It is Independence Day in Finland, which is generally a pretty sombre affair with events at gravesites and memorials to remember the fallen. And of course, as is the trend in the world today, an increasing number of nationalist and extreme-right protest marches in the streets, generally against immigration. Ah, it is a good time to be alive.
I found it interesting when I came here as I did experience a fair amount of racism and discrimination of various kinds, but it was the older people who were the most accepting. The people who didn't speak any (or severely limited) English, but were old enough to actually remember the second world war. The worst were their kids, those who never saw the conflict but felt they did, because their parent's did. I suspect that part of this came down to the differences in hardship experience, where there was a huge difference for a teen growing up in the nineteen forties, to one growing up in the nineteen sixties, who became an adult in the very affluent nineteen eighties.
Putting country independence aside, I think it is is quite entertaining how people talk about their individual independence today, yet they are increasingly reliant for their lifestyle on others, especially corporations. The assumption seems to be that money buys independence, but I am not sure how true that is, unless that money is buying the goods and the training to be able to provide for oneself. Money is increasingly being used to buy services though, which means that there is not the skill (or the will) to provide for oneself, and this is happening at so many levels.
Outside of the financial markets, I suspect that the entertainment industry is the largest sector, because so much business is tied to entertainment. For instance, the "technology sector" is likely the largest on paper, but the majority of that value is attributable to providing gateways to entertainment. Apple, Meta and Google are all entertainment companies, but they don't appear in the entertainment sector numbers. Similarly, industries like mining and energy are largely supported by people looking to be entertained, and of course retail is so large because most of its value is selling tools of entertainment.
How many people are able to entertain themselves?
What does that even look like? As a kid, if I was bored my dad would say "Go entertain yourself" and I would always find something to do, which was generally drawing, sports or some kind of activity. It was rarely watching TV, because there was nothing on to watch. No cable, just the few free-to-air channels that only had interesting programming for me occasionally, and at set times. This meant I spent many hours entertaining myself, with little equipment or intervention.
What is the hourly cost of entertainment?
I don't know if people have thought about this at all, but I have at least somewhat. If I sat down with some paper, pencil and eraser for an hour and drew a picture, what was the hourly cost? If I went out to the yard with my hockey stick and a ball and knocked it against the wall for an hour (common for me) what was the cost? It isn't the cost of the pencil and eraser and paper, because they could be used for many hours. Or the cost of the stick and ball, because again, I would use the same stick for hundreds of hours of play, practice and games. It was cents - if that.
But if you think about the hourly cost of entertainment today, it is far, far, far more expensive, and it is far, far, far more passive than it was in the past. Scroll Instagram for an hour is "free" on the platform, but requires a phone and an internet connection, and electricity costs. Not only that, the cost of advertising should also be included, as while everyone believes that they aren't influenced by what they see, the fact is that all of these platforms make a huge amount of money, and the user isn't paying the platform, the advertisers are. The advertisers do this because they are making money from the users. Users are spending, just independent of the platform. And then there are is gaming on the consoles and phones, with in-app purchases, costs of downloads, and again the equipment and electricity.
I was pretty good at hockey as a kid, because I spent my time hitting that ball against the wall over and over, in the same way someone spends their time on a console, or with a phone in their hand. My entertainment was skill producing, but does the majority of the entertainment people consume encourage skill development? And are those skills transferrable or beneficial to other aspects of life? I was a strong kid, not a fat kid, nor a skinny kid - because I was an active kid.
Is being health a skill?
Indirectly. As what we do develops our skillset and those skills we develop have consequences. The ways we behave will shape our health in the same way that it shapes our bodies. It will also shape our minds and emotional structure. So yes, the way we entertain ourselves does matter, as not all forms are created equal. The cost of entertainment is not only the monetary cost, but also the cost to our skills and wellbeing, which is partially why the pharmaceutical industry is also one of the largest.
We have shifted our entertainment activities a lot over the last half a century and it has impacted us as individuals and society globally in fundamental and profound ways. It is not just the social disconnection, the collapse of community, or the increase in disorder and disease. It is our skills, our thoughts, our feelings. Our independence has been undermined by the quest for mechanisms that will drive degradation of individuals in order to maximise profit. The cost of being entertained is so much higher today, because it is an easy target, because we are geared for enjoyment and desire fulfilment, even when it is not in our best interest. Nearly the entire marketplace is driven by making us more passive in our skill development, but more volatile in our emotional state, because that drives our desire to both be entertained, and avoid the way we are feeling.
Perhaps entertainment should be our main activity in life, but I do not think that it should be based on avoidance or passivity. Perhaps we should evaluate the hourly cost of our forms of entertainment in money and wellbeing, and then choose forms that make more than they cost. For the most part though, that is not how we approach entertainment costs, as we see them as sunk costs, with no need for a return. And that is how business likes it.
If we want to be more independent, we have to build our capabilities, not only our income, otherwise we expand our lifestyle, by becoming more reliant. One of the capabilities is being comfortable without all the goods and services to entertain us - instead, just a simple, always available, way to entertain ourselves. If we want to improve our conditions, we should choose our entertainment very carefully indeed, so that our time adds to the quality of our conditions.
Playing games is good.
But the games we play matter. We should fill our lives with play, but that doesn't mean what we play has to weaken us, take away from us, become a crutch or addiction, or keep us from improving ourselves. Play should make us stronger, whether we are playing as children learning to be adults, or adults building a better environment for children.
There is no such thing as independence, as we are all reliant on others. But as individuals, we can learn to provide, or we can settle into a life of being provided for, a slave to the directions of others, who do not care about our outcomes, only their bottom line.
What is your style of entertainment costing you?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
