Not really news IMO. It's quite obvious that most world class athletes use some form of chemical enhancement.
The substances available today for doping are minor buffs, though. Mildronate[1] increases cardiac efficiency/ throughput, for example. However, only a really well-conditioned athlete would gain anything from these substances. Even then we're talking about a 10-15% gain in efficiency.
What I'm personally really excited about are SARMs[2]. These are legitimate fountain of youth compounds that can increase bone density and possible muscle wasting due to age. We may finally have the tools available for viable life extension within this decade.
I'd really like to see more serious discussion of the drawbacks to life extension, e.g. the people in power when life extension becomes practical will tend to remain in power for the rest of human civilization.
Amusing “We have to find those reasons why young sportsmen are taking doping, why they agree to be doped,”. I take peds for programming, Modafinil. it's a cold hard world, results are rewarded.
Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully). You won't reduce the amount or quality of software written by others. And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's.
Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose. And many performance-enhancing drugs can cause long-term health issues. Steroids can enlarge the heart and damage its valves. EPO can thicken the blood enough to cause embolism. If all athletes are doping, none of them benefit. They simply suffer more and die sooner. Doping regulations help solve this coordination problem among athletes.
What is "superhuman" if not a relative benchmark against our expectations of what humans can accomplish unaided? We watch the Olympics knowing full well a machine could trivially outdo the best athlete at virtually every event.
And exactly which sports are the 'faster, higher, stronger' ones?
Let me list some individual, no artistic points sports where I think building a robot that can beat a top human would be highly challenging:
- Pole vault
- Hurdles
- Wrestling
- Cycling - build a robot than can actually balance on bike and ride it properly
- Tennis
- Surfing
Not to mention the biggest challenge, which is that every single one of these sports would require a special robot, while humans are true generalists.
We are literally decades away from being able to build generalist robots that can outpace humans in the physical world over a range of tasks. Kinematics, balance, and locomotion are all hard problems in robotics, and it doesn't help for us to trivialize them.
You're right, but you're making my argument for me. Nobody is interested in seeing a motorcycle beat a bicyclist, or a horse outrun an Olympic sprinter; they're interested in seeing what a human being can do, unaided, pushed to the limits of what a human can do. We already know that we can outperform an unassisted human using technology.
Programming is an ongoing feat. You wouldn't take a drug to finish off a project and risk obvious health issues. Why? You're like an artist, as you do more work in future, the better.
Olympics is an one-off feat. You may take a drug to finish first despite risking obvious health issues. Why? You could receive money and fame for a lifetime as reward for one-off events.
We don't know yet whether modafinil and other nootropics have long-term disadvantages. The research just hasn't been done yet to say what effect they will have after 30+ years of use.
As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? I suspect there are some trade-offs, even if they aren't readily apparent.
For how many generations has increased intelligence really been a positive factor, compared to more prosaic survival traits? Outside of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, anyway, and that subgroup has the highest average iq in the world.
> As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication?
Evolution doesn't work that way, it doesn't reach global maxima. For instance our eyes are inferior to those in octopuses in many ways, but they're good enough for us so we will probably never evolve better eyes (for a number of reasons, including lack of selective pressure and our eyes being on a separate evolutionary pathway that includes an optic nerve being in front of the macula). Likewise with the brain.
> As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication?
Biochemistry has nearly infinite degrees of freedom that have to be encoded by a small genetic code, evolution is far more likely to find a local maximum instead of a global one, sexual reproduction guarantees that genes are passed on in groups where one [mal]adaptation can drown out the consequences of all the others, and many drugs are only effective because they are some kind of chemical analog that effects a receptor or reaction that developed for an entirely different purpose (for example, cannabis is a psychoactive because of the endocannabinoid system, a set of neurotransmitter receptors involved in mood, memory, and appetite that likely evolved without exposure to the ancestors of cannabis). Evolution on Earth may have had billions of years but that is nowhere near enough to explore the entire solution space for survival in a constantly changing environment.
Modafinil was invented in the 1970's. Some people have been using it daily for almost 40 years. If there were long-term effects, we'd know by now.
> …if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication?
1. Evolution can't search solution spaces as efficiently as modern biochem.
2. Until very recently, humans were calorie limited. Stimulants like modafinil increase metabolism and suppress appetite. That would be selected against during a famine.
I guess you don't see the irony of stating that governments and institutions would tell you the truth about Modafinil, in a thread where the subject matter is governments and institutions being corrupt.
