No. It’s actually philosophy. Let me put this in another terms.

The whole purpose of the world they are describing is to imagine a place where they are not limited.

The fact that this place doesn’t make sense or can’t exist is irrelevant.

It was made to be aspirational, not realistic.

And, again, is one person going to develop those? A person with access to elastic rope might invent the slingshot, but I wouldn't expect them to invent the far superior sling: it's not obvious that the sling is better, since the learning curve is steeper. And a slingshot is not a particularly effective weapon: it's an inefficient bow that can't fire arrows.

You're still thinking in terms of "sighted society versus blind society", which is not what we are discussing. (Unless you're thinking "sighted and superintelligent", in which case I'd say sight is probably redundant.)

Evolution is highly path dependent and stochastic, so I’m not sure your logic follows.

Eg, the laryngeal nerve in giraffes is ridiculous — but having gone down that path before their current form, there’s little way to fix it. They’re now stuck in a local optima of long necks (good) with poor wiring (bad).

> How could it be based on anything else?

The point is that the capability is measurable but the capabilities we consider to be essential are based on normalcy and thus effectively arbitrary. Eugenicists make the argument that evolution demonstrates that the classification is not arbitrary because deafness and blindness confer measurable fitness disadvantages, but they don’t actually bridge the gap of deriving an ought from an is.

> Obviously?

If the answers to these problems are obvious to you, perhaps you’d consider writing a book instead of participating in a discussion forum. I would encourage you to review the site guidelines.

Since I'm the person who wrote that I can explain what I meant.

I have never had to deal with a giant cat stalking me and being unable to hear it. I do routinely have to deal with intercom systems which I cannot hear, though.

The world most humans inhabit is human-made. And the human-made environment can be remade.

Ah, I see the disconnect. In this discussion, "disabling" is not the same as "detrimental." Disabling is when you are unable to do important activities that others can do. I'm not an expert here on the subject, but this is my understanding.

For a simplified example, imagine two government buildings, one with and one without an accessibility ramp. A person in a wheelchair is able to access the former, even if going up the ramp takes longer than the stairs. Not having the option to take the stairs is still detrimental to the person, but they're still able to access those services. The second disables the person, as they're no longer able to access important services because they are unable to take the stairs.

Accommodations help keep "detrimental" from meaning disabled. The voice at the street crossing that says "walk", curb cuts, and closed captioning all help people participate in daily normal life, despite having those sensory disabilities.

There are other designs that are more holistic as well - for example, if those same government services are accessible online, or the agent makes house calls, it naturally makes the services more accessible to more people. (Note: I'm not saying that this specific example is a good idea - just as an example of "how we design our society affects how people can participate in it.")