Interesting article but I think it makes several fatal flaws. What is it that allows people in Sweden to live the way they’re living? Could it be that the reason why they’re able to live the way they live is because they’re surrounded by so many systems which don’t have a “simple life” view of things? Maybe countries like the United States and its constant striving for more allows Sweden to be less concerned with constant striving. If America or other Western countries adopted the Swedish way of thinking, maybe Sweden would have to change and become more like the system it contrasts with.
You also assume that people who are striving for more can’t possibly be happy in the state they’re in. Which is a fairly broad generalization about what makes people happy and what doesn’t.
Finally, you assert that external parameters are driving people’s interest in money or the need to constantly strive for more. You don’t consider that there are internal motivations people have which don’t necessarily have anything to do with other people and what they have. Wanting something is not driven by an external force requiring you to want things. People want food because it allows them to continue to function and they don’t like it when they don’t have it because it causes them to die.
That’s not external. Neither is the drive to acquire money so that you can continue to get food. People can’t grow their own food and live completely autonomously from everyone else. They need other people to do it for them. So it’s not driven by an external parameter.
Thank you for your detailed response, Andrew! I will try to answer your points below.
1. Here, I am talking about the global view on this problem. Yes, the US probably influenced all the other countries and allows countries like Sweden follow this economic structure. Of course everything would change with any economic decision the US makes, all economies are connected to each other. This article is purely philosophical and I ask the question of “what could the world that doesn’t strive for more look like?”. I agree that sudden socio-economic change would impact the global economy and incentivize other countries to adopt the growth mindset and overtake old leaders. But we can’t be sure that Sweden would need to change to be similar to the current US, it’s a hypothetical situation with a lot of variables. And the same would apply to any socio-economic change in the biggest economies.
2. I agree that I forgot to mention the definition of what makes people happy, I did it pretty broadly. Allow me to clarify. My point was that to achieve happiness, we don’t need constant growth in our bank account and stuff we own. Studies were done on subjective human well-being and they have found that money can only significantly affect our happiness up to a certain amount. It means that after the point where money gives us comfortable life, it’s unnecessary to earn more, despite what society tells us. Also, constant increase in individual’s purchasing power leads to a substantial increase in carbon footprint because they can just buy more stuff. This is what I am trying to prove in my essay wrong- there is no need for a constant growth in most cases, not all.
3. Yes there are internal motivations too. But they only drive to person to a certain point- to a point where person’s basic needs are met (as you mentioned). I am not talking about the absence of growth, but rather, about the unnecessary growth that will hopefully bring more happiness. And this is what a lot of people fail to realize- happiness is not found in external parameters like a better wage, but internally. World is how we interpret it. I didn’t make a point that we are only driven by external parameters, I wrote that we often look at external numbers to keep growing. Note that my article is about a situation where an individual makes enough money to have an average, simple life, with all necessities met.
There is no social stigma against your goal to feed your children. There is one when you are in the same job position for years while others around you have tripled their incomes.
I wasn’t necessarily arguing that a sudden economic change is what you’re advocating for or that in my suggested scenario we would do such a thing. Even if it’s gradual, we might see this happen. I’m a pragmatist generally so while I enjoy the theoretical, I think it’s important to ground a theory in what would actually happen.
With regards to your assertion that above a certain amount of money, happiness doesn’t go up. I’ve seen those studies and I think they fail to consider the underlying philosophical theory of the idea of money. It’s built around the belief that things can be simplistically quantified. There’s a Solzhenitsyn quote that sums up the issue with it:
“For a good person, even a crust is healthy food, and to an evil person even meat brings no benefit.”
The assumption that people don’t need above a certain amount doesn’t take into account this problem. Endless growth isn’t inherently a problem. Some evidence suggests that it actually reduces consumption and environmental impact. Because people who have more than enough can focus on things like the environment.
To paraphrase myself, starving people don’t spend a lot of time worrying about climate change. Abundance and access to over abundance is actually a prerequisite for tackling bigger issues. So producing more is better than not.
Your view requires an understanding of what exactly “unnecessary growth” means.
I don’t think it’s scientifically possible to keep getting happier the more money you make. I don’t understand how the quote you mentioned relates to the problem, it’s more about gratitude and how people perceive what they have, how do good and evil people relate to your argument? I think that it’s purely subjective and I respect your position. I personally like the idea that too much of a good thing is never going to quantify happiness. You base the idea of money on quantification of happiness, but isn’t the fundamental point of it a representation of value? And my point is that our happiness is not elastic, it cannot constantly go up relative to the amount of money you make. Fair point about the climate change!
I was mainly just being accurate in quoting Solzhenitsyn. On a philosophical level, the quote is about the idea that some people can get sustenance from a simple crust while others can’t be satisfied by a steak.
Similarly, some people can be satisfied by having 10 dollars a month while others can’t be satisfied by a billion per month. The idea that we can just say that no one needs more than 250,000 a year to be happy assumes that everyone can be satisfied by a set amount and there’s no variation in humans. All of humanity can be flattened into the same shape.
Oh okay, now I understand what you mean. I agree with this on some level. Yes, we are all different and obviously our bodies, needs, emotions, lifestyles are too. But I also think that this quote talks about how we tend to interpret things.
So even though a steak is a steak no matter who it is eaten by, it still gets a different response from the consumer. That means that our level of satisfaction and the boundaries for enjoyment are relative to our past experience- they can be changed. This is what I was mainly aiming for with my essay.
However, yes, every single person is different and I think the Swedish example accomplishes it in a way. It's not trying to be socialist, i.e. give everybody the same amount of money. It still provides different jobs with different amounts, so there is still some incentive left to grow and consequently, satisfy your needs. (A capitalist society tends to do it better)
Thank you for your thoughtful argument, I will definitely keep it in mind while thinking about this topic!
I think the problem is deeper than just the ambition of making money. The problem is in credits, loans and mortgages. The only way to wed people to the financial control of the institutions is by giving them what they don’t have and then make them slave to repay in interest. This is the elaborate mechanism of modern slavery. Thanks for writing this piece Rufat and also for your kind words for Berkana.
Interesting article but I think it makes several fatal flaws. What is it that allows people in Sweden to live the way they’re living? Could it be that the reason why they’re able to live the way they live is because they’re surrounded by so many systems which don’t have a “simple life” view of things? Maybe countries like the United States and its constant striving for more allows Sweden to be less concerned with constant striving. If America or other Western countries adopted the Swedish way of thinking, maybe Sweden would have to change and become more like the system it contrasts with.
You also assume that people who are striving for more can’t possibly be happy in the state they’re in. Which is a fairly broad generalization about what makes people happy and what doesn’t.
Finally, you assert that external parameters are driving people’s interest in money or the need to constantly strive for more. You don’t consider that there are internal motivations people have which don’t necessarily have anything to do with other people and what they have. Wanting something is not driven by an external force requiring you to want things. People want food because it allows them to continue to function and they don’t like it when they don’t have it because it causes them to die.
That’s not external. Neither is the drive to acquire money so that you can continue to get food. People can’t grow their own food and live completely autonomously from everyone else. They need other people to do it for them. So it’s not driven by an external parameter.
Thank you for your detailed response, Andrew! I will try to answer your points below.
1. Here, I am talking about the global view on this problem. Yes, the US probably influenced all the other countries and allows countries like Sweden follow this economic structure. Of course everything would change with any economic decision the US makes, all economies are connected to each other. This article is purely philosophical and I ask the question of “what could the world that doesn’t strive for more look like?”. I agree that sudden socio-economic change would impact the global economy and incentivize other countries to adopt the growth mindset and overtake old leaders. But we can’t be sure that Sweden would need to change to be similar to the current US, it’s a hypothetical situation with a lot of variables. And the same would apply to any socio-economic change in the biggest economies.
2. I agree that I forgot to mention the definition of what makes people happy, I did it pretty broadly. Allow me to clarify. My point was that to achieve happiness, we don’t need constant growth in our bank account and stuff we own. Studies were done on subjective human well-being and they have found that money can only significantly affect our happiness up to a certain amount. It means that after the point where money gives us comfortable life, it’s unnecessary to earn more, despite what society tells us. Also, constant increase in individual’s purchasing power leads to a substantial increase in carbon footprint because they can just buy more stuff. This is what I am trying to prove in my essay wrong- there is no need for a constant growth in most cases, not all.
