No ordinary Family - the bioethic question

[Pawelk198604]

I wonder does anyone watched this series, i liked and i think it was too short.

It was about ordinary Family that due to exposure too certain substance, get superpower, the father goes super strength, mother get super speed, their daughter get psionic power like mind control and their son get superintelligence, while he wasnt smart  before that and is rather wimpy. 

So most of family think intentionally that he is not affected.

 

But he get into football team (despite not having footballer physique) and become the best player, because he bring football down to science and mathematical anastasis of tactics of game, but later as his super parents found that he had superpower as super IQ, it was does is ethical for him to play the game, if he had such powers? Does is unfair advantage? but after all he not wanted it he get it's by accident?

 

I'm just wonder does is would be good use genetic  engineering  to be better on Olympic games?        

[RainDreamer]

Of course not, cause you would have superhuman competing with human. An ethical question about transhumanism really.

[Bill Phil]

It's not fair at all. He's got super IQ. But if the other players had it...?

[kerbiloid]

Of course yes if do this with all sportshumans.

[Pawelk198604]

 

5 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

Of course not, cause you would have superhuman competing with human. An ethical question about transhumanism really.

 

4 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

It's not fair at all. He's got super IQ. But if the other players had it...?

 

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Of course yes if do this with all sportshumans.

Transhumaism, so this stuff had even own name?

I'm speaking about this tv series

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591493/

I'm interested in this kind of stuff, like X-Men and so on  

 

But the TV show in question this family get all this power by accident not by chose, so i think it's not fault of them nor this that they have it.

I liked this tv series it remember a little bit of this cartoon ;-)

Edited June 23, 2016 by Pawelk198604

[Scotius]

Should the math genius be forbidden to take final exams with children his own age, but less gifted? Should a genius pianist be not allowed to perform in public, and gain any money that way? Should a brilliant painter refrain from showing his works and selling them? It's a very philosophical conundrum, but i'll say this: "If you have it - use it."

[Bill Phil]

27 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Should the math genius be forbidden to take final exams with children his own age, but less gifted? Should a genius pianist be not allowed to perform in public, and gain any money that way? Should a brilliant painter refrain from showing his works and selling them? It's a very philosophical conundrum, but i'll say this: "If you have it - use it."

Yeah, but if someone is artificially given that genius? That's not fair in any way.

And even geniuses can fail.

[RainDreamer]

Even if it is not by their choice, it is still not fair that they have capibility far beyond human, and competing with rules intend for human. 

An example is like in a game, just because your character is glitched somehow and can do things other players can't, it still doesn't mean you are being fair using that character.

[kerbiloid]

In fact, this problem has been solved long ago, by leagues and weight categories.
There are Highest league, First league, Second League, etc. Nobody puts a world champion and a next-street-boy into one league.

So, there just should be added a Superhuman league, and they are the first of its members, And — until somebody else appears, Champions of Superhuman league.

[Shpaget]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

ISo, there just should be added a Superhuman league, and they are the first of its members, And — until somebody else appears, Champions of Superhuman league.

That would be a very interesting Championship to watch! Crowd cheering, waving flags and banners in unison, supporting the single player alone on the entire field. The ref blows the whistle to start the match, then moments later again to end it because no one showed up to oppose our superhero. The sponsors would be waiting in lines for the opportunity to throw their money at the event.

[Pawelk198604]

5 hours ago, Scotius said:

Should the math genius be forbidden to take final exams with children his own age, but less gifted? Should a genius pianist be not allowed to perform in public, and gain any money that way? Should a brilliant painter refrain from showing his works and selling them? It's a very philosophical conundrum, but i'll say this: "If you have it - use it."

 

4 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah, but if someone is artificially given that genius? That's not fair in any way.

And even geniuses can fail.

I agree with both of you it's really ethically challenging question, when this boy mom which gained superpower too in the same accident, she told him he shouldn't play because it would be unfair toward other teens, Initially, no one knew about his superpowers, he was not as tangible as the powers that his parents and sister. have acquired. 

He then used a counterargument that some see nothing unethical when they use their superpowers, for he liked how everyone started to begin attention to him when he began to use his "super intellect" and before that no one was paying attention to his person. 

This whole plot remembered "augments"   Khan Noonien Singh and from Star Trek, i liked that story arch very much. Especially Dr Julian Bashir from Star Trek Deep Space 9, i'm not spoiling anything to anyone who not Watched Star Trek  

[Pawelk198604]

But i personally think anyone who is gifted by accident freaks of scence shouldn't be banned, or self-banned, does if someone get superpower by itself just be born with extremely rare genetic aberration  that happen only in 1:1000000000 births, that give super smart or athletic abilities, make someone unable to play in sporting contest or Olympic games, i think not! If this not by their own choices.

Another thing is when someone took doping substances or surrendered to gene therapy just for that to be better at their sport,     

[Pawelk198604]

On 23.06.2016 at 1:09 PM, RainDreamer said:

Even if it is not by their choice, it is still not fair that they have capibility far beyond human, and competing with rules intend for human. 

An example is like in a game, just because your character is glitched somehow and can do things other players can't, it still doesn't mean you are being fair using that character.

You mean probably about it even if he decided not to use these powers, it would be nothing changed, because in the case of a sporting event, his body was exhausted his subconscious had used to the power autonomously, even without his knowledge, if it considers it necessary.
Because most biological processes are controlled by the subconscious rather than conscious

[Slam_Jones]

On 6/23/2016 at 4:50 AM, kerbiloid said:

In fact, this problem has been solved long ago, by leagues and weight categories.
There are Highest league, First league, Second League, etc. Nobody puts a world champion and a next-street-boy into one league.

