Slashdot Mirror
Genetically-Engineered Super-Athletes?
Karma 50 writes: "The BBC News is reporting that
genetically modified "super-athletes" may be competing as soon as the 2012 Olympic games. A conference in London warns that gene therapies for diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis may be used by athletes to enhance performance. So far, this is undetectable. So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance but, with our desire to win at all costs, this too can't be far off."
... how long until our planet is graced with Genetically-Engineered Super-Models?
Have they not seen the Chinese gymnastics teams of the past few Olympiads? I think this is OLD news.
How far will this go?
Beeeeefcake!
Join the Free Software Foundation
As long as the competitor is still human, what is the problem? I draw the line at cyborgs though...
...Speedball becomes an Olympic sport then?
My parents did the same, for both me and my sister. But since my sister was named "Rebecca" and not "Gene", the food didn't successfully modify her.
< rim shot >
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Dope, either Genetical or chemical is a bad thing that has not actually yet been proven to enhance one's health on the long-term.
It'd actually be a good thing for these sportsmen to be respectfully treaten instead of playing some multinational's Guinea pigs.
So, if you don't watch them on TV, then
you won't watch their sponsors ads, then they won't get enough money to afford such experiments.
Sport is not supposed to be "watched" but performed.
Now, if you get stuck in front of your tv, you'll play their rules and will continue to feed such excesses.
Here, in Switzerland, no tv accepted to pay the billion bucks needed to broadcast the 2002 Soccer World Cup. Of course, in a 6million people country, it would be indecent as there are some bigger priorities than just financing new undetectable doping technologies.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
"'super-athletes' may be competing as soon as the 2012 Olympic games"
isnt 2012 a bit too soon...
it's 2001 now... so even if we start today, and 'engineer' one of these babies...
neglecting the 9month fertility period.. the child's supposedly be able to compete at the age of 11? for a lot of guys, that's even before puperty.. needless to say the type of conditioning the athletes get day in and day out.. unless these kids are engineered to be able to compete before puperty.. without the conditioning... still doesnt make much sense
man... now imagine the political side of things..... oh boy...
my blog
2012 is about right for the younger athletes, such gymnasts, etc if they were being born right now.
I can see such a government promoting better athletes by offering rewards if certain athletes got married and had kids. By creating such an articial village of swimmers, or runners, etc. one could improve chances over several generations. All very scientific, and all that.
Right now I do not see that many traits have been isolated as far as genes go for selecting for specific traits, such as reactions time, muscle size, or whatever. There is more to this somehow, and a lot of details are likely missing for the time being.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
We could make them last longer between breaks, eat less pizza/jolt, and stay up 24/7!
They could code, code, and code some more!
Maybe we can get some mult-tasking in their 'upgraded kernel'!
...somewhere deep down I'd REALLY like to see the olympics competed between genetically modified super steroid dope mungeous uber athletes.
The 7s 100m, the 2 minute mile, a marathon in... no time. Swimming without having to breath, with great big flat feet hinged at the ankle like flippers.
REALLY tall dudes playing basketball. Chicks with HUGE asses doing speed skating.
Roll on 2012!
How can we be sure that genetic advantages are from cheating (i.e. artificially engineering the DNA to improve the athletic ability of a competitor), and not simply down to a lucky combination of gametes?
A muscle-building vaccine.
The September 2000 issue has an article (sadly not in the archives yet) that talked about genetically increasing muscle strength and speed. Humans have two types of muscle, "fast-twitch" (strong and fast, but low-endurance) and "slow-twitch" (slower and weaker, but high-endurance). Some mammals (e.g. rabbits, which have to run fast to escape predators) have an "ultra-fast-twitch" muscle type. Humans have the genes to make it but don't have the gene to make the signal protien that causes it to be produced.
Injecting muscle with genes to produce the activator might lead to super-fast sprinters and amazing power-lifters. Or, people who can tear their tendons out of their bones...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Drug use is already endemic in professional athletics. Those athletes that don't use banned drugs benefit to various degrees from accessibility to non-banned training drugs, diets, therapy (including surgery), sponsorship and equipment
It's delusional to think that we can catch reliably all use of all banned substances, nor even that we'd want to unless we want some very, very empty stadia. We've already got athletes competing doped to the gills, with pins in their bones, covered in surgical scars and supportive strapping, and wearing cutting edge footwear and outfits. Cyborgs by any other name. So let's not get too worried over a bit more tweaking. It's only different by degree.
Yes, there's a very valid argument that drugs, training and now gene tweaking victimises vulnerable young athletes. But this happens in societies where these athletes generally wouldn't have any other prospects, so let's not get too preachy and overprotective.
Personally, I'd rather we stopped even pretending to disapprove of drug use, and say that you can do anything you like to yourself before or during the competition, but you'll compete in issue equipment, or naked. Hey, it was good enough for the Greeks. ;-)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
... how closely reality follows science fiction.
Think about it. Nation 1's athlete gets beaten by Nation 2's genetically-engineered athlete at the Olympics. Nation 1 realizes the same thing could happen with genetically-engineered soldiers on the battlefield.
Say it with me, now... Eugenics Wars.
Chinese swimmer A: Shitsmui farkruass!, I think they're on to us!
Chinese swimmer B: Holly shitsumui!
All speling, factual, tact, and/or grametical errers be the result of netwerk interpherance or# transmition ererrs.
Under Taliban law sports activities are strictly verboten. Please stop these blasphemous discussions at once.
P.S. Hey you! No whistling "when the saints" either!
This story has got Gattaca written all over it. In the movie, Jude Law's character is basically genetically engineered to be the best. He is a athletic workhorse without even trying. The only problem here is, that wasn't what was important to him. In fact, when everything is given to you on a plate (or in your genes) what is there left to strive for? If everybody starts to have the same superior intellect and athletic abilities in the future, what's the use of competing anymore?
When are genetically engineered babies going to become all the rage? 25 years or so? Not long after that, I better have my retirement in the bag, because by then if age discrimination in the IT doesn't get me, the fact I'm not PERFECT will.
As long as the modifications are equivalent across all the athletes competing in a given sport, won't this just make it all the more exciting for the viewer?
Mind you... faster isn't necessarily better, as shown by Formula One
that in countries where the Athletics Assoc. IS actually forwarding who was caught on drugs will also have all those football- and base ball
player type of athletes.
This might of course help the fight against these drugs, which will be less useful, more dangerous and more easily traceable. Might be good for the health of the athletes, also.
The public (couch potato, consumers etc.), who actually pays for the professionalism will never really care. Or have you ever heard of a 1 or 2 year long penalty on an competitor in the 3 most paying sports? Or a life time ban on those repeatedly caught?
Side note: profits go down with every abuse scandal, so you better not look too much into
them body liquids.
If we are going to genetically engineer, the only theoretical limitation I can see on the 100 meter dash is (100 meters / 3e8 meters/second) = 3e-7 seconds = .3 microseconds.
Seriously, what *theoretical* reason is there why we can't engineer a jet-powered human? Beetles do it. High gees? Exoskeleton.
324006
The sooner our brains are extracted at birth and put into a safe place with wireless access to remote bodies the better.
;)
Heh. I'd spend my money on old 'spares or repairs' to make a 'crash' body I could go have some fun with at weekends without harming my 'sunday best' body
'Course, the NSA/FBI/CIA/Nestle would have a backdoor into your body as an anti-terrorism measure.
Besides, we (the human race) has been breeding animals for specific intent for thousands of years. I mean what the hell was going through the minds of the people that breed dogs to create a Dachshundor the Chihuahua.
Everytime I see these warnings about gentic enhancements I fail to see the problem. So what if some people never get heart disease - isn't this a good thing? Don't we want our children to be fit, healthy, and intelligent? And we might make mistakes along the way, but we'll solve them eventually, and anyway nature makes loads of mistakes. Of course disabled people can contribute to society, but you aren't telling me that Steven Hawking would actually prefer to be in that wheelchair? Roll on the future!
We should use science to alter our athletic ability. We should use it to modify our physical appearance, our intellectual capacity and anything else we want to improve as well.
The idea that we should just deal with the genes we are born with is crap. Practically no one objects to using gene therapy to treat medical conditions, even if the person was born with it.
What if I want to run as fast as Carl Lewis? Or lift as much as Magnus ver Magnusson? Or swim as well as Matt Biandi? What if I want to be able to do all three? Who are you to tell me I can't?
A half-assed case can be argued for Olympic competition, but if they want 'natural' athletes, they may as well shitcan the entire lot.
There are steroids that clear in 24 hours. Testosternone Propionate, for example. People can train while juiced, then stay clean just a couple days before testing. What about creatine? That stuff is made in a lab, as well, but athletes are allowed to use it. It occurs in nature, but so does testosterone and DNA.
Let the olympians juice themselves to the gills. Let the records fall.
The human race needs to drop the idea that we should be stuck with shit genetics.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Wether we use 'natural selection' or bio-engineering, what's the diff? We still end up with people who are great at what they do, though they may be sub-optimal at other things.
Basketball players make lousy power-lifters.
Make chess an Olympic event.
Make wheel-chair dancing an Olympic event.
Make priapism an Olympic event.
You'll get the individuals best suited for the sport.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I believe that the problem with athletes considering doping and gene therapy has to do with the lack of money in Olympic sports, well sports in general for that matter. There is a lot of pressure for these guys to win because they have to feed their families.
Sponsorship in sports is extremely important because without a sponsor, you have to get a real job and that takes away from your training time. So what is an athlete to do? He decides to dope so that he can gain the advantage in a race, get the headlines for his team and sponsors and continue to get another paycheck. It happens all the time and while I think doping is pretty stupid and don't condone it, I can see why some athletes do it. There's a lot of pressure to produce results and if others are possibly cheating, you have to cheat as well to hang with the rest of the pack.
Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I have some questions:
Somewhere along the way, athletes seems to have lost their way. The olympics of old were to see who was quicker, stronger and had the best fighting spirit. Now the entire sporting arena has been reduced to artifical one-ups-manship, through the use of drugs and soon to be genetic engineering.
Doesn't anyone see what is happening? Why doesn't Vince McMahon just take over the Olymics and be done with it? That's where it's heading anyway. A comical farce where actual skill is not the necessary ingredient for victory.
Stifle is an anagram for itself.
It's already a technology game. Of course, we don't look at training methodologies as technology, but it is. We have been developing better and better training techniques over the years, which has been showing up as better and better sports performance.
It's already about genetic advantage. Certain people are born with better genes for sports competition. Gene therapy just levels the playing field. Heck, it also relieves the pressure from parents who want to improve their child in the womb -- they can just wait until the kid is born, who can then choose their genetic attributes themselves :-).
I think the real issue here is that people believe that sports competition is something noble. Certainly, this is how the multi-billion $$$ Olympics.com sports corporation markets it. I just don't see it that way. I'm not saying its ignoble, its just that the NobleAthlete(tm) is a product. E.g. in the past, only "amateurs" could compete in order to maintain this mythical image, but now professional athletes can compete -- pros were allowed only when it didn't weaken the image the Olympics.com is trying to sell.
The reason why this will eventually be accepted (assuming there is no serious risk to the athlete of course) is simple - sporting events are entertainment. If records are never broken, nobody cares. In 1997, baseball was no big deal. In 1998, there was a huge peak in interest because a record that had stood for decades was about to be broken. However, frequent record breaking is just as boring as no record breaking at all, as was shown by the general lack of interest in the last weekend of the 2001 MLB season, which featured all kinds of records falling. What does this mean about the future of genetically enhanced sports? At first, people will be amazed at the superhuman feats. Then it will get boring. Finally, it will be interesting again, if anyone still cares about sports enough to participate at the media-hyped level.
Perhaps we could have seperate competitions, I'm for a normal/genetic mod/cyborg style competition were each group competes only against others with the same advantages and disadvantages. We'd still need to find a way to keep people from joining the wrong groups though.
... to make gene therapy cheap and safe, then let's not worry too much!
History has already shown that a significant proportion of athletes are willing to risk their health in order to gain a competitive advantage. Gene therapy will be another risky medical technique that they will adopt.
Given that it is going to happen anyway, think of the benefits! With widespread use and money invested in development, it will encourage the development of gene therapies that are safer, cheaper and of potential benefit to a large proportion of the population. Why shouldn't we be fitter (or smarter, or healthier) than what our random genetic heritage dictates?
The best defense against a world of genetic haves and have nots is to encourage an environment where gene therapy is widely accepted and above all, cheap! The alternative has the technology develop more slowly, and be available only to an elite, rich few.
