Hedonic Treadmill

The currently accepted theory about happiness (there are of course detractors), originally outlined in 1971, is explained by the hedonic treadmill: we are born (or learn/develop at a young age) an extremely stable level of objective happiness and well-being and over a long period of time, no matter what we go through in life, our level of happiness will ultimately return more or less to some constant. This seems to hold even despite major positive or negative events or life changes. A good way to put it into perspective is that this theory tells us that two identical twins, going through life with the same level of more-or-less static happiness, could one day be walking along together when the following occurs: the one twin (twin 1) decides to stop into a corner store while the other twin (twin 2) keeps walking. While twin 1 is buying a lottery ticket that ultimately nets him $10,000,000, twin 2 crosses the street and is hit by a car. Twin 2's accident is so severe that he loses both legs and, though he survives, he must go through months of painful rehabilitation as he regains some mobility, rebuilds his muscular/skeletal system, and learns to operate his wheelchair. The hedonic treadmill theory (and its variations) tells us that after the shock and trauma of the accident wear off and he gets used to his new life situation, and after twin 1 gets used to being rich and having more expensive desires, both will ultimately return to their original level of objective happiness. Twin 2, though he will have to grapple with new challenges, will end up just as happy as he was before the accident overall. Twin 1, likewise; at first it will be exciting to drive a Ferrari and drink expensive wine with every meal, but then it will become commonplace and feel just as normal as driving his old Toyota and drinking his $10 wine.

There are some variations and extra details, of course. The long-held view that more money = more happiness is actually more or less true, up to a point. In Canada, the "poverty line" is about $20,000 for a single person, after tax, per year. If you make only $20,000 a year, making more money will almost definitely add to your happiness as you have less stress about being able to feed yourself and pay your rent. If you make even a little more money after that then you'll be able to afford other things that will make you happier, like relaxing your muscles on a beach once a year or being able to afford healthier food. In fact, the more money you make, the more happy you'll be (on average) until what turns out to be about $75,000 a year. After that, making more money will not tend to make you any more happy. The reasons for this are several. One is that the more pleasure you're able to purchase, the less you start to savour each pleasure. The more money you make, the more stressful your job tends to be, and the less time you have to enjoy the pleasures that you might be now able to buy. There is also then the fact that people begin to expect more from you; if you make a ton of money, shouldn't you pay for everyone's drink? And if you don't, it's hard not to think "what a jerk". This can all be summed up basically as once you make enough money that you don't have to worry month-to-month about being able to pay your rent, buy your groceries, and have a little fun every now and then, having even more money won't make you all that much happier.

How do we reconcile this with the hedonic treadmill? Well the objective happiness level is more of a range. It's argued that someone who was born with / learned to have a range of let's say 6-8 out of 10 might be around a 6 if they're living with the stress of not making enough money each month, and might get up to an 8 if they're making good money, enjoying their job, and living a fulfilled life with hobbies and friends and little stress. However, even if they get in a terrible car accident like twin 2, their happiness will never drop below 6. Likewise, if they win the lottery and live every day to its fullest, etc., they will never make it up to level 10. A different person who for whatever reason has developed or been born with an intrinsic happiness range of only 3-5, no matter what happens, will never feel as satisfied with life as the 6-8 guy on his worst day.

All of this begs the question, then, besides making enough money, what makes people happy? For this something we could, for example, look to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (from a 1943 paper). The hierarchy of needs is a pyramid where the most essential aspects of needs/well-being/happiness sit at the bottom, and the less important, and those that require the levels below them to exist, sit at the top. Starting at the base, these pre-requisite needs are, in order: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and, at the top, self-actualization. Having enough money directly affects the bottom two levels: to be able to be safe and have love and everything up top, you need the basics of food, water, shelter, etc. Just above that, at the safety layer, well-being requires security of your body including, most importantly, your health. But what allows people to live at a high sustained level of happiness tends to be friendship, family, achievement, confidence, respect, morality, creativity, and acceptance. All of these can be summarized into the category of "meaning". We often imagine that if we could just live on a beach drinking margaritas all day that we would be happier than we currently are and all of our problems would go away. But that life, though it arguably would cover the physiological basics, be largely free of stress, and afford a good deal of free time, might be devoid of meaning. For many that meaning comes from success at work, their children's happiness and success, and the respect of their peers. While purely hedonistic pleasure is an important aspect of happiness, so too is learning, philosophical debate, and even personal success at work or in play.

Religion has throughout history brought meaning to lives. This helps to make it abundantly clear why religion still plays such a strong role for many people who might not get the same amount of meaning, and therefore happiness, from creativity or intellectual pursuits (no I'm not saying that religion is for stupid people, but at the same time I'm not afraid to say that it can help them more than the educated).

All of this leads up to an important philosophical question that many of us grapple with: what is the role of progress, particularly technological progress, in happiness? Because I can wear a wristwatch that uses a system of 32 satellites circumnavigating the Earth 20,000km in orbit above us to get a precise measure of how far and how fast I'm running (for example), does that mean I'm living a better life, and can be happier, than someone who lived 100 years ago without access to that advanced technology? Maybe, but only if I'm living a meaningful life. But objectively, someone who found meaning in religion and worshipping and family 500 years ago, despite the fact that maybe only 3 out of their 9 children would make it into adolescence, might only live to 40 years old, be withered and broken by that time due to hard manual labor, was probably happier, believing that living the right way throughout a perhaps difficult existence would allow them a great after-life, and knowing that their children that didn't survive were there waiting for them, than someone today who lives a shallow existence, though rich and owning cars and boats, finding no meaning in life other than buying the next car, boat, house, or vacation.

It is important, I think, to strive towards meeting all of these needs: meaning from love and supporting friends and family, and experiencing "traditional" pleasure in relaxing and good food and drink, and intellectual pursuits, and successes in hobbies and work, but also, importantly, meaning in accomplishments at work. And this is precarious for working in technology. I have to believe that progress leads to better lives because if I don't then it's much more difficult to find meaning in work. Technologism, like capitalism and catholicism, is a religion. And to live by it you have to believe that technological progress is good. Dangerously, I find myself not believing in the gospel. I think, sure, this thing is faster or sleeker or has more memory, or whatever, and I therefore want it (probably no small thanks to marketing), but I really believe that if it didn't exist in the first place, I wouldn't be missing out on anything and I wouldn't feel like I was in need of something without having it. Having that view can make it difficult to find meaning in your work if your very work is to make that thing better and faster and...

One might argue that focusing on the year-to-year gadget upgrade is overly mixing capitalism and technologism. Sure, next year's iPhone model may not change your life, but at a broad level the increase in medical health technology has allowed all of us to suffer less, on average, than before. So where does that leave us?

Does technological and economic progress lead to greater happiness? It can make it easier to fulfill the needs at the bottom layer of the pyramid for more of us. Health and basic food and shelter needs are more likely to be met now than ever before. But why can't I believe in the promise of technological utopia that I willingly embraced in the pages of Wired magazine as a teenager?

Because it's not enough. Maybe, in the previous short paragraphs, I've been able to reconcile what technological progress can do. It can help to make the bottom layers of the pyramid more secure. It can allow us to be more sure that more of us can count on being fed and being healthy. With those needs more accessible, we can then be more free to concentrate on living a life of meaning. But if reaching the state where the lower levels are more secure makes attaining the higher levels more difficult, if it leads to shallower lives and a life and culture with less meaning, then we blow the whole thing. But we've got it. Right there.

Don't agree? Want to help me lead a more meaningful life? Sound off in the comments!