I'm Serjei James (SJames) and today I have another exciting blog eatery for the community to enjoy. My previous blog entries have gotten 42, 22, and 13 comments respectively. Thanks for the support, I really appreciate it.
Anyway Today I am going to be discussing my opinions, beliefs and philosophies relating to being a professional Starcraft player.
I believe that being a Starcraft progamer isn't a positive thing at all. In fact its actually a bad thing for society. The reason for this is simple: Starcraft as an industry doesn't contribute to society at all.
Playing a game of Starcraft doesnt change the world. It doesn't improve on the worlds infrastructure and it doesn't help those in need. In short, nothing the Starcraft industry does, will ever benefit the world at large.
This is because being a Starcraft progamer is basically like being an entertainer or actor, in the sense that rather than making money by physically contributing something to society, you make money by entertaining people and though advertising. Basically in short, the Starcraft industry only serves to advertise and entertain, and in reality contributes nothing to society.
However the more discerning of you would point out that this very concept is seen in a number of other professions (such as actors, strippers, professional poker, professional sport and even stock traders (because the traders themselves make money out of something they didn't directly create)). The thing is, is that I don't really agree with these professions either, but they have become so ingrained into society that its kinda pointless to argue against them, as they are so well established.
I just feel that too many young people are uninterested by real-world or traditional jobs, and instead of that, they opt to simply play a game for a living. They see it as an easy way out. They use progaming as an excuse not to leave their comfort zones.
This post isn't an attack on gamers or any progamers. I have a lot of respect for many players and I enjoy the Starcraft community, and i enjoy the game, but I do think people take this idea of progaming too far.
Its just that Starcraft progamers are worth so much to society. A great example is Idra. He turned down a physics scholarship to play a game. He turned down an importunity to improve society and contribute to development just so that he could play a game all day and become a personally in the industry. But instead he's stuck playing the same game all day, that obviously upsets him quiet a bit and that he complains about the whole time. There is something very, very wrong with this picture.
It's just that, this world was not build by men in suits, it wasn't built by the actors, the strippers, the poker players, the stock traders or the starcraft players. It was built by hardworking men and woman, who wanted for their children to have a better life.
I don't expect people to adopt my view, and in fact I really expect a lot of uncalled-for abuse (similar to the abuse,attack and insults I have received on previous posts). But I'm ok with that. Abraham Lincoln also suffered for his views.
Wow...entertainment and discipline are things that do add to society I believe. Culture is made up of our creators and entertainers, and that adds to the complex tapastry that is life. Overall, I think that it is naive to state that just because someone is not a physisist or building schools for the underpriviledge, does not mean that they are not contributing.
Playing games is one of those social activities that has been around forever and progaming, people being paid to do so, has been around a long time as well. People invest in these things because of the value that they see in them, plus I am sure that at least some progamers have felt that the study and discipline have helped them in some ways.
Obviously you have gained some value from the game or the culture, or else I can't imagine why you would be here. If nothing else, it has also formed communities and friends, which again adds to the overall complexity of life.
To add more, I doubt that it is always an easy way out for youth to become a progamer. I doubt that they best progamers, the ones that are successful monetarily, will tell you that it is easy. Just beacuse something is not "traditional" does not make it bad.
On January 12 2012 17:39 TheAmazombie wrote: Obviously you have gained some value from the game or the culture, or else I can't imagine why you would be here. If nothing else, it has also formed communities and friends, which again adds to the overall complexity of life.
"a comunity of friends". I have received so much abuse from posting on this website that I actually cried once. A great community of friends...
edit: sorry for misquote lol, but you know what I mean.
Not everyone gives a shits about improving the world. Those are just your values and they are not shared by anyone.
If entertainment doesn't contribute to society, then a lot of people are "unproductive" by your definition. In every company, R&D isn't the biggest expense. The majority of the expenses come from marketing, sales, human resource. These guys aren't creating a product, they're just there to help sell it. Yet they are so essential to a successful company.
What about luxury products? Are the people at Prada unproductive? Because people can buy a cheap mass produced handbag instead of one that costs more manpower to make?
the world isn't just physical though. Everything that is done by all of those careers definitely help society. Would you argue that our culture and media shouldn't exist? O_O
On January 12 2012 17:39 TheAmazombie wrote: Obviously you have gained some value from the game or the culture, or else I can't imagine why you would be here. If nothing else, it has also formed communities and friends, which again adds to the overall complexity of life.
"a comunity of friends". I have received so much abuse from posting on this website that I actually cried once. A great community of friends...
edit: sorry for misquote lol, but you know what I mean.
I am sorry that you have suffered or received abuse, but if you did not like it, then why are you still here? This is the internet and no matter how hard you try, you are going to attract every hater in the world when you state a position. I find that quite often people are not utilizing their resources properly if they are having issues such as this. I am not saying you are wrong or trying to attack you at all for the OP, I just think that while you have a certain point, I do not believe it to be valid.
This is the only forum website that I even look at because people here are way better than on most of the internet. Just ignore the haters and talk to the cool people that you like. I love that you believe in your postion even though I might find it naive, but it seems like people are looking for a debate when someone post something like this. If a debate or argument you are after, then the internet is the place to find it.
First of all this blog got me angry, simply because although you say you dont mean to attack progamming its all this blog is actually about.
Second of all if you believe that everything we do should be motivated by some need to 'improve society' then you seem a bit naive. Even if that is your personal belief you have to be able to see that most (maybe all) people arnt motivated by this at all (see capatalism or any history book for reference). So actually you're only point here is that in a utopian ideal everyone would be hard working cogs in the machine, well great but I fail to see any point in telling us that. Personally I feel that if everyone had a trampoline at the end of their street then 'society would improve' - its my opinion right.
Third of all I disagree with you. Starcraft was an important focal point for me in a rough part of my life, more so than any 'man in suit'. On the other hand I've never needed to see a doctor for any illness, therefore starcraft players are more important to society than doctors?
Furthermore I have to disagree with your opinion that entertainment doesnt contribute to society. Happiness is the underlying factor that a society is ultimately judged on. Therefore it would be stupid to say that it would be better if all entertainment professions were eliminated.
Finally I think we should avoid trying to compare ourselves to great historical figures
tl;dr your post is contradictory I disagree with having the argument because its based on a utopian ideal Your argument is based upon an opinion, therefore someone else's opinion renders it invalid I believe you're missing the point dont compare yourself to lincoln
On January 12 2012 17:31 sjames wrote: It's just that, this world was not build by men in suits, it wasn't built by the actors, the strippers, the poker players, the stock traders or the starcraft players. It was built by hardworking men and woman, who wanted for their children to have a better life.
What are you talking about? This world was very much so built by "men in suits". Who do you think is responsible for international trade and politics? Have you ever seen someone important run around in a t-shirt? I once agreed with your view that these people contribute nothing to society but you have to accept that entertainment is a contribution. Why else would people pay to enjoy it? (Okay, one could argue that people are all idiots or something but let's not go down that road.) One thing that pisses me off the most is that salaries are so inflated nowadays. Does George Clooney seriously deserve 20 million dollars for six months work? Of course I understand the machinery/industry behind him but I still think it's a little too much.
On January 12 2012 17:39 TheAmazombie wrote: Obviously you have gained some value from the game or the culture, or else I can't imagine why you would be here. If nothing else, it has also formed communities and friends, which again adds to the overall complexity of life.
"a comunity of friends". I have received so much abuse from posting on this website that I actually cried once. A great community of friends...
edit: sorry for misquote lol, but you know what I mean.
Thats probably because you said something dumb. Every person ive gotten to know from TL has been cool and trustworthy, so much so that I havent minded giving my sc2 acc/pass to people that i know post here regularly.
Humans are not ants. Entertainment goes a long way to prevent depression and other things of human nature. If you have a hobby, then your post is hypocritical.
On January 12 2012 18:00 surfinbird1 wrote: What are you talking about? This world was very much so built by "men in suits". Who do you think is responsible for international trade and politics? Have you ever seen someone important run around in a t-shirt? I once agreed with your view that these people contribute nothing to society but you have to accept that entertainment is a contribution. Why else would people pay to enjoy it? (Okay, one could argue that people are all idiots or something but let's not go down that road.) One thing that pisses me off the most is that salaries are so inflated nowadays. Does George Clooney seriously deserve 20 million dollars for six months work? Of course I understand the machinery/industry behind him but I still think it's a little too much.
The world was build by the common man. No man in a suit has ever layed a brick. Every piece of development you see in the world was the product of the hard honest work of a day laborer. The men in suits are important too, but there would be no "men in suits" if it wasn't for blue collar workers there would be no infrastructural or development. You wouldn't have a computer or a house or a phone line or the internet. Someone had to make the suit that the "men in suits" wear.
On January 12 2012 18:06 G_G wrote: Humans are not ants. Entertainment goes a long way to prevent depression and other things of human nature. If you have a hobby, then your post is hypocritical.
I don't find anything wrong with hobbies and entertainment. I just think that its not constructive to make a living off a hobby that doesn't contribute to society.
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.
- Comes onto a gaming website to talk about how progaming is detrimental to society - believes that entertainment does not contribute to society - martyrs himself and compares him to Abe Lincoln - steals a quote from Fight Club and credits it to himself
On January 12 2012 18:00 surfinbird1 wrote: What are you talking about? This world was very much so built by "men in suits". Who do you think is responsible for international trade and politics? Have you ever seen someone important run around in a t-shirt? I once agreed with your view that these people contribute nothing to society but you have to accept that entertainment is a contribution. Why else would people pay to enjoy it? (Okay, one could argue that people are all idiots or something but let's not go down that road.) One thing that pisses me off the most is that salaries are so inflated nowadays. Does George Clooney seriously deserve 20 million dollars for six months work? Of course I understand the machinery/industry behind him but I still think it's a little too much.
The world was build by the common man. No man in a suit has ever layed a brick. Every piece of development you see in the world was the product of the hard honest work of a day laborer. The men in suits are important too, but there would be no "men in suits" if it wasn't for blue collar workers there would be no infrastructural or development. You wouldn't have a computer or a house or a phone line or the internet. Someone had to make the suit that the "men in suits" wear.
Again, this is just plain wrong friend. Just because "honest" labor does the hard work does not mean that the men in suits did not help to create or catalize. So many great ideas for improvements came from those men. A lot of times the laborer does not have the ideas or capital to create the things that help the world, they just do the hard work. I work in the corperate world and often the high-ups, all the way to the owner and president of the company, will come and work with the everyman. In fact, it is mandated that all high up managers do so from time to time. Also, someone like Jimmy Carter has done more good in this world, from trying to make peace offerings to laying bricks in houses of for poor people. He definitly has layed bricks and labored. While I agree that it is annoying to be a wage slave, without those people creating the jobs in the first place, we would not have the world and culture that we have today.
Yes, there would be no white collar without blue collar, but without white collar, there would be much less blue collar or those hard workers would be stuck just working hard on their farm, trying to create the goods for their family, not worrying about bettering the world or contributing other than just raising their own. I hate some of the white collar people as much as the next guy, but I can tell you for certain that their job is also hard and does contribute, just in a different way.
On January 12 2012 18:00 surfinbird1 wrote: What are you talking about? This world was very much so built by "men in suits". Who do you think is responsible for international trade and politics? Have you ever seen someone important run around in a t-shirt? I once agreed with your view that these people contribute nothing to society but you have to accept that entertainment is a contribution. Why else would people pay to enjoy it? (Okay, one could argue that people are all idiots or something but let's not go down that road.) One thing that pisses me off the most is that salaries are so inflated nowadays. Does George Clooney seriously deserve 20 million dollars for six months work? Of course I understand the machinery/industry behind him but I still think it's a little too much.
The world was build by the common man. No man in a suit has ever layed a brick. Every piece of development you see in the world was the product of the hard honest work of a day laborer. The men in suits are important too, but there would be no "men in suits" if it wasn't for blue collar workers there would be no infrastructural or development. You wouldn't have a computer or a house or a phone line or the internet. Someone had to make the suit that the "men in suits" wear.
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 demand that all 'fun' activities cease immediately and be replaced with 'work'.
No need to wait for me: please begin the book burnings at 7am sharp. I expect all authors, playwrights, musicians, sculptors, professional forum posters, comedians, dancers, movie directors, actors, lawyers, progamers, and athletes to be launched into orbit by noon.
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 18:16 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 18:16 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. =)
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 18:16 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
You talk about "contributing to society". For example, Idra turning down his scholorship. What is the end goal for society? If everything is perfectly lined up, perfectly organized, perfectly executed, what would we gain?
I would present the idea that the entire point of contributing to society is to increase the quality of life of everyone within the system. You don't need electricity or running water to survive. You have it because you like it, because it contributes to your quality of life.
Starcraft progaming has contributed to the quality of life of millions, and therefore contributed to society.
Second, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is generally considered bullshit. The fact that humans need to breathe, eat, drink, and excrete waste in order for the body to continue to function are the only things that offer any kind of insight about human life in his theory.
On January 12 2012 20:50 Sawamura wrote: 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.
I think it depends on what makes you happy.
There are people who would be happy as a lawyer, and people who wouldn't.
Not all lawyers are happy.
Not all doctors are happy.
Not all engineers are happy.
If I'm happy, I don't care what I do, because it doesn't matter.
I really don't agree with you at all, because you make large generalizations about "entertainment" vs "whatever the hell you choose to think." It's great to use the word society because it indicates something that everyone is personally akin to, but hints at a larger pervasive issue. I don't know how many kittens you've saved from renegade-nazi firefuckers that puts you into a position to really talk about the good of "society" -- which you use terribly in place of the word 'humanity.'
I don't agree with youth thinking, "Shit, I should just become a pro-gamer!" Why? That could fuck up their lives! Is there something wrong with enjoying talented players who play sc2? Probably not, I can't think of a reason why that's a bad thing. If you think it's terrible on a very fundamental level, you should probably remove your personality accumulated from tv shows, movies and music and take a big dump. This includes Fight Club.
On January 12 2012 21:29 MegaFonzie wrote: Most of my thoughts have been expressed already by other people (for the record I strongly disagree with the OP).
I am genuinely curious as to why you have a fight club quote in your signature which you have credited to yourself though.
Lol, I also find it funny that his post is presenting a view that's wildly different from the spirit of the quote.
On January 12 2012 21:33 Batssa wrote: I don't agree with youth thinking, "Shit, I should just become a pro-gamer!" Why? That could fuck up their lives! Is there something wrong with enjoying talented players who play sc2? Probably not, I can't think of a reason why that's a bad thing. If you think it's terrible on a very fundamental level, you should probably remove your personality accumulated from tv shows, movies and music and take a big dump. This includes Fight Club.
I ONLY agree with this because often young people don't know what they want, or want things for reasons other than what they REALLY want deep down.
To truly, completely follow a passion with all your heart is the most opposite thing to fucking up your life that you could ever do.
On January 12 2012 21:25 FaZe wrote: You talk about "contributing to society". For example, Idra turning down his scholorship. What is the end goal for society? If everything is perfectly lined up, perfectly organized, perfectly executed, what would we gain?
Maybe I have misunderstood what you have said, but it seems like you're asking what we do after we have achieved a "perfect society". While I don't think a perfect society is practically obtainable, I do think that at this stage (given that no more development of any kind would be needed) then obviously things like entertainment and leisure would be the focus of society. However this is a very long way off and in the mean time the world has a lot to gain from intelligent people such as Idra in the field of physics etc. In my opinion the end goal of society is to basically live in a world with as few problems as possible. Stuff like the elimination of crime, poverty disease and underdevelopment, all of which can be solved through the fields of science, medicine etc. We have a huge amount to gain, so its kind of a silly question.
On January 12 2012 21:25 FaZe wrote: Second, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is generally considered bullshit. The fact that humans need to breathe, eat, drink, and excrete waste in order for the body to continue to function are the only things that offer any kind of insight about human life in his theory.
I realize that you are entitled to disagree, but i was really using Maslow's hierarchy just to try and clarify my point. Basically I was trying to convey that the agricultural industry ( as well as the medical, scientific industries etc) are of greater importance then the entertainment industry. I don't think anyone really can disagree with that :O
On January 12 2012 21:33 Batssa wrote: I really don't agree with you at all, because you make large generalizations about "entertainment" vs "whatever the hell you choose to think." It's great to use the word society because it indicates something that everyone is personally akin to, but hints at a larger pervasive issue. I don't know how many kittens you've saved from renegade-nazi firefuckers that puts you into a position to really talk about the good of "society" -- which you use terribly in place of the word 'humanity.'
I don't agree with youth thinking, "Shit, I should just become a pro-gamer!" Why? That could fuck up their lives! Is there something wrong with enjoying talented players who play sc2? Probably not, I can't think of a reason why that's a bad thing. If you think it's terrible on a very fundamental level, you should probably remove your personality accumulated from tv shows, movies and music and take a big dump. This includes Fight Club.
I don't know what I said to lead you to think I was saying this. Perhaps you should read through all my posts before going crazy.
On January 12 2012 20:50 Sawamura wrote: 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.
I think it depends on what makes you happy.
There are people who would be happy as a lawyer, and people who wouldn't.
Not all lawyers are happy.
Not all doctors are happy.
Not all engineers are happy.
If I'm happy, I don't care what I do, because it doesn't matter.
Not all pro gamers are happy too , Ask Really about being happy , In the end I was just saying that his point's is true it doesn't matter if you are happy or I am not happy .
Does seem like it has no value to you? Moreso to Koreans i guess but there's been years of emotions in so many people from the proscene, seems very wrong to dismiss it as just a distraction, only some shallow entertainment. To be honest a lot of progames do seem relatively worthless in this respect however and a lot of the time is almost entirely just watched by dedicated players of the games. But it can be more potentially...
First of all, what is the goal of society? If you presume that the goal of society is to provide the highest quality of life for a given community of people, then entertainment provides extreme value. Basic needs are important. Without them, we would face serious difficulties, but at the same time, if a community is able to meet those basic needs relatively easily, they do not factor much into improving quality of life. Culture and entertainment oftentimes provide much more in terms of quality of life improvement than basic needs in this regard for these communities. (Note: it depends on what exactly you are defining as a community here. These premises can change depending on if you are looking at a municipality, region, country, or the world as a whole.)
Even if we accept your premise that people should be working toward whatever this nebulous 'greater good' is, I would argue that entertainment is a force multiplier that provides a lot of benefit. This is provided by two distinct effects: (1) specialization, and (2) people tend to work more efficiently and effectively when happier. Let's look at another overly simple and equally ridiculous example to make this point: 10 less-happy scientists may make one breakthrough each. One specialized entertainer and 9 happy scientists may make two breakthrough each due to their improved psychological state. By specializing into this 'less useful' industry, this specialized entertainer has actually improved the overall productivity of society.
This conversation won't really be going anywhere because (1) people won't agree on what society should be doing or standing for. and (2) even if we do agree on a definition of what is 'beneficial' and 'useful' we don't have the tools (psychology, sociology and economics) to get a truly accurate and effective measurement. (e.g. from the example above, what the ideal number of Entertainers:scientists?).
At the end of the day, I'd say leave it up to capitalism. The pro-gaming industry's size (and therefore the number of 'entertainers' + ancillary jobs it supports) is determined by how much we desire this industry as a need, and how many free resources above our more important needs we can dedicate to it. Clearly, humans see this as a need, and clearly we have the resources to dedicate to it, or it simply wouldn't exist. I don't see the problem.
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.
The problem is, Maslow writing his hierarchy of needs is not fulfilling one of his basic needs.
If I follow your logic to the ultimate conclusion, you aren't allowed to make your argument, because it is based on arguments of people who were not fulfilling basic needs, and thus not contributing to society.
If our society conformed to your expectation of it, your argument could not exist because the intellectual climate would not have produced it.
Since our society doesn't your argument has relevance in your mind. But your argument comes from people not contributing to society.
Okay, Starcraft is not Maslow, you will probably say, but how do you draw the line between what is 'contributing' and what isnt without referring to a cultural reference point or framework derived from peoples thoughts who, as you would say 'do not contribute to society.'
Its a silly argument.
and screw the argument anyways, they contribute to my conception of society, and make it better for me. Maybe I don't belong in society according to your argument then.
so what you want is a utilitarian society with no entertainment or fun? if you are not contributing to the progression of the society as a whole you do not matter? have fun in your robot world!
Lincoln, I find your post unproductive to society because it did not directly contribute to society's benefit. Please go lift some heavy things from point A to point B so that someone may have a house to sleep in (but not live in, because that would not be directly productive to society).
Please don't say you are trying to motivate people to be more productive, because one: you failed, and two: entertainment has the same indirect motivational properties. I wouldn't make such ridiculous examples as the poster above me, but I know a lot of people that were motivated to get higher education because of monetary benefits, and the reason those monetary benefits are valuable is because they provide comfort and entertainment. We build a house because we want to live in it. We do everything we do that is 'productive to society' because it increases our comfort and well being. No, not every single person in society can be a full time entertainer and get paid for it, but not every single person in society could be a physicist either. There exists a balance in occupations and it's not threatened by entertainment Please destroy every video game you have if you feel so adamantly, because you are funding the lives of people who create those games with your purchase. While you're at it, get off this site because it's devoted to video games and by increasing its traffic you increase its revenue, thereby funding the people who run it (and it does indeed only exist for entertainment).
I love how nobody actually reads what I say lol. Nice job putting words in my mouth bro's.
I've done nothing but respect everyone who has commented, yet I cannot even gain any respect from anyone. Bunch of 10 year olds jumping to conclusions and attacking me.
I'm not bothered because people disagree, I'm bothered because nobody on this site seems have have the ability to show respect.
So go on, insult me, kill me or even fuck me. Because I'm leaving lol.
Your logic is just wrong because you are assuming that "progaming doesn't contribute anything to society" and just elaborating on that. Who do you think you are to dictate what contributes to society or not? Your are entlited to ur opinion, but there is a bunch of people willing to pay for progamers to exist, which means they get value from it.
Then you say:
"It's just that, this world was not build by men in suits, it wasn't built by the actors, the strippers, the poker players, the stock traders or the starcraft players. It was built by hardworking men and woman, who wanted for their children to have a better life."
I mean really? How about science (writing, paper, iron, architecture, etc) ? How about people that might have inspired those? (Some people call them artist, philosphers, actors, sports man)
Heck, I look up to progamers (real ones, read flash and jaedong, not Idra) as examples of hard work ethic, and maybe they bring me inspiration to do something important.
I don't want to be an asshole, but you need a huge reality check, and at least understand that whatever people get payed for is generating value for others (you can be payed money, or a hug and a thankyou from a starving person, doesn't matter). Not your twisted opinion.
Entertainment is what sports is. An escape and communial event. You may say you don't have many friends here. I certainly made quite a few from Starcraft.
Anyway, this community does give back in several ways and it has created jobs for people. Not only that, but gamers do give back with charity events. Did you pay any attention to the last SDA Marathon? They raised 155k for Cancer Prevention and research. ._.
Gamers are very forthcoming and provide support in many ways. Heck, look at all the advice and knowledge bombs people deliver.
On January 13 2012 02:02 GoTuNk! wrote: Your logic is just wrong because you are assuming that "progaming doesn't contribute anything to society" and just elaborating on that. Who do you think you are to dictate what contributes to society or not? Your are entlited to ur opinion, but there is a bunch of people willing to pay for progamers to exist, which means they get value from it.
Then you say:
"It's just that, this world was not build by men in suits, it wasn't built by the actors, the strippers, the poker players, the stock traders or the starcraft players. It was built by hardworking men and woman, who wanted for their children to have a better life."
I mean really? How about science (writing, paper, iron, architecture, etc) ? How about people that might have inspired those? (Some people call them artist, philosphers, actors, sports man)
Heck, I look up to progamers (real ones, read flash and jaedong, not Idra) as examples of hard work ethic, and maybe they bring me inspiration to do something important.
I don't want to be an asshole, but you need a huge reality check, and at least understand that whatever people get payed for is generating value for others (you can be payed money, or a hug and a thankyou from a starving person, doesn't matter). Not your twisted opinion.
I respect your opinion, but I don't think you really understand what I'm getting at. Maybe you do, and we just disagree, and if that's the case, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
John in his mini speech summed up Starcraft pretty well.
Along the lines of "Starcraft has done something that money politics or something else struggles to do" "It's brought us all together no matter what race or colour or kind of person we are and had us all supporting together these players"
That's just 1 part of Starcrafts contribution to society so far
As the game and community grows and evolves we'll find out what else we contribute to and what we've helped a long the way.
I just wanted to respond to something on the first page that no one really followed up on:
I don't find anything wrong with hobbies and entertainment. I just think that its not constructive to make a living off a hobby that doesn't contribute to society.
But if you agree that there is nothing wrong with hobbies and entertainment, you must surely acknowledge that there must be people who provide that entertainment? And therefore, that there should be careers where people can live off providing entertainment? You can't simultaneously believe that entertainment is fine but providing it is not...because it would be impossible to be entertained if there were no entertainers. And if you were to suggest people only entertain for a portion of their time, then its really a question of how much you value entertainment in society. Which brings me to your main point.
You said:
This is because being a Starcraft progamer is basically like being an entertainer or actor, in the sense that rather than making money by physically contributing something to society, you make money by entertaining people and though advertising. Basically in short, the Starcraft industry only serves to advertise and entertain, and in reality contributes nothing to society.
I think you may simply be undervaluing the role that entertainment has in people's lives. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for professional sports and e-sports, musicians and artists (etc.) most of society would commit suicide out of sheer boredom or depression because they can find no value in life. Entertainment is pretty much the main reason why people exist. The goal of life for people is fundamentally to be happy...so to say that the entertainment industry doesn't contribute to society seems to be a very unusual and very, very wrong view to put it positively .
Einstein loved working in physics because he wanted to understand the universe. Engineers love creating things for society. For a lot of people who work in dead end jobs or in the typical cubicle-office lifestyle, entertainment and what they do on their free time with friends is all they have. How could you say that, with all this in mind, entertainers don't contribute to society?
Folks, it seems to me the OP does have good intentions. He's simply trying to say that we should be spending the majority of our time contributing to/advancing society. That's not such a bad goal is it? If you think about it in that light, the brain drain of people from jobs which can develop the world (science-wise) to Starcraft is only detrimental.
sJames, I agree and disagree with you. While it's true that the world was not built by entertainers, actors, athletes, men in suits etc., it is still possible for them to contribute. Sad as it is, society currently revolves around having money. Being a commerce student myself, I found early on in my degree that I felt the field was a bit of a joke: I'm making money by organising people's money/reading how markets/money will move.... What? Seemed a bit too much like making money for the sake of making money without serving any actual constructive purpose. So I agree with you there. However when I put this to the parents, they pointed out that so long as you put 100% of your efforts in to what you do, it is always possible to benefit society somehow. Working your way to high executive positions can give you the chance to assign funding in your company to society-beneficial research. Becoming a famous actor can allow you to raise awareness of issues. Also, the point people raise about entertainment/hobbies helping people through the daily grind of their lives is definitely valid; most people simply need some external escape to counteract their daily routines. In the end, I feel that while these jobs aren't as important as others (for me that's mainly scientists and labourers), they aren't entirely a waste of talent (applicable in my opinion to progamers).
Btw, you have to understand that the internet will provide you with a wide variety of readers. It may be that the people on here argue far more vehemently than people you are used to. You'll have to develop a thicker skin and see past their words if you want to survive on here (not that I like this, just the way things are at the moment).
To others, WHAO, lay off him guys... "Twisted opinion"? Endless rhetoric about "Hey, let's ban ALL the games"? I can understand you disagree with him, but can't we respect one another?
On January 13 2012 01:46 sjames wrote: I love how nobody actually reads what I say lol. Nice job putting words in my mouth bro's.
I've done nothing but respect everyone who has commented, yet I cannot even gain any respect from anyone. Bunch of 10 year olds jumping to conclusions and attacking me.
I'm not bothered because people disagree, I'm bothered because nobody on this site seems have have the ability to show respect.
So go on, insult me, kill me or even fuck me. Because I'm leaving lol.
What a great community.
Damn dude, I respect your opinion, I just disagree and that is what we spent a good chunk of last night going back and forth on. Ignore the haters and trolls. You are going to find them in any "community" which you present yourself to, so it is no different here than anywhere else. Try to post your stuff on Reddit and see what happens friend. Some people are assholes, but many people feel strongly in opposition to your opinions.
I am sorry that you feel this way about the site and community that I love, but I hope you know that not everyone is like everyone here is a complete douchebag. If you like it here, then stay and hang out, if not, leave, that is totally up to you, but just know that you are never going to escape assholes in the world.
EPT
Please destroy every video game you have if you feel so adamantly, because you are funding the lives of people who create those games with your purchase. While you're at it, get off this site because it's devoted to video games and by increasing its traffic you increase its revenue, thereby funding the people who run it (and it does indeed only exist for entertainment).
