But is the ability to distinguish a discrete and limited number of tones that you have to learn to interpret properly to have any benefit from at all (even more so if the person in question was born deaf) worth an invasive medical procedure?
All things being equal, you are of course correct. If cochlear implants cost €1, could be worn like earbuds and replicated normal human hearing perfectly, this wouldn’t be an issue at all. The issue is precisely the fact that all things are not equal.
But is the ability to distinguish a discrete and limited number of tones that you have to learn to interpret properly to have any benefit from at all (even more so if the person in question was born deaf) worth an invasive medical procedure?
If the true objection was the invasiveness of the procedure, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If cochlear implants cost €1, could be worn like earbuds and replicated normal human hearing perfectly, this wouldn’t be an issue at all.
And I bet you it would be an issue. There are people out there who force female genital mutilation to their children—that’s an invasive procedure right there that is meant to deprive their children of an ability. And yet millions of people do it to their children.
It’s not about the invasiveness of the procedure—it’s about cultures that choose to do evil in pursuit of their self-perpetuation.
If cochlear implants cost €1, could be worn like earbuds and replicated normal human hearing perfectly, this wouldn’t be an issue at all.
You’d be surprised. Mostly from what I’ve gathered, they discuss the cost of the acquisition of hearing—at all—as compared to their current condition. There are significant differences in how the brain processes sensory input from a profoundly deaf/blind/etc person as compared to a hearing/seeing/etc. Having even 50% hearing restored would ‘cost’ a deaf person the depth and richness of their other perceptions. It really can be boiled down to a question of net expected utility.
But then there are also those folks that stubbornly identify around the culture dedicated to the absence of a given sense and as such can be seen as something of a ‘permanent victim’ mentality—at least, that is my perception.
But is the ability to distinguish a discrete and limited number of tones that you have to learn to interpret properly to have any benefit from at all (even more so if the person in question was born deaf) worth an invasive medical procedure?
All things being equal, you are of course correct. If cochlear implants cost €1, could be worn like earbuds and replicated normal human hearing perfectly, this wouldn’t be an issue at all. The issue is precisely the fact that all things are not equal.
If the true objection was the invasiveness of the procedure, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And I bet you it would be an issue. There are people out there who force female genital mutilation to their children—that’s an invasive procedure right there that is meant to deprive their children of an ability. And yet millions of people do it to their children.
It’s not about the invasiveness of the procedure—it’s about cultures that choose to do evil in pursuit of their self-perpetuation.
You’d be surprised. Mostly from what I’ve gathered, they discuss the cost of the acquisition of hearing—at all—as compared to their current condition. There are significant differences in how the brain processes sensory input from a profoundly deaf/blind/etc person as compared to a hearing/seeing/etc. Having even 50% hearing restored would ‘cost’ a deaf person the depth and richness of their other perceptions. It really can be boiled down to a question of net expected utility.
But then there are also those folks that stubbornly identify around the culture dedicated to the absence of a given sense and as such can be seen as something of a ‘permanent victim’ mentality—at least, that is my perception.