Evil or Just Offsides: Humanist Deficiencies in a Futurist World Cup Press Event

8/12/2019 Evil or Just Offsides: Humanist Deficiencies in a Futurist World Cup Press Event

1/23

1

Dan Michalski

July 14, 2014

JMS 608 - Media Criticism

Final Paper

Evil or Just Offsides:

Humanist Deficiencies in a Futurist World Cup Press Event

The World Cup was an intermediated spectacle that reached more than 3.6 billion

people over the course of a single month. Thats roughly half the human population. The

quadrennial events primary message was one of achieving global unity through athletic

competition. (All in one rhythm is the official motto this year.) But the 2014 World Cup in

Brazil put forth a secondary message about technology, creating a significant subtext that

frames much of the activity surrounding the World Cup.

There was a concerted effort by tournament organizers to showcase the soccer

world, and the host country in particular, as a major force actively advancing the ball for

global technology industries. This year we saw for the first time RFID smart balls and

goalline GPS relieve human referees of a critical and sometimes contentious duty of

determining when a goal is actually a goal. Also for the first time, some players wore shoes

and jerseys capable of tracking body performance, which fans would (someday?) follow via

smartphone app. Nike created one of the sexier items in Brazil -- a 3d-printed gear bag,


2/23

2

custom-made for only four top players (and maybe some business executives, we can

presume) in the same design as one of their popular shoe models, which eventually could

be 3d-printed, too. Other technology on display included spray-on penalty lines made with

disappearing, environmentally sensitive foam, and super-high definition video screens,

which proved capable of drawing crowds by the 100s of thousands in the middle of the

Amazon jungle. Technology that the World Cup will leave behind includes a seriously

upgraded Internet infrastructure, capable of transmitting massive packets of data as every

game was broadcast worldwide in new high-density 4k digital video -- enough to make the

country a global leader in bulk data transfer (Basulto, 2014).

But one bit of technology that was supposed to be a bigger deal than any other on

display was reserved for an event that was supposed to be a true highlight of opening day.

Showcasing both FIFAs (footballs international governing body) and Brazils commitment

to technology that benefits humankind, they slated a paraplegic student to step onto the

field in a futuristic, robotic (and robotic-looking) exoskeleton that he or she would be able

to control with his or her thoughts. It would be an impressive feelgood display for the

ceremonial opening kickoff that could also help establish Brazil as a leader in

neurorobotics, thanks to a live event broadcast worldwide by the designs of a controversial

Brazilian scientist (at Duke University) who is potentially changing the world with his

successful experiments planting chips in animal brains to allow them to control the

movement of inanimate objects with mere thoughts (Regalado, 2014).


3/23

3

Dr. Miguel Nicolelis is Brazils most famous scientist , author of Beyond1

Boundaries: the New Neuroscience of Connecting Brains with Machines -- and How It

Will Change Our Lives. The book is a tale of his research that led to the World Cup

demonstration. One small step for people with disabilities, another giant leap for mankind.

(And certainly a better display than the opening of the Olympic rings in Sochi!)

Alas, it didnt quite work out that way. Oh sure, people clapped and some called it a

success, but just a smidgen of additional thought and you can see this wasnt so much an

amazing display of science as it was a not-so-cheap publicity stunt -- and one that left a foul

taste in my mouth at that!

Overall the event accounted for less than .00009% of televised World Cup minutes .2

So why does it even matter? Michalski (2013) explains the theoretical perspective from

which we will try to answer that question. It begins at the confluence of transhumanist theory

and disability theory. Hardly a stretch in this instance. Transhumanist theory is essentially

about cyborgs -- and comes with the belief that the pursuit of immortality is fundamental to

the human condition, for better or for worse, and that as such, a biotech convergence is

inevitable, which will affect cultural outlooks and commercial interests alike (Murphy, 2014).

Prosthetic limbs are part of this, and so are biometric apps. Disability theory meanwhile is

a complex and evolving notion in the humanities, but essentially, it attempts to take a

1Worth about $310,000 according to Michalskis (2014) celebrity science Q-score, which makes him justslightly more famous than Bindi Irwin, the 15-year-old daughter of the Crocodile Hunter.2We arrived at this number by counting the less than 1 minute allotted for the special event, and divided thatby 90 minutes x 64 games. We did not include stoppage time, extra time, or shootouts, let alone halftimerecaps, postgame shows, etc.


4/23

4

post-structuralist view of identity as it relates to disability (or abilityfor that matter), and

while there is much debate and two distinct models amongst scholars, it suggests that we

should hardly be surprised when disability concepts drive technological innovation.

But auteur theory is what really helps explain this event. When you see Nicolelis, the

lead scientist, as a director-- not of a film necessarily, but of an intermediated live event --

you realize he is the primary creative force spreading his influence on all parts of the

production. Nicolelis has been the figurehead for all the publicity, and he runs the lab at

Duke University Medical School bearing his name, where much of the research that made

this event possible originated. To be sure it is not just him. The Walk Again project that

this is part of is the work of multiple countries and 150 scientists. But according to auteur

theory, we understand how it is his brainchild.

To understand this point, and perhaps explain the cause of whatever taste the

ceremonial kickoff left behind, I will use a postmodern combination of analytical tools and

techniques that include Foucauldian discourse analysis, textual analysis, audience

analysis, channel analysis and more to explore the proposition that this event was indeed a

publicity stunt that did not necessarily exhibit the best of intentions. Exploring three areas

that should make this obvious: (1) a discourse analysis of the event itself, 90 seconds of

the supposedly revolutionary event and the run-up to it (2) textual and audience analysis of

other World Cup commercials related to technology, which provide proper context for

audience interpretations and (3) authorial analysis to come to some final conclusions


5/23

5

about the authors intent, which we will do by looking at a few neuro-robotics websites. By

looking at websites associated with Nicolelis, the scientist credited with being primary

auteur of this event, we can gain even further insight into the real story behind a single kick

that may or may not have changed the world.

REVOLUTIONARY STRIDES?

Nicolelis (2012) explains his vision in his own words, and this was the general

storyline of how it was going to work up until the actual event itself. At some point earlier

this year they even got illustrations for this concept (Figure 1):

The first ceremonial kick of the World Cup game may be made by a

paralyzed teenager, who, flanked by the two contending soccer teams,

will saunter onto the pitch clad in a robotic body suit. This suitor

exoskeleton, as we call itwill envelop the teenagers legs. His or her

first steps onto the field will be controlled by motor signals originating in

the kickers brain and transmitted wirelessly to a computer unit the size of

a laptop in a backpack carried by our patient. This computer will be

responsible for translating electrical brain signals into digital motor

commands so that the exoskeleton can first stabilize the kickers body

weight and then induce the robotic legs to begin the back-and-forth

coordinated movements of a walk over the manicured grass. Then, on

approaching the ball, the kicker will visualize placing a foot in contact with

it. Three hundred milliseconds later brain signals will instruct the

exoskeletons robotic foot to hook under the leather sphere, Brazilian

style, and boot it aloft. (Nicolelis, 2012).


6/23

6

The actual kick took place on June 12th, and was a model of overpromise. It didnt

quite live up to what many of the press previews had promised. First, there was no rising

from a wheelchair -- instead we saw the person in the exoskeleton being held up by two of

five assistants surrounding him. More egregious, no one ever told us his name. An

unknown person (with no back story, then) emerged onto a red carpet wearing an

exoskeleton had been pre-loaded into the suit with wires running from a cap the patient

was wearing to all different body parts. Nicolelis originally fought to be able to actually

implant the electrodes in the brain, insisting that would provide much greater motion

capabilities, but he could not get necessary approvals from FIFA officials or his academic

overlords (Miller, 2014 Regalado, 2014) so they had to settle on a cap. It did not take

place at the center spot, either. It took place on the sidelines, with some cameras rolling,

but not many. Even the TV announcers gave fewer than 10 seconds of explanation to the

anonymous kicker wearing something that looks borrowed from Sigourney Weaver in

Aliens, as the crowd cheered . According to Google translated (from Portuguese to3

English) Facebook posts on Dr. Miguel Nicolelis page (he has 112,619 likers), this is

where FIFA had misled them on the set-up.

3We would later find out the person in the exoskeleton was 29-year-old Juliana Pinto. But this informationcame from a fellow paraplegic who offered a criticism of the event on YouTube. Nowhere on Nicoleliswebsite or Facebook page is there any indicator that this person has a name -- and most of the pictures are

just of the suit.


7/23

7

Figure 1. Revolutionary strides: The vision presented for the exoskeleton kickoff that got so much press

may have been a little ambitious compared to what really happened.

Nicolelis would describe this event as a moonshot, but considering that he gave it

Neil Armstrong implications, most bothersome was that this person never even had their

name mentioned. It was possibly an oversight, but unlikely. Also, it did not take place at the

center spot, with teams looking on -- instead it was on the sidelines, for not even one

minute. There is much debate about whos at fault and what went wrong with this showing.

Critics say he didnt even kick the ball, one of the helpers rolled it. Nicolelis also balked that

there was an aversion to surgically implant electrodes directly in the brain, which he says

would work much better (Miller, 2014). And though we can see the person in the

exoskeleton raising his fist in victory, without a name and the ability to research a

backstory, no family members, no politicians nearby, just four research assistants and an


8/23

8

assistant referee. Watch the video repeatedly and tell me: Is that the fist of someone who

just overcame a long-term disability in ways that few humans ever imagined possible, or is

that more the celebration of someone who just successfully completing their task? YouTube

was rampant with conspiracy theories, people questioning whether he kicked it or the one

guy pushed it. One critic online, Marc de Hond, a paraplegic who has used a robotic

exoskeleton himself, did his own content analysis of what he watched, and explained that

while robotic exoskeletons are great, the fact that the subject was able to thrust is arms in

the air suggests there really was no need for brain-controlled movement, if indeed thats

what actually happened (de Hond, 2014), which makes it a poor display of science.

Poor form to be sure. They didnt name names, and didnt grant interviews, and in

response to some critics, they then blamed FIFA for not setting it up properly. Journalistic

research would call for talking to people in the neurorobotics community. It should not be

hard to reconstruct what people were saying as this potentially momentous event was

happening and what they were saying as they watched it for the first time. Were they

celebrating it like the landing of a Mars Rover? Or were they rolling their eyes? Too much

around this artifact is just not adding up.

SOCCEROLOGY 101

The next way to assess this event is to understand it in the context of other soccer

messages related to technology. Soccer is life, a religion to some. Pros are heros capable

of using a game so many people love to save the world. This is a recurring message


9/23

9

conveyed by the World Cup-timed soccer commercials, and one that reveals significant

information about their audience and its relationship with technology.

One commercial, EA Sports FIFAs Landon Donovan -- Always in the Game -- tells

a story about a soccer star who didnt make the American national team, so while sitting at

home as he plays video games. Sounds nice enough, and it does a great job at helping EA

Sports connect with their customers by showing Donovan as ostensibly just one of them.

But it also impacts a blurring of lines between people on a screen as characters and other

human contacts that converge in real life for these digitally transmitted games. This video, a

1:26 spot played on EA Sports FIFAs YouTube channel is a commercial for one of the

most popular video games in the world (more than 100 million copies sold over a 22 year

history Businesswire, 2010). But there is more to it than that. As video game graphics,

computerized animation, and artificially intelligent game play continuously improve, we are

seeing more lifelike in-game avatars in immersive environments, and despite an

increasing sharpness of imagery, we are also seeing a blurring of lines between what is

real and what is play. Sports games in particular create a special sort of intermediated

relationship between players who are consumers of the game andplayerswho are

athletes on the pitch -- and serve (by league contract) essentially as the games content.

The Donovan commercial provides a classic example of how marketers can establish

connective tissue between content and audience through visceral cues that fuel vicarious

living experiences.


10/23

10

Figure 2. Not-so-virtual reality: Sportscasts using live-action game footage overlayed with video

game graphics could eventually leave us to wonder where the video game ends and real life begins.

EA Sports partners support this convergence of fantasy and reality more directly.

Sonyplaystation (2014), for example, offers a storyline about how the PS4, the official

game system of the World Cup, is doing an Armchair Champions campaign. They are

more directly offering the message of unity and escapism through gamification -- and of

course the overall greatness of soccer on the field, which we all like to enjoy from the

comfort of our living rooms. But the real development fueling this convergence on more

than imaginary level comes from video game graphics finding their way into live-action


11/23

11

replays of sports media (Figure 2). Gamification is the notion that brings together video

game semiotics and other cues with real life. And EA Sports isnt the only one who benefits

from this convergence. Its a perfect example to show how technology can change

meaning. Video game players love it, because it shows the sportscasters speak their

language, and newbie fans presumably love it as well, as it allows people with a cursory

interest to better understand finer nuances of the beautiful game. Through stats, arrows,

flashing circles, and power bars, sportscasters fuel this convergence with these semiotic

cues that already mean plenty to customer-players who are familiar with additional

meaning provided by this visual data about players on the field. But their impact stretches

even further, as game avatars and real players begin to look like one in the same

(Grotticelli, 2014).

Soccer fans want to believe in technology and are willing to enjoy its benefits without

protest -- but that doesnt remove an underlying fear of it. We see this with two short-films

by Nike and Samsung -- two big-money Internet commercials that present a dystopian

vision of the future where the fate of football, and all humanity for that matter, are in

jeopardy. Both use near-future futurist science fiction storylines in conjunction with

contemporarily famous soccer faces (and voices) to promote international football ideals.

On first read of these texts, you see relatively inspiring storylines with messages in tune

with FIFA bullet points about football bringing out the best in all humans and uniting the

world. But a closer look at these futurist expressions in the context of Thacker (2003) and


12/23

12

Samet (2011) reveals corporations intent on profiting without a conscience from a

transhumanist future.

Nikes The Last Game campaign is a 5-minute ad that presents an animated

fantasy about the creation of soccer clones, made from the top players currently in the

game. The idea is that this will lead to the greatest football ever, but alas, a third of the way

through, it becomes clear the creation of perfect football squads -- all dressed in gray

uniforms with bowl haircuts signifying the opposite of life -- has sapped the game of all its

color and soul, which leads to a mass exodus of human pros leaving the game to find new

lines of work. But when the evil scientist announces designs on cloning the NBA (starting

with Nike-sponsored athlete LeBron James), Spains Neymar, Jr. can take no more and

reassembles a squad of human all-stars to save the game they love. Spoiler alert: the

humans somehow manage to win in a super-sudden-death match.

Samsungs Galaxy 11 campaign offers an even more developed take on these

same themes. In this narrative, it is aliens who have arrived. Trusted announcer Martin Tyler

-- something of a Walter Cronkite character in soccer -- provides necessary suspension of

disbelief by explaining simply, For some reason they have arrived, and the fate of the

entire planet rests with the humans ability to beat them in football. Football must save the

planet. This production references science fiction throughout, with the stylistic nod to both

Enders Gameand Star Wars(right down to the typeface of text on the screen between

episodes) as robotic devices help with training. It is a compelling storyline loaded with


13/23

13

mythological symbolism, using the backdrop of Brazil and its Christ the Redeemer statue

on the side of humanity as they fight Hurakan, a team named after the Mayan god who

brought destruction upon humans in the form of great floods and plagues. On the sidelines

are evil beings cloaked in shrouds, looking like a cross between a reaper from The

Seventh Sealmerged with Emperor Palpatine in Return of the Jedi, as they are cheering

for and seemingly controlling the alien players. It is a surprisingly dark tale that somehow

maintains its inspirational quality in accordance with a collective World Cup messages of

positivity, brought on by the call of soccer (and soccer stars) to save the world. Rivals on

the pitch will have to unite, find their strengths, and act as one, Tyler declares. It takes a

human to be a champion.

Figure 3. Fear mongered: Evil scientists are more of a threat to

soccer than people think. This one replaced human athletes withclones.

Look closer and youre seeing a glimpse of the games conceptualized future -- one

where drones take an active role in refereeing, robots are an essential part of training, and


14/23

14

apps on your Samsung Galaxy monitor a players biological functions and can diagnose

injury. We dont yet know the outcome of the game -- the final episode will go live shortly

after this paper is submitted. All we know is its 3-1 at halftime -- the aliens are winning --

so it does not look good for the survival of humanity without something of a miracle to

intervene.

SCIENTIST AS DIRECTOR

No doubt, soccer fans are on the lookout for the evil scientist caricature represented

in different ads. Could Dr. Nicolelis be that guy? I am not necessarily comfortable labeling

anyone I havent spoken to evil. So were going to do an authorial analysis of select

neuro-robotics media. Auteur theory says that will tell us much -- perhaps giving the final

pieces to really explain what got my undergarments in a crevasse over a hardly even a

minute of video. If the lead scientist is the director -- hes the public face and the author of

the book, and his name is on the lab at Duke Universitys Medical School -- then he shapes

the productions intent, which by the same logic also reveals the authors intent (Sarris,

1963). But could Nicolelis be someone traditional humanists should fear? He does seem

to be a tad aggressive on his desire to plant chips in brains . I have a hard time making4

such conclusive declarations about whats in a persons soul without having ever met him.

Digital representations of his own intermediated presence, however, do tell a plausible

story that merits further research. Auteur theory suggests that additional investigation of

4Supposedly the kick would have worked better if he couldve planted electrodes directly in his subjectsbrains. But FIFA wouldnt go for it, nor would Duke University, so he had to go with the skull cap.


15/23

15

surrounding media can begin to reveal not just a great story about the battles for

neurorobotic supremacy, but also philosophies and intent across different connections.

So lets look at the scientist himself, and a couple of websites in his realm. Though

evil may be too harsh a phrase for epistemic realities of a self-declared atheist who is a

member of the Pontifical Science Academy (a Vatican City advisory group that traces its

origination back to Galileo), Nicolelis has certainly been controversial. This could be

because he receives nearly 90 percent of Brazils science research budget. Thats only

$15 million from his home country, but still way more than any other Brazilian researcher

receives (Regalado, 2014) or because his research is considered groundbreaking by

some, but scientifically and ethically questionable by others.

Figure 3. Dr. Evil, I presume?Aww, cmon,

surely this guy would never build an army of

monkey robots capable of winning the World

Cup and destroying the human race.


16/23

16

But beyond seeing the event and looking at his CV, to understand his intent, we can

look at other artifacts that provide context -- starting with his own website

(http://nicolelislab.net), the online home of his laboratory at Duke Medical Center. Were

greeted by a monkey, with images of a brain in the background, and then from there a

rather standard looking outpost highlighting the labs accomplishments.Theres a list of

prominent post-doctoral alumni, lots of news reports about the labs successes (Top

Scientific Breakthroughs of 2012, Science Building up Brazilian Brain Science, Top

Stories of 2012, Science Careers), YouTube videos of robotic exoskeletons and lab rats

running in circles with interconnected brains, and of course images of Nicolelis himself --

some of them professionally taken, it would seem. Perhaps interestingly what is not up

there is a video of the kickoff, but there is the video of the promotion of it . Go over to the5

site of the company that helps him manufacture his exoskeleton, Rex Bionics

(http://rexbionics.com) and you see similar philosophy attached to the medical arm of

Disability Theory. Their subhead is Step into the Future, and though they do show an

actual living person wearing the exoskeleton, the machinery is clearly the star -- The

worlds first hands-free, self-supporting, independently controlled robotic walking device, it

boasts.

Disability Theory is a complex variant of feminist and queer theories that attempts to

explain many elements of being disabled and the how one interacts with a culture biased

5Turns out its near impossible to find the full video. Its not on FIFAs official site even. But you can findplenty of videos and comments from soccer fans and disability advocates crying foul.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Frexbinocs.com&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEHyWEFflZZzQKOswd30UXqti4PvQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnicolelislab.net&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF_eaKHgXwLWDJ8CHHoeUEtNeKgPw


17/23

17

toward specific body types. From a technology standpoint, it suggests that disability will

often be the driver for medical developments. But in that is the great schism. There are two

factions of Disability Theory. One is the medical model, which looks at the science, the

medicine, as the ultimate savior that will allow the disabled to achieve normalcy. The other

faction, however, the social justice model of disability theory, vehemently opposes this

concept, believing that instead we as a society should be looking for ways to

accommodate all different needs. I am perhaps oversimplifying these issues, but for our

purposes here, it is important to recognize this schism and see that Nicoleliss lab clearly

falls on the medical side -- i.e. science will be what helps people in need get back to

normal.

Compare Nicolelis Walk Again project with the website of their competitor,

ReWalk (http://rewalk.com), and you see a different approach (and signs that there is a

relatively juicy backstory worthy of a pitch to the New Yorker). You have to make multiple

clicks before finding a scientists name there. Instead they have a picture of one of their

patients in a robotic exoskeleton (not brain-controlled mind you, but computer controlled)

embracing President Obama. The picture links to an article announcing their exoskeleton

as the first one approved by the FDA for home use -- which was put out in press releases

about three weeks after Nicolelis non-FDA-approved brain-implant exoskeleton got all the

attention for the kickoff. But scroll down beneath the fold and there you see something quite

curious in the context of this postmodern analysis: Under a subhed of What is ReWalk?


18/23

18

next to a video of some patients walkingdown the steps of the US Capitol. This is clearly

the social justice side of Disability Theory.

Though this site is clearly more people-focused, below the fold they go into more

detail about their equipment: The ReWalk Robotic Exoskeleton is: the mostwidely used,

moststudiedand firstavailable for personal ownership.The emphasis added is theirs

not mine. It is curious to see most studied in orange, with a link ReWalks peer-reviewed

study section. That suggests that perhaps others in the field are notso well-studied they

dont name any names, but we can safely assume the field of neuro-robotics is relatively

small. This is where more investigative journalism is needed to verify before publication,

but I would think there are not too many people competing on the cutting edge of

neuro-robotics. Some hold Nicolelis out as a hero, while others see him as exactly what is

wrong with these sorts of scientific pursuits.6

6My own research on celebrity scientists and the Sagan Effect (Michalski, 2014) says he will have his

share of trolls and haters, but negative perceptions of his science will often be unfounded. My research

consisted of creating a Q-score for science celebrities based on different social media and search engine

measures of popularity, and plugging in the numbers for Nicolelis reveals that he certainly meets the criteria

of celebrity science, and that means he didnt get there out of nowhere. The Sagan Effect says you will get

haters, posers, and trolls. Michalski (2014) found was that science celebrities do not rise to prominence by

being a quack. By all means he is accomplished -- with books, websites, and even a TED Talk.

Furthermore, the Sagan Effect reveals that perceptions of the science will be misconstrued, and despite

suggestions to the contrary, the quality of science tends to go slightly up, even while volume goes slightly

down. Nicolelis clearly knows what hes doing media-wise.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Frewalk.com%2Ftechnology%2Fpeer-reviewed-publications-copy%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHd2_yP6WIV9OHbt5ruwKiBdo3lhwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Frewalk.com%2Ftechnology%2Fpeer-reviewed-publications-copy%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHd2_yP6WIV9OHbt5ruwKiBdo3lhw


19/23

19

CONCLUSION

Ive insinuated the press event was something between a flop and a rouse --

overhyped, underperforming, and ignorant of its true audience impact. But the stunt itself

actually may have been a success. If the intent was simply to get ink, then it succeeded. If

the intent was to do so before the World Cup because you knew it was going to disappoint,

then it really succeeded. Success, of course, depends on how you define it, and how you

intend to measure it. But as a publicity stunt -- or more precisely promotion of a publicity

stunt -- It got the overall attention and overwhelmingly positive coverage, which presumably

positioned Nicolelis and Brazil for more largesse and partneship connected to

neuro-robotics while avoiding scrutiny from mainstream media skeptics and former

investigative journalists doing media studies research at UNLV.

Comedic social commentator Jon Stewart recognized the fear -- or at least the

potential for that fear -- when he had Nicoles on in January to promote his book and hype

the forthcoming World Cup kickoff. At the end of a relatively typical interview, Stewart said,

But as a scientist you can promise me now this is what you will use it for, and not to build

an army of lets say monkey robots that storm our cities, take over, and force us to watch

them play video games? Nicolelis dismissed the comedic insinuation by acknowledging

that as a man from the tropics he does not think this way. The crowd laughed, but we all

know humor works best when theres an element of truth.


20/23

20

Its time for technologists with designs on altering humanity to up their media game

-- as they are not the only ones affected by public perceptions of science! Beyond their own

fields of hard science, they should think about their audience -- and if theyre not aware of

the fears their science brings, maybe its time to reboot the moral compass. I am not

calling Dr. Nicolelis an evil scientist or a quack. But he really needs a better media game

(despite all the success in this department hes had thus far) if he doesnt want to look like

one. For me that foul taste was neither sour grapes nor a bitter pill. I think it was more like

bile. Yes, watered down bile.


21/23

21

REFERENCES

Barker, C. (2010). Disability Theory (review). Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability

Studies, 1(4), 105-107. doi: 10.1353/jlc.0.0041

Basulto, D. (2014). Five World Cup innovations you might have missed. Washington

Post. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/EFPA6f

Businesswire. (2010, November 4). Fifa soccer sales top 100 million lifetime. Retrieved

from http://businesswire.com/news/home/20101104006782/en#.U7G4xo1dXhc

de Hond, M. (2014, June 14). What went wrong when the paraplegic man in robotic suit

kicked off the World Cup 2014? [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaQcC8yJmMU

EA Sports FIFA. (2014, June 14). Landon Donovan - Always in the game [Video file].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KKgR5YWmYg

Grotticelli, M. (2014, June 12). The World Cup in graphics: Imagery, animations and

virtual technology deployed around the globe. TV Technology.Retrieved from

http://goo.gl/u3z0xc
http://goo.gl/u3z0xchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KKgR5YWmYghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaQcC8yJmMUhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbusinesswire.com%2Fnews%2Fhome%2F20101104006782%2Fen%23.U7G4xo1dXhc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFYjN48zEoRoZ8IfCxnjk_ZdcvHFghttp://goo.gl/EFPA6fhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmuse.jhu.edu%2Fjournals%2Fjournal_of_literary_and_cultural_disability_studies&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG5kvvgVmipluINcntxOUfy9TYN9ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmuse.jhu.edu%2Fjournals%2Fjournal_of_literary_and_cultural_disability_studies&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG5kvvgVmipluINcntxOUfy9TYN9g


22/23

22

Michalski, D. (2013). Media portrayals of prosthetics and the transhumanist agenda.

In press. Retrieved from

https://dropbox.com/s/y2tnmljcpwmy7vk/709Final-Michalski.pdf

Michalski, D. (2014).Sagan Effect 2.0: The celebritization of science in a social media

age. In press. Retrieved from

http://dropbox.com/s/6coiitzv1czrmwr/SaganEffect-Michalski-715.pdf

Miller, G. (2014, May 16). Is This Mind-Controlled Exoskeleton Science or Spectacle?

Wired.Retrieved from http://wired.com/2014/05/world-cup-exoskeleton-demo

Murphy, B. (2014). Calling all cyborgs: The transhumanist Olympics are here. Serious

Wonder.Retrieved from http://goo.gl/4I4sdy

Nicolelis, M. (2012). Mind in motion:The idea that paralyzed people might one day

control their limbs just by thinking is no longer a Hollywood-style fantasy. Scientific

American.Retrieved from

http://nicolelislab.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SciAm2012_Nicolelis.pdf

Regalado, A. (2014). World Cup mind control demo faces deadlines, critics.

Technology Review. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/K8VAlC
http://goo.gl/K8VAlChttp://goo.gl/4I4sdy


23/23

23

Samet, R. (2011). Exploring the future with complexity science: The emerging models.

Futures, 43(8), 831-839. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.025

Sarris, A. (1963). The auteur theory and the perils of Pauline. Film Quarterly,16(4),

26-33.

Siebers, T. Disability Theory (Corporealities: Discourses of Disability), University of

Michigan Press, 2008.

Sonyplaystation. (2014, May 30). The Armchair Champions [Video file].Retrieved

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vp0uivCaJ0

Thacker, E. (2003). Data made flesh: Biotechnology and the discourse of the

posthuman.Cultural Critique, (53), 72-97.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vp0uivCaJ0

Evil or Just Offsides: Humanist Deficiencies in a Futurist World Cup Press Event

Documents

Transcript of Evil or Just Offsides: Humanist Deficiencies in a Futurist World Cup Press Event