Depression and alcoholism are the opposite of “things you spend more time on, when you’re rich enough not to work”. People who work for a living aren’t kept from alcoholism because they don’t have time to drink, or can’t afford even cheap alcohol. (In fact, sufferers of alcoholism, like other drug addictions, notoriously spend too much time and money on their addictions even when they can’t afford to do so and keep working.)
There’s a kind of spectrum between “I really want to do X but I must spend time working; if I worked less I would X more”, and “I’m going to do X even though it harms my ability to work and is not sustainable, because it’s just that valuable/attractive in the short term.” A very simple model would say the only difference is in the short-term subjective value of X.
But more complex models tend to cash this out as different things: biological vs. psychological causes of addiction; seeking highs, vs. avoiding lows; upstream vs. downstream of conscious behavior.
They are not things you would like to spend more time on, when you’re rich enough not to work.
People who work for a living aren’t kept from alcoholism because they don’t have time to drink, or can’t afford even cheap alcohol.
This is sure; but someone could be kept from alcoholism because he knows he must be sober to live. This comment suggests that some very rich people who lacks this motivation do effectively become drink-addicted.
After thinking this over, this effect may be due to hangovers. I don’t drink myself, so I don’t really know this firsthand, but in stories there’s always someone saying “I shouldn’t drink more tonight, I have work / school tomorrow.”
Or even more prosaically, “I shouldn’t drink more tonight, I need to drive home (and I’m not a rich person who always takes a cab or has a chauffeur)”.
The final paragraph of this comment seems relevant: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-fussell-on-class#comment-1350041
Depression and alcoholism are the opposite of “things you spend more time on, when you’re rich enough not to work”. People who work for a living aren’t kept from alcoholism because they don’t have time to drink, or can’t afford even cheap alcohol. (In fact, sufferers of alcoholism, like other drug addictions, notoriously spend too much time and money on their addictions even when they can’t afford to do so and keep working.)
There’s a kind of spectrum between “I really want to do X but I must spend time working; if I worked less I would X more”, and “I’m going to do X even though it harms my ability to work and is not sustainable, because it’s just that valuable/attractive in the short term.” A very simple model would say the only difference is in the short-term subjective value of X.
But more complex models tend to cash this out as different things: biological vs. psychological causes of addiction; seeking highs, vs. avoiding lows; upstream vs. downstream of conscious behavior.
They are not things you would like to spend more time on, when you’re rich enough not to work.
This is sure; but someone could be kept from alcoholism because he knows he must be sober to live. This comment suggests that some very rich people who lacks this motivation do effectively become drink-addicted.
After thinking this over, this effect may be due to hangovers. I don’t drink myself, so I don’t really know this firsthand, but in stories there’s always someone saying “I shouldn’t drink more tonight, I have work / school tomorrow.”
Or even more prosaically, “I shouldn’t drink more tonight, I need to drive home (and I’m not a rich person who always takes a cab or has a chauffeur)”.