On another front, on the topic of fairness in sport, it's already moot on the genetic front. While the very best athletes of course dedicate their lives to their activities and are admirable examples of determination and hard work, they are also in all likelihood blessed with an advantageous genetic makeup when compared with the population at large. (This is sure to be more the case in some sports than others, of course!) Much as we would like it to be otherwise, we are not all born equal when it comes to genetic potential. One could make the case that genetic tinkering has the potential to make competition more fair rather than less.
The tests for extra DNA are pretty straightforward once you have a marker. A recent example is anthrax testing. At the beginning of the scare it was do the old fashiong way by growing cultures and looking special characteristics- a process that took three to four days. But commercial labs and the CDC came up a genetic marker test that can be done more conclusively and in an hour.
I'm sure a lot of people will have moral objections to this, personally I don't really care.
However, doesn't this type of thing sort of, I dunno, take the fun out of competion? Who the hell wants to watch genetically engineered people competing, sort of the same way steroids do?
On the other hand, wouldn't it be great to be a genetically engineered super-human?
Ah, super strength, super reflexes, super brain power, super killing power... ;-)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
But when is a Human, not Human?
I dont think its the desire to win at all costs anymore. Its the desire to win at less cost than the amount of sponsorship you might get from Nikidas.
Jai Lai would be even better than it is now! But it probably wouldn't be as fun to gamble on.
I'm not sure exactly how many generations American slavery went on for, but I'm not entirely convinced that selective breeding, if done haphazardly for 20 or so generations (here we cannot assume a rigorous, scientifically based and centrally organized program) could produce a group of people who were significantly stronger/hardier than average. After all, when your slaves work hard every day, how do you determine how much of their muscularity is due to genetics, and how much is due to you making them carry heavy things for 16 hours a day? This sort of nature/nurture contribution to phenotype (that means the person's traits) is hard to determine even by modern bio-statistical methods. I doubt some family of slave-owning assh*oles could do it effectively enough to make a difference. I would argue that the abundance of elite black athletes might point more to a legacy of discrimination in other fields of life which might encourage more black people with potential to enter professional sports.
WRT your comments about the Daschund and Chihuahua breeds of dogs, they weren't bred that way to look preposterous. A Daschund is ideally suited to running down narrow burrows to hunt rabbits (I think that's what they were bred to go for). A Chihuahua, well I don't know but somebody had an idea. Maybe they were bred to kill rats.
Freedom: "I won't!"
It's a question of human dignity. Do you really want to create people explicitly for the single purpose of being good at something pointless and (quite possibly) not much else? How far is it from there to a Brave new World of genetically engineered slaves and cannon fodder?
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
2012 sounds a little early to me.
Gene therapy is the act of introducing gene(s) into a population of adult cells, for therepeutic benifit. For example, Cystic Fibrosis patients lack the CFTR gene. Therefore, in theory, introducing this gene to the lung cells should correct most of the physiological defects. However, the pharamseutical industry and academic sector have been struggling with this apparantly simple idea for a long time.
Problems include:
-deliviring the gene to the correct tissue in a high enough dose
-Many of the delivery systems rely on (crippled, non-contagious) viral vectors, which can illicit an immune response. A patient died during clinical trials because of this
-It is difficult to get a stable transfection. I.e. Once the gene is in the correct cell, it does not stay their for life.
There are numerous other technical hurdles to overcome, and if the multi-billion pound pharmaceteucial industy is still struggling with them, I find it hard to believe that the (largely ameteur) athletics industry will be using them in 2012.
But, I guess they will use this technology at some point in the future - but not untill it first becomes common place in medicine, like other peformance enhancing drugs. So the point is still valid I guess.
Also, they say this will be difficult to detect. Philisophically, I disagree. I am of the opinion that most actions leave a fingeprint, a signature. You just have to look hard enough. You could detect gene therapy by looking for certain properties of the transgene (e.g. if it was stably integrated, the gene would likely be in the wrong place in the genome. Or if the gene was only delivered to muscle cells, the genetic content of the muscle cells would be different to skin cells).
Furthermore, some people seem to be confusing eugenics with gene therapy. Gene therapy changes the genetic content of populations of adult cells, primarily for therepeutic benifit. Eugenics is the selective breeding of humans. Both techniques could (thereotically) be used to produce people with exta-ordinary abilities. However, eugenics would result in the trait being passed on to future generations. Gene therapy, normally, would not do this, except in the case of germline gene therapy, which I believe is now outlawed in most countries along with human cloning & eugenics.
Olympic is not as commercial as Football, both American and English (real) style. Commercial factor is always the evil factor! Just imagine clubs like 49ers or Chelsea start sponsoring these things. Then you'll see a huge meathead SF49er running at 50mph or a rugby player sized footballer running faster than Owen, more skillful than Maradona and play better golf than tiger woods in his spare time.
Then what is the point of watching games anymore? amire the result of science?
Why can't I be engineered to be a super star to earn millions in sports instead of someone else?
who cares? Sport is boring to watch anyway - i say, let them make GM athletes, and let them take all the drugs they want! I`d watch a race if all the contestants were on some combination of Speed, PCP and acid. You`d be a fool not to.
I'm engineered in such a way that my cells divide and grow and make me larger and stronger. I was so cleverly engineered that if you cut me the damage repairs itself over time... also I have a system by which I can fuel myself, and a means of distribution for that fuel throughout my body...
Isn't science wonderful...?
The test for anthrax is based on detecting genes which exist in the anthrax bacterium. This IS easy using modern molecular methods. It will be harder to detect whether a human being has been genetically modified by the addition of naturally occurring human genes. After all, who's to say that they weren't born with the gene(s)? It would be easier if the genes being inserted were from other species but you'd have to test for a LOT of different genes unless certain genes became so commonly used that you could expect to catch a good proportion of the offenders. You might more effectively screen for the presence of vector (the DNA which "carries" the gene into the person's chromosomes) sequence, but again there are a number of vectors (adenoviruses, HIV, other retroviruses) which could be used, and some of them are VERY similar to viruses you and I might be carrying right now. It'll be harder than you think.
Freedom: "I won't!"
In rats and monkeys that is.
They managed to inject DNA containing biosynthesis genes for EPO so that rats were capable of running around endlessly with 3 times their body weight on their back. They were named 'Arnold Schwarzenegger' mice. In monkeys gene therapy had a similar effect.
It must however be noted that at least in monkeys it was found that the genes changed the blood to look like ketchup, with all the hazards that go along with that.
However, the problem with EPO etc etc is that although it does build muscle, it DOES NOT increase the muscle binding to the bone. So a;though you'll get 80 meters in 1 second, by that time all muscles are ripped off and you'll never finish your 100 meters on your own...
