Would it even be worth it to try policing superheroes?

[Purple]

Because we could always argue that in theory, instead of hiring Radiation Man to clean up around Chernobyl, we could hire a crew of 100,000 highly trained radiation workers with heavy equipment specially designed for the job that just happens to not exist yet. If we were willing to spend enough billions we probably could do the job... but it is grossly uneconomical to do so.

You are connecting two different things that do not connect. I do not see why you insist on doing so. But I really can not reply to you in any meaningful way if you are going to insist on connecting the completely separate. I can not correct the error in a math problem that assumes apples and oranges add up.

So, one, where do you draw the line for legal purposes?

The same way we drew all the other lines like for example legal age of consent, drinking age, voting age, maximum blood alcohol level for driving etc. We pick an arbitrary number and go with it. This is not complicated at all.

At which point a character with inborn superpowers may reasonably argue that you're discriminating against them. Because you're willing to let a sorceror who studied under Merlin lift HVAC units to the roofs of buildings, but you're not willing to let the Masked Levitator who was born with telekinesis do it. The effect on the economy is the same either way

Than these people need to shut up and learn that just because they were born inherently superior to base humans they do not get more rights in society than those base humans. And they most certainly do not get the right to through their superiority impede on the rights of a myriad of others. The needs of the many some times mean the few have to suck it up.

[Crazedwraith]

I was going to say there was an inconsistency, in your position Purple. We should register superhumans because of course that's not discriminatory. But letting them work would be discriminatory against unpowered people and that's like totally racism.

Further though allows me to realise you're entirely consistent and your position is 'screw those who were born with more power than me'

Which is a position I'm entirely capable of believing of you.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly with Purple it's "screw everyone who isn't me."

Because we could always argue that in theory, instead of hiring Radiation Man to clean up around Chernobyl, we could hire a crew of 100,000 highly trained radiation workers with heavy equipment specially designed for the job that just happens to not exist yet. If we were willing to spend enough billions we probably could do the job... but it is grossly uneconomical to do so.

You are connecting two different things that do not connect. I do not see why you insist on doing so. But I really can not reply to you in any meaningful way if you are going to insist on connecting the completely separate. I can not correct the error in a math problem that assumes apples and oranges add up.

What two things?

It's a fundamental economic reality. There are boundless lists of things that could happen if there were a way to do them cheaply and efficiently. And yet those things don't happen, or can't be done on the same scale, if the only way to make them happen is through inefficient and expensive use of labor or resources.

So, one, where do you draw the line for legal purposes?

The same way we drew all the other lines like for example legal age of consent, drinking age, voting age, maximum blood alcohol level for driving etc. We pick an arbitrary number and go with it. This is not complicated at all.

That works for "you must be this tall to enter." Doesn't work for "you must displace this many jobs to be acting illegally." How do you count the workers? At what salary?

Suppose you employ a metahuman to dig ditches with her dirt-manipulating powers. For purposes of calculating the number of 'jobs lost,' do you compare to how much labor would have been needed if the ditch had been dug by men with shovels? Or to the number of 'jobs lost' compared to digging the ditch with a backhoe? What if, in ten years, someone invents an automatic backhoe that digs ditches without human involvement? Would you then compare the metahuman to the zero jobs lost by using the automatic backhoe? Or would you sue the inventor of the automatic backhoe under the same law that you'd sue the metahuman under?

At which point a character with inborn superpowers may reasonably argue that you're discriminating against them. Because you're willing to let a sorceror who studied under Merlin lift HVAC units to the roofs of buildings, but you're not willing to let the Masked Levitator who was born with telekinesis do it. The effect on the economy is the same either way

Than these people need to shut up and learn that just because they were born inherently superior to base humans they do not get more rights in society than those base humans. And they most certainly do not get the right to through their superiority impede on the rights of a myriad of others. The needs of the many some times mean the few have to suck it up.

Are you arguing that the average human has a right to employment regardless of whether other people have skills that make their job redundant?

