GDP and Happiness

Our society almost universally holds the following assumption to be true: as the standard of living increases (based on objective measures), the overall happiness of society will increase.  Why?  Because we assume that a higher GDP will give humans the time, safety, health, and freedom to pursue self-actualization through reflection, community, and creativity.

But in modern industrial societies, this is not what has generally happened. 

The tradeoffs inherent in improving the standard of living have often made life more miserable (e.g. constantly working a miserable job to sustain the expenses of modern life).  Instead of meeting our basic needs in terms of food, shelter, safety, and health, and then moving on to higher levels of actualization and living, our society has merely ramped up our desire to fulfill the never-ending naught of our basic needs.  Bigger houses.  Better food.  Better technology.  Better vacations.  Better distractions.   

Part of the problem is biological – we live in a society of abundance, yet our primal desires remain the same.  But I want to focus on a different point.  I want to present the following idea: All else being equal, ceteris paribus, once the standard of living hits a certain basic point (adequately fulfilling our need for food, shelter, safety, and health), increasing the objective standard of living will make people unhappier.

There are a number of reasons for this (e.g. evolutionary and biological reasons), but I want to focus on the problems of “contentedness” and “awareness” as the standard of living increases. 

In a large, interconnected society with a massive diversity of goods and ways to achieve status, people’s awareness of what they don’t have and what other people do have makes it very difficult for the everyday person to ever be content.  There is always something more.  The millionaire wants a private jet he can’t afford.  The senator wants to be president.  And so forth.

There become so many different ways to achieve temporary sensory satisfaction that life becomes a series of never-ending micro-goals with no conception of the overall goal and purpose.  The rat-race becomes more intense and competitive.  Things, people, music, cars, movies, tv, language, continually move faster.     

The benefits of technology are constantly heralded, and, rightfully so.  But advances in technology and economic efficiency with no purpose or aim are meaningless and often dangerous.  Instead of increasing our freedom, we increasingly become slaves to the endless complications and desires brought upon by a wealthier and more advanced society.

            The problems in our lives, contrary to what we may think, are generally not material but rooted in our recurring modes of behavior and thought patterns.  Our constant striving is more often a diversion than a solution. 

The economic recession is an opportunity to reevaluate the ways in which we organize our society.  Instead of using technology as a tool for continual economic growth, technology should be used as a tool for meeting our basic needs quickly and efficiently so that we have the freedom to organize our lives in a meaningful way. 

It’s time to slow down.  Less work.  Less stress.  Less goods.  Smaller houses.  Real interactions.  Real communities.            

Value, Competition, and Purpose

          I want to make a point about value.  Namely, what we value will always be some sort of combination of our intrinsic desires mixed with the object we value’s external exclusivity and rarity.  The intrinsic aspect will be the result of our hard-wiring and conscious choices while the external aspect will be contained in physical realities (e.g. limited resources) and group perception (the extent to which we conceptually label something as exclusive or worthwhile).

          Competition helps us determine value by breaking things into hierarchies.  Once we’ve determined what the competition is about and what the “rules” are, we can sort out the best and the worst (to more or less exactitude depending on the nature of the competition and the rules).

          This is important for two reasons: (1) it helps explain why we take so much pleasure in sports or games (in the broadest sense of the word), and (2) it helps explain why creating a meaningful philosophy of life is difficult.

          In terms of point (1), games make the objective clear, and we take pleasure in this clarity of purpose and clarity in determining value.  More or less, the rules of a given game are listed and understood, the “winners” and “losers” are objectively defined, and we can determine rank within a large hierarchy depending on what exactly we are choosing to value. 

          Point (2) is inextricably linked with point (1).  In other words, there are no clear “rules” in life nor is there a clear “game” to be played.  It is unclear who or what is valuable and how you can determine value in a term as broad as “living.”  Sports and games bring us the clarity of purpose and value we’re looking for on a micro-level but don’t supply us with much on the macro-level.

          Some people, almost always unconsciously, have defined their philosophy of life in macro-terms similar to the rules of a “game.”  Their purpose may be something as simple as “money” or “sex.”  These viewpoints can easily be regarded as shallow, but at least they do supply the person with some sort of sense of overall purpose and meaning (and maybe that’s better than defining no clear meaning at all). 

          A philosophy of “love” may certainly be important and ethical, but the term itself seems too amorphous to really be a guiding force (as compared to something as concrete as “money”).  Even if you’re main goal or purpose is to love and treat everyone kindly, it still doesn’t answer the question of how you exist at 2PM on a Tuesday. 

          If the default modern materialistic viewpoints were in fact making people happy, there wouldn’t be too much to quibble about.  But it hardly seems to be the case that the everyday successful person in modern America is roaring with joy. 

          Given our discussion of value, this doesn’t seem surprising.  Once you continually have the things you want, they are no longer rare and thus less valuable.  Hence the depression of the trust-fund kid or child-star – eventually a Mercedes is just a car, a five star restaurant is just basic sustenance, sleeping with a supermodel is just another activity.  Having an iPhone in 1999 would be unbelievable (how rare!).  Having the same iPhone as the guy to next to you on a plane is neither good nor bad – it’s functional.

          By objective standards (food, shelter, healthcare), the living conditions of the average American in 2011 are considerably better than the average American in 1811.  But are people happier?  Are we working less?  Are the people with the most time for leisure and most disposable income the happiest? 

          Going back full circle, if value is contained in rarity and our desires, and what we desire is material, modern man will not work less but work more as technology improves.  This is because modern man will be driven to create value for themselves through material competition for money, goods, and status.  As the world becomes more global and interconnected, the desire to be at the top of the totem pole will be greater than ever (through sheer awareness of others “value”) and loftier than ever (a very rare slice of people will have an incredible amount of wealth and power).

          The people at the bottom will be upset with not having the things at the top, and the people at the top will be unhappy because the things they sought are no longer rare and thus stripped of much value.  The people striving in the middle at least have something to aim for (the top), but it’s unlikely that materialistic striving equates with happiness.  

Fear of Failure

               A fear of failure is rarely based on the actual negative consequences that may result from failing.  Similar to any type of phobia, a strong fear of failure is generally the result of actively avoiding that phobia i.e. avoiding the experience of failure.  For example, if you are afraid of heights, you experience relief every time you avoid situations of high altitude.  Problematically, this reinforces your phobia and makes it even worse than before.  Why?  Because when you encounter phobia "X" and avoid phobia "X," you experience relief in fleeing phobia "X" because nothing bad ultimately occurs.  Thus, next time you encounter phobia "X," your first instinct will be to repeat your usual action - avoidance - and feel relief.  To get over a fear of heights, spiders, etc., you need to repeatedly face that fear head-on.  Through continual exposure, you will realize that the risk is minimal and nothing bad will likely happen.   The fear will slowly subside and eventually disappear.

               In everyday life, people often avoid taking action and risks because they fear the dangers of failure.  From an evolutionary perspective, this attitude makes sense.  Prehistoric man needed to avoid a number of situations to survive -- his fear was very genuine and real.  But the things people avoid now – mainly social and economic risks – are rarely, if ever, life threatening.  Most modern day fears are completely artificial (in terms of physical and mental danger).  Would it really be that bad to speak up in a public forum?  What could happen?  If you ask somebody out and they say “no,” so what?  If you lose your job (especially if you do not have a family), is this really the end of the world? 

               Instead of avoiding failure, you need to constantly take risks and experience failure.  Continually experiencing failure will result in two tangible benefits: (1) you will realize that failing isn't actually that bad and (2) you will reap the benefits of taking more chances i.e. more successes and experiences.  Those who have failed the most are often the most confident because they realize failure isn’t that bad.  Things will be okay; failing merely creates another opportunity.  Constant excuses are often empty rationalizations rooted in fear.

              Many people spend their whole lives waiting for a time when there won’t be a lot of risk, or they reach point “X” in their life.  This is a fool’s game.  Point “X” will never be as good as you thought it would be.  If you haven’t dealt with your philosophy of life, you will just find something new to worry about and consume your existence.  There is no “end game” or “ultimate point” in life.  The key is to enjoy the process and embrace the risk; understand that you can handle chaos and things falling apart.  This will free you to take the good with the bad and not constantly "cling on" to life with both hands shaking.  

  *Disclaimer: All of this assumes the “risks” you are taking are not inordinately dangerous to your health or safety.  But this is certainly not to say that you should avoid all risks to your health or safety.  Better to live a full, short life than a long, wasted life.

Epicureanism

Many of life’s difficulties are contained in the seeming contradictory nature of things.  To truly enjoy something, you need to “buy-in” and immerse yourself in the experience.  But this can be dangerous – too much attachment to something with too little perspective can lead to confusion and angst.  Same with relationships.  For human relationships to be worthwhile, you need to genuinely care and be committed to the relationship.  But this can lead to neediness and desperation that will ultimately ruin a relationship and not make it worthwhile.  Same with jobs.  You need to love and care about what you do while simultaneously knowing you will be “fine” if you were to be fired.

A sort of one foot in-the-door/one-foot-out dynamic is often criticized, but it certainly has its advantages.  The Epicurean view, contrary to modern linguistic usage, was not one of pure hedonism.  Whereas many of the Stoics rejected attending the great pleasures of a “feast,” the Epicurean view was that it is fine to attend and enjoy the feast, just don’t need the feast.  Or, more specifically, don’t let your internal happiness be determined by whether you attend the feast or not, but, simultaneously, be willing to enjoy the sensory pleasures of the feast.

How much can a person really enjoy something without feeling that they need it?  Or, in other words, can you truly experience great pleasure and feelings if you’re not all-in (where the thought of losing object x, job x, person x is unimaginable)?  Does the sort of moderation required to not need things result in a life not worth living (a life without enough passion, pain, and triumph)?  

Thoughts on the New App “Color”

A new app called “Color” was recently released.  For those of you who don’t know what Color is, here’s a rough summary of how the app works.  Essentially, any photo taken while using Color is immediately placed onto the public domain.  Any person using Color and within a 150 foot radius of your location can see the photos you are currently taking.  And, obviously, you can see the photos taken by anyone else using Color within a 150 foot radius.  These photos are then put into a “timeline” so you can see what is going on around you in photographic form. 

Ideally, you could open this app at a concert and see hundreds of photos taken by people of themselves and the events around them.  It creates an instant storybook of all events as they take place.

Silicon Valley is going wild over this idea.  Color quickly raised 41 million dollars and is being hailed as the future of social media.   

While I love the concept of Color, I have some concerns about its potential viability logistically and conceptually.

The popularity of Color hinges on it being used by nearly everybody.  If there aren’t numerous people within your radius taking pictures, there’s nothing to do on Color, and there’s no point of going on it.  The question becomes: how does Color get a large percentage of the country on their app in a short period of time? 

Facebook and Twitter had specific advantages for recruiting a social base that Color does not have.  Facebook was able to use colleges to create exclusivity – this allowed them to expand slowly (in relative terms) but expansively.  Furthermore, Facebook didn’t immediately depend on having millions of people using their program – all Facebook needed was the student body at a given college, which, given the social dynamics of campus life, wasn’t hard to get.  On Color, to make it actually worthwhile, millions of people will have to use it to create large scale use (because of the 150 foot radius requirement).  Color can’t expand piecemeal.

Twitter had the distinct advantage of celebrity for building a social base.  They were able to recruit celebrities (who realized Twitter’s potential marketing value) and then large scales of people joined to follow those celebrities.  Without the celebrity aspect of Twitter, there would be no viable way for them to create such a large social network.

Another problem I see with Color is that it is exclusively a smartphone based product.  Whereas Twitter and Facebook are used on computers and smartphones alike (and most often on computers), Color will be used mainly (if not only) on smartphones.  The problems with this are numerous. 

(1) Most social media usage is still ultimately computer based, not smartphone based.  Color relies on people taking photos with their smartphone and looking at other people’s photos in real time.  Even if people later go back and look at the photograph “timelines” from Color on their computers, computer access will not be Color’s primary or essential usage. 

(2) Looking at photos on smartphones is frustrating.  Even with the extremely high resolution of the iPhone 4, it still isn’t the same as looking at photos on your computer.  Have you ever used the Facebook app for looking at photos?  It’s terrible.

  (3) Advertising.  Advertising on smartphone based apps does not bring in nearly the revenue that advertising on social media websites does.  People don’t click, surf the web, and purchase on their smartphones like they do on their computers.

Do I think Color will be successful?  I don’t know – it depends on how the founder and investors of Color answer these problems.  Most importantly, they need to find a way to entice huge amounts of people to use their app virtually overnight.  I’m not sure if marketing alone will be enough.  Even if Color advertised at all large scale social events (such as sporting events, conventions, etc.), I don’t think this would bring the necessary numbers Color needs.  Some might argue that word of mouth will be enough.  I don’t think this is true because people are impatient – if they download Color and nobody else around them is taking pictures and using it, they’ll delete it and/or forget it even exists.

