I I’ve lost my eyesight four years ago from major burns. There has to be a easy way to repair/restore my eyesight. And yeah I really want my site back.
Monika H.G thank you. I’m trying to look into hopefully the facial transplantation technology and expertise. They seem to be the most hopeful right now.
@@bayrod15 i reply the same way you do but use audio and a keyboard to navigate around to get to those links/buttons to reply to you. I am doing this on my iphone currently, but can be done on computers too. Look up screen readers for more information about how other people use technology.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
I had a surgery to “cure” my one sided deafness in elementary school. It was a 75% fix however my brain is unable to interpret the sound into meaning. It’s so terrible and confusing. They made my reconstructed eardrum and parts too small. I can’t be in the wind, be in the cold, roll down a car window on a freeway, fly in a plane or look at the ocean without extreme pain. It fixed nothing and made things worse. Do not fix hearing or impairments if they have been present since birth until you can fix the brain as well.
I think sign language should be taught in school however i think we should still work on a cure. If you want to stay deaf than that’s cool but you still want to have another option
so millions of people should learn a skill they'll likely never use just for the possibility that they'll run into the 0.2 percent of people who are. considering that most American's refuse to learn spoken languages other than english eg: spanish, which is spoken by a large number of people that you'd actually run into on a daily basis, I find your proposition highly unlikely.
Daniel Kish said 'blindness is not the physical limitations that are presumed imposed by blindness. It is about the social barriers that are imposed by society..' real impact on me. Powerful statement.
If science allows someone to live more independantly then it 100% should be an option for everybody. The deaf lady on this talk, as confident and able she clearly is, still relies on another person to communicate for her when talking to non deaf people. You could say well everybody should have to learn sign language but no they shouldnt as deafness is relatively uncommon compared to hearing (most people rarely come across a deaf person) and people will most likely want to use their finite time to study something more useful to them or use their time in other ways. If I had a friend or family member who was deaf then i would 100% try my best to learn as much sign language as i reasonably can but I dont so I would rather study something more relative to me and my life.
@@dsdsspp7130 No, but technology that offers people with disabilities what's normal for the rest of the world should be affordable to literally everyone. Unless you are okay with the luck factor of being born to a certain country or family. I am pretty sure 99.9% of people would agree that randomness shouldn't play a role in how much a person achieves in their life. And the more that can be minimized the better. No one is working for free, but the government can subsidize the tech.
I think the question of "Should we?" is a thought provoking question beyond the gut reaction of "Of course we should save all disabled people!" I don't know enough about those to are blind to talk about them, so just speaking of the Deaf community, as a student who is still learning about their culture and language. I think Deaf people have a right to be hesitant about cochlear implants and their implications. They have a history of erasure involving forcing deaf children to go to oral schools and diminishing the importance of sign language. It's understandable for them to be worried about erasure from "cures". If deaf people now have access to the hearing world, will they still learn sign language? What happens to deaf culture? I think that more than focusing on "cures" it's more important to raise deaf awareness. Deaf music, Deaf poems, Deaf jokes and idioms. It's important to remember that many do not view their deafness as a disability. For hearing people, deafness is often something scary, because we think of it as "lacking sound". But as Marlee Matlin said, Deaf people don't like to be called "hearing impaired". Personally I'm a little worried that by using the word "cure" people will forget that implants don't take away deafness. It's like glasses. And then that will cause more problems in the Deaf community. I think that research in how we can improve the lives of the deaf and blind is amazing, and implants will definitely help a lot of people. This discussion on the future of the deaf and blind was very interesting, thank you for sharing it!
Deaf people still need another person to communicate on their behalf. Anything that helps a person live as independantly as possible should be encouraged. Its each to there own but "deaf culture" appears to be quite insular in nature. You mention how its like glasses, im guessing you mean a person with sight problems still has those problems when not wearing glasses. Yes glasses help someone with sight issues to navigate the world freely on their own and open up oppurtunities to them. Im not sure what you think the issue is with that? I dont think anyone who wears glasses and needs them would rather go without them?
@@cmg1819 Deaf people don't need another person to communicate. Deaf people are bilingual and bicultural. They know English so they can easily talk to a hearing person as long as that hearing person is willing to write back and forth rather than rely and their ears and voice. However, hearing people are often not willing.
