Unhappy Britain

[darkwall]

I read something that said people in the UK are unhappier than people in the poorest countries in the world. Why? I believe that we have our media to blame, and the underlying consumerism that it promotes.

It is undeniable that our unhappiness is partly down to social isolation. The strength of community that places like India have was sapped from us by television, culminating in Saturday night rating wars between stations (i.e. the time when people should be out seeing friends).

Secondly, our unhappiness is down to living in a consumerist society, both in terms of the work demand and the capitalistic envy needed to promote products. We measure our happiness by whether our cars are better than our neighbours, and we work ridiculous hours to make **** sure that they are.

Thirdly, the ideals propagated by the consumerist media are profoundly damaging. The immediacy of modern media gives us less patience, box office smashes make our lives seem humdrum, divorce rates are increased by unrealistic expectations and airbrushed bodies make us feel inadequate.

Finally, modern media has distilled its theoretical and factual content to a hodgepodge of cliches and worthless opinions. Broadsheets are dying. The biggest issues (like the environment) are the least satisfying ones, while the ones that conform to the modern trance of instant satisfaction are snippets of information like Britney's latest fresia-up (or Kerry Katona, for Britishers).

We live in a world full of people who effectively "read nothing but newspapers". Literature's biggest sellers last year were celebrity memoirs. People are pumped with unsubstantiated opinions worse than the basest ignorance for being both entirely vapid and susceptible.

I'm not saying that you can't be happy in Britain, but I'm saying that how happy you are is dependent on who you don't listen to, and what you don't buy. People who watch rolling news channels are among the unhappiest, along with shopping addicts - people who live in the country with wellington boots and a ******* wind-up radio are among the most content.

Of course media will tell you everything about what's wrong with society but itself - no news channel will ever give you a statistic about television making you unhappy (newspapers will). What I'm saying is that if you feel depressed and so go online, you become part of the problems endemic in our culture. If you don't have a human to talk to, then by logging on you're not solving the problem, you're buying into the quick-fix aspect of modern culture.

Media by its nature can never be the answer - it can only form part of the question. We are trying to turn our machines into stimuli that can turn on and off emotions in us. On the day we truly succeed in that, and there is a button for happiness, the human soul will be corrupted forever.

 

[cheaptrickfan]

I agree with a lot of this, and think that it isn't merely the UK that suffers from this, but most of the post-industrial Western society.

In a way, the explosion of online social media sites only exacerbates the feeling of disconnectedness because these connections are ephemeral. It's easy to unplug from the computer when something online bothers us, or just delete a profile once a site has stopped giving us whatever it is we came there looking for.

Also, consumerist societies' drive is to consume rather than preserve. I think that this reflects on relationships as well: drop someone or something when it has ceased its usefulness to you rather than nurture it or work on it.

****. That's pessimistic even for me, but it rings true.

 

[stella]

You forgot to mention the weather! Can't remember the last time we had a sunny day down here in South Wales!

 

[cheaptrickfan]

You forgot to mention the weather! Can't remember the last time we had a sunny day down here in South Wales!

Ha! I hear ya. The sun rarely shines here. Even in summer if we have hot and humid days, there's likely to be a good deal of cloud cover. It's solidly gray from October to like May here as well plus a honeysuckle-ton of snow.

I think I'd benefit from a full-spectrum lamp in winter.

 

[stella]

You forgot to mention the weather! Can't remember the last time we had a sunny day down here in South Wales!

Ha! I hear ya. The sun rarely shines here. Even in summer if we have hot and humid days, there's likely to be a good deal of cloud cover. It's solidly gray from October to like May here as well plus a honeysuckle-ton of snow.

I think I'd benefit from a full-spectrum lamp in winter.

At least you get some sort of change, to have some snow would be a nice change from grey brooding rain clouds. Its constantly grey here, 365 days of the year, every year. i hate it.

 

[cheaptrickfan]

At least you get some sort of change, to have some snow would be a nice change from grey brooding rain clouds. Its constantly grey here, 365 days of the year, every year. i hate it.

Blah. It's so demoralizing. I do like the change of seasons.

 

[hitori1973]

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.

>>>I believe that we have our media to blame, and the underlying consumerism that it promotes… [TV at] the time when people should be out seeing friends…We measure our happiness by whether our cars are better than our neighbours, and we work ridiculous hours to make **** sure that they are.

I agree with what you are saying but your answer to the question “what causes loneliness?” raises a depressing question:
“Why do people choose things that make them lonely?”
It reminds my of a piece of dialogue from the novel “No Country for Old Men.” It is between two old-timers talking about the drug epidemic ruining what was once a nice place to live:
"Dope. They sell that honeysuckle to school-kids.”
“It's worse than that.”
“How's that?”
“School-kids buy it."
In other words, one answer to a problem (Drugs have ruined our town.) leads to a deeper question that strikes at the nature of humanity and some of its inherently self-defeating characteristics (Why do people want to take drugs in the first place?).

Why do so many people choose TV over friends?

I agree with what you say here:
>>>The immediacy of modern media gives us less patience, box office smashes make our lives seem humdrum, divorce rates are increased by unrealistic expectations and airbrushed bodies make us feel inadequate.

But again, I ask: Why do people choose these things that ultimately make us more lonely?

>>>a hodgepodge of cliches and worthless opinions.
Why do people watch?

>>>The biggest issues (like the environment) are the least satisfying ones, while the ones that conform to the modern trance of instant satisfaction are snippets of information like Britney's latest fresia-up (or Kerry Katona, for Britishers)… People are pumped with unsubstantiated opinions worse than the basest ignorance for being both entirely vapid and susceptible.

I agree but why do people prefer to know about Britney instead of the environment? Why do they choose to be ill-informed?
I know Media ownership concentrated in the hands of wealthy corporations places major constraints on content. But why do people nonetheless basically put up with it?

My opinion?
Humans are basically intelligent apes that are biologically programmed to dominate the tribal hierarchy or, more likely, submit and be happy doing so.

Why is it that intelligent people suffer disproportionately from loneliness and depression?
Maybe it is because they are too smart to be happy and well-adjusted to a life of submission to those more powerful.

Why is it that intelligent people reproduce at a lower rate than less intelligent people?
Perhaps because they are better at planning and being responsible.
What effect will this Darwinistic dynamic have over time?

(Has anyone seen “Idiocracy”? It’s a pretty funny movie.)

>>> you feel depressed and so go online, you become part of the problems endemic in our culture…you're buying into the quick-fix aspect of modern culture.

Maybe. But I’d rather talk to a smart person like you who lives thousands of miles away than my boring next-door neighbor who only talks about sports.

Exceptional people are, by their very definition, rare. We would probably be closer to our neighbors were it not for the media. But why do we choose the media over our neighbors even when we “know better”?

>>>We are trying to turn our machines into stimuli that can turn on and off emotions in us…a button for happiness
I would LOVE a button for happiness right about now. I could really use one.
I’d press the honeysuckle out of that button. ;-D

 

[DrawingCircleCircles]

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.

>>>I believe that we have our media to blame, and the underlying consumerism that it promotes… [TV at] the time when people should be out seeing friends…We measure our happiness by whether our cars are better than our neighbours, and we work ridiculous hours to make **** sure that they are.

I agree with what you are saying but your answer to the question “what causes loneliness?” raises a depressing question:
“Why do people choose things that make them lonely?”
It reminds my of a piece of dialogue from the novel “No Country for Old Men.” It is between two old-timers talking about the drug epidemic ruining what was once a nice place to live:
"Dope. They sell that honeysuckle to school-kids.”
“It's worse than that.”
“How's that?”
“School-kids buy it."
In other words, one answer to a problem (Drugs have ruined our town.) leads to a deeper question that strikes at the nature of humanity and some of its inherently self-defeating characteristics (Why do people want to take drugs in the first place?).

I like that point and example. My opinion is that people deluded to believe that status/power/money/etc = happiness. With all the glitz and glamor that is portrayed on TV and in the movies, our covetous nature is easily enticed. For some reason I think that I would be happier with an Aston Martin, I can't really explain why, the idea is just there. Maybe if we didn't such high standards, we could be somehow duped in to being satisfied with what we do got. But that wouldn't be good business would it? Where would be the return on that investment so I could buy that Aston Martin?

>>>We are trying to turn our machines into stimuli that can turn on and off emotions in us…a button for happiness
I would LOVE a button for happiness right about now. I could really use one.
I’d press the honeysuckle out of that button. ;-D

LOL I second that button idea.

Too bad that only comes in drug form at the moment with deadly and addictive side effects.

 

[darkwall]

I think the short answer is that machines make people more lazy. It's easier to watch TV than to have to go out. The point about the button was that artificiality creates a deep hollowness, if you will, in everything around us. There's nothing actually there but a button, just as the film that's making you laugh is a piece of commerce captured on a disc and displayed on a screen (which is why unusually for a film-maker I hate watching movies alone, because it is then an anti-experience, a nothingness).

The second thing is that we are taking less and less responsibility for our actions - in the button scenario we aren't making ourselves happy, a button is, so the happiness is meaningless - and that's why you see people going "I'm crap at maths because I have maths dyslexia" (which is a separate rant but still connected). So in answer to "why do people choose loneliness", I believe that they're simply doing the button thing - which is why if that button ever is invented, we will all end up totally alone, wasting our lives pushing a button all day.

And finally, with regard to your Darwinian concerns - while it's true that smart people don't breed as much, they are also less likely to die in a trouser-related accident (I read somewhere that you are more likely to be killed by your trousers than in an aeroplane crash) - so don't worry, natural selection is still alive and kicking!

 

[Lonesome Crow]

Because Brits eat too much bloodie bullocks and honeysuckle meh all day.

 

[PoisonFlowers]

I think the short answer is that machines make people more lazy. It's easier to watch TV than to have to go out. The point about the button was that artificiality creates a deep hollowness, if you will, in everything around us. There's nothing actually there but a button, just as the film that's making you laugh is a piece of commerce captured on a disc and displayed on a screen (which is why unusually for a film-maker I hate watching movies alone, because it is then an anti-experience, a nothingness).

The second thing is that we are taking less and less responsibility for our actions - in the button scenario we aren't making ourselves happy, a button is, so the happiness is meaningless - and that's why you see people going "I'm crap at maths because I have maths dyslexia" (which is a separate rant but still connected). So in answer to "why do people choose loneliness", I believe that they're simply doing the button thing - which is why if that button ever is invented, we will all end up totally alone, wasting our lives pushing a button all day.

I don't think I could have put it better than that. This whole "happiness at the press of a button" business is creepily reminiscent of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "The Euphio Question." You can read it here: The Euphio Question Maybe it'll make you think again about it.

And finally, with regard to your Darwinian concerns - while it's true that smart people don't breed as much, they are also less likely to die in a trouser-related accident (I read somewhere that you are more likely to be killed by your trousers than in an aeroplane crash) - so don't worry, natural selection is still alive and kicking!

Woah, where'd you get those statistics from? Death by trousers...who would've known??

 

[darkwall]

It obviously relates both to heart attacks while getting into trousers, as well as trousers getting caught in machinery, falling downstairs etc. I for one propose the humble kilt as an alternative to this menace of society.

How would the Euphio story make me think differently about it? It seems to be supporting exactly what I am saying - that such untapped happiness would be profoundly damaging. It's like Odysseus and the Lotos eaters - the sailors might be incredibly happy, but they have also stopped caring about getting home to their families.

 

[PoisonFlowers]

It obviously relates both to heart attacks while getting into trousers, as well as trousers getting caught in machinery, falling downstairs etc. I for one propose the humble kilt as an alternative to this menace of society.

I am in favour of this proposition.

How would the Euphio story make me think differently about it? It seems to be supporting exactly what I am saying - that such untapped happiness would be profoundly damaging. It's like Odysseus and the Lotos eaters - the sailors might be incredibly happy, but they have also stopped caring about getting home to their families.

Oh sorry, my bad. I think I didn't make it clear enough who I was aiming that towards I meant that it'd make people who see instant happiness as a good idea think differently about it.

Indeed, such happiness can be very dangerous as you forget what's wrong and live in a state of contentedness, with no will or reason to strive towards something better. It's a sort of apathy.

 

[ManicPie]

Is this a British Forum? I wasn't aware of that. If it is, that just makes it even better for me, because, inexplicably, I am an American Anglophile. However all the stuff you described about the media - it sounds EXACTLY LIKE AMERICA IN EVERY SINGLE WAY. I don't think the British are any more unhappy than the Americans, or any less. Because in a way, we have the same sort of consumerist, media-ravenous culture.
I totally know what you mean about the whole "online" thing, though. I do that all the time in America. For the same reasons. We are always barraged with media, whether we are wanting to be or not - Literally. For instance:
You wake up to your clock radio blaring a talk show. You get up and read the newspaper as you eat your cereal from a shiny, heavily advertised box. You check your email, maybe watch a tiny bit of TV, if either of those things are your thing. You go to work/school - maybe listen to the radio, or music. You spend your day either learning about the world around you, or being an active participant in the world around you. You come home listening to something else. You might get on teh computer, or watch TV, or go online and have a grippe of media at your fingertips. We have conditioned ourselves to live in a constant stream of media. It's sad, really.

 

[darkwall]

I believe that the forum was started by a Swede, but it's international really. I used Britain because I know it well - obviously it was meant to apply to other places as well - and because I had statistics in case people said "no, the UK is full of joy". And whaddya mean you're "inexplicably" an Anglophile?

Obviously I completely agree about the constant stream of media - the worst thing is how we've grown reliant on it.

 

[ManicPie]

I didn't articulate my thoughts well. What I mean by "inexplicably" is that I don't really understand why I am an anglophile. Culturally, Britain is more or less like America - I mean, we speak the same language, we have similar consumerist cultures, etc, etc. So I guess in my head, I don't really understand why I would be preoccupied with a culture that isn't THAT much different than America. I mean, there are big differences, definitely, but the big pictures are similar. I think my anglophilia is rooted in stuff like: All the different British accents, good British TV (Doctor Who!), my many favorite British actors, all my favorite British music, my FAVORITE british authors (Agatha Christie!)... oops. I'm getting off topic.
What kind of statistic tells somebody that a country is "full of joy", anyway? How can you gather data on a subject like that? I recently heard about a study that said that clinical studies can often be misleading.

 

[darkwall]

Don't worry, I was jokesing about the "inexplicably". I think the UK is quite like parts of the northern States, like New York, but get down south and it's a different mindset altogether.

There was a separate discussion sparked off by this one about the happiest countries in the world - totally absurd, I agree!

 

[samba101]

I think unhappiness is in every country.

 

[darkwall]

Really? Because I thought in some countries everyone is ecstatic for the whole of their lives. Guess you learn something new every day, huh?

 

[Wyrm]

One way that countries can be divided is by how their societies are structured, and by that I mean there are individualistic societies and collective societies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I have learned in one of my classes in college and, in my experience, it has proven to be true.

Individualistic societies include the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and France. In these countries, communication is more direct and open. People are more independent, but in my experience, there's a bit more of an every-person-for-themselves kind of approach.

Collective societies include Latin American countries, Asian countries, Italy, etc. In these societies, communication is often more implied than direct. There's more of a sense of community. It's approach leans more towards has more of an everyone-looks-out-for-each-other.

I've experienced both of these ways of living. There are definitely pros and cons to each one.