Achieving Happiness Means Taking Care of People and the Environment in Which They Live
Bhutan (pictured here and below) was the first country in the world to appoint a minister of happiness and to measure gross domestic happiness. That’s kind of heart-warming, isn’t it?
Of course, measuring something is a good first step to obtaining more of that thing, but it raises the question: what actually does make people happy? Well, maybe we can back into this by naming a few of the things that clearly don’t make people happy: poor health, environmental decay/toxicity, homelessness, incarceration of selves and loved ones, war, poverty, injustice, illiteracy, crime, and discrimination.
It would seem that this points the way towards taking steps in the direction of happiness:
• Universal health care (like that enjoyed by the rest of the developed world)
• Environmental stewardship
• An end to mass incarceration via better public education and services that keep kids fed, well taken-care-of, and away from crime; also, institutions like Planned Parenthood that result in fewer unwanted children
• Bans on nuclear proliferation and a commitment not to wage aggressive wars
• The repeal of laws that promote corruption in government, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court decision “Citizens United”
• Better distribution of wealth (meaning no tax breaks for the super wealthy)
• Aggressive support for civil/human rights here and around the world
• A political atmosphere that is rooted in compassion and inclusion of people of all nationalities, races, and sexual preferences
Yes, there is a great deal of bloat and corruption in the U.S. government, but our county was headed in the right direction with respect to virtually every one of these points before November 8, 2016 (election day). I’m not sure people outside the U.S. understand how nightmarishly wrong this has been going over here since that point in time. For example, the current budget proposal for the federal government will cut funding for the arts, along with a program called “Meals on Wheels,” which provides food to impoverished elderly people. All these programs could be paid for if we could cut our president’s weekly vacations to his luxury resort in Florida and get him to live permanently at the White House. Again, it’s hard for people living elsewhere to comprehend how a (formerly) great country like ours could have been reduced to such selfishness and heartless cruelty in just a few months.
We need to turn this ship around, and we can do precisely that; it’s not too late.
Another shot of Bhutan:
Final note: It’s a good thing that the fine people of Bhutan don’t place too much value on tossing around a football on their front yards; judging from the photos, that would make them quite unhappy indeed.
Craig,
Ah yes, Bhutan, the setting for fabled Shangri-la ! Shangri-la is the mythical utopian vision described in James Hilton’s 1933 novel Lost Horizon and later Film. James Hilton was a student of Tibetan Buddhism and influenced by the traditional legend of Shambhala.
Sadly, reality is very different. Bhutan is not a very happy little country. The current Bhutan government embraces few of the ideals you itemize, and really only excels in propaganda.
The United Arab Emirates also has a Minister of Happiness, whom I sure is very happy.
Happiness is a very elusive commodity.
I should have been clear that my list applies to things the U.S. ought to be doing.
I also should have mentioned that I’m not asserting that the people of Bhutan are in fact happy–only that they’re aspiring to that ideal.
Craig,
” The people of Bhutan” , are no different than people everywhere in their desire to be happy. But like the people of the UAE, what does it really mean ?
Unless the aspiration translates into practical, measurable action, it remains just propaganda for the consumption of gullible Westerners.
The ideals you espouse are very vague and superficial. Many sound virtuous, but on closer examination the impracticalities, inconsistencies and deficiencies become apparent.
As an example, if in 1939 Great Britain had not decided to wage an aggressive war, Hitler’s genocidal regime would have continued unchallenged.
Like many American’s you seem to have a Walt Disney, Norman Rockwell, Babbit delusion of America and American society.
The US has always been a selfish, greedy, violent, aggressive, hypocritical contradictory nation. It’s a nation born of greed and injustice, with a Constitution that embodies the highest ideals of the age of enlightenment aimed at creating an illusion.
In reality, US history is one of aggressive expansion, injustice and violence ans the principle method of resolving disputes.
