Daily Philosophy - Philosophy for life

Epicurus and the Luddites

Epicurus suggests that one could be happier by reducing one's desires rather than fulfilling them (). For him, fulfilling one's desires only leads to further desires, while learning to desire things that are natural and easy to have is the way to long-lasting happiness.

Of course, one may ask how this would work in today's world. What is a natural desire? The desire for natural food, perhaps? Or the desire for clean water and air? Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to fulfil just because they are natural. It is the vain desires that are hard to satisfy (for instance, the desire for an expensive handbag). But is this still true?

If Epicurus had a look around a modern supermarket, he might be surprised. Some vain desires are extremely easy to satisfy nowadays. Beer costs almost nothing. Junk food is cheap. Sweets are cheap, as are soup noodles. But how about organic fruit and vegetables? Clean water (from Tibet or France), packaged in little bottles? These are the expensive items. Obesity is a sign of the poor segments of our society, who can only afford to eat what Epicurus would have called luxuries. While the wealthy can afford natural apples and pesticide-free lettuce, or nibble at a carrot on the terrace of the country club. The poor have to make do with dirty water and roadside pollution, while the rich can afford to move out to greener pastures and breathe what Epicurus would have thought of as the ultimate natural good: clean air.

Luddism (or neo-Luddism) is the idea that technology is bad, something to be avoided. In the 19th century, British textile workers opposed the introduction of machines in cloth production, because they feared that they would lose their jobs to the machines. Which is exactly what happened. Neo-luddites are people who, for a variety of reasons, think that we would be better off with less technology, or none at all.

Epicureanism and Luddism are related. For instance, Epicurus would say that we should avoid pleasures that bring annoyances with them that are more severe than the pleasure itself. Often, these pleasures are technological products. Take a mobile phone. Of course, it is kind of convenient to have one, but, honestly, is it worth it? Take into account the cost of the phone itself, the fact that you have to replace it every two years or so, the cost of the contract, the necessity of daily charging, and the anguish and frustration if something goes wrong — if the phone is lost or hacked, or malfunctioning. After all, thirty years ago we accomplished all the same things we can today, without a single mobile phone. We had the same successes, relations with others, pastimes and hobbies, but we didn't have all the annoyances that mobile phones cause. And perhaps this can be said of many technologies.

So is Epicurus against all technology? I don't think so. Some technologies seem to satisfy our natural (rather than vain) desires. For example, painkillers. Or tooth fillings, glasses, surgery, antibiotics. All these can become necessary for life in some circumstances, and their absence could cause pain or even death. Perhaps warm water in the house would also count as something we naturally desire, especially in cold countries.

But what about a computer? Many modern job descriptions require one to use computers. Is then the wish to use a computer a natural or vain desire? On the one hand, I need it for my job, which means, I need it for my income, I need it to survive. On the other hand, there is no doubt that almost any job can be done equally well without a computer, as indeed people used to work up to the 1980s.

And what if a computer allows me to work from home, and thus be close to my family all day (a natural desire, it seems)? If we didn't have computers, I'd have to leave home and work in an office, perhaps like poor Bob Cratchit in Dickens' Christmas Carol. In comparison, the annoyances a computer causes seem minor, especially if my company's IT department takes care of it when it breaks.

So would Epicurus be able to find peace and to accept technology, at least sometimes? Or is there just a deeper problem? Some of the issues are out of the control of normal men. For instance, an employee cannot normally request to work without a computer. The decision has been made for him. A poor family, supported by overworked parents, cannot always avoid eating fast food, or living in social housing, without access to nature, close to a polluting crossroads. For these people, the natural satisfaction of their natural desires is as far out of reach as the parks and quiet lawns of the Jockey Club.

Epicurus, often misunderstood, invites us not only to look at our individual desires, but also to question the whole fabric of our social reality: a reality that sometimes makes the most natural desires seem vain and out of reach for an increasingly large number of people. Our world is arranged for us by a system that profits from making the most natural of goods expensive and inaccessible. Do we really want to accept that?