https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Criticism_and...
I don’t know of any language agnostic phonetic sign used as a first language for children: that sounds about as hard as making them learn through writing instead of talking.
Frankly, I disagree. I think a deaf person should be entitled to decline a low-risk treatment that would cure or mitigate their own deafness -- but to make that decision for a child is altogether different. Deliberately restricting a human being's sense experience throughout their lives should be considered child abuse, in the same basket as female genital mutilation. It's also about the most selfish thing I can imagine -- especially given that there's no reason I can see why a hearing child of deaf parents can't grow up "bilingual", learning both spoken and sign languages.
But none of the current options are risk free, and I doubt this one will be. They all have risks, side effects, and probably the chance of failure. And then the question is how low of a risk is acceptable to restore a child's hearing. These are people who would live an otherwise healthy and normal life, and they'd grow up in an accepting deaf family which is likely already plugged into a community. I can't imagine how it would feel to have a serious side effect (or worse) impact your child when you know they could have gone without that procedure and lived a happy, fulfilling life. But I also understand the desire to give your child every possible opportunity.
All of that is to say, I think it is reductive to compare this to child abuse or FGM. There's no right decision, and parents absolutely will need to make a difficult choice, hopefully prioritizing their child's safety and future above all else.
I've got relatives that teach deaf children. most deaf kids who grow up in societies with mostly hearing kids, want to be normal more than anything. At the same time, for many who are eligible for cochlear implants, getting that early before speech development begins in earnest is very important, ideally when they're just a toddler or younger. Early enough and you'll barely notice any difference in their speech, understanding, etc. However, their parents often decline it and say they want to let their child be the one to choose when they're old enough to- which is far, far outside the best window for developing that area of the brain, as well as speech. They might be behind in those ways for the rest of their lives if they're not given therapy to help catch up.
I understand both sides I guess, but if consent is the issue, why not give them the implant and let them choose to disconnect the receiver then when they're older? Obviously, because they won't want to, and rarely ever do.
To be fair, LGBTQ community isn't 'broken.' Some people are inherently gay, lesbian, etc.
Deafness _is_ an actual defect. The weird thing that we should not strive to fix human defects when they are truly defects is astounding.
I mean objectively, not based on the current cultural norms which will be very different 50 years from now.
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.
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.
Or maybe not, if dolphins turn to be wiser than an average human.
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.
Natural selection gave us hearing.
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.
Being deaf is objectively a disadvantage because 4 senses is objectively worse than 5 senses.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-bla...
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.
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.
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?
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".
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?
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.
Sure, because it's reversible. If they don't like hearing they can always become deaf again.
If genes could fix your brain to not feel compelled to swap sexes, that would be a huge win in the quality of life for most individuals.
You can pretend that pretty much anything “isn’t a disability, it’s just different.” But that isn’t true.