[ChankastRules]

I find it a derogating and a most thoroughly superficial aspect of many supposed moralities (of which many classifiable as oppressions), that technologies and ideas that have helped shift normalities to new ones become equatable to being morally inferior, for even judgment and its inflicting psychology changes slightly, allowing each shift of normality. Imagine your judgment (which is quite old) being equated to inferior in a time where generations of your normality and another even older normality live side by side. Consider that the manner of judgment you apply now, would have been applied to your own. Also consider that every normality already offered such a thing as 'possessions', clearly an inherently human concept, one which Rousseau did not ponder long enough on (although I'll cut him some slack since he's not from this time or normality ). Today's materialistic obsession is just another way to achieve fulfillment in the inherently human aspect of 'possessing', with the (*) distinction of there generally being less mental clarity on necessity and in many cases more greed today due to the endless amount of consumer products and their offering of functionality. In other words, your alternative is analogical to the aspects which you'd consider distopian, for everyone who in their same rights consider yours distopian.

You call the capitalist world sick, to which I agree, as Capitalism spawned many flaws indeed, but.. according to my theory: none which you described. It spiraled society to a peak within its reach, from which it is tipping or has tipped down from, accelerating to a downfall in which capitalism will simply cease to work, unless a net is built strong enough to support society's mass, its ropes tough enough not to break by the then acquired speed it crashes down with. But that's economy. Everything you described is psychological, featuring a shifting normality much more complicated then what your and every similar judgment make it out to be, as it is entwined with ecological, cultural, technological and genetic changes, most of them autonomic and irreversible through the same utopian desires made vocal, inherent in people unhappy with their world.. like yourself, apparently. I have written a 'controversial' 46-page dutch paper on this subject that might scare some people ****less, as it effectively argues that which you just argued to be most responsible for that which you disapprove of.. but at least that is a factor infinitely easier to mold than any normality's dominant psychological needs. This is why, in addition to my previously mentioned lack of understanding, I disrespect these supposed 'moral responses'. That doesn't mean I disrespect the people voicing them, though. Besides, you yourself had earned my respect a long time ago.


So what are the implications concerning your response?

I am one of those people who revels in Capitalism, despite my understanding of its fallacies known to me. Statistically speaking, I couldn't be alone in these realizations and preferences. Is it that we are too stupid to realize what apparently works for you, but does not work for us? Is it that we cannot be as happy as you can be in our own way? Is it that we all get angry at things being broken because of some sort of materialistic obsession? How would you know? But more importantly, you and I both are not in a position to judge or condemn these aspects of any normality. And if you condemn the aspects that help "destroy our earth", be sure to condemn every preceding aspect that led up to it, including what made current-day society's benefits possible. No, give me my riches with which I could make a difference today.

As for your superior happiness.. Current knowledge points out that the neuron count in a human's neurological network define your cognitive resources, of which the more you have, the happier people can be. The neuron count shifts depending on sensory input and deep thought, and the amount of growth or loss in turn depending on age and genetic edge. Apparently, almost every dominant normality of a certain time frame and culture has had aspects evening this out (from ancient traditional Egypt, to pedophilic Greek, to capitalist West) by offering both interactive challenge (like philosophy and logic) and some form of "interactionless unchallenge" (no, that's not grammatically correct ), like lots of TV programs, but also novels, myths, religious dogma's and the act of fishing at a pond. With this, I contest your notion of the ability of being 'happier', as far as "to each his or her own" didn't already make that clear.



(*) .. but did it just bring greed and less clarity? I think not. It is but one of many aspects, of which each normality has morally good and bad ones.

Great post I bet half of the people here didn't understand it. Yes I do in a way agree. I have used a too simple way to explain. The capitalism teaches us that material things are a way to happiness. I should not have said I would be more happy without it. Just that the ideology of that owning more makes us happier. It is what leads us to our destruction.