3 ms·

>What you call "envy" has a very good (evolutionary) reason for its existence An evolutionary reason isn't _necessarily_ a good reason, unless the definition o

• asgard1024 11y ago
  You're correct (that's why on second thought I put "evolutionary" in parens), but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have. Otherwise you are getting uncomfortably close to a Brave New World of always obedient individuals.
  • logicchains 11y ago
    >but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have This trait is only a subset of what's normally considered "envy". Not all of envy has an apparent use like that. E.g. if Joe feels bad because Neighbour Bob's house is 1030 square feet while Joe's house is only 1020 square feet, this doesn't really help anything, it just makes Joe unnecessarily miserable.
    • asgard1024 11y ago
      It's not really a subset, it's more like an intersection. But to your example - I will be long time happy with social (in)equality before we get to 1% differences in income. I think in your example Joe absolutely deserves the unhappiness he has. Meanwhile in reality, when I suggest that maybe there should be a limit of personal income/wealth like around 100x the average (which is amount of money I can't imagine reasonable person would know how to spend), I get shooed as crazy pinko full of envy. Yet, is that really envy, or is it just longing for fairness as in the ultimatum game example?