Ok, I want to see where Tinsi stands on this. The Olympic committee isn't letting the Finnish team simulate living at high altitudes (makes the blood produce more RBC's so it utilizes oxygen better). But yet lots of countries have high altitudes they send their athletes to and that is ok.

What do you think, fair or unfair?

:sumo:

There are no mountains in Finnland?


Besides they already have an advantage of living snowbound 9 months out of the year =P They can practice all year around.

Well, I know the 2010 winter olympics are going to be in Whistler, in the Canadian Cascade range (I think it's the Cascade range at least), so that would put the Finns at a disadvantage for any kind of endurance trials (like cross country skiing or the biathalon).

Personally, I don't think it's fair to not allow them to train in mountainous areas, especially if the olympics are going to be held anywhere higher than, say, 1000 feet above sea level.

The catch is that the olympic committee said the Finns couldn't "simulate" high altitudes...I wonder what that 'simulation' involves. It doesn't sound like they're forbidding the team from, say, moving to Switzerland for three months prior to the games to become acclimated to the high altitude.

According to the NPR story they don't have any mountain ranges. Why can't they just simulate it with a low oxygen house?

I did a quick google and it seems that the Finns are quite expert at altitude training. Perhaps they've refined their techniques a little bit too much for the olympic committee.

Ok, I want to see where Tinsi stands on this. The Olympic committee isn't letting the Finnish team simulate living at high altitudes (makes the blood produce more RBC's so it utilizes oxygen better). But yet lots of countries have high altitudes they send their athletes to and that is ok.

What do you think, fair or unfair?

:sumo:

Sportssssssssszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The Finns and everyone else are allowed to train at high altitudes.

In my opinion, no one should be allowed to simulate high altitudes, for example, by training in rooms at low pressure or oxygen content.

But what if they don't have any high altitudianal places? Like... the Dutch.

The Jamaicans have entered a bobsled team in every Winter Olympics since 1988. There aren't any bobsled courses in Jamaica. Heck, there isn't snow in Jamaica. Last time I heard, they trained in Evanston, Wyoming.

The Dutch, Finns or anyone else can train in mountains that aren't that far away. I've driven from the Netherlands to the Swiss Alps in a single day (probably about 10 hours, although I don't remember exactly. I left in daylight and arrived in daylight.)

From where I live now, I have to drive about 60 hours straight to get to the Rockies if I wanted to do high-altitude training, although I never leave the country.

Ghana have a winter olympic team this year. He's some sort of skier I think.

But if they're skiing at high altitude and they haven't trained at high altitude they've got 0 chance of winning. Anka, do you have a link to what you read about the Finnish HA training?

They have snow. That gives them a better shot at it than half the teams in the winter olympics =P

I found nothing current about the Finns at all, only old links saying how excellent their altitude training was! I'm guesisng they made it too good.

Poor Finns. When Slartibartfast designed Finnland he really went overboard on the fjords but he did neglect any mountains. :cry:

What is it they like to say in WoWland? It's ok, lern2play.

So Olympic skiiers should not be able to train on artificial/simulated snow??

Or cyclists should not work out on a stationary bicycle?

Or runners on a treadmill?

I fail to see the distinction....

Horray! Finally someone agrees with me. :)

So Olympic skiiers should not be able to train on artificial/simulated snow??

Or cyclists should not work out on a stationary bicycle?

Or runners on a treadmill?

I fail to see the distinction....

The problem is where to draw the line. There will always be something that is allowed that is close to something else that isn't allowed.

For example, is it acceptable to remove your own blood and then getting it back through transfusion just before competition? The rules say no, but arguments could be made that this is Ok. It wasn't always banned.

Is taking herbal 'additives' that are found in naturally growing plants and used by many as food an Ok thing to do? It is, until some sports regulatory agency puts it on a list of banned substances.

Is having an athlete train in a hyperbaric chamber to simulate high altitudes acceptable? To me, it's pushing the technology of sports to surreal levels. There are reasonable alternatives like actually training at high altitudes. The argument that a country is disadvanted because it has no mountains is bunk in my opinion. If you can afford a hyperbaric chamber, you can easily afford to send athletes to train someplace with mountains.

The truth is that a hyperbaric chamber is more controlled than natural settings and thus gives athletes an advantage in their training. You can actually train at 'super-altitudes' to condition the body to perform beyond what high-altitude training in mountains can achieve. It's kinda like having Mount Everest in your sports laboratory. Pretty tough to train at those altitudes in real mountains.

