 |
| "Land of Cockaigne" (1567) by Pieter Breughel the Elder |
Saturday, June 20, 2015
The Rat Race
Stanford psychologist Laura Carstensen’s research suggests that near-death experiences cause people to attribute a greater value to everyday pleasures and relationship and less value to “achieving, having, and getting” (95). (Click here to hear Carstensen talk about the happiness of old people.)
If more people focused on everyday pleasures and relationships and less on “achieving, having, and getting,” would people work less? Would they accomplish less? Create less? Invent less? Would such a change benefit society as a whole?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally do not feel that people would accomplish, work or create anything less than what they are capable of. Gawande explained that the way we live our lives are based off our perspective. If we have a positive perspective on anything that we do, our chances of achieving what we want will be a lot higher because our drive to work is a little higher and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteIf more people focused on everyday pleasures and relationships that just means that we would be able to say we value our time as well as the time spent with the people we care about. Most times our drive to create, accomplish, and invest in something is due to our loved ones ability to see the potential in us. And we can only recognize that by truly being focused on our relationships.
I have often felt this way that I would have to achieve a certain for somebody to like me or for my family to be proud of me. I am definitely driven by my goals and dreams, but at the same time I love being around the ones that I know the best. They are so comforting during struggling times and times of difficulty. I am so thankful that I go to ECU (phenomenal college) and live close to my grandparents, parents, and siblings (Wynnewood and Pauls Valley). I feel like I am more driven by my family than anyone else. And my goals and dreams are driven by the way I see life and view my own identity.
DeleteI can see this both ways. There is a chance that if a person chose to focus primarily on their family and friends, their ambitions might deviate from their original goal (e.g. Betty turns down her promotion to the New York City office in favor of staying near her family in Ada). However, who is to say that is necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps a person would be more driven to achieve, create, and invent due to their close relationships with encouraging people (e.g. Betty gets a promotion due to her strong work ethic which is fueled by her satisfaction with her relationships and her drive to better herself and those around her).
ReplyDeleteMany times, we are inspired to make the world a better place due to our love for our families and those around us.
Yes it can be impacted by each other. When a person has no family or friends to motivate and encourage them then how could they possible "want" to achieve their objective? There must be another individual in somebody else's life that they could share their thoughts and opinions with. And in result they start to work on their own personal goals. A person with a goal without anyone to associate with will not feel "up to" and will not be "fired up" to accomplish whatever tasks they have in mind. So yes it can be a all or nothing concept.
DeleteHaving a different perspective on life in general would not stop people from creating and inventing, especially if the perspective is a positive one. You do not have to focus on achieving in order to achieve. You do not have to focus on your future life for it to happen. A positive outlook on life would mean that we would create, invent, and care more. People who focus more on everyday pleasures and the present rather than on material things and the distant future tend to lead happier lives. If a person is enjoying the little things in their life, are they likely to quit their job or quit pursuing their dreams? No. If anything, they would work harder to reach those dreams. It has been proven that people with a positive outlook achieve more than those who do not. A positive perspective would not hinder society’s ability to create and achieve things.
ReplyDeleteJoel Osteen and Joyce Meyer (both Christian teachers/preachers) talk about how life is more about people and the simple things than what we can accomplish with our skills and talents. It is all good to keep bettering your strengths and strong points, but knowing that interaction and knowing people are one of the highest if not the highest reasons for our happiness and joy it should bring us to realize that life is not based on how well we do things. Life is glorious and the way we perceive life is the way we are going to live it too. I agree with you 100% Kaitlyn.
DeletePeople would definitely work less, but I do believe people would create more. Creativity is a beautiful thing and we all have it yet our society today pushes is down and several people's creativity has been destroyed. Creativity is linked to joy and should not be pushed aside so easily. Happier people are always better for the community but they do not always get the jobs done that need to be done. Would it benefit society as a whole? There are upsides and downsides to every change, but I think the downside outweighs the upside in this case. We would lose too much progress in advancing in our everlasting search for survival. We will need to go planet shopping at some point to insure our survival. If we focus on the little things then no we will never make it.
ReplyDeleteLack of work and effort could come out of living for the so called simple life. I think that people should keep their life perspectives intact and their personal beliefs too. This is why we see the world go round and round. Its not money but instead our perspectives that shape the world that we see today. But nobody should be to extreme on either side of the spectrum too (too focused on the simple things or too focused on achievements).
DeleteAs far as what would be done for individuals, the matter changes as to what their idea is of "pleasures" and relationships. Some people may enjoy being out in a working environment and find an enjoyable bliss working and sweating. It may be a part of pride, libido, tradition, or culture. For others, this life style may seem daunting, unmanageable, and their pleasures drift towards their own independent lives at home, confined to their couch, watching the Sunday game.
ReplyDeleteThe question of focusing on relationships also changes. Some people prefer to be reclusive and avoid others, tending to a pet, plant, home or work. Others may be highly sociable and busy with others, such as friends or family members, or even people they meet while going out to pick up mail, walking through a part, things of that assortment. It cannot be easy to say how an individual would act if they turned to their own personal and social pleasures.
As a whole though, society seems to lean towards itself and immediate surroundings. As shown through out the book, and proven, people tend more towards purpose and reason to live, and that happens to be what meaningful to them. Work, labor, inventing things, and producing for the society usually is not included in these things, but rather, being close to relatives, getting to know friends, travel the world, a state, things that help an individual feel purpose, need, to live on.
A factor that plays heavily into how this question should be answered is how Atul and most doctors would look at it; What age groups are being defined by these questions? This plays a large role on what to expect. If a group of younger adults were told to tend to their pleasures and relationships, many of them would take to attempting to have fun partying, obtaining money, spending social hours with strangers, and doing what excites and entertains them as a whole. Their relationships revolve around the unknown people and other said thrill seekers.
Older generations would take to those closest to them, and carry out routine, and give themselves a meaning to live. Some might be disabled, sick, others might be well in health and very capable of working and sustaining themselves.
While one could argue that giving up on competition, desire, and the "work" life would be better, it would truly only be good for the individual. The economy could not bolster the side effects that would soon become a major problem. The systems of the world would collapse, and while one would be "happy" with what is around them, they purely would struggle in a never ending poverty and have tasks that would soon take away the happiness given to them.
Sam Adams, ECU