By Ishan Dasgupta

You may remember Oscar Pistorius from the months before the last Olympic Games in Beijing. The bilateral-amputee sprinter known as the “blade runner” and “the fastest man on no legs” holds the world record in the 100, 200, and 400-meter track and field events of Paralympic athletes. Despite his triumphs, the IAAF ruled Pistorius ineligible to compete with biologically intact sprinters on January 14, 2008 because his Ossur-made prosthetic Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs “blades” were deemed to give him an unfair technological advantage beyond that of the normal human ankle and foot.

After an appeal by Pistorius the ruling was eventually reversed on May 16, 2008 by the Court of Arbitration of Sport—they decided that there was no conclusive evidence to support the IAAF’s prior ruling. Pistorius was now once again eligible to compete for the South African team for the Beijing Olympics. But there was one problem—he had to beat the Olympic qualifying time of 45.55 for his best event the 400 meters. He did not make it; posting a personal best of only 46.25.

Many wondered whether the court, knowing how difficult it would be for him to hit this mark, allowed him to race realizing he was unlikely to be a contender or even qualify. Either way most of the world forgot about Pistorius. That is until July 19, 2011.

By winning the 400-meter final in Lugano, Italy, last month and posting a time of 45.07, Pistorius has done the seemingly impossible and posted an Olympic “A” standard time. This qualifies him for the world championships, which begin in Daegu, South Korea later this month. Pistorius now needs to run the “A” time at least twice during the next season, or produce a time that ranks in the top three among his countrymen to meet the South African Olympic Committee’s automatic selection criteria. If he fails to do the above the Committee could also select him be on their 4×400 meter relay team.

Whether one believes Pistorius should race with biologically intact men depends on how one feels about a variety of issues ranging from enhancement to the purpose of sport. Leaving this question aside I want to focus here on a broader question: Is Oscar Pistorius the first posthuman and what does this mean for the future of sport?

Philosopher and transhumanist Nick Bostrom defines posthumans as “beings who may have indefinite health-spans, much greater intellectual faculties than any current human being—and perhaps entirely new sensibilities or modalities—as well as the ability to control their own emotions.” While on the surface Pistorius may not seem to have any of these capacities, he still serves as a pioneer on the posthuman frontier.

Until Pistorius qualified for the 2012 Olympics I could never envision asking myself “should I cut off my normal legs and get Cheetah blades so I can run as fast as Oscar?” It sounds crazy right? But this is exactly the kind of question people will start asking if by some miracle Pistorius was to actually medal in London or in 2016 in Rio (he is only 24 years old).

Many who feel Pistorius should be banned from competing fear exactly this line of reasoning. If Pistorius becomes more successful than biologically intact runners there will be committees on committees to determine where to draw the line in terms of allowable technological enhancements. Today we might be talking about tibia/fibula replacements; tomorrow it might be full leg replacements. Eventually, one can envision Olympic competitors becoming more machine than human—seems posthuman after all. But, is posthuman bad? Should sport seek to prevent it?

The Olympic motto Citius, Altius, Fortius Latin for “Faster, Higher, Stronger” is starting to become antiquated. Chuck Klosterman recently pondered: “Is the Fastest Human Ever Already Alive?” In the article, he points out that many have claimed that it is physically impossible for a human to run the 100 meters in under 9.00 seconds. If we are truly reaching the boundaries of natural human talent, how are we to live up to the lofty Olympic motto that drives humans to exceed limits?

The motto points to a human fascination with being better than our current selves and constantly pushing to break barriers that stand in our way. If a natural human body cannot eclipse the 9.00 mark, maybe we should change the rules to allow technological advancements that aid in making one faster. After all, if the advancements are available to everyone it is not as though it would be unfair. It would simply change the nature of sport and how we conceive of it.

One must keep in mind that enhancements, if allowed, would most likely be regulated strictly. For example, a rocket-propelled leg prosthetic allowing sprinters to run 400 meters in 3.00 seconds would not be reasonable. Enhancements would have to be within the virtues (what makes baseball different from football or track & field) of a particular sport and ensure that competitive fairness still existed. There resides an assumption in sport that it will consist of relatively equal players competing over a challenge. Sports that are drastically changed by enhancements could be characterized more as spectacle than legitimate sporting event, and would not replace the our traditional conception of Olympic competition.

Those who fear such changes should remember that posthumans may have artificial parts or enhanced brains, but will still be traditionally human in many ways. Although there are many bilateral-amputees in the world, there is only one Oscar Pistorius for a reason. I cannot help but notice how, after Pistorius reached the “A” level mark and won the race, his biologically intact competitors all congratulated him for the accomplishment and celebrated alongside him.

Other competitors also seem to be accepting of Pistorius. Britain’s fastest active sprinter stated in an ESPN article that he found Pistorius’s blades to be unproblematic: “I’d be a lot angrier if, say, someone who had failed a drugs test beat me…This is his situation: He needs to run with those blades. He can modify things in ways that we can’t, but there’s things we can do that he can’t. So it balances out quite well.”

His drive and commitment to succeed, coupled with an unparalleled work ethic, has allowed him to rise to the top of the sport. It is these values we should treasure more in sport than hard-to-define distinctions between “natural” and “enhanced.” These values will still determine the winners in our posthuman future.

~ Ishan Dasgupta, B.A., is a research program coordinator at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. He is interested in the enhancement of human (and animal) traits and the implications this has for society

Contributors
Ishan Dasgupta