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.

Inferiority

The difference to greatness is in accomplishment. People tend to have similar ideas, desires, wishes but the line which differentiates these people is accomplishment. Imagine all those famous inventors, take the household name- Thomas Edison. This man was responsible for the existence of lightbulbs, the telegram (if i'm not mistaken) and other products of his genius. Now who wouldn't think of the lightbulb? Maybe not the exact lightbulb itself but the thought of having light generated by electricity is highly plausible. Leaders start out with an objective in mind and stick to it through thick and thin. (Sometimes, it may end up as ridiculous as the communist leaders, but still... John Maynard Keynes praised them for their "determination")

I wonder whether there truly is inferiority in failing to keep to your original goals or accomplish them for the matter. This leads to the question - Does failure denote inferiority? Although there is the common saying "failure is the mother of success", there are limits to how many failures the soul can permit. The sight of failure burns guilt and disappointment in some, uplifts some, is brushed aside by some or runs doubts through minds. You chance upon failure sometimes when what you do is just not enough. Once again is inferiority denoted by failure? I do not know the full answer but this i know- failure to recover from failure is the worst kind of failure.

Now another question on my mind is... when is it right to invest? How do you know the marginal benefit outweighs the marginal cost. There are people who receive ideas but who do not set aside the time to implement it. Are making the right measure of opportunity costs? Will you be able to receive your maximum utility by doing this? How do you know that it will reap you the rewards that you deserve from your efforts? All this is so arbitrary!

i guess at the end of the day, we simply have to judge for ourselves. And maybe that's why failure is needed, to shape our judgement and wisdom in making decisions.