Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It is entirely possible that there is actually no significantly better way for us to go about this. The assumption that life can be good and happy for all is just fundamentally flawed in the face of the human condition and physical reality.

In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being.

And given the differences in the human psyche it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time.



> it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

But it's actually really easy. Every single human has the same basic needs. Cover those and you've already done a great step towards collective happiness.

> In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being.

How, besides lying to ourselves, can we then justify the fact that in some countries children starve to death, while in others people's biggest issue is what model of smartphone they're going to buy next?

Aren't we already imposing material limits to billions of people who don't have access to basic resources? Is that kind of limit somehow less important than the limit we might impose on someone else to not own a yacht?


And so we can all live with what is deemed essential and doled out by the state? Guess what? I don't think that's better.


It might not be better for you, but it is for the great majority of the world's population.

For this very reason, I want you to have everything you need to live with dignity. I don't care at all if you want more, if that means someone else is going to lack anything essential as a consequence.


Also there is a massive assumption that the person with the smart phone or fancy car is actually happy and fulfilled. That may or may not be true. There is a high degree of relativity in our feeling of contentment.


> massive assumption that the person with the smart phone or fancy car is actually happy and fulfilled

Never made this assumption. Quite the opposite, I'm saying the very fundamental basis to "happiness" is to have your basic needs covered at all times. Only then, you can start to build something on top.


There's a gulf between something better and utopia.


Better can be very subjective. What you think is better may not align with what I think is better.

One of us may feel individual freedom at all costs, one might be the greater good trumps the individual.


You want individual freedom at all costs? Go to live in a jungle. Take the complete freedom with the dangers it brings with itself.

Otherwise you want the benefits of living in a society? The only way is you're going to sacrifice your freedom.


And your immediate black and white view shows how impossible it will actually be.

I've shown two sides of the most obvious dichotomy and you've show how intractable this will be by instantly expelling me, theoretically.


There's no moderate view available for me until people keep starving or are forced to slave away their life just for mere survival.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: