So it's finals, and only nearing finals i start studying.
reading about how science could potentially improve the quality of life of cognitive-impaired people and i suddenly wonder.
If it's okay to do that to someone born impaired, why can't we modify it abit and do it to someone who's NOT impaired and further improve his/her cognitive function?
would that be unethical?
if that's unethical, why?
isit because this person would now have an unfair advantage over the others?
But if that's the case, why would it be unfair?
isit because he's born like this so he should embrace it like the rest of us and not 'enhance' it to gain advantage?
Then why should born impaired people get that technology instead? i mean they're born like that they they'll have to live like that. right? even if they got into some accident, well that's just a way of life, why should you get that enhancement just cuz you started off behind? If that's allowed, can people who're born stupid get the enhancement?
Hmm then i suddenly thought of another scenario long time ago so i went to google.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB_g-RSIGfM
Oscar Pistorius had his leg amputated when he was young. now he get's a prosthetic leg. when i was watching olympic many years ago, i see him casually changing his 'walking leg' into a 'running leg' few minutes prior to getting onto the track for a 400m competiton. first thing that comes to people's mind is probably wow look how strong this guy is, even with an handicap, he trained hard and made it to 400m finals on a world stage. sadly that's not what i thought, yeah i know, i lack sympathy for anything. First thing comes to my mind: why is this even allowed in olympics??? that thing is definitely not natural, who knows how the spring can help him in running or something and he might gain an unfair advantage over the others why the hell is this allowed? He got 'legs' for different purpose which means that the 'legs' are SPECIALLY designed for different purpose. which includes, running fast. how is this fair?
Well even though he didnt win the race, i still dislike that it's even allowed in a world stage. yeah sure say that i think too much or what. say that i lack sympathy. say that i'm heartless. tell me to wear a prosthetic leg and go run for olympics. If you're think anywhere near these then you're stupid.
Okay first, i'm not bashing on him saying hes unworthy. i'm just saying with this prosthetic legs, he might have an advantage, which might not get him the gold, but still. Second i'm not denying the fact that he probably put alot hard work into training. just like i don't think steriod users just get all big without any hardwork. it's just that you know.. it's just not a human leg. What if the spring help you push off the ground? or it could be lighter than a normal calves making it easier to run?
oh look top comment on the video:
'If having prosthetics/springs on your legs made you a better runner than all the parolympic runners would qualify for the regular olympics. There's a reason why he's the first to ever do it, because it is a teemendous deficit to have prosthetics. You people are pathetic with your assumptions.'
hundreds over likes, that means he/s probably saying the right things right? I decided to make some research. surely people have looked into it before. and guess what i found.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blade-runners-do-high-tech-prostheses-give-runners-an-unfair-advantage/
lazy to type out the findings. basically it says that it DOES gives an unfair advantage. well, maybe the study is not comprehensive enough, and this needs more verification. point is, there IS a possibility that it does gives unfair advantage. so yeah case closed.
don't just join the crowd and just blindly say it's fair just cuz you pity him and respect his courage or hardwork blah blah blah... everyone on the track pour in tremendous amount of time and effort. stfu.
p.s neurology is interesting af, and difficult af