@@MentallyFive maybe writing back and forth works for short, simple 1 on 1 conversations eg asking for directions. But what about more lengthy converstation or discussion in groups? Of course people arent generally willing to write everything out as in most cases it would take forever. How would the talk in this video work with that method?
@@cmg1819 Group and longer discussions would be more difficult, but not because of the Deaf person. Really, it would be because the hearing people do not know sign language. Deaf people know both ASL and English, therefore, it is the hearing person who is lacking the ability to communicate with Deaf individuals. It is hearing people who really are the ones that need the interpreter.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
@@JH-ji6cj Niggaplz, lets not overcomplicate this. The question is simple: Do we want to help the disabled or not? All this elitist bullshit that they're on sounds like something I would expect to hear in the early stages of the third reich.
@@falconeagle3655 lol no moron they arent. That is what scientifically illiterates gain us though, incorrect assertions based off lack of knowledge. Generally bat species have less visual acuity than humans but no they are not blind.
If we could we should, but it seems like there's a huge amount of personal choice involved when it comes to whether individuals decide to follow through with certain 'cures' or not. Still, I agree with the idea that the options should be available to those who want to opt in
@@falconeagle3655 What handicapped person do you know who chose to be handicapped and is totally okay with it? Do people reach a level of acceptance because there's no alternative? Sure. Would they choose to not be handicapped if given the chance? That answer is probably 'yes'. Also, QapNPoo is right; bats aren't totally blind. Please don't bring bats (or any other animals for that matter) into this, especially when the OP obviously wasn't talking about animals and was very much referring to people.
Whoever wrote this title should have to stand and try to explain how sorry they are for writing clickbait junk titles like this to a line of deaf and blind individuals one person at a time.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on this channel about the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
We shouldn't judge the blind and deaf community. But I also expect them not to judge seeing and hearing people. For those already blind and/ or deaf it should be their choice what help to ask for and what to accept and try. But for babies born or acquired with less to no hearing and seeing it shouldn't even be a point of discussion that they should be helped to access most senses as good as possible. As seeing and hearing people can be afraid of not seeing and not hearing because they don't know what it's like - so can born or longtime not hearing and not seeing people be afraid of seeing and hearing because they don't know what it's like. But neither community should be exclusive and fundamental. That always leads to bigger problems.
Agreed, and no minority group should be granted a victim card to act in ways They want whenever They deem necessary or appropriate. Her sense of entitlement to speak for the deaf community, interrupt when she wanted, and using condescending and manipulative terms ("I love you, I really do BUT..." and "we are going to have a beer afterwards"). She doesn't get a pass to use her platform to act in ways that strongarm her position. I don't think it was to the extreme, yet I did get the sense that they did her (and the audience) a disservice by not calling her out on her crap when she did it...and propagates the victim narrative. One of her fears of hearing may be loss of her victimhood that gives her so much popularity and power. Power corrupts, so it's a possibility. Maybe I'm being harsh just cuz I hate to see manipulation in discussions where you expect the participants to be civil peers (not like in arguments etc).
This should be left at the exchange at 58:07 - "..those are personal choices." This should be left to medical science. Anyone wishing to acquire less information from the environment, especially an entirely new/different modality, should be free to do so. However, parents making that choice for offspring is a terrible thing to leave to them. The decision is too complex to leave up to feelings & emotions birthed from their difficult interactions with society. It's an ouroboros-like thing: social prejudice can sour your experience as deaf/blind, so you build a "culture" and ensure that your children replicate and nurture your sour experience. This is counter-productive, and possibly harmful. I am a student of science, with hearing reduced by tinnitus in one ear. I will seek treatment as/when possible. Thank you, WSF. 💕
I agree wholeheartedly with Marlee. But she shouldn't interrupting Daniel to add her opinion whenever Daniel trying to speak his opinion. It distrupt the flow of conversation.
We should have a right to find a cure for blind, deaf and cancer. We should help everyone who needs it. Lets get rid the word of disability to ability. Thank you
That lady is stupid. Sign language has a lot of limitations- you cannot see what you sign in the dark but you can hear. You cannot see sign from very far but you can still hear. What if the person in a different room? You need a person in front of you to completely understand what you sign. Plus you limit yourself to communicating with those who can sign. She should not speak for every deaf person. If she doesn’t want to cure or have implant for hearing that’s her wish. She has shot tons of money, she doesn’t need to worry about day to day things unlike most of the people.
A deaf person's visual world is what you are missing, they see so much more than you and me. I love music, and I am raising a deaf daughter. Life is fasinating.
@@dianadougan6871 That's not necessary true. Deaf people are also afflicted by eye problems as the same rate as non deaf people. If you mean because they don't hear and thus use their sight more. Sure. However that's just in general. It's like saying all people with legs use them the same. Many people are talented at using their sight. Some actually earn a living doing so.
Yes we should find a cure for deafness. A cure for deafness will lead to hearing improvements for people with various forms of hearing loss. I have single sided deafness. This condition makes it more complicated for me to interact with people in noisy places. It also complicates choosing jobs. So if a deafness cure leads to me regaining my hearing in my deaf ear then good.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on this channel about the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
@@JH-ji6cj I'm aware of that having a family member having Ushers disease. She's on the front using all kind of cool new stuff to get her around the globe and in and around buildings etc. and helping our society to be better prepared for people who are deaf or blind. But she rather would not have the problem, although she deals with as the best. And with Ushers disease you are always going backwards, the only variable is speed. No, being a community is not a valid reason to not to cure any disease. A valid option might be for one to choose whether or not they want to undergo the cure once it's available.
@@kozepz I don't disagree at all. I think the interesting question will be how the general public adjusts to these questions when AI will allow the capacity to have abilities and experiences beyond human current capacity. We are already having people regard the internet and phones as culture/social killers and the need to cross-connect ideas in these spaces are necessary.
@@JH-ji6cj It's a paradox. I'm able to communicate with my family member because of that, she and another friend both of their lives have expanded because of that. On the other hand loneliness is a big issue in this connected world. I don't believe that only the rapid development of technology is the only cause of that, I believe bad parenting plays a big role in this too (e.g. replacing childhood basic emotional needs with technology to keep them quiet)
@@kozepz well all I can say to that is that it's encouraging to interact with someone who is thoughtful and engaging with these ideas such as yourself. I recently lost use of my right ear (meniere's syndrome) and am also experiencing the strange effect of pronounced tinnitus in that same ear....which seems so strange until learning more about the mechanics. I have also dealt with depression most of my life from a very young age (9) and suicidal ideation has been a major part of that (the social issues of connectedness being a major personal part of that) and have had to consider the conundrum of wanting to 'fix' my depression, yet not give up completely my sense of self. Which is VERY difficult. A *community of depressives* doesn't work so well, but the connectedness I have experienced with certain friends that struggled as well over the years can't be overstated in its importance for perspective. I think that social perspective is much of what's debatable in this talk. That's also why I like the connection between this talk and the talk on this channel regarding reality. The blind guy (not so blind, eh?) is spot-on that it has more to do with the brain and focusing more on the meaning behind the interpretation vs concentrating and making personal distinctions according to appearances or what we consider *'normal behavior'* . Kids lash out against parents because they are trying to communicate and parents could be much more empathetic if they tried to keep this in mind. I'm not saying that cohesion and systems of communication (languages and methods of learning - language, math, history, art) aren't important to be learned and as such include some conformity to get there, but that many times the conforming aspect takes such precedent that valid communication gets missed when too stringent. I was a little pissed when she presented deafness as a victimization tool, however. When she expressed that others need to understand that the deaf can be tired of signing or tired of explaining their predicament to others and that it's then incumbent on the hearing to just allow the deaf to 'use the deaf-card' .....and I think this is VERY relatable when considering 'minorities' as a whole (where we give minority a victim card to use at will). It doesn't help each other to understand each other better to act as if we aren't all struggling in this world. Sorry for the rant when I really just wanted to express my sincere sympathy to your experience and that I appreciate your thoughtfulness regarding the subject. I wish you and yours all the very best.
Marlee makes a good point. Even if a person functions well with cochlear implants, they need to learn sign language to be not overly relying on technology to be fully independent (tech can fail and malfunction)
When the day comes when they can cure deafness what will the transition be like for those adults who were born deaf? How will they adapt to communicating through speech since they have never heard speech? I would think for a deaf adult who has had their hearing restored hearing someone speaking for the first time would be similar to hearing someone speaking a foreign language. How will formerly deaf adults be taught how to verbally communicate?
@@Sofia-uj5cs Researchers might not be too far away from a medical cure for most hearing loss. Look up this article. "Frequency Therapeutics says they’ve already given the treatment to more than 200 people, and seen significant improvements in patients’ hearing in three out of four clinical trials. The therapy is long-lasting - hearing has been improved for nearly two years in some cases - and it comes in the form of a single injection into the inner ear, making it much simpler and quicker than alternatives like gene therapy." Hearing Loss Can Be Reversed With New Regenerative Therapy, Say MIT Scientists
What do you mean by "should we"? We all know how wonderful this god gifted life is ,we need to work to make this world a better place to live..... When the technology is advanced enough to cure the abnormality ,why "shouldn't we"?
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
@@JH-ji6cj Well at least their ' disability' is gone,right? So they can enjoy what we normal people do daily ...... (See,hear or speak) Well I get your point too but I'm not disagreeing with you.
There are currently treatments for genetic blindness that have restorative properties strong enough to deliver sight. I imagine that research into hearing function is achieving similar results.
Of course they "should", IF that's the patient's choice. imo the brain will adapt to do the ALL of the necessary interpretation/processing of the electrical signals for ANY sense, even for ones we don't naturally possess, such as sonar for instance. So, we should mainly be focused on the number of DAC output connections between the devices & our nerves(and/or the brain itself). In information terms it needs to be as "parallel"(DEMUX'd) of a connection as possible with user controlled feedback mechanisms to control the serial aspects(rate/throughput/bit depth of the DACs etc.), which could vastly reduce the learning curves as also could clever preprocessing, but that ought not be the main focus even though its something Neural Nets & such have recently gotten very good at, at least at 1st anyway. It could probably even be entirely digital if there were "enough connections" especially in a brain only interface for instance. Nanotech shouldn't even be necessary just(only) a surgical mastery of the micro. Such augmentation might even eventually drive prosthetic restoration. It is just a matter of time imo.
The woman was complaining about her family forgetting about her at the table because she can't hear them. Then they start talking about the grandma is "preaching" because she wants the daughter to be able to hear with a cochlear implant. Get off the drugs.
You do make a good point, but... The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on this channel about the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
I I’ve lost my eyesight four years ago from major burns. There has to be a easy way to repair/restore my eyesight. And yeah I really want my site back.
I hope you get better
Monika H.G thank you. I’m trying to look into hopefully the facial transplantation technology and expertise. They seem to be the most hopeful right now.
@@NECRO1369 wait so how do you reply?
@@bayrod15 i reply the same way you do but use audio and a keyboard to navigate around to get to those links/buttons to reply to you. I am doing this on my iphone currently, but can be done on computers too. Look up screen readers for more information about how other people use technology.
You need to pray brother everything is possible through christ 🙏🏾❤
Should we? Yes. If you want to keep one or more senses disabled, you go right ahead. But absolutely develop the cures.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
Agreed, develop the cures.
I had a surgery to “cure” my one sided deafness in elementary school. It was a 75% fix however my brain is unable to interpret the sound into meaning. It’s so terrible and confusing. They made my reconstructed eardrum and parts too small. I can’t be in the wind, be in the cold, roll down a car window on a freeway, fly in a plane or look at the ocean without extreme pain. It fixed nothing and made things worse. Do not fix hearing or impairments if they have been present since birth until you can fix the brain as well.
Did u do cochlea implant or u only went there for a cure?
UMM HELL YEAH WE SHOULD
I think sign language should be taught in school however i think we should still work on a cure. If you want to stay deaf than that’s cool but you still want to have another option
so millions of people should learn a skill they'll likely never use just for the possibility that they'll run into the 0.2 percent of people who are. considering that most American's refuse to learn spoken languages other than english eg: spanish, which is spoken by a large number of people that you'd actually run into on a daily basis, I find your proposition highly unlikely.
YES
its not a debate
Daniel Kish said 'blindness is not the physical limitations that are presumed imposed by blindness. It is about the social barriers that are imposed by society..' real impact on me. Powerful statement.
If science allows someone to live more independantly then it 100% should be an option for everybody. The deaf lady on this talk, as confident and able she clearly is, still relies on another person to communicate for her when talking to non deaf people. You could say well everybody should have to learn sign language but no they shouldnt as deafness is relatively uncommon compared to hearing (most people rarely come across a deaf person) and people will most likely want to use their finite time to study something more useful to them or use their time in other ways. If I had a friend or family member who was deaf then i would 100% try my best to learn as much sign language as i reasonably can but I dont so I would rather study something more relative to me and my life.
This comments section is definitely concerning for me as a member of the DHH community.
perhaps they mean 'should we' ( as in Expect or Force the cure onto people that have already learned to live without )
Thats stupid, no doctor could force a patient to do anything. If i have cancer i dont have to do shit about it. Its my choice.
If we can, then do it, and do it for free. Nobody should have to pay a million bucks to be able to see or hear.
@@dsdsspp7130 No, but technology that offers people with disabilities what's normal for the rest of the world should be affordable to literally everyone. Unless you are okay with the luck factor of being born to a certain country or family. I am pretty sure 99.9% of people would agree that randomness shouldn't play a role in how much a person achieves in their life. And the more that can be minimized the better. No one is working for free, but the government can subsidize the tech.
@@dsdsspp7130 Who, in the video or this thread, mentioned FORCING doctors to perform free surgery? Are you making shit up just to argue?
I think the question of "Should we?" is a thought provoking question beyond the gut reaction of "Of course we should save all disabled people!"
I don't know enough about those to are blind to talk about them, so just speaking of the Deaf community, as a student who is still learning about their culture and language.
I think Deaf people have a right to be hesitant about cochlear implants and their implications. They have a history of erasure involving forcing deaf children to go to oral schools and diminishing the importance of sign language. It's understandable for them to be worried about erasure from "cures". If deaf people now have access to the hearing world, will they still learn sign language? What happens to deaf culture?
I think that more than focusing on "cures" it's more important to raise deaf awareness. Deaf music, Deaf poems, Deaf jokes and idioms. It's important to remember that many do not view their deafness as a disability. For hearing people, deafness is often something scary, because we think of it as "lacking sound". But as Marlee Matlin said, Deaf people don't like to be called "hearing impaired".
Personally I'm a little worried that by using the word "cure" people will forget that implants don't take away deafness. It's like glasses. And then that will cause more problems in the Deaf community.
I think that research in how we can improve the lives of the deaf and blind is amazing, and implants will definitely help a lot of people. This discussion on the future of the deaf and blind was very interesting, thank you for sharing it!
A thoughtful comment among sea of ignorannt comments about deaf people/culture. thank you.
Deaf people still need another person to communicate on their behalf. Anything that helps a person live as independantly as possible should be encouraged. Its each to there own but "deaf culture" appears to be quite insular in nature. You mention how its like glasses, im guessing you mean a person with sight problems still has those problems when not wearing glasses. Yes glasses help someone with sight issues to navigate the world freely on their own and open up oppurtunities to them. Im not sure what you think the issue is with that? I dont think anyone who wears glasses and needs them would rather go without them?
@@cmg1819 Deaf people don't need another person to communicate. Deaf people are bilingual and bicultural. They know English so they can easily talk to a hearing person as long as that hearing person is willing to write back and forth rather than rely and their ears and voice. However, hearing people are often not willing.
@@MentallyFive maybe writing back and forth works for short, simple 1 on 1 conversations eg asking for directions. But what about more lengthy converstation or discussion in groups? Of course people arent generally willing to write everything out as in most cases it would take forever. How would the talk in this video work with that method?
@@cmg1819 Group and longer discussions would be more difficult, but not because of the Deaf person. Really, it would be because the hearing people do not know sign language. Deaf people know both ASL and English, therefore, it is the hearing person who is lacking the ability to communicate with Deaf individuals. It is hearing people who really are the ones that need the interpreter.
"SHOULD WE"?????????? WTF
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
@@JH-ji6cj Niggaplz, lets not overcomplicate this. The question is simple: Do we want to help the disabled or not? All this elitist bullshit that they're on sounds like something I would expect to hear in the early stages of the third reich.
If we could we should. Nobody wants to be handicapped. Trust me.
That's where you are wrong kiddo, tell bats they are blind
@@falconeagle3655 lol no moron they arent. That is what scientifically illiterates gain us though, incorrect assertions based off lack of knowledge. Generally bat species have less visual acuity than humans but no they are not blind.