So, there just should be added a Superhuman league, and they are the first of its members, And — until somebody else appears, Champions of Superhuman league.

This is basically my view on it.  You didn't ask for the powers, sure, but neither did geniuses ask for their intelligence, nor did athletes ask for their athletic abilities.  It's part of who they are.  If the genetic lottery number you pulled happens to be great, then you should be matched against other of similar abilities for competitions.  If you're so far beyond everyone else, then you are, as they say, in a league of your own.  It's no fault of yours -- but that doesn't make it fair to other who have to try to compete at a level that is physically (or mentally) impossible for them.

[Pawelk198604]

58 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

This is basically my view on it.  You didn't ask for the powers, sure, but neither did geniuses ask for their intelligence, nor did athletes ask for their athletic abilities.  It's part of who they are.  If the genetic lottery number you pulled happens to be great, then you should be matched against other of similar abilities for competitions.  If you're so far beyond everyone else, then you are, as they say, in a league of your own.  It's no fault of yours -- but that doesn't make it fair to other who have to try to compete at a level that is physically (or mentally) impossible for them.

Yes you right, but does if it's doesn't intentional (doping or so) why someone should not use this powers?  

[Slam_Jones]

34 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

Yes you right, but does if it's doesn't intentional (doping or so) why someone should not use this powers?  

In my opinion (and I am by no means an expert on the subject of ethics) I like to think that there should be a level playing field for all in a certain league.  Let's say there is a group of schoolkids that have grown up together.  They used to all be roughly the same size, but one of them got his/her growth spurt very early, and is now much bigger than the other kids.  Is it still fair for them to compete at the same level?  One has more natural capabilities than the others, which puts them at an advantage: ergo an uneven playing field.  In my humble opinion, the sudden acquisition of additional skills (or powers in this case) should put the person in question into a different league where they are more evenly matched.

Then again, I wonder what is really at risk?  In the case presented in the OP, the son is using his intelligence for football.  I never played football as a kid, so maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the advantage in that game is typically either body mass or agility.  If you're bigger than the other guy, he won't be able to tackle you as easily.  If you're quicker than the other guy, then you can dodge him when he goes to tackle you  Intelligence, however?  Sure you may be better able to tell where the ball is going to go, but I don't think that's enough of an advantage to warrant a different level of play.  If he were, say, gifted with super strength, or super speed, or something like that, it would be a much bigger advantage.  Like an adult playing tug-of-war vs a 4-year old.

I'd say super intelligence should really only be considered a true advantage in sports/competitions that strictly involve intelligence: chess games and the like.  If a super strong guy was playing chess, would it be an advantage for him?  Not unless he punches the other guy, which is generally frowned upon.  In the same way, one with super intelligence wouldn't have THAT big of an advantage in a game where physicality is the big factor, rather than intelligence.

Hopefully that makes some sense and doesn't just sound like rambling

[RainDreamer]

If there a runner who were involved in an accident and lose their legs, then get experimental synthethetic legs that let them outperform runners that still has biological legs, should that runner be allowed to compete in the same group?

This, like many ethical questions, seem to have an unsatisfying answer: "it depends"

We can't generalize something that should be done on a case by case basis.

[kerbiloid]

22 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

If there a runner who were involved in an accident and lose their legs, then get experimental synthethetic legs that let them outperform runners that still has biological legs, should that runner be allowed to compete in the same group?

Probably you mean Pistorius

[RainDreamer]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Probably you mean Pistorius

I found that there were a lot of debates on whether his legs actually enhance his running speed or just enable his natural abilities, so i use a fictional example where the leg significantly play a role.

[kerbiloid]

Let me add more fog.

Usual next door sportshumans, without superabilities or advanced implants.
Gunners, motor- and unmotor- bicycle riders, horse riders, car racers, boaters and others.
Is it fair to let them use their personal inventory, rather than cast lots — who will use which equipment. After all, this is a competition of humans, not equipment companies (when is).

And with chess-players also this is not that simple...

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Let me add more fog.

Usual next door sportshumans, without superabilities or advanced implants.
Gunners, motor- and unmotor- bicycle riders, horse riders, car racers, boaters and others.
Is it fair to let them use their personal inventory, rather than cast lots — who will use which equipment. After all, this is a competition of humans, not equipment companies (when is).

And with chess-players also this is not that simple...

Horse races is mostly about horses not the jockey, its the horse you bet on. 
Cars is important in motorsport, not as important as in horse sport but important. 
For other sports equipment tend to be less important as everybody have access to pretty much the same gear. 
Main exception is then new gear arrives and some tries it out early and win that season, next year others follow up. 
You select that you will use as an tactic too. Each sport decides their own rules regarding equipment and they can be very detailed.  

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, RainDreamer said:

I found that there were a lot of debates on whether his legs actually enhance his running speed or just enable his natural abilities, so i use a fictional example where the leg significantly play a role.

Yes, he was obviously an good runner, the legs probably gave him an benefit but also some weaknesses.
As he was in league with the other Olympic mesters he was allowed, it was not his fault he lost his legs and it would be unfair to ban him. 
if someone came up with some legs who make the user beat the world records by 10% or similar they are likely to be banned. 

Now genetic engineering is likely to break sports here, will create conflicts too as many of the modifications would not help much in high level sport compared to all the training needed unless tailored exactly for that but they would give an edge. 

[kerbiloid]

58 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Now genetic engineering is likely to break sports here, will create conflicts

Genetic engineering will split the sport into human sport and professional.

Edited June 27, 2016 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Genetic engineering will split the sport into human sport and professional.

Good chance of it, however a modification who made exercise more efficient would be of general benefit but also help athletes  a lot as an example. 
Don't think anybody would do stuff like make an mermaid to win swimming.