Evolution explains why happiness is elusive

Happiness is what we strive for. We imagine that if we get what we want, we will be happier -- permanently. But psychology has determined that for the most part people's happiness level gradually adapts to changed circumstances. People think that if they can buy the bigger house or make more money they will be happier, but if they achieve their goal, within months they will take that into account and report themselves no happier than before. Similarly, people may feel that losing a job or being forced to give up a home will make them miserable, but once again they take that into account before too long and report themselves just as happy as before.

Can evolution shed light on this state of affairs?

The evolutionary advantage to pleasure or happiness does not come in the moment it is experienced, but in anticipation. When we consider alternative courses of action, we prefer the actions that will bring us to happier futures. The things that bring us happiness are (or were in the environment we evolved in) conducive to reproductive success, such as eating better, being safer and more comfortable, having higher status, and of course sex.

Now, our sensory systems are based on habituation. If we come into a room with a distinctive smell, we will soon get accustomed to it and only experience new smells. If we go from sunlight into a dark cave, our visual system adapts so that what was dim before will seem very bright. This makes sense, since our senses benefit us by getting new information, and whatever is a constant background does not convey information any more. We could imagine an organism wired so that it always experiences sunlight as very bright but can make small distinctions among what looks very bright, as well as seeing dark areas as very dark but able to make small distinctions in what seems very dark. But for whatever reason we are not wired that way. From that perspective, it is not surprising that we also habituate to happiness.

If the average outcome for a man in our environment of evolution is to have one mate, he could imagine himself happier having two or three and less happy if he had none. But if he does have three mates, evolution has no desire in having him rest content there -- it is very much to the advantage of his genes if he can have four or five mates*. Similarly, if he has no mate at all, a permanent funk is not adaptive -- contributing to the success of nephews and nieces might be his new standard of happiness. (The situation with women is somewhat more complicated). Both sexes could also recalibrate in other aspects of their lives. For instance, improving a very poor diet to a merely poor one would bring happiness, but it is advantageous to recalibrate and then go on to seek a rich diet or a very rich one.

It is also to our evolutionary advantage to not easily understand our recalibration of happiness. If we did, it would undercut the motivation we get from bettering our current condition, whatever it may be.

There are ways to be happier at any given level of life circumstances by meditation, exercise, and thinking about things differently, but I imagine these were not relevant in the environment we evolved in.

-----
*This is not a defense of polygamy or philandering. We can and should and usually do transcend such innate inclinations.

Deciding where to give money

Some of us feel morally compelled to look beyond our own well-being to try to make the world a better place. The variety of needs is far greater than any one person could address. How should a person choose? Donations of time and labor can be very valuable, but to simplify the question, I will discuss only the aspect of financial donations, since there is some organization that will accept checks to address just about any issue. I recognize that many of us do not have the means to give much money away; not all of us have the luxury of confronting this issue.

I exclude from consideration donations made for a service received, even though the payment is not required. This could include the "suggested donation" at a concert, giving to a public radio station because one enjoys the programming, or giving to one's religious organization. Some of us have money to give for which we get only the most indirect return, such as feeling we have done a good thing.

One general approach to giving is what I might call reactive. We consider the issues that come to our attention while we are doing other things. We give to what our friends and neighbors are giving to. We respond to mailings asking for help. We give to help the victims of disasters we see on TV news.

Another approach might be called inner-directed. We would consider what within ourselves we value most and find ways to give money to carry forward those values. We would not give to organizations that sent the most numerous and most eloquent fundraising letters. We might not give to what our friends give to if, on reflection, it isn't so important to us.

A cerebral version of this might be to first allocate a fixed amount of money and then divide it according to our values. That is my tendency.

A more emotional approach can be reactive but it can also be inner-directed if we make a point of not making decisions when biased by immediate exposure to a particular cause.

It is hard to write much about where feelings lead us -- people's feelings are individual and personal. Strong feelings could lead us to dig into money we would have spent on ourselves.

So, returning to the cerebral side, how could we decide?

One consideration might be giving as part of a community effort. If someone asks to be sponsored for a "Walk For X", giving to that cause is part of a social relationship with the person.

Another way to decide would be to find the greatest need. This might lead us to send all our discretionary money to Africa. Though some moral philosophers might look down on us, I think for most of us there is an irresistible tendency to want to give to causes we identify with personally and people who are more like us.

It is surely natural to give to blood relations, especially our children. This is so strongly ingrained that to me it falls more in the category of money spent personally than for the greater good.

The categories and dimensions we might use for determining who is worthy of our money are certainly numerous: geography, language, race, religion, nationality, social class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, intimate experience with any particular disease, interest (such as a hobby), educational institution, or species (humanity). There is an interesting complication, however: When we fall on the privileged side of any categorization of people, there is a tension between giving to people like ourselves and giving to those more in need. For instance, a person with a home might give to the homeless (different) but to the homeless of the US rather than other countries (same).

Some causes are not linked directly to particular people. Preservation of nature and the environment is in this category, and historical preservation to some extent.

Another dimension is short-term relief as opposed to longer-term. Feeding people at a homeless shelter is shorter-term, while working for affordable housing is longer-term.

There is a tradeoff between spreading money across many organizations or giving more to a few. Limiting the organizations saves overhead costs and reduces somewhat the flood of fundraising letters. On the other hand, one way used for gauging the strength of an organization is how many people contribute to it, not just the total value of the contributions.

I have little to say about where these criteria lead me. I find it a hard problem. But I present the framework for wider consideration. Perhaps other people have other ways of thinking about it.