单项选择题

You hear the refrain all the time: the U. S. economy looks good statistically, but it doesn’t fed good. Why doesn’t ever-greater wealth promote ever-greater happiness.’ It is a quest, ion that dales at least to the appearance in 1958 of The affluent(富裕的)Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, who died recently at 97.
The Affluent Society is a modem classic because it helped define a new moment in the human condition. For most of history," hunger, sickness, and cold" threatened nearly everyone, Galbraith wrote. "Poverty was found everywhere in that world. Obviously it is not of ours. "After World War Il, the dread of another Great Depression gave way to an economic boom. In the 1930s unemployment had averaged 18. 2 percent; in the 1950s it was 4. 5 percent.
To Galbraith, materialism had gone mad and would breed discontent. Through advertising, companies conditioned consumers to buy things they didn’t really want or need. Because so much spending was artificial, it would be unfulfilling. Meanwhile, government spending that would make everyone better off was being cut down because people instinctively-and wrongly-labeled government only as "a necessary evil".
It’s often said that only the rich are getting ahead; everyone else is standing still or falling behind. Well, there are many undeserving rich--overpaid chief executives, for instance. But over any meaningful period, most people’s incomes are increasing. From 1995 to 2004, inflation-adjusted average family income rose 14. 3 percent, to $ 43,200. People feel, "squeezed" because their rising incomes often don’t satisfy their rising wants--for bigger homes, more health care, more education, faster Internet connections.
The other great frustration is that it has not eliminated insecurity. People regard job stability as part of their standard of living. As corporate layoffs increased, that part has eroded. More workers fear they’ve be- come "the disposable American" ,as Louis Uchitelle puts it in his book by the same name.
Because so much previous suffering and social-conflict stemmed from poverty ,the arrival of widespread affluence suggested utopian(乌托邦式的)possibilities. Up to a point, affluence succeeds. There is much less physical misery than before. People are better off. Unfortunately, affluence also creates new complaints and contradictions.
Advanced societies need economic growth to satisfy the multiplying wants of their citizens. But the quest for growth lets loose new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the social order. Affluence liberates the individual ,promising that everyone can choose a unique way to self-fulfillment. But the promise is so extravagant that it predestines many disappointments and sometimes inspires choices that have anti-social consequences, including family breakdown and obesity (肥胖症). Statistical indicators of happiness have not risen with incomes.
Should we be surprised Not really. We’ve simply reaffirmed an old truth: the pursuit of affluence does not always end with happiness.
What question does John Kenneth Galbraith raise in his book The Affluent Society

A.Why statistics don’t tell the truth about the economy.
B.Why affluence doesn’t guarantee happiness.
C.How happiness can be promoted today.
D.What lies behind an economic boom.
热门 试题

问答题
Like many concepts in social psychology, aggression has many definitions, even many evaluations. (1)Some think of aggression as a great virtue(e, g. the aggressive businessperson ), while others see aggression.The fact they we do keep the same word anyway suggests that there is a commonality: Both positive and negative aggression serve to enhance the self. (2)The positive version, which we could call assertiveness, is acting in a way that enhances the self, without the implication that we are hurting someone else. The negative version, which we might call violence, focuses more on the disenchantment of others as a means to the same end.Although the life of animals often seems rather bloody, we must take care not to confuse predation--the hunting and killing of other animals for food-with aggression. (3)Predation in carnivorous species has more in common with grazing in vegetarian species than with aggression between members of the same species. Take a good look at your neighborhood cat hunting a mouse: He is cool, composed, not hot and crazed. In human terms, there is not the usual emotional correlate of aggression: anger. He is simply taking care of business.That taken care of, there remains remarkably little aggression in the animal world. But it does remain. We find it most often in circumstances of competition over a resource.(4)This resource must be important for fitness, that is, relevant to one’s individual or reproductive success. Further, it must be restricted in abundance: Animals do not, for example, compete for air, but may for water, food, nesting areas, and mates.It is the last item-mates-that accounts for most aggression in mammals. And it is males that are most noted for this aggression. (5) As we mentioned earlier, females have so much at stake in any act of copulation (求偶结合)-so many months gestation, the increased energy requirement, susceptibility to attack, the dangers of birth, the responsibility of lactation-that it serves their fitness to be picky when looking for a partner. If females are picky, males must be show-offs: The male must demonstrate that he has the qualities that serve the female’s fitness, in order to serve his own fitness. Deer are a good example. Mind you, this need not be conscious or learned; in all likelihood, it is all quite instinctual in most mammals. It may possibly have some instinctual bases in us as well.