To Be or Not To Be

How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world?

And why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth?

Furthermore, is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

All questions raised in a provocative article in the New York Times entitled Should This Be the Last Generation?This article sparked a firestorm.

Bloggers across the web posted their thoughts on the internet, arguing for this stance believing that ending the human race with our generation would be beneficial. Somehow ending the human race would save the world.

I do not fully comprehend this thinking. Even if ending the human race would save the world, it seems ironic, why would the human race want the world to be better and more livable if there would be no one to live in the world? Stopping all human life to preserve the earth would be equivalent to building a mansion that no one can look at or live in. What would be the point?

The New York Times article also comments on South African philosopher David Benatar. “To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her.”

Posts about Antinatalism all share similar beliefs to this. The Antinatalism thought process claims “Life should not be brought into this world” this thinking urges us to not have children because it is selfish to want to bring a child into this world for our own entertainment. This leads people to believe it’s inhumane to bring a child into this world of suffering.

I agree completely that life on this earth is also accompanied by suffering and there is no getting around that, but is it inhumane to bring someone into suffering?

I believe quite the contrary. Suffering is what makes life living. Is not life really just growth? The point of life is to grow and learn in all aspects, a simple concept that all can understand. But I ask you how are we to grow without suffering and hardships? Much greater thinkers than I have reflected on this.

“To have become a deeper man is the privilege of those who have suffered.” ~Oscar Wilde

“There is no success without hardship.” 
~Sophocles

“The gem cannot be polished without friction nor man without trials.” ~Confucius

These great thinkers and many others have all come to the same conclusion as I. More appropriately I have come to the same conclusion as they.

To reduce our lives to life without suffering would be no life at all. So to make the decision to not let future generations live because of suffering is choosing for them not to live because of life. This is both an illogical and paradoxical thought process.

End of the World

Earthquakes, global warming, poverty, serial killers and loneliness why would anyone bring a child into this world is the question that Peter Singer poses in his article for the New York TImes. He offers the idea of sterilizing the human race as a solution to the problems of the world and to protect the future generations, but what would that truly solve?

People are often unhappy with how their lives turn out but that does not justify the right to never give them a chance to live. Our lives are not so terrible that you could not stand to live in this world. Everyone goes through bad times but on the other side it makes you appreciate all the good things in your life that much more. 

Singer says that, "we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence." No couple wants to have a child if they believe they will live an unhappy life, every parent desires the best for their child even if they cannot always give it to them. The statement Singer makes is not true because every parent hopes that their child will be able to live the best life possible and even though having a baby is not usually based on how happy they may be in the future it is just assumed that a new life has so many new opportunities to have happiness. 

There is not a person who has ever lived who has been happy their entire life, life is a constant struggle to get by or to achieve something. There always seems to be something wrong but despite that life has its moments where you are just lucky to be alive and those are the moments that parents envision when they have children; their graduation, their wedding, having a baby. Its a process of life that we have all gone through, emotions and struggles, problems and happiness all come in a package. No one has it all, even if it seems that way. 

How in the world could we all, the entire human race, decide not to reproduce anymore to just cause our own extinction? Is anyones life that terrible that they couldn't imagine bringing a child into this world. We can't predict the future, we cannot know that the climate issues are going to get better but we can't just give up. Thats what sterilizing  everyone would do, we would just throw in the towel on our fight to save the planet, on the fight against everything. Quitting reproducing won't solve any problems on its own we have to be here to help our planet. 

Some commenters argue "The only certain thing you are creating with a pregnancy is a death" yet how can you be so pessimistic about life there are much greater things than just death. Loathing life you may as well be dead, you have to embrace everything and enjoy every sudden change that life throws at you. 

I agree more with this comment left by Peter from LA, "Your pessimistic argument about the state of life as being all suffering, does not fit with the solution of not having children and throwing a big party. Instead everyone in the world who agrees should commit suicide, as they are harming themselves by choosing to remain alive." His bluntness is how I feel toward the pessimists whose only solution to the worlds problems are to just end everything.

Our life is what we make of it, if you are able to embrace life and accept things are not always going to go your way but that you can always make the best out of a bad situation. Life is much more fulfilling and raising a child with those views then no matter how life turns out they can always be happy. 

Keep the Eggo Preggo?

Simply by reading the bold title and question, Should This Be the Last Generation? made me think of what the world would be like if there was a chastity belt on the human race. Peter I can see the positive aspects based on the perception I have formed in my head about generation. As I kept reading Peter Singer’s article, I then considered the people that came before me and after my group. By the end of the article I realized that stopping the additional birthing of children would have some advantages now, but in the long run, it would only be hurting the future.


In addition to considering the family history of illnesses, as Singer pointed out, there needs to be a consideration of who the babies are on average being birthed from. This would be the most recent generation to come into adulthood: Generation Y. Ranging from 1984 to 1992, not only is Generation Y young, but the group is still trying to find out who they are in this world. They are at college. They are working in fast food. They are out partying. They are out drinking. An end to conceiving now would be a positive affect to this generation because of how mixed the morals are. This is also the generation that has raised the statistics in teen pregnancy, and the spawn of the generation that raised the divorce rates in the world. No more repopulating could stop many mistakes from coming into the world due to a one night stand or inebriated shenanigans.

But look at the generations that are still growing: Generation Z. With technology such as computers and television at its highest, it is easier for these generations to absorb information as well as learn more quickly than the past, as they are growing as these industries grow. This could possibly be the smartest generation to later walk on this earth, as some are still crawling. This could possibly be the generation that solves cancer, find a solution to national debt, or even build a computer that rivals creations by Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

So what if we stop now? What if we stop this generation from creating an even smarter generation? We will still have our other problems and would still have to solve them. If we do stop creating, we won’t feel guilty. Rather, we will be questioning what would have been. And how will we do this properly? And then again, you can’t just put a chastity belt over all the women and men of this Earth. And sterilizing the human race would possibly increase the chances of dying from a sexual disease or possibly rape encounters, and we would still have our debts and diseases, meaning we will just have more problems to solve.

If anything, it is not so much how good life is or would be, but how stable that makes it reasonable to have a baby. Look at your life, look at your choices!

A Very Rash Decision

In Peter Singer’s article “Should This Be The Last Generation,” he discusses the very pessimistic question, if our generation should be the last generation on earth. I strongly believe that we should not be the last generation on earth. This seems like a very rash and dramatic decision to come to, and completely unnecessary.

I understand the good in some families rethinking having children. For example if one of the parents has a fatal disease, maybe they shouldn’t have children, because of what that child would have to go through once that parent passes away. This on the other hand is completely different then stopping the whole production of the next generation. When a family decides not to have children, they are considering what’s best for them and the child, and everyone’s situation is different. It’s a huge generalization to say that no ones life is worth living and therefore we should just stop producing children.

In his article, Singer quotes South African philosopher David Benatar. David Benatar has a very bleak view on life. Benatar claims that if we continue to reproduce some children will severely suffer and although not all children will suffer as harshly, no one will actually benefit. This idea is completely ridiculous. Yes, I do agree that some children suffer, but not all children! Everyone suffers at one point or another, and yes it’s not fun, but it’s worth it to have all the good times too. If we didn’t suffer we wouldn’t be able to appreciate the joy in our lives.

If we were to sterilize the human race, we would not only be killing the future of our world, but also one of the great joys in our lives we have, family. If everyone were to be sterilized, couples would not be able to start families. So by sterilizing everyone we are taking away one of life’s greatest treasures, having a baby. Women would no longer be able to experience the great joy of having a child, and the effect that child has on their life. I think that no one really understands that joy until they have experienced it, but by sterilizing the human race, we are not giving people the chance to experience this. This idea also goes against what Benatar thinks, because he believes that no one will actually benefit from having children. I like to think that my parents have greatly benefited from having me, but I guess that’s just my opinion. I think all parents’ lives are significantly improved once they have children. But apparently Benatar does not feel this way.

Who are we to say that we should be the end of the human race? Do we really have the authority or knowledge to make that big of a decision? No, we don’t. It is extremely egotistical of us to think that we can make that decision. Sterilizing the human race is a completely crazy and morbid idea.

Make a Change!

When the topics of bioethics, animal rights, environmentalism, and reproductive rights arise, there is one individual that comes into mind, Peter Singer. He wrote an opinion article published in the New York Times entitled, “Should This Be the Last Generation?”, which discussed the controversial issues of overpopulation, environmentalism, and child reproduction. Singer brings up several questions about these area of subjects, including “Is life worth living?”, “Is a world with people in it better than one without?”, and “If a child likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing a child into existence?”

