meany

One thing I wonder is that - assuming no extreme personal calamity - I would be just as happy/sad/depressed no matter what life I had led. How much of our inner sense of well being is determined by outward life circumstances. Living in the first world and working in the tech industry, I live better than 99% of the people that ever lived, including all my ancestors. What’s really crazy is that I’m not insanely happy all the time with my incredible good fortune. It seems that no matter what I got from life - I’d calibrate back to where I am now.

I largely agree with the post, but less because people near death don’t know what’s important, but rather because reports of these are self-help, currated to appeal to audience and get clicks. When I’ve had meaningful conversations with e friends and family memebers near death, I’ve found they have a real capacity to help you moderate your perspective and make better life decisions. Of course the specific individual personality plays a big role in this.

Per the article suggestion, follow the happiness reasearch.

The study, which appears in the current issue of Science, was led by Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard and author of the 2007 bestseller “Stumbling on Happiness,” along with Matthew Killingsworth and Rebecca Eyre, also of Harvard, and Timothy Wilson of the University of Virginia. “If you want to know how much you will enjoy an experience, you are better off knowing how much someone else enjoyed it than knowing anything about the experience itself,” says Gilbert. “Rather than closing our eyes and imagining the future, we should examine the experience of those who have been there.

One thing I think that can help in this is trying your identity to being someone who strives to be as open minded and introspective as possible. You can turn changing your mind into a psychological reward, rather than an ego loss.

Doesn’t that assume that the production isn’t for export. For instance, if the EU and US export their industries to low wage, high population countries you would see their per capita numbers drop and overall leveling out. However, the damage to the climate would be equal. Essentially, you need to look at a lot of factors and think holistically about the problem.

Not sure how I understand how it’s possible for the majority of people if they can’t keep up with the things that make it possible.

I don’t think the data supports that it is possible for the majority of people. On traditional diets, Between 80 and 85 percent of those who lose a large amount of weight regain it. Source: https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/healthy-li....

I think equating censorship and intellectual property is not a good comparison. Copyright laws do not restrict sharing of ideas or opinions just specific textual instances of those opinions. Under copyright, you are free to paraphrase or quote the text to share the core idea. Political censorship prevents you from communicating specific political views, which limits dissent. I don’t see how copyright does that.

I think the challenge is that no matter the circumstances our minds are designed to adapt to the situation. This is often called the hedonic adaption. If you live in a modern western country, your life is likely significantly better than the wealthiest and most powerful people from the 14th century. Most likely if you're prone to depression, you will reset to a negative viewpoint even if societal issues are addressed. Below is an excerpt from article discussing research into lottery winners and paraplegics.

"In 1978, a trio of researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Massachusetts attempted to answer this by asking two very disparate groups about the happiness in their lives: recent winners of the Illinois State Lottery — whose prizes ranged from $50,000 to $1 million — and recent victims of catastrophic accidents, who were now paraplegic or quadriplegic. In interviews with the experimenters, the two groups were asked, among other things, to rate the amount of pleasure they got from everyday activities: small but enjoyable things like chatting with a friend, watching TV, eating breakfast, laughing at a joke, or receiving a compliment. When the researchers analyzed their results, they found that the recent accident victims reported gaining more happiness from these everyday pleasures than the lottery winners.

This is how the study is usually written about, in a “gee whiz, ain’t that counterintuitive?” kind of tone. But what’s really striking when you look at the results reported by the researchers is how close their answers actually are: On average, the winners’ ratings of everyday happiness were 3.33 out of 5, and the accident victims’ averaged answers were 3.48. The lottery winners did report more present happiness than the accident victims (an average of 4 out of 5, as compared to the victims’ 2.96), but as the authors note, “the paraplegic rating of present happiness is still above the midpoint of the scale and … the accident victims did not appear nearly as unhappy as might have been expected.”

