Nah, money can buy pleasure, security, confidence, comfort... but happiness is not necessarily a consequence of that. Some rich people live a very unhappy life. I wouldn't trade places with them for their money.
CAN you be happy because you have money? Yeah, why not. WILL you be happy if you have money? No guarantees at all.
Back in 2016 when I didn't have much money I reluctantly bought a pair of Salomon hiking boots for what I thought was a crazy ~140€ price tag.
After punishing them heavily with hiking, working (concrete, dust, mud, stones, rocks, metal, paint...), running, sports, climbing... they are quite weathered but as good and comfortable as new. I just wish I could buy the same exact ones again.
> How many iphone 13 minis have you used concurrently, and in how many different locations did you own them? Byb your own admission, you only use one at a time.
It's not about concurrent use at all. It's all about availability. I had my simple, trusty Logitech keyboard and mouse. And 2x more of each, in a box, in a cupboard. I'm not using them. But I have the comfort of knowing that if either fails, I'm back up again in two minutes. That, for me, is comfort.
Now, if I had two workplaces (for example home and the office) would I carry my hardware between places? If I can't afford to buy two of them, yes. But if I can afford to pay 20€ twice, I'll have one keyboard at home, the same keyboard at the office, and so. That, for me, is comfort.
Now, scale the keyboard for 20€ to a Lexus for 40k€. Same thing.
> buying x times the exact same car when times comes to change cars is kinda just weird.
I would totally do that if I could. I have done it with shoes when I've had the good insight of thinking about it. I do it often with clothes when I find a good product that suits my needs. And I wish I could do it with my very-average-but-reliable car.
I'm dreading the moment I have to buy the next one and take the risky decision.
I am very fortunate to have an above average salary for where I am from, but what surprised me from going to pretty much broke to quite well off, is that my life didn't become flashy, it just became VERY comfortable with normal, everyday things.
Do you perceive this as a tech-specific thing though? I'm a software engineer but this resonates with me more within other aspects of life in general than my professional background specifically.
edit. OK, I just went back and reread the parent post and now I understand what you're asking. I do agree with you, this is generalizable across the board: file under the old saw "Perfect is the enemy of good."
edit #2. Also applicable, from Alfred Korzybski's classic 1933 book "Science and Sanity": "When in doubt, read on." I've always generalized this statement (which I first encountered around 1968 while an undergraduate at UCLA when reading his book not for a class but because I had gone down a wonderful rabbit hole after learning about Korzybski and his huge influence at the time he was alive ) to all things that puzzle me or cause me to stop moving toward whatever it is I'm aiming at.
You are right. My comment wasn’t meant to completely invalidate the point of the article or to provide an alternative exhaustive list of causes, but more to bring this other aspect that I felt wasn’t surfaced yet.
> Some people are able to integrate things like alcohol, porn or whatever other moral sin of the week without negative effects on their life or relationships. These things aren't addictions for many people and there is also no value in making sweeping generalizations.
A generalisation in itself. And I find your username interesting, given your comment.
Banter aside, there is A LOT of scientific literature about how porn is literally a damaging drug-like addiction.
It's like saying smoking is not bad for some people because they can quit whenever they want. Well, lucky them, but maybe they should, because having that capacity doesn't mean their lungs aren't getting irreversibly vandalised.
I agree that porn, as with any other source of dopamine, can be extremely addicting, and porn addiction in particular can destroy lives and relationships. But I wholly disagree that we can just go around pointing at things and essentially saying, "that objectively has no value to anyone and if you think it does for you, you're wrong.".
OP specifically says, "quitting since quitting implies there's something valuable in porn. there isn't." That's an insanely broad claim to make, and it ostracizes all non-addicts with healthy sexual proclivities and boundaries, and again we can replace porn here with a multitude of other things. In a general sense, OP's argument is flawed.
I agree with that and your responses to other siblings comments, generalizations are often wrong.
In the meantime I see how GP post was ambiguous and led to your rectification: he was writing as it's his own words, but in fact was paraphrasing the book series we're talking about [0]. But whatever it's GP or book authors' viewpoint, you are right to point out the logical fallacy. However I mostly disagree with this:
> there is also no value in making sweeping generalizations.
Those book series use this kind of generalization everywhere. You may argue those sentences are false - ok, but they still have a tremendous value: help the reader with their goal! One of the fondation of that method is the use of those sentence and in a sense (with extreme words) it's a brainwashing with false informations. But a very useful brainwashing that readers engage themselves consciously.
Also on a more linguistic side: people make generalizations everywhere to simplify the communication (Dogs are nice - Python versions management is always a pain - The internet has made everyone more connected...) and it often don't bother readers. But that's not the point here I guess.
0: just one exemple but there's plenty in every chapters, but I like this one because it's very factually debatable : > porn provides no genuine pleasure or crutch and you aren’t making a sacrifice. There’s nothing to give up[...]
You're correct, thanks for pointing that out, my snark was bleeding through there. Of course that statement itself is an absolutism, it was tongue-in-cheek but I certainly agree that generalizations can be valuable; however, sweeping generalizations can also be dangerous and require knowledge to wield effectively. When taken as a rule, they can do damage.
I don't think your excerpt is very factually debatable though, as "genuine" and "pleasure" are both vague and subjective words which reduces the discussion to one of semantics.
I rarely drink alcohol, I had my first drink yesterday in a year and a half and it was a small one. But I certainly won't preach that it has no value or provides no genuine pleasure. Or that everyone uses it as a crutch. I have a healthy relationship with it. It's not hard to imagine someone having a similarly healthy relationship with pornography. We can certainly speak on the toxic environment in the industry, and even on capitalism in general and how it subverts consent, which complicates ethical consumption. But as far as the consumption of porn, it's just like any other source of pleasure: stay away if you have trouble with moderation or compartmentalization. And in general, don't succumb to vices, keep a clear head and spend your limited time on this earth wisely. But we cannot be making proclamations about the objective value of subjective experiences.
This reasoning (which I can easily identify with) is a slippery slope towards OCD anxiety and depression when you refuse to acknowledge that you can't fix everything.
You need to be realistic, set your priorities within a limited, defined context, take decisions and actions based on those, and forget about the stuff that didn't make your priority list.
That's not not-caring. That's focusing on what really needs your care.
Why?
reply