Anti-depressants have all kinds of subtle side effects including sometimes increasing memory and confidence. Watching these effects in people around me led to these thoughts.
My uncle used to race rally cars. He won an old car rally in '86 - the Great Race\) - back when it was cars 50 years old and older. Which meant pre-war. a 1914 Dodge Brothers Touring driven from DC to Los Angeles won him a $150k purse. In 1989 he ran it again, again in the Dodge Bros touring. This time, every single stop he made, they made the mechanics take the car apart looking for cheats. Finally after five days on the road they insisted that the transmission come out and be dismantled. Lo and behold - synchromesh gears. Because transmissions from 1914 Dodges are rather rare, the vehicle's owner had put Pugeot gears inside the Dodge case. They were cheating. In order to avoid scandal, they were stripped of their age advantage, forced to compete as a 1939, and finished the race in 8th place. The amazing thing to me was not that my uncle was cheating. It was that everyone was cheating, it just didn't matter until you were winning. We knew people on that race running modern engines. Vehicles running steel-belted radials (which really improves your timing over canvas bias-ply, lemme tell ya!). Problem is, when you're charging a $30k entry fee of everybody running, and you've got a bunch of gentlemen racers out having a good time, they do not like to see a professional rally driver at the helm of anything. In every sport in every nation in every league above amateur, people cheat. The argument about Major League Baseball isn't who's doping, it's who isn't doping. The basic problem is that doping works, doping is impossible to detect, and there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. And, since we pretend that somehow athletes are always role models and always the better angels of our nature, they aren't doing what it is clearly obvious everybody is doing. It's a competition. You do anything for an edge. Sunrise, sunset, forever and ever amen. Science ain't like that. Nobody says "I wanna become a geneticist because I want Nobel money." Nobody gets into journalism because they want a Peabody on their mantlepiece. The accolades are a side-effect of the job. They are a validation, not an end product. The world is coming down on Lance Armstrong like a ten ton shithammer because competitions have rules and he broke them. Mostly because he then lied about it for ten years. If he'd happened to cure polio along the way nobody would give two shits if he did it with a steady drip of goat estrogen on an IV pole strapped to his rear fender or whatever. But since the beginning and end of the entire process was competition governed by strict rules, everybody's doing the panty-twist dance.
Science ain't like that. Nobody says "I wanna become a geneticist because I want Nobel money." Nobody gets into journalism because they want a Peabody on their mantlepiece. The accolades are a side-effect of the job. They are a validation, not an end product.
Yeah you are right about that. I wonder, though, if people get into baseball or cycling because first and foremost they love love love the sport. Maybe love underlies all the cheating because they think they need the drugs to be able to continue doing what they love. Thanks for the story about your uncle. That's fascinating.
I think everyone gets into sports because they love it. I think 99.999% of them will never make any money from it. And I think those that are suddenly faced with Megabux find themselves staring at a little red dude with horns holding a contract and calling them Faust. Lance Armstrong didn't quit while he was ahead. As far as I'm concerned, his primary crime is pride.
So why have the rules at all? If it's so ubiquitous, and we all know it, why does it matter? It's not as though athletes doping hurts anyone, if everyone is on even ground with it.
Or we could have 2 separate classes, one for doping and one for the way is now. I'm kinda curious on how far they can push the human body.
(Sorry for my bad English in such a long text) You don't have the slightest idea of the amount of drug he did take. He went so far to have half is blood transfused. We all know, every one on the Tour de France is on steroid. The difference is that Armstrong and his fellows had by far the better medical team. Armstrong take the risk to test totally new type of enhancing drug. They were never tested before to that extend. But he take them. So if someone is to praise, it's the medical team behind Armstrong, and the sheer courage (or stupidity) of Armstrong about the danger he takes with his health. But that's not the problem. Armstrong came on TV, and write books about beating cancer. Books about how self confidence can make you better. While half is blood was fake, he proclaimed how honesty, courage and pure will could drive you to the top. And some people believed him, and had some hard landing when they experienced that life is much more complicated. Good willingness alone never make you a Tour de France winner. He said fraud after fraud , and I suppose, he did somehow believe in what he said. But that's still not a problem. People lies all the time on national TV. The problem is that sponsor, industry just for advertisement, pushed a man and his team to put their life on risk. To lie. To believe their lies. To be ashamed when their lies are discovered. To be praised, and then broken by the press. I dont remember (or I dont want to remember) the name of the team Armstrong was racing for. I hope they someday take part of the blame. But I KNOW this will NEVER happen.
I think this is a fascinating question. I've seen people who suffer from ADHD or other such disorders who say that it is "unfair" when other people use drugs like Adderall to help them focus more to cram for a test, a mental equivalent of steroid abuse, I'd imagine. But popping adderall before a test doesn't make you do well on the test - it allows you to focus and prepare more for the test, and get the most out of your knowledge and ability. I honestly don't fully know, because the media tends to obfuscate this but, what do steroids do, precisely? Do they actually build muscle? Or do they enhance the growth of muscles when training? I imagine someone taking steroids and then sitting on the couch gets the same impact as someone taking adderall and watching TV. So what these drugs do, then, are that they enhance some quality that you already have - if you're studying, you study harder; if you train, you train harder. I think we can also ask a similar question: If you're drunk, or if you're stoned, are you still you? Are your actions while under the influence just you with less inhibition, or judgement? Legally we think so - you're treated as accountable for harm that befalls you or others (see: drunk driving). I don't think that this is a "truer" self because I consider inhibition and judgement to be just as much a part of a person as the things those qualities hold back. But it is a self. We change all the time - You now is not the same you as the five-year-old you. And I don't mean that in a metaphorical way, none, or almost none of the cells in your body are the same cells you had when that body was only 5. They're always changing, and replacing themselves. Meanwhile, your mind is always changing, updating, making new connections and losing old ones. But we've decided that all these different people - you at 5, you at 13, you at 21 and 35 and 80 - are all the same person, many minds and bodies threaded over a single string of life. So knowing this, why would we decide that someone is a "different" person if they are under the effects of any drug, be it a steroid, an anti-depressant, or a joint? It's understandable why steroids are largely banned - they definitely do make it harder, maybe implausibe, to compete with someone who is using them for those who don't. That said, if there were a steroid-like enhancement drug, with no side effects and a definite improvement in everyone who took them... why ban them? Why not treat them like a fact of life? Perhaps they could be abused, but so can any drug, including plenty of over-the-counter medications. It still requires dedication and physical prowess to make good on any enhancement drug, it just helps to achieve new heights. And besides that, consider that some people maybe just have a genetic predisposition towards athleticism! Is it unfair that a 5'10" guy in the NBA is at a disadvantage against 6'6" players? Maybe, but no one will propose cutting off some of the tall guys' shins. If we allow for natural advantages, why not say that we'll make an allowance for unnatural ones as well? If we had the exact same thing for research scientists, a drug that had no side effects and helped them hyperfocus on their work and freed up neural pathways for enhanced intelligence... why on earth would we not use it? With an army of men and women with mind-enhancing drugs, we could discover the cure for cancer, or learn how to achieve efficient interplanetary travel with humans. If we can build a better human, why wouldn't we?
I think everyone should have access to performance enhancing drugs, ADHD or not. They should always be taken in consultation with a medical professional, but the effects are clearly positive for most people. I find myself entirely unable to get upset at Armstrong (or any cyclist) for this doping. Well-financed athletes already take advantage of significant technical enhancements (in training, analysis, etc.) that are not available to everyone.
Exactly - we have so many advantages in place already for certain people, what's one more? Athletes get countless bonuses because of their time, their money, and their sponsorship. Likewise, consider education: hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of time go into universities, and not everyone can get those advantages. That education makes a very uneven playing ground, to the disadvantage of millions. Yet we seem to fear that performance enhancing drugs will cause an imbalance in physical strength or intellect? I can't accept that.
I think what a lot of people are upset with regarding Armstrong, is that he actively sued the people accusing him and in some instances ruined lives in order to claim innocence while knowing all along that he was anything but. At least that is what I have gathered. I've not followed this very closely.
Couldn't agree more and I couldn't care less about what he did. Its between him and the people he wronged. And yes, he seems like a dick. Hell of an athlete though.
Endurance, yes. Athleticism is required in all competitive sports. I am always partial to team sports, because they combine physicality with so many more mental elements and cooperation. Creativity isn't required in race running in the same way it is in, say, soccer or hockey.
By saying that well financed athletes can take advantage of technical enhancements, you imply that the sport is not about your ability in that sport but your overall status/wealth in life. I disagree and think that how well you can perform in any sport should be about your skill not what you can buy to improve your ability (idealistically). I understand what you mean by saying this, but I think there should be a disconnect (between those who can and those who can't without external help) that does not allow people to buy the gold medal.
If we can build a better human, why wouldn't we?
Because we weren't meant to be better humans. I personally believe we were meant to be perfect through all of our imperfections.
Do you find appendectomies objectionable? What about vaccination? Glasses? Every major advance in medicine has been making us steadily better, healthier, and more capable. Indeed, it is in our very nature to improve ourselves, through our technological know-how, or through the natural tools of evolution. We are not the same humans from 10,000 years ago at a genetic level, because our ancestors survived and passed on their genes (and memes, we can't neglect the value of strong ideas) to make us, and our world. Our imperfections are regularly sanded down by time and technology, your own included.
To be honest I do find going to the hospital objectionable. I believe that if we're meant to die before we reach old age so be it. Anything that can't be cured naturally shouldn't be remedied. Sure, I've been vaccinated, but that was before these thoughts developed. Same with glasses. Although I was born with good sight and it was watching television in close proximity as a child that caused my eyes to go bad. So I'd say that case is a little different in that the cause of my poor sight wasn't natural.
Do you feel this way about yourself only, or people in general? I suspect that you're not the kind of person to force your beliefs on others, especially recognizing that those beliefs are of a minority (although, I am always surprised by the size of this minority). I understand you can feel confident and comfortable with your own death and time, and many people have been able to get to that point. I guess what I want to know, is do you consider it moral to avoid medicine or other kinds of drugs or means of modifying your body and mind? Or is it merely a lifestyle choice, like what sport you choose to play or what your job is? We've heard news of children who have died of the flu this season - if one were in your charge, would you leave an ill child's life to fate, or would you do everything you could to keep that child healthy and alive? They don't have the capacity to understand or consent to a lifestyle which abstains from medical treatment for moral or ethical reasons, wouldn't it be unfair to leave them in the dark on medical treatment? They might not share your belief in destiny or an appointed "time" to die.
I do understand many don't agree with my view so I often keep it to myself because it is so controversial. I think that it is moral to avoid unnatural forms of medicine. To me, going to a hospital or taking unnatural medicine is like giving the finger to nature. It's like saying "I'm going to take matters into my own hands and neglect you telling me it might be my time." I don't know about this. Sickness is a form of population control. But we no longer live in a world where that seems to be important to anyone. I wound't want to force others to believe the same way so I won't stop someone from trying to save their own life. Will this view change when I have children of my own? To be completely honest, I don't know. If it's meant to be, it's meant to be. In this regard my views aren't fully formulated.
Yes, it's hard to know what one would do in a trying situation, especially with children, until you face it yourself. One thing to consider, from my perspective -- humans are part of nature. Medicine is our tool to stay alive, which is an urge encoded onto our very genes, as is the urge to keep our genetic descendants alive and reproductive. Why is it giving a middle finger to nature, to do that which nature explicitly programmed us to do?
During winter months, when growing seasons are shorter and humans aren't able to get as much food, women become naturally infertile. These seasons of infertility aid in a stable population. But since we've been able to produce food when it doesn't naturally grow, we've changed the natural rate of population increase. "Advanced medicines" are only a way of going against stable populations.
No offense, but I've never heard of that theory before, do you have a source? Population control and stabilization seems to be a reoccurring theme of your posts. Did you know this is already happening across the world? People are having fewer children because of advances in medicine and science, among other reasons. It seems to me that following your view could actually increase population as child mortality increases, people would have more children fearing some would die of sickness or infection.