If so, why wouldn't that rule also apply to people whose jobs are made redundant by someone else's learned skill? A lot of professional scribes were driven out of work when the average citizen learned how to read and write. Or by advancing technology? A lot of buggy whip manufacturers went out of business after the automobile was invented. Or by automation? Can gas station attendants sue the manufacturer of the self-serve fuel pump?

[Purple]

What two things?

Because when writing legislation designed to prevent a group of people from displacing others in the workplace you are (hopefully) going to do so in such a way that it only applies to situations when that would actually happen.

Seriously. Like do you write drunk driving laws to apply to situations when a person is not driving?

Are you arguing that the average human has a right to employment regardless of whether other people have skills that make their job redundant?

If those skills are genetically appointed by no merit of their own yes, absolutely.

[Purple]

I was going to say there was an inconsistency, in your position Purple. We should register superhumans because of course that's not discriminatory. But letting them work would be discriminatory against unpowered people and that's like totally racism.

1. Registration is not inherently bad. End of story. Anyone who claims otherwise is a paranoid anarchist.
2. It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people to the effect of denying them the right to through their actions do harm to a vast number of other people.

Further though allows me to realise you're entirely consistent and your position is 'screw those who were born with more power than me'

Actually it's "screw the individual for the benefit of the greater society." I am you see a collectivist at heart. That is why I see no issue with registration laws for anything, mandatory education, vaccination etc. It's part of being what you would call a socialist.

From my perspective it is you lot who want society to bend over backwards to accommodate the odd individual superhero at the expense of everyone else.

[Crazedwraith]

I was going to say there was an inconsistency, in your position Purple. We should register superhumans because of course that's not discriminatory. But letting them work would be discriminatory against unpowered people and that's like totally racism.

1. Registration is not inherently bad. End of story. Anyone who claims otherwise is a paranoid anarchist.
2. It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people to the effect of denying them the right to through their actions do harm to a vast number of other people.

You explicitly made the claim that being powered or unpowered is like being a particular nationality or race and thus hiring a superhuman instead of a human (or multiple humans) is thus bad the same way racism is. You said that.

Do you not see that making superhumans register and not hiring them because they are superhuman is by the exact same logic akin to racism? Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of registration. That is the point.

Further though allows me to realise you're entirely consistent and your position is 'screw those who were born with more power than me'

Actually it's "screw the individual for the benefit of the greater society." I am you see a collectivist at heart. That is why I see no issue with registration laws for anything, mandatory education, vaccination etc. It's part of being what you would call a socialist.

From my perspective it is you lot who want society to bend over backwards to accommodate the odd individual superhero at the expense of everyone else.

[/quote]
If there is only an 'odd individual superhuman' they can't possibly be displacing enough of the work force to require legislation. And if they are, they on a god level tiering of powers you can't enforce it anyway.

Additionally even if you say people can't hire a superhuman instead of x humans. Are you then going to stop a superhuman self-employing themselves in that field? Going to ban people from hiring them? How many rights and priviledges are you going to have to restrict to make this work?

[Broomstick]

Purple is ignoring the fact there are already people possessing inborn talent or ability beyond the norm and that there are already are fields of employment where you have to be such a person to be hired. There aren't a lot of such jobs, but it would be stupid NOT to employ those able to do them.

Likewise, at our present state of technology it would be silly NOT to employ Kryptonian Man to lift stuff into orbit or to a moon base because his unique (or nearly so) talents make it so damn much easier and cheaper and safer to do it that way that overall society benefits. Rocketry jobs displaced will be more than made up for by opportunities to work on space stations or moon bases.

You'd also be shooting yourself in the foot if you don't allow supers some form of employment. If you discriminate against them you only make it more likely they'll turn to crime to support themselves.

[Adam Reynolds]

At least he is consistent. He has said the same thing about real life computer programmers forming a union to prevent automation from taking away their jobs(as they mostly work to take away jobs from others).

[Simon_Jester]

What two things?

