/lit/ - Literature

>>12623617
>You can question their methodology when you are competent in statistics.
I'll question their methodology up until it's fully outlined, assuming it's sound. Then I won't question, I'll just throw it in the trash, where I suspect it belongs.

>We haven't made anything that gets you happier than your brain receptors getting tickled by things you can get from plant foraging.
Wow. If you seriously think this...

Firstly, the happiness you are talking about here is the most base, unrefined, and unsophisticated form of it we could possibly talk about. Some retard getting high or blowing his load on a pretty girl's face isn't experiencing the same kind of happiness the winner of the Olympics is going to be experiencing in their moment of triumph, and never will, no matter what the retard dreams about in his hallucinations, and to assert otherwise is to essentially disregard the entire realm of psychology and its bearing on humans and be a decadent nihilist through and through.

Secondly, the consistency of such a feeling over lapses of time, and the length of those lapses, contributes to the dictation of its overall intensity. Some neanderthal foraging for some fungi or some shit might be enjoying himself in the moment, but does the neanderthal know at all how to maintain his joy over the span of 50 years? Likely not, if he even lives that long. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people today who DO know how to remain consistently joyous for 50 years, and even much longer than that, momentary exceptions caused by uncommon circumstance (like the death of a loved one) not included of course.

If you want to reduce the human experience to muh chemicals bullshit and some real simple ways of life, go right ahead, but this just makes you ignorant and a disgusting nihilist, not correct in any way about how humans can and can't live today and how they were living in the past.