2004 Summer Olympics

If it is proving difficult for you, imagine we ceased all friendly competition and all art. Can you see how that might impact on the overall experience of living as a human?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sorry I missed it..... Well the Olympics inspires some people to physical feats that test the limits of the human body. I don't think that is entirely insignificant. But more generally the Olympics serves the cultural purpose that all sport, art, entertainment etc. etc. etc. provides. It's part of what we humans do.If we cancelled ALL sporting events would you agree that human experience would suffer? If so - The Olympics, as a major global sporting event that brings people together more so than most other sporting events, is part of that which adds to human culture and experience.I'm not sure what you are getting at here.....

Well, I guess if you expanded your list to include oxygen too, then that would also remove my difficulty to understanding your point.But seeing that specifically replying about how the human race and human experience would suffer if the olympics were canceled is proving difficult for you, would you want to try again?I am highly doubting the olympics have positively affected MOST of the six (7?) billion inhabitants of the world. Instead, I see it as a wasted opportunity to help impoverished lives via medicine or just clean water. I can't imagine any of the three thousand children who die EVERY day from malnutrition as really being positively impacted by any country hosting the olympics.In addition, at 24 BILLION pounds, I am doubting the olympics will have a positive net affect on most Brits, the hosts of this year's olympics, especially during these recessionary times. (I sense you believe that too, though you often hid it behind your 'humour.')(BTW, As I asked earlier, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Perhaps 10-100 million pounds would be a more appropriate cost for the olympics. I think the original games in Greece did it for less, even adjusting for inflation)Edited by dronester, : clarity

No. Not as a GLOBAL event. Really? Did you not read the quote in my post about people in war and hunger? Was is too difficult to relate the people in impoverished regions to how the olympics serves them?

Well oxygen is not really a human endeavour, so that might be a category mistake. I simply thought you'd agree that cancelling all sport and art would impoverish human experience, and you'd be able to make the relevant connections from that.It's competition that doesn't involve war, which appeals to many human instincts and allows us to express ourselves in a less destructive fashion. It's fun to watch, fun to try and participate, fun to talk about etc etc. Just as any sporting event or piece of artwork or any other human endeavour, done particularly well.If you genuinely don't see how a world without healthy low-consequence competition might be thought of as somehow impoverished, I doubt I have the motivation to compose a tome that you would care to read that stands a chance of persuading you otherwise. Welll, I think that's patently obvious. I doubt Shakespeare has positively affected most of the billions of humans that are around right now, either, though he might have a better shot at it. Well, there may be some that are helped, indirectly. But even if they weren't - this argument could be said about anything.You presumably own something, music, games, videos, computers, etc., that are not necessary to your survival. You could have better spent that money on vaccines, mosquito nets, fresh water for kids etc etc etc.Likewise, governments should stop funding heritage preservation groups, parks and recreation, art, film, sport, and so on.To be frank, I think the US spending 650 BILLION dollars every year on 'defence' is more scandalous than the expense of the Olympics. I honestly don't know if there will be a net benefit, but I think I have been clear in saying when the analysis has been completed, that it will likely to not be a financial benefit. By the way, I don't think '24 billion' is a universally recognized figure. I'm not sure on the exact origins of that number, but it appears to be an estimated figure in any event. Other estimates put it considerably lower. I'm pretty sure that the Greeks didn't have to worry about stadia that can seat 80,000 people.I'd like to see the Olympics pay for itself, regardless of its overall costs (that is, have sponsorship and ticket sales pay for the work to be done), but this will probably mean huge ticket costs or ridiculous corporate controlled madness.I don't think we should mandate how much can be spent on the Olympics. The Olympics goes to whichever country that persuades the appropriate committee they will provide the best Olympics. If a country can do that for 10 million pounds that's great, but I suspect that's simply not going to be possible - the costs of security was 5 times that figure on its own.

