to find "one size fits all" cybernetics.

The personalization is done by custom manufacturing. We already have that today. It is still expensive because the technology is new, but there is nothing inherently expensive about it. Prices are already falling. So they scan your arm, then a computer designs your prosthesis, and it is printed out on a 3D printer. Heck, we can do that now.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47114281)

30 years ago, I paid nearly $100 for a decent pair of prescription glasses. Now I buy them online for $6/pair.

Description of all the problems with your eyes, and link, please.

A generation ago, a crappy hearing aid cost thousands. Today, you can buy a far better device for $39.

Definition of "generation", please, description of the severity of hearing loss, and link to a decent hearing aid for $39.

Your post reads like one of those Capitalist Magazine "THANKS TO THE FREE MARKET EVERYTHING IS NEARLY FREE!" hilarious propaganda pieces.

If they prioritize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111565)

But I imagine many guys will "limp" around until they can afford cyber legs to carry their other, *ahem* cyber-enhancements.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

chinton (151403) | about 3 months ago | (#47110603)

I don't have $6 million dollars. Do you?

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 3 months ago | (#47110659)

These days, 6 million would barely buy a bionic finger.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 3 months ago | (#47110841)

Not if you did it in Mexico.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 3 months ago | (#47110907)

Or India but your mileage might vary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 3 months ago | (#47111577)

$6 million for a down payment?

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 3 months ago | (#47111933)

Maybe in the USA, but don't forget other countries have a sane healthcare system.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47113735)

A pair of plastic lenses and a metal frame easily goes over $500 per purchase in the U.S.

To think that any health aid will not quickly be monopolized by appropriate franchise is naive, to say the least.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 3 months ago | (#47110625)

No.

Next question?

No.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#47110681)

Let me know when the prosthetics can run on a fuel cell based on human fat, and then I think you'll get LOTS of people interested.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#47110709)

While that would be quite clever, advances in battery power are a big part of why fully functional prosthetics seem likely to me. I don't think it will take anywhere near 50 years, either, at least for the physical disabilities. The mental stuff is a whole different world.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#47111087)

My point is the biggest physical disability is obesity. Even (or especially) among cyborgs, who have a problem exercising enough to keep weight down. If we had a way to burn that fat for say, recharging our cell phones or our prosthetics, then you'd solve the obesity problem overnight.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (2)

Ozymandias_KoK (48811) | about 3 months ago | (#47111235)

You could probably do this via some VR solution of a world with just enough problems to make it believable. Can't be too perfect. At any rate, you'd probably have all sorts of people signing up for that, and you could harvest that energy generated from their fat for whatever reasons you wanted.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#47112069)

Pure awesome. I suspect you flew under the mods radar, but +5 virtual funny.

Re:Can Cyborg Tech End Human Disability By 2064? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#47112049)

Liposuction works too. But carrying some fat isn't in itself a concerning health issue: it's the eating and exercise habits correlated with it (e.g., fat cells don't cause adult-onset diabetes, the same bad eating habits cause both).

Betteridge's law of headlines (1)

Parafilmus (107866) | about 3 months ago | (#47111001)

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 3 months ago | (#47111175)

Aren't you tired of the Betteridge posts? Did you really want to be that guy?

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47111495)

We need to invent a brain implant that would cure the Headline Question Personality Disorder in people who suffer from it.

When there's trouble you know what to do (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 3 months ago | (#47110485)

Call Cyborg!

He can shoot a rocket through his shoe

Go Cyborg!

Re:When there's trouble you know what to do (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#47110521)

Robot humor.

Intellectual disabilities? (1)

MindPrison (864299) | about 3 months ago | (#47110497)

Making up for intellectual disabilities?

Oh boy, I better run and invest in stocks right away, if they can do that...I'm gonna get rich!

Re:Intellectual disabilities? (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47110733)

A smartphone is already a brain enhancer. The only difference is the interface. And when the cyborg tech will be the same phone-home and controlled-by-home shit that smartphones are, there will be a huge change in human society models in the future.
The more control we give our computers, the more we need to make sure they do what they were told to do. Computers are too young to be integrated this much in human life. The main problem computers create is the centralisation of control.
Users should be aware that they don't protect their security by installing a "malware protector" app onto their devices and then downloading all shit they find on the internet.

Its another situation with disability. Their number isn't big enough for companies to make profit by penetrating their lifes.

