Invasive Enhancement

Invasive Species and Enhancement in the Sports Industry

I would first like to thank those who have already presented because somehow we all ended up presenting cultural objects that share many common qualities. It made incest not feel so awkward.

So, given the “2 X 2” assignment guidelines, two presentations lie in my crosshairs. First off, Invasive Species.

I felt that there was a particular viewing device the group presenting about Invasive Species wanted us to view their object through. Aside from their anecdotes about snakes competing with alligators for territory in the everglades, the majority of their justification for why invasive species is an “under appreciated state of fear” is the threat posed to humanity, and humanity alone.

This anthropocentric justification exposes the viewing device, namely viewing invasive species in a way that ignores our own actions as pollutant spewing, species ending, geography altering human beings that fit the title “invasive species”.

This isn’t to say that human concerns should be ignored, but rather that we humans are but one different example of an invasive species that has waged war on the biosphere, and if we are to better understand the problems associated with Invasive Species.

That being said, what a wonderful hybrid.

Concerning the enhancement project, I felt that their identification of the semantic contagion effect (given the blurring distinction between self-enhancement and “roiding” out) was spot-on. I have been tempted many times throughout my “career” as a college student to drink a beer or take a shot before I give a presentation. I like public speaking, I like forensics/debate, etc. but I get massive anxiety even if I have everything memorized.

Would this be an unfair academic enhancement?

Does it have to be legal?

Mark McGuire wasn’t breaking the law when he was taking his steroids – but under today’s law, he would be – thus he has now retroactively broken the law and has spent time testifying before congressional panels. So what does the legality matter if the law can be changed and retroactively used to punish?

Should we just use a visceral ethics litmus test? If my “gut” feels sick about what I might be about to do, should I then not do it?

Anyways, enough asking questions without answers. The power’s in the politics of it all. :)