What if...?What if Leonardo da Vinci had devoted his life to helping the poor instead of painting that Gioconda woman? Would the world not be a different place?Edited by ringo, : Changed tense "has" --> "had". TOO TENSE!!!

Explain to me how we would be able to raise the money to help these impoverished lives? Reality suggests that humans dont simply hand over their financial resources to help anyone...at least not on a grand scale. Sponsoring art or sport, however, gathers quite a few more donors. Perhaps not a lot, on a global scale. But if evry sporting event were cancelled and people had no diversions, I seriously doubt if we would simply spend money feeding people.

Since I made it abundantly/repeatedly clear that this wasn't an "all or nothing" choice, I have no idea in the world why you keep trying to sell this point. I like art, theater, sports that I actively participate, and I also want to reduce misery in the world. Having DOW corporation as an olympic sponsor is counterproductive to both. Do you really think anyone would pay Shakespeare 24 BILLION pounds for one of his works? Should your tax money pay that kind of money? During a recession? Should Shakespeare's work affect human rights, take away liberties, allow government to install missiles on top of your homes? Really? We are discussing the 2012 olympics, let's TRY to stay on topic. If you have to remind ME of that, you haven't been paying attention to any of my posts. Dronester sad. None-the-less, I agree, the items ARE parallel. So if you can understand the outrageous amount of one, you should understand the outrageous amount of the other. No, I very well think the TAXPAYER SHOULD mandate the costs of the olympics, not the "government/elites". And not the global corporations like DOW that influence the olympic committee..Edited by dronester, : clarity

Thanks for the reply Ringo, but read my post about all or nothing above.

Thanks for the reply Phat. Unfortunately, the olympics gets quite a few blood-dollars from corporations like DOW, makers of fine napalm. Agreed. I don't wish ALL sporting events were cancelled. rather, I simply want the olympics to be an ethical/moral event. It is not.

Is there any sporting event that is more global than the Olympics....? I read somewhere that the Olympics had a 4.8 billion global audience.If the Olympics isn't global I am not sure what sporting or culturtal event can possibly claim to be global? Serves them? What does serving the impoverished have to do with whether the Olympics is "global" or whether it's cancellation would diminish human cultural experience?I doubt the impoverished of the world are served particularly well by any film, novel, play, sporting event, album etc. etc. etc.But to say that these things cannot enrich human cultural experience because of that is just stupid.....

Well OK. But denying the Olympics has any cultural enrichment value and calling for it to be cancelled rather than suggesting how it can be changed to retain the positive aspects and reduce/eliminate the negative ones is a poor method of argument on your part.I doubt either I or Mod would claim that the Olympics as is cannot be improved. But cancelling it altogether (as you have been suggesting) is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm 'trying to sell this point' because you asked me why I thought human experience would suffer as a result of no Olympics, I did it by pointing out that friendly competition is a good outlet for human instincts, which increases human happiness. That the Olympics is one event in which this occurs. Without it, many would miss it. I see you managed to somehow work Dow into the argument from out the left field there. No I don't. You like capitalising the billion, I notice. But we didn't spend 24 BILLION on some nebulous 'Olympics' idea. We spent so many billion on new sporting facilities and equipment, infrastructure improvements, employing people for some time and so on. And we recovered so much through various income streams. I was pointing out that your arguments about the money that paid for the Olympics could be better spent on charitable works could apply to all non-essential government spending and indeed all non-essential private spending too.It's very much on topic to show how you are selectively applying the argument. I know you agree that the US defence spending is too high, that's why I brought it up. One country spending 10-100 x the cost of the Olympics every year on defence. We probably won't be hosting another Olympics for a very long time, you'll be paying out that kind of money on defence every year, for the foreseeable future. We've got some infrastructure improvements and new facilities to show for it all, as well as whatever the ticket revenues were, how much money from corporate sponsorship, media access, and tourist spending.And I'd rather spend 10-30 billion on hosting a huge sporting event than a comparable amount on needless warfare, right? I think you misunderstand. I mean there shouldn't be a written rule in the Olympic terms and conditions that states that a host country can only spend so much on preparing for the Olympics. A host country should be free to pay whatever the heck it wants. Ideally, of course, what the voters want to pay for it should be taken into consideration.I think the voters of Britain, on the whole, were prepared to pay a considerable amount for the Olympics. It remains to be seen how much it cost us in total. We'll see how they react when the figures start coming out.

Ok, either participants didn't pay attention to my original posts, or they didn't even read my original posts, came in late and made strawmen arguments against me:1. dronester advocates removing the olympics completely. False.
2. dronester doesn't believe that the human experience is lifted by ANY athletic competition, art, theater, etc. False.Here's my original post from JULY 25, 2012 Message 37:Ok, I am not a fan of the olympics because:1. It promotes nationalism/patriotism, a hateful discriminating tool which helps divide humanity.
2. it promotes consumerism by linking corporations directly to the games.
3. it promotes hypocrisy of the performers who shroud themselves in their country's colours when they are really performing for future marketability
4. The vast costs for buildings, security and ceremony can be much better used for humanitarian causes.
5. They direct the "liberal" media to dutifully hide injustices. China's abuse/repression of Tibet, Vancouver's poor/slums, etc
6. In China, many old Hutongs (neighborhoods/communities), occupied for many many generations were destroyed so new olympic buildings could be built.
7. Unused white elephants (in the shape of billion dollar stadiums and related buildings) sit unused after the games.
8. Security opportunities for elites/authorities to push though laws/regulations that will allow human right violations.I think the above items have been touched upon before in our forum. We can re-hash them again if you really want to, but I'd prefer our British participants commenting about:1. Missiles placed on rooftops throughout the city. Really, are most of you OK with this? Really?
2. Exploited workers: bus drivers who had to strike because of unfair rider increases.
3. "Dispersal Zones," police have power to tell any group of two or more people to move on. Really?
4. Misplaced economic aid as historic and popular Herne Hill stays closed and in disrepair.
5. Although Olympic organizers are bragging about environmentally friendly 'Green Games,' its sponsors include BP who inflicted massive oil spills, and Dow Chemicals, makers of such fine products as napalm and linked to the Bhopal disaster. BTW, BBC was very generous in describing all the wonderful DOW products used in the London Olympics. How nice. Which leads me to my summing question:
6. How well has the British media portrayed ANY of the above negative stories? Or has the British media been nearly all one-sided/pro-olympics/pro-corporate, like the american counterparts? IF 4.8 BILLION (yeah, I do like to capitalize the word "BILLION") people 'watched' (via in-person, television, or radio) the 2012 olympics, THEN I would concede that it is a global event. Evidence please. It is only one of MANY items I dislike about the olympics. You are merely attacking the toenail of my elephant of an argument. Again, read my original post. And where did I do that? Be specific. How in the world do you get that from these two posts:In post Message 78 "Perhaps 10-100 million pounds would be a more appropriate cost for the olympics."And in post Message 63 "Maybe a price tag of one billion pounds would be sufficient?" If you were paying attention, something Rrhain seems to badger you about, my original postS included the corrupting influence of DOW corporation as a sponsor to the olympics. It's inclusion is fair game. Yes, thank you for finally realizing my argument. The olympics, like the US military can both be viewed as outrageously costly. Re-read the costs (not just the monetary costs) of my original post. Since you virtually repeated my stance, I think I very well understand. Re-read my original post. I have a difficult time believing that the entire costs of the olympics, which included missiles placed on their homes, were a fair cost that the British were prepared to pay.Off-topic: The truer, criminal, cost is closer to 1.2 TRILLION. I also like to capitalize the word "TRILLION."

If I had 25 billion pounds, I might. How much of it do you think Shakespeare would give to the poor?