[chiefalchemist]

> "In many ways it is natural for them to be unhappy about this..."

Is it? Anyone with a reasonable understanding of the process of life knows how fragile a given (personal) status quo really is. Factor in the indirect costs to everyone for any single "failure" and only naivete can explain your assumption.

Note: I'm not saying your naive. I speaking of those who would fall under your the umbrella of your observation.

[grok2]

Isn't it? Atleast thinking of it from the perspective of someone who spends a large part of their day "working" in jobs that might not be something they really like to do.

As a society, I think people are already conditioned to help out their "family" by their labors, but the education I was talking about should be geared towards thinking of every one has part of an extended "family" where some parts of the family need to be subsidized and that it is natural to do so :-).

[chiefalchemist]

The use of the world "natural" was/is the key issue here. That's misleading, at best. Naturally, in the Darwinian sense of natural, we as a species survived because there was a we/us. In that context (of history) "narural" is completely unnatural. From Darwin to Orwell, see? :)

The myth of the individual is a "modern" invention that has little if any historic support. To normalize that myth (read: false assumption) with the word natural is silly at best. Of course, those most susceptible to that ruse are typically the least likely to realize and/or admit they've been duped. Of course they want to believe everyone else was duped as well.

I hope this helps.