How do they sleep at night?

$500,000: that's how much our whole state will contribute, at the moment, to further developments in stem cell research; you know, that area of research with the potential to ease thousands of people's suffering.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/06/1997675.htm

Sure that's good and all but let's compare it to, oh say, some premier league football players:

Henry: £112,000, a week.
Ballack: £121,000, a week.

And here's some American sports clowns:

Shaquille O’Neal: £200,000 a week.
Alex Rodriguez: £250,000 a week.

http://money.uk.msn.com/guides/salarycentre/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4750681

That's muthaf'ing pounds!

Henry plays in Spain. Point invalidated!

Fair doesn't really come into it. Thousands of people want to watch athletes do their thing. It's just a fact. It's not that they deserve the money, it's just that the money they earn is a natural outcome of the market surrounding professional sports. Stem cell research does not generate income, it just costs money; so it has to exist on subsidies and donations.

Marc wrote:Fair doesn't really come into it. Thousands of people want to watch athletes do their thing. It's just a fact. It's not that they deserve the money, it's just that the money they earn is a natural outcome of the market surrounding professional sports.

You described it nicely, but that's all you did. Picture this 19th Century discussion:

19th Century Skeptic: "Hey, isn't slavery totally gay?"

19th Century tool: "Nah nah nah, you see, people want slaves. They're gunna pay for them. It's the market dude, face the facts. It's reality in your face."

This may be an accurate description of the way things are. The question is: 'Should it be the way things are?'

Marc wrote:Stem cell research does not generate income, it just costs money; so it has to exist on subsidies and donations.

What's all this guff i'm hearing about the market and generating income? Surely generating income just means that someone somewhere is willing to give their money for that something. I think "costing money" and "generating money" are the same thing (i think(?) ). It's just people don't usually wanna pay for medicine until they're the ones that need it.

Anyways...dictatorship. *rubbing fingers together in Zoidbergesque manner*

I don't think slavery really equates to professional sports.

By "generating" money, I mean that people invest in it, and other people pay for it, so that it's profitable. If you put money into research, all* you get out of it is research.

*By "all" I don't mean to belittle research. This is merely to illustrate the point that this is probably a commonly held view among people with capital.

And why is it always my job to argue things I don't believe in/care about?

$500,000: enough to say you contributed to important research but not so much as to piss off the religous nuts who are opposed to the advancement (ie. evolution) of the species.

PS. On a big pile of money with many beautiful ladies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/funds-alone-holding-us-back-bionic-eye-team/2008/04/22/1208742940215.html

Same old story.

Well, at least it appears they're gunna do the best they can (which is pretty damn fricken good) with the resources they're given. Go, you good thing.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/funds-boost-for-cloning-research/2008/06/19/1213770827359.html?sssdmh=dm16.320655

This is kinda related to this post.

What's people's opinion on modern day sportspeoples not being required to have a day job, whereas not even one generation ago professional sportspeoples needed to hold down a job as well as maintain their sporting prowess. Or does the dubious increase in skill compensate for the relatively sheltered/pampered existence of modern sportspeoples?

The increase in skill is hardly dubious, my man.

I wouldn't consider the hours spent training each day to be 'pampered' nor do feel their jobs 'shelter' them any more than a non-sports job paying a similar amount.
Fact is the people who watch spectator sports pay their salaries so if they have a problem with it they can turn off their tv and play sport instead.

Marc wrote:The increase in skill is hardly dubious, my man.

Explain how.

Trizender wrote:I wouldn't consider the hours spent training each day to be 'pampered'

Yeah, poor guys. Hours of playing a game they love. That would suck.
I would be doing that right now, for free, if it weren't for the fact that everyone else is lazy! (or maintaining their social lives or some crap, whatever) and I don't even love sports as much.

Trizender wrote:nor do feel their jobs 'shelter' them any more than a non-sports job paying a similar amount.

Good point. Maybe I would class them in the same boat. But we can ignore them for this argument, yeah? I don't think it detracts from the main line of argument.

Trizender wrote:Fact is the people who watch spectator sports pay their salaries so if they have a problem with it they can turn off their tv and play sport instead.

But maybe that's my point: Why people don't have a problem with it. And I don't think any more people watch sport today than they did previously...? So it can't be entirely attributed to just the viewers, can it?

Andy, seriously, you just have to look at the quality of the play even twenty years ago compared to now in just about any sport. The quality of play is sooo much better now, the skill of the players through the roof by comparison.

Look at pele play in some highlights, sure he was good but now days he would be MUNCHED by the goal keepers.

Look at an old baseball game and then look at today. The crispness of the throwing, the mindset of the players, the quality of the pitches... its all better.

And yes, its is a pitty that research doesn't get more dollars. But there are so many charities out there that do really good work that you can't give to all of them. Its a by product of capatalism, which is incidentally a working system when judged by the comparison to its peers.