All of these questions cause individuals to think critically, and in order to answer them appropriately, you must have empathy and put yourself in the shoes of another individual who could be put in this type of predicament.

With the question of, “Is life worth living?”, there are many factors that can influence the answer to this question that seems so simple. Peter Singer states, “In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now.”

This statement is somewhat controversial; In fact I agree with the statement that life is worth living, however his reason behind it is false. Singer states that humans learn from our past mistakes, and I believe that there have been very few instances in which this is true. For example WWII, this war would not have occurred if Germany would have looked back on the Peloponnesian War and saw the destruction that came out it. There were striking similarities between Germany’s invasion of Poland in World War II, and the Corinthian’s invasion of Corcyra. The truth of the matter is that people can learn a lot from past mistakes, but a majority of the times, people ignore that past because they are to eager to move into the future.

Moving onto a more environmentalist question, “Is a world with people in it better than one without”, there are many aspects that could change an individuals opinion about this topic. I believe that a world without people is better than a world with people. It is true that science has improved dramatically, however the human race as a whole, is not listening to what science has to offer.

Science holds the key to a longer future, and if only people would listen to them and learn from our past mistakes, will future generations get the experience to live on this extraordinary planet, that most individuals take for granted everyday.

When thinking about the factors of reproduction, a question that could be brought up is, “If a child likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing a child into existence?” A blog post responding to this question is found on Costa del Sol – My Local Gazette. Layman stated, “No, it isn’t. This is because the definitions of: (a) Suffering is a way to create happiness. (b) Happiness is the temporarily feeling of things being a step-better for keeping one’s own DNA alive.” I agree with the fact that abortion should not be an option here, I believe this child should be given a chance to live despite the emotional impact that it could have on the family, however the reasons behind it are not true. Pain and suffering is not a way to create happiness. Happiness is created when there is no pain and suffering in the world.

In conclusion, there are many factors and issues that could evolve out of these questions that Singer projects to his audience. All these questions build tension and debates leading to the blinding question that is “Should This Be the Last Generation?” The truth is that it is up to our generation to decide this. It is our duty to be the change in the world, to learn how to look back on the mistakes, and make a change!

Should this be the End?

“Is life worth living?” well in my opinion life is amazing and contains many joys and experiences. This quote is from the article “Should this be the Last Generation” by Peter Singer. I have read this many times to make sure I fully understood his point of view. While I can understand that humans are destroying our planet and it would be better to step back and evaluate our current living situation, it is irrational and poorly thought out to say that the best solution is to sterilize everyone. If we indeed are the last generation and should live life to its fullest, what is to say of our planet after we are gone?

At our current living status, the Earth will deteriorate in a matter of years. While we do not know the amount of damage we have done, we need to continue fighting for our lives. Some of the happinesses that a majority of people on this planet take a part in is being parents. The joys that come with raising and caring for another life and nurturing that life into adulthood.

Not all people feel that the world would be better off without them. While there are widespread problems globally, we just need to change in order to adapt to our current style of living. While I do think that we need a radical overhaul of the way we live in order to sustain and possibly repair the damage that we have done to ourselves and our planet. Singer did make some good arguments that if the population was controlled and kept at a manageable level, our carbon footprint would be reduced, and suffering would be better combated.

Our world is filled with suffering and problems and I wonder what needs to be done for people to realize that there is a problem with what we are doing to ourselves. I can closely relate this because I am reading “Ishmael” in my FFC class, the story talks about how humans do not know how to live. First we need to realize a cold truth that increasing our food supply doesn’t combat poverty and starving people in third world countries it fuels it. The more food we produce the more the population grows, our population is closing on 7 billion and still growing. We have to realize, how many people can our world support...the answer is not this many. Our carbon footprint is increasing and we are destroying our planet at an alarming rate.

Another point that Singer discussed was the fact of illnesses that would be passed down from the parents to the child. Is it morally responsible to conceive a child knowing that their life will be impacted (most likely in a negative way) or should the parents stay away until science can detect problems before conception? Another question we should ask ourselves is that if science develops so that we can alter an unborn child’s genetics to keep it healthy should we?

One example of this would be the novel “The Giver”, by Lois Lowry, the human population was controlled by the elders. For instance if twins were born, the smaller or less one was killed. Parents had to apply to receive children and could only get one boy and one girl. Love did not exist and the society was efficient albeit flawed. Is the scientific predictable aspect of that community superior to the risks and dangers of the one we live in?

In the blog “Antinatalism”, Jim a blogger realizes the importance of this topic. He is happy that some attention is being publicly available to people and he proves his point that this is not the right way by re-posting comments from the article. One of the commentswas very insightful. Overall, while Singer did address some important issues that we will soon be faced with, we need to try and reconcile the problems that we have wielded upon our planet.

Knife fighting and nationalism

Escrima is the most violent form of martial art still practiced to date, and the Philippines, where it is the national sport, has significantly less violent crime than in the U.S. National sports are widely believed to reflect the views and characteristics of their country, then it is peculiar that a country with a national sport that involves trying to stab and bludgeon one another has less actual stabbings than one where in the sport if one player manages to hit the other, he is punished. There is something unique about violent sports that, rather than inspiring violence in a nation, inspires solidarity.

Nationalism has always been tied to sports, going back to the Olympic game rivalries between city states. Bloggers and pundits alike draw connections between county’s sports and the nation itself. Letting a group of perhaps a dozen people represent millions may seem illogical, but there are clear reasons and justifications that it works. The most important reason is that it is a national sport because a majority of the nation feels connected to the game and the players. People may use the way a team performs as an allegory for the countries woes, boons, weaknesses, and strength. Countries themselves may project a lot of themselves on their teams. It is less often that people look to the sport as an actual catalyst. The effect a win or loss may have could be vast, from helping to end apartheid in a Morgan Freeman film to helping the Americans win the cold war with mustaches that help swimmers go faster. While war is not a game, a nation may take the loss of one with as much grief as the other.

Escrima is dangerous, violent, and scary, yet the people who learn, teach, practice, and watch are most definitely not. Escrima teaches people concepts to kill with just about anything that can be picked up, and the people of the Philippines have been historically a bunch of farmers who would settle their disputes with machetes and daggers they would carry. For having so many trained killers, it seems like there would be murders, stabbings, and manslaughter left and right. Out of fifty highest crime rates by country, the Philippines ranked number forty seven, number one being the U.S. Violence is seen through a different lens. Not through the Fox news “something dangerous could happen to you” perspective, but from one of resistance to outside powers, and that men and women should be taught to protect themselves. This sport is to the country what lax gun laws are to Texas. When everyone is capable of hurting each other, they trespass against one another much less frequently.

Looking at other sports where there is no actual threat, and an athlete makes several million dollars no matter how they play, it is no wonder that people take them less seriously. If an athlete goes out and provides alcohol to a minor in a Pittsburg bar, he sits out a few games, his team does fine, and there is no weight or meaning. Beating someone at golf and beating someone in a fighting ring both yield significantly different feelings, but after match, a golfer is more likely to go get plastered, like John Daily or the New York Jets, compared to an athlete that not only puts his reputation, but his limbs on the line, and leaves happy to be in one piece. It could be said that this difference in attitudes is the difference between the United States and the Philippines. Violence in a fighting culture is like a police officer’s weapon. It is used with discipline. Fighters understand how to hurt people and what happens when someone is hurt, and that lethal force should only be used as a last resort.

How Stereotypical

What is the mere appearance of sports? On the surface, sports and sport competitions is all just fun and games. However, over the decades, sports have developed a more underlying message within society. International Sport Competitions either help build or diminish a country’s nationalism through social stereotypes that the outcomes of competitions create.

Competition is in fact not all just fun and games; there is one huge contradiction facing competition. It is understood that teams and its countries are supposed to be enemies on the field and friends outside the field. However, the contradiction is that countries carry the spirit of competition outside of the games and into everyday life.

Sports create two main stereotypes; the winners and the losers. It’s simple; a team either looses or wins a game, right? On the field, yes. However, sports and competition have become such a large part of society that, these stereotypes don’t just exist on the field. The stereotypes are now being carried off into the minds and hearts of the county. The outcome of a sport’s game or competition is how the country will be labeled. They will either be a winner, or a loser and each outcome has its effects on nationalism and society.

