> However, I am not sure how easy it is identify the kids pre-teenage.
I'm not sure how the Chinese do it, but this is exactly their approach. Children with talent (or at least some signs of it) are taken at a very young age (~5 y/o) and intensively trained.
> Importing a group of people just for the sole purpose of racking up medals (non withstanding the inherent creepiness of it) will be tremendously expensive. How do you justify the expense if the children don't want to do it eventually?
Will it be expensive? I made this suggestion based on the assumption that, as with the IT industry, it's more cost efficient to bring in workers from abroad than to depend on domestic talent. In any case, from what I can tell, the main costs come from buying equipment and hiring coaches, not from the children. All you have to do is pay for their food, shelter, schooling, and other basic needs.
The children of course will not be forced to remain in the program if they do not want to. Contrary to popular belief, this is the system used by China - no one is kidnapped or coerced into participating, although that no doubt happens in North Korea.
In any case, the US policy would be that at any point, they can quit and go back home, if they so desire. Citizenship would be reserved for those who stick with the program until they are of Olympic age (of course, there would be weeding out as well, so the numbers would be relatively low). And even if they end up going back at the age of 10, they would have greatly benefited from just getting nutritious food during a crucial part of their childhood - child malnutrition rates in India are almost 50%, even higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. Childhood malnutrition leads to lifelong physical and mental infirmity, so the children would no doubt benefit.
There's no denying the creepiness to some people, although I don't see it that way (America is a nation of immigrants who came for a better life, and that would describe these kids perfectly). This would be a cost-efficient and humane way to reassert US Olympic dominance over China, something that a lot of people are concerned with.
Sending a scouting network into a foreign country that largely doesn't speak your language in order to watch a broad swathe of children isn't going to be cheap.
Given that the US already leads the board in total medal tally, do they really need to game the system that way? Besides, it makes an even further mockery of the idea of 'amateur athletes' when you're essentially buying them from the other side of the world.
Citizenship would be reserved for those who stick with the program until they are of Olympic age (of course, there would be weeding out as well, so the numbers would be relatively low).
Lure a family to an entirely different culture with promises of wealth and wellbeing, then if they aren't gloriously successful for whatever reason, throw them away like trash, back into a culture they're now not used to, particularly the kids? All so you can increment your medal tally to stem the 'yellow peril'? This is morally reprehensible.
> Sending a scouting network into a foreign country that largely doesn't speak your language in order to watch a broad swathe of children isn't going to be cheap.
Translators come cheap in a country where English is relatively well spoken.
> Given that the US already leads the board in total medal tally, do they really need to game the system that way?
How long do you think that's going to last? China is going to beat us in both total medal count and the number of gold medals within 2 or 3 Olympics (if not this one), and then we'll have no hope at all.
> Besides, it makes an even further mockery of the idea of 'amateur athletes' when you're essentially buying them from the other side of the world.
Hey, fight fire with fire. What do you think the Chinese are doing? It's not like these children are going to be mistreated. And I don't think giving them proper food, shelter, education, and clothing can be equated with "buying" them.
> Lure a family to an entirely different culture with promises of wealth and wellbeing, then if they aren't gloriously successful for whatever reason, throw them away like trash, back into a culture they're now not used to, particularly the kids? All so you can increment your medal tally to stem the 'yellow peril'? This is morally reprehensible.
OK, so set up some training centers in India instead. If they make it to the age of 10 or so without being weeded out, bring them to America. Anyone who comes to America and stays for at least 6 months can be guaranteed citizenship, even if they don't win. How does that sound? These are just details. My post was intended to lay out a general plan, not to invite nitpicking over the details of every word.
And the "yellow peril" you talk about (racial connotations notwithstanding) is a very real thing. China is going to dominate the world very soon. The best way we can fight back is to rely on America's basics, one of which is immigration.
Translators come cheap in a country where English is relatively well spoken.
This one point is supposed to suggest that the rest of the comment would also be cheap? However you carve it, it will be quite expensive, once you throw in trained scouts, administration for scouts and moved families, foreign bureaucracy, domestic bureaucracy...
China is going to beat us
So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say 'congratulations'.
It's not like these children are going to be mistreated.
Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't run fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.
The best way we can fight back is to rely on America's basics, one of which is immigration.
"We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the modern US opinion on immigration, yes. Or you can fight back by not spending shitloads of money to chase shiny baubles.
But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment? Everyone knows they do it. When they take and keep the #1 spot, no-one is thinking that they're simply superior physical specimens - that's old cold war thinking at play. All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is dirty your own hands and making people think the same of you. Worse, even - 'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's native talent'.
> This one point is supposed to suggest that the rest of the comment would also be cheap? However you carve it, it will be quite expensive, once you throw in trained scouts, administration for scouts and moved families, foreign bureaucracy, domestic bureaucracy...
