h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Society (if I'm using the correct word), is a very complex thing. An explination (courtesy of Dictionary.com) reads as follows :

"A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."

As a Briton, I have noticed that we are a culture that is becoming increasingly greedy. Many would blame this on a period during the ninteen eighties when Margaret Thatcher started getting people to buy their council houses, and generally promoted greed amongst the lower classes. It is probably no accident that during the seventies there were huge problems with Trade Unions rising up and causing the country to come to a grinding halt.

Now what Maggie Thatcher arguably did, was break up society to an extent which it would not be able to rise up again like that, because they were too self-interested to care about their fellow Briton.

Now I would in no way say that things were perfect back then (in fact I couldn't possibly begin to say that because I wasn't even born then), as there were other serious issues - people morally I suspect as a country we were more moral.

I don't know enough about American history to comment, but it would be interesting to know how closely Margaret Thatcher's and Ronald Regan's policies matched.

Now we appear to have a greedy, extreemly self-interested culture through-out the western world. And frankly morally some cultures have regressed - particularly in Britain.

Whilst we deal with racism better than we perhaps did do in the past - which is why I'm not holding a candle to the past - we seem to have many more problems with respect than ever.

Huge company type entities, who run various media across the globe - the scale of which the world has never seen - influence us every day. Newspapers spout garbage and biased opinion (I'm disturbed at some of the stories that only get tiny columns, or I have to go looking for). A mere fraction of newsworthy stories get an airing, and there are few people (in the scheme of things) who are that interested in the news for any of it to have an effect, and only the very top headline stories even reach them.

So in this world of spin, greed and corruption (now such a common word its becoming a by-word), how do we get by? What is in store for our future?

With docile populations, which are happy as long as they are entertained it is easy to think that perhaps the rulers of the world (companies and governments a like) can do what ever they want. Perhaps I'm overstating it a little, but is it perhaps just too tempting to give in to the problems, and just accept them?

Is it tempting to think there is nothing that we can do about it?

I'll throw this open to the floor. Its something that I've been mulling about for a few weeks now, and I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions.

Verc

Did Thatcher change 'society', whatever it is (or isn't), or did her and Reagan's policies reflect social changes?

There's plenty of activism around, but is it effective? The later stages of No Logo offer some food for thought.

Trouble is, the 'one no, many yeses' model can hold together as long as there's something to say 'no' to; if it were ever to succeed, presumably it would be in severe danger of turning against itself.

One question you have to answer is, how much of what we have would you be prepared to sacrifice for your aims? Would the overthrowing of democracy, in favour of the rule of Philosopher-Kings (and -Queens, of course), be for the Greater Good?

"One question you have to answer is, how much of what we have would you be prepared to sacrifice for your aims? Would the overthrowing of democracy, in favour of the rule of Philosopher-Kings (and -Queens, of course), be for the Greater Good?"

I personally currently don't have the motivation to go and raise support to overthrow the current leaders. I have to admit that. I'm not convinced thats the only way to change society - but by my own admission, I don't quite know how to go about it.

As far as over throwing the democracy is concerned - have we ever had a true Democracy? I would understand a true democracy to involve more interaction with the general populus. Have most countries just got a temporary dictator (if such a thing can exist)?

I may answer my own question here, in that I think the problem with democracy - inspite of the security it seems to bring - is that decisions are made based on a (usually) fickle population, and so the right decisions aren't always made. And as we know the media has a certain sway over the mood of the population - which blows in the wind anyway.

I always look at it this way : For a dictatorship to work, you need a good intelligent individual to run the country, for a democracy to work you need a good and intelligent population - both of which are hard to come by.

Going back to your point about overthrowing any regime, I'm not sure that brutally taking over solves little, other than to cause more problems which will take a very long time to sort out.

So from that perspective no. Neither do I think the political route is much more effective. We realistically in Britain, still only have two party politics (though this may change). But this is such a limited choice - if you join one of the leading parties you have to tow the party line and I would have to make an unacceptable change in my ethics to get to anything like what I would want.

I'm convinced there has to be another way. But its on the tip of my mind.

In past history a country would have complete control over their country, from top to bottom. Now you have large corporate countries throughout the world which filter between many countries and influencing all of them. Somewhere along the line countries have lost the option to make intelligent, independant decisions (though they rarely used that option) because of so many outside influences.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is making much sense. It just feels like theres a huge itch in the country that needs scratching.

Instead of:

"Now you have large corporate countries"

I should say:

"Now you have large corporate organisations"

Hi Verc. You've hit upon an extremely difficult issue. I agree that western society in general leaves a lot to be desired. We have so promoted the rights and freedoms of the individual, that we're at an almost anything goes point. And there is genuine cause for alarm.

The problem comes in deciding what to do about it. Look at the other side of the coin - theocracies. We certainly don't want to go back to an age where the church was in control of the political and social climate. We have the taliban to look at as a modern example of this.

In the library world we are faced with the issue of internet pornography and violence. On the one hand we are told to protect our young patrons and to do this by filtering the internet. On the other hand librarians have always been in the forefront of first amendment battles supporting freedom of speech and expression.

I'm using this example because it illustrates the way certian basic tenets of democracy have been perverted. The first amendment was intended to protect those people who had complaints about the government itself from being prosecuted and imprisoned for expressing their opinions. Now it is used to defend people who want to publish pictures of humans having sex with dogs and other animals, adults having sex with or whipping naked children, etc. Please tell me why this should be 'protected speech'.


Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky.

If it's any consolation, each generation believes that the younger ones are going to hell in a handbasket. It's human nature, I suppose.

H