3 ms·

Evolutionary reasons keep us surviving at any cost - in this discussion the cost is the sacrifice of appreciation of the beauty of everything, etc. Indeed you

Evolutionary reasons keep us surviving at any cost - in this discussion the cost is the sacrifice of appreciation of the beauty of everything, etc. Indeed you might die to predators more if you were distracted by how pretty that tree trunk is, but that reasoning no longer applies since we are not part of the food chain. You seem to be using what evolution "settled on" as support for your argument - that is a very wrong thing to do.

chrischen 13y ago
No, not at any cost. I talked about that in my original post. >> If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). I explain that "surviving at any cost" is not an optimal solution either, because we as humans would no longer have an incentive to survive. The fact is our happiness and willingness to keep going is as much a factor of evolution as our physical survivability... so it's NOT wrong to base it on what evolution "settled on." Perhaps we may not die from predators, but there are other things. Here's a thought experiment: Consider an impending asteroid heading for Earth. Which nations or peoples do you think will have the highest chance of surviving? The technologically backwards but harmonious communists, the technologically advanced capitalists, the crack addicts, or the non-crack addicts? You'll probably conclude that technology matters, not spending every waking moment appreciating the beauty in trees matter, and not feeling high all the time for no reason also matters. We need proper reward-response pathways in order to maximize our survival. Introducing artificially stimulating drugs disrupts it. It sends a false signal, which, according to Paul Graham, can be one of the most crippling things if we don't think it's bad. http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html "The most dangerous way to lose time is not to spend it having fun, but to spend it doing fake work." Getting the dopamine reward from a stimulant drug is like doing fake work, because you're being rewarded like if you actually did the work. Keep in mind, I'm talking about simulants, so LSD doesn't apply here, but there is probably a reason we weren't born fascinated with trees and every little thing.
- lmm 13y ago
  Which is the better existence? A civilization that survives in happiness and harmony for 5000 years, or one that survives in highly productive, regimented dullness for 20000 years? It's not at all obvious, at least to me. But evolution will pick the latter every time. For evolution it's optimal for us to be just miserable enough to not give up, and have just enough happiness as a dangled carrot to keep us going. What evolution wants is not aligned with what we want. E.g. anyone using birth control is deliberately shifting the "happiness/survival balance" away from the one that evolution decided was optimal. But very few would argue that birth control is detrimental to our civilization.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Productivity is a function of happiness. If our lives were really a "regimented dullness," we'd have little motivation to achieve more and greater things. So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. If you disrupt that, then the function is disrupted. Happiness (aka, dope), can be obtained without working. Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off.
    - lmm 13y ago
      >So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. You're begging the question. Why do you think survival is what we should optimize for? If you were a genetically engineered assassin species who gained happiness only from killing, would you say killing is what we should optimize for? If not, why treat evolution any differently from our hypothetical genetic engineer? >Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off. Again - why should we care about being "relevant"?

chrischen 13y ago

No, not at any cost. I talked about that in my original post. >> If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). I explain that "surviving at any cost" is not an optimal solution either, because we as humans would no longer have an incentive to survive. The fact is our happiness and willingness to keep going is as much a factor of evolution as our physical survivability... so it's NOT wrong to base it on what evolution "settled on." Perhaps we may not die from predators, but there are other things. Here's a thought experiment: Consider an impending asteroid heading for Earth. Which nations or peoples do you think will have the highest chance of surviving? The technologically backwards but harmonious communists, the technologically advanced capitalists, the crack addicts, or the non-crack addicts? You'll probably conclude that technology matters, not spending every waking moment appreciating the beauty in trees matter, and not feeling high all the time for no reason also matters. We need proper reward-response pathways in order to maximize our survival. Introducing artificially stimulating drugs disrupts it. It sends a false signal, which, according to Paul Graham, can be one of the most crippling things if we don't think it's bad. http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html "The most dangerous way to lose time is not to spend it having fun, but to spend it doing fake work." Getting the dopamine reward from a stimulant drug is like doing fake work, because you're being rewarded like if you actually did the work. Keep in mind, I'm talking about simulants, so LSD doesn't apply here, but there is probably a reason we weren't born fascinated with trees and every little thing.

lmm 13y ago
Which is the better existence? A civilization that survives in happiness and harmony for 5000 years, or one that survives in highly productive, regimented dullness for 20000 years? It's not at all obvious, at least to me. But evolution will pick the latter every time. For evolution it's optimal for us to be just miserable enough to not give up, and have just enough happiness as a dangled carrot to keep us going. What evolution wants is not aligned with what we want. E.g. anyone using birth control is deliberately shifting the "happiness/survival balance" away from the one that evolution decided was optimal. But very few would argue that birth control is detrimental to our civilization.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Productivity is a function of happiness. If our lives were really a "regimented dullness," we'd have little motivation to achieve more and greater things. So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. If you disrupt that, then the function is disrupted. Happiness (aka, dope), can be obtained without working. Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off.
  - lmm 13y ago
    >So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. You're begging the question. Why do you think survival is what we should optimize for? If you were a genetically engineered assassin species who gained happiness only from killing, would you say killing is what we should optimize for? If not, why treat evolution any differently from our hypothetical genetic engineer? >Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off. Again - why should we care about being "relevant"?