Dan Fabulich wrote:
> But if my chances of survival depend a lot on my productivity today,
> as it well might, since very few people seem to be working on
> technology that will keep me alive, then it seems I should focus on
> productivity today, even at a trade off for happiness today.
Maybe if you recast it. You need to have enough incoming happiness to
be able to keep your mind on what is productive. Happiness, like food
and air, is a temporary sustinence that you need a constant flow of in
sufficient quantities, or your shell reacts in a negative way. You can
have very very high levels of happiness at a certain point, but that is
not the same as being happy forever. Likewise, if you try to go with
too low a level of happiness in search of productivity, you won't be
able to get where you want to be.
With that as a meter, try going for that which gives you the best chance
at longevity while maintaining adequate levels of happiness. (This is
not, BTW, "train yourself to live while starving". It's like fuel, too:
focus completely on getting it, and you get nothing done, but without a
certain level of it, you also get nothing done.)
> Well, of the career choices I can think of that are available to me,
> I'd say that the most likely to increase my survival (and, perhaps,
> long term happiness,) is work in biomedical engineering; either by
> doing actual research or going into biomedical engineering patent law
> and reinvesting much of my earnings. Next is probably computer
> science/programming. Philosophy ranks dead last. :)
Who says you can't combine them? Use biomed to discover the truths on
which you can base philosophies for tomorrow. Philosophy, on its own
with no connection to reality, is only frustrating in the end. Or
balance your time - amateur philosopher, professional biomedical
engineer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:34 MDT