WMN: t3_3cgf0e_t1_csvhsmm

[TITLE]

CMV: The goal of life should be to reduce your material wants.

[tegulariusfritz]

Under the assumption that you can consciously alter your wants, it seems to me that the obvious solution to a more peaceful life is to reduce your material wants towards zero. This would include departing from things as basic to the developed world as air conditioning. I don't see any benefit to wanting more material goods in life, even though I, unfortunately, still want more than I have. This is less a moral argument than a practical argument. If you can reduce your wants to non-material desires, then the material provisions you should require to satisfy those desires should be meager; a pair of shoes, a shirt and pants to walk through park; books to read; etc.; and your life should, therefor, be easier and more free. Again, this is under the assumption that you can alter your wants. Specifically, the capacity to want to want something -- wanting to want to exercise, wanting to want to read more, wanting to want less, etc. -- is the basis of this view point, and I'm curious if anyone has a compelling argument towards actually wanting to want more material goods. **CLARIFICATION: My claim is NOT that "The goal of life should be to reduce your material wants to zero."**

[NeverQuiteEnough]

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you not tacitly asserting that the goal of life is to be happy? My primary goal is for humans to preserve the legacy of earth, and for our heirs to spread across the stars into infinity, etc. So I need large hadron colliders and international space stations, a lot of money and as much influence as I can get. Many people agree with me, or have similar wishes that boil down to the same thing. Not everyone is satisfied to live their life, knowing that some future generation is going to watch the oceans boil away.

[tegulariusfritz]

Yes to me, spreading ourselves throughout the cosmos seems like it should be the abundantly obvious goal of humanity, although there's a marked dearth of such a claim anywhere in our political discourse, which is pretty strange. I think I should have anticipated that my claim -- that reducing material wants towards zero is almost always positive -- would be paint me as some kind of neo-luddite. The fact is, we can't expect to travel to and occupy other worlds using canoes and bicycles, nor can we master the prerequisites of such travel without things like hadron colliders and space stations. Technology is a good thing; reddit is just as much a feat of technology as agriculture. My claim is more towards our capacity to practice discipline in our personal lives. It's entirely possible that an aerospace engineer could return home to a house of a certain size and with certain amenities that don't demand an inflated income, regardless of whether or not they deserve it (which, out of anyone, they obviously would, if we agree the goal of humanity should be to spread throughout the cosmos.) Forcing it, or prescribing it, would mean imploring people to change themselves, though, which is something no one can do but the self, you know. (lol my simple claim is fraught, I understand. I'm not ready to concede, though, because my point is towards personal happiness and personal satisfaction, but I recognize that it's a difficult claim for everyone to understand.)

[Down_The_Rabbithole]

The biological goal of life is survival. Therefor we should all consider getting a career in biomedical science to further our goal in achieving immortality. Every other goal of life is subjective and not based upon the laws of nature. So your goal of reducing material wants isn't better or worse than the goal to increase material wants, since they are both equally subjective.

[tegulariusfritz]

I'm not sure if I'm ready to believe that the goal of life is to live forever. The body itself isn't designed for that -- it would be like claiming that the goal of the perfect boat would be that it could also travel on land. Inherent in the definition of life is it's counterpart, death. Without death, life wouldn't be life.

[AlexReynard]

While attaining Nirvana would be great for the individual, our species' constant dissatisfaction with our lot and our constant striving for more is of great benefit to the species as a whole. I'll try to explain with an example. Say there's a rich person who wants a device to make his already-easy life even easier. It doesn't exist yet, so he pays a lot of money to some company to make it for him. When this product comes into existence, it will be rare and ridiculously expensive. But as more of them are bought, the company can put more effort into making them smaller, faster, better and cheaper. This has been the cycle of pretty much all technologies. They start out rare and crude, and over time they become something that almost anyone can have. Not to mention all the discoveries made from exploring new technologies that can lead to completely different improvements in quality of life. And so, the desire for more stuff is a rising tide that lifts all boats. I've even seen graphs that show how the average individual wealth and average life satisfaction for **every country in the world** has risen steadily over the course of the last two centuries. Demanding an increase in the quality of your own life very often means that other people and other generations will share that increase. Also, and this is very important, there is nothing wrong with wanting to live a life of steady reduction. But that's not the one true path for everyone. Myself, I want all sorts of stuff and I *love it*. I'm a Transformers fan. There are always new robots to crave; more than I could ever own. But the ache of not being able to afford them all is balanced with the satisfaction of getting one I truly want. It's similar to how I am fiercely loyal in my friendships, and this may leave me vulnerable to hurting if I lose any of them, but the fulfillment and love I receive is a worthy price to pay for that risk. Within my chaotic, passionate, desire-filled life, there is balance. I have low lows, but also high highs, and I find that a perfectly acceptable trade-off.

