Can love and friendship replace money?

[brainstorm]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Love, friendship and justice, hehe.

It's a very difficult question that you're posing. I mean, no amount of hugs and kisses will let you keep your house if the bank's set on taking it. But of course human relationships is as important as ever in times of difficulty. And I certainly don't think that excessive material consumption makes someone "happy".

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't recommend consuming your friends.

 

[brainstorm]

Love, friendship and justice, hehe.

It's a very difficult question that you're posing. I mean, no amount of hugs and kisses will let you keep your house if the bank's set on taking it. But of course human relationships is as important as ever in times of difficulty. And I certainly don't think that excessive material consumption makes someone "happy".

Well, the foreclosures are a temporary loss. After people get kicked out of their house, the process to find someone who CAN pay. If it turns out eventually that no one can pay, the price has to go down or the house will stay empty indefinitely.

So, my question isn't so much whether love or friendship can console people losing their house, although it definitely helps when looking for a new place to stay:) My question is more when the savings deposits that funded the purchase of foreclosed properties are finally accepted to be lost/defunct, and the economy is that much poorer as a result of the lost income and spending, will love and friendship be an adequate compensation for the lost material comforts and privileges that people can no longer afford?

 

[imiyakawa]

For me, a perfectly fine substitute would be knowledge. If I was given the choice of a hundred billion dollars OR being dirt poor and acquiring 2% of the knowledge of a far advanced civilization (perhaps if I could pick one area where they'd elucidate their theories/knowledge to the fullest), I'd pick the latter.

 

[Kerrie]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

If love and friendship don't adequately comfort those grieving over the loss of money and homes, certainly this recession is testing it-which in turn can give way to a stronger friendship/love, or one that is broken even more.

For me personally, money cannot replace the feeling of true love and friendships. Real love and friendships don't cost a penny.

 

[Borg]

@OP: Sooooo, people in poor countries don't have love and friendship?

 

[brainstorm]

@OP: Sooooo, people in poor countries don't have love and friendship?

Strawmanning can be so irritating. You are implying that I said that wealth is a pre-requisite for love and friendship. The OP was a question about whether love and friendship could adequately replace relative material deprivation. E.g. could someone go from living in a 300k house to a 100k house and be equally happy because of love and friendship? What about going from wearing high-status clothes to low-status clothes, or from driving a new car to having an old one or even riding the bus? For many people, the status of their peers is a pre-requisite for love/friendship, which is why many people work to achieve so much status and wealth. However, if people were able to give and receive love/friendship independently of status and wealth conditions, immaterial things could theoretically reduce the need for material ones, at least to some extent.

 

[Borg]

Strawmanning can be so irritating. You are implying that I said that wealth is a pre-requisite for love and friendship. The OP was a question about whether love and friendship could adequately replace relative material deprivation. E.g. could someone go from living in a 300k house to a 100k house and be equally happy because of love and friendship? What about going from wearing high-status clothes to low-status clothes, or from driving a new car to having an old one or even riding the bus? For many people, the status of their peers is a pre-requisite for love/friendship, which is why many people work to achieve so much status and wealth. However, if people were able to give and receive love/friendship independently of status and wealth conditions, immaterial things could theoretically reduce the need for material ones, at least to some extent.

I wasn't attempting to create a strawman argument. The wording in your original post looked like that was what you were saying.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

 

[brainstorm]

I wasn't attempting to create a strawman argument. The wording in your original post looked like that was what you were saying.

Ok, I see what happened. You took my faux answer as the thing that I was claiming as the truth. I think I read something a long time ago about how love was only possible with a certain level of wealth. It basically argued that impoverished people are incapable of experiencing love. There may be some truth in this. Deprivation does make people pretty grumpy. However, I think there's something else going on in high-consumption, high-status life where wealth is used, maybe sub-consciously, as a pre-requisite for love and friendship to prevent forming social bonds with people who won't increase your prosperity and/or support you in a certain level of consumption/lifestyle. In other words, love/friendship isn't a substitute for prosperity - it is a means of attaining it and consuming it. I'm wondering if there is an alternative to this culture of materialism for people who live this way.

 

[Borg]

Ok, I see what happened. You took my faux answer as the thing that I was claiming as the truth. I think I read something a long time ago about how love was only possible with a certain level of wealth. It basically argued that impoverished people are incapable of experiencing love. There may be some truth in this. Deprivation does make people pretty grumpy. However, I think there's something else going on in high-consumption, high-status life where wealth is used, maybe sub-consciously, as a pre-requisite for love and friendship to prevent forming social bonds with people who won't increase your prosperity and/or support you in a certain level of consumption/lifestyle. In other words, love/friendship isn't a substitute for prosperity - it is a means of attaining it and consuming it. I'm wondering if there is an alternative to this culture of materialism for people who live this way.

How is someone not supposed to interpret this as people in poor countries don't have love?

 

[brainstorm]

How is someone not supposed to interpret this as people in poor countries don't have love?

For one thing, being "in a poor country" isn't the same thing as living in poverty. Countries can be labeled as poor and still have people living there experiencing various levels of wealth and prosperity. The point is that you have to dissect the hypothesis down to the level of particular influences to analyze it. You can't just hover at the level of populations or categories and generalize about averages. You have to identify factors that affect human interactions and how interactions affect other things.

 

[Mr.Penguin]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

Buddy, if that thought even crossed your mind, you sir have never truly experienced love. Trust me, love and friendship surpasses all else and will make you happy. It is true that material fortune comforts a person, but it doesn't take money to be happy. Go take a walk with a friend and crack some jokes. No money there. Or telling your wife you love her. No money, and a whole bunch of happiness. You know the saying, "Money can't buy happiness?"
Or the advice, "A dream isn't worth it if it is not shared with someone you love?" Even The Princess and the Frog says that much!

Mr.Penguin

 

[Evo]

Actually money can buy a HUGE amount of happiness. Most divorces, IIRC, can be tied to financial problems.

No fleeting love has ever done as much for me as money.

 

[arildno]

Unfortunately, many crackpot, Foucauldian historians today DO argue roughly that "love didn't exist" before the coming of the bourgoisie in the 17th century.

Even worse, they are regarded as the chic'est of the chic, who have "deconstructed" yet another capitalist notion.

 

[cesiumfrog]

brainstorm, never heard of the "psychic pay"? Plenty of people find themselves happier choosing the job that provides a smaller pay-check if it involves greater personal appreciation by other people.

A controlled experiment was done, where some child care centres introduced a fine for parents who collect their children late. The result was lateness increased (and the discrepancy persisted after the policy was removed). Apparently parents valued the extra childcare higher than the fine. So why had the parents been more punctual to child care facilities previously and in the control group, without any financial compensation for the personal cost of their punctuality? It seems they attributed the personal regard of the workers an even higher value than the extra childcare. (This is described in a talk on the TED front page a.t.mo')

Haven't there been plenty of small communities that have indeed done away with money entirely?

Actually money can buy a HUGE amount of happiness. [..] No fleeting love has ever done as much for me as money.

I'm sorry.

Unfortunately, many crackpot, Foucauldian historians today DO argue roughly that "love didn't exist" before the coming of the bourgoisie in the 17th century.

Isn't it a recent luxury for most to date according to personal whim rather than having family-arranged marriages?

 

[brainstorm]

Isn't it a recent luxury for most to date according to personal whim rather than having family-arranged marriages?

Try this: cut your budget to the absolute minimum you can for a year or two. Stop buying everything except basic nutritional food. Move to the lowest-priced housing you can find. Wear only 2nd hand clothes. Avoid any and every possible expenditure. Live homeless if you can. Basically, deprive yourself of every possible expenditure you can without dying.

Then, try to get a date or make friends. Report back to this thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Try this: cut your budget to the absolute minimum you can for a year or two. Stop buying everything except basic nutritional food. Move to the lowest-priced housing you can find. Wear only 2nd hand clothes. Avoid any and every possible expenditure. Live homeless if you can. Basically, deprive yourself of every possible expenditure you can without dying.

Then, try to get a date or make friends. Report back to this thread.

I am not getting the connection between his comment and yours.

 

[brainstorm]

I am not getting the connection between his comment and yours.

Mine refers to an empirical test of how easy or difficult it is to cultivate love and/or friendship in the absence of money and its effects. I am describing an experiment that attempts to neutralize the effects of money-spending as much as possible on a person's self-presentation and examine what the social effects are on her/his ability to cultivate love and/or friendship. The question was whether love/friendship is possible in the absence of a certain level of material prosperity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Mine refers to an empirical test of how easy or difficult it is to cultivate love and/or friendship in the absence of money and its effects. I am describing an experiment that attempts to neutralize the effects of money-spending as much as possible on a person's self-presentation and examine what the social effects are on her/his ability to cultivate love and/or friendship. The question was whether love/friendship is possible in the absence of a certain level of material prosperity.

