Off Topic Thread too point uh

In much the same way I believe that a government would benefit from being a technocracy instead of a democracy, I understand that a 'stable' mix of viewpoints and ethoses is more important for the inclusion and continuance of society. I believe in meritocracy when it comes to jobs (flat out libertarianism, best person wins), but can see beyond the trees when it comes to applying these rules to different scenarios.

For example, if we consider E-Sports, which is exploding currently. I see zero problem whatsoever in a rich benefactor buying up a team and pumping them full of money. Money => Victory in this scenario (and most other sports too tbh). The reason I see zero problem is that there are very few negative externalities for 'E-Sports as a whole' in this sceario. This is down to the structure of its ecosystem (bedroom players => players playing at LANS => Players joining pro teams) is not a nuclear based system. The bedroom players don't support a "cell" centre and gain mutual benefits from it. It's a sporadic system, with minimal external investment and mentoring. It's almost solely a self-driven exercise to go from nothing to the top.

Rugby, Soccer and most 'older' physical games are the exact opposite. The ecosystem and development ladder are almost totally nuclear, as in, a club ( or nucleus) attract players into the system and the mutual growth all occurs there. The sport continues and develops as a series of nuclei. Players don't develop singularly, there are nuclei and centres of development which invest time in the players and expect investment back. If we see this system as a multi-temporal system (i.e, each decision/change/affect at this timepoint affects and resonates through all following timepoints) and consider the structure of the system as a whole, we can hypothesise quite easily the impacts and difficulties of unilateral development/investment/growth in the nuclei. The damage to the system as a whole as development centres on the boundaries have to close/die as a result of the flow of talent to the investment centres has a knock on affect on the number of developed players in the next timepoint. Less nuclei => Less players. From the perspective of communities etc, closing clubs can be so drastic as to just stop players who 'might have made it' from having any interest in the game. Geographical placement is important here. Think of the affects of emigration on local GAA teams across the country.

We don't even necessarily have to hypothesise, because we've seen direct examples of this in English Football.

Things I hold dear to me, I'm happy to have controls imposed on, so that they can be held dear by people in the next generation etc. I'm happy to have my ideals 'stabilised' and 'mixed' by others when it's patently obvious to me what the intention of the mix is for. Zealots / Extremist views in almost all cases are dangerous imo. Fundamentals are to be considered, not adhered to.