I'm not taking a position on Modafinil. It might be safe. It might not be safe. The point is that I don't know, and neither do you.
A modafinil coverup is highly unlikely, as it would require all governments to be corrupt in the same way. It's also an unstable equilibrium. In such a scenario, the first government that fails to suppress the truth gains credibility, and all other governments lose credibility. In other words: each government has an incentive to defect and reveal any health issues related to the drug.
Not to mention: studies of modafinil show it has a slight neuroprotective effect.[1]
Unfortunately stack ranking is still either explicitly or implicitly practiced at many companies, so it ends up being somewhat zero sum. For instance my company doesn't say they stack rank, but my division might get 5 promotions to divvy up, which means if someone gets one, someone else lost their opportunity to get promoted.
Performance reviews in most companies have stack ranking/curves so bonuses/career progression is as zero sum in most big companies as results in any sport.
>> Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully).
You can argue that olympic sports is positive sum then as well. If an athlete takes testosterone, he will perform at a higher level and push the boundaries of human achievement further, entertaining more fans. He won't reduce the quality of other competitors output.
>> And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's.
This is absolutely unfounded, we don't have longitudinal studies on nootropic use and there are many anecdotal reports of the short and long-term side effects of drugs like modafinil.
>> Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose.
As I said above, if you argue this, then you can argue the same thing for software. For me to take adderall and outperform another employee (both intracompany and at other companies) makes the other employee lose because he was not willing to undergo the same health risks.
If I become a top performer with the aide of drugs and beat my coworker for a promotion, did he not lose as a result of my willingness to sacrifice my health? What about if my whole team does drugs and ships a better product with faster deadlines, causing another firm to lose the deal and go out of business?
I have always thought the anti-doping rage a bit odd - without writing an essay, Sports Illustrtated had a great op-ed piece around 2008 re what would you rather watch: steroid baseball or non-steroid baseball. The clear implication being that the value (entertainment/spectecle/super-human feats are excentuated by PEDs). It is, ultimately, another form of "nutrition".
If by "nutrition" you mean that it can cause a variety of disorders and premature death... It's hard to claim that all athletes who want to fairly compete should be also forced to use them, unless we really want to encourage death sports.
Note also, that the race to find new steroids that are less detectable has not necessarily corresponded to finding those that are more safe and effective.
Not really. Sports in general and the Olympics in specific are very very very dirty. Enjoy watching it. Don't compare it to what you can do if you don't dope.
Every so often there's a big scandal in another sport as pervasive doping is uncovered. It happened to baseball. It happened to cycling. It happening to sprinting. It's also happened to numerous elite individuals across nearly every sport.
At some point it becomes unreasonable to believe that only some sports are subject to doping problems when they all have basically the same opportunities, the same pressures, and the same human nature.
How many people would need busted across how many sports for you to truly admit to yourself that most sports are dirty? 10? 100? 1000?
You clearly can't cite what % of athletes are dirty. Many likely get away with it. For proof look at the self admitted cheaters who got away with it for N years. Do you honestly think these were the only dopers?
Then look at incentive structure. Go 1% faster and win the race and make millions of dollars. Go 1% slower and get 5th place and nothing. Cheat and get away with it and make millions. Cheat and get caught and you get embarrassed. With this pay stuctute why wouldn't you cheat? It's the only logical path.
The best way to figure out this kind of thing is not a complete survey. It's a few data points and some game theory.
Oh, there's plenty of shame. First, many athletes are coerced into it by coaches and higher up, to the detriment of their own long-term health not to mention personal integrity and ethics. Second, most sports are zero sum, and each position won by a doper is a theft from someone who didn't dope.
I recommend reading the retirement statement[1] that Nicole Cooke wrote a few years ago, which coincided with the Lance Armstrong doping revelations. It's a sobering look into how these dynamics work within a team and sport, and what they do to people who have the personal strength to opt out of cheating.
There's a difference between balancing close to the boundaries of permissible and systematically exceeding those limits while pushing athletes to danger their health for political benefit.
39 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 95.4 ms ] threadThe substances available today for doping are minor buffs, though. Mildronate[1] increases cardiac efficiency/ throughput, for example. However, only a really well-conditioned athlete would gain anything from these substances. Even then we're talking about a 10-15% gain in efficiency.
What I'm personally really excited about are SARMs[2]. These are legitimate fountain of youth compounds that can increase bone density and possible muscle wasting due to age. We may finally have the tools available for viable life extension within this decade.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldonium
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_androgen_receptor_mo...
Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose. And many performance-enhancing drugs can cause long-term health issues. Steroids can enlarge the heart and damage its valves. EPO can thicken the blood enough to cause embolism. If all athletes are doping, none of them benefit. They simply suffer more and die sooner. Doping regulations help solve this coordination problem among athletes.
I would disagree; the more superhuman the feats, the more people are likely to watch. See, e.g., Cristiano Ronaldo.
Not to mention figure skating, or gymnastics.
The team sports and sports in which you get points for aesthetics are harder for robots, but I think they can do bobsleigh if not soccer.
Let me list some individual, no artistic points sports where I think building a robot that can beat a top human would be highly challenging:
- Pole vault
- Hurdles
- Wrestling
- Cycling - build a robot than can actually balance on bike and ride it properly
- Tennis
- Surfing
Not to mention the biggest challenge, which is that every single one of these sports would require a special robot, while humans are true generalists.
We are literally decades away from being able to build generalist robots that can outpace humans in the physical world over a range of tasks. Kinematics, balance, and locomotion are all hard problems in robotics, and it doesn't help for us to trivialize them.
Olympics is an one-off feat. You may take a drug to finish first despite risking obvious health issues. Why? You could receive money and fame for a lifetime as reward for one-off events.
As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? I suspect there are some trade-offs, even if they aren't readily apparent.
Where's the evolutionary pressure?
Biochemistry has nearly infinite degrees of freedom that have to be encoded by a small genetic code, evolution is far more likely to find a local maximum instead of a global one, sexual reproduction guarantees that genes are passed on in groups where one [mal]adaptation can drown out the consequences of all the others, and many drugs are only effective because they are some kind of chemical analog that effects a receptor or reaction that developed for an entirely different purpose (for example, cannabis is a psychoactive because of the endocannabinoid system, a set of neurotransmitter receptors involved in mood, memory, and appetite that likely evolved without exposure to the ancestors of cannabis). Evolution on Earth may have had billions of years but that is nowhere near enough to explore the entire solution space for survival in a constantly changing environment.
> …if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication?
1. Evolution can't search solution spaces as efficiently as modern biochem.
2. Until very recently, humans were calorie limited. Stimulants like modafinil increase metabolism and suppress appetite. That would be selected against during a famine.
I'm not taking a position on Modafinil. It might be safe. It might not be safe. The point is that I don't know, and neither do you.
Not to mention: studies of modafinil show it has a slight neuroprotective effect.[1]
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940766
>> Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully).
You can argue that olympic sports is positive sum then as well. If an athlete takes testosterone, he will perform at a higher level and push the boundaries of human achievement further, entertaining more fans. He won't reduce the quality of other competitors output.
>> And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's.
This is absolutely unfounded, we don't have longitudinal studies on nootropic use and there are many anecdotal reports of the short and long-term side effects of drugs like modafinil.
>> Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose.
As I said above, if you argue this, then you can argue the same thing for software. For me to take adderall and outperform another employee (both intracompany and at other companies) makes the other employee lose because he was not willing to undergo the same health risks.
If I become a top performer with the aide of drugs and beat my coworker for a promotion, did he not lose as a result of my willingness to sacrifice my health? What about if my whole team does drugs and ships a better product with faster deadlines, causing another firm to lose the deal and go out of business?
Note also, that the race to find new steroids that are less detectable has not necessarily corresponded to finding those that are more safe and effective.
At some point it becomes unreasonable to believe that only some sports are subject to doping problems when they all have basically the same opportunities, the same pressures, and the same human nature.
You clearly can't cite what % of athletes are dirty. Many likely get away with it. For proof look at the self admitted cheaters who got away with it for N years. Do you honestly think these were the only dopers?
Then look at incentive structure. Go 1% faster and win the race and make millions of dollars. Go 1% slower and get 5th place and nothing. Cheat and get away with it and make millions. Cheat and get caught and you get embarrassed. With this pay stuctute why wouldn't you cheat? It's the only logical path.
The best way to figure out this kind of thing is not a complete survey. It's a few data points and some game theory.
I recommend reading the retirement statement[1] that Nicole Cooke wrote a few years ago, which coincided with the Lance Armstrong doping revelations. It's a sobering look into how these dynamics work within a team and sport, and what they do to people who have the personal strength to opt out of cheating.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-r...