fractalnavel

quick observations:

• isn't most drug use (and the attendant necessary production and distribution) a ”victimless crime” ? as if it was intrinsically a crime in the first place.  prosecute for actual damage caused, perhaps.  drugs or alcohol is a side issue.  what about other substances that affect our physical and mental states ?  “ten years for driving under the influence of turkey coma.“  maybe i better just shut up before i give someone ideas.
• i would almost claim that it seems our society is ok with anything that narrows the bell-curve, and criminalizes anything that widens it.  that applies to performance enhancing and impairing substances equally.  ok, so what about behaviors ?  why is it ok to train or work out ?  then again, we may quickly get to the point where _not_ exercising, or partaking of other “negative“ behaviors will be regulated.  that's already the case in risky activities.  why are we ok with this “nanny state“ attitude ?  “if we pay for it (taxes), we get to regulate it“ - ? 
• what about enhanced diets ?  we eat steak.  is high protein unfair to nations without such luxuries when it comes to itnernational competitions ?
• what about enhanced education ?
• what about technology ?  military budgets ? 

and so on.  hey, let 'em use drugs.  let's modify genes.  let's train, experiment, loaf, destroy, create.  don't want to incur the risks ?  ok, fine, your choice.  but that doesn't mean we should intentionally handicap others to match our own levels of risk averseness.

well, ok, i suppose a man-car can't reasonable compete in the 100m dash (the borg olympics).  so have rules, fine.  but that's no reason to condemn anyone.  oh - it's the cheating, not the drug use per se, that we're complaining about ?  i guess if events have to be so artificially contrived that the constraints exclude what have become reasonable (or at least common) practices, then the value of the events is questionable anyway.  such “sports” will die.  and y'know, if certain practices are used by the majority anyway, it seems the competitors have voted by their actions.  what's this minority imposition all about ?  back to the the bell-curve arguments.

will it become illegal for business people or students to use intellect enhancing drugs, or other techniques ?  what are reasonable limits ?  the rules we have are archaic.  and our “methods“ (if we can properly use such a term in a case like this) of changing the rules are even worse (ie, our metaprocesses really suck).

what was that vonnegut story again ?  oh, yeah: Harrison Bergeron.  damn, he's good.  vonnegut was a far more terrifyingly accurate visionary than huxley or orwell, in all his works.  then again, he didn't have to be a visionary - merely perceptive and descriptive.

and if you think this is ridiculous, go and take a look at youth sports these days.

fine, i'll let this go for now.  there's a helluva lot more bitching about this stuff, but you get the drift.  it's pervasive, it's insidious - and we do it to ourselves.

i think this relates to an earlier post on active speciation.

amazon !  with its new “plog” on one's entry page.  as if trying to frame advertising with some superficial logging trappings somehow validates it or something. sheesh, what next ?  they'll be sending my bank statements with a “cash log” - a “clog” - instead of a list of transactions. 

grumble, grumble... “plog”... grumble, grumble...