Because when writing legislation designed to prevent a group of people from displacing others in the workplace you are (hopefully) going to do so in such a way that it only applies to situations when that would actually happen.

Seriously. Like do you write drunk driving laws to apply to situations when a person is not driving?

Fool!

You write laws to ban specific, definable things. You have to be able to clearly delineate exactly what the illegal thing is that you want to ban, and how you are going to measure the harm inflicted. In the case of "displaced jobs," you cannot consistently measure the harm inflicted.

Remember the question I asked, which you completely failed to address, about the case of a soil-manipulating metahuman being hired to dig ditches? I'll repeat it.

For purposes of measuring the harm caused by 'displaced jobs' caused by such a metahuman, what is our standard of comparison? Do we compare the metahuman to the thousand men with shovels it would take to dig the ditches by hand? Or to the ten of people it would take to dig the ditches with a few backhoes?

And if we choose to do the latter, then why doesn't consistency require us to ban the backhoes from being used because they "take the jobs" of 990 shovel-wielding laborers?

Stop evading those questions.

Are you arguing that the average human has a right to employment regardless of whether other people have skills that make their job redundant?

If those skills are genetically appointed by no merit of their own yes, absolutely.

Should athletic organizations be barred from hiring people whose genes make them stronger or taller or quicker? Should modeling agencies be barred from hiring people whose genetics make them prettier and therefore a better chase of display dummies for clothing? Should research organizations be barred from hiring people whose genetics make their brains more effective at collating and organizing information?

And if you DO argue that the average human has a right to employment protected by law from anyone who is genetically better suited to do the job...

...Why don't you support protecting jobs from the advance of technology, or from the spread of learned skills the way professional typists went away when everyone learned how to type?

How is it that only skills I am born with are a thing you deserve to be protected from?

[Purple]

Since everyone is saying the same argument and thsi guy is wording it in the most easy to reply format I'll just reply to that. My time is short.

Remember the question I asked, which you completely failed to address, about the case of a soil-manipulating metahuman being hired to dig ditches? I'll repeat it.

Can a soil-manipulating metahuman being hired to dig ditches? Only if by doing it he does not displace more than an arbitrary amount of unionized construction workers.

For purposes of measuring the harm caused by 'displaced jobs' caused by such a metahuman, what is our standard of comparison? Do we compare the metahuman to the thousand men with shovels it would take to dig the ditches by hand? Or to the ten of people it would take to dig the ditches with a few backhoes?

We set the standard for base human labor at "how many jobs does it take in a comparable company that does not have access to trench-dig-man". Again, easy as pie. Especially since in most cases the situation would be such that there would be a direct correlation between this guy getting hired and those workers being fired immediately before or after the event.

And if we choose to do the latter, then why doesn't consistency require us to ban the backhoes from being used because they "take the jobs" of 990 shovel-wielding laborers?

Don't be an idiot.

Stop evading those questions.

I am not evading anything. You are just trying to force logical consistency for the sake of consistency even if it destroys the entire point of the argument in question. I had a rant about this a few months back on this forum no less. Rules need to be made for maximum benefit and not maximum consistency.

Should athletic organizations ...

No. Just like NASA should not be banned from hiring Superman to fly stuff up to the ISS. He would only be displacing rocket fuel. And, if you will permit the metaphor rocket fuel can't vote against me next election.

[Simon_Jester]

For purposes of measuring the harm caused by 'displaced jobs' caused by such a metahuman, what is our standard of comparison? Do we compare the metahuman to the thousand men with shovels it would take to dig the ditches by hand? Or to the ten of people it would take to dig the ditches with a few backhoes?

We set the standard for base human labor at "how many jobs does it take in a comparable company that does not have access to trench-dig-man". Again, easy as pie. Especially since in most cases the situation would be such that there would be a direct correlation between this guy getting hired and those workers being fired immediately before or after the event.

So how exactly do we legally define "X jobs in a comparable company" in a rigorous way?

And how can you depend on the assumption that a company will fire all their normal workers right before or right after this point? What about a start-up company that never hired normal workers and never relied on them, because it was using Dirt-Juggling Girl from the very beginning? What about a company that keeps up its conventional ditch-digging operations for years, and simply expands its operating capability? What if Dirt-Juggling Girl herself owns a startup company that employs only herself? What if an existing corporation starts a new ditch-digging line only after hiring Dirt-Juggling Girl?

In all these cases, it's hard or impossible to say "fifty men lost their jobs because of Dirt-Juggling Girl."

And if we choose to do the latter, then why doesn't consistency require us to ban the backhoes from being used because they "take the jobs" of 990 shovel-wielding laborers?

Don't be an idiot.

How is that any more idiotic than your idea? Backhoes are a much greater threat to the jobs of ditch-diggers than one particular company hiring Dirt-Juggling Girl. If we can legislate to ban people from 'destroying jobs' by doing the work of 100 people, why can't we legislate to ban things from destroying jobs? Does a machine have more rights than a metahuman, or more freedom to violate my rights than a metahuman?

You're evading the question.

Stop evading those questions.

I am not evading anything. You are just trying to force logical consistency for the sake of consistency even if it destroys the entire point of the argument in question. I had a rant about this a few months back on this forum no less. Rules need to be made for maximum benefit and not maximum consistency.

Laws need to be consistent because otherwise they are likely to be challenged and shot down as unconstitutional, Purple.

Laws also need to be consistent so that the public will have reason to believe they are fair, and will respect them.

People don't make laws randomly. They don't make laws to be whimsical. Laws are written according to principles, and the principles have to stay the same from day to day. Otherwise the long term result is a breakdown of the legal system.

Should athletic organizations ...

No. Just like NASA should not be banned from hiring Superman to fly stuff up to the ISS. He would only be displacing rocket fuel. And, if you will permit the metaphor rocket fuel can't vote against me next election.

Are you kidding me? Building and launching booster rockets is a large industry. Each rocket costs tens of millions, and much of that money goes into the salaries of people who build rockets. If Superman starts doing the rockets' job, he removes the incentive to hire anyone to build rockets.

Sometimes I can't fathom your lack of perspective. Do you even know basic information about how society works?

[Purple]

So how exactly do we legally define "X jobs in a comparable company" in a rigorous way?

That's a job for panel of people with a degree in law.

And how can you depend on the assumption that a company will fire all their normal workers right before or right after this point? What about a start-up company that never hired normal workers and never relied on them, because it was using Dirt-Juggling Girl from the very beginning? What about a company that keeps up its conventional ditch-digging operations for years, and simply expands its operating capability? What if Dirt-Juggling Girl herself owns a startup company that employs only herself? What if an existing corporation starts a new ditch-digging line only after hiring Dirt-Juggling Girl?

That's ok than I guess. Really at this point you are bugging me about the technical details of what is a very broad idea. It's like I am proposing we construct a new type of internal combustion engine and you are asking me about the exact steel to use on the screw that holds the radiator housing in place.

You're evading the question.

I am not. You are just asking a very stupid question and ignoring the simple and obvious answer.
Can we ban machines from taking jobs away? Sure.
Should we? Nope.
Does that in any way relate to us banning these guys from taking jobs away? Nope. Not in a million years. Just like banning apples does not relate to if we ban oranges.

Laws need to be consistent because otherwise they are likely to be challenged and shot down as unconstitutional, Purple.

Constitutionality has nothing to do with consistency. It has to do with not violating the constitution of what ever country the law is made in. Thus unless the constitution is explicitly violated by the law it is constitutionally fine.

Laws also need to be consistent so that the public will have reason to believe they are fair, and will respect them.

Not really. If you want people to think a law is fair it has to be set up to benefit them and fit into what ever morality system the general populace has going on this week. That is why back when say homosexuality was banned everyone still thought it was fair and respected it. Than times changed and suddenly those laws were no longer fair and had to go.

