= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
b1shop comments on Be Happier - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (273)
Does muscle tone not contribute to genuine health and longevity? That's a positive externality being generated right there.
Doesn't buying a nice house contribute to genuine peace and stability while forcing a potential spendthrift to start saving? That's an internalized benefit.
Just because something has benefits doesn't mean it has externalized costs.
Or does it contribute to speculative bubbles, and increase unemployment by forcing 'stability' (inflexibility & stasis)?
For the record, I agree that home ownership isn't worth it for most prices. Bad example on my part.
I stand by my original point. Just because working out has benefits doesn't mean it's not without negative externalities.
Sure, but this is something that could be said of everything - everything has consequences which one has not foreseen. That's the first law of ecology.
Unless you have specific reason to bring that up, or good evidence that the obvious benefits are outweighed by subtler negative externalities that others have noticed, or something, why are we discussing it?
Because the linked-to study simply says "conspicuous consumption has negative externalities" and the conclusion given is "Avoid Conspicuous Consumption." I call foul.
-
^ This is specific to wealth and cannot (necessarily) be said of other forms of status, such as fitness.