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

>>The way it gives unrealistic expectations to many young people who believe they can become famous and wealthy without any effort or apptitude.

What's more, it's not necessarily even any good to give young people the idea that fame is actually desirable. Such popular culture never promotes a quiet lifestyle as being worthwhile, but I'd wager that the happiest people are not the celebrities.

Absolutely having done a job were I was at the beck and call of the local community I can vouch for the value of anonymity

"The only true measure of a man is the content of his character"
Dr Martin Luther King

>>The way it gives unrealistic expectations to many young people who believe they can become famous and wealthy without any effort or apptitude.



Isn't there a flipside, though? There *is* a section of the population who will become wealthy without effort and who will find it considerably easier to become famous.

Are we to say to the others, 'But not you. You must be content with your soul destroying McJob and the pittance doled out to you'?

OK - so sleb culture wouldn't be my preferred method of righting social and financial inequality and giving people worthwhile aspirations. That would involve barricades.

>>Are we to say to the others, 'But not you. You must be content with your soul destroying McJob and the pittance doled out to you'?

No, but we should say 'You probably *can* be not only content, but completely happy with everything you already have'

>>'You probably *can* be not only content, but completely happy with everything you already have'

Hmm.

I can't help but feel that this is unintentionally reactionary. Given that we live in an unequal society, does it not amount to teaching that we can (and should?) be happy with the status quo?

>>Given that we live in an unequal society, does it not amount to teaching that we can (and should?) be happy with the status quo?

Perhaps. But if enough people gave up on shallow cravings of a consumerist society, the status quo would change anyway, since the profits of those cravings go to the super-rich who seek to maintain things as they are. And if the super-rich could just be happier with what they've got, instead of always wanting more, they might be happier, too.

But...is it the aspirational cravings of the have-nots that is really the problem?

I'm not quite sure the blame is being levelled at the right place. I'm not sure it's a change of heart by the have-nots that is a problem but a change of heart *and actions to match* by the haves.




In political science terms, I guess you'd call your suggestion a liberal view. I question whether societal problems can be solved by everyone deciding to be, like, nicer and shit.

The problem isn't material aspiration. It's material distribution.

One more:

>>And if the super-rich could just be happier with what they've got, instead of always wanting more, they might be happier, too.

Ah, but - if you don't compete (and therefore accumulate) you slide back. 'It's not personal. It's just business.'

This post has been removed.

Please ignore last. Epic fail. Posted to entirely the wrong thread. I've Yiksed myself.

>>is it the aspirational cravings of the have-nots that is really the problem?

They are only 'have-nots' if they think they need stuff they 'do not', and the particular stuff we're talking about in this thread is fame and fortune. They 'do not' need it, but the 'haves' try to convince them that they 'do'.

Time to retire the apostrophes for a while...

But surely fame and fortune are routes to the comfort and security that the fortunate already have but which others lack?

That's a good idea quote's. It's getting like a greengrocer's in here.

But it another way...isn't it entirely normal reasonable for someone living at a disadvantage position to dream of something better? Some might even say the aspirations are laudable.

But given that society offers so few opportunities for progression, quick-fix fame'n'fortune is the only dream on offer.

At least some in the gutter are dreaming of the stars.

But it? semi-phonetic typing. Put it.

I think Wilde was referring being a better person which does not equate to being a materially richer one

>isn't it entirely normal reasonable for someone living at a disadvantage position to dream of something better?

Yes, but fame and fortune aren't necessarily better.

>>I think Wilde was referring being a better person which does not equate to being a materially richer one.

It was one of Wilde's characters who said it, so we can put our own interpretations upon it. I say he was talking about space exploration.

The denoted irony. .

*However*...isn't it a damn sight easier not to be concerned with material riches if you don't have to be concerned by the lack of them?

Can I propose that there's a little Cultural Hegemony at work here? Yes - by all means look down at sleb culture. By all means indulge in some mild, unintentional chav-bashing against those who are sucked in by it. But what is the origin of that culture? Is it that those sucked in have the wrong attitude? In that case the solution would be for them to adjust their attitude. Or is it that a socio-economic structure has been created in which aspiring to the values of materialism are inescapable? In that case the solution is in changing the structure.

Now I'm by no means accusing anyone of looking down on the chavs. Indeed it's been said already that the function of sleb culture is to keep everyone on the consumerist path. All I'm really suggesting is that the issue is a little wider than people being insufficiently content with their lot. It's more that they're insufficiently *discontent*.

>>isn't it a damn sight easier not to be concerned with material riches if you don't have to be concerned by the lack of them?

Paradoxically, no*; it's been shown that households with higher incomes believe they need disproportionally more to be happy, than do those with lower incomes. So in fact, it seems that the more you've got, the more concerned you get.

The 'concern' is in your mind, not your pocket.

*(Assuming you're not actually in poverty.)