So the rich, sports focussed countries create their athletes in the laboratory, while the poorer, conventional countries send athletes to train in the Alps or Rockies.

If you want top atheltes to win medals, as opposed to athletes with top laboratories, then you'll need to draw the line somewhere.

That's nonsense, Anka, based on a fictional construct that there is such a thing as a "pure athlete."

Thicket is accurate in that it is just a question of where do you draw a somewhat arbitrary line?

For example, golfers of equal ability will perform differently with different equipment. Ideally, if you want to compete based on pure athletic ability, everyone would compete with identical equipment. Of course, in reality, they don't. They seek an equipment-based edge. And some arbitrary standards are applied (such as the size of a driver head).

Same thing with things we ingest. Better food, better supplements, etc. A line gets drawn, and it is relatively arbitrary, especially if you're talking about things like naturally-occurring herbal additives.

Some athletic performers seek an edge in training techniques. One such technique is training at higher altitudes. That takes money and time for athletes who don't leave in higher altitudes (and thus athletes who do live in higher altitudes have a decided advantage). Hyperbaric tents actually make it fairer by removing that advantage. And you don't have to send your athletes away from home or out of their home country.

Of course, there's a tricky question about dropping the pressure below what you can achieve simply by going to higher altitudes. But you can arbitrarily set a limit to that, if you want. Just like you arbitrarily set club head size.

As far as arbitrary lines, I can draw one myself between blood self-transfusions and hyberbaric tents. The latter doesn't require anything be ingested or injected into the body.

It's not nonsense. Nearly all sports restrict how competitors play or prepare as it is mean to be the best player on the day that wins. Limits on performing enhancing drugs and equipment are the most obvious examples. The limits might be arbitrary, but all spectator sports carry an expectation that the contest will not be won in a laboratory weeks before the contest starts.

If the tents are to simulate low oxygen conditions(to induce greater RBC production), I suppose they should be called hypobaric(low pressure) tents.

And I am not entirely sure that injestion should be the line point. Iron is decidely injested(most likely as a dietary supplement), and needed for RBC production.

I will be glad when genetic therapy is commonly used by athletes, transferring the genes, to them, that help increase the number of RBCs is only the beginning. And once the genes are actually in the athlete, there is no way to PROVE that they are exogenous or endogenous. The traits will be an integral part of the athlete's genetic code.

And that's the fiction you've bought into hook, line and sinker, it seems.

They're never won in the laboratory, of course. It's still up to the athlete(s).

All the "lab" gives them is some form of edge or advantage. Sometimes the "lab" shows up in the form of better equipment (where do you think today's best golf clubs come from? The "lab", of course). Sometimes it shows up in better training techniques (gait analysis is done in the "lab", for example). Sometimes it shows up in better nutrition or nutritional strategies (e.g., carbo-loading).

If you don't think that the best players that win consistently haven't gotten an edge from the "lab" in some form or another, you're fooling yourself. It's simply a question of which "lab" advantages are deemed acceptable, and which are not.

If you don't think that the best players that win consistently haven't gotten an edge from the "lab" in some form or another, you're fooling yourself. It's simply a question of which "lab" advantages are deemed acceptable, and which are not.


It isn't just about winning. It is about competition for participating players and a sporting spectacle for the fans. The lucrative sports all rely on mass spectator revenues and that will drop if matches are all won in the lab, not the pitch. Sports will always innovate technically but at some stages they do need to draw the line.

Let's put it another way, if the Chinese win every gold medal at the Beijing games because of excellent "lab work", I don't think many people will be cheering it as a great day for sport.

It will be a great day in Science.

Which is a thousand and a half more times important than sport.

So... regardless of how the athletes train... don't they all compete on the same course and conditions (or "same" within the boundaries of nature) in the Olympics? And if so, why does where and how they TRAIN make any difference at all if they pass the drug and qualification tests?

I wouldn't say that's necessarily so, Fy'yr.

Sport is an integral part of human society. It has been since long before the first olympics.

Plus I don't know that I want generic super-athletes anymore than I want genetic super-soldiers.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily so, Fy'yr.

Sport is an integral part of human society. It has been since long before the first olympics.

Plus I don't know that I want generic super-athletes anymore than I want genetic super-soldiers.

/aside...I want both, actually.

The really cool thing about gene therapy, is that it is introduction of traits to already born and live animals. One can reap the benefits at any age, ostensibly.

Imagine muscular and healthy 80 year olds. Without muscle atrophy(a gene already aquired) or bone degeneration, broken hips and frailty will be a thing of the past.

