That's the problem I've always had with competitive, hierarchy based value systems. If we value status relative to other humans as a positive good that must be

That's the problem I've always had with competitive, hierarchy based value systems. If we value status relative to other humans as a positive good that must be achieved, then no amount of technological, social, or any kind of progress could ever make things better overall. To reward relative superiority insists that the joy of the few requires the misery of many. Anyone who longs for this kind of structure is one who doesn't care for the betterment of any society or humanity as a whole, but rather relishes the superiority of the successful minority of those who found themselves one day at the top of the pyramid. Every time we applaud some student who got accepted into Harvard, we are implicitly degrading the quality of all schools below it. Even if we lived in an ideal world where every school were equivalent to Harvard, we would cease to care about admittance to any of them except for the one deemed "the best". I've read stories about people having "glow ups" and realizing they really were attractive all along, an inspiring tale that requires this lucky individual be placed above every unfortunate ugly person who didn't miraculously grow into their features. The point being that the ostensible value of this kind of story, whenever I read it, seems to be not that the individual "made it" by merit of becoming more attractive than their past self, but rather their success is only valid if they become attractive relative to others. This kind of thinking is pervasive, yet thematically addictive. The climb above others seems to be self-evidently desirable.