3. Yes there are internal motivations too. But they only drive to person to a certain point- to a point where person’s basic needs are met (as you mentioned). I am not talking about the absence of growth, but rather, about the unnecessary growth that will hopefully bring more happiness. And this is what a lot of people fail to realize- happiness is not found in external parameters like a better wage, but internally. World is how we interpret it. I didn’t make a point that we are only driven by external parameters, I wrote that we often look at external numbers to keep growing. Note that my article is about a situation where an individual makes enough money to have an average, simple life, with all necessities met.
There is no social stigma against your goal to feed your children. There is one when you are in the same job position for years while others around you have tripled their incomes.
I wasn’t necessarily arguing that a sudden economic change is what you’re advocating for or that in my suggested scenario we would do such a thing. Even if it’s gradual, we might see this happen. I’m a pragmatist generally so while I enjoy the theoretical, I think it’s important to ground a theory in what would actually happen.
With regards to your assertion that above a certain amount of money, happiness doesn’t go up. I’ve seen those studies and I think they fail to consider the underlying philosophical theory of the idea of money. It’s built around the belief that things can be simplistically quantified. There’s a Solzhenitsyn quote that sums up the issue with it:
“For a good person, even a crust is healthy food, and to an evil person even meat brings no benefit.”
The assumption that people don’t need above a certain amount doesn’t take into account this problem. Endless growth isn’t inherently a problem. Some evidence suggests that it actually reduces consumption and environmental impact. Because people who have more than enough can focus on things like the environment.
To paraphrase myself, starving people don’t spend a lot of time worrying about climate change. Abundance and access to over abundance is actually a prerequisite for tackling bigger issues. So producing more is better than not.
Your view requires an understanding of what exactly “unnecessary growth” means.
I don’t think it’s scientifically possible to keep getting happier the more money you make. I don’t understand how the quote you mentioned relates to the problem, it’s more about gratitude and how people perceive what they have, how do good and evil people relate to your argument? I think that it’s purely subjective and I respect your position. I personally like the idea that too much of a good thing is never going to quantify happiness. You base the idea of money on quantification of happiness, but isn’t the fundamental point of it a representation of value? And my point is that our happiness is not elastic, it cannot constantly go up relative to the amount of money you make. Fair point about the climate change!
I was mainly just being accurate in quoting Solzhenitsyn. On a philosophical level, the quote is about the idea that some people can get sustenance from a simple crust while others can’t be satisfied by a steak.
Similarly, some people can be satisfied by having 10 dollars a month while others can’t be satisfied by a billion per month. The idea that we can just say that no one needs more than 250,000 a year to be happy assumes that everyone can be satisfied by a set amount and there’s no variation in humans. All of humanity can be flattened into the same shape.
Oh okay, now I understand what you mean. I agree with this on some level. Yes, we are all different and obviously our bodies, needs, emotions, lifestyles are too. But I also think that this quote talks about how we tend to interpret things.
So even though a steak is a steak no matter who it is eaten by, it still gets a different response from the consumer. That means that our level of satisfaction and the boundaries for enjoyment are relative to our past experience- they can be changed. This is what I was mainly aiming for with my essay.
However, yes, every single person is different and I think the Swedish example accomplishes it in a way. It's not trying to be socialist, i.e. give everybody the same amount of money. It still provides different jobs with different amounts, so there is still some incentive left to grow and consequently, satisfy your needs. (A capitalist society tends to do it better)
Thank you for your thoughtful argument, I will definitely keep it in mind while thinking about this topic!
I think the problem is deeper than just the ambition of making money. The problem is in credits, loans and mortgages. The only way to wed people to the financial control of the institutions is by giving them what they don’t have and then make them slave to repay in interest. This is the elaborate mechanism of modern slavery. Thanks for writing this piece Rufat and also for your kind words for Berkana.
Thank you for reading! That’s a very interesting perspective