Neurotechnology as Prosthesis: How ALS Erasure of Expression Reveals Systemic Gaps in Disability Access & Care

Indigenous epistemologies often reject the biomedical framing of ALS as a 'loss of expression,' instead viewing disability as a form of interdependence that strengthens communal bonds. Practices like the Navajo *Hózhǫ́* (harmony) framework emphasize balance between body, mind, and environment, contrasting with the neurotechnology industry’s extractive approach to 'fixing' individual bodies. Such perspectives highlight how Olson’s 'performance' could be reimagined as a communal act of reciprocity rather than a technological feat.

The history of disability rights reveals repeated cycles where technological 'breakthroughs' are heralded as emancipatory, only to deepen structural inequalities—e.g., the 19th-century 'cure' of hysteria via vibrators, or mid-20th-century institutionalization of disabled people under eugenics. ALS research has long been entangled with military funding (e.g., ALS Association’s ties to the U.S. Department of Defense), reflecting how neurotechnology’s origins in DARPA’s brain-machine interface programs prioritize control over care. Olson’s case echoes earlier 'miracle' narratives (e.g., Stephen Hawking’s speech synthesis) that obscure the slow violence of policy neglect.

In Japan, the concept of *ibasho* (a place where one belongs) is central to disability inclusion, emphasizing environments that adapt to diverse needs rather than forcing individuals to 'overcome' barriers. Contrastingly, in many Western contexts, assistive tech is marketed as a way to 'normalize' disabled people, erasing cultural preferences for collective accommodation. The neurotechnology narrative aligns with Western individualism, while Indigenous and Eastern models suggest that Olson’s 'reconnection' could be achieved through societal restructuring rather than invasive interventions.

The science behind Olson’s avatar relies on decades of research into motor cortex decoding, but the study lacks peer-reviewed validation of long-term efficacy or side effects (e.g., neural fatigue, psychological distress). Critics argue that BCI research often overstates its clinical readiness, with trials like Olson’s serving as PR for companies like Synchron, which has faced ethical scrutiny over data ownership. The focus on 'expression' sidesteps the broader scientific consensus that ALS progression is driven by complex genetic and environmental interactions, not just motor neuron loss.

Artistic traditions often challenge the binary of 'abled' vs. 'disabled'—e.g., Frida Kahlo’s self-portraits reclaimed her body from medical gaze, or the Deaf art movement’s rejection of cochlear implants as 'cures.' Olson’s avatar performance could be read as a form of digital *mimesis*, echoing ancient Greek theater’s use of masks to transcend physical limitations. Spiritually, many traditions (e.g., Buddhist *tulku* concepts) frame disability as a karmic lesson, suggesting that 'reconnection' might lie in acceptance rather than technological intervention.

If neurotechnology scales without regulatory oversight, it risks creating a two-tiered system where the wealthy 'upgrade' their bodies while the poor rely on underfunded care—echoing historical patterns in organ transplantation or cosmetic surgery. Scenario modeling suggests that by 2040, BCIs could become mandatory for certain professions (e.g., pilots, surgeons), exacerbating workplace discrimination against those who cannot afford or tolerate them. Conversely, a future grounded in disability justice would prioritize universal design and community care over invasive interventions.

Disabled people of color, queer disabled folks, and those in Global South countries are systematically excluded from neurotechnology trials, yet their experiences (e.g., intersectional barriers to healthcare) are erased in narratives like Olson’s. The focus on a white, middle-class woman performing 'art' obscures the fact that most ALS patients are elderly or low-income, with limited access to even basic palliative care. Marginalized voices would emphasize that 'reconnection' requires policy changes (e.g., Medicare coverage for BCIs) over Silicon Valley hype.