Re:Intellectual disabilities? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 3 months ago | (#47110783)

What about using a pen?

Re:Intellectual disabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110899)

A smartphone is already a brain enhancer.

You've got to be joking. [google.com]

Re:Intellectual disabilities? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 months ago | (#47111107)

A smartphone is already a brain replacement.

FTFY, if anything peoples brains atrophy after gaining a robot friend.

Re:Intellectual disabilities? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 3 months ago | (#47110803)

Intellectual disabilities like Depression are already being treated experimentally by adding what amounts to a prosthesis to the brain.

Yes (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47110501)

but it will be unnecessary since we will be able to grow body parts.

gimme the robot parts (1)

Ionized (170001) | about 3 months ago | (#47110609)

You can keep your puny mortal flesh. I'll take the robot legs that can jump 20 feet and run 40mph, the robot fingers that can type 500wpm, the robot eyes that have infrared and ultraviolet vision and a heads-up display, etc etc etc...

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#47110693)

At that point, who needs the body? Just plug your brain into a mobile unit designed for the task of the day.

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47110801)

Why move around your precious brain? All your life depends on it! It is better to store your brain in a safe location and then remote-control a robot body. When this is shot or burned or whatever you only will loose $1M but not your life. Which puts us to the question wheter in such a highly advanced society we will need money, but I think that there will always be a lobby *cough* DRM *cough* that tries to convince everybody we need it.

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

confused one (671304) | about 3 months ago | (#47112395)

But, in that case, why interact with the real world. You can just stay in the virtual world and do whatever makes your brain happy.

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 3 months ago | (#47112577)

Why have individual brains at all? Just use one giant entity of processing power controlling all the robots.

Sorry. Did I ruin it?

Re:gimme the robot parts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112863)

Didn't you see Star Wars Episodes I through III? Obviously, you'd want decentralized control.

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 3 months ago | (#47111199)

Sucks that you broke your back and died at your first 20 foot jump attempt.

Re:gimme the robot parts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111291)

Sucks that you broke your back and died at your first 20 foot jump attempt.

So many forget that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

Ionized (170001) | about 3 months ago | (#47111351)

nah, the legs have great shock absorbers built in, i'm good.

Re:gimme the robot parts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112113)

that is why you replace your spine as well!

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47111391)

...the robot fingers that can type 500wpm...

Type? How quaint!

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 3 months ago | (#47111631)

...the robot fingers that can type 500wpm...

Type? How quaint!

An airgap is about the most effective kind of firewall available.

Re:gimme the robot parts (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47114657)

I agree, but the energy requirement to do those things are far too high.

  but typing? really?

Re:Yes (1)

chinton (151403) | about 3 months ago | (#47110641)

We will be able to grow body some body parts and build cybernetic body parts to create our very own cyborg armies. What could go wrong?

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112285)

Yes, this.

We can already grow pretty reasonable organs right now using some pretty rough methods.
50 years time? It'd be hard if not impossible for us not to be capable of building entire functioning organs using some advanced 3D printer.
Print bones, muscles, flesh and all the wonderful stuff in between, wrap it around, stitch it together biologically, all being done inside some fluid that keeps things oxygenated.
Bam, enjoy your new leg.
All possible now using very long and manual methods, and expensive. 50 years will be nothing.

We could even build ourselves already worked limbs.
Want to become mr muscle for a year? Sure, that will be $1 million.
Build you some legs refined as an olympic champion.

Heart disease will vanish. Heart problems in general will. The heart is literally the worst organ there is, it defines life for those that don't have awful diets.
It IS the keymaster for long life.
Once the heart is out of the way, it will become the problem of a few other organs.
The brain is a huge issue, but there is already very promising markers that can be targeted to prevent so many ageing diseases and will likely begin trials and production over the next 10 years if we are lucky. Cancer may be right around the corner from that, or at least secondary cancers, pretty much the reason cancer is a death sentence outside of a select small number of them. That chemical signature found the other year may very well be the key to eliminating secondary infections. And given that it would only work WHILE it is being taken, it works just as well as a treatment, it would be, it would be become like a vitamin essentially. The "corrupt pharma coms" would be SO in with that idea!
We have only just essentially cured HIV as well (which is also helping with a possible general cancer cure, which may also work with the above)
That as well will likely become a new thing, antivirals are gaining momentum. Even the flu might be eliminated in 20 years. (there is some very active research on that now that had some updates over the last few months if I remember correct)
A few major killers, gone in 50? Possible.

