3 ms·

What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than

What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. And the things which seem they might - purpose, family, connections, community - are things you can't easily push upon others. What form might it take, what might it look like?

mistermann 6y ago
> What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. How about this: >> Here's a bold vision for a better world: maybe the ship should set as its target the goal of feeding, sheltering, and clothing the significant numbers of human beings on the planet that aren't doing so well in those categories. It's rather interesting how in the year 2020, where a big chunk of the planet carries a handheld supercomputer around with them that can half-answer nearly any question you throw at it, we can deliver a package half way around the world overnight, where one individual is spearheading a legitimate initiative at putting humans on Mars, and so forth and so on...and yet, the abstract notion of feeding, clothing, and sheltering [1] the most vulnerable of our species is cognitively conceptualized/processed in a manner such that it doesn't even seem to be noticed by the conscious mind (see: "What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms?"). Even more interesting (for the super-curious among us) is, if one is to point out this curiosity, and its pervasiveness in our society, those who seem to be (or outright declare to be) ideologically most concerned about such problems (rationalists, progressives, humanists, etc) not only do not have their curiosity piqued, but very often seem to take some kind of offense to it - typically in a passive form, such as a silent downvote, refusal to discuss (at least that specific aspect, ignoring it in any reply)...but rarely explicit disagreement, as if there is something ~evolutionarily "taboo" about the subject (ie: "The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club.” “The second rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club."). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Meta-edit: how much activity will this particular comment get in a 4 day old thread? :)

mistermann 6y ago

> What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. How about this: >> Here's a bold vision for a better world: maybe the ship should set as its target the goal of feeding, sheltering, and clothing the significant numbers of human beings on the planet that aren't doing so well in those categories. It's rather interesting how in the year 2020, where a big chunk of the planet carries a handheld supercomputer around with them that can half-answer nearly any question you throw at it, we can deliver a package half way around the world overnight, where one individual is spearheading a legitimate initiative at putting humans on Mars, and so forth and so on...and yet, the abstract notion of feeding, clothing, and sheltering [1] the most vulnerable of our species is cognitively conceptualized/processed in a manner such that it doesn't even seem to be noticed by the conscious mind (see: "What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms?"). Even more interesting (for the super-curious among us) is, if one is to point out this curiosity, and its pervasiveness in our society, those who seem to be (or outright declare to be) ideologically most concerned about such problems (rationalists, progressives, humanists, etc) not only do not have their curiosity piqued, but very often seem to take some kind of offense to it - typically in a passive form, such as a silent downvote, refusal to discuss (at least that specific aspect, ignoring it in any reply)...but rarely explicit disagreement, as if there is something ~evolutionarily "taboo" about the subject (ie: "The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club.” “The second rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club."). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Meta-edit: how much activity will this particular comment get in a 4 day old thread? :)