Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Not Important, but Necessary Nonetheless
But that situation aside, the question really is, how much knowledge does a society need as a whole in order to function in a way that keeps the majority of people happy?
I think the problem is that the question is ill posed. I don't think that there's any amount of knowledge that's "sufficient".
People are happy or unhappy as a response to their environment. In large part, that means people are unhappy when they feel they're not getting what they want. But the threshold for what they want is set by what they have.
People in those aboriginal tribes you mentioned aren't interested in the latest Wii games. They're busy scraping out a subsistence living. What they want is more food, better water, and more jewelry than the next guy. And it's a mistake to just dismiss that last item as nothing more than "greed".
In all of nature, almost nothing responds to absolutes. Almost everything responds to differences - real or perceived. It's not the amount of jewelry you have (or cars, or money, or girls, or children, or whatever your "wants"), it's changes in the amount that drive happiness.
Here's an example. Let's say you have a little stock portfolio. Let's say that on average, it makes a $10 profit every day, but the variance is such that on any given day you could earn $110 or lose $90, or anywhere in between. Now, if you check your portfolio once a month, you'll find that virtually every month, you're ahead - on average about $300. Sure, it'll vary - some months maybe only $100 ahead, some months maybe $500 - but you'll almost never lose money.
But if you check that very same portfolio every day, you'll find that you've "lost" money about fourteen days of every month - almost every other day.
Most people would be very frustrated with their portfolio if they lost money fourteen days out of every month - even though the exact same portfolio, looked at objectively, is bringing in a nice, steady profit.
The reason for the frustration is that they're reacting to their changes in fortune, not their absolute fortune.
Very few people who've been raised in first-world countries could be happy living with those aboriginal tribesmen. Our standard of living is way too high to be happy at a lower standard - even though all of your basic needs might be met - a comfortable home, all the food you need, a wife (or maybe several) and children - the whole scenario still seems like a net loss to most people.
So as a theoretical answer, our present day knowledge is very oversaturated, but when you are driving on a highway, if everybody else is going 75, it's never a good idea to drive 30.
I don't think it's really any kind of "knowledge rat race". The pursuit of knowledge is, in itself, something that many people value. Knowing more today than yesterday is a differential improvement - just exactly the sort of thing that can increase happiness.
It may not be for everybody - the "ditsy girl' you mentioned probably doesn't see it as bringing her happiness, for example - but we all do generally benefit. It's because of those who pursue knowledge for its own sake that we have the technology that ensure that nearly everyone in a country of over 300 million people has a place to live and enough food to eat.
Knowledge is a good thing. It's what separates us from our simian ancestors. It's what makes us human.
RE: Not Important, but Necessary Nonetheless
how much knowledge does one need to survive with a reasonable comfort level? In order to survive at all,
I guess I never took the time to clarify my standpoint on this subject...I'm talking less about necessity for survival and more about knowledge as a right of passage. Let me be more specific, I find myself plagued with the insatiable desire to know everything, and how everything works...and I was concerned with pursuing that goal with any more intensity then I do anything else. I guess the question is, what value does it really have other then to spawn more questions. I suppose a viable answer to this question is to have a balance, just as with anything else. I supposed I've encountered many people that believe that somehow their knowledge gives them an advantage, (I am guilty of this as well) I don't believe it does...I think values are unencumbered with concepts like money, power, knowledge, or prestige...anyway...just generating discussion.
RSS
Not Important, but Necessary Nonetheless
I've been thinking about the nature of knowledge. Is knowledge overrated?
An answer to this might be started by asking another question; how much knowledge does one need to survive with a reasonable comfort level? In order to survive at all, a person or animal needs some sort of knowledge, so in that respect it is very important. In an animal's case we usually call this instinct which is a form of hard wired knowledge geared towards this survival. Humans have lost this inherent knowledge and in many cases would die if left suddenly to survive alone in the wild without some previous skills learned prior to being cut off from society. (Perhaps this is true for animals that have been in captivity too long also.) But that situation aside, the question really is, how much knowledge does a society need as a whole in order to function in a way that keeps the majority of people happy?
I recently was watching a documentary on one of those primitive, almost Stone Age tribes in Africa where they basically have only the knowledge they need to feed themselves, provide some shelter from rain and keep human society amongst themselves. The latter is what impressed me the most. When looked at in detail, these people had the same basic hopes and dreams, petty arguments, love triangles, jealousies, ego trips, love for family and friends, etc. that you would find underlying any modern society; the details based on their living conditions were the only difference. So is the knowledge of how to replace a hard drive in a laptop important to them? Of course not. They all had smiles on their weathered faces, and the children still laughed and played games happily around the fire.
I was (briefly) watching one of those tabloid shows where they were sort of making fun of certain model types who would say stupid things in response to geography questions like, "I thought Europe was a country! Oops." We all laugh in horror at the ditsy girl's lack of knowledge, but at the same time she looked quite healthy and seemed to be surviving quite nicely in her relative ignorance. But everyone can't be like that; it's the fact that our society bolsters her survival based on a complex value system which allows her to live without "knowing things". This also shows us that because our society is very established, we can go after very specialized knowledge and 'skip the boring stuff' if we choose, and still perhaps be successful.
As far as intertwined societies are concerned, knowledge is power. When you begin to have a fear that someone is going to attack you and take the means by which you survive, you begin to create ways to stop them. What maybe kept the aboriginal tribe primitive was the fact that no one bothered their survival. We also strive for more knowledge because even within our own societies the power of knowing more than the next guy gets us better jobs, homes, and cool stuff.
So as a theoretical answer, our present day knowledge is very oversaturated, but when you are driving on a highway, if everybody else is going 75, it's never a good idea to drive 30.
View Full Discussion