[Dracophoenix]

> How many people think today's children are having better lives than the last generation? 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

Are they on anti-depressants because life has gotten worse or because of decreasing stigma resulting from greater accessibility to better-informed patients? Until the turn of the century, just mentioning you saw a shrink in any sincere capacity would get you funny looks in most parts of the country.

> Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10 hours a day, which is the funds supporting half of this forum's careers.

There's an old joke where a reporter asks a bank robber why he robs banks. The latter's response: "Because, that's where the money is". The bank and bar of today is the Internet. It's what funds and facilitates most social ventures, even the ones that take place IRL.

Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

[riehwvfbk]

> Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

This right here is exactly what's wrong. People are put into impossible conditions and then blamed when they can't magically make themselves happy with the arrangement.

Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

[Dracophoenix]

Happiness isn't self-induced solipsism. I don't claim that external conditions have no effect on individual happiness, but rather that external conditions do not uniformly or systematically determine an individual's happiness nor can one reliably use such conditions to extrapolate the happiness of others. A policy that addresses a so-called collective need often comes at the cost of individual agency and thus individual happiness. It is therefore, necessary to recognize that the domain of happiness and its relevant parameters does not belong to an abstract blob, but solely to the individual.

> Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm or a pet-owner's house) as a prison. For a significant population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and content as they are well-fed.

[throaway54]

>Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm or a pet-owners house) as a prison. For a significant population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and content, as they are well-fed.

Not if they are given a space which is too small and not stimulating enough for them, then they just pace around for their whole lives.

[flenkzooz]

I'm not sure I completely agree with your last assertion (except according to a very rigorous definition of "optimize"). While people do very much differ, there are certain things that predictably make the majority of people happier. Social connectedness, for example. We may not be able to truly optimize for these things, but I think we can reliably improve human wellbeing at scale. A successful example from the past would be the efforts to add more green spaces to cities. People like parks, and they're happier on average when they have access to them.

[dinkumthinkum]

Maybe an increased stigma was better? Why is that you can “optimize” unhappiness nationally but not happiness, if you discount the former I think there are some examples.

[Dracophoenix]

> Why is that you can “optimize” unhappiness nationally but not happiness

The conditions that make someone miserable are just as variable. Some of the most content people possess little education and are mired in the throes of poverty. If you started a national misery program where the government impoverishes its population left and right, there would still be a minority who find enjoyment, even thrive, in such circumstances.

[dinkumthinkum]

I mean you are talking about anomalies which is not what people mean here. Obviously masochists exist but that’s not very interesting

[brookst]

Yeah increasing treatment of medical conditions seems like a very poor proxy for proving an increase in incidence.