[ExI] sports blammisphy

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 03:15:03 UTC 2011

> No. In fact, it could be argued that the purpose of the prohibition of
> "cheating" is in most case to guarantee that possible successful
> cheaters need be so ingenuous as to deserve to win... :-)

This certainly seems to be the recent history of the Olympics. Even
when it's not cheating, such as the new US bobsled that is unveiled
every four years.

> More practically, as long as games and sports and exams aim at
> reproducing scenarios which should be relevant to real-life
> situations, when the everyday availability of the "tricks" and
> "enhancements" become ubiquitous, I think it is reasonable to allow
> them on a general basis. Is it really important anymore to test the
> skill of human beings in performing very large multiplications, eg?

I think this is clearly going to be the case for large base
participative sports such as high school football, basketball, etc.
But when you get into the elite levels of sports, I think there will
be significant resistance to such things for some time.

> Of course, nothing prevents people from creating as well purely
> artificial contests where some "handicap" or other is imposed on
> contestants. Such as fighting a boxe match with one hand behind your
> back, or run a marathon without drinking, or resolve math problems
> without calculators, or not taking supplementation aimed at increasing
> one's performance, or fishing with bamboo canes. As long as there is
> somebody interested, for instance as it may reproduce what one was
> faced with in bygone days, nothing wrong with that...

One question of interest is whether enhancements will be made such
that they can be "turned off". So if you have the artificial blood
cells that allow you to process oxygen efficiently and hold your
breath for twenty minutes, can you turn it off in order to participate
in the Olympic marathon?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list