|
On January 12 2012 18:16 Gurrgeh wrote:
Without culture.. what exactly is it that gives us the right to consider ourselves all that different to animals?
There are people in this world that you call useful. Nurses, Doctors, Scientists, Lawyers (I jest), etc. Those people need their morning coffee and their clean toilet so presumably you then consider it fine to be a janitor and a toilet manufacturer. They need their lunch so chef and farmer are all useful. These things are what our body requires to function. That is your concept of a working society. The problem is that this ignores the things which are required to allow the mind to function.
When the scientist comes home after a long day of trying to cure cancer maybe he pops on a bit of classical music (worthless). Maybe he's more into comedy shows on tv (worthless) or he likes to go out to the theatre (worthless). There's a very small chance that his particular thing is coming home and loading up GOMTV to see what happened in Code S that day (worthless) and perhaps playing a little starcraft 2 afterwards (worthless).
Take away those things and you seem to assume that guy will maybe stay at the lab a few more hours and solve cancer a little faster. In truth after about a month he'll probably be on prozac and a few months after that he'll probably be standing on top of a tall building and trying to figure out what the point of anything is and that he might as well just fall.
If you take all of the "unproductive" things and all the fun out of the world, what's the point in the world remaining? I feel like you should rethink the value of culture and how in truth it is far more at the forefront of the development of humanity.
I don't believe there's anything wrong with people being entertained or having a hobby. Obviously many of the things we do as entertainment don't contribute to society, and that's fine. However I believe that people should only indulge in entertainment and their hobbies in moderation. I don't have a problem with the scientist watching GOMTV or enjoying starcraft after a day of work. I wouldn't even mind if that single scientist quit his job to become a starcraft progamer. But I would have a serious problem if 1000 scientists (or potential scientists) quit their jobs to play starcraft. There is a time and place for everything, there is a time for work, and there is a time for starcraft (and/or other hobbies). People shouldn't work 24/7 in the same way that people shouldn't indulge their hobbies 24/7.
|
On January 12 2012 18:33 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:16 Gurrgeh wrote:
Without culture.. what exactly is it that gives us the right to consider ourselves all that different to animals?
There are people in this world that you call useful. Nurses, Doctors, Scientists, Lawyers (I jest), etc. Those people need their morning coffee and their clean toilet so presumably you then consider it fine to be a janitor and a toilet manufacturer. They need their lunch so chef and farmer are all useful. These things are what our body requires to function. That is your concept of a working society. The problem is that this ignores the things which are required to allow the mind to function.
When the scientist comes home after a long day of trying to cure cancer maybe he pops on a bit of classical music (worthless). Maybe he's more into comedy shows on tv (worthless) or he likes to go out to the theatre (worthless). There's a very small chance that his particular thing is coming home and loading up GOMTV to see what happened in Code S that day (worthless) and perhaps playing a little starcraft 2 afterwards (worthless).
Take away those things and you seem to assume that guy will maybe stay at the lab a few more hours and solve cancer a little faster. In truth after about a month he'll probably be on prozac and a few months after that he'll probably be standing on top of a tall building and trying to figure out what the point of anything is and that he might as well just fall.
If you take all of the "unproductive" things and all the fun out of the world, what's the point in the world remaining? I feel like you should rethink the value of culture and how in truth it is far more at the forefront of the development of humanity. I don't believe there's anything wrong with people being entertained or having a hobby. Obviously many of the things we do as entertainment don't contribute to society, and that's fine. However I believe that people should only indulge in entertainment and their hobbies in moderation. I don't have a problem with the scientist watching GOMTV or enjoying starcraft after a day of work. I wouldn't even mind if that single scientist quit his job to become a starcraft progamer. But I would have a serious problem if 1000 scientists (or potential scientists) quit their jobs to play starcraft. There is a time and place for everything, there is a time for work, and there is a time for starcraft (and/or other hobbies). People shouldn't work 24/7 in the same way that people shouldn't indulge their hobbies 24/7.
You said that entertainers, starcraft progamers, actors, musicians etc provide "no benefit to society". I counter that with the logic of how I believe they provide a very real benefit to society and I don't think you've responded to that at all.. except that now you seem to think it has some value.. but not much.
The world works with supply and demand. Of course all 7 billion people aren't going to become footballers or progamers. The natural order of supply and demand will generally keep the ecosystem of jobs and vocations pretty well in check without someone needing to worry about it. If you take away culture then there's no doubt hundreds of millions of people that could suddenly become scientists and doctors but that doesn't mean it would work.
|
On January 12 2012 18:33 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:16 Gurrgeh wrote:
Without culture.. what exactly is it that gives us the right to consider ourselves all that different to animals?
There are people in this world that you call useful. Nurses, Doctors, Scientists, Lawyers (I jest), etc. Those people need their morning coffee and their clean toilet so presumably you then consider it fine to be a janitor and a toilet manufacturer. They need their lunch so chef and farmer are all useful. These things are what our body requires to function. That is your concept of a working society. The problem is that this ignores the things which are required to allow the mind to function.
When the scientist comes home after a long day of trying to cure cancer maybe he pops on a bit of classical music (worthless). Maybe he's more into comedy shows on tv (worthless) or he likes to go out to the theatre (worthless). There's a very small chance that his particular thing is coming home and loading up GOMTV to see what happened in Code S that day (worthless) and perhaps playing a little starcraft 2 afterwards (worthless).
Take away those things and you seem to assume that guy will maybe stay at the lab a few more hours and solve cancer a little faster. In truth after about a month he'll probably be on prozac and a few months after that he'll probably be standing on top of a tall building and trying to figure out what the point of anything is and that he might as well just fall.
If you take all of the "unproductive" things and all the fun out of the world, what's the point in the world remaining? I feel like you should rethink the value of culture and how in truth it is far more at the forefront of the development of humanity. I don't believe there's anything wrong with people being entertained or having a hobby. Obviously many of the things we do as entertainment don't contribute to society, and that's fine. However I believe that people should only indulge in entertainment and their hobbies in moderation. I don't have a problem with the scientist watching GOMTV or enjoying starcraft after a day of work. I wouldn't even mind if that single scientist quit his job to become a starcraft progamer. But I would have a serious problem if 1000 scientists (or potential scientists) quit their jobs to play starcraft. There is a time and place for everything, there is a time for work, and there is a time for starcraft (and/or other hobbies). People shouldn't work 24/7 in the same way that people shouldn't indulge their hobbies 24/7.
The problem is that you are defining "work" and "hobby" too stricly I think. One person's work is another's hobby and the other way around. I love playing StarCraft, but if I had to do it all day, I am sure it would quickly become work to me.
I 100% agree that moderation is important in all things in life. Too much work is bad for you just as too much hobby is bad, too much drinking, too much drugs, too much sex, whatever it might be. The issue at hand is that you are arguing that certain things don't add to society, that is the entire root of your position, but while there are many things that I feel disgust for that other people find important, the fact is that they are part of what defines society, so therefore it is hard to argue that something which is part of a definition can not add to it.
I dispise reality TV and feel that it makes people stupid, but that does not mean that it is not a certain contribution, or maybe there is something there that does add to society or to the individual that I just have not seen yet. =)
|
On January 12 2012 18:27 G_G wrote:
You write in statements, but you're not backing up anything you say. At least not with anything other than more logic. All the logical thinking in the world means nothing if you don't attempt to verify it. Keeping with the theme on this blog, logic is only useful to society as a hypothesis that can result in useful research. History, especially sciencific history, has shown countless times that even if a theory is extremely sound logically it can still be completely wrong. All I'm seeing in your OP and responses is that you have thought about stuff. Have you tried doing more?
Give the same topic to a large group of people and they will all come up with their own logic. They will all believe their own thoughts and dismiss those of others, because of course their own thoughts make sense to them. Logic left on it's own is absouletey worthless. It is only useful as a first step. You have taken that first step, so now you can take it further by trying to find not only evidence that your logic is correct, but also evidence that your logic is wrong. This will result in modified or new ideas, and you repeat the process endlessly hoping to find useful knowledge along the way.
I'm not looking to prove my idea's. I simply want to share my opinion with you guys. It would take too much of my time to prove or disprove (in practical terms) what I'm saying. However, even if my idea was proved, it wouldn't change anything anyway. People will always do what they want to do, and I'm ok with that.
All im saying is that I disagree with something. In the same way that I can say that I disagree with murder and that murder is wrong and doesn't benefit society. Even after saying this, theres still nothing that I can personally do to change the cycle of murder, but that doesn't mean that I just shouldn't talk about or discuss the reasons for why murder is wrong.
|
this blog really doesn't contribute much to society either but you write it anyway because you like the attention, comments, and controversy it generates. That is called utility. We do things that maximize our utility and in essence this is contributing to society as a whole.
|
On January 12 2012 18:33 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:16 Gurrgeh wrote:
Without culture.. what exactly is it that gives us the right to consider ourselves all that different to animals?
There are people in this world that you call useful. Nurses, Doctors, Scientists, Lawyers (I jest), etc. Those people need their morning coffee and their clean toilet so presumably you then consider it fine to be a janitor and a toilet manufacturer. They need their lunch so chef and farmer are all useful. These things are what our body requires to function. That is your concept of a working society. The problem is that this ignores the things which are required to allow the mind to function.
When the scientist comes home after a long day of trying to cure cancer maybe he pops on a bit of classical music (worthless). Maybe he's more into comedy shows on tv (worthless) or he likes to go out to the theatre (worthless). There's a very small chance that his particular thing is coming home and loading up GOMTV to see what happened in Code S that day (worthless) and perhaps playing a little starcraft 2 afterwards (worthless).
Take away those things and you seem to assume that guy will maybe stay at the lab a few more hours and solve cancer a little faster. In truth after about a month he'll probably be on prozac and a few months after that he'll probably be standing on top of a tall building and trying to figure out what the point of anything is and that he might as well just fall.
If you take all of the "unproductive" things and all the fun out of the world, what's the point in the world remaining? I feel like you should rethink the value of culture and how in truth it is far more at the forefront of the development of humanity. I don't believe there's anything wrong with people being entertained or having a hobby. Obviously many of the things we do as entertainment don't contribute to society, and that's fine. However I believe that people should only indulge in entertainment and their hobbies in moderation. I don't have a problem with the scientist watching GOMTV or enjoying starcraft after a day of work. I wouldn't even mind if that single scientist quit his job to become a starcraft progamer. But I would have a serious problem if 1000 scientists (or potential scientists) quit their jobs to play starcraft. There is a time and place for everything, there is a time for work, and there is a time for starcraft (and/or other hobbies). People shouldn't work 24/7 in the same way that people shouldn't indulge their hobbies 24/7.
Could you please write what you believe to be a good definition of society? Not a long one, just the length like you would find in a dictionary. I have a hard to imagining an accurate definition of society that would exclude mutual interest in various forms of entertainment, which would directly involve the work of entertainers in society.
|
On January 12 2012 18:41 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:27 G_G wrote:
You write in statements, but you're not backing up anything you say. At least not with anything other than more logic. All the logical thinking in the world means nothing if you don't attempt to verify it. Keeping with the theme on this blog, logic is only useful to society as a hypothesis that can result in useful research. History, especially sciencific history, has shown countless times that even if a theory is extremely sound logically it can still be completely wrong. All I'm seeing in your OP and responses is that you have thought about stuff. Have you tried doing more?
Give the same topic to a large group of people and they will all come up with their own logic. They will all believe their own thoughts and dismiss those of others, because of course their own thoughts make sense to them. Logic left on it's own is absouletey worthless. It is only useful as a first step. You have taken that first step, so now you can take it further by trying to find not only evidence that your logic is correct, but also evidence that your logic is wrong. This will result in modified or new ideas, and you repeat the process endlessly hoping to find useful knowledge along the way. I'm not looking to prove my idea's. I simply want to share my opinion with you guys. It would take too much of my time to prove or disprove (in practical terms) what I'm saying. However, even if my idea was proved, it wouldn't change anything anyway. People will always do what they want to do, and I'm ok with that. All im saying is that I disagree with something. In the same way that I can say that I disagree with murder and that murder is wrong and doesn't benefit society. Even after saying this, theres still nothing that I can personally do to change the cycle of murder, but that doesn't mean that I just shouldn't talk about or discuss the reasons for why murder is wrong.
In general, people will be just fine with you insulting the human value of murderers. Calling out legitimate entertainers and downplaying their contributions and hard work is not going to be received warmly.
|
On January 12 2012 18:41 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:27 G_G wrote:
You write in statements, but you're not backing up anything you say. At least not with anything other than more logic. All the logical thinking in the world means nothing if you don't attempt to verify it. Keeping with the theme on this blog, logic is only useful to society as a hypothesis that can result in useful research. History, especially sciencific history, has shown countless times that even if a theory is extremely sound logically it can still be completely wrong. All I'm seeing in your OP and responses is that you have thought about stuff. Have you tried doing more?
Give the same topic to a large group of people and they will all come up with their own logic. They will all believe their own thoughts and dismiss those of others, because of course their own thoughts make sense to them. Logic left on it's own is absouletey worthless. It is only useful as a first step. You have taken that first step, so now you can take it further by trying to find not only evidence that your logic is correct, but also evidence that your logic is wrong. This will result in modified or new ideas, and you repeat the process endlessly hoping to find useful knowledge along the way. I'm not looking to prove my idea's. I simply want to share my opinion with you guys. It would take too much of my time to prove or disprove (in practical terms) what I'm saying. However, even if my idea was proved, it wouldn't change anything anyway. People will always do what they want to do, and I'm ok with that. All im saying is that I disagree with something. In the same way that I can say that I disagree with murder and that murder is wrong and doesn't benefit society. Even after saying this, theres still nothing that I can personally do to change the cycle of murder, but that doesn't mean that I just shouldn't talk about or discuss the reasons for why murder is wrong.
You may not be looking to prove, but you posted this for a reason, either to reconcile the ideas in your own head by reaching out for debate and support, or just to listen to yourself talk and be entertaining. I don't know you or your motivations, but I know that you post this, and while I disagree with you, we are just trying to understand your terms and why you feel in such a way because to many of us, this makes no sense.
|
On January 12 2012 18:38 Gurrgeh wrote:
You said that entertainers, starcraft progamers, actors, musicians etc provide "no benefit to society". I counter that with the logic of how I believe they provide a very real benefit to society and I don't think you've responded to that at all.. except that now you seem to think it has some value.. but not much.
The world works with supply and demand. Of course all 7 billion people aren't going to become footballers or progamers. The natural order of supply and demand will generally keep the ecosystem of jobs and vocations pretty well in check without someone needing to worry about it. If you take away culture then there's no doubt hundreds of millions of people that could suddenly become scientists and doctors but that doesn't mean it would work.
Yes. There is value provided by our entertainment industry. However its of secondary importance and is very limited. But to help explain my point I will refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Among our most basic needs are the following: Food, Water, Sex and Sleep.
Entertainment is not part of this group. Thus we can conclude that the agricultural industry, as well as the industries relating to water supply are of greater importance then, for example the entertainment industry or even our own culture.
Thus to have someone working in such a way to directly contribute to, for example, the agriculture industry, would be of greater importance than someone contributing to the Starcraft industry.
Its not to say that culture and entertainment are not important, its just they they are less important. A lot less.
I will admit that I'm not the best at explaining things, so im sorry if you got mixed messages about what I said etc.
Hopefully this will help to clarify.
|
On January 12 2012 18:53 TheAmazombie wrote:
You may not be looking to prove, but you posted this for a reason, either to reconcile the ideas in your own head by reaching out for debate and support, or just to listen to yourself talk and be entertaining. I don't know you or your motivations, but I know that you post this, and while I disagree with you, we are just trying to understand your terms and why you feel in such a way because to many of us, this makes no sense.
I posted this to find out what other people's opinions on the subject are, and to see what kind of counter arguments arose. Its just a matter of personal interest in this topic.
|
On January 12 2012 18:54 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:38 Gurrgeh wrote:
You said that entertainers, starcraft progamers, actors, musicians etc provide "no benefit to society". I counter that with the logic of how I believe they provide a very real benefit to society and I don't think you've responded to that at all.. except that now you seem to think it has some value.. but not much.
The world works with supply and demand. Of course all 7 billion people aren't going to become footballers or progamers. The natural order of supply and demand will generally keep the ecosystem of jobs and vocations pretty well in check without someone needing to worry about it. If you take away culture then there's no doubt hundreds of millions of people that could suddenly become scientists and doctors but that doesn't mean it would work.
Yes. There is value provided by our entertainment industry. However its of secondary importance and is very limited. But to help explain my point I will refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Among our most basic needs are the following: Food, Water, Sex and Sleep. Entertainment is not part of this group. Thus we can conclude that the agricultural industry, as well as the industries relating to water supply are of greater importance then, for example the entertainment industry or even our own culture. Thus to have someone working in such a way to directly contribute to, for example, the agriculture industry, would be of greater importance than someone contributing to the Starcraft industry. Its not to say that culture and entertainment are not important, its just they they are less important. A lot less. I will admit that I'm not the best at explaining things, so im sorry if you got mixed messages about what I said etc. Hopefully this will help to clarify.
Okay, so there is a clarifycation. Now you are saying that it may contribute, but less so. That is quite a bit different than saying something contributes nothing. If you are using Maslow's as an example, sure entertainment is not as important as sex and food, but it is still there. Also, maybe progaming as a whole contributes to some of the base sections such as security and food. It is possible that some people might be amazing at SC2, but shitty at everything else and the only way for them to contribute is through progaming and therefore that is their only means of food and security.
The creation of tons of various industries, including those that seem frivolous, has opened the door for people to create and produce in ways that were not possible before. It is really hard to judge these things on merit or personal morals because we only have history to work with. Again, just because an industry is new or different does not mean it is less-valid than another.
|
While I disagree with what he has to say, he does have a valid point though. How many parents would want their children to 'spoil' their future by playing video games, what about progamers after they retire, how would they contribute to the society? If you worked at a construction site as a worker, you probably understand how tough the work can be and considering my country has a gigantic foreign workforce has directly resulted in the majority become lazy and nonconstructive. However, I believe that entertainment sector should be considered as a human requirement as somebody that lives with minimal entertainment would probably be less constructive to a regular person.
|
Culture is the human's way of standing up to the open question that is the meaning of life.
|
edit : sorry messed up post, see below.
|
On January 12 2012 18:43 G_G wrote:
Could you please write what you believe to be a good definition of society? Not a long one, just the length like you would find in a dictionary. I have a hard to imagining an accurate definition of society that would exclude mutual interest in various forms of entertainment, which would directly involve the work of entertainers in society.
Society is a human system that is put into place in order to benefit people. Within society, activities that are most beneficial to human kind should be considered to be of a primary importance, while activities that are not directly beneficial should be considered to be of a secondary importance. Whenever possible people should engage in contributing to activities of primary importance, instead of contributing to activities of secondary importance.
Thats kinda just one aspect of what i believe an ideal society would be
|
On January 12 2012 20:00 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 18:43 G_G wrote:
Could you please write what you believe to be a good definition of society? Not a long one, just the length like you would find in a dictionary. I have a hard to imagining an accurate definition of society that would exclude mutual interest in various forms of entertainment, which would directly involve the work of entertainers in society. Society is a human system that is put into place in order to benefit people. Within society, activities that are most beneficial to human kind should be considered to be of a primary importance, while activities that are not directly beneficial should be considered to be of a secondary importance. Whenever possible people should engage in contributing to activities of primary importance, instead of contributing to activities of secondary importance. Thats kinda just one aspect of what i believe an ideal society would be
Who decides and dictates those stipulations in this Utopian society? What if what you consider to be of primary importance is not what I consider to be primary importance? What happens when one chooses to not engage in primary or secondary concerns? Who's judgement are we basing this on? These are all the questions that delve into the gray area of such a definition. If everyone does follow primary, then would be have any culture at all? What if 1 person in the society can deal with the primary be themselves, is it then wrong for others to delve into the secondary? What if everyone is working on those things that we see as primary and has no time to create those things that raise the standard of living for everyone?
While I agree that your definition sounds great, I don't think it can be used as a final definition as it eliminates the human factor, the unknown, and the freedom of creative thought. It is a starting place, not an ending IMO. I cannot pretend to be able to define something as complex as society, but I do believe it to be a place where people can gather in relative safety and community with the ability to grow conceptual thought in the hopes that we will better ourselves.
Also, I believe you stated that this is an idea for an ideal society, not a running definition of what society is.
|
On January 12 2012 20:10 TheAmazombie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 20:00 sjames wrote:On January 12 2012 18:43 G_G wrote:
Could you please write what you believe to be a good definition of society? Not a long one, just the length like you would find in a dictionary. I have a hard to imagining an accurate definition of society that would exclude mutual interest in various forms of entertainment, which would directly involve the work of entertainers in society. Society is a human system that is put into place in order to benefit people. Within society, activities that are most beneficial to human kind should be considered to be of a primary importance, while activities that are not directly beneficial should be considered to be of a secondary importance. Whenever possible people should engage in contributing to activities of primary importance, instead of contributing to activities of secondary importance. Thats kinda just one aspect of what i believe an ideal society would be Who decides and dictates those stipulations in this Utopian society? What if what you consider to be of primary importance is not what I consider to be primary importance? What happens when one chooses to not engage in primary or secondary concerns? Who's judgement are we basing this on? These are all the questions that delve into the gray area of such a definition. If everyone does follow primary, then would be have any culture at all? What if 1 person in the society can deal with the primary be themselves, is it then wrong for others to delve into the secondary? What if everyone is working on those things that we see as primary and has no time to create those things that raise the standard of living for everyone? While I agree that your definition sounds great, I don't think it can be used as a final definition as it eliminates the human factor, the unknown, and the freedom of creative thought. It is a starting place, not an ending IMO. I cannot pretend to be able to define something as complex as society, but I do believe it to be a place where people can gather in relative safety and community with the ability to grow conceptual thought in the hopes that we will better ourselves.
I see your point, and Im not claiming to have all the answers. I can't really answer you questions, and I dont think that anyone can decide and stipulate laws around this concept.
I admit I am very idealistic, but the way I see it, this whole argument comes down to something very simple.
JFK once said : "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.". This is how I view society. It not about what society does for any one person, But rather its about the potential that society has to help those in need.
I just don't believe that playing starcraft will help any of the "tired", "hungry" or "poor".
|
On January 12 2012 20:25 sjames wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 20:10 TheAmazombie wrote:On January 12 2012 20:00 sjames wrote:On January 12 2012 18:43 G_G wrote:
Could you please write what you believe to be a good definition of society? Not a long one, just the length like you would find in a dictionary. I have a hard to imagining an accurate definition of society that would exclude mutual interest in various forms of entertainment, which would directly involve the work of entertainers in society. Society is a human system that is put into place in order to benefit people. Within society, activities that are most beneficial to human kind should be considered to be of a primary importance, while activities that are not directly beneficial should be considered to be of a secondary importance. Whenever possible people should engage in contributing to activities of primary importance, instead of contributing to activities of secondary importance. Thats kinda just one aspect of what i believe an ideal society would be Who decides and dictates those stipulations in this Utopian society? What if what you consider to be of primary importance is not what I consider to be primary importance? What happens when one chooses to not engage in primary or secondary concerns? Who's judgement are we basing this on? These are all the questions that delve into the gray area of such a definition. If everyone does follow primary, then would be have any culture at all? What if 1 person in the society can deal with the primary be themselves, is it then wrong for others to delve into the secondary? What if everyone is working on those things that we see as primary and has no time to create those things that raise the standard of living for everyone? While I agree that your definition sounds great, I don't think it can be used as a final definition as it eliminates the human factor, the unknown, and the freedom of creative thought. It is a starting place, not an ending IMO. I cannot pretend to be able to define something as complex as society, but I do believe it to be a place where people can gather in relative safety and community with the ability to grow conceptual thought in the hopes that we will better ourselves. I see your point, and Im not claiming to have all the answers. I can't really answer you questions, and I dont think that anyone can decide and stipulate laws around this concept. I admit I am very idealistic, but the way I see it, this whole argument comes down to something very simple. JFK once said : "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.". This is how I view society. It not about what society does for any one person, But rather its about the potential that society has to help those in need. I just don't believe that playing starcraft will help any of the "tired", "hungry" or "poor".
Yes, that is a great quote and outlook. I guess where we diverge is that it sounds, at least from the OP, that you are making a judgement call and I just don't feel it is correct to feel stongly enough to make that judgement call. I think that our cultural identity, those things that can seem frivilous or without merit, sometimes do have merit that we do not see. I agree that there are many people that can't be the best at SC2 and probably should be doing something else, but I cannot take that to the point of claiming that SC2 and progaming could be harming society in some way. We will just have to disagree on this point I think.
To me, games are a huge part of our society and maybe someday some great progamer with a ton of money will do something to help, as with the stream marathons for Doctors Without Borders, but even larger. At that time it will be the game and the pro scene that directly contributed to the betterment of all. Maybe someone will use their strategic and tactical skills, along with the discipline and training they received while being a progamer and apply it to something in the field of medicine or a social movement. I hope that comes some day, I really do, and then we will all be closer to that ideal which many people hope for someday.
|
It would take too much of my time to prove or disprove (in practical terms) what I'm saying.
You cant prove anything you're saying because its an opinion, and an awfully shitty one at that.
id back that up with a lengthy written account of the reasons for that, but it would take too much time.
|
He has a point though , we want to believe there is a means of earning a living through playing games , pro scene provides an illusion that everything is going great at face value , looks really clean , but if you go behind the scene , you will look at how terrible the working condition hour is required to become a starcraft pro gamer , boxer had to play until his fingers bleed , yellow had to live on instant noodle and sleeps in a pc bang to practice starcraft .
Is it worth it to go through all that for a small glory that would only last as long as the pro scene still exist ? . Now compared to traditional professional's , Doctors,Lawyers, Engineers , Do they contribute to their society by lending in their expertise to certain matters ? Solving Social problems , Solving common disputes among individuals ,Curing Medical abnormalities , Building and masterminding a much more efficient energies .I am of an opinion that basing on this three aspect of work force , this individuals are much more beneficial to the society .
Can a pro gamer do anything as the above in terms of pushing people's life forward ? except entertaining it's viewer ? . I am not saying the entertainment the industry should also be abolish , because like they said "All work and no play , makes Jack a Dull boy " . I think it's a fact that pro gamers is a particular division of the entertainment category who entertains it's audience and get sponsorship income by winning their game and get better contracts like an actor . Although it's undeniable that pro gamers in the long term will not win an individual who has gone through the traditional professional's route as I have mention above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
