olympics

Olympics + Samsung = #Unity or #Censorship?

Scott Campbell — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:53:27 +0000

Olympics + Samsung = #Unity or #Censorship? Scott Campbell Wed, 08/17/2016 - 13:53

To follow-up on some of the recent Olympics related blog posts, I'd like to direct your attention to an ad from Samsung, one of the sponsors of the 2016 Olympic. You may have seen it already, perhaps in an abbreviated, edited-for-TV version.

Known as "The Anthem", it shows people around the world singing each other's national anthems, particularly the lines that emphasize unity, humanity and progress. "One World One Anthem" it says, before wrapping up with by pointing out that Samsung is a

Proud sponsor of a world without borders.

...followed by a photo of the new flagship Samsung Galaxy S7 edge smartphone and the hashtag #DoWhatYouCant.

I was struck a little by the potential incongruity here. For one, as John Oliver of HBO's LastWeekTonight pointed out, the Olympics has little to do with unity or equality. It's about individual achievement in a contest to prove who ought to be elevated above everyone else. (Link to YouTube video, some NSFW language possible). And since we organize the whole thing according to country, it often becomes a nationalist exercise in medal counting to prove "we" are better than "them". Not unification.

But from an STV point of view, it struck me as dubious that we should connect world unity or a borderless world to smartphones (are they even computers?) or the internet.

There are plenty of countries around the world with astounding records of success at the Olympics and are also known for also restrictive online access or internet censorship. The most obvious candidate is China (currently over 50 medals) and its state-controlled version of the internet. The so-called Great Firewall of China is a pretty tight border. More tellingly, South Korea (home of Samsung, currently 14 medals) is not exactly a free-for-all online. According to the OpenNet Initiative:

Despite the fact that South Korea has one of the most advanced information communication technology sectors in the world, online expression remains under the strict legal and technological control of the central government.

And just last year, Samsung and Google were accused of banning LGBT social networking apps from Samsung's Android smartphones in South Korea.

Which kinda puts new meaning on that hashtag #DoWhatYouCant.

The Cyborgian games?

Cameron Shelley — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:05:38 +0000

The Cyborgian games? Cameron Shelley Mon, 08/15/2016 - 18:05

One of the most salient technology-society issues in Olympic sport is that of enhancement. Consider my recent post on gene doping, for example. In general, the question is: When is the use of technology in a sport appropriate or acceptable?

A couple of recent articles online touch on this matter. A piece in Wired notes that all athletes are cyborgs, which is to say that every sport involves the use of some technology. Every item of clothing or kit is designed to enhance performance.

One of the points made in this article is that the most scrutinized enhancements are typically the most high-tech. Consider Nike's AeroBlade, a kind of 3-D printed tooth that can be applied to the bodies of runners to reduce their drag and thus increase their speed. You can see them integrated into the Nike Vapor track and field outfit below.

Courtesy of Nike News.

According to this piece, the issue of acceptability comes down to whether gear allows athletes to maximize their natural potential or whether it augments that potential.

Readers of this blog will recognize that the natural/artificial distinction is difficult to draw clearly.

In practical terms, the article points out that official judgements on gear often turn on how dramatically they change performances. In the 2008 Beijing Games, the LZR Racer swimsuits allowed swimmers to shatter old records. That was too much for Olympic officials, who subsequently banned the gear.

The issue is treated somewhat differently when it comes down to athletes who are more obviously cyborgs, e.g., amputee runners with blade legs like Oscar Pistorius. Pistorius was admitted to the 2012 London Olympics because his blade leg was held not to give him an advantage over the other runners. (Or, more precisely, it was held to be unclear that it did give him an advantage.)

By contrast, Marcus Rehm, the German amputee long jumper, was not admitted into the Rio Olympics (as opposed to the Rio Paralympics) because he could not prove that his prosthesis did not give him an advantage.

The naturalness requirement would simply rule Rehm out of competition. However, since it would be discriminatory to exclude him on this basis—at least, it would in other social activities—the issue was framed in terms of fairness. In applying this criterion, Olympic officials elected to be cautious in admitting cyborgs to the games.

There is a curious symmetry between this situation and the treatment of "hyperandrogenous" women in the Olympics. For example, Caster Semenye has been allowed to compete in the women's events even though her natural levels of testosterone are fall in the male range, a situation that is thought to give her an advantage over "normal" women athletes. Previously, she was required to take an artificial treatment to lower this level to one that was considered fair.

So, the fairness criterion seems able to exclude only athletes with prostheses and not those with natural gifts. In that case, the fairness criterion seems to rely on the natural/artificial distinction, leaving us with that problem again.

Perhaps this tension cannot be eliminated, at least from elite sport. Elite athletic competition has typically been about honoring people who have cultivated their natural, physical gifts and about integrating that honor into a social framework that promotes both elite athletes and people in general.

In other words, this tension may be inherent to elite sport, rather than an unfortunate, modern-day intrusion.

Are sports just games?

Cameron Shelley — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:10:24 +0000

Are sports just games? Cameron Shelley Fri, 07/29/2016 - 11:10

As the Rio Summer Olympics approach, the subject of sport, excellence, and cheating returns to the fore. With it comes discussion of what cheating in sport is and why it is bad, or not.

A recent post in FastCompany makes an argument that cheating in politics or business is bad because there is more at stake than cheating in other spheres, e.g., sport. All these activities are governed by rules but, since the rules of sport are arbitrary, cheating on them is merely a formal issue. In politics or business, however, the rules are there to promote human thriving or flourishing, so violating them is more fundamentally wrong.

I think that this argument is somewhat flawed. To explain, consider the concept of a game given by Bernie Suits (a former professor of Philosophy here at U��ݮ��Ƶ):

To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude].

For example, the 100m dash aims to achieve the crossing of the finish line ahead of the other competitors [prelusory goal] using only a launch from starting blocks and running down a 100m lane in a track [lusory means], where the rules prohibit the use of more efficient means, e.g., a motorcycle, [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted because they make a sprinting sport possible [lusory attitude].

Suits' account supports the view that the rules of a game (or sport) are arbitrary—that is, they are just whatever people agree that they are.

I have to differ on this point. Ideally, sports exist for the development and display of human excellence, including individual fitness and pro-social behavior. The 100m dash is a good example and one of the most ancient sport types around. Running fast has always been an important skill for people to have. People who do it well are admirable, at least to that extent.

Team sports exhibit the pro-social aspect of sport more clearly. A volleyball team, for example, must communicate and cooperate well in order to compete. Those skills are also important to the proper functioning of any society, e.g., in business and politics.

We can imagine having an Olympic coin flipping event. However, flipping a coin does not exhibit human fitness nor does it feature pro-social skills.

So, I differ with the argument that cheating in business and politics differs from cheating in sport in the sense that the former are not "just a game" unlike the latter. Ideally, all involve the pursuit of human excellence. Their differences lie elsewhere.

As the Olympics progress, we will no doubt have further occasion to consider the broader significance of sport and cheating in sport.