I can’t help but wonder why the humans in this story did not simply say “We long ago invented chemical means for individual humans to achieve perfect, undifferentiated happiness, but most individuals seem to consider themselves happier without their constant usage.” This is perfectly true, and, if it perhaps would not have completely satisfied the Super-Happies (no doubt they would want immature humans anesthetized until they were old enough to choose) it might at least have served as a significant piece of evidence. I can hardly imagine a society that has legalized rape retaining a taboo against the use of Ecstasy or some future derivative thereof.
But the individuals don’t consider themselves happier without their constant usage. It’s just that happiness isn’t these individuals’ supreme value, the same way it seems to be for the SuperHappies.
Consider a human mother who was told that she could take a pill and live in perfect happiness ever after, but her children would have to die for it. If she loves her children, she won’t take the pill; it doesn’t matter that she knows she would be happy with the pill, it’s just that her children’s well-being is more important to her than her own future happiness.
Oh, I see. I’ve been confusing happiness as a state of present bliss with happiness as a positive feeling regarding a situation, which are not quite the same thing. Excellent reply, thank you.
Alternately, imagine the pill would alter the structure of her mind so that she would become the sort of being that would be happy about her children dying?
So even in the case where it relates to situations, one might reject such a pill.
The Superhappies don’t have perfect, undifferentiated happiness. Note their shock and distress when they find out about the lifestyle of the Babyeaters. They’ve simply excised some sources of unhappiness from their psychology.
I can’t help but wonder why the humans in this story did not simply say “We long ago invented chemical means for individual humans to achieve perfect, undifferentiated happiness, but most individuals seem to consider themselves happier without their constant usage.” This is perfectly true, and, if it perhaps would not have completely satisfied the Super-Happies (no doubt they would want immature humans anesthetized until they were old enough to choose) it might at least have served as a significant piece of evidence. I can hardly imagine a society that has legalized rape retaining a taboo against the use of Ecstasy or some future derivative thereof.
But the individuals don’t consider themselves happier without their constant usage. It’s just that happiness isn’t these individuals’ supreme value, the same way it seems to be for the SuperHappies.
Consider a human mother who was told that she could take a pill and live in perfect happiness ever after, but her children would have to die for it. If she loves her children, she won’t take the pill; it doesn’t matter that she knows she would be happy with the pill, it’s just that her children’s well-being is more important to her than her own future happiness.
Oh, I see. I’ve been confusing happiness as a state of present bliss with happiness as a positive feeling regarding a situation, which are not quite the same thing. Excellent reply, thank you.
Alternately, imagine the pill would alter the structure of her mind so that she would become the sort of being that would be happy about her children dying?
So even in the case where it relates to situations, one might reject such a pill.
Well, the Superhappies would have already known that if they read the data dump correctly...
In that case, I notice that I find myself confused.
The Superhappies don’t have perfect, undifferentiated happiness. Note their shock and distress when they find out about the lifestyle of the Babyeaters. They’ve simply excised some sources of unhappiness from their psychology.
Which ones?
Embarassment, relationship anxiety.… I’d have to reread the story to remember the full list, it’s been over a year since I read it.