The future of dev/PWD relationships.

[Braced4Impact]

Where do you think things will be in terms of devs and PWD relationships in 5 years, 10 years, 20, 50, 100?  Do you believe medicine will make disabilities a thing of the past, and devs would only get to experience such feelings through looking back at the past?  Would devoteeism even die out, because if no one is exposed to those with disabilities, they wouldn't even know what they're missing, so to say?

For the more short term; will it remain a taboo topic, or will it become more mainstream or at least open to the perceptions of the general public?  Will it get worse with social media group-think where any and all thoughts out of the norm are abhorred by the masses and people with such feelings become even more reclusive over their dev tendencies?

I'm curious to hear both dev and PWD thoughts on this.

[lucretia]

I don't foresee any changes in the next 10-20 years, simply based on my own observations both here and before I knew about PD.

I don't think disability will ever "go away" but I do believe most people in the coming decades who have the option to manage conception and pregnancy will opt for children without disability. Even now something over 90% of mothers given the choice opt to terminate pregnancies when disability is discovered.

Also, as cures for certain diseases are discovered and approved, and gene therapy becomes more common, fewer disabilities will continue to adulthood.

Furthermore, as fertility rates decline, people will be less and less likely to leave contraception up to chance. While "designer babies" may or may not become a thing, certainly "healthy" will become the goal.

So yeah, I do think there will eventually be a decline in the disabled population.

As for devs? Well, we're a creative bunch. Think about other groups like furries and reenactors. They don't have "real life" access to what they desire, so they create communities where they can live out their fantasies.

Will pretenders play a role? Probably.

But I definitely think if one day there were absolutely zero disabled people in the world (never going to happen) then there would also be zero devs.

[darthoso]

Assuming equal access to healthcare (lol), the last symptomatic child with SMA has likely already been born, in theory. Children who start treatment while still pre symptomatic are staying pre symptomatic, gene therapy is looking like it's just going to be a permanent or semi permanent fix (vs treatment every 4 months). SMA is still going to be around genetically (in many more numbers as Type Is survive into adulthood and have children) but only those without treatment will be impacted.

Medical advances move slowly so I doubt they'll be any dev dis relationship changes. The big shock will be SCI fix I think.

[lars]

I, for one, welcome our augmented overlords. As for devoteeism in itself, I think it's the age old question of nature vs nurture. I haven't combed through enough monkey poo to call myself a geneticist, but I ran a quick search in order to find if there are any new findings linking homosexuality to genetics, which I think could provide a crude model/basis for your thoughts about dev genes. Something came up, so maybe you'll find these results interesting. Anyhow, It's good to remember that these things are often more complex than just one gene switching things on/off. If I recall right, the last that I heard, there were something around 170-180 genes linked with a person's height, and even if there are direct genetic links, the debate is still going to remain a question of how significant the genetic factor is vs nurture.

As for my own thoughts, I don't think devoteeism is going to disappear anywhere, but some of it may change its form. For those living in societies with the money and the means, physical disability may be a thing of the past. Given enough time, augmentations may or may not be preferrable over regular parts, even if we'll be able to fix, for example, missing bodyparts with full regeneration. There's all kinds of magic going on with material technology, and if you combine that with a two-way brain-machine interface, we're talking about some pretty interesting prosthetics with performance far exceeding our earthly vessels of flesh. That's the future, but it isn't here yet. However, It's a whole another thing if that technology is going to look anything different than the regular thing on the outside. Before we reach that point, we're going to live an age of less refined augmentations/prosthetics/whatever you want to call it. Plenty of new things to dev over. It's easy to forged BIID in all of this, too. Maybe someone will prefer to have all chromed high tech limbs that look the part, too.

On the other hand, that technology won't be available to everyone, and majority of people are going to live in all kinds of poverty and war-stricken shitholes for quite some time beyond that. There are going to be plenty of old-fashioned cripples, too.

If we really want to get high with futurism, one shouldn't forget about the possibilities of gene tailoring and purpose-tailored humans for low-G/high-G ( Not OG ) environments, and the speed of divergence that's going to be a major issue when measuring distances in astronomical units instead of kilometers.

The next 20-100 years? It's just going to be the old things plus some new things.

[Braced4Impact]

Alright, so the far off future doesn't look like it'll change that much, so what about the more near term; do you think devs will become more accepted or mainstream, or will society always view it as a fringe interest to be looked down upon?

[darthoso]

Jun 15, 2018 22:18:52 GMT -5 Braced4Impact said:

Alright, so the far off future doesn't look like it'll change that much, so what about the more near term; do you think devs will become more accepted or mainstream, or will society always view it as a fringe interest to be looked down upon?

I still maintain 99% of humanity has no idea what devs are.

[lars]

I think it's a very interesting question/topic in its both forms, and I'd really like to hear more views about these things. It's also good to remember that I know shit about shit, and that I have quite an optimistic look on technology, even though I genuinely think that's the way it's going to go - it's just a question of how long things are going to take. It's difficult to guess when technological breakthroughs happen in research, and it's another thing when an actual application is on the markets.

As for the second part of the question, I think it's more difficult to predict, especially so, if we're talking about the long run. In the near term, at least in the western world, we're seeing a trend of more open-minded and inclusive attitudes, but I think the key is the public perception of disabled sexuality in itself, more so than devoteeism being in the focus. Devoteeism is, I think, a very rare ( but very enjoyable ) quirk of human nature/behaviour, and as with everything so far off the norm, it's going to remain a fringe interest and probably something most people aren't even aware of. If the public gets used to the idea of cripples being sexual beings ( and people more or less like everyone else ), I think it may lead to a situation where it's less and less of a big deal that there are people who find us cripples delightfully hot.

I'm not old enough to remember what the zeitgeist felt like 30 years ago, when it comes to these kinds of topics, but I think it has come a long way for the better already - so I'd say things are looking brighter

[Braced4Impact]

Indeed, Mr. Lars, and I mean the future is just speculation. For all I know, a giant asteroid may wipe us all out next year, and the point is moot, but it's fun to make guesses as to what may be in store for us.

[loreley]

Great discussion! As for the zeitgeist 30 years ago and perceptions of pwd, I think great changes have taken place. When I was a child, you rarely saw disabled people in the streets, wheechairs were still massive so many people were not that mobile, and nothing was accessible here in Germany. Wheelchair users were not allowed on passenger coaches on trains and had to sit in the mail coach between parcels and letters,like cattle. In the late 70ies/80ies, there was the "cripple movement" in Germany, with many very angry activists demanding their rights.

Media portrayals of pwds has also changed drastically from portraying them as bitter, needy and sad most of the time. In Germany, it really started with including a main character with osteogenesis imperfecta in a daily soap, for 14 years till the show was cancelled. Then there was a guy with sci on Big Brother and people could watch a guy in a wheelchair shower and do all sorts of everyday things.
I really think that the inclusion od pwds in mainstream culture as just normal characters with everyday problems has contributed a lot towards more normality.

[TotalBias]

Jun 15, 2018 15:14:12 GMT -5 darthoso said:

Assuming equal access to healthcare (lol), the last symptomatic child with SMA has likely already been born, in theory. Children who start treatment while still pre symptomatic are staying pre symptomatic, gene therapy is looking like it's just going to be a permanent or semi permanent fix (vs treatment every 4 months). SMA is still going to be around genetically (in many more numbers as Type Is survive into adulthood and have children) but only those without treatment will be impacted.

Medical advances move slowly so I doubt they'll be any dev dis relationship changes. The big shock will be SCI fix I think.

karotix5 and I have actually talked about this. Unless treatment was mandated or our future child had an insanely high mortality rate, we wouldn’t irradicate the symptoms of SMA (if I was a carrier and the child was born with SMA). I know that’s not a popular choice, but it’s one we are pretty adamant about.

[newjess]

Jun 16, 2018 15:06:55 GMT -5 TotalBias said:

Jun 15, 2018 15:14:12 GMT -5 darthoso said:

Assuming equal access to healthcare (lol), the last symptomatic child with SMA has likely already been born, in theory. Children who start treatment while still pre symptomatic are staying pre symptomatic, gene therapy is looking like it's just going to be a permanent or semi permanent fix (vs treatment every 4 months). SMA is still going to be around genetically (in many more numbers as Type Is survive into adulthood and have children) but only those without treatment will be impacted.

Medical advances move slowly so I doubt they'll be any dev dis relationship changes. The big shock will be SCI fix I think.

karotix5 and I have actually talked about this. Unless treatment was mandated or our future child had an insanely high mortality rate, we wouldn’t irradicate the symptoms of SMA (if I was a carrier and the child was born with SMA). I know that’s not a popular choice, but it’s one we are pretty adamant about.

Wait, do you mean if your child was born with SMA and you could treat with Spinraza you wouldn't do it? or were you saying something different? If that is what you're saying, what is the reason for that?