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Not that we are creating super babies, but in many cases, we are training olypic athletes from birth. If I recall the old Sovit Union held try outs in all the elementry schools and then took the promosing youth to athletic camps and proceded to train the hell out of them. This is most notrotious among women's gymnastics and figure skating, but it can also been seen in swiming. I mean in these sports we have 14 or 15 year olds traing 10 hours a day. We may not be genticly enginering them, but we certenly determen their fate from a suprisingly younge age.
Sleep is for the weak!
It's mentioned in the article, but I haven't seen a post yet that recommends reading the following short story:
"The Mickey Mouse Olympics", but Thomas Sullivan (I think).
A web search shows that it appears in The Best of Omni Science Fiction, No. 2, ed. Ben Bova & Don Myrus, Omni, 1981.
It's quite funny, yet evidently prophetic.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
As opposed to which pursuits that aren't pointless. Overall nothing has a point so why crack on athletics?
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Is there a potential for some serious profit here?
Yes? Sign me up!
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Cosmic Surgery? What's that all about then?
So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance...
Do you think we've never seen athletes specifically bred for performance? What do you think the Soviet and Chinese state athletic systems have been doing for decades? Of course, they're not genetically altered for perfomance, but I'm sure some have been bred as carefully as lab mice.
...this is an anime plot,... check out Black Jack.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Ah, the irony. Speaking of the Olympics, need I remind everyone about Hitler and the Olympics? Anyone remember Jesse Owens? Seems we became the monsters when we fought it.
Just have the Olympics stay as they are now with unmodified humans, and then have Ultimate Olympics with the Super Humans... Make it Pay Per View and have cheesy theme songs for all the athletes...
I say go for it - let's get those genetically engineered mutants up there with the cyborgs and the drug users, then we'll see who really wins gold!
I've been posting on the net since 1994 and I still haven't come up with a good sig!
As for the breeding program of the slaves. It is a documented fact that black people (at the time slaves) were specifically breed large men with large women with the intent of making bigger and hopefully faster and stronger children. I know that it was not scientific, BUT there have been a few articles in the past 10 years about this topic. It is NOT a popular topic because of the nature of the subject. I feel uncomfortable about writing about it, but there is nothing I can do about the past.
It is my opinion and I agree with the articles that I have read about this subject that the breeding done to the then slaves has enhanced some of our athletes. I also feel that it is not a bad thing and that it should be something that men and women think about when they are looking at potential mates. I was thinking about it and dumped this one particular girlfriend for a number of emotional issues and because I did NOT want to have children with her. I was fearing that her partial blindness and hearing loss, which she was born with, would be passed on. I was also concerned about emotional instability. My wife is a very intelligent and staunchly independant. I love that about her. I am very happy to be having children with her. In fact, the "joke" in her family was to marry a tall man, because her family is generations of short.
GreatOak
_______________________________________________
Just opinions of someone willing to share honestly and with integrity. Can you do the same?
-- Dan
Watch out for those 10-year-old discus throwers of 2012! They'll knock your socks off!
2012?! pfft!
I've been waiting for this for years.
What I would like to see is 2 separate parallel olympics:
SuperOlympics
Take all the drugs you want, upgrade your genes, add some cyborg parts, and do the 100 meter dash flat under 4 seconds. (I would love to see a marathonian on coke!)
NormalOlympics
Just like they are now, no drugs, no gene therapy, no implants, BUT with snipers! If you fail a drug test, they don't tell you, you get shot in mid-race!
Now THAT I would watch!
You can't take the sky from me...
We already draw artifical lines between what is acceptable and what is not in athletics training. The common thread in banned supplements is that they are deemed hazardous to the athlete's health. Would gene therapy have significant harmful side effects ? If not, there is no reason to ban it.
Creatine is legal, anabolic steroids are illegal, and androstenedione was illegal in some sports but legal in others (although baseball later banned it).
Science will continue to come up with performance enhancing methods faster than tests can be produced to detect their use. If this does give people an edge, it will be used whether it is legal or not.
Hell, let's just genetically engineer a paradise.
Taken from http://www.hedweb.org/
The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.
"I need to take these massive amounts of Vitamin C to prevent scurvy. It has nothing to do with the fact that my ankles are the size of your neck."
------
Let me give you the lowdown
> I draw the line at cyborgs though...
In competing with humans, of course. Now in their own division...
...which will be the new, Unlimited Division, then that will be good...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> How far is it from there to a Brave new World of
> genetically engineered slaves and cannon fodder?
Nah, robot armies is the future, same for house workers.
I did read a sci-fi story once where, in the distant future, there really wasn't anything to do. So, to have something to do, people would be other people's houses. One guy was a street cleaner with a body designed to suck up garbage (which tasted really, really good to him) and he would process it and shit gems out onto the street.
Free will isn't about a meaningless spiritual freedom. It's about the freedom to do what you want. Now, setting "what you want" is another story...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
GO BO! I have a hunch Bo Jackson (Oakland Raiders)
may have done just that without genetics, merely
steroid abuse. Any thoughts?
If you look back the original artical talks about genetic treatements to grown adult athletes. Its not a question of "human dignity" its a question of free will and free experession. If someone makes a mature concious descision to have some form of gene therapy to make them a great runner whats the problem ?
By the same token if a intelligent lifeform is deliberatly engineered for running with no choice of its own then forced to be an athlete this is clearly ethically dubious. Of course it can be argued that no one gets to decide what there good at or how the look. Therefore banning the creation of genetically altered humans would be the ethical equal of forbiding people with genetic problems (eg. poor vision) from breeding without genetic correction of there children.
I will personally admit to being in favor of modifications / variants of humanity as long as we can avoid the whole mediveval slavery thing. As for human rights it is the resposability of any decent goverment and individual to give such rights to anyone or anything capable of asking for them.
You are right on all accounts. but in a way, I think this is good.
Science has shown that genetic diversity leads to more prosperous life. The last great development here was sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction, which obviously, in terms of creating a diversity of life succeeded quite remarkibly. Do you think the first sexual species sat around and went
Do you think we should have sex? It's not our place to play god!
What's wrong with assexual reproduction? It's worked so far, and we're still here!
etc...
Now, humans have the ability to be the next species that ascends the genetic diversity barrier. Because we can go beyond a mix of genetics of two orgnasims. We create whatever we want genitically. Yes, there will be downsides and failures, but this is nature. How many species have become extinct since life began? How many stillbirths due to genetic issues since life began? How many died because they had not enough toes, lack of camoflauge pigmentation, etc.
With exponentially greater variances in genetic diversity we'll have to be prepared for exponentially greater errors. But what will matter most is the exponentially greater advancement of all life.
Just my 2 cents...
- Sig
How do we separate drugs from nutrition. Last olympics, an athelete was accused of using drugs because they seemed to be detected in his body. Turns out he just ate a lot of a certain nutrient and his body produced the chemical naturally.
Here's an idea. Atheletes should be allowed to use any chemical that they want, so long as it occurs naturally in the human body. If you die of liver failure or somthing like that within ten years after winning, they take back your medal.
What the hell is the difference if one athelete produces loads of a hormone naturally and another injects it?
Or maybe they should just do a variation of Roman law and say that it's illegal to use any drug which is detectable. If you can't detect it, it shouldn't be illegal.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
And how much of this "selective breeding" was just "big strong guy + big strong girl" = surprise, surprise, "big strong children".
"Breeding" a few extra marginally bigger people for a dozen generations isn't going to do too much.
The article mentions the doping scandal in the 1998 edition of the Tour de France and claims that 20 cyclists have died of EPO abuse. In truth there is really only one EPO abuse death that has been documented and I'm not sure where they got this figure. I've been an avid cyclist for years and have never heard such a high figure.
The international cycling union prohibits EPO usage (like many other sport unions) in order to make the sport more fair. This stuff costs a lot of money. Even if there were no risk of personal harm, if everyone has to dope in order to compete it just means that the average speed increases and the financial costs as an athlete also increase. Objectively it would be more prudent for everyone not to dope, but some will try for an unnearned edge so they need to test and occassionally a scandal erupts.
(As a side note, cycling often gets a bad rap for drug problems, but it is because the officials are more serious about rooting out the problem. For example, in major races they conduct random drug inspections and keep samples for 6 months afterwards should a more refined test method be developed. In cycling, if you hemocrit level is over 50% you are automatically disallowed from the major races. Other sports are much more relaxed and in effect turn a blind eye to the problem because it produces bad press.)
Genetic modification is a more tricky topic. We could all generally agree that this would be good if we could reduce heart disease. It is a short step to conclude that genetic modifications to allow for a higher oxygen capacity for blood would be good. This is what some drugs like EPO do.
The bottom line is that any elite athlete is a very specialized person. For example, when Lance Armstrong wins the Tour de France he sacrifices many other pursuits in order to train 6 hours a day on the bike. He lives like a monk in order to win. Incidentally, he is quite gifted genetically.
I'm an avid cyclist and an amateur racer, but I'll never ride like Armstrong. A pity, but true. If someone could be engineered to beat a natural elite athlete it would be a tad pale. I tend to think that many of us have the ability to be great at something, we just need to discover it. Athletes have done this. For the most part they learned about themselves and chose to maximize their talent. What does this say of someone who would be engineered to be a great cyclist?
I'm no luddite and I think genetic engineering will yeild great things, but in the realm of sport the real beauty isn't in the records broken. The beauty is seeing someone who discovered his or her best acheivement. How that I wish we could all do that.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance
Genetic therapy is not about inheritance or breeding. Geneticists are increasingly seeing every physiological process as genetic. The therapy works by introducing certain genetic material into a living organism. Even a small amount this material can "cure" diseases caused by the lack of certain enzymes due to defective genes. This article seems to imply that even those without defective genes can benefit from the additional genetic material.
So far, this is undetectable.
Where does this idea come from? Its not in the article. I doubt that its true.
And some sports scientists believe that work must start now on developing a test to catch them out.
Okay, okay! Developing a test that can be used quickly on a large number of athletes shouldn't be too difficult. Certainly those working on the therapy would have a test to determine whether it's effective.
also consider survival of the fittest at work. hardier slaves were less likely to die at the hands of mistreatment or overworking by their masters.
not only that, but think about the original stock the slave owners had to work with -- slaves shipped from africa had to endure long, potentially lethal boat trips across the atlantic. weaker individuals were much more likely to perish on the way here.
Well, not that Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf got together to make uber-tennis babies, but...
talent is 100% genes, so that part is up to your parents and random selection. What you do with it is essentially up to you. Just look at the failures to make star atheletes, like Todd Marinovich, compared with the likes of Doug Flutie, et al.
What I remember is reading a Sports Illustrated story that had a scenario along these lines:
high school student gets a treatment, suddenly can run a 3.8 40-m dash. Sets scads of records. Signs a pro football contract out of high school. Somewhere along the line, he's playing a pickup game of basketball. He's driving for a layup, when there is a sickening sound as he collapses to the ground. Because his genetic treatment made his quad muscles so strong, he ended up with the front-top of his tibia being pulled apart, and the jagged bone, as it was pulled up way past his knee, did enough damage that he'll be lucky if he can walk.
Hmm...
Just look at how bioengineered drugs like EPO, HGF/1, etc., have infested endurance sports, most visibly, professional bike racing.
The way these genetic modifications might be detected is to do DNA mapping of the athlete in question along with both of his parents. With some sort of modeling, one would possibly be able to determine whether a first-generation athlete, at least, has been GMO'd.
the genie is out of the bottle.
Personally, I could give a crap if I could break the world's record in... whatever. I'll leave that to the comptetive types who get their sense of self worth from beating other people.
BUT: If these techniques could be used to be a sort of super-Viagara, not only keeping Mr. Happy up and running but also keep Mr. Coronary Failure from showing up... Well I'd be tearing down the door to get it done.
And you know how a normal tongue is three times stronger than normal muscle tissue? Think about it! A super tongue! I'd start spelling "cunnilingus" with even more N's. And I'd have oh so many new friends with large breasts and flat stomachs and tasteful tattoos. Hell, I might even get famous and get on Stile Project! Woo-hoo!
- Rev.Or, people who can tear their tendons out of their bones...
Yes, certain genetic enhancements, such as higher RBC count, can be done without (i assume) much damage to the body.
However, there are limits to other enhancements. The human body has had millions of years to become somewhat optimized. When you start increasing certain aspects with disregard for others, you create problems.
Just building muscle mass on power weight lifters won't matter much unless you also increase the strength of all the supporting structures. Yes, you could pretty easily increase muscle mass/density to lift an extra 200kg. But how much more weight can the wrist take before snapping? The small bones of the feet?
