I'd prefer if there were a less preachy version of this article. Its certainly scientifically interesting, but the abortion angle is out of place on HN.
If you click on the Amazon link to the book, you'll see that it's a book about how much worse off the world would be if 'animal rights activists' succeed in convincing the world that an animal's life is equal to a human's life. I'm assuming this is either the site of that author, or the site owner is endorsing the book. In either case, it seems like more of the arguments in that book (based on the reviews/summaries on Amazon) are appealing to emotions in a way that is reminiscent of the religious arguments against evolution ("Those darn scientists are trying to say that I'm nothing but a monkey! I was made in God's image damn it! Not some monkey's!"). Even the title of the book, "A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy," is meant to evoke an emotional reaction.
After stumbling across this nugget of insight into the author, I'm not at all surprised that the article is so preachy and attributes the boy's success to the "strength of the human spirit" rather than our own shoddy understanding of how the brain works. The title would be better reformatted as, "boy proves that brain work in ways that we did not previously know," but that's not a title that will fetch you as much ad revenue as it winds it's way through Facebook.
I'm seeing anti-euthanasia in the article for sure, and certainly some anti-abortion arguments spring to my mind when reading, but I don't see the article actually making any of them. It's discussing only post-birth ethics.
I'm glad someone else noticed it! I read, "The V-word should never be applied to any human, but that point aside, think very carefully about this story" and basically tuned out from there. The person even misses the point of political correctness (not offending people), because people in a vegetative state cannot be offended. They are dead, animated husks. It's one of the most horrible examples of technology getting ahead of culture and ethics that I can think of.
No cerebellum, missing part of his brain stem... makes me think that perhaps our mammalian brain + prefrontal cortex is so adaptable, that the older parts aren't strictly necessary. ie they're vestigial. Though I expect that they are specialized and actually do a better job of their tasks.
In the bigger picture: where there's life, there's hope. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Nature's imagination is greater than your imagination.
He's only three. At that age, nobody is "human" in the fullest definition of the word. Full cognitive abilities don't develop for several more years.
The plasticity of the brain, especially young ones, is well documented. It's not surprising to me that functionality could be offloaded to the parts of the brain that are present (although the extremity of this case may be surprising).
I'll be interested to see where he's at when he's 6 years old, and again at puberty.
Human is a word which points to a member of the human race, its not a pointer to a fully cognitively conscious self aware - whatever you are getting at.
Obviously this is a matter subject to some philosophical debate.
In my mind, the term you are looking for when you say "human race" is actually homo sapiens. This is a biological term denoting the species.
When I used the word "human", I intended to communicate a more metaphysical idea. Perhaps a better choice of words would be "person", but somehow -- and this seems to be all subjective -- that seemed setting the bar too low. I thought that the word "human" might convey the idea of "person", but also implying a certain level of functioning.
For example, I'd expect more evolved cognitive skills (starting with the persistence of objects, eventually moving through symbolic logic, and so forth) from an entity described as a "human", as well as certain emotional skills, such as empathy.
Back to my original point, none of those attributes I mentioned would be expected at all in a 3-year-old homo sapiens, so this would be a more interesting story in several years when the boy reaches an age at which we'd expect those skills to have developed.
That the human spirit does not reside within the cerebellum is predictable, though, since it's one of the more evolutionarily ancient parts of the brain and not at all exclusive to humans.
I find it a bit frustrating when people accuse scientists of being behind the game, because their own conception of the state of the science based on the state-of-the-art in 1960 mixed with popsci crap can't deal with a result.
Neuroscientists are being descriptive, not proscriptive, when they tell you what areas of the brain are for what. They aren't "deciding" what it means, they are telling you that across a wide range of people, when they see activity X, brain part Y lights up. That the brain might be significantly differently organized if bits of it are missing is hardly a groundbreaking idea, nor even remotely shocking to actual scientists. The brain reconfiguring itself, even in adults, has been repeatedly observed, with vision cortexes replaced by audio processing after becoming blind and so forth. This is interesting, but the "phrenologists" aren't going to be sent into a tizzy because of this one specific case. Your conception of the science might be sent into a tizzy, but that's not the scientist's problem. (Well, at least not directly.)
I still wonder at what may be lost if/when we have the ability to eliminate genetic or birth defects.
Just like emerging through the "trough of sorrow" doesn't seem essential to a strong business yet still seems to do something like what my dad called "building character", I wonder if these ever-present difficulties contribute, somehow, to making people stronger. And even, perhaps, more caring of each other.
"But there's enough troubles already..." yes, yes, I know. But first, it's not a response to the argument. Second, though: what about when those troubles, and then the ones left after that, are eliminated? I've long liked "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect" http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/ in part because it shows what might be wrong with just such a world.
Would Abraham Lincoln still have been who he was if he didn't have Marfan syndrome? Or what if he was never born because of prenatal screening? If we could eliminate manic depression, would we ever have another Emily Dickinson? Would Van Gogh still have show us the world in new ways if he didn't have epilepsy?
Eugenics has promise. It also holds terror beyond simply how it has been practiced in the past. We're already seeing the dangers of monoculture in agribusiness. Could a similar molecular 'cleanup' of the human genome pose similar dangers?
I don't have an answer for you but might I make a suggestion? Maybe you should spend some time with some severely disabled kids. Even in the best of circumstances (wealthy parents with lots of support living in a developed nation, etc) disabilities can cause immense suffering, for the people diagnosed with the conditions, for their families.
When making a decision it's often a good idea to weigh the benefits(genetic/developmental conditions providing troubles to overcome, character building) versus the costs (the profound difficulties these conditions can place on individuals families). You've touched on some of the benefits but let's make those more explicit. I don't think you have really any idea of the costs.
After carefully considering this issue, if you come to the conclusion that people being born with genetic disorders is a desirable aspect of life then there are immediate ways you can show everyone you aren't full of shit. For example you could adopt several children with severe mental retardation who require 24hr care and will for the rest of their lives. There are many children out there who are desperately in need of loving families and you could make a tremendous impact on their lives _right now_.
In the earlier stages of research, diversity will be sought, many things will be tried. It will be "let a thousand flowers bloom", because that's the way most industries start, when no one really yet understands how to do it. It's experimental, trial and error. Those that don't will be surpassed by those who do.
... of course, later, there is often a consolidation phase, after the way to do it is understood, which might not be so egalitarian, and made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
