stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 17:29:52 UTC 2012
On 31 July 2012 18:54, 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.
1) They do confer an advantage to those running without them
2) We are not discussing here whether rules are possible (Indianapolis has
rules, but cars have no "inborn features"), but whether the concept of
"natural" is of any guidance on what they should "naturally" be
3) Are prostheses? Where exactly the line is drawn?
> 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.
Let us say that I grow enhanced legs on an athlete after the amputation of
the old pair, rather than in a vat. Would such process be so much more
natural than adopting carbon fiber prostheses?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat