What should people be "entitled" to?

[El_Machinae]

I'll admit, it's a weird metric I am using, because 'obliviousness' is too easy to pop into the asset category. I mean, I am literally less satisfied with my bank's savings account than someone who doesn't comprehend inflation.

 

[BenitoChavez]

AFAIK, this is not the case. There's not much of correlation between wealth and happiness.

Not being unhappy is a prerequisite to being happy and I'd wager that below a certain threshold, a lack of money is a source of unhappiness. If you're constantly worrying about how to pay for your next meal or how to pay for rent, you won't be too happy.

I would agree that once you're above that monetary threshold, any additional money wouldn't bring any more happiness.

 

[Mise]

AFAIK, this is not the case. There's not much of correlation between wealth and happiness. As I alluded to before (poor people should move to the third world), there seems to some correlation with happiness and not being more poor than your peers.

Sure, if you asked them to rate their happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 or whatever, then their happiness would correlate with being more or less poor than their peers. But if you were to ask them whether their lives were better or worse than the global average, most would say "worse". They're two different questions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Then, there's the 'would you rathers?' Ask 'em if they'd rather have been born elsewhere.

 

[Borachio]

Not being unhappy is a prerequisite to being happy and I'd wager that below a certain threshold, a lack of money is a source of unhappiness. If you're constantly worrying about how to pay for your next meal or how to pay for rent, you won't be too happy.

I would agree that once you're above that monetary threshold, any additional money wouldn't bring any more happiness.

It will. In the short term. And then you simply get used to a new level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

Going up levels is easy and enjoyable.

Going down is less easy. But it can certainly be done.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I agree until you get down to a certain level. Once you get to that level where you are constantly struggling to survive, you contract a major illness, lose a loved one, or whatever it may be for a particular person, there is no adapting to it. You have to revert or change the circumstances that brought about the unhappiness to make you happy once more.

 

[Borachio]

Let's not forget that everyone's long-term prospects are distinctly downhill.

Yet some people face this with good humour and dignity. Others don't.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't see why we should. You can either accept those long-term prospects and create a self-fulfilling prophecy, at that point, I guess good humor and dignity creates a local optimum. But, it's those who refuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that change its certainty.

 

[Borachio]

Well, certainly those who don't accept their own mortality might be the ones to change it.

But I'm not relying on a break-through any time soon. I think that's just wishful thinking; and totally unrealistic.

In any case, taking an even longer view, planning on surviving the heat death of the Universe seems a bit extreme, doesn't it?

 

[El_Machinae]

Not sure 'relying' is the right word. But, I'll disagree on it being wishful thinking. I think it's pretty realistic, given how little support there is.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know what word would be better than "relying".

You seemed to be suggesting that I shouldn't be banking on my own inevitable demise. The only alternative requires the development of some technique that prevents or reverses the aging process. I'm just not going to rely on this happening soon. Much as I'd like to live for ever.

Fairly clearly, I'm not going to be developing this technique myself. Not being even a biologist.

 

[Souron]

To be honest - happiness ! , says it all ! I guess that is why Americans got "in pursuits of happiness" in Their constitution. ^^ Good guys !

No they didn't. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document of US law. The Constitution protects "life, liberty, or property," but says nothing about happiness.

 

[El_Machinae]

You seemed to be suggesting that I shouldn't be banking on my own inevitable demise.

I mean, you can if you want to. And if you want to, then 'dignity*' might be the way to go.

The only alternative requires the development of some technique that prevents or reverses the aging process.

Mostly true, especially when thinking about in the long run. Now, for any specific person, all you need is something that delays or slows the date you're expecting to die. Once you have a delay, then all you need is another, more impressive, delay discovered before your first delay times out. In other words, you don't need a whabam! success, just a system of iterative successes. Each success merely needs to buy time to the next success.

Fairly clearly, I'm not going to be developing this technique myself. Not being even a biologist.

