Should The Blade Runner Compete In the Olympics? July 29, 2012Posted by Metabiological in Transhumanism.
Tags: Blade Runner, Olympics, Oscar Pistorius, sport, transhumanism
add a comment
As you have no doubt heard by know Oscar Pistorius, the South African 400 meter runner who also happens to be a double leg amputee who runs on a pair of specially designed prosthetics, will be competing in the 2012 Olympics against able-bodied athletes. To say that this story has caused some controversy would be an understatement (though it hasn’t exploded the way I though it might) and if nothing else it raises some interesting questions about fairness and the use of technology in sports. As such I’d like to take a moment to break down some of the arguments for and against his inclusion and see what we can learn about our (changing?) views.
1: His prosthetics give him an unfair advantage.
This is probably the most common criticism brought out. The idea is that because his legs are specially designed for running they must offer him an advantage over plain old flesh and blood runners. Unfortunately a review of the evidence finds either no support for this idea or contradictory. Studies have shown that he uses less energy to run because of the lower weight of his legs, that due to their design he is not able to grip the track as well as other runners and so on. The problem is that due to Pistorius having prosthetics since he was young we have no way of comparing his running before and after.
An interesting side note is that with the degree of technological enhancement already present in the Olympics Pistorius question mark shapped prosthetics aren’t actually that strange. Think about it. Swimmers wear specially designed swim suits modeled after sharkskin. Discuss’s, javelins and other field equipment is constantly being redesigned for greater or lesser performance. Even other runners run on rubberized tracks using specially designed shoes with cleats on just one side. Technological enhancement is no new thing to the Olympics and unless we decide to go back to the days of naked athletes it is here to stay.
2: He shouldn’t compete because he’s disabled and the Olympics are for able-bodied athletes
Ironically this rather superficial argument is actually one of the stronger ones against Pistorius competing. The Olympics are defined by the rules of the IOC as a competition between able-bodied athletes and since Pistorius does not fit that description he should not be allowed to compete. If you think that sounds like a completely arbitrary rule then you would be correct but that it fact is the source of it’s strength. The rules of sport are and always have been completely arbitrary. Why aren’t you allowed to use you hands in soccer? Because then it wouldn’t be soccer. Shouts of unfairness from the other side of the debate are often met with the argument that there already exists a competition format for athletes like Pistorius in the Paralympics. This leads to a rather more interesting argument…
3: He shouldn’t compete because he already competes in the Paralympics.
Not only has he competed in the Paralympics but he will be competing in them this year after he runs in the Olympics (incidentally, both games are held at the safe venue this year). If Pistorius is able to jump back and forth between them it begs the question of what the purpose is of having the Paralympics in the first place. This is also a decently strong argument and again it rests on definitions; the Paralympics is defined as an event for disabled athletes while the Olympics is for non-disabled athletes. If Olympic athletes are banned from competing in the Paralympics, which they are, then it stands to reason that the ban should apply visa versa as well.
Why I think this question is more interesting is that it raises the possibility of other specialist athletic events in the future. If prosthetics are determined to give runners an unfair advantage and if the solution is to ensure they have a field in which they can compete against other similarly enhanced athletes then what of the possibility of a competition for gene-enhanced athletes. Or for that matter, drug enhanced athletes. All joking aside this could be the solution to the problem of doping in sports though of course problems would still exist with ensuring that enhanced athletes do not compete in non-enhanced events (something which already happens today.)
So we come to the end with two rather strong if completely arbitrary reasons for excluding the Blade Runner from the Olympics. To be honest I didn’t expect to find myself in this position when I first started writing the piece being the technophile that I am. I love Oscar Pistorius and his story. I think what he is doing is not only a testament to the vision of transhumanism but more importantly to the very Olympic spirit that many feel, quite strongly, he is transgressing.
That’s probably the most interesting part of this story. Reading through the comments of various articles it’s hard not to notice an undercurrent of fear running through many of the negative remarks. The idea that a man with no legs can, with the help of technology, out do not only most of the average shlubs of the world but actually compete and challenge the best that baseline humanity has to offer is downright threatening to a lot of people. It not only calls into question our (rather outdated in my opinion) notions of the purity of sport and the values of achieving greatness through nothing but hard work and determination but also challenges our view of the Olympics as a demonstration of the pinnacle of human athletic achievment. Will we someday watch the Paralympics to see the fastest or strongest human? The day is coming sooner than you think.
