I suppose it can, but it has to compete with other systems of social organization on an equal footing for the loyalty of disabled people in order to claim that it works for them. 
It might be quite awhile before that happens. But once it does, the window of benefit to the disabled will be real short.
If it works that well, undamaged people will get it too. And be able to outcompete the damaged ones using the same prosthesis.
In a capitalist society the distribution of this new beneficial tech will, of course, be according to ability to pay. At which point once again the handicapped will slip to their “rightful” place in a pure capitalist dog-eat-dog world: the very bottom.
#22
Obviously.
BUT !!
It may help to negate what without such technology would otherwise have been an insurmountable disadvantage.
AND !!
Reductio ad absurdum:
Follow that trend to its logical conclusion,
how long will it be before the biological adjunct is extraneous, Article 2 Section 1 - 4 to the contrary notwithstanding?
In theory, yes. But in practice, it’s a different issue. A study conducted in France years ago, consisting of sending to potential employers identical resumes with slightly different personal informations showed that disabled people were by far the least likely to be offered an interview. I don’t remember the real figures, but to give a very rough idea of the range, women would get slightly less interviews (say, 10% less), people with an arabic name even less (say, 20% less), and disabled people masively less (say, 50% or 60% less)
Of course it was a disability that shouldn’t normally be impairing for the work they were aplying for.
c #24
OK
Let’s accept that as a premise.
Should a woman pregnant with a person likely to be subject to such discrimination then and therefore terminate that pregnancy? Try again, for offspring without severe handicap?
What makes it severe, though? When is it that person’s lowered ability in some aspects, and when is it society’s inability to Deal With It? That Director at my client would have needed a lot more accomodation to work a manual lathe than he did for a computer; I didn’t watch him type but I doubt he was slower at it than your average hunt-and-pecker.
Being treated with respect and having value put on your lives does not mean having a highly paid job. One can be treated with respect or disrespect in any type of economic system.
Specifically, these decisions are made by people who own capital, or manage their interests on their behalf. Presumably with the intent that those endeavors will generate a profit by generating more wealth than the amount of capital required.
It’s one of the main reasons many of the left speak of “capitalism” in a disparaging way. In reality, capitalism is based on a concept that if I am giving you money or other resources, I have a right to dictate how they will be used and to ensure that I receive a net benefit from giving them to you
Self-sufficiency is one indication.
If such persons can bathe themselves, clothe themselves, care for themselves, it might not seem a problem.
If at the other extreme they are so dependent that they’d die without assistance, I’d call that “severe”. Wouldn’t you?
For employers, ability can be a useful criteria.
The guy might not be able to tie his own shoes.
But if he can do the play-by-play announcing at Yankee’s Stadium, why would it matter if his chair has wheels on it or not?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Capitalism, almost by definition is driven by the competitive pressure to maximize wealth. This can get distorted by things like discrimination but no one “runs” capitalism. Capitalism might reflect social and cultural preferences (supply and demand curves are frequently determined by these things) but the mechanics of capitalism are not controlled by anyone. If someone figures out some way to create more value using some new paradigm, they can get filthy fucking rich doing so. just ask henry ford and the assembly line. Capitalism doesn’t always lead to fair and equitable results but it does always strive to maximize wealth.
Cite?
We will likely get to the point where robots will have such an overwhelming cost advantage that humans simply cannot compete before we get to the cyber-neuro implants that make us smarter than a guy with a really good google-phone.
It may not work that way. The prosthesis might not be a force (or mental multiplier).
Hussein Bolt in a Ferrari is no faster than some guy with a dad-bod in a Ferrari. Technology has a way of changing what is valuable. There was a time when leaders had to be physically imposing and strong because swinging a sword was a big part of being a leader. There was a time when being on the Audio Visual squad at school was fucking lame. Now its much less lame. Technology might one day make the ability to handle shit over the phone quickly and efficiently more important than the ability to perform delicate surgery.
I would correct that to should. But the ability to do what’s needed of the job, not the ability to do job-unrelated tasks.
But that’s exactly the point. Capitalism measures everything in financial terms. Everything. Handicapped people require more and generally can contribute less, so the convinced capitalist will let them die. Like the current Republicans who are about to kill tens of thousands a year to enrich the already rich.
Capitalism is not incompatible with charity. Carnegie, Gates, Buffett, have all given away huge sums of money. This is a strawman.
a) I suppose that’s inevitable. Extrapolate the curves. They intersect sooner than some may think.
b) After they do; it could be an economic cataclysm.
Why pay a holder of an advanced degree $minimum $wage when a robot will do it for less, never take a sick day, etc.?
Upon what basis can an economy function, with robots running the show, and unemployment at 80% or higher?
Big Macs will only cost 39¢ each, but only robots will be able to afford them; and robots only drink Mobil1 !
I think in some ways capitalism does work for the disabled, in that there are quite a few companies trying to make a profit developing and selling better accessibility devices and aids for the disabled- wheelchairs, trapezes, etc… Without the capitalist system, this wouldn’t be the case; wheelchairs would have been built every third 5 year plan to the approved blueprint.
However… in terms of the labor market, the disabled are at a distinct disadvantage; if a job has specific performance requirements, or the employer is less than perfectly flexible, a disabled person is easily seen as being less valuable than your non-disabled employee. Some of this is legitimate; to use an extreme example, a disabled person would likely be an inappropriate hire for doing manual work like unloading sacks of dog food. Some is inappropriate- being unwilling to hire a disabled person for an 8-5 desk job isn’t right, and some is dependent on the specific accomodations; if you can work a desk job, but you require a bunch of special circumstances and adaptations, it may well not be worth the employer’s trouble to accommodate you.
It’s unfortunate, but I think that unless you’re a particularly bright disabled person who can prove their worth in mental endeavors above and beyond a comparable non-disabled person, you’re kind of stuck. I mean, why would a grocery store hire a disabled checker vs. a non-disabled one? The non-disabled one can also mop floors, bag groceries, stock shelves, etc… in a pinch, while the disabled one may not be able to do ANY of those other things. And the position doesn’t require special training or a large degree of mental acuity, so one checker is much like another.
Capitalism was not the driving force behind that charitable activity.
Capitalism isn’t incompatible with a bunch of shit. its not incompatible with slavery. its not incompatible with monarchy. its not incompatible with religion. but that doesn’t mean that capitalism drives any of this other stuff.
It was not the driving force but it did not preclude the charity. That means there is no reason to expect people to starve in a capitalist society.
In fact a capitalist society would be better for the disabled than almost any other society. The richer a society is the easier it is for people to give and the more there is for them to give.