Why are we unhappier than our ancestors?

[blazeofglory]

We are no doubt richer than our grandfathers and great-grandfathers or their fathers and grandfathers. We have more resources and things to enjoy with. We are more connected globally and travel more and more. We are inching closer and closer to one another and are going global. We are more educated and more resourceful and technically more savvied than our ancestors.

With all these material and immaterial gains and with our world getting wider physically and virtually and with our greater connectivity we are unhappier lots.

My parents worked on farms and took baths in rivers and lakes and now I work in an air-conditioned office and swim in a swimming pool and eat in big restaurants and remain farther and farther from natural touches. I want to have my pastimes spent in big hotels and resorts or in mega-cities or partying with corporate magnates with glasses of liqueur in my hand. I have to keep social etiquette, manners and conventions. My parents if they have the time and means used to go on pilgrimages to distant temples and shrines.

My parents were self-sufficient to a great extent and grew most of food crops in his own lands. He had grains, vegetables in his fields, milk, curd or butter from his own domestic animals and enjoyed organic foods. He had little money to buy other things.

My parents were staunch believers and great devotees of Lord Krishna and I am with a great amount of skepticism is incapable of believing in anything. They were so much optimistic about this world and were so much concerned about the other world or the afterlife.

If they wanted to socialized they met at temples for prayers or to perform religious functions or celebrate ceremonies and I always chose to party with diplomats, strategists, business tycoons and the wealthy.

They did not know diplomacy, tactfulness or strategy when it comes to make a living and they toiled hard and sweated to make ends meet and were not the calculative types. I on the contrary live in a world of cut throat competition and hound for success at any cost and with my strategic mind set all I do is deceive others and make great gains and that will be costs to others.

Theirs was a socialistic approach and mine is a capitalistic one. They lived with the poor and understood their problems and circumstances I on the other hand always reveled in living with the wealthy.

That is why I have blood-pressure and am fatter while they through their toils and sweats are always slimmer and had no blood pressure.

That is why they with their poverty were happier than I with all my fortunes.

[papayahed]

That is why they with their poverty were happier than I with all my fortunes.


Are you sure about that? And if that is truely the case why don't you change your profession?

[MarkBastable]

The short answer would be, Speak for yourself, bub....

However, given that happiness is completely experiential, I don't see how we can suggest that we are more or less happy than our ancestors. And even if we could take a shot at that proposition, are we talking about specific moments of happiness (such as, enjoying a sunset, or spending an evening playing with the kids - and if so, how are you going to score that experience of happiness?) or are we talking about a sort of averaged out quotient of happiness over the whole of a lifetime (in which case, how the hell are you going to baseline the equation)?

The question doesn't work, really. What was the debate you hoped to provoke?

[Dodo25]

Show me statistical evidence that people were generally happier half a century or longer ago, because I don't believe it. And your own grandparents aren't really a statistically significant sample.

Furthermore, if you compare modern life to the state how it was thousands or even ten thousands of years ago, we definitely are MUCH 'happier' now! The percentage of 'people killed by the hands of other people' has gone down by about a FACTOR of FIFTY. So much for the myth of the 'noble savage' that lives in peace with nature. It's not a coincidence that about 12'000 years ago, when man first arrived in America, most of the largest land mammals suddenly went extinct!

[Paulclem]

Show me statistical evidence that people were generally happier half a century or longer ago, because I don't believe it. And your own grandparents aren't really a statistically significant sample.

Furthermore, if you compare modern life to the state how it was thousands or even ten thousands of years ago, we definitely are MUCH 'happier' now! The percentage of 'people killed by the hands of other people' has gone down by about a FACTOR of FIFTY. So much for the myth of the 'noble savage' that lives in peace with nature. It's not a coincidence that about 12'000 years ago, when man first arrived in America, most of the largest land mammals suddenly went extinct!

There are some studies of weapons which show that they were well used rather than being just for show, and a friend of mine said there was a statistic which claimed that a large proportion of English men in past ages were likely to die violently. Even without evidence it makes sense given the relative lawlessness and less effectively enforced laws.

The other thing is that while your Grandparents, Blaze, were lucky enough to live in a settled part of the world, at the same time great sufferings were being inflicted upon millions of people in, presumably, ww2.

[OrphanPip]

Ya, my maternal great grandfather was an orphan essentially sold to Canada by the UK, he was born into a Jewish family, but was subsequently forced into Catholicism by the orphanage in Montreal, at least until he was sold as child labour to a Ukrainian family with a farmstead in newly settled Saskatchewan, which he left as soon as he turned 18 to come back to Montreal and live out the rest of his life as a factory worker. I'm reasonably sure my life has been better than that.

[qimissung]

Perhaps what you are referring to, Blaze, is that often, as civilization progresses, and more and more people move to the city, we do tend to lose touch with nature. It is a fact that people are on the whole less depressed when they spend some time outdoors:

http://fyiliving.com/mental-health/anxiety/why-outdoor-exercise-is-better/



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2986498/natural_cures_for_depression_the_eyes.html?cat=5

Not saying your depressed or anything, nor do you seem to be asking for advice, but for people who live in cities taking the time, literally, to "stop and smell the roses", does seem to be effective in combating the urban blues we all succumb to on occasion.

Perhaps our ancestors were happier, but I think each generation of people has to figure out for themselves what brings the most satisfaction with life.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think qimissung raises a good point which is perhaps what Blaze was getting at that we have lost touch with nature to some degree. I find myself more and more returning to nature in small ways as an antidote to the modern world, be it in going out walking/biking/climbing in the country, gardening/growing food, fishing if possible, etc, etc and I find that this works for me personally. I think it is important not to lose touch with the simple things in life, but still, there is a definite danger of romanticising the past though - for many people grandparents and so on it was hard work.*

* Mind you, it's not necessarily easy today though is it? Progress in some things? I don't know...

[blazeofglory]

Are you sure about that? And if that is truely the case why don't you change your profession?

Changing profession is a different thing and we cannot un-civilize or go down the straits of civilization now. Today I live in a city and am drugged to the Internet and work in a big office and I cannot reverse everything going against the evolutionary track.It is just impossible and unthinkable.

My parents came from an agrarian society.While I can admire his stress life and simplicity I cannot go and live in the same way he did.

The issue is not of reversing our patterns of living and taking the reverse course of civilization. The issue is just to make an analogy between the kind of life I am living and the kind my parents and grandparents lived.

Our stressful lives are self-chosen and we intentionally chosen very glamorous city life styles. The more you are organized or compartmentalize your life style the farther you go from nature.

The higher the demands or expectations you live with the higher the amount of stresses you have will find. The wider the gap between your expectations and the realities you have the bigger the strains you will have. You are unable to balance yourself with the realities you are living with.

But all these strained life styles are what are proud to live with.

[hoope]

Perhaps our ancestors were happier, but I think each generation of people has to figure out for themselves what brings the most satisfaction with life.

Each generation is different than the other.. and i agree that each has its own advantages and disadvantagies.... things that our grandparents were lucky to have .. others we are lucky to have..
Maybe they were happy coz the simply life and the healthy life style they had.. And comparing to ours we have more technologies.. and more healthcare facilities.. which makes our life so happy.
Happiness can't be measured as to what one sees.. but its regarding each ones own view... But we are not unhappier than our ancestors.. we could be luckier.. :) But then had their life.. and we have ours..
As Qimissung said.. its about how we figues our satisfaction .

[blazeofglory]

When we dump ourselves with too muchness we strain ourselves. I know when I take too many assignments or engage in too many institutions I will stress out myself.

Organizations have their own rules and regulations and I have to regulate or direct my life styles with regard to their norms and I have to lose myself and I thaw and try to change myself and this strains me then.

