Tridimity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03h8wst/QI_Series_K_Keeps/ @13:45 What should you do if faced with a snake - run or keep still? 'It actually just forgets you're there if you keep still' 'I get that a lot...' @16:00 On trying to train a chimpanzee. 'Their intelligence is of a different order and it's kind of smart, but stupid. [Jane Goodall] had these chimpanzees, and when one [defecated] on the floor, of this little wooden bungalow that she had in Africa, what she would do, she would make it confront its own [faeces], spank it on the bottom and throw it out of the window, and' [interjection: 'It's ground floor, isn't it?'] 'It's ground floor, yes. And so she did that twice, and the third time, she saw one [defecate], slap its own bottom, and jump out of the window' @22:00 On nudist art: 'In 1998, a man took Northampton College to industrial tribunal, claiming that he was not being employed on the basis of his gender, and that it was sexual discrimination, in fact they were able to demonstrate that it was personal, and the reason was he fidgeted, went to the loo too often, had a background in erotic films which troubled the A-Level students, particularly one 16 year old at whom he winked when she was drawing' 'What did he wink with?'

But this, it seems to me, is exactly how US and UK societies regard the deaths of anyone and everyone - as tragedies. Why else would we dress in all black and be expected to mourn? We all want to live, and we all (for the most part) want others to live, and yet we are all going to die. What a paradox. It might be healthier if the social taboos were removed with regards discussion on the topic of death - after all, it is going to affect us all, and does affect us all. To run away from the fact and to treat it as an anomaly of the human condition is, I think, a childish perspective. I think that Buddhists have the healthiest attitude in this respect, in that they willingly accept the inevitability of change, and they are wise enough not to tie their emotions to the things that are subject to change.

GiantEvil, thanks, I do not agree with you on the violent approach but I agree with all the rest. I will try to find a suitable global petition that you may sign. Tri

Karl R Popper, The Myth of the Framework. 'Is my train ticket to London a historical document? Yes and no. If I am accused of murder, the ticket may possibly serve to support an alibi, and so become an important historical document (as in Dorothy Sayers' Five Red Herrings). Nevertheless, I should not advise a historian to start his work by collecting used railway tickets.' I get the mental image of a historian trying to cram all of the world's contents into his home so that he may have available to himself all of the objects that have had any bearing on history. 'I remember an occasion when I was chairman of a meeting in which a distinguished scientist presented this view. Science, he said, was just measuring, and correlating results. In the discussion that followed, I suggested that we should ask for a grant for a project of measuring the length, width, thickness, and weight of the books in the British Museum - in order to study possible correlations between these measurements. I predicted that we should be able to find strong positive correlations between the product of the first three measures and the fourth.' 'Even the amoeba, we may safely assume, has problems.'

I know that the procedure in adult females currently would not be possible in the UK - my main point is that, if the two conditions above were met, the procedure would no longer be unethical - anymore than, say, sex change operations. It IS the ultimate masculine symbol of domination over women - it is a more extreme version of the sexual oppression of women in many societies including the US and UK, which states that any female who engages in sexual intercourse outside of marriage and who enjoys sexual intercourse is an inherently immoral person. Adultery certainly is immoral, because it inflicts suffering upon the partner who is cheated upon, but premarital sexual relations are the business of nobody but the individual female involved. It is effectively taking unrightful ownership of the female's body; yet a more subtle version of this is the effective banning of the use of anatomical labels, such that a woman is led to a sense of societal-induced shame for even mentioning natural parts of her anatomy. I guarantee that if a female was left to develop in isolation, she would not feel any shame with regards her anatomy or sexuality, precisely because there is nothing to be ashamed of. It is the effect of a male-dominated society that seeks to chastise women. This whole issue reminds me also of a documentary that I watched, presented by Richard Dawkins, on 'Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life' Episode 1, in which it is mentioned that some young Muslim women choose to attend surgeries to have their virginities artificially returned to them, in a manner, before they marry their life partner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJLovKISEfg The fundamental issue is power distribution - this time it just so happens that it is inequity between the sexes. Yes, I absolutely agree with all of this. There needs to be a way of ensuring that the female has reached her decision independently, and especially independently of any religion that has been forced upon her during childhood. I'm not sure how one would go about achieving this but I think that an education system in which children are taught multiple (all?) ways of viewing the world, from every perspective, might help. And then leave the person to choose their own religious affiliations, if any, once they reach adulthood. And I would agree on your proposed method of redress. The problem in the UK at the moment, as StringJunky has pointed out, is not the absence of appropriate legislation - it is the enforcement of that legislation. The problem is not usually detected at the point of offence - it is only much later. Perhaps there is a role here for raising the awareness of children, and especially of those at high risk of the procedure, as to what it involves and what to do if you think that you or someone you know is going to be directly affected by the issue. In fact, this stems back to a thread I was engaged in recently with too_open_minded with regards raising awareness in children of the nature of child abuse and what to do about it.

I was thinking recently about death and, while I do not support the loss of any human life, it is an inevitable fact that we will - each and every single one of us - die. Everything changes - humans are no exception to the rule. No surprises so far. Perhaps we need, as a society, to cease mourning the loss of each and every individual as if it were an isolated and encapsulated tragedy. It has been said that negative emotions are the result of our positive expectations going unmet. If this is true, then it might imply that none of us, in our heart of hearts, expects our self or our loved ones to die. Is it that we simply are incapable of imagining a world in which we no longer exist (cognitive dissonance)? Then I started thinking about the reasons why people wish not to die, which seems to be, so that they may engage in practices and behaviours that they enjoy - the strongest of which is the desire to actively love the people and things that are most important to them as individuals. And why is it that we wish to be surrounded by the people and things that we love? I think it basically boils down to being able to check that they are okay; that they are surviving. When we go to the opera, we are checking that the art form still exists. When we engage in any interest as either practitioners, observers or disseminators, what we are really doing is to check that the thing we love still is thriving. To love is to wish the thing to survive. It has oft been said, in response to a case of overreaction, 'the world will not end'. And that is just the point: once we realise that the people and things that we love will continue to exist even in our absence, we can perhaps let go, and accept death. Tchaikovsky will sound just as good, even when we are not around to listen. And musicians will continue to make wonderful pieces of music. Some forms of death are truly tragic, such as those who lose their lives prematurely (e.g. under the age of 70 or so), or those who die needlessly as a result of lack of access to basic healthcare or as a result of violent conflict or natural disaster. The majority of deaths, however, occur naturally after a long lifetime's worth of experiences has been fulfilled. Why then, do we continue to regard death, in this natural context, as a tragedy? I do not think that it is helpful to take something which is definitely going to happen (100% certainty) and to turn it into a tragedy. This response only has the effect of increasing the emotional distress of the individual concerned and of their friends and family members. If we, as a society, learned to change our cultural psyche such that death after a long lifetime (say, 70, 80, 90 years onwards) is not deemed a tragedy but inevitable then the individual will be freed from considerations of the impact of their own death on the psychological/emotional wellbeing of their loved ones. They then need only to come to terms with the thought of no longer being around to check that the things they love still exist. In almost all cases, the death of the individual will have no impact on the physical existence of things they love. Although, it should be added, that these loved things will one day also cease being. The loss will probably be felt much more by the person's loved ones, precisely because one of their loved ones will no longer exist. However, they are likely to handle the situation better and to suffer less emotional distress if they see that their loved one has accepted the inevitability of death and is not emotionally distraught. The emotions of both the individual and their loved ones have a spiralling effect. What do you think? Do Western cultures fail to accept the inevitability of death, and so fuel emotional distress?

Thanks StringJunky I should probably temper my position on this issue, since I am an advocate of the freedom of choice of individuals, to assert that the procedure would no longer be reprehensible under the following conditions: The female to be circumcised has reached the age of 18 or above AND is demonstrably aware of the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision - which may be determined by an in-depth discussion with her doctor, nurse and/or psychologist AND she still wishes, of her own accord, to undergo the procedure The procedure is carried out upon consent of the adult female (see above) in a professional medical facility that has access to suitably qualified anaesthetists, nurses, doctors, surgeons and psychologists for immediate assistance and on-going support as appropriate. These modifications to the procedure would allow the continuation of cultural norms without harming the female.

