People, as any animals, aren't build "for" anything. Evolution doesn't have a brain or intentions, it's just a stochastic process that happens to prefer some traits over others in certain circumstances.

Evolution as a dynamic does build things that are able to reproduce.

On the simplest level. Direct reproduction is far from the only way to propel your genes. You can never have kids, but lead your ethnic group to win a genocidal war against its neighbours, and will be much more successful at it.

With complex minds like those of human beings it can't even be reduced to just genetic survival. Memetic survival is often weighted just as much, if not more.

But then it's evolution of memes, not genes, which is a different evolution.

Wait. Is this thread becoming a weak paraphrase of The Selfish Gene?

In this sense, nothing and nobody is "built to be happy" yet here I am, a perfectly happy man.

I don't think there is much substance to be found here.

As are women.

In the English language "Men" can also mean "human beings in general". Granted, this usage is a tiny bit archaic.

I assumed the gendered usage here was intended, since it's not a poem or a format where character count matters. Unfortunately it's ambiguous without further clarification.

I'm pretty sure he was using "men" in the generic since, similar to "humans". That said, looking at stats like suicide rate reveals that a literal reading may be more correct.

I note you've assumed the poster is male.

The "generic sense" of "men" to mean humans is sexist - blatantly so. It's also quickly becoming archaic, for this reason. Going out of your way to use it, instead of "people" or "humans" or "humanity", is now a statement.

happy != good

The intersection of the set HAPPY and the set GOOD is not the null set. HAPPY is not necessarily a superset of GOOD, and GOOD is not necessarily a superset of HAPPY.