Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielStraight | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with the assumption in the original article that a perfect happiness drug would be used by everyone. It is evident from even casual observation that many (I would say most) people would rather have a meaningful life than a happy life.

Sure, once you started the drug, you wouldn't care, you'd be hooked, but why assume everyone would take it in the first place? There's no chance I would try a drug that I had observed make someone just sit in their bed doing nothing all day, even if it was clear that they were ecstatically happy beyond anything I had ever experienced. In reality, I think very few people would take it.

View on HN

Assuming you find it more moral to "do something for society" with your life, than to lounge around on drugs, what if there were nothing for you to do? What if all social ills and problems were taken care of by technology? Or what if there was definitively no appreciation for what you do? This could take the form of zero demand for your skills, or cultural change in which mainstream society ostracizes those that try to do good for others (perhaps recasting them in a different moral light: "trying to meddle in others' affairs").

I guess you could still go off and live in the woods with those that do not ascribe to a drugged life, and build a separate society. But even that still means the original society is doomed.

I'm not really talking about doing something for society. I'm finding it difficult to put into words what I'm thinking.

Pursuing pleasure as an end goal rarely leads to pleasure. A lot of addictions seem to stem from the pursuit of pleasure as an end. We treat people for doing something that makes them "happy" to the exception of all else (whether that be gambling, alcohol, drugs, etc.). I honestly think if there was a happiness pill we would consider treating people for taking it.

When I talk about doing something, I'm talking about what you do with what life throws at you. Everyone has different circumstances, but what is common is the ability to choose how we respond to those circumstances. Whether we make something (whatever that means to us) of what we are given or not.

Taking a happiness drug and checking out from the rest of life is deciding to do exactly nothing with what life has given us. And I honestly don't think most people would want that.

I'll end with a quote from Viktor Frankl's excellent book Man's Search For Meaning:

"By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning of his life, I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic "the self-transcendence of human existence." It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself--be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself--by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love--the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible only as a side-effect of self-transcendence."

I am sure I have butchered my own thoughts, but hopefully this helps make some sense of what I'm trying to say.

I believe I understand what you're saying, and in my gut I feel the same. But I wonder if that is something learned, something relative to the present condition of humanity. Civilization seems to hold itself together by a thread. But I think as long as resources are limited this is necessary, because the engine of evolution pushes individuals to be as efficient as possible with resource consumption and competition. In the struggle to survive, this is tempered only by the personal value of a civil society (e.g. less threat of violent death). So we live in constant tension between satisfying ourselves and making sure just enough is done to keep the whole race from self-destructing.

There are of course many who don't subscribe to these traits (at least not consciously). I believe most of them are subject to cultural belief systems that promote social cohesion and cooperation: the nobility (and intellectualism) of altruism, the teachings of compassion by many religions, the promise of a release from guilt by donating to charity.

But if society were certainly stable, then what is there for one to actualize toward? Perhaps it would be that other engine that propels us: Curiosity. But isn't the pursuit of one's curiosities primarily selfish?

Even if we just look at things that benefit society, stable is a long way from perfect. We would still need people dedicated to curing disease, improving education, etc.

Beyond that, there is creating art, raising children, forging and strengthening romantic bonds (it's very difficult to phrase the pursuit of love in way that emphasizes its potential other-centeredness), making people laugh, advancing knowledge in some field. All these things still have meaning in a stable society.

What is a meaningful life?

Let me put it another way: I think most people would rather do than be. What's meaningful obviously varies from person to person. What is much more constant is a dissatisfaction with a life devoid of impact on anything outside of oneself.

> "I think most people would rather do than be" I'm not too sure about this. I think it varies from culture to culture. There are some schools of thought where "being" is most exalted of all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com