Finite Amount of Happiness in the Universe

[nanook12]

Many people know about the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created or destroyed. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe and none more can be created. And since mass is equal to energy it serves that there is only a finite amount of matter in our universe as well meaning there is only a finite amount of resources for people.

Therefore if we assume that happiness comes from having resources available to us and we believe in the law of conservation of energy, then in order to obtain happiness you are going to have to take resources from other people in order to obtain your happiness since resources are finite. In short there is a finite amount of happiness on earth and you are going to have to take happiness from other people in order to have happiness yourself.

If you want to challenge this theory, then I would dare you to imagine a scenario where happiness can be obtained without any resources at all.

[medievalman1]

Therefore if we assume that happiness comes from having resources available to us

That's a big if.

[Independent voter]

Ask a pretty girl out, she says yes. You find out she's into you as much as you're into her. You just walk around smiling all the time.

Your saying there is a finite amount of happiness is like saying you can't turn all stereos in the country to 8. It's on the individual.

[A Chozo]

That's a big if.

That's a gigantic if. It's a hipothesys based on... another not-proven thing <_<

Yeah, if Cthulhu is below the sea, then all life is pointless!

[Malachi256]

Happiness is relative, at least if you're tying it to physical resources and comforts. Otherwise there's really no explanation for why so many people in the western world are depressed and unhappy when they're the most materially spoiled human beings in history.

[Twix]

The next Einstein.

[Darsithis]

If you want to challenge this theory, then I would dare you to imagine a scenario where happiness can be obtained without any resources at all.

I guess it depends on just what you call "resources". My partner giving me a hug makes me happy. It makes him happy. Who did we steal resources from for that happiness?

[nanook12]

That's a big if.

Okay then tell me about how a person can be happy without consuming any resources at all. Not even food, water, or air.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it depends on just what you call "resources". My partner giving me a hug makes me happy. It makes him happy. Who did we steal resources from for that happiness?

You had to have food energy, water, and air in your system in order to raise your arms and hug. Hugs cost physical resources.

[Crissi]

I'd be interested how my imagination consumes resources. I can be happy just by thinking about random scenarios

[Adam Jensen]

What if there's more than enough resources for happiness per person than one will ever need/use? If that's the case, I need not steal from others.

[nanook12]

I'd be interested how my imagination consumes resources. I can be happy just by thinking about random scenarios

Your brain uses calories in order to create those imaginations. Calories come from food and food in a resource.

- - - Updated - - -

What if there's more than enough resources for happiness per person than one will ever need/use? If that's the case, I need not steal from others.

That is a possibility now, but with a continually increasing population that may change. At some point resources will be so strained that you will have to take resources/happiness from someone else in order to achieve your own happiness.

[Aishlinn]

Well, if we apply the same theory, there can be no more stupidity in the universe, because the OP is using all of it.

[ayentee]

does my happiness rely on all humans having access to resources or just me? If the latter, can I assume that maximum happiness can be achieved by collecting all the resources for myself? If the former, is there a ratio of resource distribution that achieves maximum happiness in me?

[Crissi]

So... Basically by living, we should feel bad for consuming resources? Because literally the only way not to is to be dead.

And resources can be recycled and continued if we don't over use them. This entire premise is silly.

[Independent voter]

I think the amount of calories you burn to have happy thoughts is pretty miniscule.

[nanook12]

So... Basically by living, we should feel bad for consuming resources? Because literally the only way not to is to be dead.

And resources can be recycled and continued if we don't over use them. This entire premise is silly.

No, you shouldn't feel bad, but you should recognize that in order to achieve happiness you may have to make someone else in the world unhappy. It's a dog eat dog world happiness should be no different.

[xChurch]

This seems more like a population argument than a happiness one if you're going to count food and water as necessary.

[Malkiah]

If you want to challenge this theory, then I would dare you to imagine a scenario where happiness can be obtained without any resources at all.

http://worldhappiness.report/wp-cont.../HR-V1_web.pdf

a general conclusion you can draw from this (and the list which starts on page 22) is that the amount of resources (in total) is less important than the way those resources are allocated and what kind of society they contribute to.

the countries that are generally more inclined towards social spending, less constrained by sexual morality, more culturally focused on fun and personal expression, and more secular are the top of the list.
countries that are generally shitholes or highly focused on material acquisition and work are lower on the index, which suggests a pretty strong corollary that your social situation and cultural surroundings are more important.

so "no resources at all" would probably be an issue due to a breakdown in basic living necessities, but past that happiness appears to be derived more from the kind of people you live with and your ideas of what's important, and less about the culturally capitalist notion that money is a shortcut to happiness.

[Crissi]

No, you shouldn't feel bad, but you should recognize that in order to achieve happiness you may have to make someone else in the world unhappy. It's a dog eat dog world happiness should be no different.

Blaming happeniness is silly. Living itself does that, considering you can spend the exact same resources and not be happy. Either way, you're spending the same.

Your premise is silly.

[nanook12]

This seems more like a population argument than a happiness one if you're going to count food and water as necessary.

Are food, water, and air not necessary for happiness to take place. I am pretty sure that they are.