Does Money Make Us Happy?

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Folks,

The original article is posted at the following url:

http://www.lifeafterpeakoil.com/OriginalArticles/doesmoneymakeushappy.html

I'm going to take the comments that have been posted over at the LATOC blog (soon to be retired) and post them in messages that follow this one.

Best,

Matt

[StoneAgeIsHere]

Looks like Alpha male of doom is trying to attract extra attention so he can gets himself
more ENERGY, RESOURCE, MONEY, GROWTH, and more more LIFE. And as we all
know more LIFE = More HAPPY.

Wait a minute? Matt wanna be more HAPPY in an era of ever decreasing energy supplies?

This is an awfulling lonely forum. Right now it has almost no posts.... That equal Matt very sad...

Hmm...... Me is predicting the fall and collapse of peakoilstore.com/forum Forums.
Maybe it will follow the decline curve of Olduvia Gorge....

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Just wait till I mail by email list. 5500 plus members strong beyootch.

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by Martin:

An entertaining piece and thanks for that.
However, a well known definition of happiness provides a much shorter answer. Happiness is being grateful for what you have rather than miserable about what you haven't got. So the answer to the question is - 'Happiness depends on the individual's perception of life and not the amount of money they have'. The 'send me your money' test is a red herring. If I send you my money I will still be happy but I will also be poorer and, thus, less able to put food on the table. I may be happy but that does not make me stupid.

Source:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20693127

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by me:

Martin,

Consider the following:

you send me (or whoever) money -> you become poorer -> you have less ability to put food on the table -> you or your children go hungry -> you become sad

Do you really mean to tell me that seeing your children go hungry because you are poor wouldn't make you the least bit sad? Come on buddy get real.

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by "Michelle in Georgia":

It WOULD be nice to have enough CASH to
never have to put up with another,whiney,
spoiled, ME-first customer again. I have
often wondered if I would ever miss my line
of work, if/when I walk away for good.
NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Source:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20694325

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by Dima:

I don't think that emotions evolved to help us survive in a world where money and energy are important. They are relics of an earlier, simpler time, hundreds of thousands of years ago.

This is why emotional people don't usually make a lot of money (unless they are artists, an exceptional special case). Artists who make a lot of money are no less tortured than artists who make no money at all; if they are happy, then they are not true artists.

This is also why bankers, and other people who make plenty of money, can often be mistaken for reptiles, which are not the most emotional of creatures. They are a shrivelled sort of humanity, bereft of the capacity for true happiness.

Although it is hard to make the argument based on single individuals, it does seem possible to conjecture based on populations as a whole, that money = misery. It is often said the United States is the richest country in the world. Why then are Americans among the most miserable people on earth, medicating themselves constantly, exercising until they wear out their knees, constantly grubbing after money?

Could it be that being rich can makes you unfit as a human being?

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Therefore, the way to become rich is by being meek. Get it? Oh well...

Source:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20720478

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by me:

Dima,

Regarding emotions as relics: the emotions evolved I believe in response to the availability of energy. People, of course, did not have "money" back then. But today money is a close proxy for how much energy you have available to you. In fact 9/10 times the amount of energy at your disposal is probably correlated with the amount of money at your disposal.

As far as emotional people not making a lot of money, I have to disagree. I know attorneys who are making $150,000 at 27 years old who are extremely emotional. In fact, I think some need to be sedated with theose big dart guns they use to put down rampaging elephants when they get lose from the zoo.

Look at professional athletes as another example. I just watched a baseball brawl where the emotions ran very high among a group of millionaires as they attempted to pummel each other. For what reason I wasn't even sure. Last night Barry Bonds went ballisitic on an umpire for a bad call. Barry, btw, makes $20,000,0000 per year.

If anything, the people who make a lot of money in areas such as business, banking, law or sports would tend to be highly emotional as they would be particularly responsive to dopamine. The dopamine responsiveness is why they would be so highly motivated to achieve success. (at least how we define it by contemporary western standards)

Regarding your example using Americans who are rich yet miserable: this misses the point of the article:

it is not the ABSOLUTE amount of money (energy), it is whether it is moving up, moving down, or stagnating. Americans were very happy during the 1950s and 1960s when their energy availablity (and income) was moving up even though they did not have as much as they have now. Levles of per capita income and energy has began stagnating in the 1970s and that was when happiness started to dry up and be replaced by misery. I don't think it a conincidence.

And if being rich makes you unfit for being a human then all of us on this blog are unfit as we are very rich by global standards. Most of the world lives on less than $2.00 a day. So if live in the west you can afford internet access, you are most likley "rich" by global standards. In fact, I encourage you to see just how rich by punching in your income at http://www.globalrichlist.com An income of $15,000 per year puts you in the top 12% of the global population. My guess is most of us on this blog make far more than that.

Surely you don't consider yourself "unfit for being a human being"? I make considerably more than $15,000 and I'd like to think I"m fit to consider myself a homo-sapien.

Best,

Matt

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by Dima:

Matt,

If you choose to operate at a level where rampaging elephants, lawyers, athletes, and the rest of us are all lumped together in terms of "emotions" and are capable of experiencing the same kind of "happiness," then your results won't be very interesting to us non-rampaging-elephant types.

Humans a bit more involved than beasts. Many of them value freedom from power just as much as they value power itself, as represented by money, political connections, or both.

As far as fitness as a species, humans are not doing well. There are species that can adjust their population size to changing circumstances without suffering calamities or risking extinction; not this one. The humans that you term "rich" are notable in their headlong rush toward oblivion.

Source:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20739861

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by me:

Dima,

What is freedom? Well for one thing it is the ability to move around.

What do you need in order to move around? You need energy.

And what determines how much energy you have today? It's how much money you have.

So if having freedom

Energy to move = freedom

Energy = Money (in our society. in others it would be social status as determined by whatever the currency of the realm is)

So if having more freedom makes you happy then having more money (up to a apoint) would make you more happy.

Best,

Matt

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by Dima:

Thank you for giving me a splendid chance to finally define what freedom is, once is for all.

I believe that a recursive definition will work best: in the limit, it should approach reality.

"Freedom is the state of being free of anyone
else's definition of what 'freedom' is."

Thus, if you say that freedom is "energy to move," I would beg to differ. For the sake of freedom, I would have to say that it is the freedom to stay put and not consume much energy at all.

Now, the statement "To be free is to be happy" rings false, but, on the other hand, I do have a hunch that to be enslaved (by money, for instance, or by one's fossil fuel addiction) can easily result in misery. Maybe freedom is necessary for happiness, but not sufficient?

Source:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20748526

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by me:

"I would have to say that it is the freedom to stay put and not consume much energy at all."

Dima,

What does it take for me to sit still and stare at the wall?

It takes energy for my brain to work contemplating nothing. If the person sitting quietly has not the money to procure the food which will allow them to pursue sitting still and staring at the wall, then my guess is they're are going to be unhappy. If the person begins to acquire enough money to procure enough energy (food) that they can sit and stare then my guess is they will be happy.

So again, we're back at my main point which is happiness is generally correlated with a percieved increase in the amount of energy available to one.

Best,

Matt

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Happiness is also correlated with health and personal perspective. I have seen 80 year olds struggling to hold on to life, simply because they hadn't gotten around to living. They get mean and angry at those around them, venting their frustrations. And I have seen dying 21 year olds, at Peace. We are complex folks indeed. Regards.
michelle
at peace.

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by Brandon:

Damn, I think Michelle down Georgia way hit the nail on the head. I am a 34 year old who was recently in a rather nasty motorcycle accident and had no insurance. Broken jaw, cheek, tibia, left leg generally FUBAR and an overall feeling of ass-whoopedness. I lost the best job offer I have ever had making way more money than I ever had before, had to move in with my mother, am a former athlete now gimping around and am still eating through a straw.

