In his article “The Child in the Basement,” David Brooks discusses the power that true prosperity has on our society. He reacts to Ursula Le Guin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” in which a wholesome scene is set: it is festival weekend – all of the children are out to play while the parents fraternize amicably in the parks with their neighbors. These people are “genuinely happy,” Omelas is an “idyllic, magical place.” Abruptly, the tone of the story shifts. In the dark basement of one of the buildings in town lies a small, malnourished child. Locked in a broom closet, the child is fed once daily and ignored by the “quintessential” people of Omelas. Fully aware of the child, it is a shocking phenomenon that the townspeople are able to so effectively depreciate this child’s existence. Ignorance is truly bliss to the citizens of Omelas, a concept that we, as an idle audience, are disgusted by. As the readers we have an obligation to question the situation, unlike the people of Omelas.What is the point of holding this innocent being against its will in order to keep the peace for the rest of the people? What makes the rest of the town so deserving of this unequivocal happiness? Why do these people favor their own joy over the mere well-being of this faultless child? This is where David Brooks quickly sweeps us off of our high horse. We would love to think that if it were us we would help the child, free the child from his own personal hell. Yet we experience a less hyperbolic aspect of this situation everyday. Brooks points out that the child in the basement is the exploited child worker manufacturing the cell-phone that we can’t live without. The child is the innocent soldier killed standing in line of defense for the opposing side. The child is the “tragic tradeoff’ between necessary and proper. The child is the sacrifice for collective happiness, an atrocious fact that we tend to keep tucked away in our back pocket, a subject of constant denial.