[theoh]

The phrasing you are using:

"Millions have died in wars for us to have what we have today"

is problematic. I think a lot of the replies interpret it as a case of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Even if that's not what you are thinking: sure, people die fighting for particular causes, but people also die fighting to oppose those causes. The history of war doesn't confer any intrinsic moral value on fighting. What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

"There has been a ton of conflict and struggle for our species"

This is more ambiguous. What does the "for" mean? Could it be replaced with "in"? (i.e. it has just been endured) Or do you mean that the conflict and struggle has all been directed towards the furtherance of the species? (e.g. "it's been a tough two millennia for our species")

This is not simple stuff from a philosophical perspective.

[bitexploder]

I meant it from a broad cosmic perspective. Through the chaos and entropy of the universe and evolution we are on the Internet using fantastically complex devices to beam our thoughts across some unknown distance to exchange some ideas. That chaos and entropy includes all the suffering of those that came before us. There is no moral value to humans fighting and dying in the mud, just a waste of potential. My personal view is every human life is a new spark, a new shot to further ourselves as a species a little bit more and that, inherently, progress is the only sensible option for our species. And, being a human who thinks humans have a shot at being pretty alright in the grand scheme of things, I think that struggle is worth undertaking. I know philosophy is complex and this is not a very nuanced view point I am presenting from that perspective, but I don't think my point requires very much nuance.

[theoh]

You actually made pretty bold claims about discontent being the human condition, I'd say they need proper justification if you want them to be taken as universal truths, not just personal opinions.

[bitexploder]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/17/psycho...

[theoh]

Well, if we're quoting Psychology Today bloggers (that author is one), how about this counterpoint:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meditation-modern-li...

I don't think it's a good idea to take Psychology Today or any other pop psychology writing too seriously. Science doesn't have the answers yet in this area.

[bitexploder]

I read this. Thinking things over. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion on this topic.

[FabHK]

How about this formulation:

a) There has been a lot of progress over the millennia (in many ways, from higher life expectancy to less violence)

b) Many people have sacrificed a lot to bring that progress about

c) We ought to be grateful and c2) struggle on.

I think a), b), and c) are uncontroversial, c2) needs to be argued for.

[bitexploder]

I guess that is fair. I just sit down and think broadly about the last 2000 years of human history. I don't know if I would say we should be grateful. It doesn't come down to gratitude. We are here now as humans as a result of some great cosmic turbulence that involved the suffering of a lot of other humans. So, today, as I sit down, I have the choice, and the opportunity, at least here in America, to decide how I am going to spend my effort. It seems like squandering of a great opportunity to not try to improve the lot of humanity just a tiny, infinitely small fraction, by doing what I can to make the world a little bit better, by making myself better, and by making those around me a little bit better. I respect someone's freedom to not believe that. There is no right or wrong answer here. I just feel a personal, moral, imperative to take the balance of those that came before me and work hard. I would channel Carl Sagan here: http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pale-blu... and put it into cosmic perspective even.