No, very unlikely. And, I'll warrant, nearly none of the people involved in the March of Dimes were biologists either.

*Dignity is a funny one. Current trends predict me (with reasonable odds) spending about 6 years in diapers with barely an idea of what's going on. So, there are a host of present-day investments I could be making to reduce the odds of that happening. The easiest is to keel over with a stroke one day in my early senior years, but that doesn't seem to be a popular way of dying with dignity. How many people shoot for that?

 

[Borachio]

Now, for any specific person, all you need is something that delays or slows the date you're expecting to die. Once you have a delay, then all you need is another, more impressive, delay discovered before your first delay times out. In other words, you don't need a whabam! success, just a system of iterative successes. Each success merely needs to buy time to the next success.

Yes. I've heard this one.

I don't buy it.

Perhaps significant in this is the fact that I'm nearer to my best before date than most other members of CFC.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can imagine how it resonates less. At the point where you've given up hope for yourself, then it basically only matters if you have loved ones younger than you.

Conversely, I have loved ones older than me who are likely to be getting dementia within the next 20 years or so. So, I've got some time to hope that we can avoid the fate where they spend years in diapers and scared of me, the stranger in their room. Obviously, it's unlikely any cures will be off-patent by then, so it will require wealth to be able to afford any lucky breaks happening in the next 20 years. That said, while there's only a trickle in investment towards cures, an expensive one would be better than none, given how costly hospice is

 

[Phrossack]

*Dignity is a funny one. Current trends predict me (with reasonable odds) spending about 6 years in diapers with barely an idea of what's going on. So, there are a host of present-day investments I could be making to reduce the odds of that happening. The easiest is to keel over with a stroke one day in my early senior years, but that doesn't seem to be a popular way of dying with dignity. How many people shoot for that?

I, for one, wouldn't mind going out like Ambrose Bierce.

Assuming, of course, that he died. There is no conclusive evidence that he ever did. He could still be out there. Theoretically.

 

[warpus]

Life isn't fair, ergo, nobody is 'entitled' to anything actually.

I think I sort of agree with this.

It's very important to remember that the "rights" that we have are artificially in place by things like constitutions and social contracts.

These rights can be taken away from us at a moment's notice, you shouldn't really take anything you can right now reasonably expect from society for granted.

So I think that as a society we should strive for everyone to be able to get certain things: food, shelter, an education, healthcare, freedom of speech, travel, etc. But we should also remember that many men and women probably died so that we can have these "entitlements". Things could have turned out much differently, so we should be thankful for what we have. (while at the same time remaining vigilant that these basic human needs are not infringed again)

 

[Commodore]

Food: If we as humans are going to make the collective decision to live together in societies, then yes, quality food should be made available to all.
Water: Same as food
Money: I would much rather see us work towards a society where money becomes "optional" as a means to acquire goods and services, rather than a necessity.
Housing: Same as food.
Sex: I don't think it should be guaranteed by the government, but I think legalization of prostitution would be an adequate solution.
Jobs: No, but with a caveat: I feel we should be working towards a society in which employment is optional rather than a requirement to survive. People should be working because they want to, not because they have to.
Medication: Same as food.
Health: Same as food.
Education: Quality education should always be available to those who desire it, regardless of their economic situation or whether or not they plan on ever doing anything with that education.
Happiness: This is a tough one. I'm not sure happiness is something that can ever be guaranteed, no matter how hard we try as a society to do so. Happiness is something that each individual must define for themselves and work to attain that ideal themselves simply because no one else can ever hope to understand what each individual's idea of happiness is.

By the way, thanks for citing my thread as an inspiration for this one. Makes me feel like I'm actually a part of this community after nine years.

 

[Souron]

Sex: I don't think it should be guaranteed by the government, but I think legalization of prostitution would be an adequate solution.

You think of prostitution as a right of the client issue? That's a rather disturbing and dangerous notion of entitlement.

 

[JollyRoger]

There should be the legal right to buy and sell.