Kinesiologists and mechanical engineers are the who. Ostriches have a radically different body plan than humans, one that’s mechanically much more suited to running fast. Add long, lightweight legs which bend the other way and hence have advantageous leverage and a stride length of 3 to 5 meters. (Usain Bolt has a stride length of less than 2.5 meters, and he’s an outlier among humans.) Even if we genetically engineered a hyper-fast-twitch muscle fiber and springy tendons, those would just tear apart our joints when paired with the body mechanics and locomotion style we’re working with.
Humans are not set in stone, we’re constantly evolving. An ostrich can run 70km/h on 2 legs. Who’s to say we won’t one day have humans running that fast?
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 2 days ago
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 days ago
That’s a lack of imagination. Why couldn’t we give a human legs like an ostrich? Maybe not achievable right now, but would you bet against it being achieved within 1000 years?
Or would you say that person with ostrich legs is no longer human? That gets to the deeper questions we inevitably get to with sports: what is fair? What does it mean to be human?
I really hate that Oscar Pistorious decided to become a murderer. His inspiring achievements with prosthetic legs actually were raising the above questions. I don’t think anyone questioned the fact that he’s human, but they definitely talked a lot about what fairness really means in sports.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 2 days ago
Would that be a human with ostrich legs, or an ostrich with a human body? Indeed, there are a lot of philosophical questions, but if we’re allowing technological augmentation, then Todd Reichert is indisputably human and managed 144 kph.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Right, Todd Reichert raises another question: do we consider removable devices to be part of our body or not?
I think the ostrich question you raised has a bit of a simpler answer: does it have the mind of a human or the mind of an ostrich? That’s only a temporary reprieve though. Once we get into brain augmentation we have a whole other set of issues.
But even if we disallowed any augmentation whatsoever, there’d still be the issue of reproduction, selective breeding, and genetic engineering. Maybe you disallow gene editing and CRISPR, but how do you disallow selective breeding? It’s as basic as having the freedom to decide who to form a relationship with.
state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
I don’t think you understand how evolution works. There is no evolutional pressure on humans to run long distances, jump far or high. And even if there suddenly were, it would take generations for noticeable changes. It’s much more likely that some parents let their kids be CRISPRd to create more red blood cells which would grant them an endurance boost or other such changes. That will probably happen in our lifetime.
Besides, your ostrich example is not helpful. A snow albatross is as tall as a small human and also has two. Maybe we will grow wings and fly!
howrar@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
I think they’re referring to random mutations. There’s no evolutionary pressure to get better at any of these skills, so at a population level, we’re unlikely to see any change. But at the individual level, it’s still possible through these mutations.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I didn’t say anything about natural selection, I said evolution. Humans evolve by more means than natural selection. We also evolve through culture, through technology. And of course we still do evolve by natural selection, it’s just hard to see because the pace of technology is so rapid.
Take birth control as an example. It’s very recent technology. A blink of an eye in natural selection terms. You might think it would wipe us out by causing population crashes. But culture is evolving to counteract it. Cultural norms have already begun to shift heavily against birth control. I think it’s fairly easy to anticipate a future where birth control is not used very much.