Disentangle yourself and live freely and a little bit outdoor life you will be happier than when you are too much with your institutional life.

While we cannot measure happiness we can still compare our own between moments when we were free and when we are too much laden with duties and accountability or accomplishments

[jajdude]

"Why are we unhappier than our ancestors?"

This question assumes that it's true. It isn't.

The "good ol' days" do not exist either. Maybe that's just what older people say when wishing they were young again?

[Oniw17]

Idleness and loss of what's important in life. Look at Amish people. They're stronger and at least make more of an attempt to be moral than most people. Other than some science, they are pretty well educated. They're far more financially independent than almost anyone. Most of all, they are much more family/community oriented. If someone has a problem, everyone helps.

Happiness isn't all about having the best standard of living and the least disease. Very little of my happiness comes from these things. I find happiness in friends and family, in socialization(and I'm very introvert). I'm happy when I meet someone who's not on some game bull****, trying to pull a trick on someone to get whatever they can out of them. I find happiness in developing skills and learning. You can be a lot happier with a lot less, and the kindred spirit feeling of one who's been through similar struggles to yours is almost sacred in my eyes. I think I'd kill someone who harmed you just because I got that feeling from you.

If more people died from lack of laws and healthcare, I'm willing to bet that those who survived would be a lot happier with all those extra resources and space. Not only that, but they'd be more desensitized to death, and it wouldn't be so bad when it came; plus, we'd all appreciate the people who are still alive a lot more. If we still had kings, politics wouldn't make it so that it takes years to even get something started.

People are so lazy these days, not just with physical labor and studying, but even with emotional relationships. How can you have something you care so deeply about, and yet be unable to give it any of your time and effort? I've seen it a lot. Laziness as a mindset is like a trap, it takes a lot of work to escape... and it come from idleness.

I know, this post is biased, but it's my bias and most of the other posts had the opposite bias anyway.

[MarkBastable]

Idleness and loss of what's important in life. Look at Amish people. They're stronger and at least make more of an attempt to be moral than most people. Other than some science, they are pretty well educated. They're far more financially independent than almost anyone. Most of all, they are much more family/community oriented. If someone has a problem, everyone helps.

None of which, even if true, suggests that they are happy in their own terms, happy in anyone else's terms, happy according to some agreed objective scale or, in any of those cases, happier than anyone else.

[Paulclem]

If more people died from lack of laws and healthcare, I'm willing to bet that those who survived would be a lot happier with all those extra resources and space. Not only that, but they'd be more desensitized to death, and it wouldn't be so bad when it came; plus, we'd all appreciate the people who are still alive a lot more. If we still had kings, politics wouldn't make it so that it takes years to even get something started.



There's a thing called survivor guilt, which affects survivors of wars and disasters.

As for the quality of life improving for survivors if more people died - well I find this idea disturbing. We all contribute to our respective communities and you suggest that we have a "surplus population" to use Dicken's term.

We've had Kings here in the UK, and a murderous bunch they were too. Royalty has been eulogised, but they are dictators by another name. Your view is too romantic.

[blazeofglory]

Why we are unhappier is we are stormed with too many challenges today. Not that there were no challenges in my grandparents' days. But they had not many challenges compared with us. We have to make a living, and socialize, join clubs, got to restaurants.

My parents had no doubts challenges to raise a big family of 14 members. Financially he was unsound. The only thing the family had to live off was farms. And he with his family members toiled hard, sweated in the scorching sun, returned home exhausted and yet could enjoy any meals he was served to devouringly. They used to have goodnights' sleeps. There was not much money and he hardly could have surpluses but never bank balances.

But now I am in a different world, a world wherein few marriages can be sustained and fewer homes unbroken and still fewer relations can continue throughout their lives. Of course there were comparatively fewer women raising their voices against the chauvinisms of their counterparts' males. They were less romantic and used to have fewer frequencies of sex and yet they were so much close to each other. Life was at a slow pace but what was important was how one lived.

Today we are too much possessive or accumulative amassing huge and huge amounts of things for fear of our futures and hoarding is therefore one of the problems society faces these days.

[Oniw17]

None of which, even if true, suggests that they are happy in their own terms, happy in anyone else's terms, happy according to some agreed objective scale or, in any of those cases, happier than anyone else. Yeah but that applies to anyone under any conditions. Many Amish do decide that they'd be happier living more modern lives and do so.


There's a thing called survivor guilt, which affects survivors of wars and disasters.

As for the quality of life improving for survivors if more people died - well I find this idea disturbing. We all contribute to our respective communities and you suggest that we have a "surplus population" to use Dicken's term. We don't all contribute, not all contributions are positive, and we do have a surplus population.


We've had Kings here in the UK, and a murderous bunch they were too. Royalty has been eulogised, but they are dictators by another name.
Say what you want, dictators get things done.

Your view is too romantic.
Purposely, I'm just presenting another point of view. My personal opinion matches a lot of the others here. There's really no way to measure happiness, and different people in the same time period can be just as happy or unhappy as anyone in any other time period.

[OrphanPip]

Say what you want, dictators get things done.


Says who, the most economically prosperous countries per capita are all democracies. What wonderful achievements have dictators achieved lately...

[MarkBastable]

Pip's right, you know. The punctuality record of Italian railways under Mussolini was no better or worse than it had been before or has been since. Contrary to myth, Benito didn't even make the trains run on time.

[Paulclem]

We don't all contribute, not all contributions are positive, and we do have a surplus population.


Say what you want, dictators get things done.

Purposely, I'm just presenting another point of view. My personal opinion matches a lot of the others here. There's really no way to measure happiness, and different people in the same time period can be just as happy or unhappy as anyone in any other time period.

True not everyone contributes, but everyone has the potential to, and perhaps should be given the chance to. It's also narrow minded to suggest that those who don't contribute never do. People change.

Dictators get things done for their own ends, not for the greater good. The myth of the strong leader is complete bull. They all need clever, talented people to maintain their despotism.

The question of surplus population involves a lot of value judgements to decide who is "surplus to requirements". There has been a lot of that in the last century - particularly by dictators.

I agree that there's no way to compare different happinesses.

[Oniw17]

Says who, the most economically prosperous countries per capita are all democracies. What wonderful achievements have dictators achieved lately...Well, what great things were democracies doing 500 years ago?


Dictators get things done for their own ends, not for the greater good.
That's true. And the dictators who would actually do a good job are too ethical not to set themselves up for failure before they start.

The myth of the strong leader is complete bull. They all need clever, talented people to maintain their despotism.
The second sentence doesn't make the first sentence true. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a strong leader anyway.

[MarkBastable]

Why are we starting with the premise that people have to 'contribute'? What has that got to do with whether they are happy?

[Paulclem]

That's true. And the dictators who would actually do a good job are too ethical not to set themselves up for failure before they start.
The second sentence doesn't make the first sentence true. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a strong leader anyway.

That's true. And the dictators who would actually do a good job are too ethical not to set themselves up for failure before they start.

Do you mean ethical dictators wouldn't be dictators?

By strong leader I mean the idea that one person can encompass all a country needs. Today's societies are far too complex and need a government rather than an all powerful dictator. I'm not sure that they were ever simple enough for one person to really head up. The myth denies the fact of extensive input and co-ordination.

[YesNo]

...

My parents came from an agrarian society.While I can admire his stress life and simplicity I cannot go and live in the same way he did.

...

The higher the demands or expectations you live with the higher the amount of stresses you have will find. The wider the gap between your expectations and the realities you have the bigger the strains you will have. You are unable to balance yourself with the realities you are living with.

...
I guess stress and unhappiness can be seen as the body telling us something is wrong.