I just read about it in the book Changes In The Land for my American Environmental History class. It was one of the pioneering books in the field of environmental history. How are there fewer children now? And I don't know that that's how it would play out that people would end up having more kids. If you look at tribes in Tanzania, they have a very sustainable population in which there aren't too many children.
It is a fact that more developed (i.e. more medically advanced) countries have a lower birth rate: (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-popul...) As we gain more technological freedom to control our own fertility, and as having children becomes a bigger economic disadvantage, the population growth rate has slowed considerably in countries with access to medicine. The countries that do not have advanced medicine available to the public - China, India, other developing countries - are the ones with enormous population booms that are damaging to the planet. Our ability to remain fertile at any time of year due to food production is greatly offset by our ability to control our birth rates. In fact, if you're concerned about our longevity, our replacement rate (the rate at which old people die and new people are born) is extremely tight, last I've heard, I'm not sure what the ratio is at now. I find it totally untenable to blame medicine for world overpopulation or "giving the middle finger to nature" when it's provable that medicine is a direct, causal link to population growth slowing.
I'm not going to pretend you don't have incredible points, because you do. To be honest, I'm not sound enough in my belief to know how to respond to this. Let me think about this some and then I'll get back to you once I've thought it out.
That's fair. I've definitely gotten a closer look at my beliefs -- especially the last point -- as a result of this conversation as well, and it's always worthwhile if you can get a chance to examine your thoughts from all angles.
Oh yes I definitely agree. The beauty of discussion is immense.
Wrong, your bad eyesight is genetic. There is zero correlation between sitting close to the TV and developing bad eyesight. softcore link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talk-... Also, I guarantee that if you or another one of your loved ones was on their deathbed, you would not feel this way. That's just naive.
I remember when I was a little kid I'd always sit close by on purpose because I wanted glasses so it was a very prolonged thing. I've thought this way of myself extensively. When my time comes I'll accept it.
You have a good point. I'm not saying that I'm not conflicted about this belief, because I am. But this view's empathy isn't toward humans, but rather the earth. It's more so that I empathize for the earth and how poorly we're treating it, overpopulation included.
I think that for a while we as humans have been viewing ourselves as separate from the Earth and that has led to a variety of actions and habits that are detrimental to Earth. I do believe that living in a hunter/gatherer manner results in little to no entropy. While I believe we are fascinating, I believe there are two flaws in viewing ourselves as the most fascinating. The first of these is that it lends itself to excluding fascination for everything else. I'd argue that trees, oceans, clouds, rain, lions, etc... are just as interesting as we are. The second flaw is that it puts us as the end result. Why do we believe evolution ended with us? If evolution can turn a single cell organism into what we are now, just imagine what we could become in a few billion years. That is assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves entirely by that point.
A hunter/gatherer society could never support a population of our size. So really, the only way for your ideas to be realistic or credible is to kill off a good chunk of Earth's population. Is this what you're proposing? Otherwise, what is the use in dwelling on past forms of society that only led us to where we are today? I would say we are more interesting than any of the things you mentioned simply because we have the capacity to discuss what is the most interesting. Evolution did not end with us by any means, it is ongoing. It would be pretty impressive if we as a species lasted a few billion years. All of the advancements that you are opposed to have only ever served to aid our advancement as a species, so if you find that so fascinating to imagine, why are you so against it?
I'm well aware of what living like that would mean to the world's population. It's not a past form of society. There are still some people who live like that today, and I do plan on joining them the first availability I get. But how do we know that trees don't communicate with one another? Or lions, grass?? We don't know these things so we shouldn't assume one way or another. I'm against these "advancements" because I view a lot of thing as resisting change and not letting natural selection/evolution follow its natural course. If a person is stupid and jumps off a roof and breaks their leg, we mend them up and they go off and have children of their own. In a natural world, this person would not be able to mate thus not passing on his genes of thinking jumping off a roof is a good idea.
How do you know that the advancements we have made are not a form of evolution? Take some microbe for example; lets say that some archaeon is doing well by itself or within its community when all the sudden it picks up the ability to ferment lactose (maybe through horizontal gene transfer (spreading of ideas...)). Should it not use its new found mechanisms for survival? The tools that humanity acquires to sustain itself should be used because it is just another gift of our intellect/ability to adapt to our environment
How would it ever naturally just pick up that ability all of a sudden. Mutations like that don't occur spontaneously and in the same manner I don't believe we were meant to change fundamental processes in ourselves so drastically except through evolution over time.
Question: Are you a creationist? I don't want to step on your beliefs so please let me know.
I believe that the big bang and evolution and everything of that nature was created by God, yes.
Who's to say though that we can judge what the best and most efficient change is?
Exactly. So why should we conclude we are they judges and mess with how we'd naturally progress?
What you're advocating is called Social Darwinism, really just another name for elitism, and would lead to nothing other than a world like the one described by Huxley in Brave New World. This is the type of thinking that leads to racism and eugenics. Scary. All of those things do communicate with each other. What's your point? Your beliefs are incredibly inconsistent and driven purely by emotion.
In what ways is it similar to Brave New World? And to be clear, I am in no way stating that any race is superior to another (I'm Hispanic and I've been discriminated against before). I know that there are inconsistencies and have said that I don't know how fully I believe myself when I say all of these things. They're just thoughts I've had and through this discussion I'm allowed to marinate on them more.
Here's what I'm talking about: something unhinges you and a doctor diagnoses clinical depression/anxiety disorder. She prescribes one of the many SSRIs that are out now. Your neurotransmitter is unblocked and you begin to cheer up. The people close to you observe that you seem to be learning more quickly. You have more confidence and more energy. You study even harder and become a much better musician much more quickly than you expected. In fact, you are writing and performing music so well, it really excites and pleases you. Are you saying you would not continue to take this drug even when it seems that the drepression is no longer a problem? Just wondering.
I wouldn't have taken the drug in the first place.
First off, I'm so sick of the Lance Armstrong fiasco… But I like your question and the way you framed it. This is less to do with Lance Armstrong and more to do with using drugs to enhance yourself. Your analogy is an interesting one. I would guess that Lance Armstrong still worked harder or as hard as anyone on the tour. I would also guess that had he not taking the drugs and everyone else on the tour also had not taken the drugs he may have still won every single race he did. We will never know. There seem to be all sorts of advantages one can employ in life, in research, and in sport whether they be biological, medicinal, or mechanical where do we draw the line? It's an interesting question. I don't know much about Lance Armstrong, but from what I can gather his organization has done some good work, I hope this doesn't suffer. Other than that, I could really care less about his trophies et cetera. It seems to me that he's made his bed.
You said it, brother. I was watching Real Time last night, and they were talking about the expansion of Israeli settlements. They then switched gears to Manti Te'o, and Bill Maher asked the panel what they thought. This Palestinian journalist that was on said I don't give a shit and I wonder why you're degrading the rest of your show by talking about it? Bill looked kind of stunned, and then was like, you're right, and they moved on. It was awesome.First off, I'm so sick of the Lance Armstrong fiasco…
I dont know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I use a combination of news feeds and social news aggregators to filter out crap like this so successfully (what else am I missing), but I do know that I managed to make it till this weekend without knowing who this was. I love it when panelists call out their hosts for inane discussions. I feel like that needs to be a compilation...Manti Te'o
The last time I watched a full game of football was the last Super Bowl and it was only because I had friends over and used it as an excuse to have a party. I didn't really watch it. I don't much care anymore about football. I can appreciate watching anyone play a sport/game at the highest level possible but my time is precious these days. Hockey though.... well, that's different. Baseball too.
I didn't get the reference either, then while listening to Morning Edition yesterday I heard the story. I had the same reaction the Palestinian journalist did. They made a good point though, how is something like that not properly vetted to begin with? We've got people making up Wikipedia entries that go unnoticed for years and we've got athletes creating fictitious dead girlfriends to garner attention. What else is fictitious? I mean, if the Bicholim Conflict isn't real (see previous link) what else isn't? The war of 1812 always seemed suspicious to me.