What you write about the U.S. is unfortunately quite true. But here’s the point: Some of us want to change it for the better. It’s really just that simple. Some of us actually care about the world around us and the people who live in it. The only way improvement is made is people’s coming on board to pushing it to change. “Power concedes nothing without a fight.” (F. Douglass)
Craig,
“Power concedes nothing without a fight.”
Yes indeed. However, very often this simply means transferring power, from one group to another.
Whether this is an improvement, is very subjective and depends on the allegiance of the observer.
I believe that peace is better than war, love is better than hate, health is better than disease, and freedom is better than tyranny–and that decent people should be pushing our society in these “better” directions. To say that these “better” conditions are subjective is a very fringe viewpoint indeed.
Craig,
“better” conditions are subjective is a very fringe viewpoint indeed”.
Craig, setting aside your simplistic platitudes, you did provide a tangible example of your assertion.
Unfortunately, through a lack of research you chose a violently repressive society adept at propaganda to serve as an example of enlightenment.
What’s next? The “Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the equally misnamed “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ” should serve as enlightened examples because they include the word “Democratic” in their titles ?
The truth is often awkward and “fringe”, but nice platitudes and comforting myths are better suited to aspiring Beauty Contestant’s “wanting to work for world peace” than serious thinkers.
Craig this post seems to stem from the same root as a philosophical question which asks “how could a god who is all love and compassion allow suffering in this world.”
Sometimes if we change the scale things become more clear. How could a parent who loves their child allow bad things to happen to that child.
“Occasionally” teenagers will not listen to their parents. At that time some may console themselves with the wisdom that sometimes people just have to experience things for themselves before they can learn. Perhaps the parallel to our society is not so strained.
Wow, that’s an interesting viewpoint. If you were right, i.e., that society learns from its mistakes, say, fascist governments, I would think we’d have fewer of them in today’s world than we had in the past. Sadly, I see no evidence of that at all.
What’s happening in the U.S. is a good example, but it’s not the only one on Earth. Right-wing extremists are receiving all kinds of support in many countries in Europe, for example.
In terms of your comment about a loving God, you may want to check this out: https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html
Craig, I take up the challenge of your “interesting” comment below. To avoid the philosophical discussion you can skip to *** below. Bertrand Russel seems to assume the superiority of reason as a premise for his declaration and analysis. While it is true that questioning the Divine proceeding from the assumption of a “loving God” can as also be viewed as a “logical argument,” the perspective like your presentation seems a bit more based upon “belief” than the philosopher’s reasoning. Perhaps Russel would call that a “first principal,” as he emphasizes the reasoning process. In the update of his book “How to read a book” (1972 edition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Read_a_Book Mortimer Adler made a distinction between reading texts that are part of your belief system and those that may be more strictly academic. I suspect Russel would not agree to that separation. Later in life Adler seems to have allowed the pursuit of essence of happiness along with his recommendations of essential reading.
For someone who “likes” to delve into such things here is more on the distinction between Russel and Adler https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html Here is Adler with his nuanced discussion of belief vs reason: https://www.scribd.com/book/224432657/How-to-Think-About-God
I consider both belief and reason valid modes of discovery that can be full of traps to the unsuspecting and unwary. Problems are frequently encountered when applying the wrong technique to a situation. Also it seems dull but all too common to be limited by the “dogmatic” exclusive application of one or the other. It seems a worthwhile exercise to ask after a logical conclusion “if this makes sense.” Conversely it seems appropriate to question the reasonableness of a “belief.”
Failing to include this wider scope of what it means to be human ultimately leads to many of the problems you outline and erupts in problems with our “happiness.”
*********
To your wider point that we seem to be repeating the same mistakes, I might point out that any group effort (like a trek up a mountain and by extension social progress) seems to be slowed by the progress of the weakest members. To some extent civilization has replaced elements of natural selection and tends to support some weakness that might otherwise be culled from society. There seems to be a human need for leadership and a tendency to concentrate power there. If the ones learning all the lessons are not the ones dictating social direction (the weakest members) then social progress is going to be limited. For thousands of years our society has rewarded and promoted the most economically successful. This has had the predictable effect of (“selecting” and) advancing society economically while demanding sacrifice from the masses. The cry that we can’t consider climate change because we must consider our economy may almost be the primordial cry of our civilization’s form of “natural selection.”