Sports has been a part of the non random mating process since before history, true. Even not counting Wilt Chamberlain, you have to admit that top athletes have access to much larger and superior mating pool...that has never changed. But while the selection is not random, the results are.

Genetic therapy will trump that, totally. It will truely make the playing field flat and equal, for then athletes will not have to rely on genetics in the first place(for everyone will have access to the same genetics). Training will then be the only, as you say it is now, qualifier.

If a person of inferior or mediocre genetics wishes to be an Olympian, he or she can(or will). He or she no longer has to be held back by inferior traits of his or her ancestors, that were passed to him or her. The athlete will them be able to chose the traits they desire, which their parents failed to pass to them.

And they will then be able to compete fairly and equally.

It reeks of attempts to create a superior race.

**** Aryans.

As long as the option is open to all races, I see no problem with improving the species.

Personally... I want photosynthesis. :) Wouldn't that be cool?

The problem with the way it was done before was it was someone deciding who got to live and breed versus improving the existing stock, so to speak.

You think it will be available to everyone?

Instead of it being racial, it'll be economical.

The wealthy will have super-babies who look good, have good intellectual abilities, and are all-star athletes and immune to most diseases.

We will quickly create a genetic aristocracy.

You think it will be available to everyone?

Instead of it being racial, it'll be economical.

The wealthy will have super-babies who look good, have good intellectual abilities, and are all-star athletes and immune to most diseases.

We will quickly create a genetic aristocracy.

It is already economical. One is not going to grow up to be an ice skating Olympian now, if ones parents can't afford ice skates.

Predetermining babies is a different topic, anyway.

Gene therapy is introducing the genes to people already here, in situ. Everyone and anyone could be your aristocrat, as you say.

The wealthy already give their kids the best of everything, you make it sound like something is going to be different. That is one of the most important reasons that wealthy people aquire wealth, to provide for a quality life for their offspring. That is not new, it is definitional, that is the purpose.

Genetically engineered babies?

Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' comes to mind. So... who are the Alphas, Betas and Gammas going to be?

It is already economical. One is not going to grow up to be an ice skating Olympian now, if ones parents can't afford ice skates.

Predetermining babies is a different topic, anyway.

Gene therapy is introducing the genes to people already here, in situ. Everyone and anyone could be your aristocrat, as you say.

The wealthy already give their kids the best of everything, you make it sound like something is going to be different. That is one of the most important reasons that wealthy people aquire wealth, to provide for a quality life for their offspring. That is not new, it is definitional, that is the purpose.

If you can't see the difference between being able to afford to buy your kid new nikes skates every season and being able to turn your kid into the million dollar man...

The wealthy have been screwing with their looks for quite a long time.

I love that book.



But I am quite sure that Huxley would be horrified with our society today, that which you find comfortable.

I currently provide service to 6 epsilons. They cost the US and California taxpayers over 20 thousand dollars a month, EACH. Not including the multi million dollar hospital bills that they racked up, which the tax payers and insurance payers of the US and California have pick up the tab for.

One of them is a ticket taker for two days a week at the local movie theater, other than that, not one of them has over produced or provided any service to the community.

All because of an accident of birth.

Ya, I am sure that Huxley today, would run off to the Wilderness screaming his bloody head off, if he were transported here now. Or overdose on Soma.

Such is cost of being humane.

We should bear it proudly, not rail against it.

Personally... I want photosynthesis. :) Wouldn't that be cool?


But for this "mutation" to be fully fonctional you must be go mostly (or better totaly) naked, and receving a lot of sunlight......

:texla:

Eridalafar

If you can't see the difference between being able to afford to buy your kid new nikes skates every season and being able to turn your kid into the million dollar man...

The wealthy have better access to health care and education and Olympic class trainers. Access to personal trainers, and personal coaches.



nm

On a more serious note.

The capacity to genetically engineered the human specy is like opening the Padora's box. We don't know want will happen.

Some of these change will be completly incompatible when time to have baby (not all, but some). Other change will be make you stronger in some way, by make you realy frail in other (you can run the 100m under 8 secs, but you die at 45 years old).

In nature, a monoculture is alway bad, why? When a ftal's disease come and you only have 1 type in your population, all your population that isn't isolated will die. You need diversity for the specy to survive.

Go read the following book: THE JESUS INCIDENT, THE LAZARUS EFFECT, and THE ASCENSION FACTOR from Bill Ransom and Frank Herbert to see what all for free genetically engineered of humans can do. It is a bit secondary of the plots of these books but it is realy interesting how this society is copping with that.

