Rethinking Accessibility: Lessons from the Past and a Vision for an Inclusive Future

The audacious proclamation that "the future is disabled" sets the stage for a critical reexamination of technological evolution (Shew, 2023, p. 115). It is a profound invitation to unravel the tapestry of human diversity through the threads of past beliefs, scientific misconceptions, and current societal investments. This paper seeks to dissect these complex layers, drawing from evolutionary psychology to inform an inclusive vision of the future.

Historically, eugenics has chased an illusion of 'perfection,' aiming to eliminate disability from the genetic pool. However, this pursuit is antithetical to the principles of natural selection that celebrate the randomness and necessity of mutation and adaptation (Al-Shawaf et al., 2018). Eugenics fails to acknowledge the fundamental evolutionary principles that underscore the value of genetic diversity. As discussed by As-Shawaf et al. (2018), natural selection does not favour an ultimate form but promotes traits best adapted to a given environment, suggesting a broad spectrum of what is considered 'fit.'?The egregious history and ethical violations of eugenics are further illuminated by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NGHRI), which details the destructive impact of scientific racism and its attempts to justify such practices under the guise of genetic improvement (NHGRI, 2022).

Evolution teaches us that every adaptation incurs a cost, leading to an "unavoidable trade-off" (Al-Shawaf et al., 2018, p.5). Evolution is not a march towards perfection but a series of adaptations that, while beneficial in some aspects, come with a cost, imposing limits on the idea of an 'optimised being.' This interplay of gain and loss is mirrored in our societal fabric, where advancements often come at the expense of excluding others. Dr Joy Buolamwini's poignant inquiry into the consequences of those trade-offs – "…are you willing to lose something? This is the question of power and privilege always" (Harris et al., 2023) – challenges us to consider what is being sacrificed in the pursuit of progress. We must consider inclusivity as a central tenet in designing our future as we allocate our resources and design our technologies.

Recognising disability as an integral aspect of human diversity reveals its role as a catalyst for innovation. The necessity to adapt and design for various abilities and environments is rooted in nature. It has historically driven technological advancements, such as the classic curb-cut effect, where features initially designed to facilitate mobility for wheelchair users have also proven advantageous for the wider community (Blackwell, 2016). By embracing the creativity required to meet diverse needs, we foster an environment where innovation transcends its initial purpose, leading to universally beneficial designs that enhance everyday life.?

The investment landscape in technology and education highlights profound disparities and potential missed opportunities. In 2023, global spending on AI-centric systems soared to $154 billion (Thormundsson, 2024), showcasing significant investment in advancing technology. In contrast, direct aid to education has not increased, remaining at roughly $15 billion since 2018 (Global Education Monitoring Report Team et al., 2023). Even more stark is the underfunding in disability support, with disability-inclusive aid accounting for less than 2% of all aid, totalling only about $3.2 billion between 2014 and 2018 (Walton, 2020). Without a significant shift in policy and funding priorities, the continued allocation of substantial resources to AI, with comparatively less investment in education and even less support for people with disabilities and assistive technology, risks perpetuating a development cycle that excludes vital segments of the population. Failing to prioritise inclusivity can hinder innovation arising from diverse needs and perspectives. In order to ensure that everyone benefits, it is necessary to reevaluate current policies and funding priorities and invest in education and support systems that leave no one behind.

If we accept the paradigm that "the future is disabled," then the need to recalibrate our collective approach to funding and fostering technology and education is evident. This acknowledgement highlights fiscal disparities and a broader societal failure to harness the creative potential inherent in diversity. Diversity, as natural selection illustrates, is essential for adaptation and progress.?

Drawing on Bernays's insights, employing strategic communication inspired by his examples of 'propaganda for good' could be instrumental in realigning public and political will (Bernays, 1928). By articulating the undeniable benefits of inclusive practices, we could shift societal priorities towards supporting technologies and policies that embrace all forms of human capability.?

As we look to the future, integrating these principles into our societal framework promises a more inclusive, innovative, and resilient world. It is a vision where adaptation leads not to exclusion but to a richer, more inclusive human experience that benefits us all.?

References

Al-Shawaf, L., Zreik, K., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Thirteen Misunderstandings About Natural Selection. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.),?Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science?(pp. 1–14). Springer International Publishing.?https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2158-2

Bernays, E. (1928).?Propaganda. Horace Liveright.

Blackwell, A. G. (2016). The Curb-Cut Effect.?Stanford Social Innovation Review,?15(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.48558/YVMS-CC96

Global Education Monitoring Report Team [1123], World Bank, UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2023).?Education Finance Watch 2023?https://doi.org/10.54676/XTON4555

Harris, T., Raskin, A. (2023, October 26). No one is immune to AI harms with Dr. Joy Buolamwini (No. 77) [Audio podcast episode]. In?Your Undivided Attention. Center for Humane Technology.?https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/no-one-is-immune-to-ai-harms-with-dr-joy-buolamwini

National Human Genome Research Institute. (2022, May 18).?Eugenics and Scientific Racism. Retrieved 30 April 2024, from?https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism

Shew, A. (2023). New legs, old tricks. In A. Shew,?Against technoableism: Accessible futures?(pp. 114–132). W. W. Norton & Company.

Thormundsson, B. (2024, February 15).?Worldwide spending on AI by industry 2023. Statista.?https://www.statista.com/statistics/1446052/worldwide-spending-on-ai-by-industry/

Walton, D. (2020, July).?Disability-inclusive ODA: Aid data on donors, channels, recipients. Development Initiatives.?https://devinit.org/resources/disability-inclusive-oda-aid-data-donors-channels-recipients/