13 ms·

What Is a Minimally Good Life?

96 points by bertdc 6y ago

growlist 6y ago
I know that personally I really don't need much for my own happiness - the basics of survival, a very modest house, and being away from people and in nature would do it for me. The problem comes when these simple things are denied to me, and I am put in a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses. Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  Extremely controversial. Could we not also blame men for competing for the attention of the most attractive women, who then in turn can demand more resources? I do think we attack men for being shallow more often than we attack women for being materialistic. The latter doesn’t get as much attention or critique, eg wanting a bigger house or label fashion is often seen as aspirational and positive; wanting a more attractive partner is not seen in the same light. Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Are these just instincts that exist independently? Would removing one remove the other? Are they even so strong as to bind us by them? In reality I think these instincts don’t rule us. Choosing a partner is a combination of physical and mental attraction, as well as a function of social status. We can choose. Timshel.
  - joelbluminator 6y ago
    > Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Great question. I think there are strong forces and dynamics that push us to earn more and "improve", constantly, regardless of whether we have a partner or not. It's kindof what a capitalistic society is built upon. If we didn't consume much gdp wouldn't grow right? If we didn't compete how would earnings increase? It's coming from peers, parents, spouses and from the way society itself is structured. I think it doesn't have tons to do with genes or evolutionary instincts though they may also explain some of it.
    - storminabucket 6y ago
      I think it is in our nature to strive for more. An interesting read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill We aren't made to be happy, only motivated
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    > Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Two reasons. First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun. Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their own. There is essentially no limit to how many women a man can mate with. These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise. Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive? In your reasoning, men do not have the agency to choose not to be competitive, women do have the agency to choose who they are attracted to, and natural selection pressures are blameless. That's a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line don't you think?
      - globular-toast 6y ago
        > fault This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women Why have they singled out women here if not to place blame? Women are a product of selection pressures just as much as men are. Moreover, it isn't like women are not on the same hamster wheel as everyone else.
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  I see your point but you can't blame this entirely on women. Men themselves rank each other based on status / earnings. They may not do it to each other's faces but definitely there's a mental book-keeping on whose "doing well" , and accordingly many men will show more respect to people with high status. Now of course not everyone's like that, and indeed this changes from culture to culture on how pronounced it is. Also, the more capitalistic a society is and the weaker the social safety net, one can't really blame women for chasing savings and things. They and there offsprings can potentially end up in the street if circumstances go bad, so they need a partner that can take care of their material wellbeing.
- storminabucket 6y ago
  I'd argue the desire for consumer goods is very much equal for men and women, and is not inherently a bad thing. Some people are content when they have _things_, others seek thrill and experiences. Getting drunk on power is a trip worth striding for for many. The hamster-wheel is not based on any single subset of desires, it's the sum of all of them
- bovermyer 6y ago
  I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong. I'm male. My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. Most people I know similarly refute your opinion by their goals, personalities, and life status.
  - paganel 6y ago
    > I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong. OP is maybe exaggerating to make a point but there's a Seinfeld episode which I remember from many years ago, where Jerry says something like how a man can be really interested in what a woman does at her work, even though that woman might be a janitor, while the reverse is not true, no woman is interested in a man who's a janitor (I mean, she's not interested in his work). And the statistics seem to support that, as more men are willing to marry women who are "beneath" them from a societal point of view (career and education) compared to women (i.e. women are less likely than man to marry members of the opposite sex who are placed "bellow" them).
  - RhysU 6y ago
    > My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. To each her own, of course. (I take no position on the GP's controversial theory. Just calling out that the implications of the parent's comment strike me as unintuitive.)
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      > I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. Really? You've never heard of somebody who'd rather their spouse work shorter hours and spend more time with them at home? Or spend more time with their family? Or travel more with them?
- Jimpulse 6y ago
  While they may have the upper hand when it comes to selecting companions, they definitely don't have more power over men. One simply has to look at laws in cultures all over the world that suppress their rights. In societies where they don't have the right to choose their mates male competition still exists. In addition, what alternative are you even suggesting? That women choose defy their own well-being and mate with all men?
- nine_k 6y ago
  > the basics of survival How about medicine? Medical care in worse cases? Also, do you plan to have children? If so, how about child care and education? I think there are other reasons for the complexity of human societies. (To say nothing of the military implications of having wealth and technology.)
- aklemm 6y ago
  Son, you’re not going to get where you want to be until you resolve whatever lead you to find this thought important enough to write down in public.
  - joelbluminator 6y ago
    I think that's a bit unfair. I think that yes male dominance and competition has a lot to do with females. It's like that in nature and like that in humans as well. You are interpreting what he said as being hostile to women while that may not be the case.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    They did take a risk speaking out. But let's assume the best intention: genuine curiosity. While I don't agree with the question's premise both it and the reverse can be asked without "punching down".
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    You're wrong. It is possible to both accept uncomfortable truths and be happy. A fundamental part of Stoicism is not to trouble yourself with things out of your control. This frees your mind to be able to think about these things without being personally troubled by them.
    - aklemm 6y ago
      The man literally said he’s bothered by something outside his control.
  - growlist 6y ago
    Well in the context that we are living in a time when 'comedians' openly 'joke' about genociding white people on television without censure I don't think my comment is that bad.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  This sounds suspiciously like incel ideology. Whatever cognitive path you're on that's led you to conclude this, I advise you to swiftly veer away from it. Blaming all the women isn't going to help with anything. People will just think, oh there's that weird sexist guy ranting on again. That's not going to get you anywhere useful.
  - MorningInfidel 6y ago
    If his point is so easy to refute logically, you would have done so. Your entire comment is an ad hominem.
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      Well exactly, he didn't have a logical point to make. Just an unfounded assumption that women are ruining things for everyone.
      - MorningInfidel 6y ago
        Where did 'ruining things for everyone' come from? In the same vein, I could interpret the post as 'women drive more economic growth than men'.
        crumbshot 6y ago
        It came from their comment, specifically: > a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses > the never-ending hamster wheel situation > perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth
    - licebmi__at__ 6y ago
      Because the point is not really a logical statement, but an appeal to emotion, expecting a logical refutation to a non logical statement is absurd and TBH, kinda ignorant of all the kinds of valid discussion humans have all the time. Do you really think is reasonable to demand a change of behavior in women instead of maybe demanding the same from men? Do you really think men with a couple are no longer part of the competition drivel?
- MorningInfidel 6y ago
  I think your controversial opinion is more correct than it is incorrect. I don't believe it's anything that an individual woman would notice consciously on a daily basis, but the idea that women are attracted to the ability of a man to provision for her and her children as a survival adaptation over time is clearly true. It's true of other mammals and primates, at least.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  > Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth. I think you are correct that the main driving force here is sex. Sex drives far more of the world than most people would admit to. It is the fundamental raison d'être that every sexual organism is born with. But I think you are incorrect that women have the power to change it. You're talking about deep rooted instincts that have developed over billions of years. While many of us do learn to control our instincts to some extent, it's a bit much to expect the entire female population to control theirs. And even if you did control female hypergamy, you'd still have male polygamy to deal with. That's why the Bible targeted both (don't covert your neighbour's wife etc.)
  - joelbluminator 6y ago
    Women care about money and education but it's not as if they're all the same. Some care a lot about humour, confidence, hell even artistic abilities. Yes some broke musician can appear very sexy to some women even if he isn't a great provider. Some even care a lot about looks just like men. Women vary quite a lot by who they consider mating potential.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      It's important not to confuse individuals with populations. This is one of the biggest problems when talking about things like this. People make statements about populations and others refute them using observations about individuals. Of course individuals are different, but individuals have very limited control over society. We are not a bunch of unrelated individuals, we are a society. The top level comment is talking about society.
  - jl2718 6y ago
    It seems clear to me that society is much more aggressive about controlling male-normative instincts, which are characterized as violent and isolationist. Consumption and financial mating, however, are encouraged and enforced by every level of our social hierarchy. These instincts could also be controlled.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  During westward expansion in the US the rush sometimes produced towns with few women. Life wasn't magically better or less stressful. It was actually the growing female influence that brought some balance and peace.
- andi999 6y ago
  The controversal part is the first paragraph, you are nursing a victim mentality here. What stops you going to Alaska and get your cabin in the woods.
  - growlist 6y ago
    There's zero wilderness left in the UK, the less populated areas have virtually zero jobs, and the government is intent on increasing the population and destroying the countryside as a consequence. There is (deliberately?) no escape.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do gender flamewar on HN. Nothing new comes of these, and nothing good. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: this kind of thing has unfortunately been a problem many times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22124843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22124843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22059070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22059070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21785560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21785560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862112 Worse, your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it. We have to, in order to prevent HN from being taken over by flames. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this so we don't have to ban you. If you want more explanation about how/why we moderate this way, there is plenty at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
storminabucket 6y ago
I'm confused, the article seems to be actually asking the question. "It varies" is brought up multiple times, but that doesen't exactly help outlining how we would be able to define minimally good life. It also asks whether a reasonable, caring and free person would trade places with the worst off, which I'd find very unlikely. What you can realistically do about it is unknown.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  But it does. The typical "it depends" applies perfectly to this question. >The thought is that having some distance from each person’s experience will help us see whether that person really needs all the things they think they need. What works for you, doesn't work for me, and the other way round. Apart from the basic NEEDS (some call it "four walls" - shelter, utilities, transportation, basic groceries) everything else is a WANT. And it is great to have wants. A friend wanted to buy a desk globe for herself. She offered to buy me one too. I responded with a big NO. Not that I would not appreciate the gesture, I know that I would not appreciate a big thing on my table, that I can't use for nothing. On the other hand, a nice puzzle hanging on my wall is cool, and it takes no space, and I don't have to move it around to make one more puzzle :) >would trade places with the worst off During COVID I saw with my own eyes that you can go from 100-to-1 in 6 months if you haven't made sure you got emergency funds on the side, if you don't have a solid safe work, you don't have amassed consumer debt, etc. As a mental exercise it is good to think the scenario "what if I lose my job, and I can't get another one for X amount of months"? Dave Ramsey suggests emergency funds to be able to fully cover 3-6 months. Those 3-6 can be stretched to 6-12 if you decide to make major cuts in lifestyle (food, subscriptions, smaller house/flat, sell a car and start cycling, etc.)
  - storminabucket 6y ago
    It's just that "it depends" is not very satisfactory, it's the default answer to all questions. All questions are fractal in nature, and unsolvable without a problem-domain. By defining the domain a thing can be answered, such as "how much force do i need to throw this ball over there?" Otherwise no definite answer can be provided, because the next galaxy over tips the scales just a bit, as does the infinitesimally small difference in the ball's structure, and so forth. >During COVID I saw with my own eyes that you can go from 100-to-1 in 6 months if you haven't made sure you got emergency funds on the side This is why I think a social aid/basic income system with free healthcare is a must. You can't choose to be healthy and not to have accidents. I think we must all provide a basic net for the things outside our control. Of course I'm biased, being a finn in covid times is a tremendous blessing
devguy01 6y ago
I often contemplate what it is that leads to a "good life". I am very fortunate in so many ways, yet I allow myself to feel envy, call circumstances unfair because I didn't get what I want, or forget to be grateful. I see my kids growing up not knowing what struggling really feels like and realize that I don't have a true perspective of being without. I'm not saying that I would rather experience the feeling of hunger when you haven't eaten in days or the fear of not having access to medical services if my children or I were sick or injured. It seems that often times people don't "wake up" to an understanding of what truly matters, what really makes a good life, until they have faced tragedy. I don't want to wait for that. Instead, like the article states, I hope to be more considerate of the circumstances others have and are experiencing, thankful for opportunities and pitfalls of each day, and open to other perspectives; and I hope to pass that along to my children.
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  I've read several articles / books on this topic lately. In short: it's not only you that's contemplating on the "good life", plenty is being researched and written about. Our genes make it hard for us to be consistently content and happy. It seems like evolution may have given the slightly paranoid / always needing more genes an advantage for obvious reasons. One research even showed lottery prize winners aren't any happier 1 year after winning than average. So we're very good in experiencing contentment for short bursts and then it's back to our normal mental mode. So a lot of it is genetic. Some you may be able to control with different techniques. Different things work for different people.
  - devguy01 6y ago
    "So we're very good in experiencing contentment for short bursts and then it's back to our normal mental mode." That is exactly what I've observed and experienced. Well said!
    - joelbluminator 6y ago
      At first I was freaked out by this revelation. But after thinking about it kinda takes the stress out of a lot of things. Doesn't matter that much how much you earn / what you work on / where you live. You get used pretty fast to all those things. So always be suspicious of yourself when you're over-analysing big life decisions. If you're trying to optimise happiness a lot of those decisions won't make much of a difference.
g8oz 6y ago
For a good take on this topic I recommend the "The Art of the Good Life" by Rolf Dobelli.
127 6y ago
Men aren't built to be happy. Men are built to be effective.
- majewsky 6y ago
  As are women.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    In the English language "Men" can also mean "human beings in general". Granted, this usage is a tiny bit archaic.
    - muffinman26 6y ago
      I assumed the gendered usage here was intended, since it's not a poem or a format where character count matters. Unfortunately it's ambiguous without further clarification.
- dTal 6y ago
  No need to drag sex into it.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure he was using "men" in the generic since, similar to "humans". That said, looking at stats like suicide rate reveals that a literal reading may be more correct.
    - dTal 6y ago
      I note you've assumed the poster is male. The "generic sense" of "men" to mean humans is sexist - blatantly so. It's also quickly becoming archaic, for this reason. Going out of your way to use it, instead of "people" or "humans" or "humanity", is now a statement.
- golergka 6y ago
haywirez 6y ago
> Pregnant women, for instance, need more food than those who aren’t pregnant. Only 200kCal a day — less than half of a Snickers.
golergka 6y ago
> what do members of a society owe to one another? > we should consider whether we would be content to live the lives that the least fortunate in our society actually live Stopped reading right there, because it's a complete non sequitur. People only owe one another what they have contractual obligations for; claiming that you owe to provide any kind of minimal standard of living for another person just because he also happens to live in the same society as you is completely absurd and deeply immoral. Now, I agree that being charitable and thinking about others is moral, and that people who enjoy very comfortable lives without giving anything back to the community can be frowned upon. However, there is critically important distinction between doing something out of your own free will and our of obligation. I always defend Nazis, who openly advocate for killing me and my family, right to free speech, and I would always defend the property rights of the heartless and greedy. Not because I want to condone this behaviour, but because no morality can be more important than personal freedoms.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  There's a social contract among communities that has all but entirely collapsed. It's not about being charitable. It's the fact that when we collectively let our neighbors suffer instead of helping we are opening the flood gates to greater suffering for everyone. This is a good read: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_ever_picked_up_a_hitchhiker/c18z0z2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_e...
- jmpman 6y ago
  Although I expect I share many of your concerns, there are two aspects of ideal libertarian world view which trouble me. The first is that the masses who are unable to provide a productive life for themselves continue to multiply, ultimately driving society to collapse. The second is that wealth will be concentrated in a tiny fraction of the population, who will then convince the masses that it’s unethical for the elite to be taxed. The elites will continue to perpetuate their wealth through generations, and the masses will never be able to achieve socioeconomic mobility.
secondcoming 6y ago
"To crush your enemies; see them driven before you; and to hear the lamentation of the women"
- GreeniFi 6y ago
  This sounds biblical. But it could also be Conan the Barbarian.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
What is needed minimally? - a loved and loving partner, a sane and fulfilling sexuality - enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future - absence of other justifiable existential worries and anxiety about the future such as cataclysms, threats, oppressive social, political and work environments, political instability, etc. - a decent amount of recognition in work or private life (one of them suffices, both are optimal) - good mental and physical health Beneficial is also frequent contact to about 3-4 close friends. That's what I've gathered from what I've heard on the Net during the past 20 years or so. If any of the above is missing, the life will not really be good.
- andi999 6y ago
  This sounds more like maximal requirements.
- mightybyte 6y ago
  This seems like a pretty good list. I'm sure it's possible to debate the details, but it seems to hit the big points. What I think is interesting about it though is that aside from "enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future", none of these items can actually be provided by society / government. Government certainly can't provide a loving partner, fulfilling sexuality, good mental and physical health, or work/private life recognition. And as 2020 has seen with COVID, it also can't provide absence of existential worries due to cataclysms.
  - svachalek 6y ago
    While a government can't necessarily provide these, it can certainly deny them.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    A government's environmental policy has an objective impact on every measure of mental and physical health. Urban design, whether you're stuck two hours in traffic to get to work, whether you work 35 or 60 hours, whether you can take a walk in your neighborhood at night in peace...
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
How children are parented makes more difference than anything else. Having 'good' parents vs. 'bad' determines not just what is needed to have a good life, but in many cases, whether one even has the emotional capacity for feeling good for an ongoing period.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Hmm. That sounds familiar. I guess we share a similar experience.
- adolph 6y ago
  Current thought about parenting (environmental effects) vs parents (trait heritability) is that one's parents has more a role than how one is parented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
  - slumpt_ 6y ago
    It depends on the trait in question and nearly always is a mix of both environmental and genetic factors.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  o/ I'd go even further and weight-in the whole lineage. I believe my grand parents on both side were damaged, leading to damaged parents, producing a very dysfunctional me. It's like driving with the brakes on.. I speculate that the efficiency of not having to fight toxicity constantly leads to a thick rain of happy. To the point that if I have children, I'd be sure to regularly send them away so they can see the world outside my sphere of influence.
- ZainRiz 6y ago
  Sounds like a recursive problem. What if the parents were parented badly and thus lack emotional capacity. What if they were parented badly because the grand parents were parented badly?
jl2718 6y ago
I think these appeals to humanism often fail to see the rational realities that underlie the moral questions. Morals and culture are just a simplification of principles which make a society competitive. The scope of possibilities is massive even within our own observation: totalitarianism, constitutionalism, fundamentalism, nationalism, anarchy. Competition among and enforcement within these societies has been, by far, the greatest modern historical risk for premature death. This article seems to be proposing a society where everybody is guaranteed a good life. Sounds great, but the bigger question is whether such a society is competitive against ones where individuals are driven to contribute through fear of failure. My guess is that, yes, it could be, but only under conditions where pro-social motivations are greater than the fear motive they replace. We know that this exists in our natural tribal state, but small homogeneous tribes were not competitive against massive hierarchical use of force. The brilliance of capitalism is that it provides an indirect fear/greed motive that requires little organization, mostly enforcement of property rights and taxation. It was writing, e.g. the domesday book, that enabled this, and the result gradually proved superior to feudal slavery. We have great technology today, maybe even a crisis of overproduction, or misallocation to negative social goods. Unfortunately, redistributive welfare has a definite social cost, and, ignoring the personal benefits, a terrible track record for motivating pro-social contribution, in some societies. In others it seems to do better. The moral heuristic that people should be taken care of at others’ expense, is only rationally valid within certain social organizations and cultural norms. An objection to this may be that the moral reasoning is superior by nature, and I believe this is massively flawed, simply because the cost of non-competitive morality, is death by social competition, which cannot be avoided. I do believe, maybe blindly, that there are conditions in which universal guarantees of a ‘good life’ increase a society’s competitiveness, but I do not certainly know what those conditions are, so without that, this moral pleading seems hopeful at best.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eimrine 6y ago
I expected to see at least some links to Stoicism. They do not exist, which is why the article does not answer the question in the title. My opinion is that Stoicism answers this question and in general it is one of the most useful directions of philosophy.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  I agree. I strongly suggest people look into Stoicism for some real answers to this question.
_pdp_ 6y ago
Good life is the absense of bad life.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  Absence does not imply presence.
  - _pdp_ 6y ago
    It is easy to enumerate what is bad for ones life - much harder to define a good life, hence one is able to achieve "good life" by substracting all that is considered "bad life".
cindarin 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
afefers 6y ago
As someone very poor, for me good life means having money to the point where my choices are not based around it.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  But does that include choosing not to work (because you do not have to in order to survive)?
- adolph 6y ago
  I wish you well in attaining the good life to which you intend. I also reflect that the most significant choices are those which are within one's locus of control, the awareness of that is foundational to a life of virtue and money never seems un-constraining even if objectively one controls more of it.
- joncrane 6y ago
  I'm not rich, but I'm comfortable. Most of my choices, and certainly all of my major life choices (like where to live, what car to drive, what job to take) are still based around money. Edit: good points in the responses. I don't worry about eating out, what to order, what brand of sundry to buy. I do try to optimize but as others have said, that's more of a desire than a requirement. Having said that, I think the only people who truly never worry about money are children. I've heard stories about international students at universities whose parents buy them luxury car after luxury car when they crash them, that kind of thing. But I suspect it's pretty rare.
  - zookeeprr 6y ago
    That's definitely true up until a pretty obscene level of wealth, but there's definitely a difference between basing all choices around money, and basing major choices around money. For example, I no longer scour the grocery store for the cheapest available option for every item I select. I no longer have to spend months finding the best value for a pair of shoes, a piece of furniture, etc. Basically, if I spend a couple hundred dollars too much on stuff one month, I'll hardly notice it. Whereas, when I was poor, that was the difference between making rent or not.
smoyer 6y ago
I ate at the restaurant shown in the lead photo while in Trinidad Cuba in January 2020. It's amazing how long ago that seems now. Trinidad had an amazing ecosystem of shops that catered to the tourist industry and the proprietors of these shops could make a good living outside the government's more socialist system. One shop with amazing hand-made crocheted garments had four generations of the family creating goods. Talking with them reminded me of value of extended family which we've (at least to some degree) lost in the U.S. simply because of our ability to move long distances easily. I learned a lot of lessons (even entrepreneurial lessons) while in Cuba and hope to publish a series of blog posts on them when the day job becomes less frenzied.
godzillafarts 6y ago
Been asking myself this question for a while, and have found the following reading to be very enlightening: - Letters from a Stoic, Seneca - On the Shortness of Life, Seneca - Walden, Henry David Thoreau - Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
- lm28469 6y ago
  I was going to post that, Letters from a Stoic, single best book I read. I already bought it 4 or 5 times and end up gifting it to friends/family.
- andi999 6y ago
  Why Grapes of Wrath? Like dont work in a field which changes rapidly and get pushed to the sidelines to die poor in misery?
  - godzillafarts 6y ago
    More along the lines of practicing altruism even when I perceive things around me to be bad
  - tolbish 6y ago
    The lesson to be learned from that book is that we can do some cruel things to people we feel are beneath us, but we can also do some beautiful, empathetic things. The lesson to be learned from that book is not "don't be poor".
- adolph 6y ago
  - This Is Water, Wallace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI
Koshkin 6y ago
The definition of minimally good life is “being able to survive without too much effort.” (Feeling happy has nothing to do with it. Notably, some people managed to have a “good life” while being prisoners, say, in a concentration camp).
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
In combination, good mental health together with other people (as in relationships). You will struggle have one without the other. Following on, decent enough physical health to maintain the first two. Anything else is gravy, as they say.
ycombonator 6y ago
Been seeing a lot of “Do as I say and not as I do” articles being pushed to the orange site. I wonder if all the SV capitalists would take up this offer of minimally good life.
bangelo 6y ago
god you people are depressed.
xtiansimon 6y ago
+70k/year
munificent 6y ago
> The way to do that is simple: we should consider whether we would be content to live the lives that the least fortunate in our society actually live. I like this framing a lot. It's sort of the aggregate societal-level Golden Rule. Would you be willing to play "Real-Life the MMO" if you didn't know which character you'd be dropped into? However, there is an interesting wrinkle you can apply to it that I think explains many of the moral differences along the progressive-conservative spectrum that I see in the US today. Consider: * Would you be content to live the life that the least fortunate in our society lives? * Would you be content to live the life that the least fortunate in our society lives including the personal choices they have made? In other words, how much are you willing to chalk up misfortune to personal responsibility versus random unfair vagaries of life? Would you still be willing to play "Real-Life the MMO" if you might be dropped into a level 20 character with an already established history and had to take their life from there? The conservative American perspective stated hyperbolically is that all bad outcomes are a result of poor choices. Many even seem to imply a just-world hypothesis that random events like disease are the universe magically punishing people for moral failings. The equivalent hyperbolic progressive view is that no one ever deserves any bad outcome and that misery is always a result of systemic factors outside of the individual's control. Somewhere in the middle is probably closer to the truth.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Living isolated within a Bond Lair, with nukez!
riffnote 6y ago
I suggest something similar. When we are constantly buying and requesting things we create work and stress for others. We become a high-maintenance humans. We contribute to the rush and tension we feel around us. By consuming less and demanding less, we live a low maintenance life. Not minimally good, just low-maintenance. This along with looking for ways to serve our communities is the better way to go.
odomojuli 6y ago
I read somewhere that the universal problem of existence is to survive with dignity, and mathematics being the language of the universe is uniquely poised to address the question. As someone with ok health and a decent education to provide me work throughout the pandemic, I feel like the minimally good life is just life itself. It is enough to survive, and retain the will that you must choose to live. I've been very fortunate and very lucky, but it all feels so flimsy and discriminatory. I think the only "better" life one can work towards, is one in service of making it better for all of us.

96 points by bertdc 6y ago

I know that personally I really don't need much for my own happiness - the basics of survival, a very modest house, and being away from people and in nature would do it for me. The problem comes when these simple things are denied to me, and I am put in a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses. Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth.

randomsearch 6y ago
Extremely controversial. Could we not also blame men for competing for the attention of the most attractive women, who then in turn can demand more resources? I do think we attack men for being shallow more often than we attack women for being materialistic. The latter doesn’t get as much attention or critique, eg wanting a bigger house or label fashion is often seen as aspirational and positive; wanting a more attractive partner is not seen in the same light. Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Are these just instincts that exist independently? Would removing one remove the other? Are they even so strong as to bind us by them? In reality I think these instincts don’t rule us. Choosing a partner is a combination of physical and mental attraction, as well as a function of social status. We can choose. Timshel.
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  > Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Great question. I think there are strong forces and dynamics that push us to earn more and "improve", constantly, regardless of whether we have a partner or not. It's kindof what a capitalistic society is built upon. If we didn't consume much gdp wouldn't grow right? If we didn't compete how would earnings increase? It's coming from peers, parents, spouses and from the way society itself is structured. I think it doesn't have tons to do with genes or evolutionary instincts though they may also explain some of it.
  - storminabucket 6y ago
    I think it is in our nature to strive for more. An interesting read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill We aren't made to be happy, only motivated
- globular-toast 6y ago
  > Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Two reasons. First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun. Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their own. There is essentially no limit to how many women a man can mate with. These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise. Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive? In your reasoning, men do not have the agency to choose not to be competitive, women do have the agency to choose who they are attracted to, and natural selection pressures are blameless. That's a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line don't you think?
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      > fault This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women Why have they singled out women here if not to place blame? Women are a product of selection pressures just as much as men are. Moreover, it isn't like women are not on the same hamster wheel as everyone else.
joelbluminator 6y ago
I see your point but you can't blame this entirely on women. Men themselves rank each other based on status / earnings. They may not do it to each other's faces but definitely there's a mental book-keeping on whose "doing well" , and accordingly many men will show more respect to people with high status. Now of course not everyone's like that, and indeed this changes from culture to culture on how pronounced it is. Also, the more capitalistic a society is and the weaker the social safety net, one can't really blame women for chasing savings and things. They and there offsprings can potentially end up in the street if circumstances go bad, so they need a partner that can take care of their material wellbeing.
storminabucket 6y ago
I'd argue the desire for consumer goods is very much equal for men and women, and is not inherently a bad thing. Some people are content when they have _things_, others seek thrill and experiences. Getting drunk on power is a trip worth striding for for many. The hamster-wheel is not based on any single subset of desires, it's the sum of all of them
bovermyer 6y ago
I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong. I'm male. My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. Most people I know similarly refute your opinion by their goals, personalities, and life status.
- paganel 6y ago
  > I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong. OP is maybe exaggerating to make a point but there's a Seinfeld episode which I remember from many years ago, where Jerry says something like how a man can be really interested in what a woman does at her work, even though that woman might be a janitor, while the reverse is not true, no woman is interested in a man who's a janitor (I mean, she's not interested in his work). And the statistics seem to support that, as more men are willing to marry women who are "beneath" them from a societal point of view (career and education) compared to women (i.e. women are less likely than man to marry members of the opposite sex who are placed "bellow" them).
- RhysU 6y ago
  > My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. To each her own, of course. (I take no position on the GP's controversial theory. Just calling out that the implications of the parent's comment strike me as unintuitive.)
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. Really? You've never heard of somebody who'd rather their spouse work shorter hours and spend more time with them at home? Or spend more time with their family? Or travel more with them?
Jimpulse 6y ago
While they may have the upper hand when it comes to selecting companions, they definitely don't have more power over men. One simply has to look at laws in cultures all over the world that suppress their rights. In societies where they don't have the right to choose their mates male competition still exists. In addition, what alternative are you even suggesting? That women choose defy their own well-being and mate with all men?
nine_k 6y ago
> the basics of survival How about medicine? Medical care in worse cases? Also, do you plan to have children? If so, how about child care and education? I think there are other reasons for the complexity of human societies. (To say nothing of the military implications of having wealth and technology.)
aklemm 6y ago
Son, you’re not going to get where you want to be until you resolve whatever lead you to find this thought important enough to write down in public.
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  I think that's a bit unfair. I think that yes male dominance and competition has a lot to do with females. It's like that in nature and like that in humans as well. You are interpreting what he said as being hostile to women while that may not be the case.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  They did take a risk speaking out. But let's assume the best intention: genuine curiosity. While I don't agree with the question's premise both it and the reverse can be asked without "punching down".
- globular-toast 6y ago
  You're wrong. It is possible to both accept uncomfortable truths and be happy. A fundamental part of Stoicism is not to trouble yourself with things out of your control. This frees your mind to be able to think about these things without being personally troubled by them.
  - aklemm 6y ago
    The man literally said he’s bothered by something outside his control.
- growlist 6y ago
  Well in the context that we are living in a time when 'comedians' openly 'joke' about genociding white people on television without censure I don't think my comment is that bad.
crumbshot 6y ago
This sounds suspiciously like incel ideology. Whatever cognitive path you're on that's led you to conclude this, I advise you to swiftly veer away from it. Blaming all the women isn't going to help with anything. People will just think, oh there's that weird sexist guy ranting on again. That's not going to get you anywhere useful.
- MorningInfidel 6y ago
  If his point is so easy to refute logically, you would have done so. Your entire comment is an ad hominem.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    Well exactly, he didn't have a logical point to make. Just an unfounded assumption that women are ruining things for everyone.
    - MorningInfidel 6y ago
      Where did 'ruining things for everyone' come from? In the same vein, I could interpret the post as 'women drive more economic growth than men'.
      - crumbshot 6y ago
        It came from their comment, specifically: > a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses > the never-ending hamster wheel situation > perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth
  - licebmi__at__ 6y ago
    Because the point is not really a logical statement, but an appeal to emotion, expecting a logical refutation to a non logical statement is absurd and TBH, kinda ignorant of all the kinds of valid discussion humans have all the time. Do you really think is reasonable to demand a change of behavior in women instead of maybe demanding the same from men? Do you really think men with a couple are no longer part of the competition drivel?
MorningInfidel 6y ago
I think your controversial opinion is more correct than it is incorrect. I don't believe it's anything that an individual woman would notice consciously on a daily basis, but the idea that women are attracted to the ability of a man to provision for her and her children as a survival adaptation over time is clearly true. It's true of other mammals and primates, at least.
globular-toast 6y ago
> Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth. I think you are correct that the main driving force here is sex. Sex drives far more of the world than most people would admit to. It is the fundamental raison d'être that every sexual organism is born with. But I think you are incorrect that women have the power to change it. You're talking about deep rooted instincts that have developed over billions of years. While many of us do learn to control our instincts to some extent, it's a bit much to expect the entire female population to control theirs. And even if you did control female hypergamy, you'd still have male polygamy to deal with. That's why the Bible targeted both (don't covert your neighbour's wife etc.)
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  Women care about money and education but it's not as if they're all the same. Some care a lot about humour, confidence, hell even artistic abilities. Yes some broke musician can appear very sexy to some women even if he isn't a great provider. Some even care a lot about looks just like men. Women vary quite a lot by who they consider mating potential.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    It's important not to confuse individuals with populations. This is one of the biggest problems when talking about things like this. People make statements about populations and others refute them using observations about individuals. Of course individuals are different, but individuals have very limited control over society. We are not a bunch of unrelated individuals, we are a society. The top level comment is talking about society.
- jl2718 6y ago
  It seems clear to me that society is much more aggressive about controlling male-normative instincts, which are characterized as violent and isolationist. Consumption and financial mating, however, are encouraged and enforced by every level of our social hierarchy. These instincts could also be controlled.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
During westward expansion in the US the rush sometimes produced towns with few women. Life wasn't magically better or less stressful. It was actually the growing female influence that brought some balance and peace.
andi999 6y ago
The controversal part is the first paragraph, you are nursing a victim mentality here. What stops you going to Alaska and get your cabin in the woods.
- growlist 6y ago
  There's zero wilderness left in the UK, the less populated areas have virtually zero jobs, and the government is intent on increasing the population and destroying the countryside as a consequence. There is (deliberately?) no escape.
dang 6y ago
Please don't do gender flamewar on HN. Nothing new comes of these, and nothing good. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: this kind of thing has unfortunately been a problem many times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22124843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22124843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22059070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22059070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21785560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21785560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862112 Worse, your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it. We have to, in order to prevent HN from being taken over by flames. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this so we don't have to ban you. If you want more explanation about how/why we moderate this way, there is plenty at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

storminabucket 6y ago

I'm confused, the article seems to be actually asking the question. "It varies" is brought up multiple times, but that doesen't exactly help outlining how we would be able to define minimally good life. It also asks whether a reasonable, caring and free person would trade places with the worst off, which I'd find very unlikely. What you can realistically do about it is unknown.

HenryBemis 6y ago
But it does. The typical "it depends" applies perfectly to this question. >The thought is that having some distance from each person’s experience will help us see whether that person really needs all the things they think they need. What works for you, doesn't work for me, and the other way round. Apart from the basic NEEDS (some call it "four walls" - shelter, utilities, transportation, basic groceries) everything else is a WANT. And it is great to have wants. A friend wanted to buy a desk globe for herself. She offered to buy me one too. I responded with a big NO. Not that I would not appreciate the gesture, I know that I would not appreciate a big thing on my table, that I can't use for nothing. On the other hand, a nice puzzle hanging on my wall is cool, and it takes no space, and I don't have to move it around to make one more puzzle :) >would trade places with the worst off During COVID I saw with my own eyes that you can go from 100-to-1 in 6 months if you haven't made sure you got emergency funds on the side, if you don't have a solid safe work, you don't have amassed consumer debt, etc. As a mental exercise it is good to think the scenario "what if I lose my job, and I can't get another one for X amount of months"? Dave Ramsey suggests emergency funds to be able to fully cover 3-6 months. Those 3-6 can be stretched to 6-12 if you decide to make major cuts in lifestyle (food, subscriptions, smaller house/flat, sell a car and start cycling, etc.)
- storminabucket 6y ago
  It's just that "it depends" is not very satisfactory, it's the default answer to all questions. All questions are fractal in nature, and unsolvable without a problem-domain. By defining the domain a thing can be answered, such as "how much force do i need to throw this ball over there?" Otherwise no definite answer can be provided, because the next galaxy over tips the scales just a bit, as does the infinitesimally small difference in the ball's structure, and so forth. >During COVID I saw with my own eyes that you can go from 100-to-1 in 6 months if you haven't made sure you got emergency funds on the side This is why I think a social aid/basic income system with free healthcare is a must. You can't choose to be healthy and not to have accidents. I think we must all provide a basic net for the things outside our control. Of course I'm biased, being a finn in covid times is a tremendous blessing

devguy01 6y ago

I often contemplate what it is that leads to a "good life". I am very fortunate in so many ways, yet I allow myself to feel envy, call circumstances unfair because I didn't get what I want, or forget to be grateful. I see my kids growing up not knowing what struggling really feels like and realize that I don't have a true perspective of being without. I'm not saying that I would rather experience the feeling of hunger when you haven't eaten in days or the fear of not having access to medical services if my children or I were sick or injured. It seems that often times people don't "wake up" to an understanding of what truly matters, what really makes a good life, until they have faced tragedy. I don't want to wait for that. Instead, like the article states, I hope to be more considerate of the circumstances others have and are experiencing, thankful for opportunities and pitfalls of each day, and open to other perspectives; and I hope to pass that along to my children.

joelbluminator 6y ago
I've read several articles / books on this topic lately. In short: it's not only you that's contemplating on the "good life", plenty is being researched and written about. Our genes make it hard for us to be consistently content and happy. It seems like evolution may have given the slightly paranoid / always needing more genes an advantage for obvious reasons. One research even showed lottery prize winners aren't any happier 1 year after winning than average. So we're very good in experiencing contentment for short bursts and then it's back to our normal mental mode. So a lot of it is genetic. Some you may be able to control with different techniques. Different things work for different people.
- devguy01 6y ago
  "So we're very good in experiencing contentment for short bursts and then it's back to our normal mental mode." That is exactly what I've observed and experienced. Well said!
  - joelbluminator 6y ago
    At first I was freaked out by this revelation. But after thinking about it kinda takes the stress out of a lot of things. Doesn't matter that much how much you earn / what you work on / where you live. You get used pretty fast to all those things. So always be suspicious of yourself when you're over-analysing big life decisions. If you're trying to optimise happiness a lot of those decisions won't make much of a difference.

g8oz 6y ago

For a good take on this topic I recommend the "The Art of the Good Life" by Rolf Dobelli.

127 6y ago

Men aren't built to be happy. Men are built to be effective.

majewsky 6y ago
As are women.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  In the English language "Men" can also mean "human beings in general". Granted, this usage is a tiny bit archaic.
  - muffinman26 6y ago
    I assumed the gendered usage here was intended, since it's not a poem or a format where character count matters. Unfortunately it's ambiguous without further clarification.
dTal 6y ago
No need to drag sex into it.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure he was using "men" in the generic since, similar to "humans". That said, looking at stats like suicide rate reveals that a literal reading may be more correct.
  - dTal 6y ago
    I note you've assumed the poster is male. The "generic sense" of "men" to mean humans is sexist - blatantly so. It's also quickly becoming archaic, for this reason. Going out of your way to use it, instead of "people" or "humans" or "humanity", is now a statement.
golergka 6y ago

haywirez 6y ago

> Pregnant women, for instance, need more food than those who aren’t pregnant. Only 200kCal a day — less than half of a Snickers.

golergka 6y ago

> what do members of a society owe to one another? > we should consider whether we would be content to live the lives that the least fortunate in our society actually live Stopped reading right there, because it's a complete non sequitur. People only owe one another what they have contractual obligations for; claiming that you owe to provide any kind of minimal standard of living for another person just because he also happens to live in the same society as you is completely absurd and deeply immoral. Now, I agree that being charitable and thinking about others is moral, and that people who enjoy very comfortable lives without giving anything back to the community can be frowned upon. However, there is critically important distinction between doing something out of your own free will and our of obligation. I always defend Nazis, who openly advocate for killing me and my family, right to free speech, and I would always defend the property rights of the heartless and greedy. Not because I want to condone this behaviour, but because no morality can be more important than personal freedoms.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
There's a social contract among communities that has all but entirely collapsed. It's not about being charitable. It's the fact that when we collectively let our neighbors suffer instead of helping we are opening the flood gates to greater suffering for everyone. This is a good read: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_ever_picked_up_a_hitchhiker/c18z0z2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_e...
jmpman 6y ago
Although I expect I share many of your concerns, there are two aspects of ideal libertarian world view which trouble me. The first is that the masses who are unable to provide a productive life for themselves continue to multiply, ultimately driving society to collapse. The second is that wealth will be concentrated in a tiny fraction of the population, who will then convince the masses that it’s unethical for the elite to be taxed. The elites will continue to perpetuate their wealth through generations, and the masses will never be able to achieve socioeconomic mobility.

secondcoming 6y ago

"To crush your enemies; see them driven before you; and to hear the lamentation of the women"

GreeniFi 6y ago
This sounds biblical. But it could also be Conan the Barbarian.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

What is needed minimally? - a loved and loving partner, a sane and fulfilling sexuality - enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future - absence of other justifiable existential worries and anxiety about the future such as cataclysms, threats, oppressive social, political and work environments, political instability, etc. - a decent amount of recognition in work or private life (one of them suffices, both are optimal) - good mental and physical health Beneficial is also frequent contact to about 3-4 close friends. That's what I've gathered from what I've heard on the Net during the past 20 years or so. If any of the above is missing, the life will not really be good.

andi999 6y ago
This sounds more like maximal requirements.
mightybyte 6y ago
This seems like a pretty good list. I'm sure it's possible to debate the details, but it seems to hit the big points. What I think is interesting about it though is that aside from "enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future", none of these items can actually be provided by society / government. Government certainly can't provide a loving partner, fulfilling sexuality, good mental and physical health, or work/private life recognition. And as 2020 has seen with COVID, it also can't provide absence of existential worries due to cataclysms.
- svachalek 6y ago
  While a government can't necessarily provide these, it can certainly deny them.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  A government's environmental policy has an objective impact on every measure of mental and physical health. Urban design, whether you're stuck two hours in traffic to get to work, whether you work 35 or 60 hours, whether you can take a walk in your neighborhood at night in peace...

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

How children are parented makes more difference than anything else. Having 'good' parents vs. 'bad' determines not just what is needed to have a good life, but in many cases, whether one even has the emotional capacity for feeling good for an ongoing period.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Hmm. That sounds familiar. I guess we share a similar experience.
adolph 6y ago
Current thought about parenting (environmental effects) vs parents (trait heritability) is that one's parents has more a role than how one is parented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
- slumpt_ 6y ago
  It depends on the trait in question and nearly always is a mix of both environmental and genetic factors.
agumonkey 6y ago
o/ I'd go even further and weight-in the whole lineage. I believe my grand parents on both side were damaged, leading to damaged parents, producing a very dysfunctional me. It's like driving with the brakes on.. I speculate that the efficiency of not having to fight toxicity constantly leads to a thick rain of happy. To the point that if I have children, I'd be sure to regularly send them away so they can see the world outside my sphere of influence.
ZainRiz 6y ago
Sounds like a recursive problem. What if the parents were parented badly and thus lack emotional capacity. What if they were parented badly because the grand parents were parented badly?

jl2718 6y ago

I think these appeals to humanism often fail to see the rational realities that underlie the moral questions. Morals and culture are just a simplification of principles which make a society competitive. The scope of possibilities is massive even within our own observation: totalitarianism, constitutionalism, fundamentalism, nationalism, anarchy. Competition among and enforcement within these societies has been, by far, the greatest modern historical risk for premature death. This article seems to be proposing a society where everybody is guaranteed a good life. Sounds great, but the bigger question is whether such a society is competitive against ones where individuals are driven to contribute through fear of failure. My guess is that, yes, it could be, but only under conditions where pro-social motivations are greater than the fear motive they replace. We know that this exists in our natural tribal state, but small homogeneous tribes were not competitive against massive hierarchical use of force. The brilliance of capitalism is that it provides an indirect fear/greed motive that requires little organization, mostly enforcement of property rights and taxation. It was writing, e.g. the domesday book, that enabled this, and the result gradually proved superior to feudal slavery. We have great technology today, maybe even a crisis of overproduction, or misallocation to negative social goods. Unfortunately, redistributive welfare has a definite social cost, and, ignoring the personal benefits, a terrible track record for motivating pro-social contribution, in some societies. In others it seems to do better. The moral heuristic that people should be taken care of at others’ expense, is only rationally valid within certain social organizations and cultural norms. An objection to this may be that the moral reasoning is superior by nature, and I believe this is massively flawed, simply because the cost of non-competitive morality, is death by social competition, which cannot be avoided. I do believe, maybe blindly, that there are conditions in which universal guarantees of a ‘good life’ increase a society’s competitiveness, but I do not certainly know what those conditions are, so without that, this moral pleading seems hopeful at best.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eimrine 6y ago

I expected to see at least some links to Stoicism. They do not exist, which is why the article does not answer the question in the title. My opinion is that Stoicism answers this question and in general it is one of the most useful directions of philosophy.

globular-toast 6y ago
I agree. I strongly suggest people look into Stoicism for some real answers to this question.

