NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully the title will attract as many people as the "topless women" thread...

I got the idea for this thread while reflecting on the fact that things such as pollution or a high crime rate can improve a nation's GDP, because they generate economic activity: If there's too much pollution, someone needs to clean it up (and get paid for it). If there is more crime, people will spend more money on safety-related expenses and the government will spend more money on crimefighting. In general, whenever something bad happens, this will increase demand for goods and services to combat that bad thing, leading to more economic activity and economic growth.

The standard interpretation of the above is that this is one reason why GDP may not be a good measure of quality of life - because GDP could be increased by things that actually reduce quality of life; things that make people unhappy, such as the aforementioned pollution and crime rate.

But then I thought, how is demand for cleaning up pollution different from any other demand? You have a desire (the desire to live in a clean environment) which is not satisfied. To satisfy this desire, you buy some goods or services. Isn't that what all economic activity is based on - the satisfaction of desire? And isn't all desire - at least all unsatisfied desire - a thing that reduces your happiness and your enjoyment of life?

Basically, people are unhappy (which is bad), and they buy things to get rid of that unhappiness. That's what most economic activity seems to be based on. You can see it in advertising: The purpose of most ads is to convince you that your current life sucks, but it can be made better if you buy something.

So my question is this: Is the satisfaction of desire a worthy goal, or would you be better off if you didn't have that desire in the first place? You hear about a cool new computer game, which makes you desire it (thus reducing your happiness with your life). So you go out and buy it (thus increasing your happiness with your life). Are you now better or worse off than if you had never heard about that game in the first place?

Actually, anticipation of satisfying unsatisfied desire generates the most happiness of all. Generally. The elimination of desire producing materials leads to a dull, depressing existence.

Congratulations, you have stumbled into the four noble truths of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).
There is suffering
Suffering is caused by desire
Suffering can be ended
The way to end suffering is the noble eightfold path

Well, you've stumbled into the first three, at least.

I got the idea for this thread while reflecting on the fact that things such as pollution or a high crime rate can improve a nation's GDP, because they generate economic activity: If there's too much pollution, someone needs to clean it up (and get paid for it). If there is more crime, people will spend more money on safety-related expenses and the government will spend more money on crimefighting. In general, whenever something bad happens, this will increase demand for goods and services to combat that bad thing, leading to more economic activity and economic growth.Unfortunately, high GDP can also be the cause of pollution as opposed to the other way around (pollution contributing to the GDP due to cleanup industries). The causality in your assumption is a bit off.

But then I thought, how is demand for cleaning up pollution different from any other demand? Dunno. You tell me why desiring and thus creating demand for a gaming console is different from not wanting to watch your kid die of leukemia due to polluted groundwater.
You have a desire (the desire to live in a clean environment) which is not satisfied. To satisfy this desire, you buy some goods or services. Isn't that what all economic activity is based on - the satisfaction of desire? And isn't all desire - at least all unsatisfied desire - a thing that reduces your happiness and your enjoyment of life?Pollution has adverse health effects. Whether you mind or not is largely irrelevent to whether your quality of life is reduced, although it can influence the degree to which it is reduced.

Basically, people are unhappy (which is bad), and they buy things to get rid of that unhappiness. That's what most economic activity seems to be based on. You can see it in advertising: The purpose of most ads is to convince you that your current life sucks, but it can be made better if you buy something.

So my question is this: Is the satisfaction of desire a worthy goal, or would you be better off if you didn't have that desire in the first place? You hear about a cool new computer game, which makes you desire it (thus reducing your happiness with your life). So you go out and buy it (thus increasing your happiness with your life). Are you now better or worse off than if you had never heard about that game in the first place?This is only valid when applied to luxury goods that you don't need, or things that don't reduce your quality of life even if you don't desire them.

Congratulations, you have stumbled into the four noble truths of Buddhism.
Yes, I know the basic tenets of Buddhism and realized the connection as soon as I got this idea (or maybe I got the idea precisely due to a combination between my study of economics and my rudimentary knowledge of Buddhism - whatever).

However, Buddhism falls clearly on the side of not having desire in the first place. So do I. What I'm trying to see is what everyone else thinks.

This is only valid when applied to luxury goods that you don't need, or things that don't reduce your quality of life even if you don't desire them.

True dat. My desire for breathable air shall forever remain undiminished.

Hopefully the title will attract as many people as the "topless women" thread...

:p I made that thread.

Unfortunately, high GDP can also be the cause of pollution as opposed to the other way around (pollution contributing to the GDP due to cleanup industries). The causality in your assumption is a bit off.
The causality goes both ways, true. I was thinking about one of those directions.

Dunno. You tell me why desiring and thus creating demand for a gaming console is different from not wanting to watch your kid die of leukemia due to polluted groundwater.
Well, of course one desire can be more important and more justified than another; I never claimed that all desires, wishes and needs were the same.

But that's not the point of this thread.

Pollution has adverse health effects. Whether you mind or not is largely irrelevent to whether your quality of life is reduced, although it can influence the degree to which it is reduced.
The point was that all unsatisfied desire is bad for you - some unsatisfied desire makes you sick (if you don't have clean water), while other unsatisfied desire just makes you unhappy (if you don't have a gaming console you want).

The question is whether satisfied desire is better or worse than no desire. To use the pollution example, it goes like this:

Suppose the water in your town is polluted. You pay someone to clean it up. Are you now better or worse off than if the water was never polluted in the first place?

This is only valid when applied to luxury goods that you don't need, or things that don't reduce your quality of life even if you don't desire them.
No, it applies to all things, including health hazards (see above) and vital needs. Here's how it applies to food and hunger:

Suppose you're hungry. You go buy some food and eat it. Are you now better or worse off than if you were never hungry in the first place?

The point was that all unsatisfied desire is bad for you - some unsatisfied desire makes you sick (if you don't have clean water), while other unsatisfied desire just makes you unhappy (if you don't have a gaming console you want).I disagree here, seeing as desire for cleaner water has no impact on whether you will be sick, whereas desire is the only thing that influences your well-being when entertainment is concerned.

The question is whether satisfied desire is better or worse than no desire. To use the pollution example, it goes like this:

Suppose the water in your town is polluted. You pay someone to clean it up. Are you now better or worse off than if the water was never polluted in the first place?You'll be better off. However, so will someone who never desired for cleaner water.

No, it applies to all things, including health hazards (see above) and vital needs. Here's how it applies to food and hunger:

Suppose you're hungry. You go buy some food and eat it. Are you now better or worse off than if you were never hungry in the first place?Here's a counter-question: You don't want to eat and feel no desire to, and as a consequence, you don't eat. Has the lack of desire kept your well-being from deteriorating?

You are better off in a materialistic sense, assuming the game lives up to the expectation and you derive enjoy from it. Although, it may have consequences for other things, such as weight gain and health problems from playing games rather than exercising, thus reduced satisfaction in the long-term.

Also, people sometimes derive far more satisfaction from social desires and goals than material ones.

I disagree here, seeing as desire for cleaner water has no impact on whether you will be sick, whereas desire is the only thing that influences your well-being when entertainment is concerned.
I'm assuming that your desires reflect reality, so that saying "the water is polluted" and saying "I desire cleaner water" are one and the same thing.

What you're saying is that it would be possible for someone to stop desiring clean water even though his body still needs it. I'm not talking about that kind of situation. I'm talking only about situations where your desires reflect your physical needs. So if your body needs clean water, you desire it, and the only way to stop that desire is to get clean water.

A person who never desires clean water, in my example, is a person who never experienced pollution and therefore doesn't know there is such a thing as polluted water.

Here's a counter-question: You don't want to eat and feel no desire to, and as a consequence, you don't eat. Has the lack of desire kept your well-being from deteriorating?
It depends on whether your body needs food or not. Naturally, if you have a normal human body and stop eating, you will eventually die - and death is a serious blow to your well-being.

However, if you had the option to transfer your mind into a robot body that never had the need to eat, drink, sleep and so on, would that be an improvement in your well-being? I'd say it would.

there is nothing wrong with having desires and satisfying them.

the problem is in letting the consumer machine define your desires for you and lead you around by the nose satisfying desires that have been created for you instead of those that would mean the most to you if you stayed away from consumerism.

Choice one: Spore will be released, and Atma will stop by EB and purchase a copy.
Choice two: Spore never exists.

I'll go with #1.

Choice one: Spore will be released, and Atma will stop by EB and purchase a copy.
Choice two: Spore never exists.

I'll go with #1.

and what year will that happen in? 2025?

Congratulations, you have stumbled into the four noble truths of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).
There is suffering
Suffering is caused by desire
Suffering can be ended
The way to end suffering is the noble eightfold path

Well, you've stumbled into the first three, at least.
The first three on the 3rd post! w00t!

there is nothing wrong with having desires and satisfying them.

the problem is in letting the consumer machine define your desires for you and lead you around by the nose satisfying desires that have been created for you instead of those that would mean the most to you if you stayed away from consumerism.
So desire is good as long as it doesn't come from outside sources? That's an interesting viewpoint. But what counts as "outside sources?" Seeing ads on TV is one good example, but what about finding out about a new consumer product from a friend?

Is consumerism wrong because people are told to buy things they don't need or because things you don't need are made too easily available to you? And in either case, what is the solution?

Depends on the desire.

and what year will that happen in? 2025?

No, you're confusing "Spore is released" (2008) with "A good FPS is released" (2025).

depends on the desire, as someone else said. Some desires are just emotional stuff, others are for freedom which might be argued as a necessity. The buddhism thing is useful, but there's holes in that too just like any other religion.:cool: