You don't have to be a sports fan to be familiar with at least some news concerning the use of performance enhancing drugs. Anabolic steroids used to be the matter, but there are so many banned substances now that aren't steroids that the media uses more appropriate terms like doping, even though steroids likely almost exclusively come to mind in the popular consciousness when there is a scandal. Now being several weeks after the Beijing Olympics, one can read up on all sorts of substance troubles, including horses being given PED's in the Equestrian events (horse doping being nothing new, of course).
I currently don't oppose drug testing in sports for most substances, but I think what started out as a health issue has turned into a moral panic. My very limited knowledge of Endocrinology makes me no authority on the issue, but from what I've read, steroid abuse, even by intelligent, responsible athletes, and done in "cycles" etc., is still quite damaging to one's health, especially when used for an extended period of time. Being an advocate of nearly absolute freedom for the individual in private matters, it is my belief that the use of steroids by those not competing in events hosted by organized sporting organizations, for example, individuals who just want to get buff, should be allowed. I believe my anti-prohibitionist views do not conflict with my acceptance of drug testing in organized, and especially professional, sport. That's because the advantage it gives to those that take these substances encourages, or even forces, other athletes to do the same to remain competitive. In contact sports, such as football or boxing, there is also the issue of overpowered athletes hurting each other because their abilities now unnaturally exceed that which the human body can defend against, for example, a boxer's punch becoming too powerful.
Here's the problem: I think the media, a variety of demagogues, and the ignorant have muddled the health issue with the fairness issue. This leads to the acceptance of a quasi-puritanical ideology that discourages the possibilities of biological improvement through science.
Those who know me are already aware that I am an admirer of David Pearce's Hedonistic Imperative, a rather radical futurist manifesto that proposes the need to "eradicate suffering in all sentient life" when technology will eventually allow it. Much of this entry is influenced by that essay. I won't get into specifics, but reading it will give some insight into my views, though I don't agree with everything Pearce believes. I mention The Hedonistic Imperative because of my desire to discuss sport in a futurist context.
Many futurists predict (within varying time frames) that humans will one day be able to engineer their bodies and the environment to a fantastic level. That means dramatically extending lifespan, instantaneous access to information and communication, and all that good stuff. This would be achieved through research in fields like genetics and bionics. What bioengineering would also allow for is the opportunity to improve our abilities, both physical and mental. It's my belief that no "enhancement" procedure will ever be 100% safe, but the ideal is that, unlike steroids and stimulants, the technologies that we employ in a Transhuman era will have negligible risk.
Imagine then, an athlete wants to be very strong. In the future he or she will be able to take the figurative "safe steroid," whatever wonder that may be. This substance or procedure will, of course, besides being harmless, have no painful or unpleasant side effects. That athlete will then have an advantage over competitors. This is unfair so others follow in his or her footsteps. Soon, the whole league will be full of people with super-human strength. We may currently be living in a world "before the days steroid injections were mandatory," as recollected by Professor Farnsworth in Futurama.
Only something like weight class might still be relevant. Gender doesn't have to be. Sounds like one brave new world doesn't it? And so what? No one's health would be compromised and the spectacle would be phenomenal. But it might never happen.
The problem is the steadfast insistence of some people that we should not tamper with the human condition. People have an obsession with tradition and will consider all its limitations as a positive for no rational reason. This phenomenon can be seen in the bizarre organic movement that has swept much of the earth. It seems many people in the developed world are so spoiled by their prosperity that they reject the very technologies that allow them and others less fortunate to survive and thrive. This regressive mindset is evident in my previous entry about quackery. The psychology behind the anti-technology movement is somewhat complex, and is explained better elsewhere.
Unless Neo-Luddite oppressors will have their way, which I'm very afraid is a real possibility, the advantages of elective bioengineering could be a real option in the future- but maybe not for athletes.
The dogmatic upholding of the "natural" is also what I believe will be responsible for the prospective banning of profound biological improvement in sport, when it becomes available. [On a side note, the issue of improved equipment (like mecha suits) is somewhat different, and I assume that there will be much less resistance to its adoption.]
An example of the confusion of fairness and what I'll call "organic-sport" is sportswriter Jeff Passan's almost comically regretful and cynical article about the anniversary of the 1998 home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, and the effect baseball's steroid scandal has had on its legacy. He talks of "innocence," and "[the] sacred," and how steroids have ruined all this forever. Never once is health mentioned. Maybe he feels that part is obvious. I don't know how Passan would feel about a team of healthy, but bio-enhanced baseball players. The rules of the game would have to change, but that happens all the time anyway. It appears that he is not so much concerned with health as he is with preserving the natural tradition of sport being based on inborn ability and hard work. I for one think it is not a positive that hours of mindless, repetitive, physical exertion should be a necessary, and even rewarding, part of an aspiring athlete's life. If you like to work out all day, fine, but don't force your way of thinking on others; strenuous exercise may one day be replaced by artificial fitness, the underlying biological mechanism of which will be no different.
Assuming that safe bioengineering becomes available to the masses, it should also be available to athletes. However, there may be fans and pundits in the future who, while benefiting from the newest bioengineering technology themselves, would insist that all pro and semi-pro sport remain an anachronistic spectacle of the original Homo sapiens. Athletes should not be treated differently than those in any other profession. It's true that sport is, to a certain extent, about personalities, and a kind of primitive mythical heroism, but let's not get naive; sport is foremost a game. Adults should be mature and civilized enough not to buy into an illusion to the point of idolism. Considering how physically injurious almost all sports are, it seems fans care less about the health of their beloved athletes, and much more about the possibility of them "cheating," (in the unnatural biological improvement sense). If they are all bioengineered super athletes, and they are also healthy, there should be no problem. Of course, it might turn out to be impossible to test future athletes to see if they are Transhumans. If so, then all this is moot.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Number One Rule of Quackery
Honest medical doctors have more in common with quacks than they might think. Popular culture has it that doctors take a vow of "do no harm," a familiar part of the Hippocratic Oath. Smart quacks, the ones that don't get into trouble with the law that is, are wise to take a different oath: "Do nothing."
Quackwatch is one of those wonderful sites on the Internet that I would call "one of the good guys." These are sites that try to counter the Pandora's Box of misinformation created by the Internet by giving people a good starting point from which to find the truth. As you've always been told: don't trust only one source. People of the rational persuasion always try to reference several sources before coming to a conclusion. These "good guy" sites themselves recommend critical research instead of assuring visitors that they have the truth. A good example is Snopes, which put up a few light-hearted hoaxes to remind folks of the importance of not relying on a god-truth. [A quick note: I don't link Snopes because they have a lot of annoying ads.]
That said, Quackwatch is a great place to find out if an "alternative" treatment for an illness has legitimate scientific grounding, or belongs on Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Two weeks ago, I read an article on Quackwatch about some so-called "Black Salves." These are corrosive topical treatments given by "Alternative Medicine" practitioners to sufferers of all sorts of skin tumors, especially on the face. Here is a link to the article, but I warn the squeamish out there; it contains a couple of gory pictures. For the rest of us, it's an interesting glimpse at folk medicine gone horribly wrong. Anyway, the story goes (there are a couple actually) that a woman with a bump on her nose was given medicinal paste by some dude, and soon after, much of her face was destroyed.
Here is a quote from the article: "...she developed red streaks that ran down her cheeks. ...the naturopath brought the explanation that the presence of the lines was a good sign because they 'resemble a crab, and cancer is a crab'." My first thought when reading this was that the paste contained sodium hydroxide or lye, a chemical base that is corrosive on the skin (think Fight Club). The injury created then became infected by bacteria (the red streaks) and much of her face had to be debrided. Further research indicates that the alkaloid found in bloodroot (in the salve) acts on ion pumps on cell membranes in such a way as to make the stuff necrotoxic.
It is unclear whether this naturopath was penalized in any way, but there are mentions in the article of several practioners who were punished in similar cases. They went to jail (or got fines, etc.) because it was proven in court that they marketed their products as medicine rather than drain cleaner. True quacks after all have to lure patients, or else they would be out of work.
These quacks failed because they claimed their products had medicinal properties. In some quackery cases that have gone to court, patients, such as cancer sufferers, stopped chemotherapy and radiation, and relied strictly on these alternative healers. Some good examples are cases involving something called a Rife Machine. From my very limited legal understanding, if I give a chainsaw to you, and you cut off your arm, I'm only guilty if I told you it would cure your hangnail. If I implied it, we enter a gray zone full disclaimers and references to 19th century scientists. I don't believe in a nanny state, so I favor a buyer beware argument: an ignorant person should be allowed to make bad, even fatal, choices as long as they aren't being grossly deceived. I think that is an issue I disagree on with Quackwatch, but, anyway, that's all beside the point.
The "Do nothing" approach to quackery is what I'm trying to describe here. I had an exemplary experience of this at a New York City street fair. An Asian man in a suit and tie was selling, for lack of a better description, a set of electric dildoes with an instructional DVD. I mention that he was Asian (Chinese, if I remember correctly) because he would frequently cite this ethnic identity, and Eastern heritage in general, during his sales pitch. He would approach passersby, ask them if they had pain in their life, and, in his words, "fix any problem in ten seconds." His claim was that his devices contained "special magnets" that could be activated on exact pressure points to cure all sorts of ills, especially musculoskeletal strains and pain. I was around for a while during this street fair so I got to see him work. Many people sat down and let him practice his therapy. Some recipients of his treatment claimed that they felt outright nothing. Others politely left after the experience. I noticed that most fairgoers rolled their eyes at the spectacle, and many laughed. He was unfazed throughout, and you know what, many people bought his modified sex toys. Did I mention they were more than $150 dollars for a set? Of course, this man was, again from my legal understanding, doing something illegal. He enthusiastically claimed that his product could treat and cure disease, something that would get him in trouble with the FDA. Working street fairs is a good way of weaseling through such complications, but he might get in trouble if he goes big time. The point of the story is that his devices are simply vibrating knick-knacks; his customers have no chance of harming themselves. They will just get no relief or possibly benefit from a placebo effect. Their skin won't get burned and they won't turn purple. The worst that can happen is if they poke themselves in the eye. Considering our litigious society today, I wouldn't be surprised if the packaging came with a warning of the possibility of such a mishap. As long as the alternative therapy in question has no biological effect, the quack is in the clear.
Real medicine doesn't have the luxury of pure placebo effect, mystical magic auras, and allusions to "thousands of years of use." Drugs and surgeries will always have side effects, and severe ones in a select few individuals. That's how anatomy works. Futurists can only ponder when science will finally surpass this hurdle of improbable disaster.
Holistic medicine-men preparing to profit off the desperate and ignorant would do well to put only purified mud in their products. That way, nobody's face will get burnt off, and nobody's tumor will be healed.
Quackwatch is one of those wonderful sites on the Internet that I would call "one of the good guys." These are sites that try to counter the Pandora's Box of misinformation created by the Internet by giving people a good starting point from which to find the truth. As you've always been told: don't trust only one source. People of the rational persuasion always try to reference several sources before coming to a conclusion. These "good guy" sites themselves recommend critical research instead of assuring visitors that they have the truth. A good example is Snopes, which put up a few light-hearted hoaxes to remind folks of the importance of not relying on a god-truth. [A quick note: I don't link Snopes because they have a lot of annoying ads.]
That said, Quackwatch is a great place to find out if an "alternative" treatment for an illness has legitimate scientific grounding, or belongs on Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Two weeks ago, I read an article on Quackwatch about some so-called "Black Salves." These are corrosive topical treatments given by "Alternative Medicine" practitioners to sufferers of all sorts of skin tumors, especially on the face. Here is a link to the article, but I warn the squeamish out there; it contains a couple of gory pictures. For the rest of us, it's an interesting glimpse at folk medicine gone horribly wrong. Anyway, the story goes (there are a couple actually) that a woman with a bump on her nose was given medicinal paste by some dude, and soon after, much of her face was destroyed.
