Why are humans never satisfied with anything? How did we as a species evolve to have cravings?
According to Robert Wright, evolutionary science supports the idea that dissatisfaction is a core part of the human condition. He says that early on, simple organisms evolved to use feelings to distinguish between what was good or bad for their survival and reproduction.
Continue reading to learn how our positive and negative feelings drive us.
The Scientific Support: We Evolved to Crave Things
According to Wright, if something felt good, people moved toward it. If something felt bad, they moved away from it. Organisms that navigated in this way survived and passed on their genes—an example of the process called natural selection that explains why humans are never satisfied. So, over generations, life evolved to use pleasure and pain as signals for what to do and not do.
Today, all living creatures rely on this basic distinction between positive and negative feelings to navigate their environments. Like any other species, humans have inherited billions of years’ worth of learned judgments, which we experience as feelings. These feelings tell us what’s good or bad for us according to natural selection. For instance, we each know instinctively not to mess around with large snakes or drink too much salt water, both of which could kill us.
(Shortform note: Scientists and philosophers continue to debate how subjective experiences, like feelings, actually emerged. Some theorists, like philosopher Thomas Nagel, argue that they’re a crucial aspect of consciousness—that there’s “something that it is like” to be, for example, a cat or a rat. Others say that consciousness originates from quantum activity within subcellular structures in the nerve cells of organisms. This theory implies that only organisms with at least a simple nervous system, like coral, have subjective experience. Still others suggest that even single cells have some form of consciousness, according to Indian Vedantic philosophy.)
So these basic drives—to pursue pleasure or escape pain—helped us survive, reproduce, and evolve. But how do they explain why dukkha and tanha are true? Wright puts it like this: While we evolved to navigate based on feeling, we also evolved for those feelings to end. For instance, if the pleasure you felt after eating a good meal never ended, you’d never crave food again, so you’d starve.
This means that we’re always on the lookout for the next reward or threat. Modern studies support this, suggesting that our brains release more dopamine—a chemical associated with pleasure and reward—in anticipation of a reward compared to when we actually receive it. This neurological response keeps us perpetually chasing the next hit of pleasure, going in a loop that psychologists call the hedonic treadmill.
| Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill While Wright argues that we evolved for feelings of satisfaction to end, some research in the field of positive psychology suggests that certain activities can create lasting increases in well-being. Studies have identified several pathways to more sustainable forms of happiness that appear to raise our baseline satisfaction despite our tendency to adapt to changes. One theory, the sustainable happiness model, holds that three variables determine how happy you are: 1) your happiness “set point,” or baseline; 2) your life circumstances; and 3) whether you’re doing intentional activities that create joy, like expressing gratitude. Research shows that the third variable might be the best route to becoming happier, since anyone can choose to practice gratitude, perform acts of kindness, and actively nurture important relationships—all activities that create lasting well-being. These activities may work precisely because they don’t rely exclusively on dopamine-driven anticipation and reward. Instead, they engage different neural pathways and psychological mechanisms that promote lasting well-being. For instance, gratitude practices help us find satisfaction in what we already have rather than constantly craving more. So, according to these ideas, we aren’t doomed to life on the hedonic treadmill. |
In Buddhist terms, this perpetual chase could be called tanha (craving). As Wright puts it, the scientific and Buddhist perspectives complement each other: Buddhism points out that we’re driven by craving, and evolutionary science explains why. Take them together and the picture becomes clear—living means craving, and craving means dissatisfaction. Thus, Wright asserts, Buddhism’s description of the human condition is true.
The question then becomes: If craving and dissatisfaction form our basic nature, is there anything we can do about it? In the next two sections, we’ll explain how, according to Wright, both Buddhist theory and practice offer a way out.
(Shortform note: Wright focuses on a traditional Buddhist perspective from Theravada Buddhism (widely considered more orthodox), where life is defined in terms of craving and dissatisfaction—a cycle we should try to escape. But this isn’t the only Buddhist perspective: Vajrayana offers a contrasting view in which life’s pains and discontentments aren’t things to escape. Instead, they’re seen as essential elements of the human experience. Where Theravada starts with understanding craving, Vajrayana starts with enjoyment and advocates for full engagement with life in all of its ups and downs.)