_pdp_ 6y ago

Good life is the absense of bad life.

Koshkin 6y ago
Absence does not imply presence.
- _pdp_ 6y ago
  It is easy to enumerate what is bad for ones life - much harder to define a good life, hence one is able to achieve "good life" by substracting all that is considered "bad life".

cindarin 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

afefers 6y ago

As someone very poor, for me good life means having money to the point where my choices are not based around it.

Koshkin 6y ago
But does that include choosing not to work (because you do not have to in order to survive)?
adolph 6y ago
I wish you well in attaining the good life to which you intend. I also reflect that the most significant choices are those which are within one's locus of control, the awareness of that is foundational to a life of virtue and money never seems un-constraining even if objectively one controls more of it.
joncrane 6y ago
I'm not rich, but I'm comfortable. Most of my choices, and certainly all of my major life choices (like where to live, what car to drive, what job to take) are still based around money. Edit: good points in the responses. I don't worry about eating out, what to order, what brand of sundry to buy. I do try to optimize but as others have said, that's more of a desire than a requirement. Having said that, I think the only people who truly never worry about money are children. I've heard stories about international students at universities whose parents buy them luxury car after luxury car when they crash them, that kind of thing. But I suspect it's pretty rare.
- zookeeprr 6y ago
  That's definitely true up until a pretty obscene level of wealth, but there's definitely a difference between basing all choices around money, and basing major choices around money. For example, I no longer scour the grocery store for the cheapest available option for every item I select. I no longer have to spend months finding the best value for a pair of shoes, a piece of furniture, etc. Basically, if I spend a couple hundred dollars too much on stuff one month, I'll hardly notice it. Whereas, when I was poor, that was the difference between making rent or not.

smoyer 6y ago

I ate at the restaurant shown in the lead photo while in Trinidad Cuba in January 2020. It's amazing how long ago that seems now. Trinidad had an amazing ecosystem of shops that catered to the tourist industry and the proprietors of these shops could make a good living outside the government's more socialist system. One shop with amazing hand-made crocheted garments had four generations of the family creating goods. Talking with them reminded me of value of extended family which we've (at least to some degree) lost in the U.S. simply because of our ability to move long distances easily. I learned a lot of lessons (even entrepreneurial lessons) while in Cuba and hope to publish a series of blog posts on them when the day job becomes less frenzied.

godzillafarts 6y ago

Been asking myself this question for a while, and have found the following reading to be very enlightening: - Letters from a Stoic, Seneca - On the Shortness of Life, Seneca - Walden, Henry David Thoreau - Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck

lm28469 6y ago
I was going to post that, Letters from a Stoic, single best book I read. I already bought it 4 or 5 times and end up gifting it to friends/family.
andi999 6y ago
Why Grapes of Wrath? Like dont work in a field which changes rapidly and get pushed to the sidelines to die poor in misery?
- godzillafarts 6y ago
  More along the lines of practicing altruism even when I perceive things around me to be bad
- tolbish 6y ago
  The lesson to be learned from that book is that we can do some cruel things to people we feel are beneath us, but we can also do some beautiful, empathetic things. The lesson to be learned from that book is not "don't be poor".
adolph 6y ago
- This Is Water, Wallace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI

Koshkin 6y ago

The definition of minimally good life is “being able to survive without too much effort.” (Feeling happy has nothing to do with it. Notably, some people managed to have a “good life” while being prisoners, say, in a concentration camp).

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

In combination, good mental health together with other people (as in relationships). You will struggle have one without the other. Following on, decent enough physical health to maintain the first two. Anything else is gravy, as they say.

ycombonator 6y ago

Been seeing a lot of “Do as I say and not as I do” articles being pushed to the orange site. I wonder if all the SV capitalists would take up this offer of minimally good life.

bangelo 6y ago

god you people are depressed.

xtiansimon 6y ago

+70k/year

munificent 6y ago

> The way to do that is simple: we should consider whether we would be content to live the lives that the least fortunate in our society actually live. I like this framing a lot. It's sort of the aggregate societal-level Golden Rule. Would you be willing to play "Real-Life the MMO" if you didn't know which character you'd be dropped into? However, there is an interesting wrinkle you can apply to it that I think explains many of the moral differences along the progressive-conservative spectrum that I see in the US today. Consider: * Would you be content to live the life that the least fortunate in our society lives? * Would you be content to live the life that the least fortunate in our society lives including the personal choices they have made? In other words, how much are you willing to chalk up misfortune to personal responsibility versus random unfair vagaries of life? Would you still be willing to play "Real-Life the MMO" if you might be dropped into a level 20 character with an already established history and had to take their life from there? The conservative American perspective stated hyperbolically is that all bad outcomes are a result of poor choices. Many even seem to imply a just-world hypothesis that random events like disease are the universe magically punishing people for moral failings. The equivalent hyperbolic progressive view is that no one ever deserves any bad outcome and that misery is always a result of systemic factors outside of the individual's control. Somewhere in the middle is probably closer to the truth.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Living isolated within a Bond Lair, with nukez!

riffnote 6y ago

I suggest something similar. When we are constantly buying and requesting things we create work and stress for others. We become a high-maintenance humans. We contribute to the rush and tension we feel around us. By consuming less and demanding less, we live a low maintenance life. Not minimally good, just low-maintenance. This along with looking for ways to serve our communities is the better way to go.

odomojuli 6y ago

I read somewhere that the universal problem of existence is to survive with dignity, and mathematics being the language of the universe is uniquely poised to address the question. As someone with ok health and a decent education to provide me work throughout the pandemic, I feel like the minimally good life is just life itself. It is enough to survive, and retain the will that you must choose to live. I've been very fortunate and very lucky, but it all feels so flimsy and discriminatory. I think the only "better" life one can work towards, is one in service of making it better for all of us.