We have been promoting the wealthy regardless of other deficiencies for leadership. If now we wish to promote social happiness then we need to re-engineer who we promote to leadership. We think we can just achieve economic prosperity and then “attach happiness.,” Because we are conservative and don’t want to let go of what we have. Instead consider an analogy with an automotive transmission. When switching gears there is a period of time with a “standard” transmission where you must disengage the engine, pass through neutral before you resume progress.
But unlike the analogy of the family, which is essentially autocratic, we have shifted to democratic institutions. You are not going to let your kids play in the street, but like a teenager we don’t accept a wise parent looking out for our best interests. While historically the church had an influence, Western society moved from “worshiping the Lord” to “Lord of the Flies.” We talk about the “rule of law” but the politics of power continues to plague our social progress. “Happiness” is not generally a priority. As we continue to destroy our environment we may even be thrown back into “survival” mode from our present aggregate economic prosperity. Democracies can do some things well. Shifting gears is not one of them.
So if society is to “learn from its mistakes” it has to be more than an individual event. Individuals can have and impact but we also have a lot of people going up this mountain. It is likely not going to happen overnight or perhaps even in a generation. I suspect it will come as a social understanding similar to issues like the rights of women, the use of torture, or capital punishment a several thousand year very slow progress full of many missteps and backward turns. It will come because an army of dedicated people believe in something better, support each other, avoid becoming bitter and disheartened and continue to promote their “beliefs” perhaps beyond what can “reasonably” be expected.
You bring up many good points here.
I remember when Trump first came on the political scene. I called my mother and asked, “When did we abandon the idea that the president of the U.S. needed to be a good person? I’m not asserting that the 44 were, in fact, good people in any meaningful sense of the word, but at least we thought they were when we elected them. Don’t we have a problem that this guy is a rude, fraudulent, pathological liar?”
The answer, apparently, is no. IMO, that’s the real issue here. Trump is not the problem; he’s a symptom of the problem that 62 million Americans really couldn’t care less that our leader is a terrible human being.
I happen to be a parent who favors letting his kids experience the consequences of their own decisions. But there is a limit, obviously. I didn’t let them play in traffic; i.e., I didn’t let them do anything the consequences of which could be lethal. I think this is a fair analogy to where we are today. We’re teetering on the edge of fascism and mass extinction via environmental damage.
Craig,
Your interpretation of the term “fascism” is interesting. In recent years “fascism’ tends to be defined by it’s enemies, rather than it’s proponents.
Benito Mussolini defined fascism as;
” The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing. Outside of the state no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values ie; interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of the people”
Interestingly, the same political philosophy can be found in all communist rhetoric.
In recent decades the term “fascist” has lost all meaning and simply become an emotive term of abuse for the left to describe any political opposition that may frustrate their ambition to impose a political-ideological agenda of their likeing.
Populism as interpreted by President Trump and his supporters, requires the consent of the people to allow executive action.
If anything, in a muddled sort of way, and possibly unintentionally, the Trump administration is disolving the increase in executive power promoted by his predecessor, and returning executive power back to the legislature and through them to the US people.
This would appear to make a nonsense of your claim of “teetering on the edge of fascism” !
As for “mass extinction” , well that’s another topic ! It’s all too easy to make doomsday predictions which never materialize. The predictions are hard to absolutely disprove since the future is unpredictable.
So as a conclusion questioning our happiness is a valid consideration that maintains our individual and social compass, a great post that is appropriate in times of change, along with fantastic pictures, but if we rightly consider that climate change will demand some relatively short term adjustments or overall failure then we will need to severely narrow our focus. Those efforts that can be viewed as “course corrections” rather than a shift in the direction of society will be far easier to achieve. This is why shifting to alternative energy “because it is economically viable” will be a far easier sell then because it will “increase our happiness,” regardless of the fact that it may well do both.
