Well the thing is, not everyone can be fabulously wealthy and dazzlingly famous. What you're really talking about is a form of zero-sum social status. Think of how nearly everyone today is literate, whereas 150 years ago anyone who could read and write at our level belonged to the elite intelligentsia.
To which I say: fine! Why should we ever claim that a person has no right to call themselves successful unless they've managed to beat X% of other competitors in a zero-sum competition? The whole point of societies is positive-sum collaboration in the first place.
What's wrong with having a world-class standard of living (ie: upper-middle class First Worlder with social services available as back-up), a good relationship with your partner, a good job, and children? I personally could never stand the suburban white picket fence, but I don't get why being a reasonably successful professional with a family is failure.
To which I say: fine! Why should we ever claim that a person has no right to call themselves successful unless they've managed to beat X% of other competitors in a zero-sum competition? The whole point of societies is positive-sum collaboration in the first place.
What's wrong with having a world-class standard of living (ie: upper-middle class First Worlder with social services available as back-up), a good relationship with your partner, a good job, and children? I personally could never stand the suburban white picket fence, but I don't get why being a reasonably successful professional with a family is failure.