[TotalBias]

1. Science will never eradicate disability because so much of what we create *causes* disability. For example, most people with SCI or amputees got in an accident of sorts that involved some sort of machinery (vehicle, heavy equipments, etc.) OR were injured at war by man-made weapons. Chemicals we have combined cause cancer and other health problems. There will always be something that we are tying to *fix* because we can’t stop messing with shit. We will create new (dis)abilities along the way. Perhaps some of what we have now will no longer exist, but there will be other differences to take their place. I think devotees will become more niche, but also more desirable as time goes on.

2. In my post-apocalyptic world I see devotees as something that people want to be because everyone is going to be obsessed with proving they can survive and showing off the evidence of that. Therefore, more people will think it’s hott fo be missing limbs and blind in one eye or whatnot because the alternative is dead. I think it’ll be like, the more you can take and live the hotter/more desireable you’ll be in that sort of environment, but what do I know?

3. I think in the next 5-10 yrs devotee relations will actually get more shit, especially in America. As we start to be more ‘body positive,’ what we are often really pushing is that you have to ‘accept’ all bodies. So while I think things will improve in general for PWD, I think devs will be looked at as horrible objectifying demons who ‘only want PWD for their bodies.’ We will be seen as the new frat boys just trying to score. :/

[TotalBias]

Jun 16, 2018 15:23:57 GMT -5 newjess said:

Jun 16, 2018 15:06:55 GMT -5 TotalBias said:

karotix5 and I have actually talked about this. Unless treatment was mandated or our future child had an insanely high mortality rate, we wouldn’t irradicate the symptoms of SMA (if I was a carrier and the child was born with SMA). I know that’s not a popular choice, but it’s one we are pretty adamant about.

Wait, do you mean if your child was born with SMA and you could treat with Spinraza you wouldn't do it? or were you saying something different? If that is what you're saying, what is the reason for that?

karotix5 can probably answer better; I’ll try though.

He’s currently taking Spinraza in the hopes that his condition won’t worsen to the point where his health and autonomy would really be at risk, but not because he doesn’t want to be symptomatic (although that’s kind of irrelevant because he’s gonna be somewhat symptomatic either way).

His childhood was good and he likes who he is. I like who he is. He wouldn’t be the same person without SMA. We wouldn’t want to take that experience away from our child. Yes, it’s different and in some ways it’s harder, but we both feel like in a lot of ways altering genetics before the kid is even old enough to know what’s going on is a bit like denying them a part of who they are just because it’s ‘easier.’

I think we would probably start Spinraza when they were older before they started having really serious health complications (for example, I wouldn’t want them to have a surgery on their spine if it could be prevented because in addition to being really painful, there’s always a serious risk with major surgery).

Feel like someone is going to ask this so I’ll just say it now, we wouldn’t circumcise our child either.

[lars]

Jun 16, 2018 15:06:55 GMT -5 TotalBias said:

Jun 15, 2018 15:14:12 GMT -5 darthoso said:

Assuming equal access to healthcare (lol), the last symptomatic child with SMA has likely already been born, in theory. Children who start treatment while still pre symptomatic are staying pre symptomatic, gene therapy is looking like it's just going to be a permanent or semi permanent fix (vs treatment every 4 months). SMA is still going to be around genetically (in many more numbers as Type Is survive into adulthood and have children) but only those without treatment will be impacted.

Medical advances move slowly so I doubt they'll be any dev dis relationship changes. The big shock will be SCI fix I think.

karotix5 and I have actually talked about this. Unless treatment was mandated or our future child had an insanely high mortality rate, we wouldn’t irradicate the symptoms of SMA (if I was a carrier and the child was born with SMA). I know that’s not a popular choice, but it’s one we are pretty adamant about.

That's a pretty interesting take on it, when you're doing it knowingly - and there's a fix for it. You have the power to do something about it, but you choose not to. Is this because you're feeling there's some kind of disabled lifestyle being threatened or something? In effect, you're making the kid disabled. It's far, but not that far from, for example, snapping the neck of my hypothetical child to make him/her a quad. Except that I would be going to prison for a long time - but the end result isn't that different, though: two disabled kids, both of which are going to have a bit more difficult life because of it.

[TotalBias]

Jun 16, 2018 15:47:56 GMT -5 lars said:

It's far, but not that far from, for example, snapping the neck of my hypothetical child to make him/her a quad.

I feel pretty confident in arguing not giving your child Spinraza and snapping their neck are not comparable, not even in the slightest bit.