People don't make laws randomly. They don't make laws to be whimsical. Laws are written according to principles, and the principles have to stay the same from day to day. Otherwise the long term result is a breakdown of the legal system.

Laws are written to promote and ensure the welfare of the society they are written for and not to uphold some lofty set of principals. In the most basic of terms laws are game rules for the game of "society" designed to make said game fun for everyone.

Are you kidding me? Building and launching booster rockets is a large industry. Each rocket costs tens of millions, and much of that money goes into the salaries of people who build rockets. If Superman starts doing the rockets' job, he removes the incentive to hire anyone to build rockets.

Those people are however supremely qualified to move into supporting Superman in his endeavors by designing better cargo for him to lift, rockets to with his assistance reach where neither could separately etc. It's a lateral shift rather than an outright loss. The later really only happens with an unqualified work force like laborers, construction workers etc.

[Broomstick]

So how exactly do we legally define "X jobs in a comparable company" in a rigorous way?

That's a job for panel of people with a degree in law.

How does having a law degree qualify someone for making that sort of decision? Seems to me more compatible with someone with a background in statistics, sociology, and labor.

Do you have any clue how the world actually works?

Laws need to be consistent because otherwise they are likely to be challenged and shot down as unconstitutional, Purple.

Constitutionality has nothing to do with consistency. It has to do with not violating the constitution of what ever country the law is made in. Thus unless the constitution is explicitly violated by the law it is constitutionally fine.

So you're a strict constructionist? No, Purple, at least in the US laws do not have to explicitly violate the constitution to be found unconstitutional, as supported by 200+ years of decisions by the US Supreme Court.

Are you kidding me? Building and launching booster rockets is a large industry. Each rocket costs tens of millions, and much of that money goes into the salaries of people who build rockets. If Superman starts doing the rockets' job, he removes the incentive to hire anyone to build rockets.

Those people are however supremely qualified to move into supporting Superman in his endeavors by designing better cargo for him to lift, rockets to with his assistance reach where neither could separately etc. It's a lateral shift rather than an outright loss. The later really only happens with an unqualified work force like laborers, construction workers etc.

Why do you assume ditch-diggers aren't "supremely qualified" to move into some other construction or labor industry? Perhaps they could move into doing landscaping work, or bricklaying.

And by throwing "construction workers" into the mix of "unqualified" workers you display your ignorance of the number of such jobs that, in fact, require certification, licensing, or proof of having undergone an apprenticeship program.

How about you shut the fuck up about things about which are clearly ignorant?

[biostem]

Should athletic organizations be barred from hiring people whose genes make them stronger or taller or quicker? Should modeling agencies be barred from hiring people whose genetics make them prettier and therefore a better chase of display dummies for clothing? Should research organizations be barred from hiring people whose genetics make their brains more effective at collating and organizing information?

I just want to chime in here and say that there would need to be some sort of definition as to what constitutes "normal" in order to determine how laws are enacted. Imagine that there was a drug that you need only take once, and it doubled your strength. Now, for someone with some condition that prevents normal muscle development, i think we can agree that this would be great and should be used readily. Now, imagine if an olympic-level power lifter took this drug - he or she could become a real problem, if they decided to compete or simply got into an altercation with someone.

Similarly, a person who can run 100MPH competing in any sort of race or foot-powered sport would have a huge and unfair advantage. Obviously, unless these super abilities were tied to some identifiable genetic marker or something, then the smart metahumans would simply reign in their powers to be just good enough to compete on a professional level, but some would likely flaunt it. And, if these superpowered individuals were common, there'd always be a degree of suspicion - so such people would have to work to assume the appearance of someone who could pull off the kind of feats they've accomplished, (so no Speed from Sky High competing in the 100M dash).

On the flip side, I don't envision such super powered individuals being numerous enough to actually endanger entire fields of employment; Sure, Superman could life tremendous payloads into orbit, but there's no guarantee that he won't have to put off a job in order to quench some fire halfway around the world. And while this hypothetical "ditch-digging man" may be able to do in a minute what would take a bulldozer several hours, he still can only work one job at a time. The only time you may run into a problem is, again, when you start to get to the upper levels of power, in which case, they will pretty much do whatever they want, so your best bet is to try and negotiate some deal, (perhaps "ditch-digging-and-duplicating man" can be persuaded to only send out a handful of his duplicates, in exchange for a nice salary and/or the threat of being brought up on some charge of unfair business practices or some such).

[Purple]

If there is any way of repeatedly and reliably inducing superpowers through a safe process that causes no significant ill effects and produces the same results each time than it would be bad to keep it from the general populace. In fact (assuming this product is affordable to the common man and not super expensive), under those conditions laws should be written with the expectation that such products will be used (like vaccines) and that (like vaccines) not doing so is a willing choice toward your own detriment.

[Simon_Jester]

Purple has demonstrated that he is too stupid to be worth talking to, because he does not value logical consistency and, as Broomstick notes, does not understand how real things work, including basically every field he does not work in personally, especially law.

Biostem, your point is interesting- you're right that for this type of law, like any other, you need a working, legally actionable definition of 'superhuman.'

[jwl]

Should athletic organizations be barred from hiring people whose genes make them stronger or taller or quicker? Should modeling agencies be barred from hiring people whose genetics make them prettier and therefore a better chase of display dummies for clothing? Should research organizations be barred from hiring people whose genetics make their brains more effective at collating and organizing information?

I just want to chime in here and say that there would need to be some sort of definition as to what constitutes "normal" in order to determine how laws are enacted. Imagine that there was a drug that you need only take once, and it doubled your strength. Now, for someone with some condition that prevents normal muscle development, i think we can agree that this would be great and should be used readily. Now, imagine if an olympic-level power lifter took this drug - he or she could become a real problem, if they decided to compete or simply got into an altercation with someone.

Similarly, a person who can run 100MPH competing in any sort of race or foot-powered sport would have a huge and unfair advantage. Obviously, unless these super abilities were tied to some identifiable genetic marker or something, then the smart metahumans would simply reign in their powers to be just good enough to compete on a professional level, but some would likely flaunt it. And, if these superpowered individuals were common, there'd always be a degree of suspicion - so such people would have to work to assume the appearance of someone who could pull off the kind of feats they've accomplished, (so no Speed from Sky High competing in the 100M dash).

On the flip side, I don't envision such super powered individuals being numerous enough to actually endanger entire fields of employment; Sure, Superman could life tremendous payloads into orbit, but there's no guarantee that he won't have to put off a job in order to quench some fire halfway around the world. And while this hypothetical "ditch-digging man" may be able to do in a minute what would take a bulldozer several hours, he still can only work one job at a time. The only time you may run into a problem is, again, when you start to get to the upper levels of power, in which case, they will pretty much do whatever they want, so your best bet is to try and negotiate some deal, (perhaps "ditch-digging-and-duplicating man" can be persuaded to only send out a handful of his duplicates, in exchange for a nice salary and/or the threat of being brought up on some charge of unfair business practices or some such).

That drug would already be banned under existing anti-doping rules.

Of course if you had someone with super-speed that would give him an advantage which isn't taken care of with existing rules: but there is a precedent of those kind of rules: you have male- and female- only sports, and weight classes in boxing and such. although what you said again is explored in The Incredibles.

[Elheru Aran]

Biostem, your point is interesting- you're right that for this type of law, like any other, you need a working, legally actionable definition of 'superhuman.'

A distinction would certainly need to be drawn between peak-human (say an Olympic athlete, or Batman) and those that have greater capabilities. Take Captain America for example-- he's (probably) stronger than Batman, quite possibly more physically durable and slightly faster... but does he actually count as superhuman, or are his powers *plausibly* achievable by a standard human in good condition? If it could be demonstrated that it could not be done without the Super-Soldier serum, then yes, he qualifies as superhuman. Along those lines, if a magical pill was created to give people, say, 2x strength or whatever, then people who took that pill would also be considered 'superhuman' IMO.

