Shane Warne proposes to Elizabeth Hurley with a 30,000 pound diamond ring that very closely resembles what Prince Charles gave Princess Diana. This is the top headline on any news channel you would've tuned into, yesterday. I've never liked poking nose into the private lives of unrelated people, but there are a few general questions here that are a little uneasy to answer.
The simpler ones first. Are diamonds really so precious considering that the diamond cartel artificially keeps the prices of diamonds high by ridiculously reducing their supply, is question one. Are diamonds really human-safe considering that scores of humans are tortured and beat to death in the fields of Africa, is question two. If you have answer to the first question, you almost have figured out your way to happiness. If you have answer to the second question, you almost have figured out what is right and what is not. But considering that none of us could've immaculately figured those out, we will leave them free.
Let us create a better question. Are sports and entertainment two fields that do not contribute to human progress but celebrated the most? Though the fact about celebrity status may be true, the fact about contribution to human progress may not be. In a way, everything contributes to everything, isn't it? Anyway, human progress cannot be the only motivation behind something. And it's really individual preference and discretion to choose who should be made a star. Hence the question three about whether it is a great idea to create celebrities out of movie stars and sports heroes, and not out of space scientists and social workers is also difficult to answer.
All these are so subjective questions that can be extrapolated to most things, if not everything. So before we can create one more question, let us batter these a little more. If diamond is artificially over-valued, almost every other thing is too. If diamonds are not human-safe, almost every other thing is not life-safe in some way. If sports and entertainment do not contribute to human progress, almost everything else can be argued against in the same way. So let us ask a more practical final question. Are these disparities in earnings and rewards right? Is it not an irony that a porter has to whistle and applaud a film hero cast as porter in a movie? Shouldn't it be the other way around? What is skill and what is not? Who are we to decide?
If a restaurant's business is counted in a country's GDP, so should a mother's cooking be. If a school's business is counted in the GDP, so should a father's teaching be. But should we really attach money value to things invaluable? Maybe it's a better idea to just leave them noble?
Is it then a better idea to leave the real heroes of the world materially uncelebrated? I would say yes.
"Never regret anything that once made you smile" - I read this somewhere and my emotional and rational personalities had to fight again. It could be "anything" or "anyone", but "anyone" is easier to debate about. Its direct meaning is obvious - if someone made you smile some day, do not regret when the relationship turns sour some other day.
