The problem of Should (or, Measuring Our Unhappiness)
My friend A proposes arguendo that we as human beings are part of nature, and thus - strictly speaking - all that we do and create is natural. Urban sprawl, pinball games, napalm, coal-burning power plants, PVC cat suits, microwave communications platforms, global warming: all part of nature.
I accept this as a premise.
There are two assumptions we humans make which are fundamental to both many large-scale problems for humanity and person-scale unhappiness. First, that we are somehow the pinnacle of evolution, deserving of what is perceived to be a dominant position in evolution (either because God said so right there in the Bible, or de facto). Second, and related to the first, that the phrase, "survival of the fittest" somehow connotes virtue. That is, that an ostensibly dominant system is somehow better or more virtuous than those not as successful.
The underlying fallacies of these assumptions are made clear when you consider that in sheer biomass, algae and krill each have us beat. So then we start fumbling for other metrics to justify our assumption that we sit at the peak of all life, and aren't just another part of the ecosystem.
Another way to look at this is the point that environmental protections are not about trying to save the dolphins and owls because they're so damned cute, but rather that the ecosystem is going to be just fine without us. Our unchecked consumption of natural resources and subsequent overloaded pollution is having an obvious and dramatic effect on the ecosystem. We are an infection within the organism Earth, and the organism is starting to run a fever to put things back in balance. As always the fittest will continue to survive, and the fittest looks less and less like us every day.
- + -
In 1986 Eric Drexler coined the term Gray Goo to describe a scenario in which self-replicating nanotechnological machines trigger a sustained system which inexorably converts all available matter into itself - thus reducing our existence to gray goo. Drexler has since refuted the notion that nanotechnology will necessarily confront this problem, but the general idea that we, as a species, can do things that terminate ourselves is obvious and clear. Genetic engineering, nuclear warheads, ecosystem-changing pollution, cyborganic consciousness: we are creatures that are obsessed much more with what we can do, than what we should do.
The problem of Should is not just about these monolithic problems, but also complex societal issues. They can all be expressed as two premises:
- + -
In German (from which English descends) there are two verbs: sollen (should) and wollen (want). It is interesting to note that sollen evolved from wollen - the idea of want came before the idea of should, and in the beginning they were one. At some point they diverged, and since that time the distance between them has fluctuated.
The distance between what we want and what we should is the measure of our unhappiness.
We have contrived many systems which tell us what we should do: religion, politics, legal departments, gossip, cultural institutions. The more rigid and dogmatic these things are - the further the distance between what we should and what we want - the greater our unhappiness. Victorian suppression of all things sensual does not actually change the underlying desires, it simply breeds resentment, struggle, and unhappiness.
- + -
Happiness is the true purpose of life, and constant attention to the gap between our wants and shoulds is the path to happiness. Or, as another friend by the name of A put it, "If you don't know what you want you won't get what you want. You'll get what you get."
I accept this as a premise.
There are two assumptions we humans make which are fundamental to both many large-scale problems for humanity and person-scale unhappiness. First, that we are somehow the pinnacle of evolution, deserving of what is perceived to be a dominant position in evolution (either because God said so right there in the Bible, or de facto). Second, and related to the first, that the phrase, "survival of the fittest" somehow connotes virtue. That is, that an ostensibly dominant system is somehow better or more virtuous than those not as successful.
The underlying fallacies of these assumptions are made clear when you consider that in sheer biomass, algae and krill each have us beat. So then we start fumbling for other metrics to justify our assumption that we sit at the peak of all life, and aren't just another part of the ecosystem.
Another way to look at this is the point that environmental protections are not about trying to save the dolphins and owls because they're so damned cute, but rather that the ecosystem is going to be just fine without us. Our unchecked consumption of natural resources and subsequent overloaded pollution is having an obvious and dramatic effect on the ecosystem. We are an infection within the organism Earth, and the organism is starting to run a fever to put things back in balance. As always the fittest will continue to survive, and the fittest looks less and less like us every day.
- + -
In 1986 Eric Drexler coined the term Gray Goo to describe a scenario in which self-replicating nanotechnological machines trigger a sustained system which inexorably converts all available matter into itself - thus reducing our existence to gray goo. Drexler has since refuted the notion that nanotechnology will necessarily confront this problem, but the general idea that we, as a species, can do things that terminate ourselves is obvious and clear. Genetic engineering, nuclear warheads, ecosystem-changing pollution, cyborganic consciousness: we are creatures that are obsessed much more with what we can do, than what we should do.
The problem of Should is not just about these monolithic problems, but also complex societal issues. They can all be expressed as two premises:
- We very good at learning what we can do, and not what we should.
- Our systems for determining what we should do are largely crude, ineffective, and often downright incorrect.
- + -
In German (from which English descends) there are two verbs: sollen (should) and wollen (want). It is interesting to note that sollen evolved from wollen - the idea of want came before the idea of should, and in the beginning they were one. At some point they diverged, and since that time the distance between them has fluctuated.
The distance between what we want and what we should is the measure of our unhappiness.
We have contrived many systems which tell us what we should do: religion, politics, legal departments, gossip, cultural institutions. The more rigid and dogmatic these things are - the further the distance between what we should and what we want - the greater our unhappiness. Victorian suppression of all things sensual does not actually change the underlying desires, it simply breeds resentment, struggle, and unhappiness.
- + -
Happiness is the true purpose of life, and constant attention to the gap between our wants and shoulds is the path to happiness. Or, as another friend by the name of A put it, "If you don't know what you want you won't get what you want. You'll get what you get."