The History, Present, And Future Of Happiness

I recently read The History, Present, and Future of Happiness, downloaded for free from IncreasingHappiness.org. It’s a quick, easy read. The book is divided into three parts. The first part tells the story of evolution and how the phenomenon of what we call happiness first came to be. The second part adds up the numbers of how happy the world is currently. The third points to the possibilities of the future and how we might greatly increase happiness. The book also gives some debating advice, including stating the goals of the debate up front and contesting only one point at a time.

At its core, the main thesis seems to be one of repackaged utilitarianism. Happiness is seen as the ultimate goal governing our actions because whatever other goals we might have, they can be thought of in terms of happiness. The author uses the term in the same way I always have. It must be true because it’s a tautology. What is not mentioned is the alternate meaning of happiness, which is something much narrower and by definition temporary, often repeated by those disparaging our “happiness-seeking culture” in The West. I can see this leading to misunderstandings.

While the book acknowledges the many complications in quantifying, measuring, and achieving happiness, it does not fully resolve all of them. Among these complications are the fact that maximum pleasure is of a much smaller value than that of maximum pain and this seems to be a biological limitation. Also, people tend to return to the mean happiness levels eventually as a matter of homeostasis, no matter how their condition might remain. Empathy can allow us to feel pleasure at increasing the pleasure of others, but too much empathy can drain us if we are unable to fix their problems or if we destroy ourselves in the process. Short-term happiness can be at odds with long-term happiness, and vice versa. Finally, any rules that a culture, government, or even an individual might adopt to maximize happiness must necessarily be few and simple to be actionable, but this raises the possibility that they will be inappropriately applied in specific cases.

The area showing the most promise (in my opinion) is measurement. Questions are asked such as: Would you replace a neutral moment in your life with this one? What negative moment would you be willing to relive for a chance at reliving this positive one? By asking relative rather than absolute questions, it takes some of the guesswork away of how to compare different experiences of different people. Perhaps it can be used to settle the debate on whether it causes more harm to force transwomen to shower with the boys or to force transwomen to shower with the girls. Either way, someone is going to feel awkward. Lies can be caught by asking what people are willing to give up or endure to get their way and then holding them to it. Unfortunately, constantly surveying people on their satisfaction can bias the results via an observer effect.

As with the original utilitarianism, no mention is made of how to choose between two societal outcomes equal in total happiness quantity when one of them is comprised by a small number of ecstatic elites living off the miserable slave class and the other is comprised by a large number of equal, but mediocre-feeling individuals. One way around this conundrum might be to proactively alter the structure of the society such that the greatest total good always coincides with the improvement of every part of it. That way, we avoid having to make the choice. I have wondered whether there might be a mathematical way to quantify this as we do with entropy, involving the alignment of individual good (microstates) with that of the whole community (macrostates). Perhaps the entire universe is evolving such that sometime before the “heat death,” we will enter a utopia wherein every part (no matter how divided) is valued as much as everything taken together.

In this book, pain and pleasure are roughly defined in terms of that which brings about a tendency of behavior that historically would have achieved reproductive fitness. About halfway into the book it finally becomes apparent why the evolutionary definition is used. The secondary theme of the book is to spotlight the suffering (and happiness) of animals. By using the evolutionary definition, it becomes easier to guess under what situations animals will feel pain so we can avoid those situations.

It is further suggested that in the future we continue to do research to determine which animals feel pain and to add warning labels to or meat about the living conditions at the farm so we can make better decisions. It is suggested that we eat larger, but fewer animals, so as to minimize the number of individuals harmed. Switching from chicken to beef is used as an example. This is an interesting point I never heard of before. I wonder if the author would also be against farming insects (assuming they feel pain), since much greater numbers are needed for the same biomass, and in favor of hunting whales, since whales eat trillions of krill alive and killing the whales would save them. Of course, eliminating the predators from the ecosystem often has disastrous consequences all across the food web, sometimes creating more pain than before. It’s complicated.

Another suggestion is to prescribe customized artificial meat. This is congealed organic molecules made to resemble meat. In theory, it can be made tastier, healthier, cheaper, and with less energy than real meat. In practice, it isn’t quite there yet – and if you believe the carnivore diet apologists – it can never be as healthy if made with the plant-based oils and other chemicals they currently use.

What I was surprised wasn’t mentioned is the other artificial meat. I remember reading over fifteen years ago about animal cells grown in petri dishes to make meat. While the texture will differ from flesh taken from a living animal, thus making these cuts unappetizing to most, at least these would be real animal cells, yet with no body, no brain, and (presumably) no pain. I was also surprised that the biochip alternative to animal testing was not mentioned. These are chips with different reservoirs for different kinds of human cells – liver, brain, heart, et cetera – connected by tiny channels. Drugs can be tested for their interactions with living tissues. While the chips will never perfectly predict how drugs will affect living humans, neither do animals, which often have very different chemical sensitivities.

In the last part of the book, it is hinted that future technology might increase not only our happiness, but our capacity to feel happiness – perhaps through drugs, surgery, or genetic engineering. At the same time, animals might be altered so as not to feel so much pain. This inspired me to think of several other ideas:

If we could give carnivorous animals alternatives to hunting prey, this would also increase happiness. This would require domestication on a scale never seen before. We would have to take over the entire ecosystem, reprogramming parasites and pathogens to be less harmful. Suddenly, Isaiah 65:25 starts to make sense.

If we could engineer our own happiness, we could also engineer away our empathy so as not to be bothered by how we hurt others. If happiness is the only goal, there can be no objection to this act. However, if we still remembered doing this, we might still feel bad about that. We could erase this memory, but not without creating a new memory of wiping our memory. It is possible that reality is structured such that the highest happiness comes from serving others. I feel a story plot idea coming on.

I imagine those of the Abrahamic religions might object, citing Genesis 1:28-30 and 9:1-3 as evidence that animals exist for our use. However, having dominion often means to serve. Jesus washed his disciples’ feet (John 13:1-17). The sons of Zebedee were told that leaders must be servants (Mark 10:42-45). The Jews were God’s chosen people – not to be world masters – but to bring light to the world. It’s not that sacrificing animals to consumption, labor, and science is wrong; it has to do with our motives and goals. Are we using the lives and deaths of these animals for a greater good worthy of their contribution? Maybe it would be helpful to erect a statue or plaque to remember them.

Those who abuse their anointing can be removed. The Good News was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). The kingdom was taken from Saul and given to David. The birthright was taken from Esau and given to Jacob. World dominance was taken from the dinosaurs and given to mammals. Could the “image of God” be taken from humans and given to… IDK, raccoons, maybe? I feel another story plot idea coming on.

In any case, we won’t get to a better world if people’s hearts aren’t oriented the right way. The best first step to improving the world for animals and humans alike is to introduce more people to Jesus.

---

Please leave a comment!

If you like this blog, be sure to explore my SubStack ChartingPossibilities, where I post thoughts on science, philosophy, and culture, plus excerpts from my many published books, my YouTube channel WayOutDan, where I post weird stories from my life, my science fiction series ChampionOfTheCosmos, and my xenobiology field guide FloraAndFaunaOfTheUniverse. You can support me by buying my books, or tipping me at BuyMeACoffee.