View Single Post

Default 

October 9th, 2013, 21:04
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
"Suffer" is certainly a relative and subjective term which makes argument nearly pointless. That said, I'm comfy with a generality that people have an inborn instinct to want "more".

The key is that it doesn't really matter what the form of "more" really takes. It's free to be whatever is appropriate for the group being examined. So, in our current cannibal-capitalism paradigm, "more" largely takes the form of a bigger pile of consumer goods and the money used to attain them. If we look at "a simpler world" where money isn't even in the picture, "more" could take the form of an extra apple or a cave to live in that doesn't fill with water every time it rains. Taken to a strictly biological scale, "more" could be multiple or more desirable mates.

Regardless of the chosen context for "more", it entails by definition an inequality and humans want it.
No, I don't agree that we want more based on instinct.

Again, we want more based on what we know. If we understood that more doesn't actually mean more - it wouldn't be desirable.

Problem is that we think more is more.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#35

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,468