1.    Aphasia is an impairment of language ability. This class of language disorder ranges from having difficulty remembering words to being completely unable to speak, read, or write.

Aphasia disorders usually develop quickly as a result of head injury or stroke, but can develop slowly from a brain tumor, infection, or dementia, or can be a learning disability such as dysnomia.

Dyslexia is a very broad term defining a learning disability that impairs a person's fluency or comprehension accuracy in being able to read  and which can manifest itself as a difficulty with phonological awareness, phonological decoding, orthographic coding, auditory short-term memory, or rapid naming    Dyslexia is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as a non-neurological deficiency with vision or hearing, or from poor or inadequate reading instruction. It is believed that dyslexia can affect between 5 and 10 percent of a given population although there have been no studies to indicate an accurate percentage. 

1.    

    Technophilies vs technophobes

 

My own belief is that humanity is on the threshold of an awesome moral divide. Recent advances in the technologies of genetic engineering--cloning, stem-cell research, and the like--confront us with moral problems for which we have no solution. Perhaps the biggest problem concerns the nature of the technologies involved.

When we look back over the course of technological development, especially in the last couple hundred years, it is easy to be a technological optimist. Science and technology have brought us so many extraordinary advances that one is tempted to close one’s eyes take a leap of faith when it comes to technology. No doubt science and technology have brought us many destructive things, but who except the hermits among us would willing do without the conveniences--including life-saving conveniences--they have bequeathed us? It is impossible, I think, for any rational person to say "No" to science and technology. The benefits are simply too compelling.

But can we afford to acquiesce and simply say "Yes"? Are there lines to be drawn, limits to be respected? If so, where do we find the criteria for drawing those lines and limits? There is no simple or pat answer to such questions. Perhaps the one thing that is certain is that we are operating here in a realm beyond certainty. No one will come up with a formula that can be successfully applied to all cases.

There are two dangers. One is the danger of technophobia: retreating from science and technology because of the moral enormities it makes possible. The other, more prevalent danger, is technophilia, best summed up in the belief that "if it can be done, it may be done. There are many things that we can do that we ought not do. As science and technology develop, we find ourselves wielding ever greater power. The dark side of power is the temptation to forget its limitation. Lord Acton was right to warn that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." None of us, of course, really commands absolute power. Our mortality assures that for all of us--rich and poor, brilliant and obscure--life will end in the absolute weakness of death.