Peterkin

Bonus point: my masks are funny. I wore baby shark one (it's army green) and my MASH tee-shirt to the vaccination place, which gave the nurses and volunteers a giggle. They need one, every so often, just as they need to see co-operation.

But requiring everyone in a venue to wear a mask protects everyone, including me. By wearing it in public, I'm not just protecting myself and possibly others, I'm also encouraging the practice of safety in general. People are more likely to comply if they see others doing it.

I'm not holding anyone back. I'm not pushing anyone forward. I'm not involved with them at all. But I do see the effects of commercial sport on society and I do sometimes wonder about the state of a society that puts so much store by spectacles. I don't hold him; I don't push him; I work toward a society that gives every child an opportunity to reach his or her potential, preferably without sacrifice, and I put nobody - let me emphasize: nobody, for any reason, ever - on a pedestal. That's a perfectly legitimate opinion I feel entitled to refrain from sharing.

The masks I use have three layers: an outside one of brushed cotton or silk to repel water, a soft middle layer to conform to my nose, cheekbones and chin, and an inside layer that's either closely woven fabric or a standard paper surgical mask. (Unfortunately, the latter kind don't wash well, so I have to keep replacing the liner.) What I see very often that gives me the willies is a stiff mask that slips down off the wearer's nose every three minutes, and he shoves it back up after a few good whuffs into whatever air happens to be around.

And that is as it should be. To the extent that is as it is, sport is a unifying influence in human society.

Not to my satisfaction. Certainly, some people do some things better than other people, but there must be a thousand individuals, at any given moment, who have the same degree of proficiency in every imaginable skill-set. Also, in professions more complicated than a sport, the skills are applied in such a variety of ways, in such a variety of tasks, that they're impossible to compare. In sports, it's simpler, because sport is entirely artificial. Being top is about winning. Even so, there is always an element of chance and fallible human judgment in determining "the top" of any heap. What brings people together? Not the compulsion to climb over other people to get to some imaginary top. That one has been answered: because somebody saw a chance to profit from the spectacle. You don't need to be paid for that. Yes, and they probably did, long before the players were offered M$24 to go from one team to another. The team might consist of friends who grew up together and play for the town, whose residents would come out to cheer for them - yes, even the ones who can't fork out $400 to sit for 2 hours in a cold, noisy, crowded stadium. Well, if you can have the science as an amateur, why be professional?

Today I learned about Eleanor Roosevelt's part in the civil rights movement and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. She was really an admirable (? awesome) individual. https://www.tvo.org/video/documentaries/eleanor-roosevelt

No, "survivor bias" is a real thing that is popularly applied to all kinds of data. It refers to the misconception that arises from considering only the successful outcomes and disregarding the failure rate. I recently read the synopsis of a very interesting book on the subject, written by a statistician, but it won't be published till sometime this fall. When it comes out, I'll post the particulars for everybody.

Or maybe successful athletes, who make a living from sponsorship and public appearances, won't admit regret to their fans. Besides, how many of the talented children who are pushed and stressed and bullied to excel grow up to be Olympians? Or soloists or headliners or grand masters? What do we know of the ones who didn't make it? This is the perspective of survivor bias I understand. That's why I reiterated that the questions I posed were in response to Beecee's statement I was hoping for clarification from Beecee as to why he considers this inevitable. My answer to you was in that context, attempting to continue on the same track. The separate subject of hierarchies in specific professions and the means whereby these hierarchies are established and status gained is too big for this venue. As for sports in general, I think they're wonderful. So are performing arts, visual arts and games of skill, chance and intellect. What I disapprove of is turning any of these pleasurable, peaceable, inclusive pastimes into cut-throat struggles for supremacy and the pursuit of wealth and fame.

I didn't say that. I was referring to the foregoing discussion of sacrificing childhood, family life and healthy development in order to raise a prodigy in some relatively frivolous pursuit, like skating, dancing, playing rugby or chess. The "people" in this scenario are 3-7 years old. It's not their free or informed choice. Well, that turned out all right for them. I'm glad. But I still wouldn't put my child through it: if they wanted to play, I'd let them play, probably buy them essential equipment; I wouldn't nag them to practice or drive them to 5 am hockey games in a blizzard. In most professions, there is also opportunity, ambition, luck, connections, recognition by an establishment, politics, personal charisma, diplomacy and *money* - without which you're not going to earn the diploma that allows you to compete in the first place, and the earning of which, to a very large extent, determines your professional standing in fields like law or medicine. That's what I meant by not entirely based on ability and no objective system of grading.

That would be natural - if there were an unbiased process of comparing abilities. Sacrifice - or self and others - to be at "the top" should not be a necessary part of that selection. In fact, the 'top' isn't established on an objective scale of competence - or even particularly well defined in most professions. In sport, it is defined by a leagues according its own regulations, and it's a matter of winning contests, often against equally skilled rivals, for that ephemeral # 1 position. The talent may be innate, but the skills are learned, which is a question of opportunity and quality of instruction. So many variables, so little certainty!

Why does any profession need to have a top? And why did sport become a profession?

Somebody could punch you in the nose, or put a glass of beer in your hand, I guess. But if the universe is a hologram, and we're part of the universe, we're obviously not real, but somebody much bigger, and clever enough to to project a hologram that looks so much bigger from the inside, probably is, but has no motivation to prove it to his holographic creations.

Ordinary people, yes. Ordinary enterprises, yes if they're still making any money. Mega corporations, which are making money, not so much; very rich people, not at all. Oh, hey, all of that equipment is produced by corporations with big, juicy government contracts. By sheer coincidence, they also happen to be major campaign contributors and own a string of lobbyists. Aww, the poor banks! They've collected interest and interest on the interest for years already and are still in profit, when practically everyone else is broke. Do governments have to repay those debts? What, like their voters' health and education? Not a bad idea!

Why achieve " a deep level of skill" at the price of your childhood? How about just a shallow level of skill and a lot less pain? What's so terrible about jumping, painting or singing quite well, rather than superbly? Yes, Mozart was pushed pretty hard by his ambitious father, but he was a little show-off anyway, so it didn't hurt him as much as it did many child prodigies. Don't underestimate the American parent's desire for fame! Yes, prodigal children very often are unhappy. Trouble is, they spend so much of their formative years acquiring the skill that they never learn how to relate to other people or or make independent decisions. They are often socially and emotionally stunted, lonely, anxious and unstable. They are sacrificed to the spectators' pleasure, their handlers' quest for success and the venue's profit margin. Also, their siblings and later their spouses and children can become collateral damage. Anyway, whatever is good and not so good in professional sport, it does have some cohesive qualities. Participants in any particular sport are a community of sorts, with shared experiences and values. Fans really do seem to consider themselves something like a tribe. I don't know whether that translates to co-operation outside the stadium or pub, or whether they have more understanding and tolerance for one another because of this one passion they all have in common. It does not, however, seem to unite "people" in any other sense.

On the present scale, and with the present resource peaks, competition is unsustainable: it escalates to contention, hostility, confrontation, conflict and culminates in mega-death. If we have a shot at survival, it's by means of co-operation. We can resume competing, once the population figures stabilize around a reliable food supply.

I didn't make it. And I'm not using its as a dirty word, in the sense that capitalists have vilified socialism. But I do think it is a fatally flawed economic system, in that its survival depends on growth. Necessary growth on a finite medium means that when the nutrient runs out, the organism dies. An economic system that must necessarily keep growing on a single planet means that it will die when the planet is consumed. Unlike viruses or some plants, it cannot go dormant or store its seeds until more favourable conditions return. And when a planet's been trashed, they won't, anyway. It could, in theory, emulate bacteria and slow its own growth when nutrients become scarce, but it doesn't do this voluntarily; the control has to come from outside. From revolution, natural catastrophe or strong government. Can you supply information on that? The earliest I found is this one, which isn't exactly shining on either private service providers or government. She attempts to present a fair view, though her sympathies lie with the water companies. They and governments seem to have been acting at cross-purposes, each making some good and bad decisions, with the consumer paying the price of their muddles. Just the one thing: debt. Capitalism runs on the need to take out getting more than one put in. Unfortunately, it's on the same hand, 99% of the time. Regulated - very tightly regulated, by an un-coercable, incorruptible authority - both hands would be able to survive, alongside the citizenry, considerably longer. But not indefinitely: slow consumption is still all one way, toward depletion and eventual exhaustion of the resource. On second reading, I'm not quite sure how the two situation between present world economy and the late stages of the Roman Empire are related. I don't see capitalism could have arisen without money. All its siblings came out of theories about money. I don't see how they can be separated.... without a major shake-up. Which is what I'm asking: Is it time for? (in your opinions.) Capitalism doesn't run on ownership; it runs on investment. Profit without effort. I've heard a very similar idea articulated very well. The author proposed a split economy: essentials in the public sector, where money has no role; luxuries in the private sector, where voluntary participants can buy, sell, compete and make profit. however, for that to be sustainable, all the natural resources would have to stay in the public sector, which would also regulate land use and waste management. In the present political climate, anything like is obviously impossible. But a massive increase in nationalization, regulation and taxation might become possible, if things go sour enough. Too bad no change can take place without a whole lot of people and other living things suffering harm that was predictable and avoidable.

The other interesting factor, at least in Canada, is how a (not particularly adroit) Liberal government, having had to cope first with the long depredations and of the conservative administration it followed, then the (twice as long as initially predicted) pandemic, then the fallout from the pandemic and its dislocations, along with its international commitments, then the severely damaged business sectors and lost revenues, will recover. One possibility is that it won't: that it will be knocked over a Republican wannabe riding a wave of public grievance he himself has whipped up, accompanied by a phalanx of racist, sexist, climate-change-denying, gun-toting regressed yahoos. If he gets a majority, that Conservative leader may renege on every promise made to other countries, to the environment, to future generation, immigrants and workers of all kinds. What happens after that is unclear - except in it conspicuous ugliness.

That would be fine, if talented children were not pushed and driven by their parents and coaches, from a very early age. In some cases, it's parental ambition or vicarious accomplishment; in many cases, it's the only way a kid born without privilege can get an education, climb out of poverty or escape discrimination. And the pressures even after the initial success are not all internal! Saka may be too young, but many of those professional footballers have played on various foreign teams... to the extant that, when we're watching a match between European countries or even MLS, we play "who can spot more poached South Americans". The fans may be partisan, even passionately and violently partisan, but the players are just doing a job and advertising a brand of sports gear. Also to bully their entourage, mistreat women and generally act like out-of-control adolescents -- which, I suppose many are, because, as physical training, drill and competition take up most of their youth, their socialization and culturation is largely neglected. Their little-boy egos swell - female athletes act out childishly sometimes, as well, but more often in frustration than from entitlement - without the concomitant self-discipline and responsibility it takes to earn status in a grown-up world. Nobody expects them meet the basic standard of behaviour demanded of a software designer or supermarket manager. I suppose that's what most appeals to children: adults acting the way they themselves would in the absence of parental supervision. In one way, athletes have an advantage over other celebrities: a relatively short time in the limelight, after which they retire to normal family life, become coaches, managers or sales reps of some kind. The baseball reference reminds me of a neighbourhood sandpit game described in a book titled A Reasonable Life. That's how sport should be!

I don't either. Just an interesting diversion, following an example - one of many - wherein governments have abdicated their responsibility to the public and allowed private greed to prevail. When private greed (capitalism), from causes of its own making (like stock market crash, crunch, slump, contraction, retrenchment or whatever it's called) or an external one (like a viral infection) is in danger, the government is obligated to rescue it, because so much of the society's infrastructure and functioning has been entrusted to private enterprise that the failure of a few big corporations, interconnected as "the financial sector" is, could bring down the whole country's economy and cause wide-spread hardship, impoverishment, privation and death. The central question, how many of these rescues can any particular government carry out before it's exhausted its assets, capabilities and credibility - and falls or is toppled.

Yes, don't be in any hurry. The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds. It's only wiki, but checkable by interested parties. Coming and going, the corporations get a sweetheart deal from a conservative government; coming and going, citizens get.... the usual. How the Ontario government gets around its subsidy to private electricity providers is through allowing them to pass their debt on to the consumer (of course there isn't a competing provider you can switch to!) plus a "delivery" charge (i.e. use of the infrastructure we paid for when it was a public utility and that we continue to pay for in their debt retirement item on the monthly bill) and then, if the electric bills are too heavy for low-income consumers, the government sends them a semiannual pittance to offset the cost. The private provider risks nothing.

The pithy French saying is perfectly self-contained and doesn't invite discussion. It also, IMO, quite untrue as a description of societal conditions, though probably true of human nature. I had not read it. I thought the point was in the title. So, like, seven people in the world have jobs again? Until the rich people's money runs out or becomes worthless .... um, why hasn't it already? Why does this enterprising fellow, or anyone, even want a job? I can't respond adequately unless I read the story to see what makes it plausible. I notice a further incongruency with the present situation: in the story, something new and positive was added, while bifurcations in history tend to be marked by the loss of or threat to something vital, which altered the hominids' circumstances so that he had to adapt or relocate. That negative change sometimes comes suddenly, as a flood, or in increments, like the troubles that beset the Roma Empire during its long decline.

That's because I didn't think one was required. I took it to mean you don't think his present situation will have any significant affect on how the world economy is organized. That's a valid position and quite possibly correct, and it didn't seem to invite discussion. I did respond, if not directly, by pointing out that major changes had taken place in previous civilizations. In retrospect, historians can identify the events that led to a collapse, but the people - particularly the political leadership of the time, didn't see it coming. I woud be happy to elaborate, argue, look for examples and discuss in detail, if you were so inclined.

In Canada, it's hockey. Seems the fans like "the physicality" of the game - meaning fights. There really is quite a lot not right with professional sport.

I don't know about uniting, but sport has certainly been used by many societies to sublimate aggression and channel rivalry into a manageable form, with rules and far fewer fatalities. OTOH, those loyal fans can turn into football hooligans in some social climates, and international relations have not been noticeably improved by the Olympic Games. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-olympics-berlin-1936 This is just a personal opinion, but I really don't think the hype is doing sports or athletes any good: the competition is so intense, and the stakes are so big that they're pushing themselves beyond human capacity, burning out too soon and suffering too many injuries. And the money is doing a good deal of harm to society. In gambling, in education, in the buying and selling of athletes like prize cattle, in commercial sponsorships, in the inflation of frivolous spectacles to eclipse serious endeavours. Also, I think art, entertainment and games should be play, not work.