So I just watched Bigger, Stronger, Faster, a documentary about performance enhancing drugs in America. It got me thinking (thinking enough to write in this blog after a long break).
America has encountered 'performance' (I use that term loosely) enhancers in various areas of life. Let's tackle the question of just why this is by answering it topic by topic
- In sports: anabolic steroids were used by Barry Bonds to achieve so called Baseball Immortality; erythropoietin (EPO) was used by cyclists in the Tour de France for years to endure the three brutal weeks of hell - Floyd Landis was buried in debt - drugs got him out);
- In school: Adderall - the so called "study drug" used by students to focus and get there work done.
- In cosmetics: Botox and the rest of the drug line up to make people look twenty years younger than they really are; this applies to both men and women.
Drugs in SPORTS: Let's begin by discussing performance enhancers in sports. Anabolic steroids - is the supposed dangerous side-effect the only thing that separates steroids from other body-building supplements? Let's say steroids didn't have such a bad side-effect, should it still be illegal? Because guess what, there are legal drugs out there that have way worse side-effects than anabolic steroids (just listen carefully to those drug commercials: "side effects may include but are not limited to: drowsiness, headache, soreness, liver cancer, heart disease and death" - ok, you get the point. Just like any drug, it must be used appropriately.
Steroids' stance in society is a rather interesting one: its illegality in league sports (which is 100% legitimate) is being superimposed outside of sports - why can't the average joe who wants to reach that 250 lb. bench press mark get some help? After all, look at all those weight loss products on the market. I think the reason why we tend to superimpose the illegality of certain drugs in sports onto 'regular' life is because of America's strong ties to sports. Us Americans, whether it's Monday night football or the July Fourth hot dog eating contest, take our sport competitions seriously. Taking drugs illegally in sports is cheating - once drugs like anabolic steroids are associated with cheating in sports, it will be associated with cheating outside of sports.
Furthermore, we live in a culture where sports figures are idolized -what message does it send when athletes are doping?
Just imagine the U.S. was obsessed with Beauty Pageants like it is obsessed with sports; kids all over America looked up to them like they look up to Babe Ruth. And in this imaginary U.S., beauty pageants ban certain cosmetic drugs. Would we be surprised to find those banned cosmetic drugs illegal America? I don't think so - it's very similar to the anabolic steroid case.
On another note:
Youtube video accusing cyclist Cancellara of 'Mechanical Doping'
Basically, because of this video and this new fear that has come with cycling, officials will be testing for this 'mechanical doping' in the Tour de France.
Just like steroids, officials at the Tour clearly have a right to say that rigging a bike is illegal. But can the government say you can't rig your own bike at home when you ride in the local park? What's the difference between this mechanical and biological doping? Is it just the side-effect issue? Can't be since I've already shown that the steroid side-effects aren't worse than other easily attainable legal drugs...Food for thought...
Ok, now for the next topic.. Drugs in SCHOOL: This is a very intense issue, because it brings up a fundamental question in ethics which may impede future scientific progress. You will see what I mean in a moment.
First off, we all know that students in schools are using drugs to get them better grades - and you know what? It's working. I was watching 60 Minutes and they showed this poll of students who took these drugs - I cannot recall the exact numbers but basically, a majority of students believed that taking certain drugs like Adderall had increased their GPA by a full letter grade, others thought it increased it by two letter grades (I guess they were at least C students to begin with...). And these drugs are readily prescribed by doctors for ADHD and the like - it is easy to get a hold of them and students don't seem to have any major side-effects.
Now let's say if these drugs were improved and scientists developed a pill that made people do significantly better on a wide range of academic tests. Is that a good thing? After all, the more Einstein's the better...right? Well, that is a blog post for another day.
Drugs in COSMETICS: This is fairly simple, and it reveals a reason why performance enhancing drugs exist in schools and sports. People use drugs that improve there looks because they don't think they look good enough - insecurity issues I'd presume (that's pretty obvious). People take drugs in sports and school because they aren't happy with there performance.
It seems that we are just never satisfied with the way we are. Now, I don't me to suggest that you shouldn't try to be the best you can be - as an endurance triathlete who spends several hours a week training I would be the first to say that it's a phenomenal goal to try to be your best. But the point is to be your best, not you+your artificial substances' best.
I think many would agree that this insecurity issue stems from pop-culture.
In sports we look at Bonds thinking he is perfect (when he is juiced) and try to be like him though you cannot.
In school we look at the 100 point grade system and think that 100 as a perfect score is universal, when in reality your best score may be a 87 - and that is perfect for you (which is debatable, I am of the opinion that everyone can attain 100, in general tests aren't so 'biased' that only 'smart' people can get 100's). Or you look at your friend who always pulls an A+, but guess what you are not your friend.
In cosmetics we look at model photos (who are caked in makeup, and digitally enhanced) and assume that is the perfect look.
-All these things that we think are perfect are really NOT perfect, they are fake.
Each person has there own level of perfection - we must stop looking around and instead look within to reach the highest level of personal satisfaction and excellency.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Update: Reflections on being "Selfless"
I think all along I missed something critical.
Yes, it might be in our DNA to selfless, and though that may be selfish in itself, the definition of selfish that I have pinned to the word is so broad that anything that one does would be selfish; that is because I made it as if humans do not have free-will. Therefore, if humans are 'programed' to be selfish than that is all they can be. We are simply robots programed to do as their genes do.
I am sure most people would not take that as the definition of the human being - people like to view the human being as a person that can do what it wishes, that can 'go against' its 'selfish' nature. That is precisely why I would assume many find my previous post controversial.
Throughout my argument in the previous post I made certain suppositions that most people would not agree with; but they are suppositions that nonetheless I find hard to disprove using logic.
That, regardless, is a topic that I will perhaps touch upon in the future.
But suppose it is in our gene's to be selfless (i.e. it is selfish to be selfless) than would that mean that humans by nature are good? For if it weren't true, if selflessness were not part of our nature, than would man be evil?
Perhaps that is the core of the argument:
There are those who think man by nature is evil because he is selfish
There are those who think man by nature is good because he is inherently selfless.
Yes, it might be in our DNA to selfless, and though that may be selfish in itself, the definition of selfish that I have pinned to the word is so broad that anything that one does would be selfish; that is because I made it as if humans do not have free-will. Therefore, if humans are 'programed' to be selfish than that is all they can be. We are simply robots programed to do as their genes do.
I am sure most people would not take that as the definition of the human being - people like to view the human being as a person that can do what it wishes, that can 'go against' its 'selfish' nature. That is precisely why I would assume many find my previous post controversial.
Throughout my argument in the previous post I made certain suppositions that most people would not agree with; but they are suppositions that nonetheless I find hard to disprove using logic.
That, regardless, is a topic that I will perhaps touch upon in the future.
But suppose it is in our gene's to be selfless (i.e. it is selfish to be selfless) than would that mean that humans by nature are good? For if it weren't true, if selflessness were not part of our nature, than would man be evil?
Perhaps that is the core of the argument:
There are those who think man by nature is evil because he is selfish
There are those who think man by nature is good because he is inherently selfless.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Reflections on being "Selfless"
Us humans are motivated by our own needs, wants and desires. Can we do things purely for the sake of a third party?
When we do a good deed, why are we doing it? Is it possible to do something for a purpose unrelated to oneself?
If I help an old lady across the street, am I doing it for the old lady? Or am I doing it so I will feel good afterwards because I did a nice deed?
Adam Smith (as told in his book, The Wealth of Nations) believed that in an economy, when humans follow their own interests, everyone else benefits (that's where the whole "invisible hand" theory comes into play). Does that apply to everything else in life?
Can humans do things against their own interests? I'm not so sure. It may be built into our evolutionary DNA to act selfish for survival tactics. That would mean acting selflessly would be going against human nature....
Perhaps it is selfish to act selflessly; the selfless action just manifested in a selfish biology.
So a few days ago I was in Wallgreens and I overheard a man with a very heavy accent asking people where the "French cologne" was. I approached the man and directed him to the cosmetics and perfume department; no employee was stationed there so I asked a cashier if she could get someone to help this man out. I waited just to make sure someone was coming. After 15 minutes and a few more requests from the cashier, someone finally came. Turns out there they had no French cologne, and this man was adamant on only having French-made cologne/perfume. I asked him "Why only French?" He replied that he was from Haiti, and he wanted to remember his French-cultured childhood. (I presume that the recent earthquake may have been the impetus for the visit to the store.)
So as the man and I both parted ways, I felt sad that this man was unable to get his product. I searched on my phone web-browser for a place where I could find French cosmetics. I found an appropriate store, and then I ran out of Wallgreens, found the man about 20 feet away from the entrance, approached him and let him know the phone number of the store and where it was located.
And that was that. And you know what? I felt really good about myself after doing that deed.
----Ok, know you may be wondering why I just told you that whole story. As I approached the man at first, was I really consciously saying "I will help him so I will feel good after"? I do not believe so.
But was it subconscious? Possibly...
Someone told me: religion may be the only thing that we do for selfless reasons. Interesting point, yet if one holds that religion itself is for selfish reasons (to prevent the feeling of insecurity...and I will hopefully have a post on that concept and religion in the coming days) than this does not hold true.
But I see a silver lining (and a big one at that) in this very dim outlook on human nature.
Perhaps it is in our DNA to be selfless, and humans, by nature, desire to do selfless acts.
Why? maybe because when someone does a selfless act, they feel that they become part of something greater than the cells that currently comprise their body - they become something bigger, something greater.
-Now isn't that selfish also? (As it is masking up certain insecurities of feeling not important.) Possibly. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because that would mean that humans, by nature, have the desire to be selfless.
When we do a good deed, why are we doing it? Is it possible to do something for a purpose unrelated to oneself?
If I help an old lady across the street, am I doing it for the old lady? Or am I doing it so I will feel good afterwards because I did a nice deed?
Adam Smith (as told in his book, The Wealth of Nations) believed that in an economy, when humans follow their own interests, everyone else benefits (that's where the whole "invisible hand" theory comes into play). Does that apply to everything else in life?
Can humans do things against their own interests? I'm not so sure. It may be built into our evolutionary DNA to act selfish for survival tactics. That would mean acting selflessly would be going against human nature....
Perhaps it is selfish to act selflessly; the selfless action just manifested in a selfish biology.
So a few days ago I was in Wallgreens and I overheard a man with a very heavy accent asking people where the "French cologne" was. I approached the man and directed him to the cosmetics and perfume department; no employee was stationed there so I asked a cashier if she could get someone to help this man out. I waited just to make sure someone was coming. After 15 minutes and a few more requests from the cashier, someone finally came. Turns out there they had no French cologne, and this man was adamant on only having French-made cologne/perfume. I asked him "Why only French?" He replied that he was from Haiti, and he wanted to remember his French-cultured childhood. (I presume that the recent earthquake may have been the impetus for the visit to the store.)
So as the man and I both parted ways, I felt sad that this man was unable to get his product. I searched on my phone web-browser for a place where I could find French cosmetics. I found an appropriate store, and then I ran out of Wallgreens, found the man about 20 feet away from the entrance, approached him and let him know the phone number of the store and where it was located.
And that was that. And you know what? I felt really good about myself after doing that deed.
----Ok, know you may be wondering why I just told you that whole story. As I approached the man at first, was I really consciously saying "I will help him so I will feel good after"? I do not believe so.
But was it subconscious? Possibly...
Someone told me: religion may be the only thing that we do for selfless reasons. Interesting point, yet if one holds that religion itself is for selfish reasons (to prevent the feeling of insecurity...and I will hopefully have a post on that concept and religion in the coming days) than this does not hold true.
But I see a silver lining (and a big one at that) in this very dim outlook on human nature.
Perhaps it is in our DNA to be selfless, and humans, by nature, desire to do selfless acts.
Why? maybe because when someone does a selfless act, they feel that they become part of something greater than the cells that currently comprise their body - they become something bigger, something greater.
-Now isn't that selfish also? (As it is masking up certain insecurities of feeling not important.) Possibly. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because that would mean that humans, by nature, have the desire to be selfless.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Progress and Abnormality - A Love Story
Most people would agree that being normal is a good thing. Society (the majority of citizens) after all, consist of normal people - why would someone yearn to be anything more than normal?
Though many people look at abnormalities as a bad thing. However, they are, more often than not, not bad at all. Einstein and Confucius were abnormal as were Gandhi and Beethoven. When one conforms to society’s norms, progress ceases. Progress is, by definition, a deviant act.
Following up on my previous blog post regarding history and change, if everyone acts normally then change will halt - and history will repeat itself.
To act abnormally is to break the shackles that bind one to society’s standards; it is in this act that people exhibit true freedom. If truth is to be found outside the boundaries of society, then one has the duty as a rational being to cross those borders.
Now, I want to just note that one can deviate from the norm and make society regress and not progress...
Do what is right, don't go down conventional paths, for it will be because of you that society puts one step forward.
Will We Ever Learn? – A brief investigation on whether the human race can learn from its mistakes.
“History repeats itself”. The quote has been used enough times to make me wonder: just why? Why does history repeat itself? Is it inevitable?
The first thing that must be examined is whether the human race, as a whole, can change. We know that humans, as individuals, can change, but does that mean that the human race as a whole changes? Not necessarily. For example, just because a machine is made of lightweight parts, it does not mean that the sum of the parts (the machine) is lightweight. A machine made up of 1,000 one pound parts would be pretty heavy (this line of logic has a special name, though the name eludes me).
This reasoning, however, would not apply if we were able to say that humans, as individuals, share the same properties as the human race. If such were the case, then, hypothetically, we would be able to say that the human race can change. I just have a problem with that rationale. Humans change within their lifespan, and once a human dies, his/her ‘changes’ are lost in the dust of his/her coffin – so once a whole generation dies, their ‘changes’ would be lost to humanity…There is one thing, however, that can prevent the human race from forgetting these changes…what’s that you ask? History.
Yes, you guessed right, the only way to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself is to learn about history itself. (I’m sure many of you thought about that conclusion already, I just thought giving my own little explanation on how to get there would be a bit interesting). I will remind you, however, that the answer depends on whether a human race as a whole can change.
The aforementioned answer, I presume, also sheds light onto why history is recorded at all. Do we record our generation’s history for our own sake? Or for future generations? Trick question. We record history for our own sake, but our ‘sake’ is rooted in the future generation.
What do I mean by that? Well most humans (and I would argue it is part of human nature to) desire immortality, or at the very least, have that immortality manifested in ‘our mark on the world’. Now, if individual humans are similar to the human race (as I spoke about earlier) then the human race will also crave that desire for immortality –aka to make a mark on the world. History provides the means for leaving one’s mark on the world.
Generations record history to leave their mark on the world (which, of course, would include their changes). By recording history they affect subsequent generations.
Out of the human race’s ‘selfish gene’ for immortality, we learn from our mistakes and progress (change) is made.
The first thing that must be examined is whether the human race, as a whole, can change. We know that humans, as individuals, can change, but does that mean that the human race as a whole changes? Not necessarily. For example, just because a machine is made of lightweight parts, it does not mean that the sum of the parts (the machine) is lightweight. A machine made up of 1,000 one pound parts would be pretty heavy (this line of logic has a special name, though the name eludes me).
This reasoning, however, would not apply if we were able to say that humans, as individuals, share the same properties as the human race. If such were the case, then, hypothetically, we would be able to say that the human race can change. I just have a problem with that rationale. Humans change within their lifespan, and once a human dies, his/her ‘changes’ are lost in the dust of his/her coffin – so once a whole generation dies, their ‘changes’ would be lost to humanity…There is one thing, however, that can prevent the human race from forgetting these changes…what’s that you ask? History.
Yes, you guessed right, the only way to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself is to learn about history itself. (I’m sure many of you thought about that conclusion already, I just thought giving my own little explanation on how to get there would be a bit interesting). I will remind you, however, that the answer depends on whether a human race as a whole can change.
The aforementioned answer, I presume, also sheds light onto why history is recorded at all. Do we record our generation’s history for our own sake? Or for future generations? Trick question. We record history for our own sake, but our ‘sake’ is rooted in the future generation.
What do I mean by that? Well most humans (and I would argue it is part of human nature to) desire immortality, or at the very least, have that immortality manifested in ‘our mark on the world’. Now, if individual humans are similar to the human race (as I spoke about earlier) then the human race will also crave that desire for immortality –aka to make a mark on the world. History provides the means for leaving one’s mark on the world.
Generations record history to leave their mark on the world (which, of course, would include their changes). By recording history they affect subsequent generations.
Out of the human race’s ‘selfish gene’ for immortality, we learn from our mistakes and progress (change) is made.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
A Human Clone?...A New World Era?...
The year was 1997 and the birth of “Dolly”, the first mammal clone (it was a female sheep). Since then, scientists as well as laypeople have wondered: Does that mean we can clone humans?
Well we first might ask: why even bother with human cloning? What are the benefits? The first thing that comes to my mind involves the thing that humans try to avoid most. No, not your ex, but death.
Take this scenario: A newly-wed has their first child. At 3 months old the baby falls out of his/her carriage and dies on impact. Had human cloning technology been available, the baby might be able to be ‘reborn’, as some sort of twin.
But is it really that easy? No. Cloning technology is still in its infancy. Currently, only 1%-2% of cloning experiments produce viable offspring. Out of that small percent, 30% of the offspring develop some sort of disability. Experimenting with human cloning would mean killing numerous human embryos in the process. For those who believe life begins at conception, that would be considered murder. For those who believe otherwise, I guess they’d be ok with that.
Ok, so that’s that. Now let’s say that we, hypothetically, understood how to clone a human perfectly. Imagine what that would mean for our society…With genetic modification technology becoming more precise – who knows? Will we be cloning ‘perfect’ humans? What value will life have then?... This also reminds me of the movie The Island – needless to say, the movie is not a comedy…
I think we may be entering a new age of time. There will be those who believe science that should advance at any cost; and then there will be those who are afraid of what advancements in science may hold...
Saturday, February 6, 2010
On an Inquiry of Prison Systems
The field of neurology is quite new, and it has brought some astounding discoveries.
We now know that a person's self control/will power is largely determined by his/her prefrontal cortex.
"Weak interconnections between the prefrontal cortex and the rest of the brain have also been observed in criminals, sociopaths, drug addicts, and schizophrenics."
A quick story to illustrate:
The perfect 4.0 GPA valedictorian at "X" University one day goes on a shooting spree and kills 6 people. An MRI reveals a tumor in the prefrontal cortex. What do we do?
Can we punish someone born with (or who involuntarily acquired) a "disability"? Maybe prisons should just be medical facilities?...
We all know about the horror that occurs in many prison systems. Is that really the way to treat someone who possibly belongs in a hospital?
All this begs the question: Are you at fault for your biological nature (even childhood nurture)?
But suppose then that the weak prefrontal cortex in criminals is due to a refusal to exercise control, and not an involuntary disability; what then?
It seems to be a paradox/self referential problem that will ultimately lead to the denial of free-will . If we believe in plasticity and the ability to willfully change, that would imply that 'you' do control your brain, and not the other way around - but how would that be possible if the nature of our brains control us? As that clearly implies that there is no free will...
So it's like you can't have it both ways, either:
A) the nature of our brains do not control us and plasticity allows us to change willfully.
B) the nature of our brains do control us and the only way we change our brains is by self-correcting mechanisms already in place in the brain, and not from willful change...
So who controls who? Am I my brain? Or something more?
The answer to these questions will provide us with knowledge on whether prison systems are a legitimate moral institution.The advent of neurobiology may be the death-blow to the current prison system. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that neuroscience will just reaffirm age-old beliefs on human nature. We will just have to wait and see...
Though regardless of what neuroscience will tell us, something must change in the prison system. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, it costs $55.09/day (about $20,108/year) to keep an inmate incarcerated. Though a medical facility may be more expensive, if the inmate is 'cured' (for lack of a better term) they can be incorporated into American society and contribute to the economy, not just suck money out of it.
I understand there are already makeshift medical facilities in prisons, but they do not work.
"650,000 people are released from the nation’s prisons every year... Two-thirds of those who come out of prison are rearrested within three years of release."
Reform is needed. It is not only the right the to do, but it will help make society safer and make our economy grow stronger.
We live in the 21st century. It is time for the prison system to catch up.
We now know that a person's self control/will power is largely determined by his/her prefrontal cortex.
"Weak interconnections between the prefrontal cortex and the rest of the brain have also been observed in criminals, sociopaths, drug addicts, and schizophrenics."
A quick story to illustrate:
The perfect 4.0 GPA valedictorian at "X" University one day goes on a shooting spree and kills 6 people. An MRI reveals a tumor in the prefrontal cortex. What do we do?
Can we punish someone born with (or who involuntarily acquired) a "disability"? Maybe prisons should just be medical facilities?...
We all know about the horror that occurs in many prison systems. Is that really the way to treat someone who possibly belongs in a hospital?
All this begs the question: Are you at fault for your biological nature (even childhood nurture)?
But suppose then that the weak prefrontal cortex in criminals is due to a refusal to exercise control, and not an involuntary disability; what then?
It seems to be a paradox/self referential problem that will ultimately lead to the denial of free-will . If we believe in plasticity and the ability to willfully change, that would imply that 'you' do control your brain, and not the other way around - but how would that be possible if the nature of our brains control us? As that clearly implies that there is no free will...
So it's like you can't have it both ways, either:
A) the nature of our brains do not control us and plasticity allows us to change willfully.
B) the nature of our brains do control us and the only way we change our brains is by self-correcting mechanisms already in place in the brain, and not from willful change...
So who controls who? Am I my brain? Or something more?
The answer to these questions will provide us with knowledge on whether prison systems are a legitimate moral institution.The advent of neurobiology may be the death-blow to the current prison system. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that neuroscience will just reaffirm age-old beliefs on human nature. We will just have to wait and see...
Though regardless of what neuroscience will tell us, something must change in the prison system. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, it costs $55.09/day (about $20,108/year) to keep an inmate incarcerated. Though a medical facility may be more expensive, if the inmate is 'cured' (for lack of a better term) they can be incorporated into American society and contribute to the economy, not just suck money out of it.
I understand there are already makeshift medical facilities in prisons, but they do not work.
"650,000 people are released from the nation’s prisons every year... Two-thirds of those who come out of prison are rearrested within three years of release."
Reform is needed. It is not only the right the to do, but it will help make society safer and make our economy grow stronger.
We live in the 21st century. It is time for the prison system to catch up.
Friday, February 5, 2010
An Intro to Politics
As an Independent, I seek truth by eliminating the haze created by partisan ideology. Republican and Democrat bickering only create more confusion. In addition, labeling a person just restricts one to a particular ideology. I choose my ideology based upon observation of human nature and the true reality of the world in which we exist.
I am one who also believes that the study of politics should not exist in a vacuum. Politics, though just one single subject, should be analyzed from the lens of a Renaissance scholar, i.e., from a myriad of different angles. Politics must be viewed from an economic, religious, sociological, philosophical, and even neurobiological perspective.
Politics, first and foremost, revolves around people. As the complex humans that we are, we need to realize that one subject will not cut it.
How can one see this world's vibrant spectrum of colors when one's eye is trained to see only one hue?
Politics, first and foremost, revolves around people. As the complex humans that we are, we need to realize that one subject will not cut it.
How can one see this world's vibrant spectrum of colors when one's eye is trained to see only one hue?
We, as analysts seeking truth, must recognize that when it comes to politics, the perfect political system may not be ideal for the imperfect world in which we live. After all, humans can act upon irrational suppositions, and a government must be ready to respond accordingly. The perfect government is one that is evolutionary, one that can adapt to the ever-changing and sometimes confusing world in which we live.
Was Adam Smith right? Not entirely; and the same goes for Karl Marx and the rest of the political-science philosophers, for no one particular theory can withhold the test of time. Unless, however, we have uncovered the objective truth of human nature, in which case, we have solved life's greatest mystery.
Was Adam Smith right? Not entirely; and the same goes for Karl Marx and the rest of the political-science philosophers, for no one particular theory can withhold the test of time. Unless, however, we have uncovered the objective truth of human nature, in which case, we have solved life's greatest mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)