Sounds like my ex I have evened things out for you TAR, because I don't think that you deserve a neg rep. This is true, only, it may not always have the desired personal consequences: think of Socrates and his defence of truth. Sometimes maintaining personal integrity, standing up for one's beliefs and rights to express those beliefs, has dire personal consequences. Similarly, 'The only way to deal with an unfree world is to be come so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion' Albert Camus

Thank you Amanbir, I am interested to hear your opinion. The point is, that there are British citizens who have connections with countries and cultures in which these procedures occur, who are enlisting the services of foreign circumcisers to come to the UK in order to perform the procedure on their daughters. This act is illegal in the UK. I would also challenge your implicit premise that, just because a practice is occurring in a foreign country, that it is outside the remit of other countries to intervene when suffering is being inflicted on others. We would not condone or accept the torture or murder of others in foreign countries, so why should we allow other abuses such as FGM, to occur in other countries? National boundaries might be important for the technicalities of law but there are no barriers to our universal humanity and the morals that pervade the globe. FGM is child abuse when performed in the UK; choosing to have the procedure performed in a foreign country does not make it acceptable. FGM is child abuse universally. 'Happy destroying the truth' I would be interested to know what you mean by this. I have and am dedicating my life to the discovery of truth (as far as is possible to achieve). 'Credibility the word' You seriously ought to consider learning how to construct sentences.

You must be incapable of writing in full sentences. No matter. Or shall I clarify: Sentences. No. Worry. Don't.

If it was a choice between the two, I still would choose intelligence over happiness or - if you prefer - knowledge and power over ignorance and bliss. The reason is that, suffering exists in the world independently of our perceptions of it. To choose ignorance and bliss is to choose to allow suffering to continue; to choose knowledge and power is to choose to contribute towards the efforts to eradicate suffering. The latter is preferable in my opinion. Also, the positive changes that we make in the world do not have to be disproportionate to our own individual capabilities for change - if we each exert as much positive change as we are able - then collectively we can help to substantially reduce suffering.

So I was watching this documentary earlier, presented by Leyla Hussein, on the topic of female genital mutilation (FGM): http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-cruel-cut/4od Note: the documentary is emotionally distressing and contains very strong language, graphic images and descriptions of FGM so please bear this in mind if you do not wish to watch such scenes. My apologies to those outside the UK who probably will not be able to access the documentary - I am unable to find an alternative version. Female genital mutilation is most prevalent in African and Asian countries but worryingly there is evidence that the practice still exists and goes unnoticed among communities in the UK - perhaps because the community members whose duty it would be to recognise signs of abuse (e.g. teachers, social care workers, police officers) are not sufficiently aware of the procedure. FGM involves the cutting of the external female genitalia (removal of the clitoris and/or inner/outer labia and/or fusion of the wound to produce an artificially restricted vaginal opening). Typically the procedure is carried out on very young girls (weeks after birth to puberty), against their will, by a circumciser using a crude knife or razor. The procedure results in various types of physical, psychological and emotional trauma - recurrent infections, chronic pain, infertility, epidermoid cysts, painful intercourse, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding; anxiety, depression, PTSD. The apparent rationale, on the part of the parents of the child being circumcised, is to reduce the sex drive of the female and so reduce the likelihood that she will engage in premarital sexual intercourse and so bring 'shame' (to clarify, I do not regard premarital sexual intercourse as reasonable grounds for any loss of honour on the part of the individual or their family members - I am merely stating the position of these particular parents) on the family. The questioned parents will answer in terms of the girl being 'clean' or 'unclean' and so, to a certain extent, one can understand (without excusing) why a parent may wish for their daughter to be circumcised - if they are not, and the fact is known, then it may harm their daughter's chances of securing a suitable husband. However, I maintain that any act which has a high probability of resulting in the physical, psychological and/or emotional trauma of the child - and which is performed without their informed consent - is child abuse. FGM is child abuse. Leyla introduces a good point, which is that - perhaps as a result of trying to be tolerant and inclusive of religions and subcultures within our multicultural and diverse societies - we collectively have misplaced our good intentions and so continue to allow the practice of child abuse that is genital mutilation to occur. While we may not actively encourage such practices, by failing to implement the pre-existing legislation with respect to this abhorrant practice, and by virtue of the fact that the practice is able to continue undetected (since the child is too young to understand properly what is happening, let alone who to speak to about it), we are collectively failing these children. FGM is not the only practice which is allowed to continue by dressing up as a 'cultural norm' - child abuse ought never to be a cultural norm - but it is one of the more blatantly insidious practices. Please take a minute to sign Leyla's Home Office petition, it does not take long to sign, and if 100,000 signatures are collected then the issue may be debated in the House of Commons: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52740against

