Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree with you but I think it's yet to be shown they're less happy than modern people. Happiness seems to be relative, and bringing them in from masters of their environment (if they are) to lower status advanced humans could easily drop their happiness even if it improves things in an objective manner.

I've absolutely no love for the concept of "nobel savages" or "primitives living in harmony with nature" but it's possible they're just as happy, even given disease, murder, etc.



I may have read too much Nietzche and Schopenhauer but I belive using a fleeting emotion such as happiness as the sole basis for measuring the quality of one's life is a terrible idea, yet sadly it remains an incredibly popular concept in pop-science self-help books.


Do you have a better measure of quality of life? Even if you don't, can you explain why you think using happiness is a terrible idea?


Meaningfulness would be a far better measure. People will give up happiness and comfort for a meaningful life.


Sure, but sadly they're not safe. At what point is it ok to let them die?

On one hand, that would be letting nature take its course, since humans are a part of nature. On the other hand, we could do something.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: