Hacker News Reader

>but it really hasn't made us happier as a whole.

Serious question. Has any technology done this?

We don't appear to be happier than any other animal. Even in the developed world plenty of people are downright miserable.

Unless primitive humans were just far sadder than the average animal, I can't see how technological advancement has made us happier as a whole, because we're not all that happy.

If antibiotics, electicity, and the steam engine didn't noticeably move the needle, it seems absurd to expect phone tech to do the deed. Whatever technology is solving "for the whole", it's not happiness.

The frame of thought I use to think about this is that evolution simply gave humans a brain that is far too big. We cannot help but tinker with things, think about things like science or philosophy etc. Its not whether the steam engine made us happier. It's that the steam engine is the result of a species bored out of its wits and needing something intellectually engaging to do.

Yes. Alcohol and various drugs, for example.

I jest, but only a little bit. The thing is, happiness is not really a good goal for technology. Humans are good about noticing what is not OK to them and focusing on that - while also growing resistant to persistent problems. So they keep the baseline.

Things have changed a lot, however - we've been moving up on the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Thanks to technology, most Westerners no longer really worry about food, shelter, personal security and forming relationships. We've moved upwards - that's why we have time and will to bitch about abstract topics on the Internet. The very controversies our society has is the evidence just how far our technology has lifted us. Starving people don't fret about identity politics and gender imbalances in hot industries.

This is a realistic goal for technology - lifting us up and solving the problems we identify. Feeling happy is something we either need to learn individually, or brainwash (or engineer) ourselves into.

>> The thing is, happiness is not really a good goal for technology.

>> Thanks to technology, most Westerners no longer really worry about food, shelter, personal security and forming relationships.

In the buddhist tradition, one dedicated to happiness, one barrier to happiness(or happiness training), was the need to take care of all those things. So happiness seems like a decent goal for technology, but maybe not the best ideology to win in the tech dev market.

I think one of the under reported aspects of self driving cars is what it might do for urban income inequality. The prices of cars and housing are two big things that keep poor people poor. If you can't afford the upfront or ongoing costs of a car, you need to live along mass transit lines to get to your job or endure a much longer commute which costs extra time and money. Housing along mass transit lines can be much more expensive that housing a good distance away.

Self driving cars can help this in two ways. First, the cost of transit should decrease. Human drivers will no longer be needed and the vehicles can be used more efficiently instead of sitting idle most of the day. Bus, Taxi, and ride-sharing costs should drop dramatically. Secondly commutes by car should become quicker and less of a burden for the driver. This should increase the "acceptable commute" radius for the average person. This adds choices in housing and more uniform demand that isn't as closely tied their proximity to urban areas, mass transit systems, and highways. The end result should hopefully be cheaper housing.

I agree. Driverless cars will be awesome. I hope they will make people happier, but people tend to quickly adjust to changes in their environment and revert back to their "steady-state" level of happiness. Good relationships and experiences are the only things (other than maybe drugs) that can boost long term happiness.

Having more material wealth or free time can definitely make you happier, but generally only if you use it to spend time with family and friends. If people use self-driving cars to ferry themselves back and forth between their empty McMansions out in the exurbs, and work, then they're probably not going to be any happier.

I think self-driving cars might not change anything here unfortunately :( If we take silicon valley as an example, the wages going up has just driven rents and housing costs up. Essentially housing is a good with inelastic demand, so it gets priced more like a tax at "x% of income". Same seems to be true for restaurants, grocery stores - they just raise the prices to match the income level of an area.

>Essentially housing is a good with inelastic demand

I apparently wasn't clear in my post, I think this technology can alter the elasticity of that demand in urban environments. Yes, everyone will still need housing so the demand as a country will not change. However people are going to be willing to live further away from their jobs because commutes will be quicker and easier. Demand will shift from urban areas to suburbs and suburbs to exurbs, getting cheaper at every step of the way.

Indeed. One thing we tend to overlook when we get excited about technological progress towards some not-too-distant happier/easier life is the commercial framework these technologies will reside in. Yes, predictions of cheap ride sharing autonomous vehicle pools may become a reality; but cost vs price will still be an issue. All this will be great for those who own the cars in the pool, but not so much for those who must pay to use it.

If you want to bring people physically closer together, just lean into NIMBYism and keep housing supply small. As current trends continue and require more people to live in city centers, we'll see more and more instances of people forced to have roommates when they'd rather not, multiple families forced to share a single apartment when they'd rather have their own, etc.

But somehow I think you will actually create conflict, tension, and claustrophobia, not happiness.

I disagree. Living in a dense city does not necessitate living in some sort of tenement and being at each other's throats. Living costs are high in cities because people who bought property early like it that way. They want their properties to appreciate, so they prevent others from increasing supply. Governments seem happy to object out of some mistaken sense of social justice or historical preservation.

Still, people in dense cities who endure higher living costs tend to be happier and healthier than those outside of them (even when controlling for income). People are willing to pay crazy amounts of money to live there for a reason, after all.

I wish we could build new cities. That would provide an opportunity to do it right, and with a design that is appropriate for the 21st century.

> Still, people in dense cities who endure higher living costs tend to be happier

Most of the studies I've seen have said the exact opposite, that those living in urban environments are actually less happy: http://bit.ly/2v5cQni

In some sense upzoning is still living further apart, just on the vertical rather than horizontal plane.

Driverless cars could mean less parking lots... Hallelujah!