How much money do you need to be happy?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Here's a thought. Perhaps they are building wealth not just for themselves, but to secure and embellish the lives of their kids and their kids' kids ad infinitium.

Isn't that one of the most basic of all human desires?

A big flaw in your ‘survival of the fittest’ based economic vision and therefore your notion of our desire to leave our legacy through our offspring and the resultant 'natural' competition that you see is it is based on a misinterpretation of genetics and natural selection.

When we reproduce, what is actually replicated is not 'us' but a more or less random selection of genes. We do not “own” these genes, we host them. Other hosts exist which contain the same genes. You may indeed share more genetic material with the Chawners than you care to imagine. For the genes you host to continue to exist does not require you as an individual to reproduce. The genetic “legacy” that I host will continue whether I individually choose to reproduce or not.

Having a baby is something of a genetic lottery, generating a random selection of genes, or 'numbers'. But these numbers are not created or selected by the host, they exist independently in other hosts and will continue to do so and be replicated so long as some of these hosts continue to reproduce.

There may be some delight afforded to parents in creating a lottery draw in which the new host (aka ‘baby’) demonstrates the replication of some of each of their genetic “numbers” – “He’s got your eyes / he’s got your nose”. But whether they do this or not these “numbers” will continue to replicate through other hosts.

So, bendix, our genetic legacy will contiune whether we have kids or not.

You view survival as requiring competition. In fact, for human genetic material to continue relies far more on co-operation. This may explain why many experience an endorphin payback when helping others. As you say, it is not necessarily ‘altruism’, they often get a kick, or boost, from the action of helping fellow beings. Likewise, the ethos of “women and children first” . For the human race (and therefore our genetic legacy) to continue it is more important for child-bearers and infants to survive than large numbers of men.

If you really want your entire genetic makeup to exist again in the same order the only way to do it is through cloning.

The real competition for genetic survival exists not between hosts but on the level of genes – which ones are dominant, which ones are recessive etc. And this is not something we have control over in the typical sperm meets ovum moment.

Interestingly, our knowledge of genetics is so rapidly advancing that we are increasingly able to control genetic selection. Perhaps, our ability to do this may even be superior to the flawed system of ‘natural selection’. Indeed, we may well see a day in which we are able to create a new Messiah – a perfect human, born of virgin birth whose existence heralds a new age in which Eternal Life (through genetic cloning and brain cell renewal) is possible.

mewbie_2

ninky wrote: »

Indeed, we may well see a day in which we are able to create a new Messiah – a perfect human, born of virgin birth whose existence heralds a new age in which Eternal Life (through genetic cloning and brain cell renewal) is possible.

And that day, my friend, has arrived. <takes a bow>

Conrad

donaldtramp wrote: »

We are all trying to outdo each other and for what real reason?

I feel the reason is deep seated and has a Darwinian explanation.
Our ancestors were organisms that fought for territory to secure food and shelter, be they Salamanders or Chimps. The alpha males were driven by the genetic impulse to procreate and pass on those genes safely. Alpha males secured the best territory and got the females.

Some fail to grasp we are pretty much entirley controlled by these deep impulses, afterall, thats why on impule most women process square shoulders and chin as astheticaly pleasing. They didn't 'make' that impulsive decision - it is forced upon them.

The modern alpha male continues to equate territorial dominance (work / private land) with power and superiority.

The trick is to rise above our reptillian mammalian instincts and use our processing power to recognise those feelings are just our genes at play. We can to an extent rise above these basic instincts, no?:o

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

ninky doesnt believe using historical perspective to prove arguments is valid. It's unhelpful, evidently, to point out that a combination of liberal democracy underpinned by free-market capitalism has enabled the vast majority of people from a life of poverty, hunger, poorhousing, disease and early death (Thomas Hobbes called man's life in the late 17th Century "nasty brutish and short") to one where even the poorest - her definition, not mine, although I accept it's all relative - are able to gorge on Chicken McNuggets while watching daytime tv.

Or perhaps it wasn't the profit motive, the advance of capitalism or anything like that, which generated (and financed) those advances.

Perhaps it was fairy dust.

The reason I see history as an unsatisfactory tool for examining the impact or desirability of political systems / ideologies is that it is scientifically flawed. There is no ‘control’, in the scientific sense of the world, to verify the results. It’s impossible to say with any certainty that if xyz hadn’t happened to a particular society xyz would have been the result.

Another reason is in the biased telling of narratives (in this case History). Working in television as I do, I am perhaps particularly wary of this. I am constantly manipulating narratives to tell stories (and I don’t just mean Queengate). You get the historical data in the form of shot footage (which has already been manipulated in the sense of direction and what we’ve selected to film) and edit it to make it tell a story - imposing causal relationships and emotional journeys on the whole shebang. So, for example, you start with hopeless punter X who doesn’t know how to dress / cook / eat / do DIY. In comes TV expert Y who does know how to dress / cook / eat / do DIY. Through a random selection of tasks X is re-educated and lives happily ever after. Of course, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

The same with history. You see the free market as having improved the lot of the masses. I could say, ”Look at the Victorians! They had a free market and children were still being sent up chimneys! No the real improvements to our lives have come through access to medical help and universal free education” (actually, I do say this). Our views of the past are further problematic because we weren’t there and so rely on the accounts of others to judge what it was like. I don’t know about you, but my idea of Victorian London is largely based on dramatic interpretations of Charles Dickens.

The only thing I can really rely on is my own history and experience. And in the sector I work in things have certainly not improved in terms of diversity, access, pay and working conditions, output or the maintenance of the ‘fourth estate’ functions of a free press / media. But perhaps more of that later.

Conrad

My main point is in the end I think will will outgrown are selfishness - Humans have only just emmerged relative to typical evolutionary species longevity.

I dont mind sucess, I dont mind wealth creation. What I think is pitiful is the entrapment of gross wealth by individuals. Paul McCartney cannot possibly need nearly a billion in personal wealth. He would be quite ok with say £2m in the Bank / income producing assets and the rest shared with fellow Humans.

Arcaine

Conrad wrote: »

My main point is in the end I think will will outgrown are selfishness - Humans have only just emmerged relative to typical evolutionary species longevity.

I dont mind sucess, I dont mind wealth creation. What I think is pitiful is the entrapment of gross wealth by individuals. Paul McCartney cannot possibly need nearly a billion in personal wealth. He would be quite ok with say £2m in the Bank / income producing assets and the rest shared with fellow Humans.

I kind of agree to your statement, but I feel there is one flaw in that argument, if we could limit peoples fortunes, say successful entrepeneurs/musicians/company directors. Would they continue to generate wealth/ideas and jobs just for other people if they themselves didn't benefit?

ninky_2

Conrad wrote: »

I feel the reason is deep seated and has a Darwinian explanation.
Our ancestors were organisms that fought for territory to secure food and shelter, be they Salamanders or Chimps.

again too much emphasis on the fighting. most survival is based on suitability to environment. unless food / territory is scarce (it hasn't been for humans until relatively recently - it's the finding and catching of it that requires the most effort) there isn't much point in wasting energy on fighting for it. i think most fighting has been by males over females. but if this fight happens to be over a woman whose dad was a bit of wuss in the ring then the fight won't guarantee warrior offspring.

ninky_2

Arcaine wrote: »

I kind of agree to your statement, but I feel there is one flaw in that argument, if we could limit peoples fortunes, say successful entrepeneurs/musicians/company directors. Would they continue to generate wealth/ideas and jobs just for other people if they themselves didn't benefit?

Many would I think. Others might not. In the case of some (Bono), this might be a blessing!

But what we would gain would be all the ideas / value etc that would be generated by those subsequently raised into a position of opportunity that did not exist for them before. And I believe this gain would far outweigh what was lost.

SailorSam

I can think of lots of other things i'd rather have than money.
And yes, happiness is one of them.

MrsE_2

moggylover wrote: »

But you see mitchaa - I really am NOT jealous and I don't believe that anyone that feels "the need" for those sort of "things" in life will ever actually be able to understand that and that is why they need to shout "jealousy".

I pity those that "need" rubbish in their lives to feel happy or "successful" but I honestly do not envy them because I simply consider most of what they have of absolutely no value.

I don't choose my friends by the car they drive, or the house they live in, or the labels on their clothes: I choose them because they make me laugh, because I enjoy talking to them and because they are kind or because we share interests! Their car and their house and their possessions tell me none of that - but a ready smile and a kind word speaks much more than your thousands or anyone elses millions.;)

As ever an intelligent post from you.

BUT I must confess, I need nice things about me. My home needs to be pleasing to my eye. I honestly think it would make me very depressed if it wasn't, but I get a lot of pleasure from decorating & improving my home.
I also get huge pleasure out of using mostly high end make up, skin care & perfume. Now I know the chances that it really IS better are slim, but the beautiful packaging, jars & bottles, the smells & texture, from them, all give me pleasure.
With clothes & that, I buy mid range mostly & some high end stuff (mostly got at bargain prices:money: , but I would be miserable if I had to shop in real basement clothes shops.

I hope that doesn't make me sound shallow, I don't judge others for what they have, I just get a huge kick out of possessions:o