3 ms·
> I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. Tibet. That said, the level of a
by atmosx 13y ago
> I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people.
Tibet.
That said, the level of anxiety in western society if the no-1 reason of aging.
> Suppose we completely solved the need to pay for food and housing; people would be anxious about health care. Suppose we solved that too? People would be anxious about the need for pet health care.
Hm, you have too many assumptions there. Not that I'm very fond of social sciences but do you have at least one study to support your claim? Otherwise, Newton might get displeased[2].
What you're saying that Maslow[1] was wrong? Maybe his hierarchy should be a square since physiological and self-actualization is one and the same according to your approach.
> We worry because worrying is part of being human.
Of course if my parent is not at home at 23:00 o'clock, I worry. When my parent comes back I stop being worried. It's transitory. I think that in Ethiopia, in Ukraine and large parts of 21'st century world, most people are worried 24/7 though. It's NOT the same.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
- sigzero 13y ago> Tibet Wrong. Everyone has been anxious about something sometime. Everyone.
- atmosx 13y agoI'm positive that I didn't read at least once. As I get it, he means anxious of the time not twice in a lifetime.
- glenra 13y agoOf course, the other answer is that we're not anxious all the time. Maybe Marx was. Maybe the people who find Marx insightful are too. I'm not. Most people are anxious some of the time. And they should be, because being anxious some of the time can prompt you to improve your life situation or avoid immediate danger.
- notahacker 13y agoTibet has people so anxious about the state of their society and distance from their spiritual leader they're prepared to pay a middleman several months' income to help smuggle them through mountain passes out of the country, or set themselves alight, not to mention everyday concerns about poverty or the nice girl from the village not paying them much attention.
- glenra 13y ago> Not that I'm very fond of social sciences but do you have at least one study to support your claim I'm basing my claim on the standard findings of happiness research as I understand them - look up "hedonic treadmill" or "happiness set point". People have a core level of happiness. Being anxious from time to time has the value that it makes us act to try to better our condition. We make and do stuff in large part because we are chasing the illusion that if we overcome this one next obstacle we'll then be happy, but whether we succeed or fail, we eventually return to our default level. Marx's claim is based on the false idea that if we just fixed society in various ways then people could be happy all the time. But he's wrong; they can't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill Quote: "The results of this study suggest that regardless of whether the life event is significantly negative or positive, people will generally always return to their happiness baseline". Source: Silver (1982). Coping with an undesirable life event: A study of early reactions to physical disability. Northwestern University.