Health cannot be bought or sold
Colin Pistell Monday, June 28, 2010 at 5:40PM My friend Frank Forencich of Exuberant Animal just wrote a brilliant blog post about a recent Newsweek cover story. You should ready what he had to say... right now. I'll wait.
...
You back? Pretty great, ya? You should read his books.
I am a big fan of Ray Kurtzweil and I think he is right - the singularity is near. But even when we have fully merged with our technology and have medicine that would seem like magic to us today - even then, true health will not be purchasable.
That's because health is about much more than your blood chemistry and muscle tone. It's about your relationship to the environment and the cultivation of your spirit. Frank addressed the former in his post and I'll take a shot at the latter now.
Here's a business question to get things started: What is the relationship between risk and reward?
The answer, as we all know, is that the two are directly related - an increased reward must come at an increased risk. The trick is to understand and intelligently manage risks to maximize the chance of a favorable outcome.
The same holds true for vibrant health. You must push yourself beyond where you were. You must confront obstacles and do your best to overcome them. You can only really value something you've worked for - if everything is simply handed to you the instant you desire it, you will always want more.
This is not the same as "no pain, no gain." Push too hard and you will injure yourself. Push an injury too far and you will be crippled. On a related note, do not force yourself to do an activity you hate. If you cannot stand swimming, don't swim. The challenge - and the joy - should come from testing your limits, not forcing yourself out the door.
Arnulfo Quimare and Scott Jurek. Look at the joy on their faces.
Parkour is a great example of the risk/reward relationship. To the general public, parkour is high-risk, even dangerous. What they don't see are the hours of training and preparation that go into each big jump. The risk is certainly there and, to a large extent, is the whole point. There cannot be growth (and therefore health) without it. But a good traceur is never reckless. I would write a lot more on the subject but I found the following video from Michigan Parkour that sums it all up nicely:
You cannot buy this kind of health from the doctor, a diet book, or a pill. Technology may be able to some day grant you a beautiful body on demand and you may be able to "download" parkour abilities faster than you can say "I know kung fu," but you will never be healthy until you get out there and test your mettle. If you honestly push your limits I think you'll be surprised at what you are capable of.
Colin Pistell
Tristan just tore me apart in the comments and I have tried to recover my honor with a reply. Check it out below and let me know where you stand on all of this?
Reader Comments (4)
No way dude. You fail to make a convincing point. Your main argument is that health will never be had without effort. All of the other things you say don't add up to that.
For instance, technology is constantly shifting the effort vs. reward boundary. 100 years ago I would have had to work a fuck ton harder to support my current way of life. Now...not so hard.
I don't disagree with your core point, I'm just stating that you don't convincingly make it. What exactly is it about the overcoming of physical boundaries that leads to spiritual (or physical) health?
Hah, I love you, Tristan :) Thanks for keeping me honest. I just reread the post and I think you're right. Let me try again...
First, let's define some terms. I didn't mean to use the word "spirit" to mean "spiritual" - rather, one's ability to determine an objective and then achieve it. Have you read The Road? You know how they're always carrying on about "the fire"? That's what I'm talking about.
We evolved in a world that was (and still is) rich with resources, but until very very recently we had to work awfully hard just to get enough to survive. We've developed an effort based rewards system (not my terminology) in our neural wiring that makes us feel content when we work for something then succeed.
I think that, net-net, one can only argue that the incredible technological developments of the past century have been greatly beneficial to mankind. But the danger is that, as you point out, the effort vs. reward boundary has changed very rapidly and very dramatically - too rapidly for our still-fundamentally-paleolithic neural programming to adapt. Far too much reward, far too little effort. The results? Tremendous improvements in standard "quality of life" indexes and skyrocketing rates of depression. Sure, some of this can be explained by better diagnosis, but even taking that into account, we as a culture are far more depressed than we were a century ago.
Humans need to strive for something to feel complete - millions of years of evolution has wired us that way. I would argue that any technological development that fundamentally alters this piece of programming would render us no longer human. I think most trans-humanists like Kurtzweil would agree with me.
Now the question becomes whether we would be wise to remove such a thing from our species. This efforts based reward system has been a pillar that has supported not just humans, but life itself for hundreds of millions of years, and through more than one global catastrophe. I fear that in our rush to make everything easy we will unravel much of our resilience.
Longest reply ever.
Hah! Much better. Now that was a good read.
Sorry Colin, I'm with Tristan. Fortunately I'm with Tristan on both of his comments, as your reply was much more logically sound. I do question, though, whether or not the need to strive for something actually makes one feel complete (para.5). Wouldn't a sense of "completion" involve, well, being complete/satisfied?
Actually, that statement could be read two ways. Were you intending to say:
#1 "humans need [to strive for something] to feel complete" (i.e. in order to be complete, humans simply need to strive for something whether or not they achieve it) OR
#2 "humans need to strive for [something] to feel complete" (because they lack this "something" and once they obtain it they'll feel complete).
Let's see. #1 falls apart for the reasons stated above. #2 might hold up for reason's sake, but practically speaking, when was the last time you felt 100% satisfied and/or whole? A great meal and you're hungry again later. A great book/movie/sketch and you want sequels. Sex - you want more.
Just a thought to ponder. Great job pulling your thoughts together on the reply. And nice call, Tristan!