[tegulariusfritz]

I love this comment, thank you for taking the time to write it! I understand completely how humanity's desires over time have led to incredible strides in technology which serve purposes outside of empty desires, although I think this is rather outside of the scope of my claim. This is why I tried to stress that this is more of a practical claim than a moral claim. Rather than claim that we could have done better by ignoring our wants, which you'd admit is a completely unverifiable claim, I would posit that, by having improved our lot beyond threats from nature in many parts of the world by now, it is no long necessary to depend on our technological desires to improve the lot of others. We should be able to focus just on the latter. And also, based on our singular history -- and we only have one history of humanity to base any claims on -- I'm not completely convinced that the only way to have sufficiently lifted ourselves out of hunger and poverty was to wait for the effects of technologies meant for comfort to translates to more practical ends. But again, these arguments are outside the scope of my claim, which is simply, as you put, "to live a life of steady reduction," should be the goal of those fortunate enough to live in the first world.

[AlexReynard]

[STA-CITE]>I love this comment, thank you for taking the time to write it! [END-CITE]You're welcome! And thanks for your reply as well! [STA-CITE]>although I think this is rather outside of the scope of my claim. [END-CITE][nod] That's why I answered in two parts, to address the idea from both a wide perspective and an individual perspective. [STA-CITE]>I would posit that, by having improved our lot beyond threats from nature in many parts of the world by now, it is no long necessary to depend on our technological desires to improve the lot of others. We should be able to focus just on the latter. [END-CITE]Maybe. I'm just usually of the mindset that, if you have two different ways of doing things, do them both. Let people decide for themselves which path works better for them. [STA-CITE]>And also, based on our singular history -- and we only have one history of humanity to base any claims on -- I'm not completely convinced that the only way to have sufficiently lifted ourselves out of hunger and poverty was to wait for the effects of technologies meant for comfort to translates to more practical ends. [END-CITE]Oh, certainly. There's always going to be inventions that come from all strata of life, not just the top. People have always invented things based on just looking around them and seeing what can be improved upon. The top-down way I described is just one way in which humanity as a whole facilitates the creation of really complicated inventions. Things like computers or medicines which require more research, testing, and manufacturing technology than any single inventor is able to provide. [STA-CITE]>But again, these arguments are outside the scope of my claim, which is simply, as you put, "to live a life of steady reduction," should be the goal of those fortunate enough to live in the first world. [END-CITE]For some, yes. I think that, until we get to the point where everyone, globally, has the basic necessities of life within easy reach, there's still a need for some people to strive. While the "trickle-down" process of technology I described works remarkably similar to natural selection in terms of making things better and cheaper, it's also just as inefficient and wasteful as natural selection. We will run out of natural resources someday. So I think that it will also be a good thing for humanity if more people, starting now, start trying to live with less. We create the mess and simultaneously begin the cleanup. All things in balance. :)

[Stokkolm]

[STA-CITE]> our species' constant dissatisfaction with our lot and our constant striving for more is of great benefit to the species as a whole. [END-CITE]Debatable. If everyone can afford a Ferrari, than owning one loses it's meaning, it becomes just a mundane car that even your grandpa drives. The effort to make Ferrari affordable it's still there, but it's wasted. Maybe in some cases like the telephone, the electric bulb, brought real life improvements. But we cannot consider this a rule if it only applies some of the time.

[AlexReynard]

Sure, that breaks down if you apply it to specific brands or products. But think of it this way: the insanely opulent luxury cars of the 20s and 30s are eclipsed in performance, safety and comfort by even the cheapest cars coming off the assembly lines today. You might not be able to afford a Deusenberg, but you can afford a Ford. (Oh wow, that little pun just came out naturally!) The point being that, as technology progresses, the later versions of products which are now within reach of the masses, are usually much better than even the top of the line products made when the technology was new, so distinctions among brands is a matter of subjective personal preference, not objective quality. Computers are another perfect example. IBM may have made some colossally-priced machines in the 80s, all of which are easily eclipsed by the $79 refurbished iPod in my pocket.

[Life0fRiley]

What about material desires that drive life aspiration. I want to run and govern a charity to help people. I don't need anything but the bare essentials for living. But in order to run that charity, I desire a suit to attract people to my cause. I need a house or location to run my operation. I need to ensure my health is good so I can avoid illness affecting my ability to run such charity. This means healthy food, access to things that promote good health. I need to read news/books/ things to stay up to date and relevant to support the continuous growth of my charity. Basically You can do a lot more with more thing and resources. Bringing my material desires to zero will accomplish nothing.

[tegulariusfritz]

That's awesome! Wanting to govern and to do charity is certainly a good thing. My claim, as I mentioned above, is to reduce material wants towards zero, but I was careful to avoid saying, "to zero." When you say, "But in order to run that charity, I desire a suit...," I can see how the sentence stumbles over the word, "desire," because it's not exactly a desire. If you want to run a charity, the argument could be that you need a suit, even if that's not exactly true either. You're right to say, "Bringing my material desires to zero will accomplish nothing," which is why I don't claim, think, or mean that in any sense. Only that material desires which serve no purpose except to satisfy themselves aren't exactly helpful to you, and may in fact pose barriers to a happy life. Does that make sense? Not to zero! I should clarify that more in my post lol

[Life0fRiley]

I was just trying to give a continuum of having stuff. For certain desires where you control an organization, you need a certain material ownership to show and gain trust that you can run such an organizations. Having goods show that you have your stuff together. Bring your material goods towards zero shows the opposite.

[RustyRook]

This approach may work in a developed country, not necessarily in a country that lacks public amenities. So your position assumes that there are public goods that are available to replace private goods. If there's no public park, it's acceptable to want a treadmill at home. If there are no libraries to borrow books from it's a good idea to buy more books. You get the idea.

[tegulariusfritz]

That is true, this approach is mostly geared towards living in a place like the United States, where materialism beyond the scope of public amenities is emphasized as a basic component of success and happiness. And to me, basic living would still require enough taxable income to support the kinds of public amenities that basic living asks for, parks, libraries, etc., which is a moot point since a sizable portion of 300+ million people will always be living rapacious, unhappy lives lol.

[RustyRook]

Okay, so you agree that this isn't a universally applicable that everyone should try to achieve. Let's focus on good ol' USA. Many people grow up in very different environments in America. For someone who grew up poor the desire to have things is completely reasonable, and may provide important motivation to keep improving through their life. In the pursuit to have more things they could pursue education, look for a better job, etc. It's a useful carrot. Even if it's the journey that's important everyone needs a carrot to keep them going.

[NorbitGorbit]

money by and large is no longer a material good but an abstract sum -- would you say people who have sublimated material desires in pursuit of money have in general, increased their quality of life and that of others?

[tegulariusfritz]

I guess my issue is that, after your basic needs are met, "quality of life," seems to be the nexus of your desires and the means to satisfy your desires, but it's only tangentially, or incidentally, related to happiness. It seems logical that satisfying increased desires requires increased means. In other words, it's obvious you can have a lot of material desires and satisfy them, but remain unhappy -- the proverbial "mo money mo problems," issue. What I'm curious about is if reducing material desires always leads to an easier and happier life. What do you mean by "abstract sum?" I don't think I understand.

[NorbitGorbit]

for some people, money is just a number in their bank account that they try to grow more, not for any purpose of using it to buy anything.

[supergnawer]

Material possessions, either in large or in small amount, is not a goal in life. It's means to achieve the goal. If your goal is to develop academically and spiritually, but you find that material possessions keep you from doing that (maintaining a house or a car or earning money to buy new things takes too much time you'd rather spend differently) - sure, cut something. Otherwise, I don't really see why enjoying books is any worse in an air-conditioned room than without that.

