Steroids and Bioengineered Athletes of the Future

Commander Data Showing his Incredible Strength By Bending Steel

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.