Robert Nozick offered this thought experiment to which I would not opt to maximize happiness:
> Nozick asks us to imagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would we prefer the machine to real life? [0]
And you're probably vastly underestimating the complexity and comprehensiveness demanded of such a machine.
My answer doesn't change. Actually, I would go to great lengths to prevent imposing such a fate on humanity.
I may be naive in thinking this but human emotions and euphoria can probably be boiled down to a chemical reaction in our brain such that brain activity of someone experiencing something pleasurable in "real life" and that of someone taking a substance simulating these same feelings would be indistinguishable.
However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all.
And what do you care if you live in a different universe? You don't even understand this one well enough to know the difference. So you're basically making this decision on the grounds of your own ignorance.
What if this world is a simulation, and the real world is a wonderful and happy place? You don't know the difference, so what business do you have taking a stand on the issue?
>However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all.
You don't know what that word means, then.
What I had originally thought of as an experience machine was drugs that would produce chemically equivalent reactions as those produced from our experiences.
Spiritual usually has an anthropomorphic meaning which is what I object to:
Defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things"
Maybe a better way of stating it is that I am not an empiricist that believes that sensory experience is the end-all be-all.
Don't underestimate how easy it is for a human brain to confuse wishful thinking with rational belief. I know what you are talking about -- a sense of objectivity -- but I see no reason to believe it is a valid point of view, rather than a pretense of human desire.
That is as close to that "machine" that we have in reality and its pretty clear people are willing to accept/risk the negative impacts and use such drugs.
This being the case, I'm pretty sure, people would use that machine if it was legal and cheap. Similarly, I'm pretty sure at least some of those people would prefer it to real life.
Similarly, the only reason I prefer "real life" is the relationships I built with people. If I had been given the choice, say, 10+ years ago to have such a machine ... I'd prefer it to RL and the effort it took to build the kind of life I want.
So its a philosophical question with answer of "it depends on the person and RL situation they have".
One could argue that the value you get from your "real life" relationships with people are nothing more than a simple chemical reaction taking place in your brain that could also be simulated.
There's also a whole dog-whistle aspect to the 'war on drugs' (e.g. massive differences in sentences on crack vs. cocaine offences)
If that were the case then cash reserves would be where the bulk of people poured their resources. In fact the majority of non-debt "capital" is held in real-estate and some combination of financial instruments (CD, bonds, common stock etc...).
You are confusing how the assets are valued with what is actually being valued. What I think you are saying though is that capitalism is optimizing for having the highest dollar denominated balance sheet - which could be true, but I think that is a function of the people, not the function of open markets or the asset value function of assigning ownership to capital.
Further, by necessity most things are held at a notional value and the sum of all these notional values far far outweighs the total sum of all the money people are holding in bank accounts. Now obviously everyone in the world couldn't sell everything and achieve the notional values and put those in bank accounts, because in order for everyone to sell there would have to be buyers, but we can't have buyers because everyone is selling. But if somehow we could, the amount of money in banks would probably go up 100x or so, but definitely at least 10x.
That means that real assets far outweigh money in the economy and so it's kind of strange to think about 'capital' as money rather than as assets. Assets are things which are generally useful in some particular way (a car, a house, a factory, etc) rather than as their potential which is more what money is.
Again though, it's not "money" per se, ie. cash, that they are trying to generate - though in the cases of dividend yielding assets as part of a retirement portfolio that is true - but rather to put their money into an asset that beats inflation with variable levels of security and maintenance, aka Risk. I guess you could say that you always want a higher cash value over time but I think that is a vulgar interpretation of how a market works.
Sorry, but what? I'm guessing that you don't even really believe this and that you don't even know what those phrases are supposed to mean. Why else would you put them in quotes -- twice?
I can only guess that this is supposed to mean that capital somehow binds up prior effort into a claim on (others?) future effort?
That is a fiction (likely told to you by someone with "capital"). It's a fine theory, but it is only that. There is no physicality to capital in your definition. It is purely a social construct.
A more traditional definition of capital is that it refers to a physical machine which substitutes labor.
Actually, yes. Money is a lien on future production. Or demand rights. That's specifically what debt creates: an obligation to someone else for future efforts if the debtor.
Debt is not a demand on future effort or production. Debt is merely an accounting artifact; it can make no real claims on the physical world.
Many will exert effort in exchange for money, but calling it a lien on future production is incorrect. No one has any obligation to perform effort in exchange for whatever it is that you call money.
No, not all money is debt in the sense that it's loaned into existence. But it does create a general expectation, and quite often a legal obligation, to accept it as payment. That is, any money-denominated debt is fulfilled by a credible offer to pay in cash (unless previously otherwise negotiated).
Even if simply printed into existence, money is a right of demand, that is, if I run a printing press and drop-ship you a pallet-wrapped billion in Benjamins, you've got equal rights to anyone else to bid that money against anyone else on goods or products.
Capital wealth is similar: it's a legal fiction (though an awfully well established one) that by right of claim to some property, the owner thus has other capabilities, including, significantly, collateral for debts, which can be used to provide liquid debts. Hocking a ring at a pawn shop, home equity loan, corporate paper, or the very significant sovereign debt available to holders of petrochemical resource claims or reserve currency authorities
Aside: which is among the reasons why there's much hay made over claims of personal worth, the solvency of reserve currencies, and over whether and to what extent petrochemical reserves might be stranded -- above and beyond merely comparing net worth, these determine access to loans from others. Donald Trump and oil companies / oil-producing nations are notably testy about the first and second, much of the noise eminating from RT (and much echoed through ZeroHedge) are based on concerns over access to capital (Trump, Oil) and in weakening the dollar and through that, the United States' access to credit markets.
Since definitions of what property is are determined by law, precedent, force of arms, etc., you'll also see a lot of resorting to that as well.
But yes: money is ultimately a created fiction, a universally exchangeable good, whose fundamental supply is unlimited, a reality constrained largely by the fact that increasing its supply without restraint does lead to a dimunution in the exchange value of units currently in existence, and all instruments denominated in currency amounts (e.g., debts, bonds, contracts, etc.). Each individual currency unit is a demand on future production, though the increment of that demand is not itself fixed for all time (inflation/deflation).
There's more on this concept in Modern Monetary Theory. My own thoughts are independently conceived, but I'm finding it's quite similar.
Often, people confuse money with capital. Money is an exchange mechanism which facilitates the transfer of value between parties through a common unit of exchange. Money can be viewed as a subset of capital (i.e. as a sedentary store of value), or it can be viewed as the destruction of the benefits of labour, as it converts an active instrument (i.e. the work I am doing, or the goods I have produced) into a sedentary instrument which provides no incremental benefit, unless it is spent.
So - how this relates to the article - capitalism is a system which currently optimises for money. When you take a step back and consider that by converting labour and value into money, you are effectively freezing the benefit of that labour away, accruing money as an end of its own ceases to make sense, as much of this value ends up lying in the ledgers of corporates, governments, or wealthy individuals, doing nothing for anybody other than perhaps dealing with some of the more fragile elements of human psychology (security).
We have let a means become the end, and have forgotten that the Purpose of all of this is to promote human happiness - I mean, what other possible Purpose can there be?