TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

For such debilitating illnesses what form of society would be better: traditional, poor and rural or advanced and progressive?

I cryptically describe two scenarios:

Scenario one: The society is traditional, even ritualistic. There are not much visible signs of progress and no large modern monuments. These are villages as well as the slums of every big city in the world. There are insufficient drugs cures, knowledge, and the means to address those insufficiencies. And yet, empathy for the diseased and the disadvantaged are available in good measure. In late 1950s as a young kid I lived in a such society where physically and mentally diseased or deformed people were organic part of the society. We as kids were allowed to make some fun of such people but society saw to it that they came to no harm. Such people had as much, if not more, right for empathy and warmth as any one else in the society and were integral part of the society.

Scenario two: Modern societies where education, research and resources have produced serious insights in the nature of such diseases and have developed cure for some of them.
This is today’s urban society, able and progressive. And yet, today’s society attaches stigma to the aberrations and the deformities. People with such illnesses, most of who would not be as determined, as gifted or as lucky as Ms. Saks, generally die silently without empathy or love. They are never allowed to become organic part of the society; they never end up belonging.

Question is: Which would be better social arrangement and why?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 29 2012: Just because someone has a college education does not necessarily mean they are a progressive. I think part of considering yourself progressive is the notion that no one is a lesser human being.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.