Handicaps

[Timo]

We know from Dr. Bashir, I Presume, that genetic engineering can be used to fix "serious" birth defects. We can infer that does not include blindness..

True. But I might have a somewhat different take on this. Some quotes from the episode:

"..despite what the authorities would like us to believe, genetic engineering is nothing to be ashamed of. You're not any less human than anyone else."

I'd consider this a more telling tidbit than all the legal texts the heroes later quote. This is why genetic engineering is bad - it creates people who are "less human", and the other effects are subservient to this wider issue.

When Bashir later laments his fate, he brings up specific points:

"DNA resequencing for any reason other than repairing serious birth defects is illegal. Any genetically enhanced human being is barred from serving in Starfleet or practising medicine."

That doesn't necessarily mean that all genetic engineering is DNA resequencing (and therefore illegal), nor does it mean that genetic enhancements would be a showstopper outside Starfleet or the medical profession.

"It was your father's suggestion, Doctor. He pleads guilty to illegal genetic engineering.."

We know there's legal genetic engineering out there, too: we see it in "Unnatural Selection". We don't know exactly where the limits are drawn, outside the specifics Bashir gave earlier. But we soon learn why the limits are drawn:

" Two hundred years ago we tried to improve the species through DNA resequencing, and what did we get for our trouble? The Eugenics Wars. For every Julian Bashir that can be created, there's a Khan Singh waiting in the wings. A superhuman whose ambition and thirst for power have been enhanced along with his intellect. The law against genetic engineering provides a firewall against such men and it's my job to keep that firewall intact."

So, GE can lead to people who are "less human", and mankind has bad memories of those. Apparently, Julian Bashirs aren't unwelcome - the process for creating them is, due to the risks involved.

In conclusion, I see little evidence that the UFP would really take a dim view on "natal eugenics". Genetic engineering of humans and humanoids is being extensively researched in the 24th century, although under carefully controlled conditions, and people with "birth defects" aren't in obvious evidence. LaForge's happy with his cyborg vision (and turns down "normal" vision numerous times), just like Picard is happy with being bald, or certain extras are happy being obese or short or hideously ugly. Those things just aren't classified as defects any more!

(Picard isn't happy with having inherited Shalaft's syndrome, but apparently it was something UFP medicine could not screen against - yet could cure, once spotted.)

This might be considered an enlightened view in more than one sense. Perhaps a "serious birth defect" is narrowly defined as one that doesn't allow the person to survive till an age of independent decisionmaking. Blind people can stop being blind the moment they decide they want to - but some may decide otherwise, finding it vastly preferable to have cybervision. Taking that freedom of choice away from them by having doctors play with them before birth might be considered cruel...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Myasishchev]

Not repairing blindness in childhood is a pretty bizarre choice from our standpoint, because repairing it in adulthood it forces that adult to undergo a painful cognitive adjustment, to deal with a sense he or she never had before... my understanding is that it takes months or more to understand objects as a born-seeing person does, and years to be able to read.

Most people who chose to see in adulthood would probably be really sarcastic in thanking their parents for giving them the choice, and shifting the burden to their otherwise productive twenties instead of doing it when they were infants and insensible semi-humans anyway.

On the other hand, if one accepts blindness as mere cognitive diversity, there's no reason to fix it because it ain't broke. I understand this sentiment is more common in the deaf community, though--probably because deaf people aren't at the same risk of walking off the side of a cliff or petting a gorilla thinking it's a cat, so they can afford to be more intransigent on the issue of whether their way of experiencing the world is a "disability." LaForge should be happy with his cyborg vision, though. That shit is wicked cool. It's amazing you don't see more enhancile prosthetics in Trek--but that appears to run afoul of the "less human" provision, too.

Also, I don't see how any real genetic engineering couldn't be done without DNA resequencing, since by default you're going to be changing the GATC sequence, or writing an original GATC code. Germline or somatic, DNA resequencing is going to going to be involved somewhere.

As for whether you can still Gattacize your baby, that's possible. But if so, who chooses the blind or profoundly stupid one? Are the LaForges and Bashirs such terrible parents they never checked early on?

 

[Rush Limborg]

I personally wasn't sure Ezri would've had Asperger's...I did see traits that reminded me of myself, though. (I have ADHD...there are some who thinks it falls on the autism spectrum somewhere, though I doubt the validity of that myself--I think it's just that ADHD gets the same end results sometimes when it comes to ability to socialize.)

Ezri and Asperger? Personally I think, no absolutly not. She was young, inexperienxed and confused because of all the memories, she suddenly had.... but others than that.... she was ok with social interaction, empathic, she had no special interests, she did not seem physically "clumsy", she did not need routines ...

Noted.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Myasishchev--I would not call babies "semi-humans." Not even close. That kind of classification could lead to justification of infanticide.

As to Geordi, a couple of scenarios present themselves. Either a) his condition was NOT detectable genetically, or b) his parents, whom we know to be Starfleet, were out of range of technology at the time. We know, given that Kira waltzed right into a dangerous terrorist's trap while about to give birth, that such things COULD happen.

 

[Myasishchev]

They're not Turing-capable, self-aware agents. I don't think the label semi-human justifies infanticide, but I'd support an initiative to outlaw killing mammals in general, so the human thing isn't a sticking point with me.

Semi-sapient?

 

[Timo]

Probably something like "X% sapient". The definition might be applied on Earthlings irrespective of age, as not all of us ever achieve full Turing capacity...

The Federation probably has to tackle this issue somehow anyway. Even if us humans have agreed on some sort of a definition of what qualifies as "baseline us", a "sapient Earthman", other UFP members are likely to disagree at least in part. It might be that Vulcans are more sapient than the best of us, for example. Or that an Andorian can never be as sapient as a Medusan or(/and!) vice versa, on issues that matter crucially when applying for certain kinds of jobs.

If UFP legislation copes with the menagerie of species implied, it should probably automatically cope with babies, retards, savants and the demented better than our current legislation does... If the method of coping is generality and tolerance of differences, well, that jibes well with the idea that being born blind is not considered a handicap. If it's one of sectionalizing and specificity, that may carry different implications for the handicapped.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deckerd]

On the other hand, if one accepts blindness as mere cognitive diversity, there's no reason to fix it because it ain't broke. I understand this sentiment is more common in the deaf community, though--probably because deaf people aren't at the same risk of walking off the side of a cliff or petting a gorilla thinking it's a cat, so they can afford to be more intransigent on the issue of whether their way of experiencing the world is a "disability."

Cognitive diversity? Blindness is an impairment of a sense, not an impairment of intelligence. So is deafness. Both conditions are on a continuum, so complete blindness and complete deafness are rare. A sensory disability is not directly linked to any form of learning disability, although it does put learners at a disadvantage to their sighted/hearing peers. Suggesting that people have learning disabilities simply because they are blind or deaf is, how shall I put it, oh I'll let someone else come up with a description.

 

[Timo]

But isn't it more or less generally acknowledged that the brain does develop in distinctly different ways if not exposed to the input from the usual senses and body parts?

A person who grows up blind is bound to have a different brain, hence a different cognitive capacity, and may well be unable to process visual input even when fitted with perfectly working prosthetic eyes. Doesn't mean he would be less intelligent (although he may well have a lower IQ, considering how classic IQ assessment is dependent on the test subject being a baseline human with all the senses and sense history intact), or that he would be less masculine, or less musical, or less communist. He'd just be less of a visual person, if you pardon the tasteless pun.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deckerd]

The brain does develop differently but that doesn't equate to less intelligence. To assume less intelligence is inevitable is precisely why disabled people insist on being called disabled rather than having 'a disability': because it's society which disables them, not any shortcomings of their own.

 

[Timo]

I think a more interesting and controversial question is whether less intelligence is a bad thing.

I mean, people do have varying levels of intelligence. It's not a clear-cut single slider that goes from stupid to smart, but it's still a quantity to be measured in various ways. Some people are stupid mathematically, some are stupid emotionally, some are stupid musically and so forth. Some of that is in the upbringing, some is in the biology. The latter in turn breaks down to genetics and environment, in various ways.

It's pretty lame to try and pretend that we're all equally intelligent, just in "different ways". We don't insist that we are all tall in "different ways", either. Or strong. Or whatever quantity we decide to discuss (with the prevalent thinking on most of them being "more is better" - tall is better than short, strong is better than weak, and so forth; body mass seems to be the biggest exception today...). Such pretense only makes things more difficult for the exceptionally stupid or the exceptionally smart. Being non-average is almost invariably undesirable, of course, but it might well be time for a bit of a campaigning for the "being stupid has its merits" cause...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Navaros]

How you think is the general attitude towards people with physically, mentally or emotionally handicaps in the Federation and the Cardassian Union?

With the Jack Pack, DS9 (as in many other cases) proves that the Federation are immoral hypocrites, and handicapped persons in the 24th century are marginalized and imprisoned in asylums.

They are obviously seen and treated as inferior versions of humans.

The CU probably treats its handicapped persons in a much more civilized manner than the hypocrite Feds do.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, let's remember that each one of the Jack Pack was considered a potential new Khan Singh. It should be counted in the UFP's favor that all of them weren't executed at once!

The UFP may be full of retards with qualities like those of the Jack Pack member Patrick, or monomaniacs like Lauren, or introverts like Sarina, with or without savant qualities. Probably only the ones for whom the situation arose because of genetic engineering would be ostracized, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deckerd]

I think a more interesting and controversial question is whether less intelligence is a bad thing.