Oh. I see. I didn't see how it followed a comment about arranged marriage versus choose-your-own.


BTW, does you experiment give consideration to whether or not every potential date (i.e. most of society) is also poverty-stricken? Surely, if we are all peasants, the playing field is leveled.

 

[brainstorm]

Oh. I see. I didn't see how it followed a comment about arranged marriage versus choose-your-own.

If you had read the quote, you would have seen which post it was in reference to.

BTW, does you experiment give consideration to whether or not every potential date (i.e. most of society) is also poverty-stricken? Surely, if we are all peasants, the playing field is leveled.

I assume you're defining poverty in relative rather than absolute terms. If you look closely at the "poverty-stricken" people you claim are looking for other "paupers" to date, I bet you would see that there's a lot of selectivity according to what a prospective mate has to offer materially. Someone living unemployed in public housing is probably more interested in dating someone else in a similar situation than a person who is completely homeless. To a middle-class person, living in public housing unemployed may not seem to be a mark of distinction but having the means to bath at will is a giant asset when it comes to garnering friendship and potential love, imo.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Try this: cut your budget to the absolute minimum you can for a year or two. Stop buying everything except basic nutritional food. Move to the lowest-priced housing you can find. Wear only 2nd hand clothes. Avoid any and every possible expenditure. Live homeless if you can. Basically, deprive yourself of every possible expenditure you can without dying.

Then, try to get a date or make friends. Report back to this thread.

Dude, I'm a PhD student: I patch my clothes myself rather than buy others when they wear out. I can report back successfully, dating lead to permanent relationship. Usually I don't like to see anyone argue a point using anecdotal evidence, but here you chose me in advance as the example to rest your case on. (But I too can't see how this was pertinent to the part of my reply which you quoted. And your attitude regarding friendship and money seems horribly superficial.)

 

[brainstorm]

Dude, I'm a PhD student. I patch my clothes myself rather than buy others when they wear out. I can report back successfully, dating lead to permanent relationship. Usually I don't like to see anyone argue a point using anecdotal evidence, but here you chose me in advance as the example to rest your case on. (But I agree with others; I can't see how this related to the part of my reply which you quoted.)

Are you saying that you are unaware of all the marks of distinction you carry relative to someone living homeless who is NOT in a PhD program? Or do you think that such marks are invisible and someone who chooses to befriend or date you is choosing to do so the same as if they were choosing between two homeless people of indistinguishable poverty and material potential?

 

[n.karthick]

If your love and friendship can give you money then yes.

 

[Mr.Penguin]

Can love and friendship be replaced by money? Let's say that you were the richest person in the world and that you could get anything you wanted just by asking for it. You might be proud, and think yourself to be happy, but would you really experience love or happiness at that stage in life? Would then somebody choose you because of love or material gain?

Trust me, everyone wants something from life and to be able to be well off and content in their lives, not always wanting to be carrying the burden of a spouse that doesn't ever help pay the bills, and makes it hard for you. YES, material good fortune helps very much in all areas of life, including getting a date, a girlfriend, and maybe eventually a wife. Everyone wants to be well off. Well, most of us. I have seen some people that just made me wonder if...ah...well.
The bottom line is this, money will help, but money isn't everything.
Hope this helped.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you had read the quote, you would have seen which post it was in reference to.

You misunderstand. I got what you were referring to; I didn't get the connection as to how your comment logically followed from his. They didn't seem related. But your clarification ... clarified it.

I assume you're defining poverty in relative rather than absolute terms. If you look closely at the "poverty-stricken" people you claim are looking for other "paupers" to date, I bet you would see that there's a lot of selectivity according to what a prospective mate has to offer materially. Someone living unemployed in public housing is probably more interested in dating someone else in a similar situation than a person who is completely homeless. To a middle-class person, living in public housing unemployed may not seem to be a mark of distinction but having the means to bath at will is a giant asset when it comes to garnering friendship and potential love, imo.

Mm so yes you're factoring in whether it's a level playing field. OK.

 

[DaveC426913]

Neither love nor happiness are guaranteed. So, in general, the more you experience life and explore all it has to offer, the more likely you will find love and/or happiness. (If you're not convinced, consider the corollary: if you are a shut-in, who never leaves home, has no hobbies and doesn't interact socially with people, your chances at either love or happiness or both are greatly restricted.)

