Satisfaction of desire

[Edric O]

I got the idea for this thread while reflecting on the fact that things such as pollution or a high crime rate can improve a nation's GDP, because they generate economic activity: If there's too much pollution, someone needs to clean it up (and get paid for it). If there is more crime, people will spend more money on safety-related expenses and the government will spend more money on crimefighting. In general, whenever something bad happens, this will increase demand for goods and services to combat that bad thing, leading to more economic activity and economic growth.

The standard interpretation of the above is that this is one reason why GDP may not be a good measure of quality of life - because GDP could be increased by things that actually reduce quality of life; things that make people unhappy, such as the aforementioned pollution and crime rate.

But then I thought, how is demand for cleaning up pollution different from any other demand? You have a desire (the desire to live in a clean environment) which is not satisfied. To satisfy this desire, you buy some goods or services. Isn't that what all economic activity is based on - the satisfaction of desire? And isn't all desire - at least all unsatisfied desire - a thing that reduces your happiness and your enjoyment of life?

Basically, people are unhappy (which is bad), and they buy things to get rid of that unhappiness. That's what most economic activity seems to be based on. You can see it in advertising: The purpose of most ads is to convince you that your current life sucks, but it can be made better if you buy something.

So my question is this: Is the satisfaction of desire a worthy goal, or would you be better off if you didn't have that desire in the first place? You hear about a cool new computer game, which makes you desire it (thus reducing your happiness with your life). So you go out and buy it (thus increasing your happiness with your life). Are you now better or worse off than if you had never heard about that game in the first place?

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I would first like to address your pollution/crime GDP scenario.  I don't see this as being an over all beneficial thing to a nation.  Here's how I think of it in my mind:  a boy throws a brick through a man's kitchen window.  The home owner must now pay the window repair man $100 to fix the damages.  The overall economy of their little town is now improved because the window repair man earned say, $75 net profit, which he used either to increase his business or spend as he pleases.  So, did the little boy help the community's economy by causing a new need?  I say it is an artificial need, and if the window hadn't been broken the home owner would've spent his money elsewhere.  Perhaps if we all were to bash in our windows the government could recruit the homeless to repair the windows in return for some wages.  Government charity in disguise?  Or we could send the same amount of money towards research towards hydrogen fuel technology.  Which is more noble, which is more practical, necessary, heartless, etc...  am I being clear at all?  Basically as far as government is concerned, I believe that removing unnecessary or "artificial" needs in favor of supporting other "real" needs is the way to go. 

Sorry that was a bit of a tangent.  To answer your actual question, my choice would actually be the one that your question excludes:  to desire, yet refuse that very desire.  Of course, your question has the potential to become very situational; but, to me the idea of having a desire and being able to resist it is a demonstration of free will, which I happen to value.  If one were to never have the said desire, then one could not demonstrate the ability to resist the said desire.

*edit*

I didn't see that you had a pole set up, but my choice isn't up there so I can't vote  :'(

[Dante]

There are so many variables, it's difficult to make a choice. It's also rather difficult to enunciate exactly what I'm thinking here...

Part of it depends on whose definition of 'better' you're using. It's always better for people to want things in the eyes of companies (in the generic sense) because when people want stuff then you can sell stuff to them. Profit and all that. I suppose this also makes greed good in the eyes of the economy at large.

On an individual basis it depends on perspective. Does the enjoyment you derive from satisfying a want sufficiently reimburse you for whatever it is you lost (probably money) in its aquisition? If not then presumably you are unhappy, despite having your want fulfilled. And if you keep wanting things, getting them and then wanting more, are you actually satisfied or is there just a temporary lull in the wanting? Even if you are satisfied, perhaps you resent being the pawn of the providers of things you want.

So, for the sellers, is it better to want and be satisfied? Yes.

For the buyer, same question. Answer: well it depends.

For me, personally: I would say that it is better not to have that desire at all. No desire leaves no potential for disappointment, no neverending greed, no weakness of mind to be swayed by the promises and products of others. There is no satisfaction, true, but none is desired (it's kind of a no-brainer that one).

Of course that's just in theory. In practice you don't get much more avaricious than me.  ;D

[Kokiri-Mentat]

hmm.....I guess I will vote.  Stuck with these two options (why do I suddenly feel like I'm voting  for U.S. President in '05 all over again?) I'd probably go with no desire in the first place.  Although that seems rather dull and cold hearted at first, the latter would mean that something or somebody has control over you.  This sounds like a topic that would be addressed quite frequently in the Buddhist  scriptures.  Anybody familiar with those?

[Acriku]

I find it ironic that you, Edric, would use such a loaded term as "better." Anyway, I certainly feel that the feeling of having a desire fulfilled is better than not having the desire in the first place. And, being the hedonistic atheist that I am  ;) I would go with satisfying desires to be better than no desires.

[alchemi2]

Without desire life would have no meaning/value, it doesn't have to be material, as wanting a better home or job or the latest computer game. We all surely want to improve ourselves to be more knowledgeable/ intelligent/ selfaware, it's just we measure our success in material ways ability to dine out, own a car or buy the latest game.

I know me and my wife occasionally indulge ourself because it makes the day to day slog more pleasureable /worthwhile IE I've got X to show for it.

[Sneakgab]

''I believe that removing unnecessary or "artificial" needs in favor of supporting other "real" needs is the way to go.  ''

Generally speaking, destruction leads to de-valuation. An increase is normally illusionary in that it is accompanied by a greater decrease in the event of destruction.

Let us consider the community as a closed system. Money gets it's value from rescouces or effort that upgrades the value of said rescource (ie: a table is more valuable than wood, a window is more valuable than glass). Let us say the man pays 10$ to replace his window. He is now left where he began but with 10$ less. The worker receives 10$ but he had to expend effort which has value. The worker can be underpaid or overpaid to net a profit for either of the participants in the transaction, but clearly the ''balance'' is now -ve (+10$ -10$ -window + window -effort). And so, for the community as a whole, the total value has decreased.

Of course, there are most certainly notable exceptions. Say, for example, that the fore-mentioned window owner was rich and no real use for the 10$ or for any additional money at all for that matter, and that the worker was so poor that he would have starved were it not for the 10$. Clearly, the workers extended (for a few days perhaps) life and increase in happiness was worth more than any detriment to the rich man (some may find that debatable, but regardless, that's not the point). In other words, the 10$ (and the rescource/effort value attatched to it) was more valuable to the worker than to the rich man.

So if we rate the value of the community on terms other than strict $$/ resource and effort value, such as happiness (the actual effectiveness of the allocation of said rescources and value perhaps?), then clearly in this situation the overall value of the community had increased.

There are other cases, eg: The wastage of materials in a war might increase people's happiness through violence and bloodlust (an odd example:D but just an example)

The destruction of tobacco fields that signs the end of many a smokers addictions? (though one could argue that actually that tobacco and the cigarrettes produced it from actually had negative value or that they had value in soothing people)

Not very good ones, but just examples of how destruction and taking away from a system can result in a more effective allocation of remianing rescources hence increasing value on certain scales.

However, I'd say that these are exceptions and not the general case (It's not like I've gathered stats though); It seems unnatural and/or unlikely for a systems value to increase due to something valuable being taken away from it.

Afterall, most of the examples were quite improbable and debatable over all (though they serve their purpose as examples)

Finally, one should not that had the rich man simply given the 10$ to the poor man without having to have his window broken, that would have been the best situation of all (since no effort would have been expended). Well, for the short run atleast; perhaps having to fix the window might provide the man skills and a career, but of course I leave out such possibilities as they are beyond the scope of the idea.

[gunner154]

I've thought it through and decided to use a simple model to see how it works out. The model is not exhaustive, of course, but it's a starting point.

Net change to happiness = Marginal happiness gained from satisfying desire - cost of satisfying desire - cost of acquiring desire

Marginal happiness from satisfying is positive, I'll prefer to satisfy the desire.

Otherwise, I'd rather be without it altogether. Marginal happiness of not having that additional desire is zero (no difference made to my life).

Here's how it works:

If it were to cost me nothing to satisfy a newly-acquired desire, and I gain a certain amount of happiness equal to the cost of acquiring that desire, there would be little or no diffence to my life. I'd have just realised that I was lacking something and that I'd gotten it, but the additional happiness is nil.

If there were a cost attached to it (eg monetary cost), the marginal happiness would need to be equal to or greater than the combined cost of knowing that desire and the cost of satisfying it. Let's say I'd just found out about the PSP and decided to get it. Pining for the PSP costs me 5 units of happiness, obtaining is gives me 7 units of happiness, and the PSP costs an amount of money worth 2 units in opportunity cost (the happiness I could have obtained from the next best alternative to spending it - be it keeping it or buying sometihng else). Assuming everybody were to be equally happy, I am probably as happy as someone else who has had no idea about the existence of the PSP.

Of course, the trick is that most desires, when satisfied, are worth more than the cost of acquiring that desire and spending that money on it, making it better to acquire that desire. I would not have absolutes on this, so I'd say most goods are probably worth more than knowing and obtaining it, so go with having a desire satisfied.

*starts to get muddled up*

I'm thinking of dismissing the model now. *grumbles*

[Anathema]

I think you should distinguish between crime levels and pollution one one hand, and your game example on the other hand. The first is a collective problem, the other is not.

GDP is not the only factor deciding a nation's overall welfare, even though it's important. A government wich realizes a tremendous growth in the GDP at the expense of safety on the streets will not necessarily fare well in the coming elections. Pollution is a little different, since the effects are often not apparent for another 2 or 3 generations and it's easy to ignore the problem "for now". It may very well be that these are hardships that everybody simply accepts as facts of life, until they find out that in other countries the problems are much smaller, leading to demands from the government.

However, just because people are not aware of the full extent of the nation's collective problems doesn't mean that they're better than if they had known. You still have a larger chance of catching some lung affliction because of the polution, and you're still more likely to be mugged than in other countries. So here the satisfaction of the desire is better than not having the desire.

The game example is different. Learning about pollution or crime gives you knowledge of an existing problem; learning about a particular game is the genesis of the problem (i.e. wanting that game). So generally you'd be better off not knowing about the newest games at all.

[Caid Ivik]

in my language, the word used for the idea of "happiness" is the same as the one of "fortune", denoting something undesired (or not directly desired) and yet joyfully accepted; there are many surprises which we may avoid because of being bound to a specific personal desire  ;D

from another point of view, people aren't born in a state of contemplation, but fully controlled by a bunch of mostly unconscious desires (or say, Will, in a schopenhaueran sense), whose satisfaction does have an effect of redirecting attention to another desire; as long as the desire is not satisfied, it simply stays; with "reasoning" in this matter we often mean an ability to control the attention, choosing priorities and learn to "enjoy" certain satisfactions

therefore, happiness isn't caused by satisfaction of desire; if the goal is to be happy, the way is to control the desires; will and happiness are (at least) two different mechanisms; they may be interconnected in certain cases, but generally aren't (buying bread leaves me usually cool, even if I desired it much...)

[gunner154]

I've always seen externalities like pollution in an economy/society to be a side issue when discussing the essence of satisfaction, which has simplistically been dealing with the way human behaviour works.

[Egeides]

One of the two options seem to be the question, the other the answer. It makes of Edric's question a differently "loaded" one.

I'm leaning closer to "appreciate life".

[Kokiri-Mentat]

"So if we rate the value of the community on terms other than strict $$/ resource and effort value, such as happiness (the actual effectiveness of the allocation of said resources and value perhaps?), then clearly in this situation the overall value of the community had increased."-Sneakgab

Yes, perhaps in this situation the overall value of the community has increased, but precisely how clearly can you quantify an abstract such as happiness? 

The boy broke the man's window.  Said boy is pleased with himself.  Man finds out the identity of said boy and proceeds to inform his parents of his actions.  Parents are not happy.  Parents punish boy.  Boy is no longer happy.  Boy is forced to pay the man back.  So you now have an unhappy boy, disappointed parents, and a man who happens to bear grudges towards the boy (despite how wealthy he might be).  Well, at least the window repair man is happy, but in the end the community's "happy" meter just dropped a few ticks further into the bucket. 

Your other examples were quite creative, and I agree with you that those scenarios are exceptions to the general norm.  It makes me wonder if it is even possible to accurately measure the "happiness" of a community.  Certainly not through material possessions (just watch American Beauty).  Most recent poles will probably show that the majority of Americans hate their job.  At least that was the case in the late 90's.

Is it possible to accurately measure a country based on happiness (or other abstract) as opposed to GDP?  Or even in conjunction with GDP?

[Tatar Khan]

Happiness or utility in economics is only used theoretically as it is impossible to add it up as every one uses a different scale. GDP in itself is also an imperfect measure as it is just a revenue account without inclusion of the costs.

In terms of pollution and crime being positive to economy because they add to GDP due to clean up costs, that is wrong. Yes it adds to the GDP due to services and goods sold, however it subtracts from GDP due to lover level of production in agriculture and lower level of productivity that pollution causes. Crime subtracts due to illegal activity hinder legitimate business and diverts spending from investment in capital and labour to expand the production towards the capital and labour that would guaranty the safety of the current production.

As to satisfaction of the desire the answer to that would depend on each person as each person has their own utility curve. Thus not every person would feel worse off if he doesn't have that latest product, the person could be indifferent.

[Sneakgab]

''Yes, perhaps in this situation the overall value of the community has increased, but precisely how clearly can you quantify an abstract such as happiness?  ''

Indeed it is an abstract subject that is difficult to quantify, let alone measure. The idea though is that is IS (though unlikely) possible to get an increase in value on one scale from material destruction.

As exampled by you're example:D, it is more natural for devaluation to follow destruction. Some people think: brake the window, then window repair guy gets 5 bucks and GDP raises 5 bucks. I say, if you're going to go on that route, and you want to increase the repair guys cash along with the GDP, then why not skip braking the window and just give the repair guy 5 bucks?

If ever a goverment were to flounce their pleasure at the GDP and construction company (example) value increase after some buildings were knocked down, it seems that the inescapable conclusion one should come to is that either said goverment is stupid (and really thinks the destruction of useful buildings was a good thing) or that said goverment is hiding something and/or trying to gain undeserved credit

[Andrew]

As exampled by you're example:D, it is more natural for devaluation to follow destruction. Some people think: brake the window, then window repair guy gets 5 bucks and GDP raises 5 bucks. I say, if you're going to go on that route, and you want to increase the repair guys cash along with the GDP, then why not skip braking the window and just give the repair guy 5 bucks?

But then the retailer does not get money for selling the window to the repair man. Then the window company does not get any money for selling the new window to the retailer. And the person who made the window at the window company does not get a paycheck. And the person who babysits for the person who makes the window at the window company does not get paid. And the babysitter then cannot spend money on crap from china. Then China gets all pissed off and deflates its currency some more to try and sell more. etc.

A bit extreme of an example.

:)

[nemafakei]

Andrew: precisely. Any economic system in which breaking windows can be considered "good for the economy" or necessary to its function is a bad one. Economic liberals argue that Keynesianism shouldn't work, but Keynes showed that such policies were optimal within capitalism - demonstrating a problem with this mode of wealth distribution.

[Tatar Khan]

Andrew that line of reasoning could be beaten with this. If the window is not broken the money is not spend but saved in the bank or other financial institution. The financial institution using the said money can give out a loan (which is higher than the 5 dollars saved due to ability of the banks to give out more money than they have in their vaults). This money are given out as a loan to the window repair man who uses it to expand his business (get more people to work for him (job creation), or to expand in fancy window frame  manufacturing or etc.) than in the end the window is there and the window repair man ends up with a bigger business than generates a larger income.

[Andrew]

Good point Tatar_Khan.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

"the window repair man ends up with a bigger business [that] generates a larger income.

Yea, he might expand his business.  But he won't be able to pay the loan back, cause no one is breaking windows anymore (apparently was just a fad  ;D) thus no one needs to pay him for his services.  So the bank decides to reposes the window dude's car.  :P  ;)

[Tatar Khan]

The is assumption that window repair guy is a reasonable person and so he would not expand his business unless he knows he can repay the debt and generate future profit. In other words he will expand if he expect net present value to be positive.

[Sneakgab]

It's just an example and should probably not be taken TOO far (looking at you, kokiri and Andrew j/k:D). Of course, any number of things could happen in this example, but the essence of it is that something has been destroyed. Imagine if the man's window disobeyed the law of physics and vanished from existence. Money, and therefore rescources (ie: matter, if one disregards effort/labour) could exchange hands in any number of ways, but in out closed system the total amount of matter remains constant, and therefore less than before the vanishing of the window. The idea is that money is only a representation of value that comes from effort and rescources and that if rescources are lost (window vanishing from existence) or effort wasted (window broken and turned into glass, the form it was in before effort was spent in turning it into a window) then there is now way in a closed system that the value could go up, and should theoretically go down by the value of the glass but effort (in case of vanishing) or by the value of the effort (in case of breaking).

The happiness scale is different because  it is not solely determined by how much value (rescources/effort) is in the system but also how it is allocated ( a loaf of bread has more effect for a poor man who eats it that with a rich man who throws it away to be devoured by (for the purposes of this thread) non-sentient bacteria and/or insects).

Of course, I have neglected to consider the effect of ''investment''. The window repair man could use his 5 bucks to invest in a device that makes windows from glass, thusly expending no effort and increasing the total value of the system (different to total matter) by transforming glass to something more valuable. However, I reiterate here: the 5 bucks could have been given directly to the window repair man, or, simply ''invested'' directly by the window owner to the same effect (for the rescource value of the system) and end scenario + 1 window worth of effort. With or without breaking the window the result is the same (for the rescource value of the system) except for the difference of one window and the difference on the happiness scale.

So in other words (and in summary): There is no point in encouraging or praising destructive behaviour even if it results in a positive reallocation of rescources because these rescources could have been reallocated manually. Only if it results in transferring money from the hands of somebody who is a fool and/or doesn't need it and/or would waste it (eg:spends money to buy weapon to destroy more windows:D) to somebody who has none of the above characteristics IN THE CASE THAT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE WITH SAID DESTRUCTION.

Excuse the sentence in caps, but I understand that my posts can be quite convoluted so I thought that perhaps I should emphasize that last point, lest the paragraph seem like pointless ranting.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

lol I didn't know my window scenario would be taken so far........I think it's fun. :D

"There is no point in encouraging or praising destructive behaviour even if it results in a positive reallocation of rescources because these rescources could have been reallocated manually. Only if it results in transferring money from the hands of somebody who is a fool and/or doesn't need it and/or would waste it ....to somebody who has none of the above characteristics IN THE CASE THAT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE WITH SAID DESTRUCTION."-sneakgab

Well, I could play devil's advocate on that last sentence in caps, but I will be a good boy this time  ::) lol.  It seems that we both agree that............ whilst destruction might (on paper) look economically beneficial, in truth it yields economic results that are inferior to other actions that might have been taken.

"The happiness scale is different because  it is not solely determined by how much value (resources/effort) is in the system but also how it is allocated ( a loaf of bread has more effect for a poor man who eats it that with a rich man who throws it away to be devoured by (for the purposes of this thread) non-sentient bacteria and/or insects)."-sneakgab

So, kommunism is justified primarily by the "happiness scale", whereas capitalism is justified primarily by GDP.  Yet, all countries use GDP to compare each other.  Interesting :-  I wonder how happy the Tibetans are right now.......

[Sneakgab]

''Well, I could play devil's advocate on that last sentence in caps, but I will be a good boy this time  lol.  It seems that we both agree that............ whilst destruction might (on paper) look economically beneficial, in truth it yields economic results that are inferior to other actions that might have been taken.''

Pretty much.

''So, kommunism is justified primarily by the "happiness scale", whereas capitalism is justified primarily by GDP.  Yet, all countries use GDP to compare each other.  Interesting  I wonder how happy the Tibetans are right now.......''

I can see why countries with GDP's that give a favourable impression (America perhaps? not that I've checked) would want to use such a scale. As for the countries that don't, they are receiving less spotlight and so don't really have much on an influence on determining the scales regularly used by the world.

It seems to me that GDP is just a number and value (rescources) is just matter. Happiness and other abstract considerations seem to be much more important than either of the two (ironically, it is not the world that matters but people's experience of it, the world would just be good as a cloud of space dust were it not for it's inhabitants and it's effects on them). Of course, what's important and what's not is a (to a degree) a subjective thing. It seems like the important of a number measuring something probably wouldn't have much direct importance on anyone (speaking only from ''sense'' of course), though it may have indirect important (ie: GDP has some relationship with actual value increase as well as happyness increase, though this relation seems stretched at best)

[nemafakei]

"I wonder how happy the Tibetans are right now......."

I don't follow.