It will be a good thing if it used wisely. But we will probably see it abused a lot before that.

Eridalafar

As long as the option is open to all races, I see no problem with improving the species.

Personally... I want photosynthesis. :) Wouldn't that be cool?

The problem with the way it was done before was it was someone deciding who got to live and breed versus improving the existing stock, so to speak.

No gluten!


Of course it is open to all races. Like I mentioned in other threads, if we don't do it, the Chinese will with or without our permission.


Actually, celiac disease will probably be one of the first diseases to be eradicated, in situ, with gene therapy.

Back to the original post, two American Olympians were suspended with the whole hemoglobin thing - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/olympics/2006/02/10/hemoglobin.bans.ap/index.html

On a more serious note.

The capacity to genetically engineered the human specy is like opening the Padora's box. We don't know want will happen.
...

Eridalafar

I have an awesome imagination(far more interesting than the writers you listed).

Looking to science fiction writers for ethics and moral implication of real science is kindergarten stuffs.

How many of you take birth control pills, or have taken, or know someone who takes them. A technology decried and forwarned against by Huxley in Brave New World, and developed/discovered by the NAZIs on/from experiments with Jewish female prisoners.

But you still use the technology, completely ignoring the warnings AND where it came from.

When it comes down to it, when it is sold to make the lives of your children better, to make them safer, to make them stronger and more healthy...if it is sold the right way, you will buy it, this society will buy it. It is an easy equation. If you run around like Watson proclaiming yourself God, you will lose the sale. But if you market it like baby food, and mandatory car seats,,,,you will get the close and the check..

Given the current political situation, it is absolute wishful thinking that genetic engineering will be open to all. It will be pioneered and driven forward by the rich who want to breed superiority into their children. It will break down all the social progress in human equality of the last century and aim to put absolute inequality into human beings.

More pertinently, it will remove competitive sport from people who want to play and put it into the hands of those of who are genetically engineered to play. How can that be good?

Again, the Chinese are going to do it with our without your permission.

And again, it is not just children. Experiments here are already taking place on adult animals to change their genetic make up, and their physiologies. Right now.

In laymans terms, genetic code is selected(for the traits you want), and injected using viruses into living existing tissues. And the traits are then a part of the tissues.

We are doing it on rats and mice and other animals right now.

If you can't see how this is going to be good, you have no imagination.
No more Parkinsons.
No more Diabetes.
No more Celiac Disease.
No more muscle atrophy.
No more Sickle Cell.
No more Tay Sachs.
Probably no more mental illness.
No more dementia, or Alzheimers.

I was at Thanksgiving dinner with an aquaintence last year(2004)(she was the aunt of my present girlfriend, at the time), who had a condition where her body produced too many Red Blood Cells. Harness that genetic disease, its allele, and it will eliminate Anemia. How can that be bad? No more Anemia. Gone.

You are foundationally saying, that "Why should we have railroads, everyone knows that the human body can not withstand the speeds, everyone on them will die".

Every new technology since fire has had ramifications that had to be accounted for, which were not needed before its invention. Of course there will be problems and hurdles to overcome, that is not a reason itself to prevent technology(unless one is a Luddite). They will be overcome. Just think how many lawyer jobs will be created, ha.

It will break down all the social progress in human equality of the last century and aim to put absolute inequality into human beings.


It will help remove all genetic disabilities from those who have them, and make the OPPORTUNITY to be more healthier and smarter to EVERYONE(not just those born with it)...How can that NOT be more fair?

It can only eliminate the absolute inequality of human beings that they have right now. It will be available to everyone who wants to better themselves, and their children.

The first VCRs cost over 2000 dollars, the first Plasma HD TVs cost over 10,000 dollars. The first adopters will pay the lionshare, just as anything.

But you would be hard pressed to have to pay anything for a VCR(50 bucks combo DVD now), and hard to find an average Plasma TV for 10K now, aren't ya.

Technology always becomes more affordable and available. I have friends on welfare who have DVD players and XBoxes and computers.

How can eliminating disease and disabilities be bad?
How can becoming stronger and healthier and better and smarter be a bad thing?

and make the OPPORTUNITY to be more healthier and smarter to EVERYONE(not just those born with it)...How can that NOT be more fair?

The majority of genetic engineering will take place before birth. If you're talking specifically about something else then say so.

How can eliminating disease and disabilities be bad?
How can becoming stronger and healthier and better and smarter be a bad thing?