Sprinters- just how much stress can you put on your feet when you start? Sure, tweaking those leg muscles so they can pump faster will help, but the start is the most critical part of a sprint. Gene therapy to build stronger bones and tendons in the feet so that it can withstand more pressure at the starting point would be key to winning races. IIRC, the foot can withstand 20G's or so. Well, if you could double it, then the sprinters would be able to get off the line that much quicker.
Perhaps that's where the competition will be. How far can you push the body, during competition, without breaking. Sorta like the drag races of today- the cars that win are the ones that are the best, but most importantly, don't blow headers and gaskets coming off the line.
We'll start watching the olympics for the same reasons we watch the nascar races; for the crashes.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
The problem is the pressure he puts on other athletes - if they want to compete, they have to use these (potentially harmful) methods, too.
Also essentially it's unfair competition - is a genetically modified runner still in the same league as "real humans"? I mean if I really wanted to move extremely fast, running would be the least attractive choice. I could use a car, motorcycle or jet plane, depending on the distance.
If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in?
I've always thought it was an incredible waste of one's life to dedicate it to jumping across sand pits (long jump) or seeing how fast someone can run. How about putting all that research and energy into something useful like mental performance? We could have speed adding! Regurgitating pi! Bug free coding challenges!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I want to see skaters with unbreakable kneecaps!
I want to see snowboarders with unlimited tolerance for THC!
How about hammer throwers who can throw it so fast they are close to tossing their arms with the weight?
Runners who go so fast some start breaking bones!
Female marathoners who aren't flat chested!
We really need a 2nd Olympics, the Unlimited Class.
If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in?
Why not? If the technology is up to speed (unintentional pun) then why shouldn't we modify our bodies beyond recognition? It's my body and despite any laws, ultimately, I am responsible for what happens to it. But I am responsible to me, not to society or anyone else. What I choose to do with my body is up to me.
So I don't see a problem with someone adding in mag wheels and flame stripes, if that's what they want to do.
I may not agree with it, but in the end, I am not the one someone else needs to answer to. Nor is anyone else.
As for the definition of human, that's shaky ground. If we define by IQ, then we leave out many members of our society who have a less than normal (or even a higher than normal) intelligence. If we define strictly on physical characteristics, then we could wind up leaving out those with fewer working appendages. There is no standard for the definition of human beyond that in the dictionary - and it hardly suffices for discussion in this area.
Perhaps we need to rethink our definition of human a little bit.
As for unfair competition - if it's within the rules, how is it unfair? Rules allow for quantifiable boundaries on action and reaction - but morals and ethics are simply a creation of society and vary from person to person. It is impossible (except in a general manner) to form a quantifiable set of ethics and/or morals that everyone can accept.
My thought is: if you are willing to accept the consequences, known and unknown, of genetic modification - then by all means, modify away.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
If the atheletes are just the products of R&D then they shouldn't get the awards, they should march out the research teams to the podium. Hell, all the Gulf War parades should've consisted of electrical engineers and physicists.
"And the winner of the 100M dash, MERCK!, 2nd place goes to SCHERING-PLOUGH!"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"Professional runner joe blogs trains 30+ hours a week , this is unfairly putting pressure on me as i don't want to train as much."
Sorry but some people want to win more than other people and that kind of thing always shows through, its what the idea of competition is all about after all. Its why people take drugs now and continue to do so.
I will however conceed some type of league / rating system should be considered and humbly propose the following.1. James T. Kirk Pie Eaters League -No training.
2. Ye Olde traditionalists -No Chemicals.
3. Marvel Power Pills League. - Guess what ?
4. University Challenge - Genetics V Cybernetics.
Does that appeal to your sense of fairness ? If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in? If they want to and can find someone willing to compete I still don't see a problem. They've already paid for there advantage in all sorts of interesting physical and psychological ways
Cyberlimpics 2020 , watch people become distored freaks for your entertainment .... hang on we have that already.
Wasn't this a problem with Germany's Women's Swim Team years ago?
I think all these athletic competitions make no sense once you allow *all* technology. You just couldn't have a 2000 meter run anymore, everybody would just use a car. So now it turned into another car race. So assuming you allow it: what's the point?
Sounds to me like somebody got picked last in gym class one too many times.
The question really is: why? I mean these competitions operate within some arbitrary rules - why not allow marathon runners to take shortcuts? So if the organization which makes up these rules (IOC and others) want to change them: what's the particular benefit of allowing genetic mods? If you allow them, why not allow engines?
Do any of these methods actually make the sport more interesting? If you have a group of runners which are closely matched, then you might find the race exciting, but I doubt you'd notice a few 1/100 s in the winners time, without a stop watch.
It's not difficult to realize why some athletes do drugs to increase performance.
Athletes have a certain desire to succeed, whether it be on a field, a court, a river, or a skating rink. Just as YOU probably want to succeed with your work, athletes want to succeed with what THEY do. When, say, running as fast as you can is your life, your job, and your passion, it's easy to see how one would be tempted to increase their performance any way they can.
The risk of having heart trouble (especially with the normal human perception that "that'll never happen to ME!") is no match for a guaranteed half second off your 100 meter time.
-TenderMuffin
ever see blackjack? after awhile all the "super humnas" start dieing rather quickly and messilly from the "drug" they were taking.
Ave Molech Setting
Imagine being able to take a shot a day of some exotic drug and then being able to almost instantly understand COM?
managers...why god invented purgatory
Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi just produced a kid. Does that count as genetic engineering? Will the kid be old enough to compete in 2012?
what's the point? Same point as any sport, a collection of people want to take part in it because they thinks its fun / want to win it / want the money and it is sufficiently interesting to the general / public media it becomes popular. People who disagree will play by different rules. Take rugby league vs rugby union for example, the same game with slightly different rules (mainly on the degree of overt vs covert violence) each has its supporters both are fun.
Where Scotland fielded a goalkeeper who was an 8 foot by twelve foot rectangle, and still managed to lose 1-0.
At the risk of being redundant, I've often wondered, how far can science push the human body?
Look at auto racing. There's various classes of vehicles, with different rules. Typically you start with basic stock racing. Very limited mods allowed to the vehicle. The classes progress, until you reach the Super Modified class, where just about anything goes.
While there are some rules for safety, the cars don't look anything like your father's Oldsmobile.
Keep the Olympics pure, but hey, hype up the Strongest Man / Women / half breed contests. Open the doors and let these scientific wonders / freaks of nature do battle and lets see what the body is capable of handling!
