• nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
    12·
    1 year ago

    This is basically stoicism. Appreciate what you have. Try imagining you’ve lost it, it’s called negative visualization.

  • RangerAndTheCat@startrek.website
    103·
    1 year ago

    I get the sentiment of this post and just being satisfied and content with that you have, but I also feel like this is just “ money can’t buy happiness” wrapped in a new Wrapper. I know the OP post of it most likely did not mean it as that, but itt to feels like the bourgeois would this to keep us “poors” for wanting a small percentage of what they have. I like the idea for sure just see how it could weaponized against the 99%.

    • thecodemonk@programming.dev
      48·
      1 year ago

      Which brings us to the second hot tip of the day: When you stop treating everything as ‘us vs them’, you also gain some happiness.

    • Facelikeapotato@lemmy.mlOP
      5·
      1 year ago

      My old cat would groom my eyebrows, I feel it. My current cat tries to groom my hair, then bites my head when it won’t cooperate.

  • ruckblack@sh.itjust.works
    6·
    1 year ago

    I mean yeah, that’s what I do. I cherish my little joys and super cherish the big bonus ones. Still miserable, but I cherish them lol.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    71·
    1 year ago

    If more people thought like that instead of not being satisfied unless they get two offshore vacations a year things would be much better for everyone

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        24·
        1 year ago

        Except for the fact that most of aviation’s pollution comes from passenger flights and it pollutes a whole lot more to travel by plane vs car.

        Put four passengers in a full sized truck and make them travel cross country vs put them in a plane and make them travel halfway across the country, their environmental impact is lower in the truck even if they traveled twice the distance.

        There’s nothing normal about being able to visit the whole world in our lifetime and it’s a concept that didn’t exist 100 years ago. We would do perfectly fine without it… Heck, we would do better without it because that would reduce our global emissions by at least a percent and potentially 2% depending on what people decide to do during their vacations instead.

        Not even talking about emissions, the temporary clouds that planes create contribute to more global warming than all the CO2 emissions by the industry since its creation.

        https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            42·
            1 year ago

            Well, you said there’s nothing wrong with wanting to see the world, I explained at least one thing wrong with it, but hey, keep doing what you’re doing, who cares about consequences, right?

            • laconicsoftware@lemmy.ml
              11·
              1 year ago

              I explained at least one thing wrong with it

              No, GP said that there’s nothing wrong with wanting to see the world, and all you replied what’s wrong with air travel.

              And just because traveling the world is a recent phenomenon, doesn’t mean people haven’t had the desire to explore the world and distant places for centuries.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                11·
                1 year ago

                No matter how you do it, the environmental impact is there and when people say “the world” I don’t think they mean visiting the next town over.