It can be bad if those who become better and smarter do it to the detriment of everyone else. It can be bad if human beings are entirely replaced by fabricated creations, organic or robotic, which they are better than the frail stupid humans. Most technology serves humanity. Genetic engineering has the potential to control humanity instead.

The majority of genetic engineering will take place before birth. If you're talking specifically about something else then say so.
Gene therapy takes place after birth. It is occuring at a genetics lab near you.



It can be bad if those who become better and smarter do it to the detriment of everyone else. It can be bad if human beings are entirely replaced by fabricated creations, organic or robotic, which they are better than the frail stupid humans. Most technology serves humanity. Genetic engineering has the potential to control humanity instead.

That has been said for every technological advance, since the very first tool discovered.

Certainly since 1911, ever seen Fritz Lang's Metropolis? Same stuff.

What makes you human? Is it birth, life, death, your interaction with other humans, spirituality, dna sequences, or something else? It could be anything, but there's probably something. Genetic engineering can tamper with human existence on all those levels. That is why it is different. It challenges whatever makes us what we are. No prior technologies have shaped the essence of being human as much as genetic engineering will do.

Again, the Chinese are going to do it with our without your permission.

And again, it is not just children. Experiments here are already taking place on adult animals to change their genetic make up, and their physiologies. Right now.

In laymans terms, genetic code is selected(for the traits you want), and injected using viruses into living existing tissues. And the traits are then a part of the tissues.

We are doing it on rats and mice and other animals right now.

If you can't see how this is going to be good, you have no imagination.
No more Parkinsons.
No more Diabetes.
No more Celiac Disease.
No more muscle atrophy.
No more Sickle Cell.
No more Tay Sachs.
Probably no more mental illness.
No more dementia, or Alzheimers.

I was at Thanksgiving dinner with an aquaintence last year(2004)(she was the aunt of my present girlfriend, at the time), who had a condition where her body produced too many Red Blood Cells. Harness that genetic disease, its allele, and it will eliminate Anemia. How can that be bad? No more Anemia. Gone.

You are foundationally saying, that "Why should we have railroads, everyone knows that the human body can not withstand the speeds, everyone on them will die".

Every new technology since fire has had ramifications that had to be accounted for, which were not needed before its invention. Of course there will be problems and hurdles to overcome, that is not a reason itself to prevent technology(unless one is a Luddite). They will be overcome. Just think how many lawyer jobs will be created, ha.


I'm not saying its bad in and of itself. I'm saying it needs to be regulated heavily.

Or else it will be

No more Parkinsons - for the rich.
No more Diabetes - for the rich.
No more Celiac Disease - for the rich.
No more muscle atrophy - for the rich.
No more Sickle Cell - for the rich.
No more Tay Sachs - for the rich.
Probably no more mental illness - for the rich.
No more dementia, or Alzheimers - for the rich.

As for china, I'm not overly fearful of them. They haven't learned how to feed their entire nation yet, I'm not too worried about Chinese super-humans.

Hell, the last thing China wants is to find a way to let their population live longer.

It will help remove all genetic disabilities from those who have them, and make the OPPORTUNITY to be more healthier and smarter to EVERYONE(not just those born with it)...How can that NOT be more fair?

It can only eliminate the absolute inequality of human beings that they have right now. It will be available to everyone who wants to better themselves, and their children.

The first VCRs cost over 2000 dollars, the first Plasma HD TVs cost over 10,000 dollars. The first adopters will pay the lionshare, just as anything.

Having the first VCR didn't make you naturally pre-disposed to being a superior species.

As silly of an analogy as trying to equate it with wealthy parents being able to afford expensive sporting equipment.

What makes you human? Is it birth, life, death, your interaction with other humans, spirituality, dna sequences, or something else? It could be anything, but there's probably something. Genetic engineering can tamper with human existence on all those levels. That is why it is different. It challenges whatever makes us what we are. No prior technologies have shaped the essence of being human as much as genetic engineering will do.

At the level we're talking about here, it's really no more changing "the essence of being human" than giving your kid smallpox vaccine is.

More pertinently, it will remove competitive sport from people who want to play and put it into the hands of those of who are genetically engineered to play. How can that be good?

Sports will be less interesting, and people will use their time doing something else than yelling and screaming and generally making fools of themselves.

Easy question, next!! :P

More pertinently, it will remove competitive sport from people who want to play and put it into the hands of those of who are genetically engineered to play. How can that be good?


Well, the highest level of competitive sport is not in the hands of people who want to play, and is already biased towards those with a strong genetic predisposition for that sport.