On absence: society’s return to barbarians

The problem of social exclusion is dealt here through the lens of a particularly radical social theory, that of autopoietic society by Niklas Luhmann. Here, exclusion is included in society, no longer as an issue for care, integration and therapy, but as a mechanism to show the importance of the visibility of exclusion. The inclusion of exclusion in autopoiesis is a far-reaching step that demands a revisiting of the concept of autopoietic society. This article proposes a radicalization of the concept on the basis of an acknowledgment of the impossibility of communication with the excluded. This acknowledgement conditions society from within. It is built upon the Luhmannian description of Barbarism as the included exclusion, and is further conceptualized as its excess, as a 'space of absence'. Within autopoiesis, absence is described as an aporetic rather than a paradoxical structure, a memento vanitas that irritates the system from within, constantly reminding it of its limitations.

The effect of smoking nicotine tobacco versus smoking deprivation on motion sickness

BACKGROUND: The experienced smoker maintains adequate nicotine levels by 'puff-by-puff self-control' which also avoids symptomatic nauseating effects of nicotine overdose. It is postulated that there is a varying 'dynamic threshold for nausea' into which motion sickness susceptibility provides an objective toxin-free probe. Hypotheses were that: (i) nicotine promotes motion sickness whereas deprivation protects; and (ii) pleasurable effects of nicotine protect against motion sickness whereas adverse effects of withdrawal have the opposite effect. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy habitual cigarette smokers (mean±SD) 15.3±7.6cigs/day, were exposed to a provocative cross-coupled (coriolis) motion on a turntable, with sequences of 8 head movements every 30s. This continued to the point of moderate nausea. Subjects were tested after either ad-lib normal smoking (SMOKE) or after overnight deprivation (DEPRIV), according to a repeated measures design counter-balanced for order with 1-week interval between tests. RESULTS: Deprivation from recent smoking was confirmed by objective measures: exhaled carbon monoxide CO was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (8.5±5.6ppm) versus SMOKE (16.0±6.3ppm); resting heart rate was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (67.9±8.4bpm) versus SMOKE (74.3±9.5bpm). Mean±SD sequences of head movements tolerated to achieve moderate nausea were more (P=0.014) for DEPRIV (21.3±9.9) versus SMOKE (18.3±8.5). DISCUSSION: Tolerance to motion sickness was aided by short-term smoking deprivation, supporting Hypothesis (i) but not Hypothesis (ii). The effect was was approximately equivalent to half of the effect of an anti-motion sickness drug. Temporary nicotine withdrawal peri-operatively may explain why smokers have reduced risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Motion Sickness

Over 2000 years ago the Greek physician Hippocrates wrote, “sailing on the sea proves that motion disorders the body.” Indeed, the word “nausea” derives from the Greek root word naus, hence “nautical,” meaning a ship. The primary signs and symptoms of motion sickness are nausea and vomiting. Motion sickness can be provoked by a wide variety of transport environments, including land, sea, air, and space. The recent introduction of new visual technologies may expose more of the population to visually induced motion sickness. This chapter describes the signs and symptoms of motion sickness and different types of provocative stimuli. The “how” of motion sickness (i.e., the mechanism) is generally accepted to involve sensory conflict, for which the evidence is reviewed. New observations concern the identification of putative “sensory conflict” neurons and the underlying brain mechanisms. But what reason or purpose does motion sickness serve, if any? This is the “why” of motion sickness, which is analyzed from both evolutionary and nonfunctional maladaptive theoretic perspectives. Individual differences in susceptibility are great in the normal population and predictors are reviewed. Motion sickness susceptibility also varies dramatically between special groups of patients, including those with different types of vestibular disease and in migraineurs. Finally, the efficacy and relative advantages and disadvantages of various behavioral and pharmacologic countermeasures are evaluated.

Prevalence, Predictors & Prevention of Motion Sickness in Zero-G Parabolic Flights

INTRODUCTION Zero-G parabolic flight reproduces the weightlessness of space for short periods of time. However motion sickness may affect some fliers. The aim was to assess the extent of this problem and to find possible predictors and modifying factors. METHODS Airbus Zero-G flights consist of 31 parabolas performed in blocks. Each parabola consisted of 20s 0g sandwiched by 20s hypergravity of 1.5-1.8g. The survey covered n=246 person-flights (193 Males 53 Females), aged (M+/-SD) 36.0+/-11.3 years. An anonymous questionnaire included motion sickness rating (1=OK to 6=Vomiting), Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (MSSQ), anti-motion sickness medication, prior Zero-G experience, anxiety level, and other characteristics. RESULTS Participants had lower MSSQ percentile scores 27.4+/-28.0 than the population norm of 50. Motion sickness was experienced by 33% and 12% vomited. Less motion sickness was predicted by older age, greater prior Zero-G flight experience, medication with scopolamine, lower MSSQ scores, but not gender nor anxiety. Sickness ratings in fliers pre-treated with scopolamine (1.81+/-1.58) were lower than for non-medicated fliers (2.93+/-2.16), and incidence of vomiting in fliers using scopolamine treatment was reduced by half to a third. Possible confounding factors including age, sex, flight experience, MSSQ, could not account for this. CONCLUSION Motion sickness affected one third of Zero-G fliers, despite being intrinsically less motion sickness susceptible compared to the general population. Susceptible individuals probably try to avoid such a provocative environment. Risk factors for motion sickness included younger age and higher MSSQ scores. Protective factors included prior Zero-G flight experience (habituation) and anti-motion sickness medication.

Meniere’s, Migraine & Motion Sickness

CONCLUSION Elevated MSS in MD is likely to be a consequence of the onset of MD and not migraine per se. OBJECTIVES Pathologies of the vestibular system influence motion sickness susceptibility (MSS). Bilateral vestibular deficits lower MSS, vestibular neuritis or benign paroxysmal positional vertigo have little overall effect, whereas vestibular migraine elevates MSS. However, less is known about MSS in Meniere’s disease (MD), a condition in which many patients experience vestibular loss and migraine symptoms. METHODS We conducted an online survey that posed diagnostic and disease questions before addressing frequency of headaches, migraines, visual display dizziness (VDD), syncope, social life and work impact of dizziness (SWID4) and motion sickness susceptibility (MSSQ). The two groups were: diagnosed MD individuals with hearing loss (n=751) and non-MD individuals in the control group (n=400). RESULTS The MD group showed significantly elevated MSS, more headache and migraine, increased VDD, higher SWID4 scores, and increased syncope. MSS was higher in MD than controls only after the development of MD but not before, nor in childhood. Although elevated in MD compared with controls, MSS was lower than migraine patients from past data. Multivariate analysis revealed VDD, SWID4 and MSS in adulthood as the strongest predictors of MD, but not headache nor migraine.