[alexvay]

Why such an article on such a topic start with torture is beyond me. The question we should be asking, I think, is when (the "how" is no longer relevant now is it) we start engineering humans, how we avoid the situation that has been "documented" in every post-apocalyptic sci-fi where a superior species arrives (or created) and wipes out the weaker, non-engineered humans?

I am far less concerned with philosophical question, such as whether a person engineering to be the smartest would be smart on his own right; would a person engineered to be the strongest & fastest be a successful athlete in his own right, or is it simply an unfair inter-species competition which is no different than pitting a disabled person vs. a healthy one; etc.

[Lockyy]

Was this issue with atheletes not debated recently in the London Olympics with the man who had a blade replacement for a leg who was allowed to compete with non-augmented athletes?

I don't want to get into whether I think letting him compete against regular athletes was a good idea or not for that specific event. However I think there needs to be care because where is the line drawn? How advanced do his blades need to become before it's just not fair any longer?

[DanBC]

> the man who had a blade replacement for a leg

Oscar Pistorius. He's a multiple gold medal winning Olympic athlete. He has two blades. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius)