[ExI] Pistorius

[Stefano Vaj]

On 31 July 2012 20:20, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> Huh?
>

"Over" 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
>>
>
> OK. I think it's a useful concept, you disagree.
>

I maintain that the concept itself is a cultural artifact and can be
reduced ad absurdum with appropriate examples and thought experiments in
every circumstance.

 3) Are prostheses? Where exactly the line is drawn?
>>
>
> Seriously? How about when a body part that contributes to the performance
> of a sport is replaced with a man-made replacement?
>

So, the line would be that you can add, but you cannot remove? What about
an athlete with a heart transplant? What about, more trivially, the
replacement of fat mass with lean mass?


> >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?
>
> 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.
>>
>
If I grew new, enhanced legs on an athlete this would be definitely a
bio.logical process, but how would that be "natural"? Tails grow back in
lizards, but legs do not grow on adult humans "naturally".

Rather than picking apart my statements and postulating thought experiments
>> whose point is unclear, how about actually taking a stand on the original
>> issue? I'll grant that making rules that ensure fair competition is hard
>> and getting harder, but I still think it's worth doing.
>>
>
I have nothing against the idea of having competitions with specialised
rules (say, in trot races horses are not allowed to gallop, irrespective of
which pace would come more "natural" to them).

My point is that they are going to be of the same arbitrary nature of those
applicable to Formula 1 racing cars, where investigating what is "natural"
for an engine or a vehicle would seem futile.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120802/0eb23088/attachment.html>