Here is a quote from the article: "...she developed red streaks that ran down her cheeks. ...the naturopath brought the explanation that the presence of the lines was a good sign because they 'resemble a crab, and cancer is a crab'." My first thought when reading this was that the paste contained sodium hydroxide or lye, a chemical base that is corrosive on the skin (think Fight Club). The injury created then became infected by bacteria (the red streaks) and much of her face had to be debrided. Further research indicates that the alkaloid found in bloodroot (in the salve) acts on ion pumps on cell membranes in such a way as to make the stuff necrotoxic.
It is unclear whether this naturopath was penalized in any way, but there are mentions in the article of several practioners who were punished in similar cases. They went to jail (or got fines, etc.) because it was proven in court that they marketed their products as medicine rather than drain cleaner. True quacks after all have to lure patients, or else they would be out of work.
These quacks failed because they claimed their products had medicinal properties. In some quackery cases that have gone to court, patients, such as cancer sufferers, stopped chemotherapy and radiation, and relied strictly on these alternative healers. Some good examples are cases involving something called a Rife Machine. From my very limited legal understanding, if I give a chainsaw to you, and you cut off your arm, I'm only guilty if I told you it would cure your hangnail. If I implied it, we enter a gray zone full disclaimers and references to 19th century scientists. I don't believe in a nanny state, so I favor a buyer beware argument: an ignorant person should be allowed to make bad, even fatal, choices as long as they aren't being grossly deceived. I think that is an issue I disagree on with Quackwatch, but, anyway, that's all beside the point.
The "Do nothing" approach to quackery is what I'm trying to describe here. I had an exemplary experience of this at a New York City street fair. An Asian man in a suit and tie was selling, for lack of a better description, a set of electric dildoes with an instructional DVD. I mention that he was Asian (Chinese, if I remember correctly) because he would frequently cite this ethnic identity, and Eastern heritage in general, during his sales pitch. He would approach passersby, ask them if they had pain in their life, and, in his words, "fix any problem in ten seconds." His claim was that his devices contained "special magnets" that could be activated on exact pressure points to cure all sorts of ills, especially musculoskeletal strains and pain. I was around for a while during this street fair so I got to see him work. Many people sat down and let him practice his therapy. Some recipients of his treatment claimed that they felt outright nothing. Others politely left after the experience. I noticed that most fairgoers rolled their eyes at the spectacle, and many laughed. He was unfazed throughout, and you know what, many people bought his modified sex toys. Did I mention they were more than $150 dollars for a set? Of course, this man was, again from my legal understanding, doing something illegal. He enthusiastically claimed that his product could treat and cure disease, something that would get him in trouble with the FDA. Working street fairs is a good way of weaseling through such complications, but he might get in trouble if he goes big time. The point of the story is that his devices are simply vibrating knick-knacks; his customers have no chance of harming themselves. They will just get no relief or possibly benefit from a placebo effect. Their skin won't get burned and they won't turn purple. The worst that can happen is if they poke themselves in the eye. Considering our litigious society today, I wouldn't be surprised if the packaging came with a warning of the possibility of such a mishap. As long as the alternative therapy in question has no biological effect, the quack is in the clear.
Real medicine doesn't have the luxury of pure placebo effect, mystical magic auras, and allusions to "thousands of years of use." Drugs and surgeries will always have side effects, and severe ones in a select few individuals. That's how anatomy works. Futurists can only ponder when science will finally surpass this hurdle of improbable disaster.
Holistic medicine-men preparing to profit off the desperate and ignorant would do well to put only purified mud in their products. That way, nobody's face will get burnt off, and nobody's tumor will be healed.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Why "Critical Articles?"
Why did I choose the phrase Critical Articles as my blog's name? It might sound a little odd at first. You may think that it's too broad, generic, or dull of a name. Maybe it conveys an academic or journalistic feel that isn't consistent with what I am trying to do. Well, few things are perfect, but I know I picked the best one.