I'm not denying that there will be expenses. Obviously, some detailed calculations would have to be done and a cost-benefit analysis performed. However, my intuition tells me that it will be worth it when China starts to dominate. Moreover, the cost of living is low in India, so it would be a lot cheaper than training athletes in the US.
> So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say 'congratulations'.
Oh please, those are just empty words you tell kids. No one really believes that, least of all the American or Chinese teams.
> Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't run fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.
First of all, I already gave you a solution to that problem. And no matter how you look at it, these are children that would otherwise end up physically and mentally deformed, and often illiterate. Any cultural issues pale in comparison to those very real problems.
> "We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the modern US opinion on immigration, yes.
And there's nothing wrong with doing that. One of the reasons that the US doesn't have the demographic timebomb faced by the rest of the developed world is that we encourage large-scale immigration
> Or you can fight back by not spending shitloads of money to chase shiny baubles.
That would be entirely antithetical to the spirit of the modern Olympics, so that's a non sequitur.
> But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment?
Regardless of their methods, they will be lauded. It would be remiss of us not to do everything legal and ethical in our power to fight back.
> All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is dirty your own hands and making people think the same of you.
Once again, we wouldn't be "purchasing" them. They wouldn't be slaves or indentured servants. I don't understand how this would be a bad thing. These children would be given a chance at a vastly better life. It's not like they would be deprived of something because of our actions.
> Worse, even - 'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's native talent'.
Except that is what the US is all about - we are a nation of immigrants. While the rest of world might scoff at our short history and lack of ethnic homogeneity, we take great pride in that fact.
No, you really need to stop restorting to ad hominem responses and face the cold, hard truth. It is a fact that nearly 50% of children in India suffer from malnutrition. It is a fact that malnutrition is a condition that is universally accepted within the scientific community to cause lifelong physical and mental deformity. This has nothing to do with race. It could happen in any country, to any ethnicity.
Taking umbrage at your statement that all Indians are mentally and physically deformed is not an 'ad hominem' response. Seriously, think about the extension of what you said - it would mean that every Indian national is physically or mentally deformed. You've pegged it back to 50% with this comment, but even then, is your mythical scouting network really going to be looking at malnourished children?
Then you compound it by wanting to be given a pat on the back because you're willing to save a mere handful if they happen to perform well. It's like saying that blacks in the US don't have to worry about poverty so much because there's the NFL to save some of them.
Also, "It is a fact that -foo- is universally accepted within the scientific community" is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Besides, malnutrition comes in a range of degrees - it is not synonymous with kwashiorkor or marasmus, not among the scientists you claim as your authority. Hence, it also refers to the diet of obese Americans (and there's also mild undernutrition as well). Given that the obesity rate in the US is climbing towards 30%, it's not so much of a gain to go from a culture with 50% to a 30% malnutrition rate.
I am still not sure that one needs to go all the way to India to do all of this. Couldn't the "Chinese miracle" be replicated here here in America with any demographic that has low participation ratios in the Olympics due to reasons other than interest?
1. India has a much larger population. You have a higher chance of getting someone with the right phenotype for the sport if you have a much larger group of people to pick from.
2. There's more incentive for the children to stay in the sport if they're given something significant in return - there are tons of children in India who would do anything for what we take for granted (food, shelter, clothing, education, American citizenship, etc.).
I'm not sure how the Chinese do it, but this is exactly their approach. Children with talent (or at least some signs of it) are taken at a very young age (~5 y/o) and intensively trained.
> Importing a group of people just for the sole purpose of racking up medals (non withstanding the inherent creepiness of it) will be tremendously expensive. How do you justify the expense if the children don't want to do it eventually?
Will it be expensive? I made this suggestion based on the assumption that, as with the IT industry, it's more cost efficient to bring in workers from abroad than to depend on domestic talent. In any case, from what I can tell, the main costs come from buying equipment and hiring coaches, not from the children. All you have to do is pay for their food, shelter, schooling, and other basic needs.
The children of course will not be forced to remain in the program if they do not want to. Contrary to popular belief, this is the system used by China - no one is kidnapped or coerced into participating, although that no doubt happens in North Korea.
In any case, the US policy would be that at any point, they can quit and go back home, if they so desire. Citizenship would be reserved for those who stick with the program until they are of Olympic age (of course, there would be weeding out as well, so the numbers would be relatively low). And even if they end up going back at the age of 10, they would have greatly benefited from just getting nutritious food during a crucial part of their childhood - child malnutrition rates in India are almost 50%, even higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. Childhood malnutrition leads to lifelong physical and mental infirmity, so the children would no doubt benefit.
There's no denying the creepiness to some people, although I don't see it that way (America is a nation of immigrants who came for a better life, and that would describe these kids perfectly). This would be a cost-efficient and humane way to reassert US Olympic dominance over China, something that a lot of people are concerned with.