Why?
For many years I'd have argued the same point that you're making here. But in answering the question I just asked you I end up coming back to the same responses:
- I'd be 'better' than the happy people
- I would have worked harder than the happy people
- I'd have a greater chance to leave a legacy than the happy people
- I'd likely be able to make more money and have more stuff
Is any of that really worth being less happy though?
Side note: I think the word selfish has too much of a negative connotation at times, this thread being one of them. RE
is selfish, certainly not for the benefit of their peers and there is nothing wrong with that type of selfishness. Trying to maximize happiness for an individual sounds pretty close to the definition of the word. Hell, even our genes are pretty damn selfish!
You raise some great questions in the happy vs. better debate. A lot to think about from individual and societal perspectives. I want to side with NorthernBlitz for naive and risk-averse reasons. Namely, I want to be on the 'better' side with regard to individual pursuits even if it means sacrificing a little happiness if it gives my offspring and their offspring a slightly better start than I had.
I think in addition to generational wealth there is also some type of generational education/health/culture that exists. I wasn't poor but I would have benefited (even though I had a very happy childhood and adolescence) from knowing more about financial health from parents who knew more. I want to make sure my kids are aware and are not limited financially as a result well into their 20s and 30s like me. They will know about the tenets of frugality mixed in with investing and optimizing taxes in their teens while I sort of stumbled onto that on my own much later.
Improving your station in life is tied to better...everything but of chief importance is health. My parents were not too far off from paycheck to paycheck. I was a serious injury or illness away from really cramping their style at any point. I refuse to live like that and I hope my kids will as well. Buying extra stuff or leaving a legacy that people outside of your family/friends are aware of doesn't move my needle too much but I do see how it could have appeal for some. I don't really care how much someone works in their lifetime, if someone wants to minimize or maximize that, more power to them - we all crave varying levels of structure and I wouldn't say that some level of lifetime work for one person is better or worse than the amount of labor someone else compiles (this is the naive part as wife and I currently don't care about retiring in our 30s or 40s, highly subject to change in the future).
I am assuming 'better' would be more prepared to handle bumps in the road of life by definition, something about the access to care or household finances or economic opportunities or perceived amount of freedom is greater than what the person who is happier but ignorant of the slight disadvantages (if they exist). However, if we're talking about where the world of better and happier are equal (which seems impossible since better has to be...better), then I'd choose happier. But I think another assumption is that the 'happier' world is already pretty advanced and that 'better' is only marginally so, that's not always the case.
Also, I like the pie-in-the-sky science fiction possibilities that the 'better' world conjures up but this is more societal scale. Hopefully we would get to solving energy/food/disease/space travel either way in the better vs. happier debate but I'd bet on better to make it there sooner (duh, they have better technology).
That novella said, I am quite happy and don't care if I could be "prospering even more", can't let perfect be the enemy of good. The U.S. is badass as are dozens of other countries. I hope in the future every country will have desirable places to make a happy and safe life with the best infrastructure, medical care, etc. the technology of the time has to offer.