[Veraticus]

“Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, whereas being deaf does.

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.

[rjh29]

You can't procreate, that sounds like a pretty big difference in capacity?

[Drakim]

Gay people can obviously procreate, nothing about your body stops functioning when you are gay.

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?

[herbst]

Interestingly enough it was still common to train left handed kids in right handed writing up until maybe 40 years ago as it was seen as some kind of defect obviously.

[ben_w]

> “Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world,

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".

[alexey-salmin]

Being deaf is surely different from not being deaf but you can't objectively say it's a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage in a world built for not deaf people, like being left-handed is a disadvantage in a world built for right-handed people.

[Veraticus]

I can and did say that. The world is easier for non-deaf people. I can’t imagine even many deaf people would argue against that statement.

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.

[alexey-salmin]

If dolphins could communicate with us they would surely tell how much easier it is when you have ultrasonic hearing. All humans are therefore disabled and in need of fixing.

Or maybe not, if dolphins turn to be wiser than an average human.

[sweezyjeezy]

If all humans could echo-locate except a subset who couldn't, I would say that group is at a small disadvantage, yes, because the set of things the main group can do is 'objectively' greater. I don't know how relevant it would be for us especially in the daytime, but hey.

[alexey-salmin]

I agree. However, whether all kids should receive gene therapy to develop the echo-location once the science allows for that is a more nuanced question.

[geraldwhen]

If most buildings lacked light because the vast majority just echolocated, then the those unable would be disabled.

It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability.

[PierceJoy]

It’s a disadvantage in the “built” world, but it’s also a disadvantage in the natural world. If you drop a deaf person in the middle of the forest with no one around, they will not be able hear rivers for water, they will not be able to hear animals approaching, etc.

Being deaf is objectively a disadvantage because 4 senses is objectively worse than 5 senses.

[alexey-salmin]

Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution. Apparently 6 is not always better than 5 from the nature's point of view. Moles went further to loose sight as well.

[glenstein]

I don't think that's quite right, evolution makes trade offs and allocates scarce resources, it's not necessarily because such things would not be beneficial.

[alexey-salmin]

It's not clear what "beneficial" means if you consider it separately from the resources required to achieve it.

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.

[PierceJoy]

> Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution.

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.

[alexey-salmin]

No, I'm not wrong, I just don't like relying on "obvious" statements like "5 senses are better than 4". We can't know for sure what was "better" until the human race experiment is finished (and then we won't know either obviously).

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...

[PierceJoy]

Hereditary autoimmune diseases are not a sense, and are irrelevant to this discussion about whether hearing is an objective advantage or not.

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?

[RamblingCTO]

How do you hear predators approaching? It's an objective disadvantage.

[sweezyjeezy]

This feels a bit tenuous. What world do you envisage where it's a completely level playing field? Do we ban talking, music, sound in movies etc etc??

[alexey-salmin]

I think building a completely level playing field is a dangerous utopia. Essentially it's the same idea as fixing people to make them equal, just addressed from the opposite end.