14 ms·
I sometimes think they reject the idea that the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness. Yes, many people reject this idea. As a matter of
by dec0dedab0de 10y ago
I sometimes think they reject the idea that the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness.
Yes, many people reject this idea. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone express this idea.
- hguant 10y agoIt's actually a really old idea. Sadly, not one that gets a lot of press, as it's not very sexy to talk about dead Greeks (except to reject them). https://orwell1627.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/aristotles-purpose-of-life/ https://orwell1627.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/aristotles-purpo...
- metaphorm 10y agoEudaimonia is more like "ethics for virtuous and stable society" rather than saying very much about human relationship with the ecosystem. in the ancient world the human relationship with the ecosystem was extremely different than it is now.
- hguant 10y agoRight, but the core principle underlying all that is that human happiness is a good in and of itself, and a virtuous and stable society is good only in that it allows for the greatest potential growth of human happiness.
- forthefuture 10y agoWell I'd much rather have Advancement over Happiness. We can be happy our entire lives but if everyones dies before 100 and humanity never goes anywhere I wouldn't consider that a successful society. Happiness is masturbating 24/7 until you die. If you truly believe that is the goal of humanity I can't help but disagree.
- metaphorm 10y agoare you serious? that reads like satire.
- forthefuture 10y agoI guess I'm coming from the wrong side. I think happiness for its own sake is really meaningless. I'd much rather struggle and advance than be happy doing nothing until I die, but I guess I'm in the minority. Happiness, to me, is a choice to not let negative things make you unhappy. You can acknowledge negativities and not be consumed by them. Fighting for happiness is like fighting for peace. You win by not fighting anymore. I'm sorry if this opinion somehow reads like satire.
- metaphorm 10y agowell, that's not what you said. you said "Advancement over Happiness". I think most people would agree with "to be happy, don't struggle for it, just be". Your original post, the one that seemed satirical to me, sounded like it was endorsing some notion of material accumulation at the expense of human fulfillment.
- forthefuture 10y agoOh, yeah I didn't mean it to sound that way. In that context I'd say that I believe that moving humanity forward provides more fulfillment than just being happy.
- guelo 10y agoIf your grandkids are less happy because you destroyed the environment in order to increase your happiness is that a negative or a positive in this philosophical framework?
- metaphorm 10y agoit was unthinkable in the original Aristotelean framework. They had no notion of being capable of destroying the environment in the way that we can now.
- maratd 10y agoI don't think that's true at all. They could have easily over-fished, exhausted the land through improper farming, or cut down all the trees in a particular area. And they had a very good idea that they could do this and screw over future generations.
- r-w 10y agoI don’t think that model takes ignorance into account. You would be unhappy if you knew you were doing a disservice to future generations, but you might accidentally do something stupid that screws things up for generations to come.
- clock_tower 10y agoThat sounds intuitively plausible; Aristotle's systems in general tended to be bad about modeling human ignorance.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoMy grandparents did everything within their power to "destroy" the environment, and I'm perfectly fine.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoI see that we're not that familiar with various versions of the anthropic principle. Okay then.
- lutorm 10y agoThe question is how to obtain happiness, though. Does it necessarily have to entail ruining the environment? “The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
- r00fus 10y agoMaybe it'd get more clicks on HN if we link the Alpha Centauri technology achievement: http://alphacentauri2.info/wiki/Eudaimonia http://alphacentauri2.info/wiki/Eudaimonia
- sabertoothed 10y agoEspecially "_human_ flourishing and happiness". Why only human? Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?
- noir_lord 10y agoWhen someone comes up with an objective measure of consciousness lets consider that. In the meantime I see no issue with optimising for human happiness in the general case.
- tamana 10y agoDo you have an objective measure of human consciousness?
- kbenson 10y agoHaving a discussion about what constitutes consciousness likely meets whatever criteria you can come up with handily.
- hguant 10y agoHaving a theory of mind is another one of those big ones. The problem is differentiating true awareness of the concepts of 'self' and 'other' from rote instinct - is a leopard stalking a gazelle aware of the gazelle as an entity and takes actions accordingly, or is it merely reacting to known sets of stimuli?
- kbenson 10y agoExactly. Being able to discuss what constitutes consciousness meets criteria handily because having a clear concept of self and other as well as being able to reason about that are both prerequisites. It's sort of like the old question of what constitutes pornography? The border is fuzzy and unknown (in this case because people have different standards), but it's fairly easy to construct a case where the vast majority agree it's on one side or the other.
- unprepare 10y agotheres also religious folks who believe the earth was created specifically for humans, and so everything here is for us and us alone. I find it a rather disgustingly self centered ideology. To presume that one (or ones species) is the most important thing in the world (or universe) is basically the definition of narcissism
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoConsider: earth may well be the only habitable planet in our galaxy. In that case its nearer the truth to consider it a gift just for us.
- yawz 10y agoOur brains seek patterns in coincidences. It's evolutionary! We can't stop seeking causal explanations in things that we experience. Nothing is a gift. Life is not fair. Universe doesn't care about us. :)
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago...but we can care about 'our' planet. That works.
- maxerickson 10y agoEarth being the only habitable planet is incredibly improbable.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoWe hardly have enough data to say that. In fact we've found nothing remotely similar to Earth in all the thousands of samples we've taken. So if there are any others at all, they number in the dozens?
- maxerickson 10y agoEstimates say there are ~100 billion planets in the galaxy. I'm also not sure that In fact we've found nothing remotely similar to Earth in all the thousands of samples we've taken. is reasonable. Take Proxima b. It orbits the Sun's closest neighbor, is in the habitable zone (doesn't mean it is habitable, necessary but not sufficient) and is roughly earth sized. Sure, we don't know a whole lot more about it, so it is quite likely to not be a nice destination for humans, but it seems to be at least remotely Earth like.
- grb423 10y agoAlex Epstien, who is widely despised, has written, in The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels that to withhold cheap abundant energy, and the technology it enables, from the world's emerging populations is immoral and fundamentally anti-human. Supported by people who think this Earth would be a much better place if Man never set his filthy foot upon it.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoI have second-order Facebook contacts who are overt environmentalists. Some of them are self-consistent enough to actually admit that they think human population level is the root of all these problems. That is in itself probably true, but I can't quite be hypocritical enough to attack a phenomenon that supports my very existence. To that: "There are too many people." "You first." But they don't have good operating knowledge of population dynamics and current birth rates. It's rather that they bought prior exponential analyses of exponential human population growth and never fully discarded it. They also appear to know that fossil fuels are a part of this phenomenon. So there are Druids who walk amongst us.
- quadrangle 10y agoMisanthropy is easy to come by when evidence supporting it is widespread. The best thing to send to anyone worried about population is: https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-end-poverty/ https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-end-poverty/
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoMisanthropy is dangerous.
- quadrangle 10y agoI wasn't advocating it.
- 10y ago
- astrodust 10y agoYou have spent way too much time on Hacker News. Gross Domestic Happiness was coined in 1972 and the idea exists way beyond that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness For example, the US Constitution proudly proclaims that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are unalienable rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...
- dkural 10y agoGross Domestic Happiness is enhanced by caring about things beyond human flourishing for many people. Many people care about the environment. GDH was in fact invented precisely to capture dimensions beyond that of human material improvement (more dams, more houses, etc.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoA clean environment is a luxury good most people didn't even know they wanted until economies advanced enough to make them an option. To see a present-day version of this difference, one need only look at China. That's how Americans viewed the environment before WWII. If you watch the evolution of, say, the Sierra Club, its focus has shifted to reflect the changes in values over time It's very interesting. One of the really fun! things about Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" is his curmudgeonly way of bringing out the denial of the nearly axiomatic assumption these days of environmental purity being a path to happiness.
- quadrangle 10y agoYou're confusing "didn't even know they wanted" with "took for granted". In the pre-industrial era with much lower populations, human-sourced massive environmental pollution wasn't common. Many people didn't even realize it was possible. Everyone wanted and most people had clean environments and only learned to make it an issue when the clean environments started to disappear in places.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoIt was (arguably) the dominant way of looking at the world prior to the 1960s. It's possibly Biblical in its origins so it may have been around even before the Bible.
- beguiledfoil 10y agoToday you learned about the transcendentals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals
- avindroth 10y agoEpicurus talked about this couple millenia ago.