I don't think living in an urban society is the cause of stress and unhappiness. So I'll assume that it won't help going back to an agrarian society.

Perhaps the problem is related to the "gap between your expectations and the realities you have". Maybe there shouldn't be any gap?

You mentioned earlier that your parents are devotees of Krishna, but you are not, and they seem happier than you are. I don't know much about Hinduism, but perhaps you could try, as a test, practicing some parts of that religion that you don't completely object to. Perhaps something as simple as slowing down and trusting whatever to make your life right.

The reason I'm suggesting that is because of a story I remember reading about Diti, a goddess whose children were all demons.

It turns out Indra killed two of her particularly disgusting children and she now wanted to have a child as revenge who would kill Indra. She succeeded in tricking her husband, by being especially nice to him, to let her know the secret of how to have such a child. Her husband was a sage and knew those sorts of things.

Are you familiar with the story? I really don't know it well, but I'll continue.

Anyway her husband told her that she had to perform rituals including daily meditation to Vishnu for a year. If she performed all that exactly as he said, she would be able to have a child who could kill Indra. So she did as he told her to do. Her dedication started to worry Indra, but he couldn't do much about it. It looked like she would get whatever magical power she needed to kill him. She meditated every day on Vishnu, as a means to an evil end.

At the end of the year, as a result of all that meditation, she didn't want to kill Indra anymore.

[SilentMute]

I was interested in archaeology as a young adult because I believed those who preceded us had knowledge about life that we had lost. At some point, I realized that people thousands of years ago were not really any different from us. If you read some of the letters that survived, you can see this. They were aggravated by other people's flaws--for example, a cuneiform tablet that survived was a letter from a merchant to someone who apparently was responsible for meeting him for a business transaction. The gist of the letter was, "You better be there by (time listed) or I swear to god I am going to kill you!"

There are papyrus scrolls that depict pornography. Read the writings of any ancient culture, and you will see many of the emotions we all have today. Grief, greed, anger, lust, unrequited love, etc. So, were our ancestors any happier than we are? I personally do not thinks so.

The only difference I really think there is that our technology has allowed us to become more independent and not rely on people as much--and I think this has lead to the break-down of interpersonal relationships. People don't have to put up with behavior they don't like in another person because they are capable of taking care of themselves.

For instance, why did marriages last longer in my grandparents' day? It wasn't that people liked each other any better--but they needed each other more. Women could not get an apartment, get a job to support themselves easily--without a man. Men were forced to marry because there was a stigma attached to a man if he didn't that could interfere with him socially. Because they relied on each other, probably people tried harder to live with each other. I don't think they had the same concepts about happiness that we do. We expect romance, equality, many fine ideas in our relationships. As a result, we get disenchanted easier. People in those days didn't have those concepts. Probably a good day in a marriage was a quiet day where you didn't argue and your mate didn't incite you to murder them.

Of course, I'm talking from a perspective of an American woman. I know that things may be different elsewhere.

Maybe we are always unhappy because we believe that someone else has it better than we do. Our ancestors were happier than us. People in another country are happier than us because they are richer. Our neighbor is happier than us because he has more. But I'm willing to bet that our ancestors had these same thoughts.

[Paulclem]

Interesting thoughts Silent. I like the needing each other more in the past theory.

[SilentMute]

Thanks, Paulclem!

Actually, I borrowed that philosophy from mom because I think it is sound--and she has lived longer than me. ;)

[JuniperWoolf]

I think qimissung raises a good point which is perhaps what Blaze was getting at that we have lost touch with nature to some degree.

Yeah, that's what I got out of the question. Since (due to the complete lack of written documentation) we can't know anything about what our early nomadic ancestors were feeling, we can at least come to the conclusion based on anthropological evidence that the suicide rate was at least much lower. Now, that may also be because there where already so many things in the world of our early relatives prepared to kill them without their own input into their demise, but whatever. That's interpretation of evidence and depends on your perspective.