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?
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).