There's many ethical issues, just make it a pay-per-view, don't try this at home - oh yeah, and run it on FOX...
I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
Only -- possibly -- in women's gymnastics.
I think a twelve year old weight lifter, tennis pro, or speed skater might raise enough eyebrows to merit genetic testing. Abusing gene therapy might enhance an existing individual's performance, but test-tube to track superathletes will take longer than twelve years to produce.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
I can finally have my own version of Natalie Portman
There gets to a point where ability as much a question of mental will as it is physical power. Your body may be able to handle much of anything, but if you don't harness your potential, you won't be much good.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying willpower will do everything. There are many times when people's bodies just give out because they are pushed beyond their limits. There are times when no amount of will can force the body to do something it simply because it lacks the energy to do so. However, it takes a certain kind of person to make their body reach that limit. This includes dedication to the sport and practicing correctly when you are not competing.
Will genetically engendered athletes have an advantage? Yes. Will that guarantee them a win? Not at all.
For those who are wondering, yes I am varsity division one in college.
Liquid Gaming - Your daily dose of gaming news
Didn't Jimmy the Greek already talk about this.
Larry Niven & Stephen Barnes explored parts of this in Achilles Choice.
AFAIK there was no such breeding in Kenya, for example, yet a lot of runners come from there.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
If I want to use gene therapy to allow myself to learn things quicker, or to heal quicker, or to live longer, that's my right: Its my body. Society shouldn't be able to tell people what they can and can't do with their own body.
Similarly, if an athlete wants to use gene-therapy to give himself a better endurance, that's his right. Sure, other athletes who don't do this will whine...that's their right too. Maybe sports leagues will set up rules for this, or even have separate leagues for players who do and don't use gene therapy; or maybe they'll let both play in the same league. After all, its really just another form of doing all you can to be the best you can be.
I realize that some people -- notably, religious nuts, and even some paranoid atheists -- are fearful of gene-therapy, genetic engineering, and cloning. I'm not. If there's a way to use gene therapy to make me live longer or obtain any other benefit I'd be glad to have, I'm all for it. As for genetic engineering(genetically engineering human beings before born), I'm not against that either. Yes, religious nuts say its playing god; some atheists say its messing with mother nature. I say its just another step in our quest for perfection. As for cloning, I'm not at all against that either, though I think no person from the past should be cloned, because they didn't have the opportunity to express their opinion one whether or not they wanted to be cloned. No one should be cloned against their will, so anyone who lived before cloning was possible shouldn't be cloned. This is my libertarian position on the issue. However, it is also in conflict with other libertarian values I have. For one thing, we can stomp our feet all we want and say we don't want this to happen: someone will do it. Period. And what are we going to do to the person who did it? What crime is that? Are we going to treat him or her like a common criminal, for creating a life? Hardly seems reasonable.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I've read several comments on slashdot, and gotten the impression that some people think such gene therapy would be "unfair" to those athletes who didn't use it, if they had to compete against those who did.
This is nonsense.
Really, all gene therapy does is alter someone's natural talent. No one really "deserves" what natural talent they have anyways. Did Einstein or Hawking "deserve" to be brilliant? Did Michael Jordan "deserve" to be gifted with natural athletic talent. The answer to these questions is, of course, a resounding no.
No one deserves what natural talents they have or do not have.
----------
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Dachshunds were bred to hunt badgers, actually, a much more fearsome foe than a mere rabbit.
I know this because a bed-and-breakfast my wife and I once stayed at had a dachshund puppy that got into everything and loved to go into dark, tight places (like handbags). I took to speaking for it (I often speak for animals and babies), saying, "Is there a badger in here? Maybe there's a badger in HERE!"
As for the Chihuahua, I can't find a good reference on what they were bred for or even where they came from. Weren't they were bred to hunt Gorditas...?
So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance but, with our desire to win at all costs, this too can't be far off.
WHAT?
Athletes have been "breeding for athletic performance" for thousands of years! That's what it's ABOUT!
Haven't you noticed, even now, that the Jocks get the Cheerleaders, along with their pick of the female fans? Cheerleaders who are themselves athletic and exhibiting all the characteristics of healthy and extremely fertile young women just hiting breeding age? And Olympic Jockettes get to pick among several healthy multimillionaires, if they don't pair off with a prime Olympic Jock?
The only thing different here is that technology can now meddle directly in the process to direct and accelerate it by selecting particular genes or adding new ones from outside, rather than leaving it to the luck of the genetic draw among the genes currently in the particular Jocks and Jockettes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hmmm...could you come up with an original thought? Please?
If you do any research, you'd find, the fact that American blacks tend to do well in sports is due to the fact that people of WEST african extraction tend to have a higher concentration of fast twitch muscle tissue in their limbs.
That's also why if you check statistics for sports that require slow twitch tissue (swimming, long distance running), West african blacks are overwhelmingly UNDERREPRESENTED (long distance running Olympic champions tend to be caucasian or East Africans...and East Africans are QUITE different than west africans).
By your theory, West African blacks, and only those whos ancestors came to america as slaves should dominate EVERY field. 'Course not the one's that require thought...just the ones that require brute strenght.
And that's the brunt of the whole "Slavery...makes stronger blacks" argument. Racism. Every time some little white twit is intimidated by a black athelete, they go back to the "Well, it's not because that PERSON is more dedicated, etc, it's because his ancestors white owners (clever bastards) were masters of Eugenics (too bad hitler didn't have some of those genetics geniuses from Dixie!), and bred some damn strong bucks!
I'm sure Fox Sports is going to use the Bionic Man sound effect during any slow-mo replays involving engineered players.
Fox turned into a hard-core porn network so gradually I never even noticed! - Marge Simpson
As for the running thing, there's a huge concentration of world-class runners from one specific area of Nigeria. There have been some studies of why this is so, but nobody has identified a genetic marker yet.
...and they shall create a race of super-Geeks, and they will be known as Slashdotters.
Chihuahuas were bred for rodent control & food.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
When you consider for a moment how much less harsh American plantations were when compared to thousands of years of conditions in wild africa, and you'll understand completely that a century of breeding in America wouldn't accomplish a thing. Drop this old meme. It's not based on any good facts.
C//
My guess is that to effectively engineer someone, you're going to have to insert more than one gene. Not only that, but to get decent (both specific and high) gene expression you may to have to do some strange stuff to the promoter/enhancer/etc that won't likely be in nature.
Now, if you're going to insert a lot of genes, are you going to try and put them all in one vector simultaneously or are you going to put them each in their own vector and try and co-transform the cells? You'd obviously put them in one vector in order to increase efficiency. Granted, you could do it the other way, but co-transformation efficiency would be very low (efficiency would be very important when dealing with a limited number of human embryos).
My test would simply be PCR up the genes in question and look for the length of the product. If they're really close together then you know there's some engineering involved. If there's no product (different chromosomes) or huge product (far apart on a chromosome) then it's natural.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Gattaca, here we come...
Seriously... When we start this genetic engineering of humans... there are two ways we could go... We could go the way of Gattaca, in which everyone is specified to the parents wishes, and the "god-children" are known as InValids... or we could go the way of ST: Space Seed, where Kahn Noonian Singhand his cohorts try to take over the world
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Well, I suppose the organizations that run these sort of things will have to come up with the rules on whether wheels and engines are allowed or not.
I really don't care what the rules are for any given sport except the ones I participate in and then only for the locally defined game.
I think it is possible for gengineering to make the sports more interesting for a while but in the end, only the real fans are going to care one way or another.
Me - I watch sports occasionally, but usually only the end of the game/match/race, what-have-you, and then only if it's a close race.
However, I don't think there should be any restrictions on genetic modding unless the rules for a given sport outlaw it.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Well, we already have olypic athletes dying of heart attacks at age 38...
Hey, if they want to live to see their 42nd birthday, we got the no-drugs-or-anything-we-mean-it olympics, if they wanna win...well...
;-)
You can't take the sky from me...
No, the real problem is that the ideal of the Olympics is health, not drugs. Doping is not good for your long-term health and that's the reason I am against it. Creatine, purportedly, makes you stronger without killing you in the long-run. Just like a healthy diet or plenty of exercise.
Where the people who are against doping run off the rails is when they start aguing that the use of performance-enhancing drugs somehow cheapens the competition. Twenty years ago they didn't know what we know now about nutrition. Does that mean we should disallow anyone on a special diet?
I have no problem with improving your performance through healthy means. It's when the methods start reducing life-span and having harmful side-effects that it becomes a problem.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
He's not talking about hicks in Tennesee breeding black slaves. He's talking about the intentional, and very controlled breeding of nubian slaves that went on for thousands of years in Northern Africa (there is documented evidence of this in ancient Egypt, and not JUST with black slaves either).
Still, you take well bred dogs and turn them loose into the wild, and the mutts you get in 3 generations have pretty much lost most of the specialized traits.
Rat terriers were bred to kill rats.
The thing is, it's the same moral issues. Look at Greyhounds. As racers, their carreers are usually over with in about 2 years. Most are euthenized after that. The ones that make it as pets have tons of healt problems and special needs that other dogs don't have. And what if a Greyhound had a mind of human proportions. What if that Greyhound actually wanted to be a retriever, but he's stuck racing because of his genetic heritage, and can't catch a tennis ball in his mouth to save his life? Or what if an accident brings a severe injury that makes him unsuitable for racing? Call the vet, time for doggy to go to sleep. Apply these same standards to humans, and you start to see the creepiness of genetic engineering. It's all fine and dandy when you're talking about making it so your kids don't grow up to be obese, or need glasses, or be prone to cancer. Or even have blue eyes and blonde hair. But when you consider some of these "occupation-oriented" traits into the mix, it's pretty frightening.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
These athletes will be, what, 9 years old? What are some of the events 9 year olds will be good at?
...
If they're going to start modifying their own genes, just go ahead and let them do steroids anyway. You can bet your ass right now that if there was a steroid Olympics, I'd be watching every minute of it. Granted, it probably wouldn't last all that long..five minutes at most..then someone would either have a heart attack or pole-vault themselves into the troposphere.
It could have something to do with the fact that the african tribal has somewhat better genes for activity than the average non-slave owning descendant of sedentary slave owning fucks.
Just a guess.
Because the competitions are supposed to be about the athletes, not about who has the better 'technology' support group behind them. That's one of the reasons why they keep trying to ban drugs ... those with more money tend to do better (In the Seoul gams, frex, certain tests revealed the presence of performance enhancing drugs behind 27 (!!!) layers of blockers.)
When you start in with genetic engineering, you're going down what is essentially the same path ... those with more money will produce the better athlete. It isn't the athlete who's performing, it's the horde of scientific types behind him.
The article mentioned one natural mutant (doubled haemoglobin levels), which apparently is a family trait. Predessor also took the gold a few decades back. And the family also has a far higher than average rate of heart attacks and strokes (so much for all that good exercide!)
Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between drugs, gene therapy, or cybernetics in this regard - they all remove the competition from between the athletes to between the money behind the athletes.
They can make them to have 20-inch dongs, that can squirt out a litre every time.
It might be worth reviewing Bladerunner, or reading Michael Stackpole's and Robert Thurston's BattleTech novels (start with the Blood of Kerensky series: Lethal Heritage, Blood Legacy, Lost Destiny.) Consider how engineering humans for a purpose, athletic or otherwise demeans them as individuals. Why not just start cloning the best physical specimens and then throw them away when they are no longer useful.
The idea has certainly been kicked around a lot, and not just as fodder for sci-fi (but sci-fi provides such an arena to explore the social ramifications and consequences.) How would anyone in this group feel if, as in the BattleTech works, naturally conceived children of parents who found each other socially, were considered inferior? Just Don't Do It, seems to say enough.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Adolf Hitler even considered a master race. How's this actually different from his aspirations? Not in the least.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Good discussion of doping and Ben Johnson:
m
http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_08_10_a_drug.ht
The Kenyans are the counter-example. They gained dominance in long-distance running for cultural reasons, i.e., they had very extensive running competitions going back to colonial days, and the material success of Kenyan Runners has motivated a LOT of young Kenyans to run.
You humans are the only true gods to ever exist. The power to alter your very life-stuff is proof of this. Shrink neither from your power nor your destiny!
******
"I do not play at being God -- I AM GOD!
Huh? Surface area, being two dimensional increases slowly compared to volume, which is three dimensional. Think about a cube. A three by three by three unit cube has a volume of 27 cubic units and an area of 54 square units. Double the dimensions to a six by six by six cube and you have a volume of 216 cubic units and an area of 216 square units. Triple the original dimensions to a nine by nine by nine cube and you have a volume of 729 Cubic units and an area of 486 cubic units.
In other words, larger people have less surface area relative to their body size, not more.