About | Programs | Events | Publications | Forums | Blog | Contact | Support   
     Login      Register    


Member Log In:

Login
If not yet a member:
Register

Monthly newsletter Daily news feed Changesurfer Radio Blog feeds
Cyborg Buddha Project


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


New at IEET


Making the Visible Invisible

Michael Phelps: ‘Naturally’ transhuman

Governing Emerging Technologies

Interview with Dr. Steel

Human Dignity?

Recent Comments


Amy on 'Interview with Dr. Steel' (2008 08 19)

Lou Valetine on 'Human Dignity?' (2008 08 18)

Sandri on 'Intelligence and Empathy' (2008 08 15)

David Olivier on 'Saving Human Rights from the Human Racists' (2008 08 14)

director on 'Saving Human Rights from the Human Racists' (2008 08 14)




IEET Fora


Stuart Ballard: Empowerment enhances cognition (1)

extropian.pharmer: 10- Implementing the Longevity Dividend- Methusalah or Bust (2)

extropian.pharmer: 09-Healthy Inter-generational Bonding -pt1&2; (15)

Jimmy_Adams: Intergenerational Behaviours (1)

Jimmy_Adams: Immigration and Retirement (1)



"No one knows what he can do till he tries."
Publilius Syrus, 1st Century BC Roman Writer



TechEthics News


Andy featured on gene doping at Olympics

Snarky Compliments from Will Saletan

Cognitive Enhancement by Scientists

Annalee on PostGenderism

Transhuman, the comic





Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv



IEET > Rights > Disability > Life > Enablement > Directors > George Dvorsky

PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums subscribe


Why I think Pistorius should not be allowed to compete at the Olympics


George Dvorsky

George Dvorsky


Sentient Developments


Posted: May 19, 2008

Shocking, you say? How could I, an unabashed proponent of human enhancement, be opposed to seeing disabled athlete Oscar Pistorius compete at the Olympic Games?

The short answer is that it’s not fair to the able-bodied athletes who don’t want to get into the enhancement game.

Moving forward, it sets up a situation where:

(1) able-bodied athletes will increasingly be set at a disadvantage relative to the cyber-athletes, particularly as prostheses improve
and
(2) able-bodied athletes will have no choice but to seek enhancement measures of their own, legal or otherwise, to remain competitive

Despite what the Court of Arbitration for Sport says, Pistorius has an advantage. A 25% advantage to be exact.

And even if we assume the Court is wrong, that the IAAF has not conclusively proven that the Cheetahs go beyond the call of normal human functioning duty, the day is all but upon us when advanced prostheses and other measures will.

Consequently, Pistorius and other disabled athletes should continue to compete against each other. This is not intended as a way to segregate athletes according to their abilities per se, but a way to create leagues in which athletes don’t feel coerced into entering arms races with each other. Mirrored leagues should be set up, those in which enhancement is sanctioned, and those in which it is not. Athletes can then choose where they want to compete.

Ultimately, the end result will be to the advantage of Pistorius and those like him. They’ll inherit the top echelons of sport and maintain the public’s interest, while the unenhanced leagues will whither away as quaint curiosity, a throwback to how things used to be.

But until then, let’s not set up a situation where chaos and ambiguity ruins it for everyone.
George Dvorsky serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. George is the Director of Operations for Commune Media, an advertising and marketing firm that specializes in marketing science. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.

PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


I was pretty surprised by this ruling. Distance running seems like an area where a well-designed blade would give a huge advantage. Extremely low weight with good springback and the effort required by the athlete could be made quite low compared with an able-bodied runner. If the prosthetics could be designed to give no advantage I would agree with the ruling, but they are not. I develop composite parts for a living (not for this application), and you can really tailor their properties for a given application.



Trying to avoid the mess that including Pistorius will cause is the wrong strategy for a better future. Given your belief that Pistorius may indeed be the future, it is essential that we include those such as him in high profile athletic events. The Olympics are that event. I would presume that many of those who read your opinions have heard of Thomas Hughes. It is one aspect of Mr. Hughes' ideas about technological momentum have relevance to this issue: The sooner we act to shape technologies the more chance we have to effect their development. Once a new technology has matured and been integrated into a culture it is very difficult to change the way that it is used and the way that people think about that technology. The time is now to shape the way that enhancement technologies are used. That shaping can only happen if rules, laws, and public awareness combine to push the development of technologies in directions that are beneficial to humankind. Without integration into the Olympics, integration that happens not due to years of neglect and an understanding that come too late but through active engagement, the shape of our technological future will be determined by politicians exploiting our fear and the vagaries of market forces. There may be other venues, but none as high profile as the Olympics. The Olympics are not-amateur sports and they are already subject to various forms of enhancement. This is a good chance to have and open discussion about athletics, enhancements, and a future that we help to create rather than merely react to. It may be messy. But sports and politics are always messy. Otherwise, the lament "Ah, if it was only like it was back when...." wouldn't be so commonplace in politics and sports.



oh you better believe i've got a comment! coming soon. wink



YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Past and Present of Research on Artificial General Intelligence

Previous entry: How Many Earths?

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

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
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 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376