[tegulariusfritz]

Hahaha that's a very fair point. I guess my air conditioning example was pointing to two things: one, that if you, personally, could feel fine and satisfied a room without air conditioning, then great, it would make your life easier insofar as you wouldn't need the monetary means required to run it; and two, just as an example of an amenity inherent to modern life which people consider pretty neutrally, except as to when it causes financial stress, as it does for me. Things like air conditioning and automobiles could maybe be called, "practical luxuries," where things like PS4s would just be, "luxeries." (note: automobiles would be an example of "practical luxury," if you don't require one to get to work, for example, and I would think it's still considered practical if you don't need it to get to work, but just to engage, for example, in social intercourse and, obviously, going to the store and traveling.) I don't think there's anything "wrong," with air conditioning or automobiles -- my claim is more that a life in which they're not considered required or expectations would, in many cases, result in a more tranquil life as a matter of perspective, because the financial burden of your life would be lessened and would then afford you more freedom.

[supergnawer]

Tranquil life is not necessarily good. There should be action. Another question is, what kind of action will it be, or where do you want to direct your effort. Your idea is, it's not really worth it to direct it into getting money for unnecessary stuff ("luxuries"). That's fine. On the other hand, what if you wanted to get into something like pro motorcycle riding, or climb Everest, or something like that. These things are definitely from the freedom area, but also require major financial boost. I mean, homeless people can be pretty relaxed, they don't have a lot of stuff to worry about. But also not a lot of options.

[tegulariusfritz]

I agree, there should be action. That's not exactly what I mean by tranquility. Let me see if I can unpack an aspect of your point that I think you're overlooking. Aspirations such as climbing Everest, I believe, must be the result of significant self-reflection, because no one would venture such a feat if it weren't for a recognition within oneself of a personal value towards that end. I would submit that many people in life don't commit themselves to learning exactly who they are, what they value, and what they want out of life. The events of life can be as much dictated by the incidental as the deliberate. For example, I work in Court Reporting not because that's my vocational aspiration, but because I needed a job to pay my rent, and if I move up within the Court system, whatever job I ultimately attain is incidental. As such, that career path would lead me completely astray of the values I hold deep down. On the other hand, self-discovery may lead me to a career which I consider vocational, and that path of self-discovery, I think, would highlight the material contents of my life which are extraneous and unnecessary. You're right that climbing Everest requires a lot of financial means, but since that aspiration is of personal value to the climber according to his or her own self-reflection, I don't believe it constitutes material desires the way I mean it, and in fact, I don't think that climber would be at all interested in the kinds of material desires I'm referring to. Lastly, I would take issue with your assertion that, "[homeless people] don't have a lot of stuff to worry about." I think, put in their shoes day to day, you would recognize there's a hell of a lot more to worry about than how to afford to run the air conditioning. Pretty heady, I'm sorry about all of this lol. Not yet convinced though that there isn't an inherent value towards placing emphasis on reducing material desires in one's life, and that that end shouldn't be the goal of life. Understanding the difference between my claim and the claim that you should want nothing out of life, I think, is pretty important in terms of understanding this engagement.

[supergnawer]

No problem with the heady stuff, it's good to reflect on that. Even if we don't fully get it here, at least you get to lay it out for yourself, so it's fine. What it looks like from the job part, is you have a career that you don't really enjoy, but have to hold on to to maintain certain life standard, which you aren't even sure you want. So the point is, looking for something else is important, even if it means dropping the quality of life a couple of notches. In this situation, it's likely justified. On the other hand, what if you found something else, that's interesting, but also pays the bills just fine? Why wouldn't you want the material stuff then? I mean, I get that you don't want to depend on possessions, but it's also nice to have things you genuinely can afford.

[tegulariusfritz]

That's true, and that would be awesome! Haha, yeah I mean, it'd be nice to have a rewarding job that would allow me to support myself and my family, and if we had more money than we would need as a result, I'd like to think that the other members of my family would understand the value in philanthropy, for example. Or even -- and this, I think, is the key point and the hardest to capture -- putting that money into purchases that improve us as people, desires which don't distract from human values, but rather enhance them. This point is difficult to explain in explicit terms, but I hope you understand the distinction I'm trying to draw; i.e. reading biographies vs. playing video games, an extracurricular interest in science vs. an interest in celebrity gossip. These desires require effort, because comfort is more comfortable than discomfort, but comfort, in and of itself, is not a virtue, in my opinion.

[supergnawer]

If I'm not mistaken, the initial idea for the Utopia was that once people are free from working to support their basic needs, they would naturally be super into arts and self-development. Same deal was with the view on communism they were pitching to us in (obviously not western) school: basically there would be enough free stuff like houses, clothes, and food, so nobody would even want that much more stuff, and would do rocket science instead. Because why not, it's fun. Not saying that's the whole idea or that it's even correct, it's my simplified understanding which seems close to what you saying. So idealistically, people are supposed to start looking in that same direction, once they've evolved far enough from monkeys. Maybe we're not quite there yet though. In other words, if your point is there's a certain quality of life that's actually enough, and from there it makes more sense to improve on other things rather than purchasing more expensive material stuff - I guess I can't disagree with that.

[tegulariusfritz]

Yeah I agree with you, and at the risk of sounding like "a communist," you capture an aspect of communism which most people seem to overlook when they say things like, "it looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in practice." State-imposed communism can't work, because you can't force people to be philosophically smart enough to recognize the value of that kind of society. Communism, as it has been posited in various times in human history, works only under the assumption that the people themselves adopt it, sans government. That would happen, theoretically, because people en masse would evolve past the baseness of the animal instincts, and recognize value in things beyond basic material comforts. It seems like we missed that exit years ago, and the legacy of the Soviet Union and countless other "communist countries" has rendered the entire idea of, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," as communist propaganda, rather than a completely rational approach to life as individuals. The individualism of it is key; in other words, it would need to bloom out of a society which is not already communist, without the involvement of the government. From there it breaks down for two reasons: one, because human history has lent us these large, rigid States, and I can't conceive of a point in which we, the people, would expect our governments to bow out; and two, even if governments somehow did bow out, it only takes the force of a couple non-community minded individuals to destroy it for their own ends, similar to how the Europeans decimated the Native Americans out of philosophical unbalance.

[supergnawer]

Hey, the credit goes to my school, I never really looked into that stuff on my own. But yes, that was the general idea. Similar to how the market prices were supposed to regulate themselves, people were supposed to eventually come up with a way to just be grown-ups, respect each other, and work together without a supervisor. Neither of that worked as intended, but still a nice try IMO. By the way, with all the social programs, welfare, and whatnot, the developed countries are basically heading in the same direction anyways.

[tegulariusfritz]

it doesn't seem too difficult to just be empathetic of others and disciplined in your own consumption, but hey, who am I presume to understand what it's like to be a person An itchy thought in the back of my mind has always been that the problem, at least in the USA, has to do with the fact that "right" (moral) and "right" (legal) are homonyms. Fucking limited English language lol

[tegulariusfritz]

note: these beliefs get sticky when you're piloting a life occupied by multiple people, because no one should dictate these beliefs; there's an inherent value in them that requires personal recognition.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

This borders on tautology. Sure, if we set our wants to zero then we have no unfulfilled wants to make us unhappy. That's true by definition, but it's as meaningless as pointing out that if we could choose our emotions, we'd be happier if we always chose happiness.

[ovulator]

Your title and your conjecture say slightly different things. One saying that the goal (end game) of life is to reduce material wants. The other saying that you reduce material wants to obtain a more peaceful life. I would argue that 1) there is no "goal" in life 2) a peaceful life is not one that is better 1) The only result of life is death, no matter what moves you make during life, the result is always the same. If you become enlightened before you die, if you become a millionaire before you die, if you climb the worlds tallest mountain before you die, nothing changes about the end result. A goal in itself, would just be one additional "want", and nothing more. 2) A peaceful life, would be one without disturbance. This means a life without change, a life without stimulus. The more stimulus and change there are the more chaotic the life and less peaceful it becomes. The state with the least change and stimulus is death, the opposite of life. And a want is hardly a quantifiable thing. I want one thing: absolute happiness. How many other wants are going to be piled into making that one want happen? Even if you want a small quantified able thing say a cup of tea in the morning, there are other wants that need to be met to reach that, such as living in a place were tea is available. And then what about when that cup of tea is consumed, do we simply slip into a catatonic state until the desire for the next cup of tea arises? Wants drive us, and give us purpose. Less wants may in fact make us more peaceful, but I don't think that is necessarily an ideal state.

[tegulariusfritz]

∆ touche! I'll concede that you are right -- "goal" and "wants" aren't well defined in my OP, and the conclusion can't work without clearer terms. I posted these thoughts perhaps a bit to hastily. That said, I don't entirely agree with everything you say, mostly because in philosophic terms, English (and perhaps any language) is incapable of grasping just about any phenomenon in life, resulting in mis-translations between the mind and the page. Attempting to define, for example, "wants," in your final paragraph, lead to grasping conclusions like, "do we simply slip into a catatonic state until the desire for the next cup of tea arises?" Of course not, that's not how people work. So yes, you are right, I am wrong by my OP's terms. I still hold, however, that *a* goal in life should be to reduce desires, at least from those of a purely material sense (again, I'm not adept enough a writer to define what I mean by "material,") to those of a more substantial-noble-deep-humanistic nature (^ditto^). So, I will continue to attempt convincing myself to ignore the urge to play video games in lieu of more substantial-noble-deep-humanistic activities :) (I hope I haven't mangled my concession or your points with this comment. I wouldn't blame you for accusing me of missing your points with my equivocations, but I hope you do understand what I mean.)

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ovulator. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ovulator)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[shinkouhyou]

[STA-CITE]> the obvious solution to a more peaceful life is to reduce your material wants towards zero. [END-CITE]At some point, continuing to reduce your material wants will make your life *less* peaceful. That point is different for everybody. Some people would even say that non-material desires are wrong. To you, air conditioning is a luxury, but you probably still want screens in the windows to keep the mosquitos out, right? Mosquito bites would make your life less peaceful. Other people have different points where a reduction in material comforts would make their lives more stressful. Even the Buddha cautioned against extreme asceticism. He spoke of a "middle way" between extreme indulgence and extreme self-denial. He said that it's possible to get so wrapped up in the idea of reducing material wants and living some kind of perfect lifestyle that that idea of perfection itself becomes an all-consuming "want."

[tegulariusfritz]

Goddamn mosquitoes lol I do agree with your point as it applies to a threshold, but where I am not convinced is that a window screen, for example, is a "want." You or I wouldn't purchase, install, and enjoy a window screen because we want to exactly. It's a measure against a natural discomfort, and these aren't the wants I'm referring to here. And this, similar to below comments, assumes that what I'm claiming is that "the goal of life should be to reduce wants to zero." I respect your point completely -- it's correct that extreme asceticism should not be the goal of life. I just think a downward departure from material desires in the first world is better approach to life than an upward one, in most cases.

[alfonzo_squeeze]

[STA-CITE]> It's a measure against a natural discomfort, and these aren't the wants I'm referring to here. [END-CITE]I might be reading this wrong, but didn't you specifically mention AC in your OP as one of the wants we should try to move away from?

[tegulariusfritz]

Thanks for asking, I recognize that's confusing. I did. What I meant by pointing out AC originally is that it's such a prevalent, and simultaneously energy-consumptive technology, that there would be an inherent monetary value to ditching it. It is dissimilar to window screens because using AC consumes energy, and there's a monetary cost, month to month, depending on how much you use it. Using AC less would result in lower bills, thereby reducing your monetary obligations and affording you more freedom. Your point that AC is also a measure against natural discomfort is totally true. I should have been more clear there. Additionally, keeping mosquitoes out of your house could be considered more of health measure than running the AC, and much less expensive, and it's not exactly a luxury in the same way. That said, I don't want to equivocate my claim to the point being completely squishy and impossible to change -- my point is more, is there an inherent value to having more material desires, rather than less? I'm also trying to avoid running this claim to the extreme. Using the AC less, rather than never, would be a fine approach to life, I think ("reducing material desires towards zero"). But if you could feel satisfied whilst never running it -- maybe spending the daytime hours outside because it's no worse than inside -- then more power to you, and congratulations on your slashed electricity bills lol.