Basically-- my definition of superhuman would be someone outside the peak of human physical capability, who achieved their strength through either artificial measures, accident, or simply being born with it. Obviously, having capabilities that normal humans have no way in hell of having (optic blasts, telekinesis, flight, etc) would qualify one as superhuman. Wolverine qualifies as superhuman given his Adamantium skeleton/claws and healing factor ('artificial measures' and 'being born with it', for two), if you want an example. Midnighter, from The Authority, also qualifies given his physical and mental augmentations.

[Simon_Jester]

That drug [which doubles human strength] would already be banned under existing anti-doping rules.

Yes- but we can easily imagine a society in which this treatment (not really a drug in the classic sense, because you only need to take it once and it works forever) has become relatively common. At some point, it would become inevitable that popular sports would emerge in which use of the treatment was normal. It might start with the... less regulated... sports. Say, professional wrestling, which is a bizarre cross between sport and theater.

But eventually it would become accepted. Because the advantages of taking it are so dramatic that almost the only reason not to take it is if you personally have a bad reaction to it, or if you're hoping to have a career in a sport where use of it is banned. In which case we might find ourselves in an ironic situation, where professional athletes are weaklings compared to amateur athletes who've taken the strength-doubler.

Eventually, the increase in human strength would become normative. I mean, modern athletes are already faster/stronger/better than the athletes of the early 20th century; our strongmen can lift more than theirs, our record-setting track stars run farther. The population as a whole is in many ways healthier, stronger in stature, more free of chronic illness and disease than would have been the case a century ago. We take for granted that the average adult is biologically immune to many diseases that killed millions in the past. We could be doing even better if we just implemented what we already know about medicine, nutrition, and exercise across the entire population.

I see no reason to assume that this trend won't continue into the future, especially in a comic-book setting where there is basically no upper limit on just how advanced and capable technology can become and science can achieve results indistinguishable from magic.

[jwl]

That drug [which doubles human strength] would already be banned under existing anti-doping rules.

Yes- but we can easily imagine a society in which this treatment (not really a drug in the classic sense, because you only need to take it once and it works forever) has become relatively common. At some point, it would become inevitable that popular sports would emerge in which use of the treatment was normal. It might start with the... less regulated... sports. Say, professional wrestling, which is a bizarre cross between sport and theater.

But eventually it would become accepted. Because the advantages of taking it are so dramatic that almost the only reason not to take it is if you personally have a bad reaction to it, or if you're hoping to have a career in a sport where use of it is banned. In which case we might find ourselves in an ironic situation, where professional athletes are weaklings compared to amateur athletes who've taken the strength-doubler.

Eventually, the increase in human strength would become normative. I mean, modern athletes are already faster/stronger/better than the athletes of the early 20th century; our strongmen can lift more than theirs, our record-setting track stars run farther. The population as a whole is in many ways healthier, stronger in stature, more free of chronic illness and disease than would have been the case a century ago. We take for granted that the average adult is biologically immune to many diseases that killed millions in the past. We could be doing even better if we just implemented what we already know about medicine, nutrition, and exercise across the entire population.

I see no reason to assume that this trend won't continue into the future, especially in a comic-book setting where there is basically no upper limit on just how advanced and capable technology can become and science can achieve results indistinguishable from magic.

Many kinds of asthma inhalers are already banned under anti-doping laws (because increasing breathing capacity obviously gives you an advantage in sport), and what that shows to me is that doping rules don't care how widespread the treatment is, you can't use it because that's the rules. Also, look at say the paralympics. Motorised wheelchairs are quite common these days but you don't see people using them in wheelchair rugby.

[Simon_Jester]

It's easy to ban an asthma inhaler because there aren't that many asthmatic athletes to begin with, so singling them out for a screwing-over is easy.

If a strength-doubler treatment becomes widespread, it's harder to do this because you're excluding more people. A ban may last some time but it won't last forever. Rules that are only in place "because it's the rules" never last forever.