Treadmill in space?

Back in 2004, widespread popular interest in average folks going into space was rekindled with the success of SpaceShipOne. The privately-built ship won the X-PRIZE, a competition that required three people to travel to a 100 km altitude twice within two weeks.

Here's a happy little video looking back at that adventure, produced in 2009:

For those old enough to remember the heady days of the space race, and classic science fiction that assumed rocketports and beanstalks and all manner of travel for both specialists and tourists alike, SpaceShipOne brought back the hope and anticipation of human-based space exploration.

But then, a mere two years later, in 2011, a peculiarly uninformed article showed up on Blastr, part of "The Syfy Online Network." Syfy, whose tagline is "Imagine Greater," brings all manner of science fiction and other imaginative works to television. The Blastr item, titled 8 once-amazing sci-fi devices now inferior to real-life gadgets, includes as its 7th (not-numbered) item, the "360-Degree Treadmill from 2001 ... One-Upped by: An ordinary modern treadmill."

Here's the scene:

The Blastr article's comments section is now fully buried under heaps of product spam, but back when it was a fresh item, it was heartening to see so many folks come to the defense of what was--and is--perfectly good science in a film that made extraordinary attempts to get the science right.

True, because the film was by necessity shot on Earth, using something known as a "set" to simulate an actual spacecraft (which wasn't available for loan or hire), the filmmakers did have to design a "360-Degree Treadmill" insofar as they needed to simulate the rotation of the ship--and given ongoing restrictions against using magic in the presence of Muggles, they couldn't simply have the actors levitate to perform the scene.

Even given the minor amount of space we've managed to reach with people on-board to date, one of the challenges we fragile humans face is that we're creatures of gravity, and space doesn't seem to have very much of it in the space-y part. Or to be more accurate, gravity is all over the place, just not where we can make use of it very well when travelling through space. Being "weightless" is essentially falling with nothing to break that fall, meaning that space travellers are in "free-fall."

Using spin on a spaceship is one of the few known ways to simulate gravity. This detailed page on Artificial Gravity gives both the science for this as well as the some of the ideas explored by scientists and science fiction writers alike (not necessarily two distinct categories, FWIW).

While treadmills really don't have anything to do with spaceships under spin, it's interesting to note that treadmills--for exercise--were invented back in 1952. Treadmills for other purposes have been around for thousands of years, and among those ancient forms was--you guessed it--a 360-Degree Treadmill (treadwheel). Not such "modern" technology after all. One continues to worry about the kids these days--sometimes knowing a bit about the past can help the present, not to mention any imagined futures, make a lot more sense.

Iterations: Clippy

Via Slashdot, a link to an article in IT World, Paul Roberts' Five ways the cool stuff at CES will ruin your life.

One particularly triggery-mention for old-timey folks who've ever owned a mobile phone sans smart is the role of Clippy, the infamous digital "assistant" that interrupted you at every possible turn when using a particular famous-brand office suite.

Jogging my memories of Clippy also brought back to mind a more recent experience: dealing with an appliance repair technician who--on that tragic day at least--acted like a human iteration of Clippy. In this case, the comparison is more because the supposed help was utterly useless, not necessarily disruptive. The discussion went something like this:

Me: Here's the broken washing machine.

Clipster: What's been happening?

Me: Well, it was starting to give me intermittent door-lock errors, but worked fine if you just opened and re-closed the door again, so I didn't worry about it. Now it's giving me this other error code, and won't run the cycle at all.

Clipster: Oh. (pause) Do you have the manual?

Me: Not where I can find it.

Clipster: Oh. (pause) What does that error code mean?

Me: Well, according to discussions I've read on the Internet, that error code on this model means there is a problem with the motor.

Clipster: Oh. (pause) Well, then the problem is with the motor.

Me: Yeah, that's what it said on the Internet.

Clipster: Right. (pause) Well, that's the problem, then.

Me: Soooooo ... what do we do to fix it?

Clipster: It would be too expensive to fix. You should just buy a new machine.

... and within five minutes, is charging me 60-some dollars and out the door. No repair possible, just a confirmation that I have decent search skills on the Internet. Assuming of course that what I found was correct--as far as I can ascertain, the Clipster didn't have any idea what the machine could/should/would do (whether operating correctly or not) and was relying entirely on my own verbal report.

Gosh, thank you so much. I had no idea that repair technician is now defined as "search engine result confirmologist." The Clipster came to check on my machine because I booked an appointment with the appliance company requesting technical expertise, expertise I don't have. Internet discussions helped me understand the range of possible problems--problems that the repair technician made no effort to assess further.

I know how to use a washing machine, not repair one. If I'd known how to repair one--or known that there was no point in calling for a technical expert--I could have purchased a new machine immediately, rather than waiting several days for the repair technician to show up and then having to source a new machine, then wait a few days more for delivery and installation because by that time, hey, it's holiday season and everyone has gone absolutely crazy with the big sales! Good luck getting expedited delivery now.

During the booking, I had to give the make and model of the machine, a description of the error codes involved and what I've tried to do to work around it. I think some of my frustration with the Clipster is due to unmet expectations: I expect the technical expert to come to an appointment with--at minimum--the information I've already given when booking the appointment, and I don't expect the technical expert to simply parrot back what I tell him, without any actual assessment involved beyond my own.