After a country wins a game, what follows that victory? Obviously the country is given the title of “winner,” which automatically gives that country a leg up in the sport’s world. Not only does winning the game boost the country’s sports status, but it also gives the illusion that the country is more powerful overall. One of the most interesting comparisons I have heard relating the county’s power and competition outcome is that the game is like war. In the blogging heads video, Eve Fairbanks points out a statement that when Germany was playing England, the German announcer stated, “Germany had broken England’s Resistance.” I found this quote interesting because to me, sports are supposed to be friendly competition, however, countries are now tying in their aggressive war pasts to regain power. If a country wins a game, their nationalism is suddenly twice as strong. The country feels more powerful, and proud that they have beat another country, just like in war. Making them feel as if they are better than the other country.

What about the losers? What are the social and nationalist consequences of defeat? In a sense, the team represents the country. So if the team fails, then it is viewed as the country failing. Blogging heads made many references to the fact that if during a game, a multicultural team does not work well together and loses, that symbolizes the ethnic groups within the county. Which is ridiculous because sports should not have any relation to politics and or the country as a whole. Yes, losing a game is an embarrassment to the team, but that should not have any bearing on one’s pride in his or her country. However, sports are now so popular in society that people get angry and loose their sense of nationalism if their team looses because they are ashamed and do not feel as powerful as the other country.

I never actually thought that nationalism and sports could have such tight ties between them. However, recently sport competitions are now parallel to a country’s nationalistic views through the stereotypes these games create. Only, is this how the human population should view sports? Should sports and sports teams represent the country as a whole, or should sports just be a friendly competition?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/29315

Sports Overruling Our Countries

In the blogging heads video they kept mentioning the fact that international sports shouldn't have any sort of political impact, but they fail to recognize that weather or not it should or shouldn't be happening, it is.

When most people think about the power a country gains based on sports they normally only consider the win or the lose as the important part, which is, but that's just the end of it. A huge honor is held by any country that gets to hold a major sporting event, especially world cups, which is where it all begins.

Getting far enough in a game to possibly hold the world cup in your country is an amazing feat itself. A country gains so much financial stability being able to hold such a large event. I mean, yes a great deal of time, money, and effort is put into every aspect of the event, but the amount of profit made in return is astronomical. It stimulates so much: hotel, food, transportation, clothing, and many other industries. So, without even winning a game, the country that hosts the game gains more stability, which these days could help with political power due to the instability of most countries struggle for money.

Now, the normal, stereotypical point made that international sports effect politics, but they shouldn't. You know, I agree that they shouldn't, but it's not up to an individual to make that decision, its up to the people in each country. I believe the reason that people put so much political pressure associated with sports on players is due to the recognition received for great wins or terrible losses. When players win an international game they are given a formal “thank you” if you will, from the leader of the country most of the time. This shows how much the leaders value the win to help them get ahead of other countries more than anything. If the players are to lose leaders, fans, friends, and family seem to shun them upon return. Many of the players end up retiring because of the embarrassment it cause themselves and their country.

Sports were never meant to cause this much turmoil though. What can we do to fix this growing problem? I feel like in the United States we don't suffer as much of the negative effects of sports competition due to the versatility of sport games. We do not put more pressure on one game versus another. We hold healthy competition between the states in all sports. And yes, a national win is rewarding for the citizens of our country, but not everyone follows the same events closely so its not as big of a deal.

In other countries there is normally one main sport that the country strives to be the best in. For example, many countries are very into soccer and put their live and souls into that game that “defines their country.” Allowing a sport to define your country can be very dangerous and upsetting if/when a loss occurs. Perhaps if pressure was taken off of the players to stand for the country and just play for fun, then these issues wouldn't occur. But the question is once again left in the nations hands, can people allow for this change?

Who really knows? It would take an extreme amount of effort on everyone's part and I think even possibly agreements between each countries leaders. So many wounds between countries would have to be resolved for this to happen. So, I suppose for now, international sports will remain a factor in politics, even though I believe that this existence shouldn't be.

A Moment of Nationalism

As time runs low on the clock an eruption of cheers, claps, horns, and screams fill the stadium with excitement. Simultaneously the stadium is filled with regret, sorrow, and tears. Everyone always wants to be the winner, but only one will finish on top. Sport is something that can unite nations around one team representing the people. This is a subject discussed in the blogging heads video featuring Bryan Curtis and Eve Fairbanks. In many nations around the globe the most powerful aspect of nationalism is international sport.

But when a nation has high expectations most likely it will cause a negative effect on nationalism because of the Ricky Bobby state of mind, "if your not first, your last." Take for example most of the big name countries known for being good at fútbol, Brazil, England, France. In this previous world cup these countries and many more went home filled with disappointment. It is because what they pride there selves most off of is there teams. The meaning of being the best in fútbol is so much more to those countries. The success of the team has a large impact on the people, and if the team succeeds the confidence and morale of the nation at a whole is boosted.

The amount of support a country builds over a sport varies from country to country. The United States has been getting better at soccer or fútbol over the years with the support growing and growing every year. But the true things that America unites over the most are the sports that we are known to be good at. We are pretty much the biggest fair-weather fans on earth. After the years of the Dream Team in mens Olympic basketball, The United States had given up on USA basketball. Until the previous Olympics in Beijing where the Redeem Teamwon it back for the USA. USA basketball was back in the spotlight and all of a sudden people saw the Redeem team as America. It was seen as the time for the US to make a comeback and 'redeem' ourselves for all of the problems we have faced in the previous years.

One of the biggest rivalries in the 2008 Olympics was the battle between the US and China. The host country China had spent years preparing for the Olympics hoping it would be the best yet. They trained like non other had one of the most extravagant ceremony the world has ever seen. But to many it could be seen that this rivalry was more of a war. Super power vs. super power. whoever ended up onto would emerge as the greatest super power in the world. The countries support for their nation was now so much stronger. But by the time it was all over it seemed that everyone just moved on with their regular lives.

International sport does have an impact on nationalism, but its not always a lasting one. It's not always going to be a positive effect or make everyone hold hands and sing 'We are the World'. But what international sport truly is is on opportunity for everyone to unite under one roof and hope to come out on top as they chant USA, USA, USA.

Never Ending Nationalism

International sporting competitions will always be political, so why can’t people stop fantasizing about them as a way to unify nations and just pick a side? Wanting to win is part of human nature, and nationalism seems normal too. If some people get upset about the tension among rival countries that comes out during international competitions, or worry that the competition is not bringing the opposing countries closer, then they are wasting their time. Expressing nationalism through sports is hardly new, but just because it can be negative (for example, Hitler’s attempt to showcase the “master race” at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin), doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing. For example, what about America’s pride over its success in recent women’s World Cup events? America’s pride in conquering China in such a competition may have also related to the countries’ competition in other areas, such as in world trade and economics, but it wasn’t personal. It was just nationalism feeding our natural competitive drive and reflecting what was happening in the world. Trying to change that would be like trying to get a leopard to change its spots.

As mentioned in the bloggingheads video, the details and outcomes of athletic contests are scrutinized and blown way out of proportion by the media. Just because a soccer team is representing a country while participating in a fun competition, it doesn’t mean that every move they make symbolizes the entire country’s attitude as a whole. It doesn’t. Ideally, should nationalism be a part of such competitions? Maybe it has no role in pure sports, but when nations are concerned, it’s not possible to separate it from the event itself. The point is that we should not be concerned about their overlap.

An article by Matthew Weiner, for CNN, illustrates how an international sport, such as soccer, can be influenced by politics and even cause conflict or war. As stated before, politics is intertwined with sports; in international soccer, disagreements, wars, and political disputes between nations have been transferred to the soccer field. Many examples from history show that competition is affected by nationalism, and vice-versa. Maybe in a perfect world everyone could love each other and just root for the game itself, but that’s not going to happen. Therefore, it’s irrelevant whether nationalism should affect international sports, because history tells us that it can’t be avoided. For example, in 1980, the United States boycotted the Olympics because Russia had just invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. wanted to protest that action. Nationalism could not be taken out of the situation.

In the words of the once-great coach of the Liverpool football club in England, Bill Shankly, “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death… I assure you it is much, much more important than that.” This is a perfect example of how important sports are to the fans, to politicians, and to the country itself. It’s not just a game for them, it is their passion, and when a nation of people put their hearts into something, nationalism will be part of the deal.

Logic tells us that nobody can force nations to “unite” for the sake of sport, despite the politics of the time; it makes more sense to let emotions rule and enjoy the competition. After all, the passion of devoted sports lovers can be unifying in its own way. The love of sport is also a universal thing, and having that love in common can unite fans despite their national differences. That way, people who are willing to be unified can find common ground with similar people from other nations, in a way that is natural and real.

The appearance of nationalism in sports is inevitable and will never go away. So instead of criticizing this reality, everyone should embrace it, because there is nothing wrong with some healthy competition.