A better write-up

Here's a much more elaborate article on the impact of technological advancements on Sports:

Technology in sport: A boon as well as a curse

Section:	Sports
By:	ROHIT BRIJNATH
Publication:	The Straits Times 01/04/2008

GREATNESS is not found by simply pulling on a reduced-drag, superbly-buoyant swimming costume before a race. It comes instead from the constant wearing of pain.

When asked in retirement what about swimming he ached for, Ian Thorpe replied: "I miss pushing myself to the point where it almost brings you to tears."

Swimsuits don't break records, but they offer at least a technological helping hand.

In recent times, 17 world records have reportedly been broken by swimmers wearing Speedo's LZR Racer suit.

Of course, these athletes were tuned for the trials, and/or driven by the desperation that is unique to Olympic years. Still, the swimsuits probably played a walk-on part in this athletic theatre.

Some of it may merely be psychological, the confidence an athlete draws from believing his equipment is superior. Some of it may be real, though gauging precisely how much a suit benefits the swimmer, or a recurved fibreglass-coated bow assists the archer, is impossible.

Is it 0.02 seconds, is it 2 per cent? Either way it is an advantage.

In the ancient Olympics, athletes competed naked and supposedly pure, but the new world of the fancy-spike-wearing athlete is not some curse.

After all, while records are broken because of the athlete's insane commitment (a runner once insisted he peed blood after training) and unique physiology (Michael Phelps' body shape), science and technology have become our allies in the redefining of athletic limits.

The man with the most advanced cycle will not win Olympic gold, but it is hard to win Olympic gold without an advanced cycle.

How much faster can our species run? More pertinently, is there a finish line beyond which we cannot leap? Perhaps, but part of the reason we haven't hit yet this athletic wall is technology.

The margins by which records are now set have, and will, become smaller. Once timings in athletics were done to a tenth of a second; eventually it will be to a thousandth of a second. And in this hyper-competitive world, every, minuscule, advantage helps.

It is why nations invest in laboratory testing, biomechanics, wind tunnels. It is why corporations manufacture lightweight spikes, fast tracks and pools with sophisticated lane ropes that prevent waves.

It is why athletes study their stride patterns on computers and know to the gram how much to eat. It is an unending search to tune the body; it is man's desperate pursuit of an athletic edge.

But occasionally there is a wailing over technology's intrusion and influence, and a plaintive wishing for a return to the purity of wooden rackets and golf clubs that aren't so forgiving.

Tennis' new rackets, which resemble Thor's Hammer, have leached subtlety from the game and assisted in the volley's extinction (who misses passing shots anymore?).

But heftier rackets have also resulted in accelerated shot-making, bewitching spin and athletes whose ability to be centimetre-accurate while moving and hitting at 150kmh is staggering.

Still, as in golf, as power has come in tennis, variety has slipped away.

But the real curse to technological progress lies in the creation of an unequal playing field.

A flume (a sort of swimming treadmill) is unheard of in many African nations, a bio-mechanics laboratory is an unaffordable luxury in some South-east Asian countries, and computerised diets would be laughed at in numerous South American nations.

Sports' new, unadulterated truth is that a medal, in many disciplines, requires a passionate heart but also a substantial treasure chest.

Despite the evident athleticism of the African athlete, it is startling, and sad, that at the Athens Olympics the entire African continent won 35 medals while Germany alone won 49.

Opportunity (with technology in hand) evidently does not knock in some parts of the world.

But inequality is life's reality, and sport is no different. So the new swimsuit, a marvellous invention (whose fairness though is under dispute), will eventually be available to any swimmer on the planet, yet in a manner of speaking will also be out of reach for many on the planet because it will cost roughly $870.

This swimsuit may help take man further than he has ever gone before, but perhaps it also takes him further away from his less privileged fellow men.

The man or his suit?

One or two months back, I was reading about the brand new and revolutionary Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit in the Sports Section of the news. Heaps of praises were mounted on the suit for its ability to give a totally new feel while swimming. If I remember correctly, Ian Thorpe claimed that it felt like another layer of skin. Wearing this technologically enhanced suit reduced resistance underwater significantly- up to 55% more than the ordinary suit on the shelf. Of course, there are other key features that I've forgotten but that's not the point. As my eyes scanned through the article, a thought was being processed in my mind. To be precise, it was a concern. A concern on whether "human breakthroughs in physical might and ability" are merely a result of advancements in technology. Have our sportsmen broken world records because of better shoes, suits or other types of sporting devices? Well, my concern turned out to be a revelation. Just today, the Frenchman Alain Bernard broke the 100m freestyle world record while wearing the LZR racer. Controversy erupted over the added capability that the LZR racer gave to swimmers. This was not simply sparked by this one incident but by a series of world records broken within the span of this year.

What are the implications of Man's reliance on technology to boost our physical abilities? In the first place, is it ethical? I believe it is a common concern in the sporting community whether the timings and victories we set and win are indeed from our own abilities. Over the past few years, there have been sports scandals, a famous one would be Justin Gatlin having his Olympic Gold medal and record for his 100m dash stripped of him for doping. Is it understood that drugs such as steroids and testorsterone related ones are unacceptable but then a new question is raised. What about the sporting equipment and attire that we wear? Will it still be fair for all if these instruments are improved for sportsmen?

My personal stand is that all these technologically enhanced equipment are unfair. It is unfair to both the past records as well as to other sportsmen. While it may be true that the athlete had set a new and faster timing, the influence of the equipment on the athlete to break the record is left unnoticed or incorporated into that win. Imagine if an athlete like Michael Johnson is at his peak now with all the latest sporting gear ready on him. Do you think he will transcend his personal records? There is no doubt that he would. A Man deserves to be judged by his true form and no true sportsman should degrade himself by relying on technology to "surpass" his abilities. Now, holders of past records were not on the same playing field as sportsmen are today, so when this variable is not held at a close constant, it is wrong to compare timings with the past. On this premise, new records should be made void or at least, should not replace the past ones.

A thousand four hundred dollar tag is labelled on the LZR and this value limits this gear to a select few. These select few are the rich and powerful. Sports is entering a phase where the rich and famous dominate the scene. Although I do not have statistics to back me up, I foresee a possibility that those with these power suits will continue to reign in their sports while those who nearly have the ability but fail to meet the mark (if only if this suit!), will simply lose out. Alright, this is based on the assumption that these gear can enhance performance drastically.

Albert Einstein once talked about 99.9% perspiration as the bulk of who he was. The other part was inspiration. For sports, hard work is the main driving force of an athlete. But technological factors in infringing into the percentage of hard work towards becoming a strong sportsman. The value of hardwork is diminishing as a substitute is found in better equipment and gear. It may be true, from the primary school textbook story about skill, being the ultimate method of discernment between a good and a bad player. However, this is gradually lost in sports which require immense amounts of brute strength eg. swimming, running etc. Alain Bernard claimed that the secret to smashing the world record was through hard work. It is difficult to trust such claims as we are entering an age where reliance on technology is on the rise.

Yet, I do hope that people play sports for the challenge. The challenge to overcome physical limits by oneself and not by any other device. Lastly, sports, as the olympic slogan goes, is to "celebrate humanity". So let us celebrate humanity by preventing all of this from interfering in our races, competitions and games.

The subject of humanity

Economics. It is exactly what the title describes it to be. Fellow students, who abhor this subject, may disagree with me for a few reasons. For one, this whole subject is filled with curves and figure and more than half of the content in essays are left to describing the graphs. Personally, I had grievances once i discovered that mathematics was infused into the explanation of economics. I detest it. Why can't we leave words to give us the logical flow in the discussions. Yet, we must remember that mathematics is merely a tool. As much as mathematics does not fully explain physics, the same applies to economics. Mathematics is an imperative as it is universally recognised as concrete truth since no one can fight with statistics. Anyways, if economics was a whole lot of mathematical jargon, it would indeed become a dismal science.

Ceteris paribus- leaving everything else constant. Assumptions renders this subject inapplicable to reality or so critics claim. I could and i did write a full essay on this (not trying to sound big ;)) but I shan't copy and paste it here haha. But Alfred Marshall did explain along these lines that assumptions are precisely what makes economics worthwhile studying. Assumption may break down reality to be so unreal but it helps in identifying variables that influence reality. Economics is an instrument in acquiring the knowledge of how society works. For instance, we know demand and supply. We make use of this economic tool to discern which variables affect the demand and supply and ultimately, the quantity transacted and price of the good. It is not the full knowledge of how society works. Alright, enough of all these rebuttals, let's look at the plus points of economics.

Economics is beautiful. It goes beyond understanding the allocation of resources to feed the unlimited wants of society (the definition of economics). After reading the end of poverty, i received a glimpse of how the understanding of economics of society can give one the ability to have a bigger impact on the lower statras of society. For example, you can be a volunteer and go to Ethiopia to build homes for those in need. But if you don't understand the mechanism of the society, your efforts may just go to waste. The Africans may live in the home but may not know how to maintain it etc. So how does economics understand the society when it is simply based on the economy alone? That question in itself is wrong as economics draws in all factors that affect the living of mankind- whether it be cultural, geographical, technological, all these play a part in moving the economy. Economics covers so so many topics and it interlinks them to have people become aware of their influences on Man's material needs. In knowing economics, we know that the certain efforts like building that home is short-term. Hence, work needs to be set aside towards teaching the people how to build the homes. (This example does not fully illustrate economics in action though) This may be confused with human geography but human geography is essentially grafted into economics like all other subjects since they influence the economy.

I shall end this post on economics. But this does not end the numerous ways in which economics is beneficial to mankind.