5 ms·

Well, it depends what you consider to be "the best". If you have watched the olympics, you can see that different body types are better suited for different spo

Well, it depends what you consider to be "the best". If you have watched the olympics, you can see that different body types are better suited for different sports. A basketball player playing ping pong or viceversa? probably not very successful.

mattnumbe 10y ago
But if that basketball player had super speed and agility, then he would be good at both sports. You're only thinking about what humans are like now. If we could freely add and take away genetic mutations, who knows what kind of freaky immortal animals we'll look like in the future. We may also not care about sports at that point.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- astrodust 10y ago
  Mechanically there's an advantage to shorter limbs for particular sports, that's just how physics works. If a basketball player could be made super-human they might trounce ordinary ping-pong players, but a super-human ping-pong player would destroy them. Plus there's more to these sports than any one aspect. It's never just strength or height or stamina, it's a complex of factors. Finding that optimal even given all the options might be difficult. There's intrinsic trade-offs. For example, there's two kinds of muscle tissue, that better suited to fine motor skills and that suited to brute strength. Most animals are heavily stacked in the latter category, that's why a chimpanzee can tear you in half, but they lack the sorts of fine control that permits us to do things like type with agility and write precisely.
traviswingo 10y ago
I meant things that pertain to longevity - like jellyfish that don't die but simply "restart" their lives, or regeneration. If you look at tardigrades, there is a lot that is possible that we cannot yet do. But yeah, I understand where you're going.
Gustomaximus 10y ago
> Well, it depends what you consider to be "the best". There are clearly traits that are best, bar exceptionally rare scenario e.g. regenerating a lost limb, improved hearing, or improved longevity. So while I understand your analogy will fit some option, it is limiting too assume there will always be a trade off.
- partycoder 10y ago
  Well, we do not regenerate limbs, we just reproduce and make more of ourselves. If one dies then other survive and keep multiplying. Same as with limbs but at a population level.

mattnumbe 10y ago

But if that basketball player had super speed and agility, then he would be good at both sports. You're only thinking about what humans are like now. If we could freely add and take away genetic mutations, who knows what kind of freaky immortal animals we'll look like in the future. We may also not care about sports at that point.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
astrodust 10y ago
Mechanically there's an advantage to shorter limbs for particular sports, that's just how physics works. If a basketball player could be made super-human they might trounce ordinary ping-pong players, but a super-human ping-pong player would destroy them. Plus there's more to these sports than any one aspect. It's never just strength or height or stamina, it's a complex of factors. Finding that optimal even given all the options might be difficult. There's intrinsic trade-offs. For example, there's two kinds of muscle tissue, that better suited to fine motor skills and that suited to brute strength. Most animals are heavily stacked in the latter category, that's why a chimpanzee can tear you in half, but they lack the sorts of fine control that permits us to do things like type with agility and write precisely.

traviswingo 10y ago

I meant things that pertain to longevity - like jellyfish that don't die but simply "restart" their lives, or regeneration. If you look at tardigrades, there is a lot that is possible that we cannot yet do. But yeah, I understand where you're going.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

> Well, it depends what you consider to be "the best". There are clearly traits that are best, bar exceptionally rare scenario e.g. regenerating a lost limb, improved hearing, or improved longevity. So while I understand your analogy will fit some option, it is limiting too assume there will always be a trade off.

partycoder 10y ago
Well, we do not regenerate limbs, we just reproduce and make more of ourselves. If one dies then other survive and keep multiplying. Same as with limbs but at a population level.