A critical reader might well ask at this point: What is the real problem? Why is this author so worried about what most people may see as positive things in life: increased consumption, more education, promises about a working life with stronger ingredients of milk and honey? The sceptical reader may want to challenge this text and pose the following critical questions: . Why not just accept what people want? Isn’t it natural that people want more—and more? Of course, people are looking for more things and want to increase their consumption. And if they want to pay the earth for things with certain brand names, maybe they will be more satisfied with that? . So what if there is a lot of higher education, even if all the graduates do not get jobs? It’s good to keep people occupied and out of the way in a cheap and agreeable manner. And don’t the students always learn something in all these courses? They don’t perhaps become smarter, but education is better than unemployment. . Why not permit new and finer titles and labels? Why not make elites and others happy through using knowledge vocabulary to describe society, economy, and the population? And if all these university colleges, polytechnics, and other higher education institutions want to call themselves universities, why not be generous? The division between universities and university colleges only favours those snobs who work or study at the former places. And the liberal awarding of titles like ‘marketing director’ and ‘professor’ might give the people concerned a nice title on their business cards and make them happier, perhaps more motivated, and make their spouses proud. . Who cares about ‘real’ equality of opportunity for women and minorities if there are fine equal opportunity policies and programmes? If we have a sufficient number of women who are promoted to fill their quotas on the board and in higher education, we will have sufficient equality to comply with the statistics, and then everyone can be happy.