[poisonborz]

I admire the optimism and motivational tone of the article, but fairs and expos are a thing of the past. We don't need to build elaborate, carefully constructed single-use cities to showcase the scientific advances of the world. Those showcases happen day by day on the internet and mass media.

[kratom_sandwich]

I don't think the argument is valid because it can be applied to nearly every event where people come together, including sporting events and concerts. But like with the Olympic Games, the World's Fair can serve as a catalyst for urban development projects.

Also, the "science showcase" is a thing of the past, the BIE switched to "individual country showcase" a couple of years ago, which makes the whole thing a lot less appealing IMHO, but that's another issue.

[Fordec]

I find this perplexing because the Olympic Games is notorious for draining an urban centers resources for years and the result being a bunch of infrastructure that the majority of the time just slowly decays due to the local community not having the same volume of population to fully utilize the utility. The handling of the 2016 games was an especially bad case.

It's overall a nationalistic country level flex at the expense of the local area. It's part of why only big countries host it, the side affects will only affect one city and you have other places to sustain the nationwide economy despite the hit.

[pharke]

That always confused me about the Olympic Games. I guess it makes sense if you think about it as an opportunity for pork stuffed building contracts. It would make more sense for each country to have 1 or maybe 2 locations that are reused whenever they host the games. They could also host national level sporting events in the interim. That way they can be maintained and upgraded over the years without saddling municipalities with decaying and unwanted facilities.

[chha]

The problem for most countries is that it can be decades between hosting two Olympics, meaning that facilities are either worn out not fulfilling the current Olympic technical requirements.

Also; very few countries has a need for facilities with the capacity the Olympics require, so this would be a huge burden for most of them.

[dstroot]

I came to say this. Well put. Take my vote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/abandon...

[labster]

Speak for yourself. Los Angeles ran a profitable Olympics in 1984 and we look forward to doing so again in 2028. And nationalism is at a low ebb here, given our last four years fighting His Nibs on everything. It’s all about competition and entertainment for us. And infrastructure that can be reused for more entertainment.

[Fordec]

The 1984 Olympics, considered to be the most financially successful Olympics ever, were ran on the basis of renovating existing infrastructure, not building new stuff in a new city because the previous two Olympics were financial disasters. Also, yes, if you mess up LA the United States will still truck on.

Also Nationalism isn't just flags, hate and hands in the air, it's also an outward expression of ideas and ideals raised on a pedestal to say look how great we are. Such as getting to say "we are all about competition and entertainment" as a story to tell the world as a form of soft power.

[gamblor956]

were ran on the basis of renovating existing infrastructure, not building new stuff in a new city because the previous two Olympics were financial disasters.

As with...all...of its Olympic bids, LA was not the first choice for the 1984 Olympics. It basically got those Olympics (and 2028, and the 1932 Olympics), because nobody else wanted to host them. In 1932, the world was in the throes of the Great Depression; in 1984, the previous Olympics had bankrupted their hosts; for 2028, hosts of the 20xx games exuberantly built new facilities only to see them wither into decay from non-use (Brazil, China, even London).

Thus, LA's bids have always focused on fiscally responsible games. As with the previous 2 iterations of the LA Games, LA will not be building many new facilities solely for the games. Indeed, currently, LA plans to build no new facilities for the games, though there will be temporary structures/courses built for the swimming events, the BMX and MTB racing events, and NBC will be paying for a temporary media center. Currently, all $7 billion of the estimated costs are being funded by the private sector.

[riffraff]

> even London

wasn't the London one supposed to have been done cheaply and effectively, in contrast to the splurge of the previous two?

[IgorPartola]

Does the US still have an identity as a country? I certainly would have a very hard time explaining to someone not from here what it is that the United States stand for at this point.

[Rule35]

Maybe ask people not from there what they think it represents. And not in the sense of a slogan, but opportunity or not, openness or not.

Ask those who want to immigrate, and ask the recently immigrated who now want to preserve what they have.

[CoffeeOnWrite]

> profitable

> we look forward to doing so again in 2028

Oligarchs and capitalists benefit, the masses lose though. Especially those most vulnerable socioeconomically.

[xeromal]

The hope for the 2028 olympics in LA is more public transportation which is currently being built. It's exciting to see the new lines currently popping up.

[labster]

Sports is the opiate of the masses — Karl Marx, probably

As long as the government doesn’t lose money, I’m happy. Plus it will be nice to get to LAX without driving a 30 minute loop through the terminals. I’m very excited about that line.

[karaterobot]

I think the argument is valid. Much of the value of attending a live sporting event or concert is that nobody involved knows how it's going to turn out. You get to experience an unfolding spectacle in real time.

That's not what a world's fair is. A modern world's fair would be essentially a bunch of companies showing off their latest inventions, in a highly coordinated and controlled way, for marketing purposes.

A better analogy would be something like E3, a video game convention which is struggling to find its purpose in a world where it's easier and more effective from a marketing standpoint to just release a video of your new game. I think it's no coincidence that world's fairs stopped being as important right around the time mass communication became ubiquitous.

[dehrmann]

> Much of the value of attending a...concert is that nobody involved knows how it's going to turn out

You have a point for sports, but concerts? They have their moments, but for the most part, it will be the same set list and the same performance they did in Cleveland a week ago.

[cosmodisk]

Yes and no. I do agree that probably nobody's going to build another Eiffel tower or Crystal Palace any time soon,but we need spaces to explore science, innovation,and simply have for people to do something more interesting than just mindlessly walking through shopping malls. Fairs and expos inspire. I still remember going to a tech expo as a teenager and seeing all these latest gadgets and thinking: I want to be part of it! Now imagine going to one of these in the middle of last century and seeing rockets, nuclear car prototypes and things like that. You almost instantly want to sign up or at least show it to your kids.

[nelsondev]

Why bother showing up at the Olympics in person? We can just watch it on TV right? :p

But to refute more directly, the unplanned interactions with other visitors, being able to talk directly with makers who built the things you’re seeing, the viral sense of wonder; all are good reasons to have it in-person.

[jhbadger]

The vast majority of people do just that. The small number of people who actually attend the Olympics in person are 1) journalists covering it 2) relatives of the athletes 3) people living near the venue who attend a few events out of curiosity and maybe have discounted tickets because of where they live 4) wealthy people who can afford the high cost of decent tickets with a clear view of the athletes.

[dehrmann]

The Olympics sound a little miserable to watch in-person because you probably won't have a clear view of a sport you're not all that interested in. And unlike most popular sports where it's an event where you pick a side to cheer for, most Olympic events are individual, so there isn't 90 minutes of cheering for your team, hoping they'll win.

[Rule35]

Watching a simple competition like the 100M dash, sure. But watch something worth seeing despite the competition such as the gymnastics, figure-skating, or wrestling perhaps, and I at least can just sit and enjoy the skill.

[foateaca]

Yet international art fairs and specialty conventions had been taking off for the 20 years before the pandemic. People still like to travel and come together under well organized events. The issue is the wisdom of a city or region pouring in billions of billions for a week-long event. Maybe there's a new model to be invented.

[TedDoesntTalk]

The annual CES convention is still popular. I see it as the modern equivalent of the world's fair, even if it is not quite the same and missing some aspects.

[dehrmann]

Is it? Half of it is every manufacturer from Shenzhen selling assorted components. The larger, prestigious booths mostly show the next iteration of consumer electronics, and there's the occasional thing that looks awesome enough for a world's fair, but is probably a mock that will never go into production.

Better parties, though.

[pjc50]

Who remembers the Millenium Dome? It was a self-conscious emulation of the 1951s Festival of Britain, that ended up being characteristically Blairite bland.

[musicale]

The Millennium Dome (notably the Millennium Experience inside) was terrific. I don't know why nobody showed up, but it was really uncrowded and enjoyable to visit!

One futuristic thing that has stuck with me from the Millennium expo was a demonstration of structural/mechanical and electrochemical simulation of the human body with computers, for example the skeletal, muscular, and circulatory systems. Which of course can be augmented with models of various organs and micro-level models of cellular interaction and cell internals. The brilliant bit seemed to be the idea of using a finite element and/or modular decomposition, potentially at multiple levels of resolution and abstraction. It seemed like the sort of thing that could yield huge benefits in medicine, health/fitness, education, and video games/animation. ;-)

[lmm]

How so? There didn't seem to be much celebration of British achievements.

[basch]

I am very much pro World Fair revival.

But

I am also very Cold War revival. We should be launching competitive science wars with each other, not unlike the Olympics. Set objectives, set time periods, when the time and objective expire all knowledge gained is pooled and published for the world, for free. National or International propaganda campaigns to recruit for teams. Spies, espionage, moles. Not just a science fair, but something a bit more dirty and fun.

[shadowofneptune]

Slightly more seriously, something like the International Geophysical Year could be interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year

[UncleOxidant]

> I am also very Cold War revival.

Complete with threats of total annihilation?

> We should be launching competitive science wars with each other

Don't we have this now with competitive global capitalism? I guess it's not the nationstate so much now as the multinational corporation, though, that are the entities competing.

I can kind of understand your wish for a Cold War revival - we certainly had more of a sense of national purpose during that period. But it was driven by fear of the other and I'm not sure that ultimately that's a good motivation.

You'd think that maybe something like a global pandemic would give us a national purpose that would have brought us together, but look what happened, just more fracturing: anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, even covid-deniers.

[basch]

I imagine Cold War 2 as a bit more contrived, self-aware, and tongue in cheek. It would need its own Geneva Convention, Oversight Committee.

I'm talking about the Space Race. There might have been some fear of space lasers and spy satellites and whatnot, but for the most part, landing on the moon was purely about pride and bragging rights, and who gets to swing a bigger stick. We need more of that, to get people excited, and to push what we can acomplish, and maybe to make us a tiny bit more reckless. Exploration can be dangerous.

I also believe, from a marketing perspective, branding it as a War and not a competition would engage people more. Football level fanaticism. People arent going to wear jerseys and cheer for a Science Fair the way they would for a Science War. I can imagine selling War Bonds to promote the Science War, with nice prizes, to engage and reward people.

[Aeolun]

> But it was driven by fear of the other and I'm not sure that ultimately that's a good motivation.

I agree that a different motivation would be better, but right now we have none, which is worse.

[zepto]

> But it was driven by fear of the other and I'm not sure that ultimately that's a good motivation.

That’s already here again. We may as well do something good with it.

[postalrat]

Nobody lives in the internet or in mass media.