[Vt71fcAqt7]

First let me clarify that something can be a waste of resources even if it creates some value. For examlple if I can create 1 value from 1 dollar or 100 value from 1 dollar the 1:1 ROI is a waste of capital in terms of value. With that in mind if we compare the value of the return from sports, which includes the labor and capital costs of the stadiums, as well as the profit consumed by the owners and athletes from ticket slales after the upfront cost is payed, to housing or education, we find that the value is very low. Additionaly, in the US, there are multiple sports (basketball, baseball and football) and multiple sports teams (some states even have more than one for each sport). Compare that with other countires that just have one sport (soccer/footbal) and one team. At the very least, the sports industry in the US is a waste of capital compared to soccer, which would fill the same demand for watching sports at a much lower cost.

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.

[bumby]

I think we disagree on how to measure value. Is there no value to listening to a pianist play Moonlight Sonata live? I’d say it adds value to one life, just as watching sports does. The idea that “we already have enough art” seems folly and absurdly reductionist. I’m sure we can find people who conversely say we already have enough technology.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

>Is there no value to listening to a pianist play Moonlight Sonata live?

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.

[bumby]

>What do you mean?

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.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

Your implicit claim that consumption is jusified by the fact that it is consumed is wrong. No good or service can bring happiness. The only consumption that is justified is that which is nessesary to live or improve general well being such as food, shelter and medicine. Other goods, such as art, are a distraction from life.

>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.

[TheCleric]

> No good or service can bring happiness.

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.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

>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.