Kudos for the thread title

I agree with your premises not your conclusion. Happiness is taken in context and that context is greater than a particular synapse in a particular brain. However, in order for our working definition of ‘happiness’ to encapsulate all possible instances of that emotion, of that state of being, I think it is more appropriate to define the emotion in terms of the subjective experience of the particular combinations of neurones firing simultaneously. The neuronal networks themselves, as objects, do not define happiness – if it were hypothetically possible to remove them intact and to stimulate them in vitro then this would not be an instance of happiness. Happiness is a state of being that occurs within a whole intact organism. But, likewise, your elephant scenario would not allude to happiness if it were not for the presence of the observers and the subjective experiences that they are feeling that are manifest as a certain pattern of neuronal firing. So, I do not think that it is helpful to try to include every possible permutation or scenario that may or may not be a stimulus for happiness or unhappiness in the definition – the list is infinite. Even if you consider a wider context and time span, say, a man has worked every day of the past 20 years of his life to achieve X. On the day that the man achieves X, he will probably feel a measure of happiness, as it is satisfying to complete a life objective. However, this does not mean to say that, during those 20 years, the man was constantly happy. He may have faced setbacks related to his work, or he may have experienced hardship in other areas of his life, or he may feel a sense of deflation or unhappiness once his objective is achieved - because now he does not have the unfulfilled objective to work towards, and his life may lose a measure of its former meaning. To equate the context with the state of being is therefore, I think, erroneous. Of course, in reality, we cannot. Hypothetical questions such as that in the OP do, though, require that we rationalise our priorities and our reasons for choosing to live in the way that we do – which personally I find interesting and useful.

Another thing I would add is, as well as the inherent biological and/or technological obstacles to directly perceiving the most enormous and the tiniest entities in our Universe, consider the paucity of time that we each as individuals have available to us that may be devoted to such observations - think of how much time we spend sleeping (though necessary) and engaging in other mundane activities when we could be observing the Universe. At any moment in time, trillions and trillions of events are happening all over, not only Earth, but the rest of the cosmos. Imagine if we were capable of perceiving and processing all of that information in real time! (Is that God's job description?) Even the luckiest people on Earth are, at best, well-travelled and have sufficient monetary and time resources to be able to exert control over their own destinies and so discover new truths almost at will. But, by the Universe's standards, by the standards of what hypothetically could be observed if only the observations were not limited by biological or technological obstacles - even these people are relatively impoverished. They too only get one shot at life - at best, a few decades.

No, it is the experience of the release and binding of those chemicals at multiple synapses simultaneously. Happiness is a state of being and, although there may be short term versions (pleasure-induced gratification) or long term versions (wholesome feelings based on achievement of a hard-earned goal), it is ultimately transitory. Oh, you’re appealing to my humanity. That’s sweet. Yes, I can relate to it, and join you in despising the perpetrators. But I don’t see what relevance this has for the thread? P.S. You started writing in verdana 10, like me.

Hm. I am interested to know how you would reach the decision (conscious or otherwise) to love oneself? Are you saying that self-love and self-esteem are possible merely on the basis that a person exists, and that they are experiencing that existence in the subjective, and so automatically feel self-love and self-esteem? I can see this from a self-preservation perspective: put a person on the edge of a cliff and - assuming that they are not suffering from depression and that they are physically capable – then the person will generally do their darnedest to clamber back to safety. However I think that this innate reaction has nothing to do with self-love or self-esteem and everything to do with an evolutionarily programmed desire to survive. Merely existing is not sufficient reason for self-love or self-esteem: if it were, we would all love and esteem the rocks which we pass each day on our travels, just by virtue of their existing. To progress above and beyond the self-preservation reflex and to a conscious self-love and self-esteem requires the capacity for self-reflection and to judge oneself against one’s own values and moral framework. The self-esteem and self-love are based on positive thoughts about the self. I do not understand how it is possible to love or esteem oneself in the absence of self-reflective thoughts. It’s kind of like when you fall in love with another person: you may initially be physically attracted to them, or attracted to them for some other superficial reason, but in order to love them you must think positively about their thoughts. Does that make any sense? I never mentioned co-dependency – so why did you introduce the concept into the discussion? I don’t think so: otherwise drug addicts, after their daily hit, would feel a sustained self-esteem and self-love, which is not the case. I will agree that happiness, according to your intended definition of happiness (one that I would broadly agree with), is different to drug addiction. However some of the same neurophysiological events occur when a person is experiencing a drug hit versus a modicum of regular happiness – the main difference is that the former does not last very long because it has no solid foundation, whereas the latter is usually grounded in (as you mention) self-esteem, self-love and various long-term reward mechanisms that result from obeying the evolutionarily programmed ‘approved codes of behaviour’ for gene propagation. I don’t claim to be an expert in any field – I like to move between fields and see how they fit together.