The same week that I came to live with my mom to heal, my grandpa of 80 years found out he had brain cancer. He has "been there, done that" in many ways and has led a simple yet full life. He took the news much better than many of his relatives who find some fleeting joy in a paycheck, new car or other means of status. Several are angry about 'their loss' when I figure the old man that stands to lose the most, in fact everything, is taking it the best.

My grandpa and I have something in common. Life is short so we got busy living when the starting gun went off. I now have a significantly reduced financial and social status and honestly can't remember the last time I was this happy and at peace. Not only happy to be alive but happy that I wasn't afraid to live. It is hard to describe.

The implications of the situation we are in as a society/race can be scary and are apt to make one quite unhappy right along the lines of Matt's argument but maybe there is something else at play here. Maybe there is a breed of folks out there that find some joy outside of the lure of money and social status. It could be that they are happy knowing that everyday they don't leave anything in the tank.

I figure the prospects of Peak Oil are equatable to dieing to some degree. That's an obvious reduction in energy availability. The thought of dieing is libel to make you pretty unhappy if you have never lived.

Source:

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20776486

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Posted by GalacticSurfer:

I think that the perception of energy and happiness being correlated is generally correct. I am just rereading "The Fourth turning". The comparison is made of 4 seasons in the year being spread out over an 80-100 year period, ca. 20-25 years per season. We are now in early winter. Energy is going to a low point emotionally and literally. The late 60s and early 70s were high summer. We had literally and figuratively our energy high point.

People had gone on an emotional and energetic slide between ca. 1910, the end of the last summer period in our history until beginning of spring, the end of WWII(1946). After 1910 the population dispersed energy built up in the gilded age(1865-1885, like the postwar reconstruction years to 1963) and muckraking days(1886-1908)(similar to 1960s-1970s)and then went into a depression and war. The 1950s(spring time) were a cautious period of building up and saving to preserve what had been destroyed in the last war and depression to make sure it could not recur.

We have to experience winter depression to be able to enjoy our summer joy. People on pacific islands where the temperature is alwas the same and there are no rain clouds have high suicide rates nowadays.

Society as a whole is now going into a depression/war phase which may last until 2020-2025 until the baby boomers are pushed aside (achmadineschad/Bush/Rice, etc.) by the gen Xers in the halls of power. This will be the new "1950s" beetween ca. 2020-2040. Gewn Xers are born between 1961-1981 according to "Fourth Turning" and are similar to "the lost generation" who fought WWI and brought us therefore Hitler, Mussolini, Mao on the bad side and on the good side Patton, Eisenhower, Truman. Like Matt(late 70s birth I believe) or myself(1965 year) and most of us here probably belong to this group. We are cyncial and concerned with survival above everything else having lived through adults more concerned with attaining spiritual or sexual self fulfillment in this summer period(1964-1984). Idealistic baby boomer moral crusades(Bush/Achmadineschad and the bomb) do not interest Gen Xers when it leads to WWIII. We are here to protect the world from baby boomer excesses and pass it on to our children intact. As in all previous phases of history we are forced to fight for the Prophets of our timeas generals(Washington fighting as wily general for Ben Franklin's generation/ the gilded generation for Lincoln's crazy abolitionists(1960s style antislavery "awakening" took place between 1822-1844)/Ike and Patton's Lost generation for FDR's "missionaries" who fought injustice of new industrial America in the 1890s.)

The cynicism of Matt's original idea here is generation typical. We do not get easily fooled by such BS about money not bringing happiness but perceive that some snake oil salesman(see 1960s-70s self fullfilment boomers or silent era types as their helpers) is trying to rip us off, manipulate us so we will lose out as our generation has every time, like all lost generations always do and always have every century only to save the day commanding the younger soldiers who then take all the credit as the heroes who do the rebuild and dominate afterwards(all presidents Kennedy through Bush I).

Source:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/08/does_money_make.html#comment-20795825