Survival IMO is the ultimate goal of most of us. Does it make us happy, of course not. Acceptance, or being content with all things is the only way to peace ( being happy )
Survival IMO is the ultimate goal of most of us. Does it make us happy, of course not. Acceptance, or being content with all things is the only way to peace ( being happy )
+1Originally Posted by Northwestrider
The bicycle is a curious vehicle. Its passenger is its engine. ~John Howard
I'm really sorry that you chose to respond by reducing my argument to an absurdity, and then attacking the absurdity. I wish you had responded more directly with logical arguments of your own! I certainly never suggested that Americans live like monks or the Amish, or anything close to it.
But you might want to update your understanding of human ebvolution. At one time it was thought that people thrived mainly because they were more cutthroat than other organisms. (Setting aside factors like intelligence, upright posture, and opposable thumbs.) But recent thinking supports that while we were (AND ARE) pretty vicious, we survived mainly because we were able to band together with our fellow humans and form larger societies that were able to act with a common goal. In fact, recent evidence suggests that the first large societies gathered for religious purposes--not to war on other humans or dominate territory.
"Think Outside the Cage"
Debatable. Plato started a school in Athens that survived for centuries. Buddha established monastic communities and secular government rules that are still in existence--more than 2,500 years later.
"Think Outside the Cage"
You asked the question and I happen to disagree based on history and anthropology. Groups did gather for many reasons, some religious. But show me a major society based on an economy of happiness. How do you trade with the other societies? I took Anthropology and history in College as electives. The great societies of China, the Greaks, Romans, Aztecs, Native Americans, Mayans, most of Europe, Russia, Italy and now the new world did not develope as great societies based on Happiness. Point me to one major world power that was based on happiness. Every one I have looked at used their collective power to force their will on others. The survival of the societies themselves required or at least resulted in force against others without and concern for happiness.
But to give you a chance explain how happiness could be an economy.
The bicycle is a curious vehicle. Its passenger is its engine. ~John Howard
Roody you might find the Pilgram experiment in early America and interesting read as it in some ways relates to this very issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285981/postsy
I may agree that groups can exist within the greater society that can practice communal living but they can't use that as an economy to provide for their family or to assure protection for the community. As someone pointed out earlier once humans are involved good principles meet to cold light of day. But read what happened in Jamestown and then you might see why I say survival trumps happiness.
The bicycle is a curious vehicle. Its passenger is its engine. ~John Howard
If you guys had read the original link a little more carefully, this discussion might have gone differently. The Bhutanese have not done away with money, markets or capitalism. Rather, they have started to measure the success (or failure) of their economy In terms that might be more relevant to happiness.
For example a government might want to replace or augment measures like GDP and trade balances with statistics like Education attained, distribution of income, infant mortality, job satisfaction, and other things that contribute to human happiness. They might even want to poll citizens regularly in order to ascertain how people are. Then, they might want to formulate policies or encourage behaviors that will tend to increase these measures--much as governments now implement policies that will affect GDP or trade balances.
By the way, the divde on this matter between liberals and conservatives hs been addressed in the OP link:
"The work of Dan Kahan of Yale and the other researchers studying “cultural cognition” has revealed deep, natural divisions among us between what Kahan calls communitarians and individualists (and others call liberals and libertarians). This doesn’t bode well for the notion that nations, or the community of nations, will have an easy time settling on new measures of progress..."
They referenced this website: http://www.culturalcognition.net/
"Think Outside the Cage"
Ok you have got me. I was thinking I was saying we are too devided as people and you are now telling me we are naturally devided as people and somehow that is different? We have seen the practical aplication of communalists several times over the centuries and the results have always been the same.
We have tried as a nation to simply trade terms and somehow we expect it to change the results. But the experiment with the pilgrams and to a degree whith China has pointed out the flaw of expecting humans to react as a whole as a family. It simply doesn't work. We will forever have to deal with "them and us" as long as those "natural" differences seperate us and the way we look at things. I wasn't sure about what part of the link you posted I should read but I gave it a look anyway.
The bicycle is a curious vehicle. Its passenger is its engine. ~John Howard
It's not an all or nothing, either-or situation. All societies include liberal and conservative thinkers, just like all economies include capitalist and socialist aspects. We've seen the results of excess libertarian thought too.
However, there's a pretty big difference between even Canadian and US conservatives. I've been living in the US almost 20 years and am still confused about who the liberals are. Most of the people who get pointed out as "liberals" (and who seem to be ashamed of this moniker...) seem to be about as liberal as Canadian conservatives.
That however is besides the point. The point is can happiness be an economy no matter what thought process people have? There is simply no way to convert happiness from one person to another, one city to another, one country to another. Like the Pilgram study indicated people resent working for the well being of others more than they reset working for their own well being. The Chinese discovered that when they allowed people to sell produce from their own small lots of land those same people out produced the collective farms they worked on for the state per capita. Only when a persons own well being is assured and their own family's well being do they tend to be concerned with the well being of strangers.
