[toolz]

Sports are not intrinsically bad? Let's pretend a world without sports for a second. What do you see? I see a world where scientists and philanthropists are common household names. Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen. I see a world where when someone makes a couple hundred million a year, they don't go immediately bankrupt after retiring because their industry wasn't intrinsically broken. That healthy panhandler who refuses to contribute to society gets no credit and recognition. Why should I recognize an athlete that take illicit drugs to perform well and teaches our youth that to be recognized you need to do something completely arbitrary and useless to society.

[RobAtticus]

Maybe that's the case if you also got rid of the other professions that make up celebrities: musicians, actors/actresses, etc. I doubt removing just sports would suddenly make scientists/philanthropists household names. You'd essentially have to get rid of all forms of entertainment to do that, which seems a bit ridiculous. Besides, many athletes ARE philanthropists, who work hard to give back to their communities.

As to your last points, you shouldn't recognize athletes who take illicit drugs. Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially, take care of their family/community, and so on.

And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?

[toolz]

> Focus on the athletes who do things the right way: work hard, take care of themselves physically and financially

In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.

And besides, what makes you a better arbiter of what is useful to society?

Nothing. I'm not commenting on something as fickle as society, I'm commenting on the future of our species, to which I can say with great confidence that education and ingenuity will affect peoples lives infinitely longer than the contributions of any sport. The fact that some of these professional athletes contribute money is a moot point when we're discussing whether they should exist. Those resources would still exist and the chances they would be distributed to a cause that would have lasting impact would likely increase.

In fact, some of those athletes would contribute more than just money. They may be the very person who makes a mark on the history of mankind.

[t0nyh0]

> In many sports this in non-existent. The only people not taking performance enhancing drugs are the ones not getting caught. When billions of dollars are involved it's more than just a gentle suggestion that these professionals take drugs or enhancement.

That is quite the accusation. Stereotyping at best. Because that incentive model exists in your head does not mean it reflects reality.

[michael_h]

> Where kids hero's are astronauts and firemen

Not sure if you've talked to any kids lately then. My son has a small freak-out if we get near a fireman. If he got to meet an astronaut, I think me might pass out.

...and no, of course sports are not intrinsically bad. They're good exercise, a tremendous amount of fun to play, and they take focus to master. It might not be a skill that you appreciate, but it is a skill nonetheless.

All sports, presumably, sprouted from a few folks having fun and then deciding to codify the rules. Imagining a world without sports is imaging a world without fun.

[Ar-Curunir]

I'm pretty sure you're more than a bit deluded.

Sports unite communities in way few other human activities can. Plus, at least outside the US, interest in professional sports often inspires children to go outside and play, especially in the case of cricket and soccer.