They definitely won't be once this open source effort shows any sign of success. You can't solve political problems with technical solutions. At best, you may be able to displace them, but even that is rare.
Yes, that's what I've been thinking too. Tom Quiter even mentions in the interview that there already have been companies which tried to offer cheap wheelchairs, but the quasi-monopolists had the FDA alter the regulations in a way with which the newbies couldn't comply.
However, since the MIF already attracted suppliers, I hope they can gain some leverage.
I suppose the FDA's reasoning is that they're better off having no mobility than having a device that doesn't work properly.
The FDA is not comparing no mobility and simply an inoperable device, the FDA is comparing no mobility vs the possible outcomes of an malfunctioning device. Like perhaps what happens if the throttle gets stuck on forward.
I don’t think the FDA is in a position to asses whether those risks versus the benefits of mobility are an appropriate trade off for any individual.
The FDA is deciding that some people should have no mobility so that others have… what, exactly?
The people who bought $65,000 chairs still could — and they’d be equally reliable. But because one person needs to use it in Alaska, all people need to pay a premium… even if they live somewhere that cold rating is completely irrelevant and adding a needless $5000-10000 to the price.
While there’s a reason to regulate for truth in advertising and basic safety, eg, not catching fire on its own, the actual regulations extend far beyond that into adjudicating personal risk management without clear benefit.
I’m not a fan of technocracy — I think people themselves know what’s best for them.
Why wouldn't the FDA, which employs experts for that exact task, assess risks? Who is in a better position?
> I think people themselves know what’s best for them.
How can anyone but an expert evaluate the safety of a powered wheelchair?
You might say we could come close with advanced 3D printing and some kind of nanotech,but no such technology will ever be so cheap or ubiquitous as to render politics obsolete. History is replete with advancements and inventions which were supposed to usher in utopia, and all they have ever done is further the means by which the powerful enslave and control us. Technology cannot solve human nature.
Though I agree we probably won't be using it to replicate a cup of Earl Grey for a very long time.
humans are more sovereign than ever before in most calculable metrics.
But unless you hunt and grow your own food, own your own land and aren't subject to laws or government that owns your identity and tells you where you can go and what you can do, you aren't sovereign. If you have to spend the majority of your useful life trading your labor to a corporation, you aren't sovereign even if the market gives you the option of which feudal lord to serve as vassal to. If you require modern technological society, the infrastructure of agriculture and healthcare, for your survival, you aren't sovereign. There is a reason that word is synonymous with "ruler" or "king," it's a status that very few people, particularly in modern society, can claim.
That's what free labor is.
If you believe you're entitled to the fruits of the labor of others, then you've enslaved them, and that's not the moral high ground.
That's because we haven't figured out how to harness it.
For example, 99.9999% of the sun's energy just disappears off into space.
We sit on a hot planet, all that's needed to drive our energy needs is to drill a hole through the mantle. But nobody has figured out how to do that yet.