This is partially because of what’s become known as the hedonic treadmill, or hedonic adaptation, that annoying tendency humans have to get used to the things that once made them happy. I particularly love how the authors of this 1970s paper phrased it:

    Eventually, the thrill of winning the lottery will itself wear off. If all things are judged by the extent to which they depart from a baseline of past experience, gradually even the most positive events will cease to have impact as they themselves are absorbed into the new baseline against which further events are judged. Thus, as lottery winners become accustomed to the additional pleasures made possible by their new wealth, these pleasures should be experienced as less intense and should no longer contribute very much to their general level of happiness."

From the following article: https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/classic-study-on-happiness-an...

This idea of economic war doesn’t make sense. It’s not zero sum. Growth in the US should contribute to growth elsewhere in terms of trade, tourism, etc.

Is this just a factor of how the human brain works? My wife has stage 4 cancer and one of my strategies to help my kids have more memories is to build uniqueness into our activities, so years from now they can go, do you remember that time we went to x or did y with Mom? I think the human brain is much better at recalling unique events - whether they are bad or good

I think I’d prefer a response that didn’t take a side, but presented the various perspectives.

At least in the US there has been recent progress on this. The USDA just released new rules on June 11, 2023.

https://extension.umn.edu/news/over-counter-livestock-antibi...

Starting June 11, 2023, all currently available over-the-counter antibiotics for livestock will be available only as prescription medications. This new rule will impact all livestock species. Over-the-counter antibiotics are moving to prescription only to provide more veterinary oversight. Similar to the Veterinary Feed Directive, placing antibiotics under the supervision of veterinarians should result in more judicious use and less antibiotic resistance.

This change includes but is not limited to the following: Penicillin, Oxytetracycline, Sulfa antibiotics and Mastitis tubes. Some medications are not considered crucial for human medicine and will remain over-the-counter. This includes the following: Ionophores including Rumensin and Bovatec, Parasiticides, such as Ivermectin, Oral pre/pro/postbiotics, and topical non-antibiotic treatments.

Livestock producers must have a valid Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR) in place before they can be prescribed antibiotics by a veterinarian. A VCPR is a working relationship between a veterinarian (veterinary clinic) and a client. Ideally, a VCPR is a documented agreement between both parties that includes a dedicated visit to the animal location(s) the client operates. This visit and documentation must occur at least once every year to maintain the VCPR.

I dont think it’s unreasonable to say that it could be true, but it’s stated as a fact, not a hypothesis

From the article: “The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports”

I don’t see how this claim can be made based on the available evidence. It could be proposed as hypothesis, but stating this as a fact shows that the author is pushing an end independent of the evidence.

What are you suggesting we optimize for? Is it maintaining CO2 levels at all costs? Highest quality of life for the largest number? something else?

The US is a big country. So the answer is it depends. There are probably more progressive people in the US than any single European country. Where I live in Seattle, I think the majority talk openly with their kids about any sexual topic. In fact, last night I 10 year old asked me what an orgasim is. I told her, no big deal. All the parents I know handle questions in the same way, even with young kids. There are other areas/communities of the country where I suspect that’s not the case.

Unfortunately nuance and the complexity of any society isn’t conveyed via news, television or movies, which is the main way people are exposed to other cultures.

I don’t think the data supports this assertion. I think the perception that this is true is likely due to news click bait designed to generate revenue based on fostering outrage. Here is an excerpt from USC public health article.

Overall, since late March 2020, between 80% and 90% of U.S. adults consis­tently have viewed wearing a mask or face covering as an effective way to stay safe from the coronavirus, according to the Understanding Coronavirus in America Tracking Survey, an ongoing nationally representative internet-based panel survey of more than 6,000 people aged 18 and older (see Data Source).

Similarly, about 90% reported wearing a mask in the previous seven days to keep safe from the virus, although there are significant differences by locale, age, gender, race, income, educa­tion, and other sociodemographic factors. Generally, people who live in rural areas, are younger, are male, are white, have lower incomes, and have less education are less likely to report wearing masks, the survey found (Figure 1).

Source article: https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/evidence-base/most-u-s-adults-w...