Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Is a Minimally Good Life?

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#71

Post by globular-toast »

jl2718 wrote: post #61
globular-toast wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth. I think you are correct that the main driving force here is sex. Sex drives far more of the world tha…

It seems clear to me that society is much more aggressive about controlling male-normative instincts, which are characterized as violent and isolationist. Consumption and financial mating, however, are encouraged and enforced by every level of our social hierarchy. These instincts could also be controlled.

Controlling male instincts is advantageous for everyone. Men are basically told to stop fighting each other and work together. In return they get the chance to have one wife and a decent way of life. It's a big win for most men. Women also benefit from the technology and societal improvements that come about as a result of not being at war all the time.

If you controlled female instincts what would you achieve? You tell women to date a poorer man. A less attractive man. A less intelligent man etc. What do they gain from this? Nothing. It's all sacrifice with no gain.

It comes down to positive enforcement versus negative enforcement. Positive enforcement is always more effective in the long run.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#72

Post by globular-toast »

eimrine wrote: post #66

I expected to see at least some links to Stoicism. They do not exist, which is why the article does not answer the question in the title. My opinion is that Stoicism answers this question and in general it is one of the most useful directions of philosophy.

I agree. I strongly suggest people look into Stoicism for some real answers to this question.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#73

Post by globular-toast »

aklemm wrote: post #13
growlist wrote: post #2

I know that personally I really don't need much for my own happiness - the basics of survival, a very modest house, and being away from people and in nature would do it for me. The problem comes when these simple things are denied to me, and I am put in a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses. Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-endi…

Son, you’re not going to get where you want to be until you resolve whatever lead you to find this thought important enough to write down in public.

You're wrong. It is possible to both accept uncomfortable truths and be happy. A fundamental part of Stoicism is not to trouble yourself with things out of your control. This frees your mind to be able to think about these things without being personally troubled by them.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#74

Post by globular-toast »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #67
globular-toast wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Two reasons. First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun. Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their…

> These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise. Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive…

> fault

This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#75

Post by golergka »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #64
golergka wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the simplest level. Direct reproduction is far from the only way to propel your genes. You can never have kids, but lead your ethnic group to win a genocidal war against its neighbours, and will be much more successful at it.

With complex minds like those of human beings it can't even be reduced to just genetic survival. Memetic survival is often weighted just as much, if not more.

But then it's evolution of memes, not genes, which is a different evolution.

Wait. Is this thread becoming a weak paraphrase of The Selfish Gene?

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#76

Post by jl2718 »

globular-toast wrote: post #71
jl2718 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems clear to me that society is much more aggressive about controlling male-normative instincts, which are characterized as violent and isolationist. Consumption and financial mating, however, are encouraged and enforced by every level of our social hierarchy. These instincts could also be controlled.

Controlling male instincts is advantageous for everyone. Men are basically told to stop fighting each other and work together. In return they get the chance to have one wife and a decent way of life. It's a big win for most men. Women also benefit from the technology and societal improvements that come about as a result of not being at war all the time. If you controlled female instincts what would you achieve? You t…

You haven’t met enough women that held out too long for the perfect man, and now clasp desperately to one they secretly despise. There are benefits to acceptance and satisfaction with less.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#77

Post by aklemm »

globular-toast wrote: post #73
aklemm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Son, you’re not going to get where you want to be until you resolve whatever lead you to find this thought important enough to write down in public.

You're wrong. It is possible to both accept uncomfortable truths and be happy. A fundamental part of Stoicism is not to trouble yourself with things out of your control. This frees your mind to be able to think about these things without being personally troubled by them.

The man literally said he’s bothered by something outside his control.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#78

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

golergka wrote: post #28

> what do members of a society owe to one another? > we should consider whether we would be content to live the lives that the least fortunate in our society actually live Stopped reading right there, because it's a complete non sequitur. People only owe one another what they have contractual obligations for; claiming that you owe to provide any kind of minimal standard of living for another person just because he al…

There's a social contract among communities that has all but entirely collapsed. It's not about being charitable. It's the fact that when we collectively let our neighbors suffer instead of helping we are opening the flood gates to greater suffering for everyone.

This is a good read:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/elal2/have_you_e...

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

#80

Post by RhysU »

UncleMeat wrote: post #41
RhysU wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. To each her own, of course. (I take no position on the GP's controversial theory. Just calling out that the implications of the parent's comment strike me as unintuitive.)

> I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. Really? You've never heard of somebody who'd rather their spouse work shorter hours and spend more time with them at home? Or spend more time with their family? Or travel more with them?

My hunch: His wife likely still wants him to be capable of material success and competition. She just doesn't want him to prioritize those endeavors past some particular threshold.

Said another way, one's spouse probably finds it attractive that one can get a new job if one loses the current one.

Marriages often go to hell when the husband is out of work and it becomes obvious that he either cannot or will not return to the workforce. That is, when a husband becomes a materially poor individual who does not strive vs his peers.

Post reply on HN