Elizabeth Bear (matociquala
) has an excellent guest post on SF Signal, about disability in science fiction
--why it's worth including, how to do it right, and how to do it wrong. I read it with interest, both because it's a topic that interests me in general and because it's a topic that shows up in my own stories. I like playing with how deficits get defined, and by who, and how much trouble comes from an actual physical or mental issue versus how much comes from the way society handles it.
But, so, anyway. The first comment--actually, the first 3 or 4 comments--is S.M.Stirling "pointing out" that within a hundred years we'll have a perfect understanding of biology, and therefore we won't have disabilities, so why should we write about them.
Obviously one could argue with every assumption in that very weird statement. From a purely scientific standpoint, for a start... since we've never reached a perfect understanding of any other field of inquiry, we have no data points to infer how long it will take in biology. Nor do we have any reason to suppose that perfect understanding equals perfect control. We understand computer programs pretty well, after all, having created them.
Also, I just went to a seminar on neuroscience data, and we were all really excited by a database that mapped the physical shape of 13 neurons in the hippocampus. They had 2000 human neurons total. Not all from the same human, you understand, or connected to each other. I'm sure we'll get better at this over the next few years, but from a Bayesian standpoint I would bet a fair amount that perfection will take longer than a century.
But, so anyway. Circumstances did not permit me to get in a neuroscience slapfight on Tuesday merely because someone was wrong on the internet, and by the time I got back someone else had done it. Instead, I decided to take Stirling's scientific postulates for granted--we will have a perfect understanding of biology, and perfect understanding allows perfect control--and asked what disability would look like under those circumstances.( Read more... )
ETA: S.M. Stirling, not Steve Brust. Apologies to Brust, whose name was in my head because I just got excited about the publication date for Hawk.