If we could we should, but it seems like there's a huge amount of personal choice involved when it comes to whether individuals decide to follow through with certain 'cures' or not. Still, I agree with the idea that the options should be available to those who want to opt in
@@falconeagle3655 What handicapped person do you know who chose to be handicapped and is totally okay with it? Do people reach a level of acceptance because there's no alternative? Sure. Would they choose to not be handicapped if given the chance? That answer is probably 'yes'.
Also, QapNPoo is right; bats aren't totally blind. Please don't bring bats (or any other animals for that matter) into this, especially when the OP obviously wasn't talking about animals and was very much referring to people.
@@QapNPoo I agree that Mister FalconEagle is definitely a moron and obviously quite senseless, which explains his apparent lack of sense.
Whoever wrote this title should have to stand and try to explain how sorry they are for writing clickbait junk titles like this to a line of deaf and blind individuals one person at a time.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on this channel about the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
We shouldn't judge the blind and deaf community. But I also expect them not to judge seeing and hearing people.
For those already blind and/ or deaf it should be their choice what help to ask for and what to accept and try.
But for babies born or acquired with less to no hearing and seeing it shouldn't even be a point of discussion that they should be helped to access most senses as good as possible.
As seeing and hearing people can be afraid of not seeing and not hearing because they don't know what it's like - so can born or longtime not hearing and not seeing people be afraid of seeing and hearing because they don't know what it's like.
But neither community should be exclusive and fundamental. That always leads to bigger problems.
Agreed, and no minority group should be granted a victim card to act in ways They want whenever They deem necessary or appropriate.
Her sense of entitlement to speak for the deaf community, interrupt when she wanted, and using condescending and manipulative terms ("I love you, I really do BUT..." and "we are going to have a beer afterwards").
She doesn't get a pass to use her platform to act in ways that strongarm her position. I don't think it was to the extreme, yet I did get the sense that they did her (and the audience) a disservice by not calling her out on her crap when she did it...and propagates the victim narrative.
One of her fears of hearing may be loss of her victimhood that gives her so much popularity and power. Power corrupts, so it's a possibility.
Maybe I'm being harsh just cuz I hate to see manipulation in discussions where you expect the participants to be civil peers (not like in arguments etc).
Once i heard the word 'culture' I knew what direction this talk was going.
This should be left at the exchange at 58:07 - "..those are personal choices."
This should be left to medical science.
Anyone wishing to acquire less information from the environment, especially an entirely new/different modality, should be free to do so. However, parents making that choice for offspring is a terrible thing to leave to them. The decision is too complex to leave up to feelings & emotions birthed from their difficult interactions with society. It's an ouroboros-like thing: social prejudice can sour your experience as deaf/blind, so you build a "culture" and ensure that your children replicate and nurture your sour experience. This is counter-productive, and possibly harmful.
I am a student of science, with hearing reduced by tinnitus in one ear.
I will seek treatment as/when possible.
Thank you, WSF.
💕
I agree wholeheartedly with Marlee. But she shouldn't interrupting Daniel to add her opinion whenever Daniel trying to speak his opinion. It distrupt the flow of conversation.
IMHO I think having options is never a bad idea, finding a cure and letting people chose seems the most sensible way to go about things.
We should have a right to find a cure for blind, deaf and cancer. We should help everyone who needs it. Lets get rid the word of disability to ability. Thank you
That lady is stupid. Sign language has a lot of limitations- you cannot see what you sign in the dark but you can hear. You cannot see sign from very far but you can still hear. What if the person in a different room? You need a person in front of you to completely understand what you sign. Plus you limit yourself to communicating with those who can sign.
She should not speak for every deaf person. If she doesn’t want to cure or have implant for hearing that’s her wish.
She has shot tons of money, she doesn’t need to worry about day to day things unlike most of the people.
And who are you to speak about deaf people?
I cannot describe how sad I would be to "loose" music.
A deaf person's visual world is what you are missing, they see so much more than you and me.
I love music, and I am raising a deaf daughter. Life is fasinating.
@@dianadougan6871
That's not necessary true.
Deaf people are also afflicted by eye problems as the same rate as non deaf people.
If you mean because they don't hear and thus use their sight more. Sure. However that's just in general. It's like saying all people with legs use them the same. Many people are talented at using their sight. Some actually earn a living doing so.
Yes we should find a cure for deafness. A cure for deafness will lead to hearing improvements for people with various forms of hearing loss.
I have single sided deafness. This condition makes it more complicated for me to interact with people in noisy places. It also complicates choosing jobs.
So if a deafness cure leads to me regaining my hearing in my deaf ear then good.
Can we cure cancer? Should we? It's a community.
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on this channel about the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
@@JH-ji6cj I'm aware of that having a family member having Ushers disease. She's on the front using all kind of cool new stuff to get her around the globe and in and around buildings etc. and helping our society to be better prepared for people who are deaf or blind. But she rather would not have the problem, although she deals with as the best. And with Ushers disease you are always going backwards, the only variable is speed.
No, being a community is not a valid reason to not to cure any disease. A valid option might be for one to choose whether or not they want to undergo the cure once it's available.
@@kozepz I don't disagree at all. I think the interesting question will be how the general public adjusts to these questions when AI will allow the capacity to have abilities and experiences beyond human current capacity. We are already having people regard the internet and phones as culture/social killers and the need to cross-connect ideas in these spaces are necessary.
@@JH-ji6cj It's a paradox. I'm able to communicate with my family member because of that, she and another friend both of their lives have expanded because of that.
On the other hand loneliness is a big issue in this connected world. I don't believe that only the rapid development of technology is the only cause of that, I believe bad parenting plays a big role in this too (e.g. replacing childhood basic emotional needs with technology to keep them quiet)
@@kozepz well all I can say to that is that it's encouraging to interact with someone who is thoughtful and engaging with these ideas such as yourself. I recently lost use of my right ear (meniere's syndrome) and am also experiencing the strange effect of pronounced tinnitus in that same ear....which seems so strange until learning more about the mechanics.
I have also dealt with depression most of my life from a very young age (9) and suicidal ideation has been a major part of that (the social issues of connectedness being a major personal part of that) and have had to consider the conundrum of wanting to 'fix' my depression, yet not give up completely my sense of self. Which is VERY difficult.
A *community of depressives* doesn't work so well, but the connectedness I have experienced with certain friends that struggled as well over the years can't be overstated in its importance for perspective. I think that social perspective is much of what's debatable in this talk. That's also why I like the connection between this talk and the talk on this channel regarding reality.
The blind guy (not so blind, eh?) is spot-on that it has more to do with the brain and focusing more on the meaning behind the interpretation vs concentrating and making personal distinctions according to appearances or what we consider *'normal behavior'* .
Kids lash out against parents because they are trying to communicate and parents could be much more empathetic if they tried to keep this in mind. I'm not saying that cohesion and systems of communication (languages and methods of learning - language, math, history, art) aren't important to be learned and as such include some conformity to get there, but that many times the conforming aspect takes such precedent that valid communication gets missed when too stringent.
I was a little pissed when she presented deafness as a victimization tool, however. When she expressed that others need to understand that the deaf can be tired of signing or tired of explaining their predicament to others and that it's then incumbent on the hearing to just allow the deaf to 'use the deaf-card' .....and I think this is VERY relatable when considering 'minorities' as a whole (where we give minority a victim card to use at will). It doesn't help each other to understand each other better to act as if we aren't all struggling in this world.
Sorry for the rant when I really just wanted to express my sincere sympathy to your experience and that I appreciate your thoughtfulness regarding the subject. I wish you and yours all the very best.
Fascinating.....
Marlee makes a good point. Even if a person functions well with cochlear implants, they need to learn sign language to be not overly relying on technology to be fully independent (tech can fail and malfunction)
Well this is a new spin on "The blind leading the blind" HAH who'd have guessed that actually isn't an entirely bad idea
"Should we"?!? Are you out of your mind??
Marlee Matlin, fantastic... - love you!
Of course we should. Don't force it on anyone except the really young though.
UMMMM OF COURSE WE SHOULD WTF!!!
When the day comes when they can cure deafness what will the transition be like for those adults who were born deaf? How will they adapt to communicating through speech since they have never heard speech? I would think for a deaf adult who has had their hearing restored hearing someone speaking for the first time would be similar to hearing someone speaking a foreign language. How will formerly deaf adults be taught how to verbally communicate?
1. They will learn, not as well but to some degree, 2. They can still communicate with sign language, just like they did before
@@Sofia-uj5cs
Researchers might not be too far away from a medical cure for most hearing loss.
