Does scientific progress truly increase the meaning of human life, or is it just the pursuit of happiness?

This article discusses whether scientific advancement should be limited to the mere pursuit of happiness, or whether it should move toward increasing the meaning of life. Focusing on the perspective of Yuval Noah Harari, we explore the difference between “happiness” and “meaning in life,” and try to suggest the direction of true progress.

 

Scientific and social progress has always seemed like the only direction. As Yuval Noah Harari explained, we are facing the possible extinction of Homo sapiens. On the other hand, we rarely discuss the impact of this scientific progress on us, whether it’s good, and whether it’s the right direction, not the only direction. While this progress has brought us health, comfort, wealth, and even knowledge, we overlook the death, poverty, ignorance, and inequality it has brought. To justify this, we need a tool or concept to understand and holistically evaluate the other side. Yuval Noah Harari does this through the concept of happiness.
In chapter 19 of his book Homo sapiens: A Short History of Man, Yuval Noah Harari explores the concept of happiness. This concept was introduced to determine whether the progress we have made as a society can be justified. He concludes that if we are to use ‘happiness’ as a tool for justification, it needs to be analyzed, discussed, and defined in more detail. The ideas underlying this analysis are important, and I agree that using ‘happiness’ as a tool for justification is an oversimplification of a complex concept. The concept of ‘happiness’ can be very complex, as different cultures have different views, definitions, and concepts of ‘happiness’. Yuval Noah Harari does not clearly define ‘happiness’, but offers different perspectives: biochemical, biological, subjective, psychological, and sociological. However, he argues that the evolution of society cannot be measured by ‘happiness’. Rather, they argue that we need a concept that is more relevant, complex, universal, and morally grounded than ‘happiness’. ‘Happiness’ can be included in the ‘meaning of life’, but its subjectivity makes it difficult to be a standard. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze, conceptualize, and define the ‘meaning of life’ in order to assess the legitimacy of scientific and social progress.
First of all, ‘happiness’ and ‘meaning of life’ are very different: ‘happiness’ is a part of ‘meaning of life’, while ‘meaning of life’ is a larger concept. If we define ‘happiness’, it can be divided into two main parts. First, it’s a biochemical response to certain behaviors. For example, an action or thought changes the hormone serotonin into dopamine, which makes you feel happy. Second, beyond the biochemical response that an action or thought brings, is the value that the action or thought brings. For example, a parent may not feel pleasure every moment of raising a child, but the value and meaning they feel from the act of raising a child is “happiness.” Many people think of the second definition as “the meaning of life,” but I disagree. The second definition lacks universality, morality, and is overly simplistic. For these reasons, ‘happiness’ belongs to ‘meaning of life’.
The ‘meaning of life’ spans a broad spectrum that is paradoxically universal and less relevant. I will attempt to define ‘meaning of life’ as a measurement tool to evaluate life today. Over the centuries, various definitions of ‘meaning of life’ have existed. There have been various philosophical positions, including Platonism, Aristotelianism, Classicism, Liberalism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Nihilism, and Postmodernism, which can be divided into categories such as virtue, freedom, truth, and identity. This categorization shows that a firm definition is needed to conceptualize the ‘meaning of life’. The ‘happiness’ felt by each individual is so varied and broad that it is difficult to measure it with a single metric, so we argue that the ‘meaning of life’ is an all-encompassing thing, and we would like to offer a definition of it.
Virtue means ‘good’, a moral compass, and while morality itself can be subjective, the modern concept of ‘ethical’ can serve as a universal standard for defining virtue. Freedom is the ability of an individual to do what they want to do. Truth can be defined as the pursuit of knowledge. Identity is the concept of who we are. It’s about finding direction, taking action, and walking the path that is set before us. A person who follows the “meaning of life” is not ignorant, but is trying to walk the right path within a universalist moral standard. However, these definitions contain contradictions that can conflict with each other. But we must understand that true freedom, true virtue, true identity, and truth are impossible within human limitations, so we must understand synchronicity at the point where the contradictions end.
Now that we have defined the ‘meaning of life’ to some extent, the problem of its complexity, universality, and morality has been solved, and it has a stronger foundation than ‘happiness’. I will try to be as factual as possible, but in what follows I will take a more empirical and logical approach. We need to consider whether and how social development relates to the meaning of life, and how it should relate. This is easy to discuss because society is a collection of individuals, so the meaning of each individual constitutes the whole, and should be defined as a whole. The progress of our world can be measured by its value and cost, just as the ‘meaning of life’ can be measured by its value and cost, showing whether it is high or low. In the life I have lived, I have had the opportunity to be educated, to experience slums, to witness wealth, and to be exposed to the many cultures the world has to offer. Although there are limitations to this argument, I can say that I have experienced more than many people by applying my definition of the ‘meaning of life’. Progress has brought us comfort, health, longevity, and a certain amount of ‘happiness’, but these positive impacts are merely a byproduct of other goals, which seem to be overshadowed by less worthy ones. The gap between rich and poor and power differentials was common in every country I visited. Inequalities in health, ‘happiness’, and wealth are translated into social identity, and scientific advances are causing us to lose our freedom and personal identity. The way we set goals is not for the right reasons, but for acceptable reasons – this was common among the different Korea’s I lived in. All of these things violate the essence of living with meaning. The cost of all this is a greater burden on the next generation.
It’s wrong to argue that scientific progress is inevitable – it is, but we need to find ways to minimize the damage as much as possible. The question of value versus cost can only be resolved by moving in the right direction: the search for the ‘meaning of life’ should be the most important reason for why we live, and therefore how we should live.
Yuval Noah Harari argued that the meaning of scientific progress should be measured by the criterion of “happiness,” but as I mentioned earlier, “happiness” is a very simplistic concept that lacks universality, morality, and objectivity, and is therefore inadequate to evaluate the meaning of scientific progress to humans. Therefore, I tried to explore the meaning of scientific progress by introducing the new concept of “meaning of life. My personal experience shows that ‘meaning of life’ is a more appropriate tool to measure the meaning of scientific progress than ‘happiness’.