World’s First Cybernetic Hate Crime July 18, 2012Posted by Metabiological in Transhumanism.
Tags: augmented reality, cyborg, Steve Mann, transhumanism
add a comment
That’s how it was described by i09 at least.
Steve Mann, the “father of wearable computing,” has been physically assaulted while visiting a McDonalds in Paris, France.
The Canadian university professor was at the restaurant with his family when three different McDonalds employees took exception to his “Digital Eye Glass” device and attempted to forcibly remove it from his head. Mann was then physically removed from the store by the employees, along with having his support documentation destroyed.
This may be the first ever recorded assault of a person instigated by the prominent display of a Google Glass-like wearable computer.
This story has been out there for several days now so rather than give a recap I’d like to offer some thoughts.
Firstly, though it seems unclear whether the motivation for this crime was the headset’s camera ability, the fact that it looked very odd or simply that Parisian McDonalds workers are particularly violent the incident raises the troubling issue of what privacy really means in a world where these kind of devices become widespread. The actual issue is not so much that he had the ability to tape them as today anyone with a phone can do the same thing but rather that he was taping them. Think about it, walk around with you cell phone out recording everythin you see and you will no doubt recieve angry responses from many people (just ask some local police departments).
The problem is that, as is often the case, our technology has outstripped our societies ability to integrate that technology harmoniously with our current social order. We are largely obeying social rules that originated in an era where the idea that anyone could be filming you at any time was unthinkable. As there is no going back to the days before the ubiquity of cheap and small video taping technology we are left with the difficult task of adjusting to a world in which old rules of privacy no longer apply.
The good news, and for the record I do think the spread of this sort of technology is ultimately a good thing, is that the ground work for this change is already in place. In public place (at least in America) people already understand at least implicitly that they have no expectation of privacy. In certain countries such as the UK people in large urban areas are being monitored largely from the moment they leave their homes. While there are of course concerns with the level of monitoring by the government it has largely been implemented without major pushback and of course everyone accepts being on camera while on private property without question.
The strange irony for detractors of the eye piece recorders and other miniature recording devices is that they are arguably the only thing capable of leveling the currently slanted playing field. If our choices are between a world in which those who hold the reins of power watch us at every moment and a world in which we can watch them back I know which one I will choose. We may have to give up a little of our privacy but we will retain a greater share of our freedoms.
Secondly, there is the question of whether these sorts of attacks will become more widespread as augmented reality technology does. I actually don’t have much fear of that. As more and more people adopt augmented reality glasses and as the glasses become less Borgish the shock of seeing someone wearing them will disappear as well. That in combination with it’s obvious potential as the next great advance in social media almost assure it a welcome place among my generation. The privacy concerns will remain but the stigma of being a “cyborg” will not.
That being said, and this is final point I want to make, it is telling that in reading comments on the story a large percentage of posters have noted the “weird” appearnce of the headset. Though mostly these have been relatively innocuous in a few cases it has been used a justification for the assualt (i.e. if he didn’t want to be thrown out he shouldn’t have provoked them wearing the glasses). This line of thinking is troubling and the fact that so many still have a negative gut reaction to what we might call obvious cyborgization leads me to add a caveat to the previous paragraph. People will accept new technologies as long as they do not challange their preconceived values and cross the invisible line between “technology as an extension of humanity” and “technologies as a replacement/alteration of humanity.” Storing excess information on a harddrive, or in books for that matter, is fine. Enhancing your memory by installing a usb port in your brain is not. Of course such old ideas inevitebly change with the march of time, few today would join Socrates in condemning the written word, but it is a long and often painful process.
What we have witnessed here may be the beginning of that pain.
Tags: bioethics, diabetes, medicine, transhumanism
add a comment
Unintended consequences have led to some of the greatest advances in modern medicine (just look at penicilin). Well know we may be able to add the name Metformin to the list of We Didn’t Expect This To Happen But It’s Still Awesome.
A drug commonly used to control Type 2 diabetes can help trigger stem cells to produce new brain cells, providing hope of a potential means to treat brain injuries and even neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, researchers say.
A study by scientists at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children found the drug metformin helps activate the mechanism that signals stem cells to generate neurons and other brain cells.
Researchers started by adding metformin to stem cells from the brains of mice, then repeated the experiment with human brain stem cells generated in the lab. In both cases, the stem cells gave rise to new brain cells.
They then tested the drug in lab mice and found that those given daily doses of metformin for two or three weeks had increased brain cell growth and outperformed rodents not given the drug in learning and memory tasks.
One standard test involves a water maze in which the mice must swim around until they locate a hidden platform.
“And the remarkable thing is the mice that got the metformin, what they showed was increased flexibility in terms of the way they learned the location of things,” said Miller, explaining that the drug-treated mice had a greater ability to learn and remember.
There are two main things I like about this. Firstly, this is further evidence of Metformin shaping up to be a wonder drug. In addition to it’s main use as a highyl effective treatment for diabetes and this new evidence of it’s use as nootropic it may also protect against cancer and heart disease and do all of this without any serious side effects (with the ever important caveat that no drug is truly safe).
More importantly for me is what this does to the debate over human enhancement. A common tactic on the anti-enhancement side is to set up a rather arbitrary line between medicine (bringing a person back to a “healthy state”) and enhancement (improving a person’s abilities beyond their “healthy state”). This is mainly done to get around the problem of having to condemn enhancement technologies as being unnatural while at the same time supporting all the other wonderful unnatural things that modern technology has brought us. The argument usually looks something like this: It is wrong to enhance human abilities because to do so would alter the human condition, something which is desireable to maintain. Medicine, while not in itself natural, is acceptable as long as it does not alter our basic humanity by enhancing our abilities beyond what is natural.
Others have pointed out the numerous problems with this line of reasoning so I will only draw attention to two points. The first is the difficulty involved in defining what is natural. Is it the state a person is in at that point in time? Is it what is average for a member of the population or species? Is it species typical functioning? If we gave a drug to an 80 year old that returned their physique to that of their 20 year old self would that constitute enhancement since their “natural state” is that of a senior citizen? If we raised someone’s intelligence higher but not beyond what is typical for humans would that constitute enhancement? There are far more of these which I will not list here but you get the idea.
The other thing I wanted to point out is the problem of unintended consequences. A common retort to the medicine/enhancement argument is that given a person with a serious condition and a drug which can cure it but will also enhance that persons abilities it would seem to forbid us from treating said person with said drug. This puts defenders of the position in a bit of a quagmire, having to refuse to (potentially) save a person’s life because it might cross their imaginary boundary. To my knowledge this argument has been entirely theoretical.
I look forward to Leon Kass telling diabetics to stop taking their life saving and life improving enhancements.
Rapamycin: Potential Cognitive Enhancer July 1, 2012Posted by Metabiological in Longevity, Transhumanism.
Tags: human enhancement, intelligence, medicine, rapamycin, science, TOR
add a comment
Rapamycin has been seeing a lot of attention as a possible inhibitor of aging. First isolated as a bacterial product from Easter Island (yes, that one) it has consistently proven to be one of the most exciting drugs in the anti-aging field. How big is it? The protein it affects is officialy known as mTOR or mammalian Target Of Rapamycin. TOR incidentaly has also been implcated in the positive effects of fasting on human health and the breakdown and reapsorbtion of old organelles during cellular “housekeeping”.
Now, researchers have discovered another potential benefit of rapamycins use.
“We made the young ones learn, and remember what they learned, better than what is normal,” said Veronica Galvan, Ph.D., assistant professor of physiology at the Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies, part of the UT Health Science Center. “Among the older mice, the ones fed with a diet including rapamycin actually showed an improvement, negating the normal decline that you see in these functions with age.” The drug also lowered anxiety and depressive-like behavior in the mice, Dr. Galvan said.
Mice are burrowers that prefer tunnels with walls. To observe behavior, Halloran used an elevated maze of tunnels that led to a catwalk. “All of a sudden the mice are in open space,” Halloran said. “It’s pretty far from the floor for their size, sort of like if a person is hiking and suddenly the trail gets steep. It’s pretty far down and not so comfortable.”
Mice with less anxiety were more curious to explore the catwalk. “We observed that the mice fed with a diet containing rapamycin spent significantly more time out in the open arms of the catwalk than the animals fed with a regular diet,” Halloran said.
The second test measured depressive-like behavior in the rodents. Mice do not like to be held by their tails, which is the way they are moved from cage to cage. Inevitably they struggle to find a way out. “So we can measure how much and how often they struggle as a measure of the motivation they have to get out of an uncomfortable situation,” Dr. Galvan said.
The fact that this improved cognition in young as well as old mice as well as the mood related effects suggests this isn’t a reversal of age related decline one might expect from an anti-aging drug but rather something different going on. Either way keep an eye on rapamycin. It’s shaping up to be something special.