How do capabilitarians deal with INDIVIDUAL lack that isn't really (or only minimally) socially mediated? So, not people who choose to be celibate, but unfuckable incels. Not "child free" but "infertile". Not "solitary by choice" but "fundamentally unlovable asshole".
We're such a disgustingly hypersocial species that many of our key needs require not just being neutrally tolerated by other people but positive engagement from them. And I think much misery in affluent places (so after survival has been dealt with) stems from the fact that some people, usually via a combination of genetics and nurture, however inherently valuable in a philosophical sense, are just very unattractive as social connections. And providing them with that would require forcing others.
Similarly, normal human behaviour involves a lot of intraspecies aggression. Some of it goes beyond ritualused games to serious injury, homicide, war and genocide. It's bit like your wolf example but within species.
For most humans, better socialization norms fix this. For a small number of humans with serious mental illnesses that impact their socialization, this is a larger challenge-- some of them are better off alone, others are just doomed to some degree of misery. But in general the presence of rare serious illnesses is not a consideration in population ethics.
Similarly, for all of history (and probably in pre-history as well) humans have developed fairly sophisticated technologies for practicing intraspecies aggression in ways which are not detrimental. Examples: sports, games, combative spiritual experiences.
Yeah that's one reason why I'm an anti natalist. I don't think we can make everyone happy unless we're so transhumanist that we barely resemble humans anymore.
Obviously anti natalism will never happen, but I hope at least if it spreads a little, individuals who are likely to produce unhappy children (whether because of mental illness, physical illness, low extroversion, neurological disorders) will think twice. It's only those people who take anti natalism seriously anyway. If you're just super happy and love forming bonds with most people, you'll just think "anti natalism is stupid, life is obviously a beautiful gift".
"I notice that money lets me buy various things I value—mood stabilizers, a computer, a washing machine, not crying myself to sleep because I can’t figure out how to pay my rent and I’m going to be evicted, Lovecraft-themed tea mugs—so I conclude this is a problem with life satisfaction measures.4"
Rent tends to increase when other people's income increases, so maybe that's the mediator of the effect that The Origin of Happiness speculates about?
Presumably a working dog is one from a breed that has been specifically selected for the desired traits. That's true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all domestic animals, which raises questions about the meaning of natural behavior
Great post! I think there are some particular challenges when it comes to applying this approach specifically to humans. For example, the work in evolutionary psychiatry, such as Randall Nesse’s research, highlights strong cross-cultural dynamics, preferences, and behaviors that might still lead to mismatches in the modern world. This suggests that while there are robust patterns, the current state of humanity often finds itself at odds with them.
Moreover, recent developments, like the promising results from MDMA- and psilocybin-assisted therapies, seem to point toward a more flexible future. One where actual mental states, rather than observable behaviors, take precedence in understanding and guiding human well-being. While this framework resonates with me, I wonder if it might soon become less relevant. These fields—evolutionary psychiatry/psychology and innovations in wellness drugs—might enable strategies that are orthogonal to the established, cross-culturally robust patterns of “what humans do.”
How do capabilitarians deal with INDIVIDUAL lack that isn't really (or only minimally) socially mediated? So, not people who choose to be celibate, but unfuckable incels. Not "child free" but "infertile". Not "solitary by choice" but "fundamentally unlovable asshole".
We're such a disgustingly hypersocial species that many of our key needs require not just being neutrally tolerated by other people but positive engagement from them. And I think much misery in affluent places (so after survival has been dealt with) stems from the fact that some people, usually via a combination of genetics and nurture, however inherently valuable in a philosophical sense, are just very unattractive as social connections. And providing them with that would require forcing others.
Similarly, normal human behaviour involves a lot of intraspecies aggression. Some of it goes beyond ritualused games to serious injury, homicide, war and genocide. It's bit like your wolf example but within species.
For most humans, better socialization norms fix this. For a small number of humans with serious mental illnesses that impact their socialization, this is a larger challenge-- some of them are better off alone, others are just doomed to some degree of misery. But in general the presence of rare serious illnesses is not a consideration in population ethics.
Similarly, for all of history (and probably in pre-history as well) humans have developed fairly sophisticated technologies for practicing intraspecies aggression in ways which are not detrimental. Examples: sports, games, combative spiritual experiences.
Yeah that's one reason why I'm an anti natalist. I don't think we can make everyone happy unless we're so transhumanist that we barely resemble humans anymore.
Obviously anti natalism will never happen, but I hope at least if it spreads a little, individuals who are likely to produce unhappy children (whether because of mental illness, physical illness, low extroversion, neurological disorders) will think twice. It's only those people who take anti natalism seriously anyway. If you're just super happy and love forming bonds with most people, you'll just think "anti natalism is stupid, life is obviously a beautiful gift".
"I notice that money lets me buy various things I value—mood stabilizers, a computer, a washing machine, not crying myself to sleep because I can’t figure out how to pay my rent and I’m going to be evicted, Lovecraft-themed tea mugs—so I conclude this is a problem with life satisfaction measures.4"
Rent tends to increase when other people's income increases, so maybe that's the mediator of the effect that The Origin of Happiness speculates about?
Presumably a working dog is one from a breed that has been specifically selected for the desired traits. That's true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all domestic animals, which raises questions about the meaning of natural behavior
Great post! I think there are some particular challenges when it comes to applying this approach specifically to humans. For example, the work in evolutionary psychiatry, such as Randall Nesse’s research, highlights strong cross-cultural dynamics, preferences, and behaviors that might still lead to mismatches in the modern world. This suggests that while there are robust patterns, the current state of humanity often finds itself at odds with them.
Moreover, recent developments, like the promising results from MDMA- and psilocybin-assisted therapies, seem to point toward a more flexible future. One where actual mental states, rather than observable behaviors, take precedence in understanding and guiding human well-being. While this framework resonates with me, I wonder if it might soon become less relevant. These fields—evolutionary psychiatry/psychology and innovations in wellness drugs—might enable strategies that are orthogonal to the established, cross-culturally robust patterns of “what humans do.”