[ExI] Pistorius

[Dave Sill]

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.

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.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120731/d66ad51e/attachment.html>