so if wild animals are un-happy they are then a MAJOR concern because they are so numerous

wild animals dont (usually) seem to commit suicide so perhaps they are happy

you could argue that animals cant concieve the idea of suicide and that it has no evolutionary advantage so they wouldnt concieve it but humans did and were not that different and there are reports of non-human animal suicides too.
if there was no happiness in wild animals lives it seems very unlikely to me that they'd bother living and not just lie down somewhere and do nothing

i bet human suicide rates are way higher than wild animal ones (ok i have no source here but trust me for the purpose of my argument)

and i have never heard of suicide in primitve human tribes (but their numbers are very low and stuff so thats doesnt neccesarily mean much)

therefore, because of these last two things i prepose that living in a way that is suited to the organism one is, "a natural way" , is what makes that organism happy.

WAAHHHEYYY

but then my girlfriend pointed out that happiness is relative,

in third world countries suffering is the norm and is much more accepted

and i bet its the same in the wild

happiness is relative to how you usually feel and how those around you feel

if people get eaten all the time its not as big a deal at all

so perhaps regardless of how you live you will feel a similar amount of happiness/sadness

at this point im thinking "HEADONIC TREADMILL!!"

agree?:)

Ruairi wrote:you could argue that animals cant concieve the idea of suicide and that it has no evolutionary advantage so they wouldnt concieve it but humans did and were not that different and there are reports of non-human animal suicides too
if there was no happiness in wild animals lives it seems very unlikely to me that they'd bother living and not just lie down somewhere and do nothing

I think we're very different in our ability to model the world in abstract terms and our ability to understand death as a concept and suicide as an instrumental action to switch off our consciousness. Furthermore, non-human animals can be depressed and "lie down somewhere and do nothing" - but negative impulses such as pain, suffocation, hunger, fear etc. can still motivate survival actions. There must be some positive motivation, e.g. to compete for potential mates and reproduce. But this is not inconsistent with a total amount of suffering that out-weighs the pleasures. A net-negative hedonic life may still be adaptive.

Suicide itself is painful too, especially in a natural context, since evolution found ways to penalize maladaptive behavior in such environments with error signals. That's why the decision to stop breathing is a very unpleasant one. Even modern humans can fail committing suicide, and/or suffer horribly during the process.

therefore, because of these last two things i prepose that living in a way that is suited to the organism one is, "a natural way" , is what makes that organism happy.

There is certainly a grain of truth in this, in the sense that a modern lifestyle that lacks vital factors that would contribute to happiness in a natural environment can lead to unhappiness, while being superficially superior. However, we have innovations such as anaesthesia, clothing that can be adjusted to weather, shelter, food surplus from agriculture etc. that all shield us from major natural sources of suffering. Just painkillers alone probably make quite a difference.

I do agree that the hedonic treadmill is a real psychological phenomenon. But I think it has its limits, there are still quantifiable differences.

It is also worth noting that even if we assumed wild animals were better off existing than not existing, it's conceivable that a reduction of nature and a relative replacement of ecosystems with civilization processes can provide a better utility landscape. Then the question becomes a question of system sustainability.

in third world countries suffering is the norm and is much more accepted

I seriously doubt that, given a better choice, people would accept more suffering because it is the norm. It is a lack of a better choice that may make the difference. It is also worth remembering that painless suicide methods are not universally within easy reach. A child who dies a painful death at age 3, after three years of distress patterns, may have been seriously harmed by coming into existence, even though you don't see them commit suicide.

I think it's easy to err on both sides, but the meme that life is generally worth living in its natural forms is successful because we want to believe it, not necessarily because it is the most realistic description of reality.

but if an animals life consistently contains more suffering than happiness and looks like it will continue to do so suicide would be the hedonistic choice. of course this causes suffering in itself but it does in humans too

what would you say the limits to the idea of the hedonic treadmill are?

yea in terms of system sustainability, how are we gonna live without animals? or are we just not?

nah sorry im not saying they think its right cause its the norm just that because its the norm they dont view it as bad, if everyone lived to be 200 our current life expectancy would be viewed as terrible

thanks !

yea in terms of system sustainability, how are we gonna live without animals? or are we just not?

I don't think we have much of a need for wild animals. We don't need many domestic animals either.

nah sorry im not saying they think its right cause its the norm just that because its the norm they dont view it as bad...

Pain still hurts. They still dislike it. Do they have to have an advanced understanding of morality for their suffering to matter?

Ruairi wrote:but if an animals life consistently contains more suffering than happiness and looks like it will continue to do so suicide would be the hedonistic choice. of course this causes suffering in itself but it does in humans too

I would still contend that most non-human animals don't have a sufficient understanding of death to opt for something that causes (more) temporary suffering in itself, in order to end up without consciousness (and therefore relieved from suffering). I also highly doubt that they can predict their experiences in future bad outcomes, such as burning alive in a bushfire etc. Most humans are bad at that, too. How many people factor in the probability that they may burn alive at a rock concert before deciding if they want to go? The probability may be small, but the experience may be worse than we like to imagine. Or less bad. I think we're not good at estimating this, and non-human animals are even worse, since they can't correct for biases and they don't have the reasoning skills of humans.

what would you say the limits to the idea of the hedonic treadmill are?

That's a good question. I think there's a baseline of pleasure that works reliably without being devalued by the hedonic treadmill. Eating good diverse food after becoming slightly hungry works reliably for me. It doesn't get completely boring just because I've eaten all these foods before at some point in my life. I suspect I could enjoy it even at age 150 or 1500 or 15000, given longevity interventions.

Conversely, I think it's a myth that the hedonic treadmill lets you adjust to all kinds of distress factors. We can probably get used to more negative stimuli than we think, and we usually overestimate the impact negative experiences have on our long-term well-being. But if you find yourself in an environment with repeated distress signals beyond a certain threshold, you don't just correct for it, you suffer from it or develop serious psychological conditions. Being arbitrarily tortured without any control over it, or being constantly bombarded with loud noise etc. I don't think the average mind can just correct for all of it and re-set the hedonic baseline; you'll never be happy under these conditions.

yea in terms of system sustainability, how are we gonna live without animals? or are we just not?

Maybe we could live with fewer animals? This is mostly an argument to consider for those who would preserve wildlife for its own sake, or for the wild animals' sake. Most people just assume this is a good thing instead of examining whether it really is. They don't usually put much thought into whether these animals are better off existing than not existing. There certainly is no consent on the animals' part.

@danielLC : so will we feed humans on crops that are pollinated by the wind? and no not that they need to unserstand morality just that things are different if you're not a human, we dont value some things other animals do value and perhaps they dont value living for ages in the same way. maybe, im doubtfull.

@Hedonic Treader: but is there scientific research to back up what you're saying in your first paragraph there? ive gotta think more about the rest of what you say.