GENIUS FORUMS

Matt Gregory wrote:I think the best part of that talk was when she said, "We're not an animal that was built to be happy, we're an animal that was built to reproduce."

I thought this talk by Dan Gilbert “Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy?” was appropriate:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97

This of course raises the question: "If we are 'built' merely to reproduce, why do we have this seemingly innate drive toward happiness?"

The easy answer is, of course, that it is a delusion. Assuming that is so (and it may not be), why should such an illusion arise in the first place? As far as we know, the question of "happiness" does not occur to any other animal. If we are truly 'built' to reproduce, and nothing more, why is this process of "life" such a big deal?

Please, nobody say "original sin" unless they're willing to expand upon the Biblical metaphor.

Evolutionarily speaking, our success as a species was tied up with health, security, status, successful hunting, defeating enemies, erotic love, familial love, tribal bonding, etc. Those in the past who more intently sought happiness in these things would have had an advantage over the others and would have been more likely to pass on their genes.

-

San Bao,

This of course raises the question: "If we are 'built' merely to reproduce, why do we have this seemingly innate drive toward happiness?"

The easy answer is, of course, that it is a delusion. Assuming that is so (and it may not be), why should such an illusion arise in the first place? As far as we know, the question of "happiness" does not occur to any other animal. If we are truly 'built' to reproduce, and nothing more, why is this process of "life" such a big deal?

The will to happiness definitely exists in other animals. I don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that animals are unhappy when they are hungry and eat food to become happy again. They definitely don't think, "Uh-oh I'm about to starve to death; I'd better eat!" Their behavior is driven by happiness and unhappiness, just like ours. The only difference between animal happiness and human happiness is that we have the memory capacity to form plans for the future, so we make plans to eat for the next fifty years by getting a career, we make plans to move around by getting a car, we make plans to have sex and have children by getting married, etc. Human and animal happiness is fundamentally the same: it's driven by the same immediate drives, it's just that humans project their desires into the future and worry about them, thus giving rise to the question of happiness.

On a more abstract level I think it's also easy to see why happiness is necessary in evolution. If the whole species was so miserable that they wanted to commit suicide then that wouldn't be good for the propagation of the species because all of the organisms would be dead!

Matt Gregory wrote:If the whole species was so miserable that they wanted to commit suicide then that wouldn't be good for the propagation of the species because all of the organisms would be dead!

i think that would be in the best interests to give final happiness to the human race

Matt Gregory wrote:On a more abstract level I think it's also easy to see why happiness is necessary in evolution. If the whole species was so miserable that they wanted to commit suicide then that wouldn't be good for the propagation of the species because all of the organisms would be dead!

Most individuals do commit suicide, albeit slowly. By the time they succeed, most of them have sired progeny (and passed on their suicidal propensities. McDonald's and a Coke, anyone?).

Most people want happiness but don't know how to go about it. Most people are sheep and merely exist. Their desires are whims, their actions are reactions, their plans are desperate measures born of severe limitation.

Clyde,

I thought this talk by Dan Gilbert “Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy?” was appropriate:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97

Now that guy is really suffering from religious belief in science. He's looking at psychology as if you can figure it out from doing a bunch of studies and correlating and combining them and drawing conclusions from that, that's where he's coming up with things made from disparate fields like "psychological immune system" and "synthetic and natural happiness" and so forth. I think he just likes to get up in front of people and impress them with his good speaking skills. I think all his data can be summed up with the idea that seeking for something makes us unhappy. It makes sense evolutionarily for the situation to be like this because if we need something and can't find it then increasing unhappiness drives us to search harder for it, which increases the odds of finding it. That's why happiness is so disdained on this forum because it's counterproductive to the pursuit of wisdom.

If there was no sadness, would we understand: Happenis?

I think you answered your own question there.

Thanks for the tip.