This collection of concepts breaks down in at least two ways: the hedonic treadmill (increments in income, etc., produce only transient happiness, vide infra), and the difference between life satisfaction and happiness. The latter difference, in turn, has some relationship to the non-unitary nature of the human mind -- internal goals conflict in ways that make the notion of an individual's utility less useful.
However, people and societies are products of evolution (and it is often unnecessary to ask what is biologically evolved and what is cultural). One can argue that an evolutionary function of the hedonic treadmill is to drive people toward the accumulation of ever more wealth and power, which in turn aid the propagation of the characteristic features of "successful" people and societies.
Put more bluntly and focused on GDP: greater national wealth enables greater military power. World affairs therefore tend to be dominated by cultures and nations that pursue wealth, and their cultures tend to be imitated. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
This is an interesting take on it, but I'm not sure it's true historically. Firstly military power doesn't necessarily translate to political influence - as the US discovered in Vietnam, and is discovering in Iraq.
Secondly, successful military power is used to grow empires. Not vice versa. The Romans and the British had empires because of their superior military skills and technology, not vice versa.
I think a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for empire is that there has to be a background of aggressive acquisition driven by a political system of internal competition. E.g. Roman acquisition was driven by political and economic status within the oligarchies that ran Rome.
If a system isn't internally competitive, there's less drive to expand outwards and acquire resources away from home.
During the Napoleonic wars Britain bankrolled many of France´s opponents on the continent. This economic power enabled Britain to in the long run win and thus end up with (among other things) a lot of possesions in India.
And although I disagree with the notion that GDP measures national wealth, I agree that a large GDP enables a big army. As GDP measures taxable transactions, it gives a hint of how large spendings a government can get going, among those spendings military spendings. Of course this only really applies to our modern day states with high-tech expensive weapons.
In roman time a main portion of wages was pay in land on retirement, thus creating a drive to conquer more land. Not that that was the only force pushing for expansion... A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
To clarify, in that paragraph I was responding to this statement by technopolitan:
Put more bluntly and focused on GDP: greater national wealth enables greater military power.
And I also made a rather convoluted reference to a previous discussion where I stated my answers to Migerus socratic questions as:
1. What does GDP measure? Tax base. 2. Why does it need to grow? To enable politicians to keep their promises, wheter in expanding services but not increasing taxes or lowering tax percentages while keeping services constant. Or both. Few run on a platform of increased taxes and lowered services. Or on a reality-based platform where you need to pay for what you eat. Fiscal conservative is just a oppostion position, when in power you need to keep promises. 3. Does the need for GDP growth outweigh any other policy goal? Policy is set by politicians right? Then - almost always - yes.
2. Why does it need to grow? To enable politicians to keep their promises, wheter in expanding services but not increasing taxes or lowering tax percentages while keeping services constant. Or both. Few run on a platform of increased taxes and lowered services. Or on a reality-based platform where you need to pay for what you eat. Fiscal conservative is just a oppostion position, when in power you need to keep promises.
3. Does the need for GDP growth outweigh any other policy goal? Policy is set by politicians right? Then - almost always - yes.
My aim was to suggest why minds and cultures that seek happiness through wealth/power will tend to spread, in part because gaining wealth/power in fact yields no satisfaction or lasting happiness. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
That would be my take on it too. I think it starts with a military advantage, which can then create a positive feedback loop where there's an interest in empire building.
But there's another angle, which is how economic and political domination as a substitute for physical warfare. US interests are no longer served by sending in the marines and killing anyone who refuses to pay tribute.
Instead there's the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, which set trading terms favourable to the US and make military action in pursuit of US interests less necessary.
5th Century Rome was incredibly wealthy in local economic terms, but was taken down by bands of nomads who considered themselves lucky to own a wagon.
Some of the tribal groups had a numeric advantage, with migrations that literally stretched across entire countries.
Others had a huge advantage in military skill and tactics - including better technology, with a short bow that could punch through a metal shield at a distance of hundreds of yards.
Conversely when Rome originally started to expand, its only advantage was military. It wasn't any richer than its neighbours, but it knew how to put together and drill an extremely effective citizen army.
Today if terrorists had more imagination and skill than they seem to have, it would take very little money to do huge, even terminal, economic damage to London or one or more major cities in the US. An insignificant fraction of the US military budget would be more than enough.
