SERIOUS WONDER | The Right to Not Be Disabled Is a Question of Morphological Freedom

Here recently there has been a brewing storm amongst the horizon in light of the debate between Disabled Rights Activists and Transhumanists. On the one corner, we have Zoltan Istvan, whom is running for the 2016 Presidential candidacy under the Transhumanist Party ticket, and the other corner we have disabled rights activist Emily Ladau. Both are quite passionate in terms of how we should perceive disability, bringing these two seemingly at odds.

Though, despite conveying the appearance of these two ideas remaining in conflict, I believe the best solution to this debate is compromise. For Istvan, disability is a biological limitation that could be easily alleviated, if not completely expropriated, via advanced technologies, e.g. cybernetic limbs, exoskeleton suits, etc. Whereas, for Ladau, Istvan’s viewpoint that those with disabilities are broken, thus in need of fixing, is not only wrong but quite offensive. Again, I believe compromise can be easily acquired here.

You may ask: what kind of compromise could we really make which ensures both sides of the debate becomes, in the end, allies, per se? In 2014, MIT’s Hugh Herr – who is a double amputee – walked out on stage at a TED conference, using his two bionic legs. His speech was both passionate and cogent, arguing a clear case of how we can fight disabilities, all while empowering the disabled. Herr asserted:

“Every person should have the right to live life without disability if they so choose — the right to live life without severe depression; the right to see a loved one in the case of seeing impaired; or the right to walk or to dance, in the case of limb paralysis or limb amputation. As a society, we can achieve these human rights if we accept the proposition that humans are not disabled. A person can never be broken. Our built environment, our technologies are broken and disabled. We the people need not accept our limitations, but can transcend disability through technological innovation.” – Hugh Herr

Watching Herr speak in front of everyone was like watching Istvan and Ladau speak in unison. On the one side, Herr is arguing in favor of people having the choice to transcend their limitations via advanced technologies. Whereas, on the other side, Herr is attempting to change the societal mindset that those who attain disabilities are, in some way, broken – rather, quite the contrary! As a solution, Herr wishes to empower those with disabilities with choices, as opposed to acceptance.

Which brings us to a fundamental right that we in the Transhumanist movement have explicitly supported and will continue to support – that is, Morphological Freedom.

What Morphological Freedom entails is the right of each individual to make the choice of whether or not they wish to enhance their biological features and functionality. If they do choose to enhance themselves, they’d be of the right to choose which enhancements. If they choose to not enhance themselves, however – whether disabled or able-bodied – then their right to make that choice is just as valid as those who chose enhancements. But the fundamental point being that each individual is empowered with the right to choose for themselves.

Those with disabilities are already using technologies to help them re-acquire some sense of being able-bodied once more, whether it’s wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, cochlear implants, etc. What’s lacking is technologies that’ll not only help them officially become able-bodied again, but subsequently are given the ability to transcend biological limitations. In other words, we have a technological system that is currently broken and is in need of fixing. In doing so, we will empower those with disabilities to determine their own fate, as opposed to their fate being dictated by the slow and limited process of biology.

Transhumanists and Disabled Rights Activists need not be enemies. Indeed, we are allies in a war against disability. Winning this war won’t just require advanced technologies for people to integrate with, but equally an established set of rights for each individual to determine their own Morphological Freedom.

Photo Credit: Cityvisitor

April 14, 2015 By B.J. Murphy

About the author

B.J. Murphy is the Editor and Social Media Manager of Serious Wonder. He is a futurist, philosopher, activist, author and poet. B.J. is an Affiliate Scholar for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) and an Ambassador for the robotics company Humai.

Dore Mie

interesting topic… and highly invigorating in more general terms as to how we think of ourselves as humans. man has, upon learning how to use tools – and now more than ever via technology – transcended his body. an example – our ability to speak – we project our voices across the world via enhancements such as phones. as of the moment when the body has come to be considered a tool then there is no sense in the debate that a person is by definition disabled or able bodied. we have always modified our bodies – nutrition in a society where there is choice for example – we are constantly constructing ourselves – now more than ever. essentially – we should be concerned with determining essenciality – and then we can move on. very cool topic, my mind is a little blown.
Jack Hoft

People with disabilities ARE BROKEN, and in need of support, or fixing. stop biting off your own nose to spite your face Ladau…and especially stop biting off other peoples noses to spite your own face. I have never seen a worse argument against self help in my entire life. this individual needs to shut it up and zip it closed.
B.J. Murphy

I agree 100%. Especially in terms of affordability of these amazing technologies. Another article of mine, published by IEET, went into the right of the disabled in attaining affordable high-tech prosthetics and enhancements. You can read it here: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/murphy20131209
Luke Hill

I think the problem arises when you get down to the details. It’s obvious that people should be given the choice to live with/without their disability and/or “transcend.” The problem nobody brings up is the shift in responsibility that occurs once that choice is made possible. As a basic analogue related to what started this whole argument, when a person loses the ability to climb stairs, it is societies responsibility to make it possible for them to reach the top of those stairs. For a long time, the answer to that has been a wheelchair and a ramp. With biological limbs, we could end up with a solution that is cheaper for society and still gives people that choice. If a simple choice can make it possible for a disabled person to climb stairs, is it still the responsibility of society to build ramps for them as well? The problem of money is also in play here. How do we determine when a person truly has the choice to gain stair-climbing mobility, knowing that bionic limbs will cost money. To begin trying to justify neglecting wheelchair ramps, bionic limbs need to become cheaper than wheelchairs. I believe society should not be held responsible for supporting a choice that will undeniably detriment both the society and the choice maker. This does not mean banning detrimental choices altogether, but if a person is late to work every day for taking an expensive taxi when they could take a cheaper, faster subway ride, the company shouldn’t be responsible compensating the cost of the expensive taxi and missed work. If someone can’t climb stairs because they don’t want a cheaper, better method of travel, we shouldn’t be responsible for compensating the cost of a ramp.
The conversation changes, however, due to the fact that bionic limbs are not cheaper and not always a better method of travel. At least not yet. Absolutely research should be funded, but until we can provide a better solution those with disabilities should be compensated. My stance on whether or not funding from restoring ramps should instead be spent on bionics would depend on the expected amount of time to complete either. If cheaper, better limbs will be available before ramps can be built, the funding should be moved. It would be a gamble, however, to think that cheaper, better limbs will become a available so soon.
L p

I completely agree with the author’s position. Acceptance regardless of choice. Eliminating architectural and environmental barriers helps everyone, not just the designated disabled.