Pros And Cons Of Olympism

Taken root in ancient times, the Olympics were created as a means of celebrating and exalting the physical specimen, in order to show peak human performance on a multitude of different fronts. The foundation of the Games still lies today in the values and ideals of the “Olympic philosophy,” which basically serves to bolster the ranged inclusion(s) of athletic practices, particularly amongst the younger generations: “Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort … the educational value of … example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” However, the good intentions behind the Games might seem like a bit of a stretch for folks to believe nowadays, when they
seem to have invited nothing but controversy. More so in recent years, even disputes over where the Olympics should be held have carried a great deal of importance, with folklore dictating that this honor can oftentimes be enough to put any given location on the map. With predicted spiking(s) in trade, tourism, and intercity infrastructure, though, it seems the return isn’t always wholly justified, leading to speculation over whether a single pick, such as Los Angeles, should be operating as permanent host, given its unique capabilities to do so. The New York Times and Time Magazine both investigate this subject, lending credence to the idea that the Games don’t really hold such profound benefits for their hosting cities after all. Given the sheer spanning of time and resources necessary in order to properly put on the Olympics in the first place, it stands that ensured future successes may not always come to pass. In fact, for every city which manages to repurpose its old structures as products of large Olympic investments, an equal abundance seemingly fail to do so, and are crippled under said imbalance between “ruin porn versus reuse.” In the end, as the “global spotlight” beneficially exhibits different cities worldwide, it has capacity for permanent damage. The Atlantic’s Andrew Zimbalist reports on the evenhandedness, or lack thereof, with regard to this matter, stating that the arrangement’s most problematic elements include “the bidding process (being) hijacked by private interests … (creating) massive over-building … There’s little evidence that it meaningfully increases tourism.” Beyond this, however, there are many other ongoing behaviors which could put a black mark on the Games’ presumed to be stalwart reputation, such as madcap sexual activities going on in the Athletes’ Village.
Furthermore, even as established consequences prove hard-hitting on the basis of cities and countries involved, they damage the broader economic spectrum: “A growing number of economists argue that both the short and long-term benefits of hosting the games are … exaggerated and at worst nonexistent, leaving many host countries with large debts and maintenance liabilities.” From an environmental perspective, as well, potential devastation wrought by the Olympics, specifically where it might concern places like Rio de Janeiro and Beijing in 2020. Though details as relating to the extent of the problem(s) and viable solutions remain all too scarce, the reality of the situation seems that at least some changes towards conscious, “environmentally friendly” Games have taken place across the board. That which presses hardest in the current political climate, arguably, are the charges of drug abuse and “doping,” most recently levied against Russia to an otherwise “unprecedented” degree. In summary, the Olympics have persisted in staying true to a number of their roots across the millennia, for better or worse. They’ve been around since the 8th century B.C., but to last for centuries more will require a push towards restructuring, to contend with the increasingly modernized age(s) to come. On these fronts and others, the global stage would be all better for
it.