Buying a new washing machine was always a possibility--after all, I didn't really know how serious this particular problem might be, nor how feasible it would be to fix the problem, and in the interests of not randomly throwing out things that can easily be repaired, I chose to be responsible and call for expertise. The thing is, the appliance company already had 100% of the information needed to tell me to "buy a new one" before sending the repair technician on a call, and simply making me wait several days to do nothing but tell me not to bother made me 100% unlikely to purchase the replacement from them or any of their subsidiaries.

Clippy's unhelpfulness--in any iteration: digital, human, or other--isn't really the sort of feature that makes the user particularly happy or satisfied. Roberts' description of the impending wave of Clipster-style appliances, vehicles, and other devices showcased at CES is rightly shudder-inducing.

Quote: to be human

Via Carl Hiassen's 1995 novel, Stormy Weather:

"Once I thought that to be human was the highest aim a man could have, but I see now that it was meant to destroy me. Today I am proud to say that I am inhuman, that I belong not to men and governments, that I have nothing to do with creeds and principles. I have nothing to do with the creaking machinery of humanity--I belong to the earth! I say that lying on my pillow and I can feel the horns sprouting from my temples."
-- from Tropic of Cancer (1934), by Henry Miller

One for all, and all for one

The old saying one for all, and all for one takes on a deeper meaning in a story in The Economist. Me, myself, us argues that a human is much more than simply a man or a woman: we are complex beings inhabited by substantial numbers of microorganisms essential to our survival, known collectively as the microbiome. According to the article, "[a] healthy adult human harbours some 100 trillion bacteria in his gut alone. That is ten times as many bacterial cells as he has cells descended from the sperm and egg of his parents."

Understanding the human as a complex, multi-organism being may open the way for very different ways of approaching medicine and human health. Dealing with disease may turn out to be a matter of better managing the balance of organisms that comprise any given individual. According to the Canadian Microbiome Initiative, "microbes play an important role in human health, not just as pathogens, or as benign communities that keep pathogens at bay, but also in association with a number of chronic health conditions including gastrointestinal diseases, obesity, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, asthma and cardiovascular disease."

For a slightly tongue-in-cheek look at what a microbiome-positive world might look like, see Tuberculosis bacteria join UN by microbiologist and science fiction writer, Joan Slonczewski.

Future-perfect: the rationally designed human

A bioethicist suggests that genetically engineering babies along a "rational design" would benefit humanity.Professor Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford is quoted as saying, "Indeed, when it come to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children."  

What else might be erased under the notion of a 'personality flaw'? Would humanity truly improve by removing perceived flaws or is there a net benefit to retaining diversity? As the professor notes, "routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome" results in "little public outcry."

Earlier this year, there was public outcry when it was discovered that an American reproductive clinic offering gender selection services was advertising its services in Canada. Sex-selective procedures are illegal in Canada under Section 5(1)(e) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Advertising such services is also illegal under the Act.

Also under Section 5(1)(e), though, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act does allow for sex-selective procedures "to prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease ...". Under the DSM and it's proposed revisions, a substantial list of conditions fall under the broad category of Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders. How broadly applied might legislation allowing genetic manipulation actually be?

I think it's fair to state that Western culture remains heavily biased towards a sex binary and that as such, the dominant culture might consider eradicating the possibility of trans at a genetic level to be a perfectly acceptable and even non-contentious decision.

But is eradicating the trans experience from the human experience actually such an easy decision? Would those who have undergone this experience agree that the possibility of being trans is itself problematic?

Is there value to undergoing the trans experience? Does such an experience have lessons to share with those who haven't and won't undergo that experience? As trans people, would we be comfortable with trans identities never having the opportunity to exist? Is there some sort of intrinsic value to coming to know ourselves as not fitting our assigned identity and undertaking the journey to uncover and assert ourselves as who we are?

Telegraph article originally linked via Slashdot.

First provincial protection for gender identity

Ontario's Bill 33, Toby's Act (Right to be Free from Discrimination and Harassment Because of Gender Identity or Gender Expression), 2012, successfully passed third reading on June 13 and is now awaiting royal assent. The Act adds the phrases "gender identity" and "gender expression" as enumerated grounds for protection from discrimination and harassment. 

A similar bill is under consideration in Manitoba. Bill 36, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, adds the phrase "gender identity" to the provincial human rights code among other changes. 

Toby's Act establishes Ontario as the first province to choose make protection for gender identity explicit. However, Canada's first regional legislative protection for gender identity was established by the Northwest Territories' Human Rights Act.

Alberta relists GRS

In a surprise announcement on June 7, 2012, the Alberta Government chose to re-list Gender Reassignment Surgery for Albertans pursing medical intervention for Gender Identity Disorder.

Prior to 2009, Alberta was one of the few provinces to provide GRS coverage in Canada. In spring 2009, GRS was delisted without warning as part of a budget claiming to reduce health care costs. While coverage of some specific health services were also reduced at that time, no other group sharing a specific medical diagnosis was excluded from budgetary consideration.

For more details, read Mercedes Allen's post, Alberta reinstates funding for Sex Reassignment Surgery (plus, why it's necessary).