Skip to main content

Now is the Time for Open Olympics

The time has come for an open Olympics.  This means any athlete can use any physical assists available for his/her event.  The limit must be at using machines to make the assist.  For example, bicycles cannot be used in a foot race.  However flippers can be used for swimming, and spring steel shoe extensions can be used for running - as currently used by amputees.  To some extent this is already in place.  For running and swimming, special suits are allowed to diminish friction.  For all sports the shoe is critical and used to the highest technological level available.

For bobsledding, skiing, skating, and other such sport, the level of technology of equipment is important, to the point that competitors of decades earlier could not compete.   For pole vaulters, the use of fiberglass and maybe even carbon-fiber poles seems OK; they give a further spring-shot effect to gain height.  This is technology at work!

You may suggest that volley-ball players might mount springs on their shoes to gain extra height for a truly powerful spike.  While this may seem an advantage, the springs would diminish player maneuverability for other aspects of the game.  

Why can we not open the sports to more general technology assists?  It seems the Olympics and sports in general seem to co-mingle with a traditional, semi-technological contradiction.  Why not release the sports to innovation all-around?

We want to go faster, to go higher, to go further.  Let us see just what are the limits when technology is embraced to the max.     

Comments

  1. I disagree. Then the completion would be even more about technology than it already is. What about getting back to simple skills like who runs the fastest or can jump the farthest?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view