The war of 1812 always seemed suspicious to me.
ha ha
I live near the site of the Battle of Stoney Creek. June 6, 1813, the Brits made a surprise attack on American troops sleeping there. (source: not wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Stoney_Creek.JPG
It definitely took on a life of it's own. Gotta love that about conversation.
I smoke marijuana from time to time and I would most definitely say that I am the same person when high. It's a very interesting thing though because while it's still you, it's a much different side of you that's being shown. The difference is that it's a much less inhibited you. I really like dancing. Often times I'm too shy or concerned about what I'll look like to dance. Sure I still dance when sober, but when I'm high I can't help but dance and the lack of concern of judgment is a nice feeling. There's also a certain clarity of thought that can come with smoking (if done in the correct quantity). My girlfriend and I always write down our thoughts when high(our "highdeas" if you will) and go over them the next day only to realize that they we had had these thoughts before and it didn't take being high to think such awesome things. Being high only worked as a catalyst to share the idea. Getting high completely isn't necessary though. I can dance in public or talk about every cool idea I have when sober as well. However, what I like about it is that for a few hours, you get to experience something entirely different. And I feel that a lot of people enjoy this feeling too much sometimes which results in them feeling the constant need to be high. I honestly do feel sorry for those people because they've confused their realities. Sure, when you're high you haven't a worry in the world. But the beauty of living is enjoying the balance of positive and negative emotion. If you're always feeling positive, the balance will be off and have an overall negative consequence.
I smoke marijuana from time to time and I would most definitely say that I am the same person when high. It's a very interesting thing though because while it's still you, it's a much different side of you that's being shown. The difference is that it's a much less inhibited you.
This brings up an interesting point, because when I smoked marijuana I was far more inhibited. So different people respond differently to the introduction of certain chemicals. We all have different physiology's, and therefore some people may respond positively to something like Adderall while others may have no effect and for some it may make their concentration more difficult.
When I smoke weed I say stupid things and think they're smart. When I don't smoke weed I say smart things and think they're stupid. My most vivid "I shouldn't smoke dope" moment was listening to the Cure's "Push" with some friends and thinking "that's amazing! The notes - like - follow one another! Like math!" Listen to it sober? Yeah, dumbass, it's called a chord progression. I'm totally down with legalization. I'm totally down with others smoking dope. Me? I'll take bourbon. Bourbon doesn't give me a cold the next day.
My sentiments exactly. Ive had similar music listening "epiphanies", just substitute the Cure with Bjork. Many people claim that pot gives them increased creative abilities, I'm far more creative when I've had a drink or several.
Different strains have different effects. Some just make me want to build a city in SimCity, create something in Blender, or I just get random ideas that I have to sketch up before I forget them. And then on the other hand there's strains that just make me a zombie.
I wonder if personality has a role in this. I'm normally outgoing and uninhibited as it is, so being even less inhibited by anything doesn't make too much of a difference. Would you call yourself an outgoing person?
Me? I am about as outgoing as a human being gets. I am extremely confident in most any situation and genuinely enjoy most peoples company.
So do you think that you are more inhibited when inebriated or does it really not make too much of a difference?
Initially my girlfriend was like this, but that's just because we hadn't realized it doesn't take too much to get her to a pleasant state of inebriation (album name?). How much had you smoked would you guess that made you paranoid. I remember my first time I was extremely paranoid, but that's just because I hadn't planned it out too well and I have to drive back home.
I used to smoke a shit load of weed almost every day. We used to come to high school high as a kite most days of the week; fun times, those days. The paranoia thing crept and crept. It never happened in my earlier days, but then became unavoidable after a few years.
I had the same progression. I was fine in high school and I smoked a TON, then when I was about 19 I started to not enjoy it as much because it made me anti-social and paranoid.
Really? I've never heard of it being an issue the more someone smoked it, only in the beginning. Did you smoke more and more at once as time went on?