[ExI] Pistorius

[Dave Sill]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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)!
>

Duh. Nonetheless, barefoot runners have set world records, won world
championships, and won Olympic gold medals.


> 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.
>

If you wear shoes all the time, your feet get soft and you have to wear
shoes. Yes, shoes have benefits, but I don't think it's been proven that
they make people run faster.

> 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,


But we're nowhere near that point yet.


> 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'...).
>

I don't think a DNA test is required to prove that Pistorious' legs aren't
natural. My answer above wasn't intended to provide a mechanism for testing
athletes and, of course, it likely wouldn't be practical.

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.
>

Yeah, maybe someday. But not today.

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

I doubt it, but, if so, that's a shame.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120801/dd39914f/attachment.html>