What I have been saying all along is humans strive for survival first and if that means taking from someone elses concept of happiness that is how it has been since we have been recording civilazation. I have asked and not recieved an example of a society based on the economy of being happy.
I am not judging liberal or conservitive governments but I am saying that we live in a world where half of the people tend not to trust the other half. With that in mind proposing an economy based on happiness is nothing more than an thought exercise. It can't be brought to life till you can put a value to happiness. Nine chances out of ten what will make you happy will not make me happy so how does the nation deal with that problem?
Just about every great society has loved their stuff. Even liberals love their stuff and if someone else takes their stuff just about everyone is more than willing to see the other person punished. Who here would walk out to find their bicycle gone would say to themselves, oh well they needed it more tha me I hope they are happy?
Last edited by Mobile 155; 04-06-12 at 10:04 PM.
The bicycle is a curious vehicle. Its passenger is its engine. ~John Howard
I think this has run its course. I got not nothing more to add or subtract. But I understand the concept being discussed. Christians express it differently than maybe a Buddist. Paul stated in Philippians that he had learned that in whatever state he was in, he could be content. I try do the same to make my own contentment and don't look for government to do it for me.
The bicycle is a curious vehicle. Its passenger is its engine. ~John Howard
Good post, although I disagree with much of it.
I think still that you are putting words into the mouths of the "Hapiness Advocates." Like I said before, I think nobody would disagree with your observation that, first of all, humans are often greedy and contentious. But much of the human struggle against our own kind has been based not on a struggle for survival, as you would have it, but on a struggle to claim more than ones rightful share (colonialism and imperialism, for example); to promote one's own beliefs (religious wars and the Cold War);or even on an actual struggle to obtain more happiness (revolutions, struggles against dictators). Actually, I would say that survival is almost neve the main cause of a war or of economic conflict.
furthermore, if greediness and fear are major causes of human strife, one way to lesn them would be to teach people how to find happiness without harming others. Teadh them that happiness is not a zero sum game, for example. Or teach them that more is not always better, it's just more. This is something that philosophers and religious leaders have been telling us almost from the start of civilization, and I don't want to say that they were all wrong.
As for examples of happiness based economies and/or societies, I don't think yhey are that rare. I think that's what most societies are. I think the society that makes it explicit (other than Bhutan) is the USA. There is that inescapable phrase in the Declaration of Independence. We fought a terrible war to free slaves, and we continue to attempt to rid ourselves of prejudice and discrimination. We have a rudimentary social support system in the form of Social Security and Medicare, althouh we obviously lag behind some other countries in this regard, and especially in our health care system. OTOH, we have not gone as overboard on giving people a free ride as some other countiries have done. But all thes things I mention are first of all attempts to provide happiness in our society.
Last edited by Roody; 04-06-12 at 10:34 PM.
"Think Outside the Cage"
Fortunately, most of the time we can have both - people look after their own and help others. As well, our survival is dependent on other people, so we benefit from cooperation. This planet is actually a hostile environment for individual humans. We can only survive and thrive in groups.
Yes mobile makes some good points.
Of course the problem with the happiness equation is trying to define "happiness". And occasionally we get to define happiness in a manner that later on turns out to the half delusional.
An example. We might define happiness as the ability to grow lettuce in the back yard. The ecologists laud it because it supports sustainability. The ultra right people like this because it promotes "personal responsibility". Liberals are very fond of fresh radicchio. Everyone who hears about this believes it's a good idea.
However, a group of urban designers have decided that adding the ability for everyone in the city to support their lettuce habit would entail making housing acreages so large that we would need to expend a fortune in transportation costs and it would also mean that most people would need to get around in cars. To thwart the notion, they convince all governing bodies that the lettuce plot is a stupid idea. The government nixes lettuce as an unalienable right for its citizens.
Now the citizens are very unhappy about their inability to grow lettuce, but they can now get to work by walking.
Define happiness.
Happiness is tearing down the abandoned and unneeded homes in the city and using that land to grow lettuce. That's what we're dong in the "rust belt."
http://lansingurbanfarmproject.wordpress.com/
Last edited by Roody; 04-07-12 at 04:39 PM.
"Think Outside the Cage"
Perhaps I could have come up with a better analogy than lettuce.
However, I keep reading about people who proclaim themselves "sustainable", yet they live in single family dwellings where their neighbors are quite distant. They probably define themselves as "happy" with this setup. They do grow lettuce and other things. Most of their lifestyle is lived locally... except for the part where we need serious gasoline transportation to make it work.
Yet we know that if the total world population was spread out in this fashion, we'd be in trouble.
I imagine that US suburbanites have more distance from their next door neighbors than farmers ido in many countries. There is enough lawn space around many US homes to grow all the food the family needs, but it's set up with invasive species of grass and ornamental trees.
"Think Outside the Cage"
Yep... if it wasn't for all those useless lawns and useless driveways, we'd probably all be walking to work.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
