# Why didn't evolution make us happier **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2006, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768 "2006-02-03T01:55:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/21 "2006-02-03T14:47:50Z")
You’re describing a fairly complex/high-level decision making process there; most of the physiological systems that make us happy/sad/elated/depressed etc are independent of intellect and would be present in, say, shrews; I think we could be pretty sure that, given the conditions in which to become depressed, a shrew will not be sitting there thinking “oh, what’s the point of this meaningless existence! I might as well just let the cat eat me” ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/22 "2006-02-03T15:03:52Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > While I understand your general point, I don’t like this sentence. I am sure that many people in the past didn’t have the expectation of happiness that causes angst or whatever you want to refer to it. > > However, major depression is a medical problem that can shut down functions to the point of catatonia. It isn’t brought on by general maliase. There is no reason to believe it is a new condition. I apologize that I gave the wrong impression with that sentence. I should have chosen my words more carefully. I wasn’t speaking of\* true\* depression which is a chemically-based mental problem. I was speaking of “depression” in the loose sense of general malcontentment and unhappiness. I know that it’s incorrect to do so, but many people refer to just plain unhappiness as “depression.” Again, I apologize for my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/23 "2006-02-03T15:19:52Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I apologize that I gave the wrong impression with that sentence. I should have chosen my words more carefully. > > I wasn’t speaking of\* true\* depression which is a chemically-based mental problem. I was speaking of “depression” in the loose sense of general malcontentment and unhappiness. I know that it’s incorrect to do so, but many people refer to just plain unhappiness as “depression.” > > Again, I apologize for my mistake. You’re still wrong, and almost breathtakingly so, to suppose that we have a wider range of emotions than were experienced by our ancestors. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/24 "2006-02-03T15:30:46Z")
Well, I bet the first birds that found an Island so rich in food and so low in predators, that they didn’t even have to fly, were pretty freeking happy. “This is GREAT!” “We can spend time with our families!” Years later… “Hey, did we used to be able to fly?” “Yep, but we don’t need to fly from danger or to catch food anymore.” “Sweeet.” Years later… “Do di-do do do, hey are those boats?” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/25 "2006-02-03T15:46:51Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > You’re still wrong, and almost breathtakingly so, to suppose that we have a wider range of emotions than were experienced by our ancestors. I think if you go far enough back, it’s _inevitable_ that we have a greater range of emotions than our ancestors; some of them did not even have nervous systems. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/26 "2006-02-03T15:49:34Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I think if you go far enough back, it’s _inevitable_ that we have a greater range of emotions than our ancestors; some of them did not even have nervous systems. The context of his post didn’t indicate he meant our hardworking one-celled ancestors… although, yes, in geological time we can find ancestors incapable of sadness. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/27 "2006-02-03T15:55:10Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > You’re still wrong, and almost breathtakingly so, to suppose that we have a wider range of emotions than were experienced by our ancestors. No, no . . . Our emotional range is not any wider. They loved and grieved just as we do. I’m just saying we have more _time_ to indulge in “the blues.” If anything, I’m giving them credit for having more fortitude in the face of adversity. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/28 "2006-02-03T16:20:03Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > No, no . . . > > Our emotional range is not any wider. They loved and grieved just as we do. I’m just saying we have more _time_ to indulge in “the blues.” If anything, I’m giving them credit for having more fortitude in the face of adversity. Lissa, we are living a couple of decades longer than our ‘ancestors’, but nobody, today, or in the past, _indulges_ in depression. That is really an insult to people who have a mental disorder. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/29 "2006-02-03T16:33:56Z")
See post 22. Speaking as a sufferer of clinical depression which is managed, I think it’s important to continue to understand that people will use the term “depression” to mean “general malaise and ill-feeling”–I used to try to hang onto “depression” as solely the mental disorder, but nowadays I have tired of that fight and just distinguish between “depression” and “clinical depression”. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/30 "2006-02-03T16:54:35Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > No, no . . . > > Our emotional range is not any wider. They loved and grieved just as we do. I’m just saying we have more _time_ to indulge in “the blues.” If anything, I’m giving them credit for having more fortitude in the face of adversity. OK. I got the gist of your message as meaning that the blues were a modern indulgence. I’m sorry if I misread you. I do think you are painting with a rather broad brush for the past and the present. Speaking for myself, I’m quite happy, and it’s because of my liesure time. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/31 "2006-02-03T17:16:11Z")
Evolution isn’t magic, it can’t give us everything we want perfectly. It may very well be that the possibility of depression (both in the clinical and vernacular senses) is the cost of having a complex brain and accompanying set of emotions. IOW, if you can feel happy, then you must also be able to feel sad. If your brain is capable of complex reasoning, then it’s biochemistry may sort out and cause clinical depression. Not everything we are is directly selected. It may very well be that there’s no evolutionary advantage to depression, per se, only that there’s never been a mutation that eliminates it, but keeps the capability for higher reasoning and emotions, which are selected for. Cancer is a very bad thing. But you can’t eliminate it and have a multicellural organism, so evolution hasn’t eliminated it, either. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/32 "2006-02-03T17:39:02Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Depression is tied into weakened immune systems, lack of interest in sex, poor socialbility and loss of appetite. All 4 would inhibit the survival of social creatures like humans. Happiness increases the immune system and socialibility and probably boosts libido as well as problem solving. The point is that happy people are at an evolutionary advantage, so they should have been the major survivors. In the first place, this argument seems to assume that there’s a clear and hereditary dividing line between “happy people” and “unhappy people”, which I don’t think is true. Many people experience significant amounts of both happiness and unhappiness in the course of their lives. So I doubt that happiness could be successfully selected for as an independent genetic trait. In the second place, as I said, evolution isn’t about optimizing, or finding the overall **best** strategy for **maximum** survival and reproductive success. Evolution is about finding an **adequate** strategy for **sufficient** success, species-wise. If humans as a group are happy enough as we are to survive and reproduce successfully, then there simply isn’t any evolutionary pressure operating to make us happier. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/33 "2006-02-03T18:00:18Z")
"Why didn’t evolution make us happier " Because “happiness” isn’t genetic, for one thing… > [@MLS](#): > > Evolution is not about the individual. It’s about weeding out the less fit. Not quite. Evolution, in itself, is just change. It’s not “about” anything. Natural selection is not just about “weeding out the less fit”, either. NS is not just a killer; it is the primary _creative_ force of evolution, as well. Those individuals with specific advantages, no matter how slight, will have a slightly better chance of propegating their genes than the average Joe. Those with specific disadvantages will have a less-than-average chance of doing so. The end result is that the population will shift towards possessing more of the “advantageous” genes, and fewer of the “disadvantageous” ones. The whole “culling of the weak” is more a byproduct of the statistics involved than a goal or specific mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/34 "2006-02-03T18:34:41Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > You’re confusing evolutionary perogatives with sociology. Very little of our _social_ behavior can be explained in terms strictly defined by principles of natural selection; indeed, much of our socialization stands in contrast to strict selective pressures. Realy? I disagree, but why don’t you go into more detail about what you mean. What aspects of our social behavior don’t lend themselves to selective pressure? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/35 "2006-02-03T19:11:38Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 1.In the first place, this argument seems to assume that there’s a clear and hereditary dividing line between “happy people” and “unhappy people”, which I don’t think is true. Many people experience significant amounts of both happiness and unhappiness in the course of their lives. So I doubt that happiness could be successfully selected for as an independent genetic trait. > > 1. In the second place, as I said, evolution isn’t about optimizing, or finding the overall **best** strategy for **maximum** survival and reproductive success. Evolution is about finding an **adequate** strategy for **sufficient** success, species-wise. > > If humans as a group are happy enough as we are to survive and reproduce successfully, then there simply isn’t any evolutionary pressure operating to make us happier. 1. You guys are wrong, happiness is genetic [http://www.forbes.com/technology/sciences/2004/09/23/cx\_mh\_0923happiness.html](http://www.forbes.com/technology/sciences/2004/09/23/cx_mh_0923happiness.html) The strongest evidence comes from a study of identical twins conducted by David Lykken, now a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. Some 60% of the likelihood that twins separated at birth will describe themselves as happy is accounted for by common genetic factors, not environmental differences in their lives. [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m1175/is\_5\_32/ai\_55625502](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_5_32/ai_55625502) Recent twin research showed that the genetic contributions to happiness and stability are about 50% and 80%, respectively, while life events have only a transitory effect on happiness. 2. Yeah I know. I figured this will play a role and I’m guessing as long as most of us aren’t so depressed that we starve, die of infections or don’t care about predators it really won’t make a difference. However people (especially women) are attracted to success more than failure. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179325,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179325,00.html) In a review of 225 studies on happiness and success, researchers found happy individuals are predisposed to seek out and undertake new goals in life, which often brings them more happiness as well as success in many aspects of their lives. On the other hand depression can cost 200 million days of lost work annually > **[Medical and health information](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/)** > > Medical news and health news headlines posted throughout the day, every day Naturally, this isn’t applicable to hunter gather societies. They did not have salaried jobs like we do. However it would appear that a happier person, aside from being more likely to survive for a variety of reasons would be a bigger success in life, making him/her a more desirable mate. Most people would prefer a competent, social, happy mate over a sickly, tired, depressed & antisocial mate. Maybe natural selection did provide for this so we are mostly marginally happy. The studies I’ve seen show most people consider themselves either ‘very happy’ or ‘pretty happy’ with only 20% or so saying they aren’t happy. So maybe after a point it doesn’t offer any more survival benefits so this trait stops being picked. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/36 "2006-02-03T19:14:54Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I apologize that I gave the wrong impression with that sentence. I should have chosen my words more carefully. > > I wasn’t speaking of\* true\* depression which is a chemically-based mental problem. I was speaking of “depression” in the loose sense of general malcontentment and unhappiness. I know that it’s incorrect to do so, but many people refer to just plain unhappiness as “depression.” > > Again, I apologize for my mistake. I am referring to not only clinical depression, but also mild to moderate depression. All seem to lower survival and reproduction rates. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/37 "2006-02-03T20:22:53Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > 1. You guys are wrong, happiness is genetic > > Some 60% of the likelihood that twins separated at birth will describe themselves as happy is accounted for by common genetic factors, not environmental differences in their lives. Clearly genetics plays a part, but your 60% statistic indicates that 40% is not related to common genetic factors, which is a significant number also. > [@](#): > > Recent twin research showed that the genetic contributions to happiness and stability are about 50% and 80%, respectively, while **life events** have only a transitory effect on happiness The problem with studying “life events” as a factor is that it does not account for the general structure of our society and lives as a whole. Again, studies of “primitive” societies vs “modern” societies come out in favor of “primitive”, if I remember correctly. Finally, I generally agree with your idea, I just think that the statement “You guys are wrong, happiness is genetic” is too strongly worded and doesn’t account for the complexities that exist. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/38 "2006-02-03T21:05:45Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > 1. You guys are wrong, happiness is genetic Or maybe Forbes isn’t entirely accurate: [Happiness and health: environmental and genetic contributions to the relationship between subjective well-being, perceived health, and somatic illness.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14674819&dopt=Abstract): > [@](#): > > Results support a differentiated view of SWB-health relations, and imply that both genes and environment play important roles in the associations between well-being and health. And the fact that genes may play an important role is not the same as saying happiness heritable in itself. [Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon](http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/happness/happy.htm): > [@](#): > > If the transitory variations of well-being are largely due to fortune’s favors, whereas the midpoint of these variations is determined by the great genetic lottery that occurs at conception, then we are led to conclude that individual differences in human happiness - how one feels at the moment and also how one feels on average over time - are primarily a matter of chance. Natural selection, of course, produces results which are non-stochastic. The implication, then, is that happiness falls outside the purview of NS; as such the relative frequencies of any “happiness genes” will be governed more by genetic drift than by selection. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about any adaptive benefit to happiness. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/39 "2006-02-03T21:51:10Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Happiness (happiness meaning contentment, feeling positive, well being, feeling good and at place, etc.) is tied into almost every positive character trait. It boosts the immune system, problem solving, motivation & socialbility, as well as various other traits that may or may not have mattered to hunter/gatherer humans. > > [http://thehappinessshow.com/HappinessBenefits.htm](http://thehappinessshow.com/HappinessBenefits.htm) > > Depression on the other hand weakens the immune system, makes someone less sociable, a bad problem solver and less motivated. Obvoiusly a depressed person would be at a severe disadvantage as far as darwinistic survival is concerned. So why aren’t people happier or less depressed? Did it just not matter enough to select these traits out of the population? Some things that work in a primitive environment don’t necessarily work that well in modern society. Take, for example, eating. We have evolved a certain feedback mechanism that controls when we eat and how much we eat. I guess in the old days this mechanism was useful in keeping people at a healthy weight. However, this feedback system (brain, chemical signals, etc) is totally useless for people living in modern affluent societies, where we have an abundance of cheap food. As a result something like 30% of people are overweight. The algorithm (hunger-eat-stop) just doesn’t work in this environment. Something similar is probably happening with the happiness & unhappiness mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768/40 "2006-02-03T22:02:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Realy? I disagree, but why don’t you go into more detail about what you mean. What aspects of our social behavior don’t lend themselves to selective pressure? I should restate that claim; most of our social behavior cannot be described in terms of _genetically-based_ selection; genetics offers the template for overall cognition (how you tend to intuit or feel), but socialization is responsible for the bulk of how you actually think and behave. You may be genetically prone to being tempermental, depressed, et cetera, but how you’ve been raised and the social response of people around you. Social behavior follows more of a Lamarckian model, insofar as social behaviors tend to be derived directly from attitudes exhibited by parents or other close social influences. Asking why evolution (which I take to mean natural selection on expressed phenotypes derived primarily from genotypes) doesn’t make us happier is like asking why evolution hasn’t produced better televison shows. “Happiness” is (for most people) a matter of socialization rather than genetics. Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-evolution-make-us-happier/342768.md?page=3)