But, so, anyway. The first comment--actually, the first 3 or 4 comments--is S.M.Stirling "pointing out" that within a hundred years we'll have a perfect understanding of biology, and therefore we won't have disabilities, so why should we write about them.
Obviously one could argue with every assumption in that very weird statement. From a purely scientific standpoint, for a start... since we've never reached a perfect understanding of any other field of inquiry, we have no data points to infer how long it will take in biology. Nor do we have any reason to suppose that perfect understanding equals perfect control. We understand computer programs pretty well, after all, having created them.
Also, I just went to a seminar on neuroscience data, and we were all really excited by a database that mapped the physical shape of 13 neurons in the hippocampus. They had 2000 human neurons total. Not all from the same human, you understand, or connected to each other. I'm sure we'll get better at this over the next few years, but from a Bayesian standpoint I would bet a fair amount that perfection will take longer than a century.
But, so anyway. Circumstances did not permit me to get in a neuroscience slapfight on Tuesday merely because someone was wrong on the internet, and by the time I got back someone else had done it. Instead, I decided to take Stirling's scientific postulates for granted--we will have a perfect understanding of biology, and perfect understanding allows perfect control--and asked what disability would look like under those circumstances.
- The Nanobots That Fix Everything take an hour to integrate with your immune system. Your allergy to a key component kicks in at 30 minutes.
- Not everyone who understands biology is on the same side, politically, and now there are 2 (or 3, or 5, or 15) competing groups of Nanobots That Fix Everything in your bloodstream, with predictable results.
- Two desirable cures/enhancements are incompatible (e.g., improved memory versus enhanced inferential or creative ability). Society prefers one of these choices; circumstance has forced you to go with the other.
- A particular cure takes months or years to become fully effective. In the mean time...
- Adapted to Jupiter, unemployed on the moon.
- Software bug (no one ever said we understood other fields perfectly).
- Treatment must take place during a critical period to be effective, but your parents were antivaxxers.
- We know how to get to perfect mental health, but it depends on stimuli no longer available, or made extremely inconvenient by societal mores. (Try refusing to use a computer after the sun goes down.)
- Your sister committed a heresy. We will be lenient, however, and only turn off your family's eyes for 10 years.
- Lack of insurance.
- The AIs who take over scientific research in 2074 understand biology perfectly. However, the AI who oversees your district has calculated a high probability that you will benefit psychologically from overcoming adversity. Your profile is that of someone who will experience post-traumatic growth and/or produce classic poetry. You wouldn't want to disappoint the computer, would you? The computer is your friend.
This is all composting in my head with Bruce Schneier's Beyond Fear, so expect stories about transhuman thieves with broken enhancements any day now. Or are we all set for cyberpunk at this point?
ETA: S.M. Stirling, not Steve Brust. Apologies to Brust, whose name was in my head because I just got excited about the publication date for Hawk.