Often conspicuously absent is what such a world ought to be, in his view.
As brilliant as his works are and have been, the longer he keeps asking the same question without providing an answer the more it becomes a well-researched “we live in a society.”
In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being.
And given the differences in the human psyche it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time.
One of us may feel individual freedom at all costs, one might be the greater good trumps the individual.
Otherwise you want the benefits of living in a society? The only way is you're going to sacrifice your freedom.
I've shown two sides of the most obvious dichotomy and you've show how intractable this will be by instantly expelling me, theoretically.
But it's actually really easy. Every single human has the same basic needs. Cover those and you've already done a great step towards collective happiness.
> In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being.
How, besides lying to ourselves, can we then justify the fact that in some countries children starve to death, while in others people's biggest issue is what model of smartphone they're going to buy next?
Aren't we already imposing material limits to billions of people who don't have access to basic resources? Is that kind of limit somehow less important than the limit we might impose on someone else to not own a yacht?
Never made this assumption. Quite the opposite, I'm saying the very fundamental basis to "happiness" is to have your basic needs covered at all times. Only then, you can start to build something on top.
For this very reason, I want you to have everything you need to live with dignity. I don't care at all if you want more, if that means someone else is going to lack anything essential as a consequence.
In fact what I _really_ dislike about Netflix documentaries is how heavy-handed they are with the solutions that they dictate, James Cameron’s veganism propaganda being the most obvious example - completely coincidental that he owns a plant-based protein manufacturing company
It's very easy to say "this is broken", and to present that in a glossy and slick manner, but the real challenge is contributing to the fix.
Why should we assume that someone with the capability to see the problems needs to also be the one to posit solutions? We have plenty of people in society whose job solving problems actually is.