> Plenty of people are happier with nicer things.

Are they truly happier, in the sense of being more content? Or are they just deriving more temporary pleasure from the hedonic treadmill they're on?

You can probably tell which one it is, by how long their happiness with their house / car / TV / fill-in-the-blank lasts, before they start thinking about trading up to an even nicer fill-in-the-blank.

Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard wrote a great book on happiness, here's an excerpt I enjoy which talks about the difference between pleasure and happiness, in two parts. [1] [2]

1. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...

2. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...

Yeah but what is meaningfully "nicer" becomes and exponentially more expensive and ends up being mostly wasted value. And by time someone has to start actually worrying about such questions they have enough free capital to spend that they can have a high quality version of almost anything anyone would want to possess or use other than pure displays of wealth.

Maybe if the basic needs on the average person were taken care of then random displays of extravagant wealth would be acceptable. But when something as simple as getting a rotten tooth extracted or a filling on a front tooth is too much "luxury" for many working class citizens, it is a complete misallocation of society's resources.

But commercialism keeps telling people that only nicer things can make them happy.

Sure, but wisdom can be shared about what is less likely to make you happy.

I'm happy right after I eat ice cream too. Doesn't make it a good lifestyle.

Before you go on about how saying it's "good" or "not good" is a value judgement that I'm not entitled to make -- you're damn right it is, and I'll do what I want.

That happy feeling only lasts about six weeks.

Happiness is unsustainable. However, contentment is an attainable goal.

[flagged]