Ray, Thanks for reading carefully, Ray. I wish Chris did.
They got rid of Rupert - the able "hunter-gatherer" because they game was almost over. In a real hunter/gatherer situation, where life moves into an uncertain future, they would never have gotten rid of Rupert. His contribution was too important. If you remember, that on this point this thread began. In describing Survivor, I was writing to that point. So, when they were discussing the expulsion of Rupert, the concern that was raised was: "What will we eat with Rupert gone?" Exactly the point we were discussing way back - brought to life in a game. Which is why I like it. But, I don't watch basketball because the players foul each other so much they are tossed from the game. (All right! All right!) I haven't seen any of the other "reality" shows. I believe some of them copied bits of Survivor, but don't know what they are like. However a few weeks ago, I was at the computer while someone was channel-surfing when I heard a glorious voice. It turned out to be a young man who had won, or nearly won, on the "American Idol" show. I remember saying 'maybe we've been missing something'. Well, I still haven't seen it and don't really intend to, but something enduring may come from these shows. Ed said something about husky young men and bikini clad girls thronging the island. What is interesting is that an older woman won an earlier Survivor. In the present one, a 50 year old lady Scoutmaster is very much in the running to win as they are down to the final four. The last three major wins have been made by the smallest girl who has lost a much weight over the 39 days. She beat out the two husky males - one of whom was expelled this week. It's fun to watch the contestants struggle to make there way through mostly primitive conditions, always close to hunger (heavily bitten by insects also trying to survive). It is difficult to work out who will win, as they conspire, ally to others, cheat each other and so on. Sunday is the last session. CBS will milk it for all the audience it can get. It's the number one TV program in the US. The three women may throw out the remaining man. Although! Everyone liked the 50 year old Scoutmaster who was relatively without guile, worked hard to keep them fed and sheltered, could be trusted. It might be better for the other two women and the man to vote her out. If she is one of the final three, the jury composed of the previous expellees might choose her to win because she is a nice person. Perhaps, a better tactic would be to remove her. Such are some of the tactics of this game, which is why I like it. I'll watch it until the writers get tired which is why most shows fall. When the ideas begin to fade, when the twists are not surprising, when the production becomes jaded, I won't be watching. Ben Jonson really started something. Come to think of it, so did Shakespeare. I bet Ed wouldn't patronize either one. Chris would complain that a Jonson or Shakespeare play was an "artificial and distorted construct". They sure were, but they were fun too. Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:01 AM To: Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] "Survivor" -- FT PR vs. Human Nature (was Re: Slightly extended (was Re: David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade) I don't defend Harry a lot but I don't think he did overlook that in his statements about long term. REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: [Futurework] "Survivor" -- FT PR vs. Human Nature (was Re: Slightly extended (was Re: David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade) > Harry Pollard wrote: > > The interplay of "He's so good, with him our tribe will win, so we must > > keep him" with "He's so good, there is no way we can beat him, so we must > > get rid of him" is at times hilarious. >> The fundamental difference between real tribes and the artificial and > distorted construct of "Survivor" is that in the latter, the concept is > "everyone against everyone", so egoism against the own "tribe" is rewarded. > That's the opposite of a natural setting, where a tribe would be really > stupid to apply the second slogan, and get rid of its best members. > A real tribe knows it must survive as a tribe, precisely _not_ getting > reduced to a single "survivor" who reaps the TV prize at the end of the show. > > I think it's very telling that Harry overlooked this fundamental difference. > Confusing "Survivor" with real tribes is about as wrong as confusing modern > trade with "caveman trade". With that kind of PR, the FT crowd wants > people to _believe_ that this antisocial scum behavior is "natural", > while in fact it's just the stench of America. > > Chris > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