Look up this article.
"Frequency Therapeutics says they’ve already given the treatment to more than 200 people, and seen significant improvements in patients’ hearing in three out of four clinical trials. The therapy is long-lasting - hearing has been improved for nearly two years in some cases - and it comes in the form of a single injection into the inner ear, making it much simpler and quicker than alternatives like gene therapy."
Hearing Loss Can Be Reversed With New Regenerative Therapy, Say MIT Scientists
Someone tell Jim that he should LOOK at Marlee as she is the one speaking NOT the interpreter
its was excellent explained ...
Should we? Are you fucking kidding me. This isn't laboratory babies or uplifting chimpanzees....it's fairly straight forward medical intervention.
I think we shouldn't. There are only so many people I can feel superior too.
That is very selfish and short sighted of you.
@@jturner2577 "That is very selfish and *short sighted* of you."
That's ablist talk right there. At least I'm not a hypocrite.
@@Natsukashii-Records It's not. It's the truth, the Cures should be made
@@jturner2577 You are calling me short-sighted in an insulting manner, that's ablist.
@@Natsukashii-Recordsyeah I guess I’m an “ablist” then. Cry about it
What do you mean by "should we"? We all know how wonderful this god gifted life is ,we need to work to make this world a better place to live..... When the technology is advanced enough to cure the abnormality ,why "shouldn't we"?
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
@@JH-ji6cj Well at least their ' disability' is gone,right? So they can enjoy what we normal people do daily ...... (See,hear or speak) Well I get your point too but I'm not disagreeing with you.
Cure deafness.
Make the blind wear cool metallic banana clips over their eyes that let them see in all frequencies.
If we could we would, we can't so we won't.
Yeah but we need to wait two and a half days to figure out we can't and apparently why anyone wouldn't cure it if they could. 🙄 lol
Is beyond that if you can or cant, is a sociological discussion maybe you'll understand in 2 days
There are currently treatments for genetic blindness that have restorative properties strong enough to deliver sight. I imagine that research into hearing function is achieving similar results.
@@acetate909 Me too.
This was sooooo interesting!
Of course they "should", IF that's the patient's choice. imo the brain will adapt to do the ALL of the necessary interpretation/processing of the electrical signals for ANY sense, even for ones we don't naturally possess, such as sonar for instance. So, we should mainly be focused on the number of DAC output connections between the devices & our nerves(and/or the brain itself). In information terms it needs to be as "parallel"(DEMUX'd) of a connection as possible with user controlled feedback mechanisms to control the serial aspects(rate/throughput/bit depth of the DACs etc.), which could vastly reduce the learning curves as also could clever preprocessing, but that ought not be the main focus even though its something Neural Nets & such have recently gotten very good at, at least at 1st anyway. It could probably even be entirely digital if there were "enough connections" especially in a brain only interface for instance. Nanotech shouldn't even be necessary just(only) a surgical mastery of the micro. Such augmentation might even eventually drive prosthetic restoration. It is just a matter of time imo.
thank you
36:12
Nah, don't cure blindness and deafness. Let's just keep trashing the environment instead.
if we live how we are everyone can see and hear. how we live change us living less
The woman was complaining about her family forgetting about her at the table because she can't hear them. Then they start talking about the grandma is "preaching" because she wants the daughter to be able to hear with a cochlear implant. Get off the drugs.
You do make a good point, but...
The difficulty is that having an informed opinion should provide the experience (or a testing at least), yet that's not possible with surgery and the level of acceptance that comes with that decision. There is another video on this channel about the nature of 'reality' and how we use sense data to rectify interaction with the world, that might be helpful regarding the discussion. There may be a physical, emotional, and social price to be paid for those who choose to transition from what many others *"see"* as a disability.
I thought they were married but found out she has a different husband.
That’s weird bcz they were kinda flirting
Yeah maybe we shouldn't because it never gets old playing with people's misfortune in life
This topic headline you put up and it's from a science festival.
I'm completely profound
to be blind is like to be in prison rest of ur life
"Should we" _is_ a valid question.
But then again what is not one.
Precisely
Yeah, fuck blind people.
No it's not. The answer is obviously yes but leave the decision up to the individual.
@@jturner2577 That's already mostly reflective of reality. The question being posed here is more so "should we eradicate Deafness?"