NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to make a Love Glove. :)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore_pr.html

Yes, it's the military at work... making superhumans...

This one I found fascinating, because it could find application in a lot of peacetime areas. I wonder, however, if they would ban it in sport eventually.

Grahn and his research partner, biologist Craig Heller, started working on the Glove at Stanford in the late 1990s as part of their research on improving physical performance. Even they were astounded at how well it seemed to work. Vinh Cao, their squat, barrel-chested lab technician, used to do almost 100 pull-ups every time he worked out. Then one day he cooled himself off between sets with an early prototype. The next round of pull-ups — his 11th — was as strong as his first. Within six weeks, Cao was doing 180 pull-ups a session. Six weeks after that, he went from 180 to more than 600. Soon, Stanford’s football trainers asked to borrow a few Gloves to cool down players in the weight room and to fight muscle cramps.

In 2001, Heller went to Darpa. The agency saw the potential of the Glove for training recruits; the Stanford researchers received their first funding in 2003 and got $3 million.

In trying to figure out why the Glove worked so well, its inventors ended up challenging conventional scientific wisdom on fatigue. Muscles don’t wear out because they use up stored sugars, the researchers said. Instead, muscles tire because they get too hot, and sweating is just a backup cooling system for the lattices of blood vessels in the hands and feet. The Glove, in other words, overclocks the heat exchange system. “It’s like giving a Honda the radiator of a Mack truck,” Heller says. After four months of using it himself, Heller did 1,000 push-ups on his 60th birthday in April 2003. Soon after, troops from Special Operations Command were trying out the Glove, too.

Darpa’s human-enhancement programs were looking promising. In February 2002, Darpa asked Congress for a new, $78 million-per-year push for research including “the development of biochemical materials for enhancement of performance.” That was on top of $90 million to explore how “biological systems … adapt to wide extremes.” The human being, a Darpa fact file proclaimed in April 2002, “is becoming the weakest link in Defense systems.” Strengthening that chain meant “sustaining and augmenting human performance,” as well as “enabling new human capabilities.” Darpa was going to figure out how to build a better soldier.

Aside from the other inventions they appear to be working on, do you think it's unfair or unethical to turn people into "supersoldiers"? Is something like this "Glove" unfair or unethical to you?

Ethical and Fair. We have the technology... :D

I want to make a Love Glove. :)

Then you could go all night, like a lumberjack...

Aside from the other inventions they appear to be working on, do you think it's unfair or unethical to turn people into "supersoldiers"? Is something like this "Glove" unfair or unethical to you?

Ethics here are primarily involved with test groups and consent. If I remember correctly, the US has involved its civilian population and military personnel in chemical weapons tests before without their knowledge or consent. People tested for the effects of radiation by having them stand close to nuclear blasts, chemical and bacteriological weapons tests on civilian populations, etc, etc.

And I'm fairly certain you'd have a problem with that if you were being made into an unsuspecting guinea pig for weapons testing.

Then you could go all night, like a lumberjack...

Ummm isn't it dangerous to chop down trees in the dark?

Ummm isn't it dangerous to chop down trees in the dark?

Not if you set them on fire first.

Ethics here are primarily involved with test groups and consent. If I remember correctly, the US has involved its civilian population and military personnel in chemical weapons tests before without their knowledge or consent. People tested for the effects of radiation by having them stand close to nuclear blasts, chemical and bacteriological weapons tests on civilian populations, etc, etc.

And how long ago was that?

And I'm fairly certain you'd have a problem with that if you were being made into an unsuspecting guinea pig for weapons testing.

I can hardly see someone being "tested" with the Glove without their consent.

And apparently, the hydrogen sulfide thing has to pass an ethics review board that isn't controlled by the military.

And how long ago was that?


Let's see, it's 2007 now, so roughly 40 years ago when bio-weapons and chemical weapons were still deemed practical military level weapons. I don't think they ever gave any recompense to the victims though.


I can hardly see someone being "tested" with the Glove without their consent.


Of course not. It's not a weapon or experimental drug that you can dupe people into thinking it's harmless (until they drop dead). Ethics with life sciences is almost always about consent. And definitely making sure you're not giving them a pack of lies to get said consent.

The worst of the unethical testing occurred in the 1950s, with the Radiation Tests on soldiers and the Syphilis Experiments in the US South. By the time bioweapons became really effective, the US military had grown a brain - they either had full disclosure and testing on volunteers, or did without. That was in the mid to late sixties.

The CIA, on the other hand, did non-consensual human experimentation as late as 1978, primarily psychological experimentation on controlled groups, such as college students and imprisoned felons.

But this is something quite different. You really can't enhance someone without their consent and active participation.

The worst of the unethical testing occurred in the 1950s, with the Radiation Tests on soldiers and the Syphilis Experiments in the US South. By the time bioweapons became really effective, the US military had grown a brain - they either had full disclosure and testing on volunteers, or did without. That was in the mid to late sixties.

The CIA, on the other hand, did non-consensual human experimentation as late as 1978, primarily psychological experimentation on controlled groups, such as college students and imprisoned felons.

But this is something quite different. You really can't enhance someone without their consent and active participation.


Would you buy a Glove like this if it were available on the market?

Just imagine, if the next American who rides in the Tour de France wears this Glove.

Would they claim that it was cheating?

Meh. American men are generally weak and crappy soldiers. To much crying, and not liking bad weather. I know this because I am the only man left in my hiking club.

Though those chicks could really do something to tart themselves up IMO.

Would you buy a Glove like this if it were available on the market?

Yeah, probably. I'm trying to get back into shape right now, this could well help.

Would they claim that it was cheating?

That is a possibility. Drugs are considered cheating of course, and while not a organic/chemical stimulant, it is equipment that artificially increases your performance which can be considered to be cheating.

Considering your America-centric views, you probably would not consider cybernetically augmented athletes to be cheating either so long as they were American.

Don't be such a sore loser that you'd have to resort to any excuse just because you want America to win.

Just imagine, if the next American who rides in the Tour de France wears this Glove.

Would they claim that it was cheating?

It would be......

It would be......

heh that's funny, but them funny shaped aerodynamic hats are not?

Considering all the riders have them, no. And if all the riders could use this Glove majigger it wouldn't be cheating either. See what I'm getting at here?

Ahhh but what of the very first person to wear such a hat? Or what about swimming, there was that hoohaa the other month about a special costume that cut down on drag.

heh that's funny, but them funny shaped aerodynamic hats are not?

Considering all the riders have them, no. And if all the riders could use this Glove majigger it wouldn't be cheating either. See what I'm getting at here?

Honestly? I'm excited. Because I like the Deus Ex Machina games.

Just as long as we find new and improved ways to kill each other, I'm sure we'll be fine.

I'm feeling cynical today.

Totally ethical. And DARPA needs to start working on how to graft howitzers to people's chests. That would be a real super soldier!

Ahhh but what of the very first person to wear such a hat? Or what about swimming, there was that hoohaa the other month about a special costume that cut down on drag.

Are you suggesting that some athlethes should be given unfair advantages over others according to how technoligically advanced their home nation is?

Totally ethical. And DARPA needs to start working on how to graft howitzers to people's chests. That would be a real super soldier!

I was holding out for back-mounted trebuchets, personally.

That is great. It is the thing I´m really expecting for the future. Medicine is so good nowadays that we can solve most of the problems. Now its time for us to develop methods that can INCREASE our capabilities.

Like, for example, there are some marathon runners who go to high altitude places so they can train in an enviroment with less avaiable O2. That way, they produce more red cells which increase their capability. When they go back to a regular atmosphere, their VO2 capability has increased.

If we could do stuff like these in a more easy way, that would be fucking incredible.

Are you suggesting that some athlethes should be given unfair advantages over others according to how technoligically advanced their home nation is?

Noooo man, look at what I wrote, it all ends with ? Which means I am suggesting nowt, I'm asking questions.

I just wonder where we draw the line at technological aids and cheating.

The aerodynamic hat being one, all bike racers wear them now, but what happend when they were first invented?