The title of the blog had to have a matching Internet domain (e.g., .com, .net). This saves people the trouble of typing in or saying the dots when accessing sites hosted on services like Blogger or MySpace. Moreover, it feels great owning a little plot of land on the World Wide Web, even if it is an illusion. "CriticalArticles.com" was already taken, which is why I use the cool sounding .ORG domain. The .com version is an ad site based in the Bahamas. In the unlikely event you will ever repeat the domain "CriticalArticles.org" to an acquaintance, remember to emphasize the .org domain. Anyway, the insignificant downsides of the name are defeated by all the wonderful positives. For one thing, I like generic and dull names. Second, I didn't want to invent words or use obscure ones like Lycos or google, respectively. There is a prospective problem, though: people who don't speak English may not understand the meaning of the name. That's not a big deal, however, because my entries will be written in English anyway. What about translator software? I can only read one language, so I performed an experiment just now. I copy-and-pasted something from the Alitalia website into Babelfish for an Italian to English translation. What I got back was understandable, to a certain extent, but a stranded airline passenger would have no idea what to do if he or she read it on a bright red sign in Palermo International. Conversely, an Italian reader may likely have a hard time reading my site. I welcome non-English-speaking readers, but I had to make a choice.
A short while after thinking up "CriticalArticles.org", I discovered that it sounds alliterative to my ear. Pleasing sounding language, including, in my opinion, alliteration, is almost always preferable. Since my blog theme is quite general, the name couldn't be something like "LighterCollector" or "SciFiMovieReviews". Using my name in the title wouldn't work either; "Miky'sThoughts" has no meaning at all. It's not a terrible option, but I think it works best for celebrities and the like. Through such elimination, I came up with the name. As it turns out, "CriticalArticles.org" is pretty appropriate. What I will be writing here is, for the most part, critical writing. I will analyze an issue and come away with a conclusion or question. The word critical has other meanings too. It can mean unfavorable, for example, a critical person who always finds faults in situations. Critical can also mean, according to dictionary.com, something very important or dangerous; Imagine fiery activists writing blogs regarding some grave injustices that they feel everyone out there should know about as soon as possible. I will try to keep problems that critical out of my blog, but I find the idea a little amusing. As for the "articles" part, that's clear; the entries I post are articles of a sort. ...And there you have the explanation.
The title of the blog had to have a matching Internet domain (e.g., .com, .net). This saves people the trouble of typing in or saying the dots when accessing sites hosted on services like Blogger or MySpace. Moreover, it feels great owning a little plot of land on the World Wide Web, even if it is an illusion. "CriticalArticles.com" was already taken, which is why I use the cool sounding .ORG domain. The .com version is an ad site based in the Bahamas. In the unlikely event you will ever repeat the domain "CriticalArticles.org" to an acquaintance, remember to emphasize the .org domain. Anyway, the insignificant downsides of the name are defeated by all the wonderful positives. For one thing, I like generic and dull names. Second, I didn't want to invent words or use obscure ones like Lycos or google, respectively. There is a prospective problem, though: people who don't speak English may not understand the meaning of the name. That's not a big deal, however, because my entries will be written in English anyway. What about translator software? I can only read one language, so I performed an experiment just now. I copy-and-pasted something from the Alitalia website into Babelfish for an Italian to English translation. What I got back was understandable, to a certain extent, but a stranded airline passenger would have no idea what to do if he or she read it on a bright red sign in Palermo International. Conversely, an Italian reader may likely have a hard time reading my site. I welcome non-English-speaking readers, but I had to make a choice.
A short while after thinking up "CriticalArticles.org", I discovered that it sounds alliterative to my ear. Pleasing sounding language, including, in my opinion, alliteration, is almost always preferable. Since my blog theme is quite general, the name couldn't be something like "LighterCollector" or "SciFiMovieReviews". Using my name in the title wouldn't work either; "Miky'sThoughts" has no meaning at all. It's not a terrible option, but I think it works best for celebrities and the like. Through such elimination, I came up with the name. As it turns out, "CriticalArticles.org" is pretty appropriate. What I will be writing here is, for the most part, critical writing. I will analyze an issue and come away with a conclusion or question. The word critical has other meanings too. It can mean unfavorable, for example, a critical person who always finds faults in situations. Critical can also mean, according to dictionary.com, something very important or dangerous; Imagine fiery activists writing blogs regarding some grave injustices that they feel everyone out there should know about as soon as possible. I will try to keep problems that critical out of my blog, but I find the idea a little amusing. As for the "articles" part, that's clear; the entries I post are articles of a sort. ...And there you have the explanation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