Color may have some adapting to do.  I think the idea is sound, but I don’t know if it has the legs to be successful on its own.  In my mind, the ultimate solution is for Facebook to buy Color (or get around Color’s intellectual property).  Facebook could then use their large social base to make the app worthwhile.  Then, within the Color function of the Facebook app, people could not only look at other people’s photos within their 150 foot radius, but they could look at the Facebook profiles of those people as well.  People could “friend” other people within their radius, learn about them, use the Color “timeline” photos by uploading them onto their profile, and ultimately create this huge, interactive social base. 

Passions as Virtues

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche spent much of his time studying Ancient Greek culture.  In numerous essays, Nietzsche discussed how the Greeks were able to turn seemingly bad human traits, such as cruelty and brutality, into something positive.  He argued that the Greeks took the negative drives of humans and developed them in a social institution based on continual competition. 

                This social institution of constant competition was used as an outlet for feelings of cruelty and brutality.  Consequently, the continual competition and striving to “win” resulted in Greek excellence in numerous fields such as architecture, theatre, sculpture, etc.   

Nietzsche’s philosophy was obsessed with this idea.  He argued that virtues are merely negative passions directed toward a higher goal.  Meaning: seemingly negative passions such as vengeance and fanaticism can be turned into great virtues such as justice and devotion through proper direction and outlets.

By virtue of being human, all of us will deal with a wide range of negative emotions.  The real question is: how do we direct these feelings?  And, even more interestingly, how often is the redirection of negative passions a prerequisite for high achievement (or high virtue)?  

Perspectivism

Many philosophers have looked at the nature of living and argued that life is nothing but suffering and misery.  These sorts of viewpoints tend to assume that “philosophy of life” questions are objectively true for everyone, regardless of their perspective.  But if our various attitudes and ideas change the way we experience the world, then it may be the case that certain viewpoints make life worth affirming and others make life worth denying. 

It seems clear that how the world affects us as individuals is always shaped in some way or another by our attitudes and ideas.  We all go through various mood swings and perspectives about the world over the course of our lives and these shape our experience.   On some days certain things will make us laugh that on other days would make us furious.  The actual event taking place in the world may be exactly the same, while our reaction and experience of the event may be completely different depending on our attitude at the time. 

For instance, after watching a scary movie, a knock on the door may completely frighten us and result in us calling the police.  The scary movie shapes our perspective in such a way that an ordinary event, such as someone knocking on the door, becomes a seemingly frightening and dangerous event.  The experience of the world is different than what it would have been if we had not watched the movie. 

The physical reality of the external world takes place in a definite way and then our internal world shapes the way in which the events of the external world make us feel.  This is something we experience quite often.  We may hear a motivational speaker or have a sudden epiphany about the world; now, tasks that we once found frustrating are transformed into something enjoyable.

The trouble with ideas and attitudes as they pertain to the philosophy of life are numerous.  There is a question of what attitudes and ideas we should bring to the world and also what attitudes and ideas we are willing and able to accept.  We may desire to take a life-affirming attitude toward the world but be unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. 

If enjoying the events of the world were as easy as just looking at it in a certain way, everyone would choose such a viewpoint.  Furthermore, various attitudes and feelings about the world can depart quickly.  A great novel can leave us feeling happy about life and ready for anything – but these feelings generally fade away within a short period of time. 

While our experience of the world is affected by our attitude, the events themselves still play a significant role on our experience, regardless of our attitude.  It does not seem that I can make the experience of being tortured enjoyable by merely assuming the right mindset. 

Even with these worries in mind, the philosophical question of what attitudes and ideas we should aim for in our approach to life is still of great importance. What we are looking for a is a way to make life in general worth affirming, even if that does not result in every experience being enjoyable. 

How do we properly shape our perspectives?  We need to attack the issue from numerous fronts mentally and physically.  I have a lot to say about mental perspective shifting, but I’ll go into that on another day.  Also, a lot of perspective shifting must be highly personalized to the individual. 

But here are some very basic things everyone can do to shift their perspective positively: don’t surround yourself with negative people, eat healthy, sleep, expose yourself to a variety of media and art, workout, and sit in silence for at least 30 minutes a day.

We all basically know to do these things – it’s just a matter of actually doing it.