Money is a very good way to facilitate these opportunities and experiences.

 

[Desiree]

Money is a very good way to facilitate these opportunities and experiences.

Money is actually destroying these opportunities and experiences and preventing them from happening.

 

[DaveC426913]

Money is actually destroying these opportunities and experiences and preventing them from happening.

The crew - that fly the plane that can take me to Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa - need to eat too. They cannot tend their own fields, since they best contribute to society by flying planes. Flying planes for people let's them trade that service for food. This is a barter system.

Money is nothing but a barter system that uses a common unit.

Can you explain how I can get to Mt. Kilimanjaro (in a month on a tramp steamer I would starve) without bartering with the pilots using our common unit of bartering?

 

[brainstorm]

Neither love nor happiness are guaranteed. So, in general, the more you experience life and explore all it has to offer, the more likely you will find love and/or happiness. (If you're not convinced, consider the corollary: if you are a shut-in, who never leaves home, has no hobbies and doesn't interact socially with people, your chances at either love or happiness or both are greatly restricted.)

Money is a very good way to facilitate these opportunities and experiences.

That's a very important point, imo. This was one of the main points of my original post. I.e. how can love and friendship replace money if money-spending is a condition for the social interactions that lead to love and friendship in the first place.

You may consider that there are public venues where people can interact without spending any money, but how many people avoid such venues precisely because of the class-status of at least some of the people present? Private venues, then, are informally regulated according to various status-markings, such that people feel more comfortable in certain venues because of some level of elitism or exclusivity defined by art, the cultural competencies of clientele, their clothing, etc.

This is starting to sound like Pierre Bourdieu on Distinction, symbolic capital, etc. The fact that people are upwardly mobile, i.e. looking to improve their current economic situation, leads them typically to avoid becoming friends or lovers with someone who appears not to hold the potential for attaining more money and/or higher status than the seeker presently feels they themselves possesses or have to potential to achieve.

The exception would be people who feel overwhelmingly blessed and privileged to the point that they feel that they have room to invest in someone with less potential than themselves. However, this seems to usually involve some kind of selectivity that is like a "purchase" of traits that cannot be directly translated into economic prosperity, such as more marginal forms of beauty or knowledge. Of course, these traits do tend to help people in economic attainment in many cases - but, for example, someone who makes plenty of money but is somewhat lacking in physical attractiveness may be able to win a more attractive partner than they would if they looked the same but had a lower salary. Is this a form of prostitution is the question, imo.

If such a thing as true love/friendship that is its own reward, then other forms of prosperity may fade in terms of interest or marginal utility. Someone who has found true love might find out that the type of car they drive comes to seem less relevant. On the other hand, if someone is afraid of losing love if they fail to maintain a certain image of youth, fashion, status, etc. - they may actually become more concerned about maintain their material status out of fear of losing love/friendship of the people they covet. This is probably a combination of insecurity and the expectation that friendships and love-relationships fail all the time and are, therefore, less dependable than material possessions.

 

[brainstorm]

Money is actually destroying these opportunities and experiences and preventing them from happening.

This is true to the extent that people avoid doing things because of the cost. Probably many people are socially isolated at home because they are trying to avoid losing what little money they have going out.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is true to the extent that people avoid doing things because of the cost. Probably many people are socially isolated at home because they are trying to avoid losing what little money they have going out.

Well, there is no dearth of things one can do that cost very little money; the trouble is that societal pressure and momentum causes us to ignore the free things and concentrate on the things that make other people money.

[EDIT: Ah. I see you've covered that already.]

 

[Dickfore]

I don't recommend consuming your friends.

I don't recommend consuming currency either.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, there is no dearth of things one can do that cost very little money; the trouble is that societal pressure and momentum causes us to ignore the free things and concentrate on the things that make other people money.

Right, and the question is how much selective willingness to engage in friendship/love via the free venues is making money-spending a pre-requisite for making friends and getting dates. Consider just two examples: 1) public parks and 2) clubs with cover charges. Why do people avoid meeting people in public parks but seek to do so in clubs with cover charges?

 

[arildno]

Isn't it a recent luxury for most to date according to personal whim rather than having family-arranged marriages?

No it's not.

Tip:
Hunter-gatherer societies have little overall ability to threaten individuals into permanent relationships they don't like, due to the ease by which an individual might separate itself from the group.

That doesn't mean conjugal harmony&monogamy have been the norms, though..