I know, “course correction” and “shift in the direction of society” sounds very much like it could be the same thing. The fact that one is used scientifically and suggests something minor and the other socially with potentially major consequences will certainly be lost for any ESL readers. Probably could have come up with a better choice of words.
Sounds like we have to suffer through the agony of Trump to realize how good things were. It may unfortunately take a long time and effort to simply get back to before Trump.
Trump actually enjoys all the inanity which he is causing. He and some of the very wealthy will benefit greatly. The vast majority of those that voted for him will be very disappointed or even greatly hurt by his policies. It is too late for them to change their vote.
California is trying on its own to stay on track for the happiness we seek. There are bills already be proposed to save as much of our environmental progress, our health coverage progress and our general welfare progress. California represents almost 1/8th of the population of the USA, and an even higher percentage of the wealth of the nation.
It is too bad that we have to send so much of our taxes to the Federal government when we receive so little of it back in Federal aid. But we can feel good about helping out the poor and downtrodden in the rest of the nation, they will need as much help as they can get.
Hi Readers
I am going to side with Craig’s post for a simple reason, if you wish to go or get somewhere, then you need to start heading in that direction … Whether we end up where we wish to go or do not, each step towards that goal means that incrementally we are getting closer to achieving it and each step changes the status quo.
I deliberately kept out of the Democrat and Republican 2016 election war with my comment and actions, instead I tried to understand what was happening … I suspect now, that the current emerging pro-business attitude risks a “business as usual” ideology on steroids, something that brings other challenges and concerns.
I would argue, that pro-business must be reminded that it can either be beneficial or harmful and it is my hope that making humanity stronger, healthier and wiser will better enable it to meet and address the many future challenges which should be the objective of any society. Business has a significant role in making this happen.
I also applaud the civil discourse that I see on Craig’s blog and that the readers/commenters seem not to be binary in their thought.
Hi Craig,
It’s been a long time since I’ve commented, or even checked, on your posts. Sorry. (Too busy here working on things to improve the longer-term outlook of the business, which I’m happy to report is more optimistic again.)
But I was fascinated by the title of this post, and had to check in. And I should say you’re doing a great job, as usual.
But I think one important requirement for happiness wasn’t addressed quite as clearly as needed (though it was embedded in several points), and that is freedom from fear of destitution.
As a life-long struggling small businessman, I know something about that firsthand. Coming from a large family in the lower quintile economically, I know that this fear can easily put people (even if grounded in a strong faith) in mental institutions, or worse. I suspect this type of fear was a factor that caused many good white folks to vote for someone they knew was a pathological liar, as they saw no hope in a continuation of what they had been dealing with for years. The percent of the population dealing personally with this level of fear may be small, but it also affects the happiness of their extended families.
So the bottom line is that there must be a stronger safety net – one that guarantees no person or family need ever fear of being on the street, hungry, and begging.
Of course, doing that would cost less than just the increase Trump wants for defense.
Thanks so much for checking in, Dr. Doty. You make an excellent point. I didn’t know you came from a poor family; what you’ve accomplished given that is all the more impressive.
I’ve never had a corporate job; I’ve been entrepreneur all my adult life, and yes, I know how terrifying it can be. I still have nightmares that I have a huge payroll to make and no way to accomplish that.
Your explanation of how good white folks could vote for a man they knew to be a pathological liar is astute; I’m sure that’s a big reason. It’s a tragedy that they’ll be hurt, in general, far worse than Trump’s detractors.
I’m sure you’re aware of the discussion around a guaranteed minimum income. Given the current ethos in the U.S., I’d say the probability of such a thing has taken a terrible turn for the worse, but the whole zeitgeist can change quickly. Great to hear from you.
Btw, so glad to hear the business is doing well.
It is not correct or fruitful to debate ‘happiness’ without at least some awareness of what Gautam Buddha discovered and taught. IMHO, he had got it right.
FWIW, I agree with you 100%. In the absence of enlightenment, there is only transient happiness. We can always imagine, and thus wish for, a bigger house, a prettier girl, etc.
Certainly the “enlightened one” is a fount of wisdom on happiness. An “awareness” of his “discoveries and teachings” can be a step in our own path. When we start with Bhutan tribute should be paid, but is he the only source of wisdom? I am not sure even he would agree that his is the only way.
Craig, you could be very right here. It reminds me of a phrase attributed to T Jefferson: “The people usually get the government they deserve.” Could he have been that cynical?
Breath,
Erudite reflections on the teachings of philosophers, is all very well and no doubt satisfying as an individual pursuit.
However, when you propose social engineering on the basis of these philosophical musings, that becomes a very different proposition.
Bhutan is very poor example for any society. In reality, philosophers, ancient and modern, live exceedingly self-indulgent lives supported by the hard work, sacrifice and achievement of those whose values they admonish !
Social engineering experiments, especially those which ignore economic realities inevitably result in a great deal of human misery, not an increase in happiness.
The creation of economic wealth requires aspiration and perspiration. Without wealth and prosperity no society can achieve “happiness” let alone the delusion of “enlightenment”.
Bathing in the Ganges will not cure tuberculosis,( but it may give you a whole new raft of diseases !), any more than giving money to a TV faith healer !
To cure disease, eliminate poverty, provide education, requires hard work and diligence. The security of economically prosperous societies is only enabled by the development of modern technology.
That technology come at a price. The price is an industrial society of ever increasing complexity and diversity.
The yearning for a “wise parent” whether that be a Deity, philosophical teachings, “great man” political ideology, or even “Mother Nature” , is common among those who lack the moral courage to be responsible for their own destiny.
Oliver Evans,Nicolas Appert John Harington, Thomas Crapper, Joseph Gayetty,Hubert Cecil Booth, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Nikolaus Otto,Alva J. Fisher. Procter & Gamble,Felix Hoffmann, William Talbot,Sir Thomas Allen, Daryl Chapin, Calvin Fuller, and Gerald Pearson, all of whom are just a tiny pecentage of a vast list of little known individuals and organizations, all of whom stand along side the great and famous scientists, engineers and inventors.
These individuals have genuinely increased human happiness and created tangible wealth and prosperity for billions.
They have released humans from poverty and disease, lifted mankind from ignorance and brutality, allowed social progress on a scale inconceivable in their own lifetimes.
Felix Hoffmann and Edward Jenner did more to increase human happiness than all the philosophers, western or eastern put together !
Individuals have every right to follow whatever philosophy, or combination of philosophies, they choose for personal satisfaction, but in doing so they shouldn’t slip into the hypocrisy of ignoring the only reason they are free to do so, is by virtue of the efforts of a society made up of practical achievers who created the security and prosperity they take for granted.
Socrates is often cited as a great philosopher contributing to human enlightenment. In reality he. like Jefferson, was able to indulge his thoughts because his material needs were produced from the arduous work of his slaves !
Perhaps more appreciation of the individuals in the list I provided, whose efforts contribute to our happiness in our everyday lives, might prove more productive than the self indulgent ramblings of philosophers.
Marco, Perhaps I somehow suggested a course of action without being conscious of it? I think rather I was describing a bit of history and its results today and pondering that if we wanted different results a different formula might be required. That is two steps not one.
Much of the balance of your comment could “be summarized by the theme: “happiness will not grant economic prosperity.” This turns that adage “money can’t buy you happiness on its head and although somewhat accurate, in this context, also seems to be a lonely figure stuffed with a great deal of straw. Perhaps if you burned that straw man instead of simply knocking it down it would cast a bit of illumination on the argument.
But for your benefit I will restate it more simply. Our society is constructed to build economic wealth. This is legitimately a cornerstone in survival. It demands sacrifice of individuals. None of this should be shocking or objectionable.
If a goal of general “happiness” is to be elevated it may require a different construct and not only an attachment to our present institutions. Would that have consequences, undoubtedly, but that is not my point, because I was never advocating that as a goal. Instead of “happiness” we could choose “health” “genetic engineering of the species” “expansion of the species into multiple worlds” or “spiritual enlightenment” as our overall social goals and all would have consequences as does our present goal of expanding economic wealth.
Perhaps somewhere you have heard that “we don’t know what a society not based upon economic growth would look like.” I simply find that interesting. Without that would we be happier would we be more enlightened? Would we be dead? Maybe all three 😉
Breath,
The expression, “Money can’t buy you happiness”, should be qualified by the phrase, “but lack of money will buy you misery” !
Any society needs economic growth to be sustainable. That’s the foundation of all human societies. (Margaret Mead got it wrong).
Pondering what a society not based upon economic growth would look like, is impossible. Either they society would not exist, or be simple hunter-gatherers, existing at the suffrage of more advanced societies.
At some point, some one has to do the work. All the great anti-materialist philosophers only existed due to the hard work of those they despised.
Unfortunately, every Utopia has it’s Morlocks !:)
Marco, I can’t explain a three dimensional world to a two dimensional being. Until you are not convinced that “money = happiness” there is not a whole lot that can or perhaps should be said. You are not alone. There are many who completely believe this equation.
Unlike many of the world’s religions and other “truth seekers” I am very reluctant to interrupt this belief. I don’t have their ulterior motives.
But you have also posed a question which should be addressed. You have suggested that a “lack of money = misery.” For many this seems to be the case. But just sometimes we are looking at two factors and combining them and in that combination confusing one with the other. Lets look at a specific example. If my upmost heart’s desire is to own a car, but I lack the money for a purchase this could likely lead to being miserable. By cutting out bits of this sentence you could come back to your “lack the money and miserable.” However if instead I just won the top price at a raffle and won the car I might be “happy” again. In this narrow example then it wasn’t the lack of money but the lack of ownership which seemed to be making me miserable.
But hold on, my good friend has no interest in a car and instead dearly wanted a vacation to Australia so she could see the cute kangaroos. We could go through the same game winner scenario to point out that money is not really the common element for initial misery or ultimate satisfaction. Rather it might also be clear that I am not miserable at not seeing the roos in their native environment and she is not miserable without my car. So the object of desire is also not significant. That brings us down to the only remaining element. Unfulfilled desire = misery.
There are two solutions to this conundrum. The first set about satisfying every desire and as a corollary doing all that is necessary to acquire the means to satisfy every desire. This is a powerful incentive for wealth building and a society based upon economic growth, but it does have a problem. Based as it is upon satisfying desires and due to the inheritant nature of desires to constantly change and grow larger there is no ultimate satisfaction, but there is an ever increasing demand for more means to satisfy desire or a growing “misery.” It is addictive and in a word hedonistic. That is the world in which we live, not too happy.
There is another path. That is to limit desires. Without the desire that is unfulfilled “misery” is equally limited. This world would be fairly shocking to most in western society accustomed as we are to the constant promotion of desires in all forms of media and society. Desire is so ingrained in our society that we train toddlers with the line “Do you like the red one or the blue one.” But there are religious communities that have intentionally isolated themselves and some people who by circumstances find themselves more isolated. We could easily characterize such existence as “miserable” but I suspect part of that would be injecting our own standards upon different communities.
And so I come to your suggestion that, “Any society needs economic growth to be sustainable. That’s the foundation of all human societies.”
There is lots of material here. First “human” is just one kind of society in the wide world. Secondly “economic growth” in a world with limited resources is by definition not “sustainable.”
Most societies in the world will grow to balance with available renewable resources. Bees colonies will grow and if highly successful will divide to exploit separate areas. Population will grow or die off as necessary. The same has been true for most of human history (and pre-history) As a highly adaptive species we have made almost every environment work for us. So there are plenty of examples of societies that are living sustainable, sometimes growing and sometimes dying off. But there are probably not too many bees that want a car. Desire doesn’t seem to play too much of a role.
But we have also developed mining. In the last several hundred years we have discovered lots of ways to use Coal, oil and natural gas. Fertilizer, pesticides and medicines made from these have enabled us to feed increasing numbers of people while avoiding some of the consequences of overpopulation.
From 1500 breeding pairs until now we have had a long run. Perhaps as one type of resource becomes problematic or depleted we will proceed to new technologies. It we don’t or can’t then we will once again have to face the rules of nature and the population will have to match the available renewable resources. Our never ending growth economic model will come to a halt and we will find ourselves in a period of population correction.
The choices are 1. party till we drop…live like there is no tomorrow. 2. find some community in which to practice sustainability and to practice austerities 3. some middle path that tries to discover and implement the lessons we have learned likely using some new technologies with some new social constructs and some new attitudes along with possibly a reduction in population or an expansion of territory and resources.
Breath,
Thank you for taking the time to present such a detailed and fascinating reply.
Much of that you have written contained profound wisdom and is obviously the product of careful deliberation.
It’s true individual, and even groups of humans, eschew material wealth and security for a more aesthetic lifestyle based on spiritual or a desire for a simple life away from the dynamics of civilization.
It could be argued that these individuals and groups are happier than their contemporaries among the general population, but the old cliche “the exception proves the rule comes to mind”.
Could these communities really survive if not protected by a organized social structure ensuring their existence ?
When humans learned to harness fire, they freed themselves forever from the restrictions of nature. Human technology and wealth creation is boundless.
Wealth ceased to be based on agricultural or resource production thousands of years ago. Human wealth is not arithmetically calculated by production of the same commodities, but the diversity of products mostly of human creativity.
This is what allows for the endless expansion of human economies.
Are humans even meant to be “happy” ? I would argue that humans (as a species) are only happy when facing challenges. We are the ultimate curious monkeys ! An aggressive, quarrelsome species determined to continue exploring the mysteries of the Universe and overcoming all adversity.
We’re not bees, we’re humans! It’s our nature to find our own destiny and while some humans may find the aspiration of utopia appealing, in reality humans are far too quarrelsome/creative to find bliss appealing.
But, that’s just my opinion.
After looking over what was written I noticed with a smile that the “Morlocks” of HG Wells “Time Machine” you referenced as essential for society were also the miners of that society (besides being cannibals.)
I also referred mining as an element that sets humans apart from other animal societies that are more in natural balance with sustainable societies.
Much of what I have written is not original but adapted from ancient texts for a contemporary comment.
Breath,
Well, that doesn’t alter my assessment, after all it takes a great deal of careful deliberation to decide on poring over ancient texts in a quest for wisdom. 🙂
I wonder if the Morlocks considered themselves “cannibals” or a different species ?
I’m afraid, ol’ HG, although a brilliant writer, wasn’t a very nice human being.
He completely misunderstood the science of Darwin, instead developed pseudo scientific theories based on outlandish interpretations and distortions.
HG extreme eugenics. He advocated the moral duty of strong to kill or subjugate the weak. He despised pity and benevolence advocating the extermination of the diseased, deformed and insane, together with the elimination or enslavement of, “those swarms of blacks, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people”.
In Wells Utopia, enslavement must always be cruel and harsh as the act of brutal subjugation of the weak by the strong was good moral training for creating a race of super men capable ruling paradise.
Toward the end of his life, Wells added aspects of socialism to his weird mix,while paradoxically not abandoning his other beliefs.
It’s therefore little surprise Wells ended his life a bitter, frustrated individual, concluding “mankind is ultimately doomed and that its prospect is not salvation, but extinction ” ,
He was, like many, afraid of the uncertainties and insecurity of freedom and diversity. All utopian writers, whether Marxist or James Hilton, try to freeze human progress into a “safe’ paradigm.
Human existence isn’t a destination, but a never ending journey.