>Johns Thornton:
>It is pathological to feel the need to have more relative to others in
>order to feel fulfilled, motivated, satisfied, etc. Wanting to fulfill
>desires beyond necessities is quite healthy. Wanting everyone else to be
>capable of doing so is also healthy. Insisting on having greater income
>and therefore greater opportunities relative to others is pathological.
>
>[WS:] Why is it pathological? Having more than others is one of the
>principal means of acquiring a higher social status in humans, and achieving
>higher social status is very natural in the sense of existing in virtually
>all species. All pack animals have varying degrees of status in their
>groups. Humans are no exceptions. Achieving that status through material
>possession is no fundamentally different, and maybe even slightly more
>desirable than achieving it through physical violence (as it is often the
>case in animal groups.)
Aren't you confusing status with the symbols of status though? Having more things is one measure, or symbol, of status. But things are not the only measure and even where they are, they are *only* a symbol, not the actual status.
It seems unlikely that, in a society where things are freely available, things would be any measure of status. Quite the opposite.
We can be pretty sure of this from our knowledge of the symbols of status in various societies in human history. At one time being overweight was a measure of higher status. (Still is here and there I believe.) But by and large, in modern society where calories are easier to come by, that is no longer the case. To some extent the opposite is coming to be a measure of social status.
So yes, in our society, the desire to have more things than others probably isn't pathological, yet. But in the context of the kind of society I've been talking about talking about in this thread it would probably be regarded as a symptom of mental illness rather than a measure of social status.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas