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". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