Unless there is some kind of hidden meaning, I think the author may need to see a counsellor. Impact factor, Qualitative Investigation, 0.870

TAR, It is possible to experience a kind of happiness (in the sense of experiencing the binding of the aforementioned neurotransmitters and hormones to their respective receptors) in the absence of intelligent decision making – drug abusers do it all the time. No intelligence required. Happiness is the evolutionarily programmed motive for engaging in behaviours that favour survival and/or reproduction (think, orgasm) and so existing in a condition of constant (undeserved, in evolutionary terms) happiness would do more to harm propagation of the species than anything else. I maintain that I would choose intelligence over happiness. I am not sure if this is what you were getting at? Tri Amalgams of our aliases. RitRat.

I know No, that is not what I am saying. Ordinarily, an intelligent person’s life will involve periods of happiness and unhappiness. The hypothetical that you introduced in the OP was to choose between two mutually exclusive states (at least, that’s how I interpreted it, please correct if necessary): intelligence versus happiness. In this context, an intelligent person’s life would be filled with unhappiness, by definition. The reflective capabilities necessary in order to live a considered life are also necessary in order to achieve self-love and self-esteem. Self-reflection is possible under conditions of happiness or unhappiness but it is only possible under conditions of a degree of intelligence that will suffice in order to facilitate self-reflection. As far as I can tell, it is not possible to achieve self-esteem or self-love in the absence of self-reflection. In order to love and to respect ourselves as individuals, we must make a judgment that is predicated on reason. This may involve the acknowledgement of certain traits within the self that we deem worthy of veneration; it may involve recognition of the fact that most of the time the self has positive intentions and takes actions towards fulfilling those intentions – often in the context of the individual’s own moral framework. I suppose it is possible to achieve a kind of ‘self-love’ that is based on the opinions of people external to the self (society) however I do not think that this can really be considered bona fide ‘self-love’ because it is prone to fluctuate with the changing whims and judgment calls of the crowd, and because there is no substantial reasoning behind that self-judgment (other than ‘X approves of me. I must be worth something. Therefore I have a positive estimation of myself, on the condition that X approves of me.’) This kind of self-judgment would more aptly be described as vanity. I will add the caveat that, once a person has come to know themself and to judge themself according to their own standards and reasoning, then it is arguably not inappropriate for them to value the approval of those individuals whom they know deeply and whom they respect and/or love. The point is that they are still allowing themself to be judged according to standards or ideals with which they concur. Hence why it is possible to respect and/or love oneself and also to appreciate the respect and/or love of another. I will agree in that individuals experiencing self-love and self-esteem are more likely to be happy, all else being equal. I didn’t forget it, I just didn’t think that it was relevant. To me, your definition seems to have the same error as this: ‘My definition of driving, from my personal experience, is a fuel-based stimulation that drives a vehicle to move.’ The stimulus (fuel) is necessary for driving, but it is not equivalent to the state of driving. However I am willing to let this semantics game go, if you like, because I think in actuality your intended definition of happiness is close to the mark, even if you did not express it clearly in writing. It’s not exclusively ‘my truth’ (I never seek to claim absolute truth) – it is the scientific perspective on love; the biochemistry and physiological aspects of love are well documented. You may prefer not to consider the fundamental reasons why humans behave in the way that they do when mating and pair-bonding – or you may prefer to think of it in subjective rather than objective terms – and that is perfectly acceptable, but it does not change the fact that lust is a necessary component of love in the context of a romantic/sexual relationship.

