We studied this in University (Abraham Harold Maslow’s hierarchy of needs)

think that happiness is elusive for those who delay it (“I’ll find it when I retire” or “this weekend I’ll party hard, play hard”) or those who seek gratification by conflating money (or purchases) with joy while hating their jobs but compensating for that with salaries. If people work 40 hours a week (more or less), that latter activity can be the opposite of happiness, last a long time, and persist mentally before and after work.

They say “do what you like, money will come” (or pursue your hobby, make it profitable some way or another in the future).

To me, basics of happiness begin with the Maslow model and can be further simplified like this: get enough sleep any time you’re tired, eat well (enjoy it, don’t rush), find romance/companionship (that latter may mean pets/wildlife too, not just kids), do exercise or relax (e.g. spa) for physical/mental health. Work enough, don’t overdo it. It’s possible you spend too much if you need to work too much. And if you work too much, you’ll hate work and maybe wish to fall asleep in it (or underperform).

“The researchers were particularly interested in three psychological needs identified by self-determination theory: relatedness, or having meaningful relationships; competence, or feeling capable and effective; and autonomy, meaning that our actions feel voluntarily chosen rather than forced on us.” -“Not Money or Pleasure: Scientists Say They’ve Found The True Key to Happiness” (5 September 2026)

n capitalism, people are meant to conflate accumulation of capital (or material assets) with “success” and that sort of success is interchangeable with happiness. But this is a gross oversimplification as pursuit of capital is not in its own right joyful or pleasant. Many people derive pleasure from social things because they are, after all, “social animals”.

Those who seek improvement in their lives by working hard to gain more money may find that it’s easier for them to purchase more things or better things. But at what cost?

Also, more personal belongings can one day became liabilities or burdens. This is why many people, especially late in their lives, give things away and move into smaller, simpler places/spaces.

‘ve already asked around before writing this, as I generally wanted to ensure this observation and sentiment was not just my own.

Many decades ago a “household” (with kids, car/s etc.) could – but no longer can – be managed by a single provider or breadwinner as they called it. That sort of ended after the 1990s with stagnation of wages. Then two parents were expected to work full-time – with dashes added as it became a proper word – to attain the same income level (comparatively).

Now the couple is expected to not only work full time (for the same lifestyle) but to also work overtime.

Sometimes overtime is voluntary, but there is a hidden cost. People fall behind on critical chores like food-buying, laundry etc.

As a result of that, even with a weekend off, there is no true rest, just “catchup” ahead of Mondays.

This won’t be sustainable as it leads to mental fatigue.

Did the “architects of the system” take this into consideration?

Lack of sleep worsens the quality of work. Lack of rest makes moody people, which interferes with health of relationships (couples, parents, peers).

Collecting “money” like it’s a form of competition where they track “score”

reed is bad. Greed is a form of mental illness, more so when it exceeds some rational, logical levels (e.g. people trying to hoard more capital than they conceivably and meaningfully spend in their remaining lifetime).

Stuff has gotten more expensive and companies try to make us believe or compel us to accept that we need “apps” or fake “modernity” that does not enrich life in any meaningful way.

“When I buy something,” as ploum.net put it the other day, “from a small kitchen appliance to a car, I’m now forced to get formal confirmation by the seller that I will be able to use it without installing one, two or three different apps. I kept the count: in the last year alone, I had to argue against the installation of 18 smartphone apps. Just in my toilet, I’m supposed to have an app for the seat, an app for the flush and one for the ventilation.”

We already reached “peak s–t” decades ago, there’s not much left to enhance in a toilet seat. We don’t need “apps” there.

Then again, never underestimate the power of aggressive marketing. Or an employer or hotel manager or “landlord” (landlady also) who puts “smart” things everywhere.

I was recently reminded of the Mancunian band protesting for freedom and also against greed and hoarding (back in the 1970s and 80s). They’re all still alive, doing well, and well into their 80s.

They did “art for art’s sake” and enjoyed the art. “Money for God’s sake…”

Does “God” take your bank balance when your life ends?

It’s a choice

et up and do activism. The world needs it more than ever, as our downward trend towards oppression is very apparent and visible not just in the digital domain.

When I grew up I never knew and never planned to do activism. It just sort of happened.

Reading about (or from) other activists, it seems apparent they too had no such plans and activism was somewhat outlandish to them.

Saying stuff like “well, I’m not an activist” is a shoddy excuse. Did you even try?

rowing up in the 2000s, having been born in the 90s or later, seems very hard to me. I have a sister like that. To the generation that needs to work for another ~50 years before retirement it seems like “the future” is full of uncertainties. Those born in the early 90s at least have some more experience, sometimes savings.

The story of capitalism or “Western Capitalism” is losing its grip on youths and, to a lesser degree, on an older generation alike.

How do you explain to your child that it’s normal to do “gig work” or constantly chase 3-month contracts while trying to somehow buy a home? Or that it’s unreasonable to truly own a car (not with some “payment plan”, i.e. ‘mortgage’ for cars)?

Materialism is not everything, but when people own nothing at all, there’s no safety either.

he thing you want to do to women is put them in cages (even your own wife!)
You insist women are not women and then argue about nature, replacing science with ideology
You naturally come to realise women keep a distance from you (they probably explain to one another why)
You cheat on women casually
You assume what’s theirs is actually men’s (like you)
You antagonise women except those who flatter you