One major problem that is going to happen will not be directly to do with our bodies, and more to do with outside influence.
Severe biological infection is going to skyrocket likely in the next couple decades thanks to antibiotic abuse.
There are already huge steps taken to stop that, such as cleaner farming conditions, faster blood tests.
Currently if you go to hospitals with a possible infection, you are automatically given antibiotics even if it is viral until your bloods come back, then it can be either changed to viral treatments or none at all in the cases where it'd make no difference.
Needs far more work though.

Then think what will happen in 100.

no (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110553)

most disabled people won't be able to afford it

Re:no (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 3 months ago | (#47111317)

Yeah, there will be a world market for maybe five of these things. </sarcasm>

The fad of the future (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 3 months ago | (#47110591)

I rather expect augmented cyborgism (?) to be a big thing with the next generation or two, much like tattoos, piercings, implants, and gauges today. It'll be chic and trendy. Then it's just one short step from there if you have to replace limbs or organs, so for those that have to, it won't be that radical a change and won't be so outside the mainstream as it is today; and some people might actually choose to do so voluntarily. ("Wow dude, is that the new Cyber-nimbus 2000-? your new arm is so cool!" "Yeah, I can crush an aluminum bat with this!!".)

Re:The fad of the future (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 3 months ago | (#47112531)

Why wait? I already have a pair of ocular implants and adjustable augmented hearing.

Augmentations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110595)

I never asked for this...

what's with the specific number? (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47110623)

2064? why not 2068?

Re:what's with the specific number? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110667)

Because it's suppose to be 50 years in the future? 2014+50=2064?
 
That's just my guess based on actually reading something instead of looking at about three words and trying to come off insightful.

Re:what's with the specific number? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110671)

Dunno, but I'll be 102 then, so I'm fine with that. If I'm lucky I'll just squeak in under the wire and ease happily into the Singularity.

Re:what's with the specific number? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 3 months ago | (#47113525)

Why not a round number, such as 2048?

I am Pentium of Borg. (5, Funny)

mmell (832646) | about 3 months ago | (#47110657)

Division is futile. You will be approximated.

Okay, okay (1)

scourfish (573542) | about 3 months ago | (#47110661)

So, say I put my brain in a robot body and there's a war. Robots versus humans. What side am I on?

Re:Okay, okay (1)

xmousex (661995) | about 3 months ago | (#47110701)

which ever part of you wins against the other part will decide

Depends upon where you live.... (0)

tekrat (242117) | about 3 months ago | (#47110739)

It would depend upon where you live. Do you live in the USA, where you are judged by the color of your skin and not the content of your character?

If you live in the USA, if you look like a robot, you are a Robot. Nothing has changed since World War II where we basically had prison camps for Japanese-Americans -- simply because they were of a particular "race". Or what the USA did to the natives. And don't even get me started if you're black.

Or a black robot.

Re:Depends upon where you live.... (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 3 months ago | (#47110821)

And don't even get me started if you're black.

Yeah, next thing you know, we'll be allowing them to be President....

Re:Depends upon where you live.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110829)

Or a black robot.

yeah they get cancelled after only one season :(

Re:Depends upon where you live.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111349)

It would depend upon where you live. Do you live in the USA, where you are judged by the color of your skin and not the content of your character?

If you live in the USA, if you look like a robot, you are a Robot. Nothing has changed since World War II where we basically had prison camps for Japanese-Americans -- simply because they were of a particular "race". Or what the USA did to the natives. And don't even get me started if you're black.

Because you know, racism is uniquely an American phenomenon.

Re:Okay, okay (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 3 months ago | (#47111017)

You're Killroy [youtube.com]

Re:Okay, okay (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47114675)

Human. You are your brain, everything else is icing.

Right down the shitter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110711)

This site has really gone down the shitter as of now. Really, the "stories" on here are laughable. And practically every article opens in beta and I have to edit the URL and reload.

Bunch of communist nigger fags running the show at Dice.

It's coming! (1)

diakka (2281) | about 3 months ago | (#47110745)

With the advancement AI and advancing cybernetics, I predict that this is inevitible. Human disability and imperfection will be eradicated, along with the whole human race, of course.

More likely Cyborg tech will end humans by 2064 (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about 3 months ago | (#47110749)

Computer learning is growing faster than the unintended consequences can be mitigated. It's just a matter of time.

Re:More likely Cyborg tech will end humans by 2064 (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 3 months ago | (#47111735)

As a researcher in machine learning: lol nope.

Re:More likely Cyborg tech will end humans by 2064 (1)

MrP- (45616) | about 3 months ago | (#47112345)

As a machine: Soon...

Re:More likely Cyborg tech will end humans by 2064 (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47114697)

Wow with a response like that you must be a great researcher.

We already have computers that figure things out we can't understand but work. so.. I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Probably before then... (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 3 months ago | (#47110761)

My girlfriend and I spend a lot of our TV time (Roku) watching science and technology related programming. It's difficult to watch anything from as recent as 2011 or prior. It is difficult because I can frequently point out how wrong or at best incomplete many things are compared to the understandings and accomplishments of very near recent. This goes for both science and technology. A lot of highly-beneficial technologies never make it out of the lab because they are so quickly replaced, many technologies cannot keep up with themselves. That, and any one of many recent single astronomical discoveries can render an hour of programming from just a few years ago obsolete. Unless of course a documentary is historical in nature, which is always fun.

On that note, as a nerd who is highly entrenched in following science and technology on a daily basis, I have spent the last few years humbly in awe at the exponential rate of technological innovation. There is so much going on right now it's mind boggling. 2064? At this point I call that selling the human race short. There are so many factors to consider. For example, I see the currently embryonic maker\bio-hacking\grinder movements becoming a driving force behind advancements that will bring a lot of amazing things into our lives as those movements grown and more advanced tools slowly become available to them. The world of 2064 will more likely be the world of 2040. The only real enemy to all of this is the course of international politics.

Re:Probably before then... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 3 months ago | (#47110799)

Curiosity: What are some explicit examples from relatively modern media. Anything later than 2005 would be pretty interesting. I don't watch much modern sci-fi these days, my wife just isn't very interested in hard sci-fi and the soft stuff wouldn't really apply (since it's 3/4 fantasy 1/4 technobabble).

Re:Probably before then... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 3 months ago | (#47110851)

Unfortunately I have to leave, give me a few hours and I will come back with examples.

What are you talking about? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 3 months ago | (#47110879)

Sooner or later, we'll learn to tech the tech. You'll see.

Re:Probably before then... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47114743)

"..hard sci-fi .."

All sci-fi is just setting. Just like fantasy

Hard sci-fi is said by people who want to let people know that what they enjoy is special(It's not)

Re:Probably before then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111083)

It's more than just international politics. Most people focus on celebrities. Prestige and wealth these days is so arbitrary and overpowered that even the best truth we have to offer falls on deaf ears. And more importantly, the pursuit of truth is no longer about diligence or learning from failures, but is instead replaced with "righting the wrongs". I thought that maybe we had learned something from the last century or twenty, but I guess not.

Re:Probably before then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111129)

> maker\bio-hacking\grinder

Why the assbackwards slashes? A tribute to the asshole Bill Gates? Fuck you for pushing that nonsense on us. We want to run a nice tech site without you assholes trying to shove that garbage down our throats.

Re:Probably before then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111341)

You must be new here.

Emotional? (1)

Dimwit (36756) | about 3 months ago | (#47110865)

What a brave new world that will be.

Intellectual / Emotional? (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | about 3 months ago | (#47110887)

The summary specifically calls out physical, intellectual, and emotional. Are they suggesting that in 50 years you'll be able to get a chip implanted because you're depressed? Or stupid? Physical issues are being improved upon markedly. But seriously - fixing perceived issues in how people think seems just wrong. Fixing perceived issues with how people feel doubly so. If this were possible, we'd be squarely in sci-fi AI-controlled-human territory.

Re:Intellectual / Emotional? (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | about 3 months ago | (#47110911)

But, since I can't even be bothered to read the _entire_ summary, I'm going to retract some of my article-bashing, since they clearly indicate some examples of what they're describing, and all of that seems perfectly reasonable.

Are we redefining human disability? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#47110891)

Because when my father was born dyslexia, ADD, addiction, etc. was not considered disability?

Frankly, if you stick to the 19th century definitions of disability, then I can see 2064 cyborging them away.

If you talk about late 20th century definitions, no.

If you exclude the many things I think will end up being recognized as disability in the next 50 years - definitely no.

But of course, I expect the following to be considered a disability by then:

non-evoltionism - Failure to believe in Evolution.

Self-Constionalism - a belief that the Constitution says what you want it to say rather than what is actually written.

under-waterism - a belief that global warming has not happened and that the city of New Orleans has wasted billions on dikes to keep it above water.

"Human" disability? (2)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 3 months ago | (#47111011)

I'm gonna have my consciousness uploaded to a robot by then, have fun with your frail human bodies, suckers.

Re:"Human" disability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111381)

I don't know about for you, but for me, my body has far fewer "break downs" than any of my mechanical anything. My body has never really failed on my, vehicles, well, usually I can get several years before they start breaking. Electronics, best not to talk about them. But my body has stayed pretty reliable so far. And it's got this cool self fixing feature that none of my other stuff has.

Re:"Human" disability? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112415)

have fun on the robot reservation, we aren't gonna honor those bogus treaties

Re:"Human" disability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47113261)

I'm gonna have my consciousness uploaded to a robot by then, have fun with your frail human bodies, suckers.

Just wait until your 90 day warranty runs out and you find out the manufacturer used counterfeit Chinese capacitors...

SKYNET (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111015)

Dead people cannot have disabilities.

army may want this and before 2064 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#47111329)

army may want this and before 2064

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111829)

Lack of 600% profits.

Short answer "No." (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 3 months ago | (#47112005)

Longer answer is that even though technology cannot eliminate disabilities, it can definitely mitigate the impact. A prosthesis can only make up for what is lost. It can't keep the loss from happening. It is the loss itself that causes the disability.

Put differently, artificial limbs that are tied into a person's neural system and allows them to function, say as real legs and to walk doesn't eliminate the disability any more than a wheelchair does. Both allow a person to get from point a to point b. The artificial limbs may also provide numerous other advantages over a wheel chair, but they do not, in fact, change that the person has lost the function of their legs. That is the disability. The artificial limbs and/or wheel chair are just tools to mitigate the loss.

You would think somebody from MIT would realize this.

Re:Short answer "No." (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 3 months ago | (#47113705)

Put differently, artificial limbs that are tied into a person's neural system and allows them to function, say as real legs and to walk doesn't eliminate the disability any more than a wheelchair does. Both allow a person to get from point a to point b. The artificial limbs may also provide numerous other advantages over a wheel chair, but they do not, in fact, change that the person has lost the function of their legs. That is the disability. The artificial limbs and/or wheel chair are just tools to mitigate the loss.

Interesting point. Wondering this from a technical perspective, you might ask if it is even possible to fully integrate an artificial limb into your body-consciousness, unless you grow up with it from a very young age, regardless of the technological sophistication.

However, people have shown surprising flexibility in dealing with this sort of thing. For example, people with surgically corrected nerve damage have reported that their sense of touch is literally out of place -- feeling the touch in a different position than actually touched. However, after a while their brain will have updated the routing tables to match up the positions. Presumably, such learning is based on visual feedback, such as shown in the experiment where you learn to feel a plastic hand as your own, and you even feel pain when the plastic hand is hit.

Thank god for Africans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112351)

... because we all know that they will have a huge part to play in this, proportionate to their percentage of the population of Earth, right?

Can't Be Predicted (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47113969)

Past expectations and predictions upon science, technology and society have been pretty off the mark. The majority of quality, new, breakthrough technologies never come to fruition. For example we have seen battery breakthroughs every month or so but the actual sales of these new designs is slow, low or nonexistent. After all investors are frightened when an investment might become obsolete before returning any profits. Social conditions stop a lot of progress and a really lousy economy stops even more. In the mean time the public counts on technology saving them from the brink of disaster when in fact technology might cause even greater disasters. At the root of all of these problems is excessive reproduction. Too many people generate too many problems. The denser a population gets the more laws and regulations must be imposed upon the whole. The expense of enforcement of all the rules and laws tends to turn the entire system on its ear. Our legal system became a savagely rude joke. Our cures become our curses . Our poorly educated population, ignored and mistreated becomes nothing more than a liability waiting to happen. All is not well and the British are not coming.

Answer: NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47114451)

Being disabled I don't have to read any generalized statement that treats all disablities as 'solvable' by attaching some device to the human body.
Only a lame slashdotter would fall for this and waste their time reading the article.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>