[ExI] Pistorius

[Ben Zaiboc]

Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 31 July 2012 17:05, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure what you're getting at. My statement above wasn't meant to
> >> stand up to legal scrutiny, but I think my intent was clear. By "natural"
> >> here I mean inborn.
> >>
> >
> > Hey, running shoes are not "inborn", yet we allow them, don't we?
> >
> 
> Yes, but (1) shoes probably don't confer an advantage, (2) there are rules
> governing shoes, and (3) shoes aren't a part of the human body. There need
> to be rules governing prostheses ensuring they don't provide an advantage.


I think many running shoe manufacturers would disagree with you on (1)!
And so would I, as shoes in general clearly do confer an advantage over bare feet.  This is just as true in running as it is in walking down the street.  If you doubt this, try stepping on just one small piece of gravel in bare feet, then try it again wearing running shoes.


> 
> > Moreover, in what sense the biochemical and structural make of an athlete,
> > which is deliberately modified to improve his or her perfomance, would be
> > inborn?
>
> In the sense that each cell in their body has their DNA and has been part
> of their body since before they were born and the "modifications" allowed
> are achieved through natural, biological processes, not a machine shop.


This is an impractical distinction.  First, at some point we'll be able to mimic the natural biological processes so that the difference between natural and artificial effectively disappears, and second, your definition would rule out advantages obtained via somatic mutations occurring after birth (natural ones as well as artificial ones), but how could you tell?  The only practical solution would be to obtain a full DNA sequence of a person prior to birth and compare it to a full sequence obtained just prior to competing in an event (of course when I say 'practical'...).

Then there is the question of epigenetic changes that happen during a person's lifetime.  should these be screened for too?  If so, how could you tell the difference between 'natural' and 'artificial' changes?

The whole thing just breaks down completely.  In effect, our advancing technology will pretty much destroy sport as we now know it.  This, in a sense, mirrors transhumanism in general, as technology will pretty much destroy 'humanity' as we know it.

We are entering a 'trans-sport' period, and will soon be in a 'post-sport' one.

Ben Zaiboc