January 14, 2005

• TOPIC: THE ART OF HAPPINESS

  
  

  This is in response to a post on Dara’s site on sexual selection:

  
  

  Freshman year I read a book (ok…I read part of a book) called “The Third Chimpanzee,” by Jared Diamond, and there was a chapter called, “Why we smoke and do drugs,” or something to that extent.  And he was arguing that we do things that handicap ourselves to show how strong we are, comparing this to antelopes or some animal that jumps up and down for a few seconds when being chased by a lion, in order to let the lion catch up, an example that says, “hey…i may get killed, but, if i survive, what a badass antelope am i.”  I thought Diamond was an idiot, and I got a bad grade for attacking Diamond as an idiot, since he’s one smart mother f$#!er, so I fixed the paper to say, I think Diamond is off on this one.  There’s so many other factors for why human beings do things.  I don’t know if antelopes get a buzz from the near death of being chased by a lion, the same way we get a buzz from drinking a beer, or ingesting whatever your drug of choice.  We no longer choose our mates purely based on how strong our husband will be, so that they can protect me from other cavemen who want to rape me, and so we can have strong healthy kids who will be able to wrestle with lions to eat that stupid antelope who should’ve run away when he had the chance.

  
  

  Sexual selection today isn’t biological anymore.  I may marry someone rich so I can be a stay-at-home dad, but the bimbo I married might be mentally off a bit, and then we’ll have to spend all our riches on our mentally not-so-well endowed children.  There’s factors way beyond human survival and offspring, and that throws off the whole biological mating equation. 

  
  

  The peacocks tail is a genetic sign of fertility that is independant of environment.  The singer Bocelli’s voice is, likewise, not a sign of strength or fertility.  His brilliant voice is part voice, and part envinronment, meaning his connections in life.  How many other Bocelli’s are out there who simply lack the resources to develop their genetic talents?  What about professional athletes…gentic talent plays a part, and going to basketball camp, basketball clinics, having a good coach, all those things affect your final product.  When you choose a mate, whether it’s for their beautiful voice or their athletic ability, you are choosing based on cultural norms.  Say we plopped Dara in some African villiage, all of a sudden, she’s seen either as a goddess or the devil depending on the culture, and she’ll either be swarmed by guys wanting to get in her pants, or guys wanting to burn her on a stick. 

  
  

  The relation between genes and behaviors is both interesting, and important.  They haven’t located genes that say you’ll be a good singer, or a good basketball player, or that you’ll get into Harvard (although people will pay thousands for egg donors of Ivy League graduates).  It’s interesting to me that there are pre-disposition genes for such things as alcoholism and depression, meaning environment plays a large role in whether your psychological/behavioral gene will show up.  This interest me, because someone w/ an alcoholic gene won’t become an alcoholic in a society w/ no alcohol.  Similarly, all these recent cases of depression in America wouldn’t happen if we were a more chill society like Australia…stress causes depression, and American culture is built on financial and professional success, which causes stress.

  
  

  Also…if there’s genes for depression, then there must be genes for happiness.  Zinn talks about this a bit, when people try to argue that war is “human nature,” as if it’s in our genes.  But…we’ve gone periods without war, and some cultures have never waged war in their lives, so if it’s in our genes to commit acts of violence, it’s similarly in our genes to commits acts of generosity and compassion.  What makes those behavioral genes come into play is environment. 

  
  

  As I think further about this…I really would like to debunk the idea of a medical cause, or a pre-disposition for depression, or at least, to balance it out w/ a medical cause or a gene for happiness.  The medical environment/culture we have developed has shifted the focus more towards biology, and away from the environmental factors that bring out the behaviors and mental states we diagnose. 

  
  

  Why is major league baseball trying to ban steroids?  Steroids builds better athletes, just as prozac, alcohol, and marijuana builds happier people.  We ban most drugs because they’re harmful (but, clearly, in the case of crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine, we’ve criminalized certain drugs because poor people use one kind and rich people use another).  So…why else would we ban drugs?  Part of why we ban athletic enhancing drugs (and techniques like injecting yourself with oxygen rich blood), at the Olympic level, is to keep a level playing field.  It’s to say, we want to see who the best athletes are, and we want them to be “naturally,” the best.  The world has decided, that we want a world full of world-class athletes, and we want those athletes to be the products of hard work.

  
  

  When it comes to producing people happy with their lives, the world, with America at the lead, has taken an approach that says, mental steroids is the way to go.  In doing so, we ignore many of the risks (Prozac has led to increased suicide rates in certain patients) and we lose an appreciation for the natural “art of happiness,” and we do so at our own peril.  Just like many things in America, the rules of happiness have been dominated by a corporate culture full of advertising, that tells you material possessions, degrees, job titles, and money, will make you happy.  As we see more and more reasons why certain corporations are harmful to the poor, to the environment, and to our democracy, it has become clear, to me at least, that corporations are largely responsible for setting the rules of the massive game of Life. 

  
  

  This is in part an argument against a completely laissez-faire system with no government intervention in business affairs.  If there is money to be made, a business will be created, regardless of how it may harm society.  The government has interfered with business by setting drinking ages, by banning certain drugs, limiting cigarette advertising, by banning certain automobiles that are harmful to the environment.  These are examples of the government regulating profits, for the intent of the public good (I think our drinking age should be lowered, but this is not an argument that the government does a bad job at protecting the public good, it just means we need to have more discussion about it).  Until public mental health is discussed as a public good, we will continue to be bombarded by those businesses who are making large profits promoting unhealthy mental lifestyles, and the mental steroids that goes with them.

  
  

  The first step in fighting corporate dominance in the game of Life, is to free yourself from its rules.  Re-define success.  Pursue a job that means something to you.  Develop your compassionate gene.  Develop your happiness gene.  Pursue experiences and relationships that will last longer than material possessions that can easily be lost, stolen, or destroyed.  Read, listen, and watch non-corporate media.  Read Tuesday’s With Morrie.  Wear sunscrean.  Do an Outward Bound course.  Come up with your own rules for life, and follow them.   

  
  

  cheers,

  
  

  -dan

  • 3:33 pm
  • 5 Comments