I mean, people do have varying levels of intelligence. It's not a clear-cut single slider that goes from stupid to smart, but it's still a quantity to be measured in various ways. Some people are stupid mathematically, some are stupid emotionally, some are stupid musically and so forth. Some of that is in the upbringing, some is in the biology. The latter in turn breaks down to genetics and environment, in various ways.

It's pretty lame to try and pretend that we're all equally intelligent, just in "different ways". We don't insist that we are all tall in "different ways", either. Or strong. Or whatever quantity we decide to discuss (with the prevalent thinking on most of them being "more is better" - tall is better than short, strong is better than weak, and so forth; body mass seems to be the biggest exception today...). Such pretense only makes things more difficult for the exceptionally stupid or the exceptionally smart. Being non-average is almost invariably undesirable, of course, but it might well be time for a bit of a campaigning for the "being stupid has its merits" cause...

Timo Saloniemi

Civilisation is built upon people having widely different skill sets. Nobody's suggesting that everyone should be the same. You're being ridiculous. What was being suggested here is that simply because someone has a sensory impairment they are obviously going to be less intelligent than people without those impairments. I'm calling bullshit on that and the same goes for any disability (except, of course, learning disabilities).

 

[Timo]

But many disabilities do lead to diminished intelligence. And being blind from birth does limit the development of various visual comprehension skills, meaning you'll be disadvantaged even if you get your sight at a later age - and the end result is that you'll fare badly in IQ tests, which admittedly only measure certain areas of intellect but do measure those reasonably well.

To speak of "any disability" is the bullshit part here, as there's no such thing. As we agree, we come in many different models, and so do disabilities. It's just as bad if not worse to treat disabilities in bulk when one argues for "nobody's intellect is affected" as it is when arguing "every disabled person must be stupid".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deckerd]

Lack of vision does not equate to lack of cognitive ability. You are saying it does. I'd say that's discriminatory.

 

[Timo]

It doesn't in all cases. But it does in some cases. Cognition is a function of layers of brain that grow as response to stimulus. When that stimulus is lacking from birth, the growth fails to take place. Say, when the person is blind, or is missing both arms, or is paralyzed. The lack of growth then manifests in different mental acuity - sometimes it results in something we might classify as stupidity, while at other times it results in increased abilities in other areas (say, a person who doesn't have to care about ever walking may develop better than average mental skills for interpreting touch, because some of his brain can reallocate from leg movement; the more common case is certain areas of motor cortex taking over from other areas of motor cortex, though, not motor cortex and sensory cortex competing).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Marie1]

I think that the Federation would be tolerant of the handicapped, and do their best to help them. In the case of the botched enhancement cases, pre-surgery Serina, Jack and... the other woman seemed to me as those who would need people with them all the time, Serina because she was in... inside herself, Jack was violent, and the other woman... well... yeah. My problem is that the institutes don't appear to have been "stimulating enviroments for them" -which surprises me, and I can't see why that'd be the case. An institute should be stimulating physically and mentally, and be safe for the patients. The immediate family could be in jail for the augmentation, and other family may not be able to care for them, or in the case of the 4th, older augment, maybe his family was deceased and that's why he was in the institute.

Cardassians... I don't know... they'd probably feel a bit of shame if their kids were handicapped mentally, and if all of them were, they may consider abandoning the children, and the carrier of the problem?

Klingons may also, but they may also have very quiet "places" for them...

The Jem'hadar, OTOH...

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

They're not Turing-capable, self-aware agents. I don't think the label semi-human justifies infanticide, but I'd support an initiative to outlaw killing mammals in general, so the human thing isn't a sticking point with me.

Semi-sapient?

I still have problems with that label. I think we have to recognize the potential for greater awareness in all humans regardless of age. AND--I think we must honor that including in cases where development is interfered with for any reason. And as far as I'm concerned, brain development has no bearing on ensoulment. Even setting that aside, I still think we must be very careful in the types of definitions we set because there are some jerks who will always take legal language and try to bend it in some sick way that pleases them, unless the loopholes are closed.

 

[Navaros]

And being blind from birth does limit the development of various visual comprehension skills, meaning you'll be disadvantaged even if you get your sight at a later age - and the end result is that you'll fare badly in IQ tests

Obviously blind people have no sense of vision and hence would by definition, have no visual comprehension skills. In other words, your statement is like saying, "the red apple is red."

Your statement errs in another way. A blind person would never be asked 'visual comprehension' questions on an IQ test since they have no vision.

I too must call BS on the idea that blindness results in lower IQ's. One of the smartest and most competent men I've ever known is blind, and he has many blind friends who are likewise highly intelligent and proficient at life.

 

[Deckerd]

In any case, doesn't an IQ test simply show how well people do IQ tests?