posted
I've been thinking about it and out of the five sense the human body has: touch, smell, hearing, vision, taste you could live without taste and smell. Heck living without smell might be an advantage due to air pollution in the bigger cities, and as long as you have touch you'll still have "texture" from food otherwise I assume you'ld choke.
But Touch, Vision, Hearing would quickly approach I have no mouth and I must Scream territory.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, while I certainly wouldn't want to be deaf, it wouldn't be the absolute end of the world either.
I'd put it somewhere on par with having my left arm amputated. It would suck, but I'd be able to adapt and maintain a pretty good quality of life.
Being blinded, however, would be an order of magnitude harder to deal with. For one, my programming job would be near impossible to do and I'd need to switch careers or stop working entirely.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by manji: Deaf culture would disagree with you about hearing.
which deaf culture? the one that's trying to pretend that being deaf isn't a significant disability?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think taste might be the one I'd give up. A significant part of "taste" is actually due to smell, so I'd still have some food enjoyment, and I'd be able to smell all the other wonderful things in life (and the not so wonderful things).
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by manji: Deaf culture would disagree with you about hearing.
which deaf culture? the one that's trying to pretend that being deaf isn't a significant disability?
My original point was that Deaf culture would disagree with the characterization comparing loss of hearing with the title of a short story by Harlan Ellison. If that's what you're responding to, then, my answer to you is, "Yes, that one."
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't do well in utter silence, I always have music or background noise going on, or else there is a part of my brain this just goes bibbidy. On the other hand, I have excellent sense of spatial relations, which makes me a great drafter, and a vivid imagination.
As strange as it sounds, I'd rather be blind the deaf. Plus with echolocation not being able to see is less debilitating as it once was.
Of course sense of taste would be the first to go. All you get is salty, sweet, bitter, sour and savory. Where as humans can smell about 10,000 different smells.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you lost your somatasensory system I'm pretty sure it'd be devastating. Besides losing the ability to feel a loved one, very simple tasks like walking and holding things would suddenly become impossible. You'd also lose the ability to feel pain, and that's EXTREMELY dangerous.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Porter, as much as I'd hate losing taste/smell, I actually think it might lead me to be healthier eater. If I am truly eating just for nutrition/hunger, I'd probably live a lot longer and have a smaller waist-line.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taste -> Smell -> Hearing -> Sight -> Touch for me. Hearing & sight are the tough decision in my book, just because I get so much enjoyment from music and sound, but sight is really how we take in most of our information as humans, and I think that'd be the toughest to do without. Visual media? The speed at which you can read the internet? Plus sunlight through trees.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
For me, the question is which sense would I find it easiest to adapt to losing.
I don't think the loss of taste and smell would affect me much beyond eating, which would become a chore instead of a delight.
I think that the loss of sight would probably kill my career. I know that the trope of the blind computer programmer is relatively common, but I can't imagine doing my job without being able to visually see and scan the code I'm working on. But maybe I'd learn to adapt.
Reading books wouldn't be that big a deal -- I already listen to a lot of audio books. I'd just listen to more of them.
I wonder how much I'd be able to enjoy TV and movies if I were just hearing them.
My woodworking would be utterly gone, as would a lot of my ability to contribute to the running of the household.
Socially, I don't think it would make much of a difference. With how bad I am on picking up nonverbal cues, I'd lose very little, either online or in meatspace.
If I lost my sound, I'd lose two big things -- the ability to easily communicate with people in meatspace, and music. Besides those and my beloved audio books, I can't think of any ways that it would drastically impact my life. I'd just always have to watch TV and movies with the subtitles on.
I think that the loss of touch would affect me in more ways than I can imagine right now, and would probably be the worst. But for starters, sex would be a thing of the past. Driving and woodworking would be incredibly unsafe. I wouldn't be able to play a musical instrument. I could no longer touch type. Kittens would no longer feel soft.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by manji: My original point was that Deaf culture would disagree with the characterization comparing loss of hearing with the title of a short story by Harlan Ellison.
posted
Characteristically for me, I am less concerned with the practicalities - those would get worked out somehow - and more about losing what I love. Sight would go first, then taste and smell (as it would be hard to lose one without the other), then hearing, touch last.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: If you lost your somatasensory system I'm pretty sure it'd be devastating. Besides losing the ability to feel a loved one, very simple tasks like walking and holding things would suddenly become impossible. You'd also lose the ability to feel pain, and that's EXTREMELY dangerous.
Personally, I was assuming that I would lose just touch receptors, not the whole system that handles them.
So you'd still have pressure, heat and cold, and pain. Just not touch. (But I could see how it could be interpreted otherwise)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm usually not sure if Samp is being sarcastic or not.
Not. It's true that being deaf isn't as nightmare world co as is being presented.
It's a bit more in that ballpark if you consider the trauma of having the sense, and then suddenly losing it forever as being I think to an extant worse than never having it to begin with.
Though the assumption here is permanence, in reality the choice becomes a little different if we suppose certain senses we could regain with science. Sight and Hearing we can imperfectly restore to an extant.
quote: Personally, I was assuming that I would lose just touch receptors, not the whole system that handles them.
So you'd still have pressure, heat and cold, and pain. Just not touch. (But I could see how it could be interpreted otherwise)
I meant touch as in losing the system. Though I think scaling it down to just being similar to leprosy loss of touch would be pretty bad if I think about it.
IP: Logged |
posted
There was an odd episode of House that dealt with a girl who couldn't process information from her body's nerve endings. It was somewhat disconcerting when she talked about having an alarm set on her watch so she could use the bathroom on a schedule lest she soil herself randomly and not even realize it.
Physical perception is important.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually have a very weak sense of smell. I had a surgery a few years back and since then, while my breathing has been improved and it fixed the problem I was having, I don't smell things as well as I used to. My sense of taste has been altered as well. I now need my food to be particularly zesty and/or spicy to get a richness of flavor, otherwise there just isn't much there. Same thing with sweets, the richer they are the closer they are to having the taste I remember.
So for me at least, since having the surgery, I have to be particularly careful about what I eat. I exercise a lot more and have to practice fairly strict portion control lest I binge on unhealthy-yet-tasty foods.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any of them. All of them. I'm rather fond of my senses, but I'm very fond of living. If it's a choice between death and a life only inside my own head, I'll take B, please.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, due to this thread I looked up some of those arguments made by some of those in deaf culture.
It was not fun.
Cochlear implants and similar things as equivalent to genocide? The rights of deaf parents to inflict deafness on children that don't need to be deaf, using culture as an excuse? Making a false equivalence between te culture born of being unable to hear, and the lack of hearing itself?
I understand the desire of a person to feel that they are fine, that there is nothing wrong with them. But there is a limit.
The same arguments could be used to defend the rights of those without hands to cut off the hands of their children. And they are no less vile here.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
deaf culture crazies are .. not something you are going to see in other even loosely equivalent groups
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a father, I can't even comprehend not wanting the best possible for your children, actually deafening your children so they will be like you is...well...it makes me angry.
I want my kids to be better then I am.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Learning sign language and being a part of deaf culture is not mutually exclusive with being unable to hear.
The fact that not being able to hear is a disadvantage compared with being able to hear is, in my opinion, unarguable.
It isn't a question of "fine" or "wrong with", it's a question of "better". I need glasses to see, and I'm fine, and there is nothing wrong with me, but I hope my children are not myopic and have better vision then I do.
Had I 20/20 vision, I could still wish my children to have "better" eyes then myself, and have 20/10 vision.
"Better" is just a comparison between multiple things where one is more desirable/offers an advantage.
posted
Anecdotally, I've never met a Deaf person who espoused a personal belief in crippling children in order to preserve Deaf culture. I have seen such a view expressed on the TV show House, but that's about it. I know one person who was surprised that his child was born deaf, as his own deafness was not a result of a genetic affliction.
In any case, it's my understanding that the Deaf community consists of individuals, either deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing who identify with Deaf culture. So, you don't have to be deaf to be part of the Deaf community. And even if you are deaf, it doesn't necessarily mean you identify with Deaf culture.
It's an entire spectrum. Just because one view is expressed, doesn't mean that the entire or majority of the community feels that way. Although, I would have no way of knowing, as I have done zero polling on the issue.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by manji: ... I have seen such a view expressed on the TV show House, but that's about it.
I think I previously posted about a couple that did IVF and selected for a deaf embryo (or an embryo that would lead to a deaf child, whatever), asking about the ethics of it. Can't find the thread.
quote:Now a deaf couple have turned this on its head: far from wanting a flawless child they actively want a baby which suffers the same hearing difficulties as they themselves.
The couple have become icons in a deaf movement which sees this impairment not as a disability but as the key to a rich culture which has its own language, history and traditions: a world deaf parents would naturally want to share with any offspring.
Moreover, they argue that to prefer a hearing embryo over a deaf one is tantamount to discrimination.
I think it happened in Quebec the time I brought it up. It should be a minority view, but its more than just House.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:being a part of deaf culture is not mutually exclusive with being unable to hear.
To a certain extent, yes it is.
I worked for a summer at Minnesota Conservation Corps, of which, 1/3 were deaf. It was a work camp, like summer camp, with forestry work. So for two months I lived, ate, worked and played with a lot of deaf people.
I saw the interactions of "deaf culture" first hand, and our leaders who knew sign language, our interpreter, the non hearing impaired parents of the deaf kids were all very much a part of "deaf culture".
So, to what extent are you saying that one must be unable to hear to be a part of deaf culture?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Err. My understanding is that to Deaf culture, the capital letter is very important; they distinguish between Deaf culture, a specific movement, and deaf culture, general interactions between people who are deaf.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to start a new thread for it, but this thread seems a decent place:
I recently started watching "Switched at Birth." I had avoided it a while because it looked like a standard, silly soap opera. It sort of is. But it's got good writing and fun characters and deals with a lot of interesting issues.
The two main characters are girls who, at birth, were accidentally switched by the hospital and raised by the "wrong" family. One of them became deaf when she was young. The show begins with the two families finding out about each other, and a large chunk of the show deals with deaf (Deaf?) culture.
I don't know how accurate the show is but it feels like the writers are making a sincere effort to treat the issue seriously.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nearly Headless Nick also lost his ability to be corporeal, so it's not really an issue for him.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand the desire of a person to feel that they are fine, that there is nothing wrong with them. But there is a limit.
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Are deaf people fine? Is there something wrong with them?
It's hard because they probably *feel* fine. And in the sense that they can function and are happy and productive, they are fine as well.
But is it better, in the sense of inferring an inherent advantage, to be hearing? I'd go with yes, if the idea of a necessarily inherent advantage were possible.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that the loss of sight would probably kill my career. I know that the trope of the blind computer programmer is relatively common, but I can't imagine doing my job without being able to visually see and scan the code I'm working on. But maybe I'd learn to adapt.
I think it might slow you down, but if you're anything like me, you may think of the code visually, but you don't really visualize it so much on the screen as you read it. Instead you form your own mental representation of what the code does. Because you think visually, you might think your ability to read the code visually is vital to being able to understand it. But just like you can visualize audiobooks just as well (and sometimes better) as when you are reading, the same applies to programming.
At least, I think it does. I'm not blind, and I'm not a professional programmer. This is just conjecture.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot imagine a scenario where I'd still be an effective software developer while blind. I just can't. Best case scenario, I still think I'd be horribly inefficient.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it. But just like you can visualize audiobooks just as well (and sometimes better) as when you are reading, the same applies to programming.
Books, whether they be written or spoken, are linear. The story might not be, but the book is -- you read the first word, then the second, then the third, on until the end. It lends itself very well to audio.
But code is not that way at all. All but the simplest programs have branchings, loopings, and jumps that would be extremely hard to comprehend in a linear medium such as audio book.
I wonder if there are audio/braille code readers that comprehend the code well enough to jump from place to place, following the code structure. That would make it possible, but it seems like it would still be, as Xavier said, horribly inefficient in comparison.
One of the tools I use most often in my code editor is the ability to highlight every single instance of a word. This allows me to quickly scan and see every place that, for instance, a variable is being used in the entire document. I find this too indispensably, and am at a loss why it isn't standard on all code editors. I can't imagine how anything analogous to that could be implemented for the blind.
quote:I can't imagine how anything analogous to that could be implemented for the blind.
With our current tech, I agree. But soon we will all have USB ports right below our ears and "jack in", and then being blind won't matter a lick.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying cars and direct links from our brains to computers by 2020, you heard it first here folks!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |