So entertainment has no value to society?
But those two points aside I think the demand for watching other people play sports is flawed to begin with. And I think your example given with writing is perfect to lillustrate why. Written works each have a different value to them. A different lesson to them or different story. Writing a book that has already been writen has no value as a book. For example writing a chemistry textbook that is worse than an existing one (at the same price) has no value, unless there is value in reading both. But the value of sports is to fulfil some primal urge (the "point" of which, by the way, is to play sports yourself). Any way the urge is fulfiled has the same value. There is no "type" of sports when we consider the underlying demand that generates it as an industry. It also creates a second order demand of "follwing" the teams, which is the only reason the games can't just be replayed from 20 years ago. Which, by the way, compare that to writings from hundreds of years ago that are still read today. There is no need for the best players to play to fulill the underlying demand of sports. It is just the result of competition. In fact there is no need for televised sports at all compared to watching others at a local park or playing yourself. The same definetly cannot be said about writing: especially technical works but also fiction given that the work provides something more than just entertainment once you finish reading it. Although if you don't accept that fiction can ever do that then it's value is greatly dimminished. With respect to art I'm not sure what to say. I would say we already have enough art such that one already cannot consume all of it. The value of art is also controversial. It would depend on how you view that to say whether or not to extend this same sentiment to it. But many of the issues with sports can be seen in fashion, for example. So yes it does extend to other industries, although I think it is perhaps most clear in sports.
There is no value to it. Some claim that listening to music is enlightening. If that is so one can listen with headphones. And in fact most people do. Yet I do not beleive music is enlightening; it is just another primitive desire. If going to to a live concert truly changes people for the better then we can say it has value. But I believe it is really just pretentiousness, and the few who truly feel that they have gotten any benefit beyond the pleasure of the music are caught up in a mawkish placebo. There is no difference between classical music and pop music in terms of value, and in fact the latter is more popular (hence the name). And one can read in the comments of music videos on youtube that the isteners get goosebumps the same as the wasteful ticket buyer, listening to "inferior" and "uncultured" music on cheap earbuds. Only intellectually stimulating forms of entertainment have any chance of holding true value.
>The idea that “we already have enough art” seems folly and absurdly reductionist.
Please explain why. is the last 400 years of art too "old" for you to consume? Has it expired? At this point, consuming a given art is just at the expense of not consuming another. I can chage my statement to "only really good new art has value, because it has to compete with the old art and win." But as I implied earlier I don't think art has value to begin with. And I believe this is evidenced by the collapse of academic art, after which "art" loses all pretexts and becomes pure pretentiousness.
>I’m sure we can find people who conversely say we already have enough technology.
What do you mean? Technology is a tool, not a type of entertainment. Using a computer for a cash register only needs RPi level of performance. Using a computer as a web server or to run some complex calculation needs more performance. And there are uses of technology that have no value, such as video games. Although here at least any use of technology drives that technology to improve. For example games made GPUs a thing and supported nVidea for many years. Now GPUs are used to fold protiens. But the act of playing a video game has no value.
I mean there are people who do not think that increases in technology add any additional value. It’s due to the facts that we are all free to choose our own value functions and what adds value to one person will not necessarily add value to another. Having one camera on my phone adds value to me, having 3 more does not add any utility to me personally. Likewise, video games add value for some people more than others. Your stance seems to have a strange egocentric perspective that there is one objective measure of value. My disagreement is that I think there are as many unique value functions as there are humans. No offense intended, but the other perspective comes across as the socially awkward takes that are all too prevalent on HN.
>Please explain why.
For the same reason it was absurd that the head of the patent office claimed 150 years ago that anything of value had already been invented. We can’t foresee what other people will value. More importantly, art can be an end to itself. The idea that everything has to be a means to some end can devolve into treating all human endeavors as inputs into some global maximization functions, reducing humans to cogs in a machine. That feels a bit philosophically bankrupt (and sad) to me.
>More importantly, art can be an end to itself.
Is life itself not the greatest art? One who lives for art is already dead.
>The idea that everything has to be a means to some end can devolve into treating all human endeavors as inputs into some global maximization functions
Even if all basic needs were fulfiled, art still would not have true value.
>reducing humans to cogs in a machine
Are artists and thier consumers not cogs in a machinine maximizing their pleasure? Not that this framing means anything on it's own.
>That feels a bit philosophically bankrupt
Many philosphies have taken the stance given above, begining in ~500 BC in Buddhism, and reappearing independently multiple times such as in Mohism in 400 BC and still existing in modern philosophies such as some forms of utilitarianism and nihlism. No serious philosphers, meanwhile, beleive that the meaning of life is to look at art.
Going back to art, this is probably false. Art (including music) brings happiness to at least some creators and some consumers. I personally receive great happiness from listening to music.
This is a pretty naive understanding of hapiness. It is widley held by philosophers, religions, and even even many (most) uneducated people that happines is happiness in one's state of being, ie. something like contentment. One who is "happy when he listens to music" is generaly said not to be happy. Not even not "truly" happy but just not happy at all. This can be demomstated from an evoltionary, teleological psychological, or even theological perspective.
Even if the athletes themselves were the problem, there is no viable solution here. Banning sports?
>Athletes are actually underpaid in the US, if you look at the wage to revenue ratios of most professional leagues.
You need to compare the wage to profit ratio which I'll assume you meant. And while I don't say you're wrong I'd like to see the numbers. Also I guarantee the thousands of faceless workers built around these athletes are more underpayed than the athletes, although whether that's relevant depends on exactly what point you're making. In any case, while the work and drive needed to become an athelete is very high, the amount needed to fulfill the demand is very low. Again, see my other comment. So the effort put in is just to be the one to extract the resources from ticket buyers. And the more effort put in, or more accurately the more exclusive the talent pool becomes, the higher the total cost becomes, although perhaps that amount is negligible, and that depends on the numbers which I don't have and which are either way unnecessary for my central claim.
That’s a just world.
Overpaid, or extremely wealthy by the global society - but under paid in their "local group" (for lack of better term)
Edit: like when VC say they take the risk - bullshit. They just risk money - labor (athletes, entrepreneur) risk time and health. Those are not renewable - but money is.
I think your parent commenter was asking for a citation showing that NFL franchises rake in net profits for owners and another citation showing athletes wages are being held down artificially.
You are presenting ideology as objective truth.
this part is not controversial. the NFL has an official policy capping the total player salaries for each team.
Other athletes including basketball and boxing players. The NFL in particular tries to ensure that individuals don't become brands on their own
Aggregate: athletes as a whole