Do we really "deserve to be happy"?

Happiness is not an evolutionary prerequisite. Nothing in the process of evolution selects for happiness (or lack thereof). Evolution cares about survival of the species and no advantages are conferred upon happy as opposed to less so individuals.

The "happiness industry" which convinces people that they "deserve to be happy" and in fact makes them miserable because they are not as happy as they "deserve to be", is a recent phenomenon.

When cave men brought home the antelope and everybody ate it around the fire, there was no cave man equivalent of Dr. Phil walking around trying to asses the degree of happiness of the group. In the Middle Ages, happiness was defined as not having the plague. It is only in recent times that the "entitlement of happiness" came about and as more of the basic needs were no longer an acute issue, mankind went searching for the next thing that will make them miserable.

Total bliss or complete happiness is not a default state. Something else must be the default state from which there is a positive deviation - happier than that - and a negative deviation - less happy than that. The current expectation seems to be that the state of total bliss is in fact the default state (or should be) and any deviation from it is less than what we "deserve" to have.

This is fundamentally flawed and is a vicious circle making more people feel more miserable than they should be.

Comments

Lisa said…
I think you are correct in that people expect bliss to be a default state...however, I believe the way society now lives...the pace we live at...makes the unhappiness feel that much more severe.

Everyone is so intent on making more, doing more, that we lose sight of what is really important.

Materialism, while not a bad thing, can never fill an emptiness.

A certain amount of unhappiness is needed and necessary to set the gauge for when we are happy, yet it shouldn't be the default state. There has to be some middle ground for more days than not.
December 18, 2006 10:18 PM
Adi said…
There is a reason to consider happiness an evolutionary prerequisite. Think about suicides - it is unhappy people who choose to end their life, not the happy ones.
December 31, 2006 11:10 AM
Miljenko said…
Hmm, yeah, conceptually yes but in terms of numbers, no - humanity is in no danger of becoming extinct on account of suicides. It's just not a material proportion of the population that goes that way and evolution deals with large numbers and majorities, not the outliers...
January 12, 2007 10:55 AM
Jules said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 10, 2007 5:22 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...

I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there. Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards! The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive). With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot. Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeli...
Read more

Things we can do by ourselves, and things that we can't

Making a list (and not checking it twice) of things one can do by oneself and those which one can only do with somebody else. Please feel to contribute. Things one can do by oneself - read, run, swim, meditate, eat, hike, chop wood, ski, drink, dance, sleep, play chess, cook, sing, practice any number of sports, feel guilt (as opposed to shame). Things that can be done only with participation of at least one other person - hug, kiss, have a conversation, get or give a massage, shake hands, play any number of sports, entertain somebody else with one's dance, singingor writing, feel shame (as opposed to guilt).
Read more

Meeting people is like walking up to a new mirror

Despite what we may think about "knowing ourselves" and knowing who we are, we can only understand who we really are from the reflection of ourselves in other people's eyes. The only way that the Universe perceives us is through observation of others and in that way it's a bit of a Schroedinger's cat going on. The observed is influenced by the observers and it has no other state than the observed one. To put it differently, if there was nobody around us, would we really know who we are? So every new person we meet is like a new mirror that we face and it shows us an image of ourselves that is always to some extent different than any other mirror. Some are more precise reflection of the actual molecules that we are really composed of while others are more "kind" to our imperfections, physical and otherwise. And of course, just for fun, there are the hall of mirrors distorting mirrors that show us grotesquely different than reality and those are just that ...
Read more