3 ms·

It is much more important to have vaccines and antibiotics than to be happy. Is this really true? That it's better to live until 70 or 80 and be unhappy your w

It is much more important to have vaccines and antibiotics than to be happy. Is this really true? That it's better to live until 70 or 80 and be unhappy your whole life, than to have a happy life while running the risk of an early death from a preventable disease or infection? I know which I'd pick.

mjfl 9y ago
It is obviously better to be happy than sad, but you've ignored 2 facts: 1) humans are very bad at appreciating what they have, and 2) humans are very bad at predicting what will make them happy. People who are tired of this "grass is always greener" capitalist world and yearn for simpler things are doing exactly that, thinking that the "grass is greener" on the other side when it isn't. All people will eventually become miserable in the wilderness because of some tragedy, then they die, that's how nature works. Thus it is more important to have vacciness and antibiotics than to be happy because your brain is stupid and irrational, doesn't appreciate what it has, and fantasizes of edenic states elsewhere that don't exist. Also, you know which one you would pick. You've already picked it. As technology increases, there's nothing preventing you from slowly moving out into the wilderness besides an acknowledgement that modern comforts are worth it.
- racer-v 9y ago
  there's nothing preventing you from slowly moving out into the wilderness Yes, there is - people don't exist in a solitary state; they only can survive in groups. It requires dozens of humans to band together for any chance of survival and reproduction. Even then it can't just be done in a vacant lot; it requires an ecosystem such as only exists today in national parks and reserves, where hunting and gathering is not allowed. So just because a single person can't just walk into the bushes and survive, doesn't mean that the 21st Century urban lifestyle is superior to a hunter-gatherer society in every way. It's not an either-or: both have advantages.

mjfl 9y ago

It is obviously better to be happy than sad, but you've ignored 2 facts: 1) humans are very bad at appreciating what they have, and 2) humans are very bad at predicting what will make them happy. People who are tired of this "grass is always greener" capitalist world and yearn for simpler things are doing exactly that, thinking that the "grass is greener" on the other side when it isn't. All people will eventually become miserable in the wilderness because of some tragedy, then they die, that's how nature works. Thus it is more important to have vacciness and antibiotics than to be happy because your brain is stupid and irrational, doesn't appreciate what it has, and fantasizes of edenic states elsewhere that don't exist. Also, you know which one you would pick. You've already picked it. As technology increases, there's nothing preventing you from slowly moving out into the wilderness besides an acknowledgement that modern comforts are worth it.

racer-v 9y ago
there's nothing preventing you from slowly moving out into the wilderness Yes, there is - people don't exist in a solitary state; they only can survive in groups. It requires dozens of humans to band together for any chance of survival and reproduction. Even then it can't just be done in a vacant lot; it requires an ecosystem such as only exists today in national parks and reserves, where hunting and gathering is not allowed. So just because a single person can't just walk into the bushes and survive, doesn't mean that the 21st Century urban lifestyle is superior to a hunter-gatherer society in every way. It's not an either-or: both have advantages.