In the context of the OP, any happy life must be led by an unintelligent person; one who is incapable of the deep reflection necessary in order to live a considered life. Hence, within these parameters, choosing happiness over intelligence would necessitate living the unconsidered life. Here you are choosing to insert into the discussion your own definition of happiness, which is fine, but I wish that you had done so earlier so that we would all be on a level playing field. I, for one, would not define happiness in this way. Self-love and self-esteem require a good deal of self-reflection and that level of reflection would be lacking in a person who chose happiness rather than intelligence. I was not born yesterday, so yes. Sorry, I still don’t understand why you introduced the concept of predation into the thread. “My definition of happiness… is a strong internal stimulation that drives an individual to life…” It sounds to me like you equated happiness with the stimulus. In fact, if you strip out the adjectives, it reads “happiness is a stimulation”. You may have meant something else, but all I have to go on is the words you use, and you used the ones above. Love is a series of chemical reactions occurring in the body over time to encourage mating and fidelity; a mechanism that has evolved as a means to propagate genes. Lust is a large part of this biological process. I don't think there is any kind of romantic/sexual love that lacks self-interest; sexual attraction is driven by a desire to merge genomes with the person deemed most fit (in evolutionary terms), so that we may propagate our own genes. Other types of love may be disinterested; e.g. love between friends or strangers or extended family, but they are not the types of love that will be confused with lust. I know it is less picture postcard friendly this way - but that is reality and one ought not to pussyfoot around the truth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03h8wgr/QI_XL_Series_K_Kinetic/ "What would happen if the world stopped spinning?" "Oh, there'd be numerous consequences" (bluffs)... "Go on then, name a consequence" "Well, half of the world would be plunged into eternal darkness..." "That's a very good point" "And they would all leave and come and join the light side - or would some of them go to the dark side... What about the animals, all of the ones that like the dark, they'd have to get to the dark side, all the moths would have to go that way [signals], the butterfiles would have to go that way [signals opposite direction with hand gesture]. The moles would be really confused... What about on Daybreak, when they start broadcasting? How do they know when to start daybreak? You could only grow food on half of the world, the rest of the people would have to come to the light side for food. Or they would only be able to have fungi." Love QI <3

Intelligence can certainly be considered in this way, and this is the way in which, perhaps, most people aim to use their intelligence. The utility of intelligence definitely manifests as increases in an individual's knowledge and, if they communicate that knowledge and choose to contribute - then it will manifest as increases in humanity's collective knowledge. Knowledge is, of course, neither intrinsically benign nor malign but may be differentially exploited to either serve or to destroy aspects of the human endeavour - consider the atomic bomb versus antibiotics. However, the point that I wanted to make, is that the intelligent being is worth more than merely what they are able to contribute to society in a utilitarian sense; there is also an intrinsic beauty and profundity in that intelligence.

Right on, overtone. The UK is currently "officially" recovering but the reality is that the recoveries for big business and for ordinary working families have become divorced. Ed Miliband seems to be the only leading politician to recognise this fact and to care enough (whether he cares merely as a vote-winning strategy or whether he actually cares in his heart of hearts, I am not sure, but I think it is the latter) whereas Cameron is prepared to make a token gesture and question the energy "big six" and allow rail fares to increase by only (only?) 6.1%. And so the disparity between wealthy and lower-middle/working/dependent classes increases... and increases... and increases...

The point at which the decision is made, which of the two pills to swallow, will have a large impact on the outcome. For example, if the decision is made under our current circumstances, we are sufficiently intelligent to be able to imagine each of the scenarios and to compare and contrast them; we also each have had a measure of happiness and unhappiness, and are able to contemplate upon this. What now seems to be creeping into the discussion, is a consideration of the after-thoughts (hinsight) that a person living under their new conditions might think or feel - given their limitations of intelligence or emotional capacity respectively. For example, one argument that seems to be arising, is that 'you wouldn't care about being intelligent or unintelligent if you had chosen the happiness route.' Well, this might be true. But I choose to make the decision beforehand, using the sensibilities that I have now, rather than thinking with the perspective of the emotionally sedated and intellectually challenged version of myself that would result from choosing constant happiness. No other version of myself than the pre-pill version, if you will, is capable of making a reasoned and emotionally-balanced decision.