To return for a moment to my earlier post (and hopefully normal sized pages)-
Quote:The paradox of "hypermobility" was set out in 1999 in an OECD report by the London professor John Adams. It stated that while mobility might be "liberating and empowering" for individuals, it was debilitating for society as a whole.
Hypermobility disperses communities, weakens social ties, polarises rich and poor areas, renders people less friendly, more obese and disinclined to discipline their young. In a hypermobile society, neighbours no longer know each other. Such mobility leads to what the American sociologist Robert Putnam calls "the death of civic space".
One might argue that talk of mundane Yo-yo lifestyles is nothing but a self-justification for those in the in the role of "sucker" of those bureaucracies which supply and organise the Yo-yoing.
And that the whole business is an attempt to kidnap the finer things in life (no work, soft beds, pots of ale and voluptuous women) in favour of philistinism or to sideline spirituality for the benefit of crass materialism.
Going a little further one might get to wondering if the problems mentioned in the quote from OECD are not deliberately designed in order to provide "clients" (victims has been used in some works) for certain professions and interest groups.
If those aspects of Yo-yoism OECD lists are true functions of the condition then anti-social behaviour seems to be axiomatic and thus requires treatment by the very same group who have generated the invidious comparisons and the envy by presenting Yo-yoinks in a favourable light and their lifestyle choice something to be emulated akin to goading a starving man with a plate of delicious grub.
It is well known that active socialists have more power and influence in deprived areas and thus have a vested interest in maintaining the deprivation. The poorest areas have the largest socialist majorities.
The so-called caring professions need problem clients to exercise their authority over and derive a living from and what better way could be found than rendering the lower paid dissatisfied with their lot by continually parading the Yo-yo lifestyle in a rose-tinted mirror and implying that those who don't share it are failures.
Not that there is anything wrong, of course, with the pursuit of self-interest.
It is simply much healthier to recognise what one is about rather than offering oneself as a paragon of virtue.
There are many learned books written on the subject of the medical profession's objective being to give everyone a sub-lethal chronic illness which, as one would expect, they are there to minister to at extortionate rates.
There are doctors and nurses who work in poor regions of the world for little or no money and in horrendous conditions who could be said to have the interests of their fellow man in mind rather than their own personal enrichment. 40 quid for having a tooth out and 200 for a night visit is a bit much.
After all we hardly want our society to be "debilitated" do we.
Or do we?
[/IMG]
