Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Transhumanism - Considering Ideas From Existentialism and Religion

Why and How Should We Build a Basic Income for Every Citizen?

Can Machines Be Moral Actors?

Are hierarchical theories of freedom and responsibility plausible?

Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?

Living, intelligent patterns in Conway’s Life


ieet books

A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century
Author
Ilia Stambler


comments

dobermanmac on 'Can Brain Implants Make Us Smarter?' (Sep 15, 2014)

dobermanmac on 'Genetically Engineered Ethical Super Babies?' (Sep 15, 2014)

PhilOsborn on 'Do Cognitive Enhancing Drugs Actually Work?' (Sep 13, 2014)

spud100 on 'Longevity Research Program is Established in Israel' (Sep 12, 2014)

spud100 on 'I, Quantum Robot' (Sep 12, 2014)

David Pearce on 'What Does Utopia Look Like?' (Sep 12, 2014)

PhilOsborn on 'Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 1)' (Sep 11, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Enhancing Virtues: Self-Control and Mindfulness
Aug 19, 2014
(9111) Hits
(0) Comments

“Lucy”: A Movie Review
Aug 18, 2014
(6896) Hits
(0) Comments

Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 1)
Aug 29, 2014
(5079) Hits
(1) Comments

An open source future for synthetic biology
Sep 9, 2014
(4184) Hits
(0) Comments



Comment on this entry

Why Lance Armstrong’s Doping Doesn’t Matter


John Niman


http://boydfuturist.wordpress.com/

January 20, 2013

Manny Ramirez. Mark McGwire. Barry Bonds. Baseball is no stranger to superstars using steroids. Sprinter Ben Johnson was disqualified from an Olympic victory decades ago. More likely than not, every sport has players who use ‘performance enhancing drugs’ – it’s just that the player’s performance is not generally enhanced to superstar status. Now Lance Armstrong has admitted to doping, and once again the world is shocked.


...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by SHaGGGz  on  01/21  at  01:20 AM

Let me engage in some diabolical advocacy for a minute.

Maybe imposing vague, barely meaningful rules delineating the “natural” from the “unnatural” could be a way for sports to produce something of actual use to technological progress: the endless cycle of finding new ways of enhancing, having them be discovered, banned, and the cycle repeating provides a self-sustaining way for us to exhaust the enhancement possibility space in this domain.

If enhancement is legal, then eventually some method will be found that is “good enough” and the costs of finding a potentially better method are outweighed by the loss of abandoning the current method. Thus, we could stagnate at a local maximum, failing to reach a global one.

At the other extreme, if any and all enhancements are allowed then the inherent absurdity in the sporting pursuit is put in stark, comical display. At some point, “people” that are indistinguishable from contemporary human-automobile systems will participate in races, or be shot out of (“slough off”) cannons, etc.





Posted by John Niman  on  01/21  at  01:32 PM

I see where you’re going, but I think allowing enhancements would do more than banning them to push technological progress.

I’m not sure there is such a thing as ‘good enough’ in competitive sports. If you’re not #1, it’s not good enough. People will continuously push for better results, furthering technology in the process.





Posted by SHaGGGz  on  01/21  at  05:23 PM

But all sorts of other elements could creep into the equation. Maybe a consensus chemical emerges, becomes a corporate sponsor and provides incentives to continue using it, maybe even raising penalties for using non-approved ones.





Posted by John Niman  on  01/21  at  06:01 PM

Maybe. But I expect there will be competition among chemical makers to vie for the ‘consensus chemical’ status (much like, say, Gatorade and Power Aid). Endorsement deals are highly likely, and particular athletes may be held to non-compete clauses, but I doubt they’d gain the sort of stranglehold over the sport that I think you mean.

Have we seen that with any other non-doping enhancers?






Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376