Why do so many body-builders and strength athletes die relatively young? In response to this question, whose empirical validity I am not concerned to question right now (but witness this), I offer the following meditation.
Keith
Norris has written eloquently somewhere about the empirical reality that
survival and performance become increasingly separate and even opposite
goals as you reach the limits of human capacity for exertion. At some
point, exerting more now means trading in longevity. I cannot go full-blast all the time, or most of the time, without burning my
chronological candle down faster than I would otherwise.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that civilization teaches us to
avoid "down time" in the name of achieving more. The elite athlete
aims not to live long and happy, as an athlete, but to achieve
something extraordinary with his (or her) body. There is no such thing
as "resting on one's laurels" (as always happens in foraging
societies: a big kill or brush with death is followed by a lot of
napping and doing nothing, except maybe eating). The result of
civilization's lack of contentment with survival is that we approach
athleticism (especially the elite kind) as work, as a job. We seek
short-term profits (big achievements) at the expense of longevity.
When we go, we go full-bore (and burn really bright before going out
early). When we stop (retiring with some career-ending injury or
accumulation of injuries), we quit entirely. The forager works hard,
yes, but he also rests hard. He cannot stop, unless he wants to die,
and his life-rhythm is very different from the "all or nothing, win or
lose" pace set by elite athletes.
Civilization seems to represent a kind of ongoing fragmentation in
humanity whereby accidental strengths--and their concomitant
weaknesses--are allowed an exaggerated expression. If I am predisposed
to be very quick and strong, then civilization offers me the leisure
to become an extreme phenotype. If I am predisposed to be mentally
agile, then civilization offers me the leisure to become an extreme
phenotype. The viability of extreme phenotypes is always less in
nature than in civilization, and even in the latter we observe that
extremity is often associated with early mortality (and other material
handicaps: I am thinking in particular of purebred dogs here, as well
as humans; one could also think of domestic sheep and cattle, which
offer their human masters more milk, flesh, and wool at the expense of
being too stupid and fat to survive without supervision).
'Uncivilisation' as a corrective to the extremities that civilization
increasingly pushes requires some 'return to the mean' where physical
and mental activity is concerned. If humans want to avoid dying early
and prematurely crippled in some facet of their phenotype, they need to
return to a life more like that of their ancestors--a life that offers
them unstructured time for recuperation from strenuous labor. We need
strenuous labor. But we also need rest. And we need both, the labor
and the rest, to take place in environments less structured than the
boxes constructed by civilization (the job site, the gym, the
university). We need to return to nature, to learn again how to work
and rest under the sun, moon, and stars. We need to learn the rhythms
of nature outside in addition to the rhythms of our own internal
humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment